Bobby Ewing in the Shower

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:19 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:19 am
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:44 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:53 pm


Are any of them necessary? I find them all pointless.
Some are more pointless than others.
I'm sure some must be improvements.
The Day of the Triffids TV series was way better than the film.
And I think the new Star Trek films are worthwhile too.
Not really remakes though. By 'remake' I mean when they are simply redoing the original (or claiming to) (and generally making a hash of it). Imagine Casablanca 'remade'. A great film is a lot more than just it's storyline.
A remake the is the same story, same script is exactly what I said "unnecessary".
You seem to want to change the definition to suit your claims.
What about "The Taking of Pelham 123"?
How about "Cape Fear"?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:59 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:19 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:19 am
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:44 am


Some are more pointless than others.
I'm sure some must be improvements.
The Day of the Triffids TV series was way better than the film.
And I think the new Star Trek films are worthwhile too.
Not really remakes though. By 'remake' I mean when they are simply redoing the original (or claiming to) (and generally making a hash of it). Imagine Casablanca 'remade'. A great film is a lot more than just it's storyline.
A remake the is the same story, same script is exactly what I said "unnecessary".
You seem to want to change the definition to suit your claims.
What about "The Taking of Pelham 123"?
How about "Cape Fear"?
I didn't think the new Star Trek films were remakes. I haven't seen them. Do you mean remakes of the old Star Trek films? I thought they had new storylines but with the same main characters.
I remember really enjoying The day of the triffids 1981 TV series but not the more recent one. I suppose a 'remake' is when whoever is making it calls it that. The pathetic American ' The wicker man' was just offensive and barely resembled the original.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by Harbal » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:18 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:59 pm
I didn't think the new Star Trek films were remakes.
So not to boldly go where no man has been before.
' The wicker man' was just offensive and barely resembled the original.
That erotic dance of Britt Ekland's, I didn't know whether to laugh or take a cold shower. In the event, I did both.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:12 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:59 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:19 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:19 am


Not really remakes though. By 'remake' I mean when they are simply redoing the original (or claiming to) (and generally making a hash of it). Imagine Casablanca 'remade'. A great film is a lot more than just it's storyline.
A remake the is the same story, same script is exactly what I said "unnecessary".
You seem to want to change the definition to suit your claims.
What about "The Taking of Pelham 123"?
How about "Cape Fear"?
I didn't think the new Star Trek films were remakes. I haven't seen them. Do you mean remakes of the old Star Trek films? I thought they had new storylines but with the same main characters.
I remember really enjoying The day of the triffids 1981 TV series but not the more recent one. I suppose a 'remake' is when whoever is making it calls it that. The pathetic American ' The wicker man' was just offensive and barely resembled the original.
Into Darkness was a "remake" of Wrath of Khan. Loose but good.
Both Cape Fear films were great be it De Nero or Robert Mitchum as the bad guy.

Casablanca is unremakable, and i Agree about Wicker Man.
But it definitely depends.
Lord of the Rings was a remake and was so much better than the first version it is hard to describe.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:13 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:18 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:59 pm
I didn't think the new Star Trek films were remakes.
So not to boldly go where no man has been before.
' The wicker man' was just offensive and barely resembled the original.
That erotic dance of Britt Ekland's, I didn't know whether to laugh or take a cold shower. In the event, I did both.
I hope you are not disappointed but it was a body double.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:18 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:18 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:59 pm
I didn't think the new Star Trek films were remakes.
So not to boldly go where no man has been before.
' The wicker man' was just offensive and barely resembled the original.
That erotic dance of Britt Ekland's, I didn't know whether to laugh or take a cold shower. In the event, I did both.
Britt Ekland was in the original. I thought it was a very sexy scene but because Edward Woodward was sexy, not Britt Eklund :) I thought her nudity was unnecessary and gratuitous--he wasn't running around nude :roll: Loved the song too, but perhaps that was someone else's as well the body.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by Harbal » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:28 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:18 pm
I thought her nudity was unnecessary and gratuitous
Apparently, it wasn't actually Britt, according to Mr. Contraire. I wonder if he knows how much he is appreciated.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:58 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:28 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:18 pm
I thought her nudity was unnecessary and gratuitous
Apparently, it wasn't actually Britt, according to Mr. Contraire. I wonder if he knows how much he is appreciated.
Apparently it wasn't her head either :shock:

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by Harbal » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:01 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:58 pm

Apparently it wasn't her head either
No, it wouldn't have been, but I can see how that may have gone unnoticed.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:14 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:01 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:58 pm

Apparently it wasn't her head either
No, it wouldn't have been, but I can see how that may have gone unnoticed.
Here's the Prude's version. She's not much of an actress but it was still a beautiful and mesmerising film with lovely music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIac4nKaAy4

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by Dalek Prime » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:25 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:11 am
Victoria Principal played the part of Pam Ewing for 9 years, 1978-1987.

According to wiki, she was the only one in the cast whose contract allowed her, and not the network, to keep control of image and profit from e.g. commercials, write books, etc.
Clever entrepreneur and philanthropist.

So, yeah, she probably washed her hair on air...
Strange how we retain images of actors and associate them with products.
Seldom looking beyond.

A bit like here, I suppose.
Actually, she associated herself with the product. I merely drew a reference between your title and her commercial.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Bobby Ewing in the Shower

Post by marjoram_blues » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:57 am

Dalek Prime wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:25 pm
marjoram_blues wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:11 am
Victoria Principal played the part of Pam Ewing for 9 years, 1978-1987.

According to wiki, she was the only one in the cast whose contract allowed her, and not the network, to keep control of image and profit from e.g. commercials, write books, etc.
Clever entrepreneur and philanthropist.

So, yeah, she probably washed her hair on air...
Strange how we retain images of actors and associate them with products.
Seldom looking beyond.

A bit like here, I suppose.
Actually, she associated herself with the product. I merely drew a reference between your title and her commercial.
Hey, DP, yes I did notice what you did when posing your question. I don't actually know that she was ever shown washing her hair in the shower, to promote Herbal Essences. But there are a few Jhirmack shampoo commercials on YouTube, who knew ?
So, I answered your question, and then took it further - kinda relating it back to previous thoughts in the OP, a bit more substantial than the title.
Talking generally about how we can all take a celebrity, or a PN poster, simply at the level of helping to sell a product - whether soap, froth, Calvin Klein or deep existential space.

Some endorsements of a product, or view, can backfire.
Scarlett Johansson and Sodastream: affected her association with Oxfam International.
Some PN posters and their names/images we can instantly associate with certain belief systems and their ways of selling. Perhaps not the best or most accurate presentation of a view which is then hotly contested by others. Think Einstein.
You don't need to look far...

But then, my point is that we seldom look further - even if we take great exception to someone, there will be more to that person than what is shown. Some might be seen as lightweight butterflies, flitting about with no obvious sense of purpose - others more deadweight with a hard sell on their minds. It's all good. Some never venture out their comfort zone. Only recently, at the prodding of Hobbsy, I took a tentative stab at politics and economics...and found I had more to say than I thought...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests