Friday, July 14, 2017

Sharon Tate’s sister says Jennifer Lawrence is ‘not pretty enough’ to play the late actress in Tarantino flick

 

Not all blonds are created equal.

The sister of late actress Sharon Tate thinks that despite Jennifer Lawrence winning an Oscar, the "Joy" star lacks the stunning beauty necessary to tackle the role of Sharon in an upcoming Quentin Tarantino film.

"Not that I have anything against her, but she's not pretty enough to play Sharon," Debra Tate told TMZ. "And that's a horrible thing to say, but I have my standards."

The eccentric "Pulp Fiction" director is set to take Tate's 1969 murder to the big screen, and has reportedly approached Lawrence and Australian actress Margot Robbie to potentially bring the star to life.

And, as far as Debra's concerned, it's only Robbie who gets the seal of approval.

"My pick would be Margot simply because of her physical beauty," she said. "And the way she even carries herself is similar to that of Sharon. Physical beauty wouldn't be so important but Sharon's six years of her public life were all based on that incredibly beautiful, natural, perfect look in both soul, heart and spirit. So that's what I'm looking to try to capture."

Tate was 26 years old and eight-months pregnant when she and four others were murdered in her home by members of the Manson family. Her husband, director Roman Polanski, was away in Europe filming a movie at the time.
Tate, who was older than Debra, was an actress whose star was on the rise after she received a Most Promising Newcomer Golden Globe nomination for 1967's "Valley of the Dolls."

Though Sharon's portrayer has yet to be officially cast, Debra insists she should have a say in who eventually nabs the role both personally, and legally, as she owns the rights to Sharon's intellectual licensing.

"I feel that Mr. Tarantino needs to reach out to me," she told the gossip site. "I'm not necessarily opposed to the project, but I am very concerned in how he would portray my sister and I would like to sit down and have a chat with him. He needs to, in my opinion, portray her as she was and not sensationalize or go into a lot of these nut internet rumors."

Charles Manson and three associates, Susan Atkins, Linda Kasbian and Patricia Krenwinkel, were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison for their brutal crimes in 1971.


http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/jennifer-lawrence-not-pretty-sharon-tate-sister-article-1.3324888

38 comments:

katie8753 said...

Sharon Tate was GORGEOUS! There is no doubt about that. She must have had thousands of pictures taken of her, and there's NEVER a bad pic! You can't say that for most beautiful women. There's always one bad pic. But I've never seen one bad pic of Sharon.

Now when she spoke it was a "turn off" for me. That fake British accent was just a turn off. So as long as she kept her mouth shut, she was just beautiful!

She was a brilliant model, she could do any layout that was demanded of her, and she always pulled it off brilliantly.

There aren't many women in 2017 that match Sharon's je ne sais quoi so trying to find one in Hollywood is a losing battle. Whoever is picked to play Sharon will have to be coached to learn how to BE Sharon!

Now, having said that, I'm not sure if I agree with Debra trying to cast that movie. If Debra wants to be on the writing team and make sure that her sister is portrayed in the best way, I'm all for that. Not sure if she should be casting the movie.

Just my opinion!!

katie8753 said...

The article ends with:

Charles Manson and three associates, Susan Atkins, Linda Kasbian and Patricia Krenwinkel, were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison for their brutal crimes in 1971.

I wish these people would check their facts before going to print...

katie8753 said...

Here's an interesting tidbit. Just passing on the fake internet idle chit chat:

http://uproxx.com/movies/quentin-tarantino-manson-family-movie-based-on-kill-bill-3-rumor/

Donna Nelson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Donna Nelson said...

I think Sharon was much more beautiful than both. Debra could have been a bit more tactful though.

katie8753 said...

Yeah I agree Donna. If Debra tries to get too bossy, she might run Quentin off. I agree she should have some input on the description of her sister, but choosing who plays her is really not her job.

katie8753 said...

More movie gossip:

http://www.tmz.com/2017/07/16/quentin-tarantino-jennifer-lawrence-sharon-tate-charles-manson-movie/

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Sharon was beautiful for the time but you could pick the typical early 20s girl off any porn set and theyd blow Sharon out of the water lookswise, times have changed

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Sharon was beautiful for the time but you could pick the typical early 20s girl off any porn set and theyd blow Sharon out of the water lookswise, times have changed

katie8753 said...

I don't think so Susan. Sharon had an enduring beauty. In fact, I've never seen such beauty in the years before or after her death.

And I don't think some girl off a "porn set" would even be par for the course.

Donna Nelson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Donna Nelson said...

Sharon was a natural beauty and that is rare.

sunset77 said...

My computer broke down, just got back online.

There's only been a few actresses as pretty as Sharon Tate. It would probably cost a lot of money to try to reproduce her "look" now.

OJ Simpson just got parole. When I was in prison I remember all the black guys running around saying "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit". I still have OJ Simpson on a football card from when I was a kid, he used to run all over the Baltimore Colts. He was a good football player.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Sunset. I watched OJ's parole hearing and I was surprised he got out. But they made it clear to him that if he violates any of the parole conditions, he's back in the slammer for the rest of his sentence.

Evidently all his children have moved to Florida, which is where he plans to move.

His eldest daughter spoke for him today and she didn't really say much, but she did say "the last 9 years have been hard", and I was surprised that she didn't go back to 1994. I would think that was harder.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

9 years was more than enough for the crimes he was convicted of, you cant vonvuct a man of what you think he did in the past or what he was found by a jury in a criminal trial of being not guilty of

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Convict not vonvuct, sorry for the mistype

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...

Yeah I gotta agree with you on that one Susan.

Marliese said...

That parole board was nearly as stupid as the jury that acquitted OJ of two murders. As soon as he opened his bs'ing mouth, I knew he had them in the palm of his hand and would get out. They took about five minutes deciding and obviously didn't consider any aggravating factors. He is a violent thug, always has been, and nine years in prison hasn't changed him. I disagree that nine years is enough...the charges he was convicted of included assault, kidnapping, threats, force, all with a gun etc etc. I wish him a hell on earth parole. My prayers are for Fred Goldman and his family. Once again, they watch him walk....

katie8753 said...

Marliese, I wonder how his 2 children with Nicole feel about him. They were sleeping in their beds upstairs when she & Ron were brutally ripped to pieces with a knife. If that neighbor hadn't found the bodies those kids might have awakened the next morning and gone outside and seen all that carnage.

And he KNEW those kids were upstairs sleeping!

O. J's defense used the race card to get him out because of Mark Fuhrman. He pleaded the 5th when asked directly on the stand if he planted evidence at O. J.'s house. To me, that's the same as saying "yes". I'm sure that made the jury wonder if other evidence was planted.

Evidently O. J. gets $25,000/month from some football pension that the Goldman & Brown families can't touch, but if he tries to make money off his notoriety, they can get that money.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Evidently Katie was at Nicoles condo and saw OJ kill her and Goldman lol, you sound awfully sure OJ did it

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

He paid for that 25k a month pension in blood, sweat and tears on a football field being tackled and run into the ground by superhuman giants, his body is paying the price now, Fred and his daughter deserve jack shit

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...

I definitely think OJ did it. The evidence proves it in my opinion. There is a clear blood trail from the murder scene, to OJ's car, to OJ's house. The limo driver testified that he rang the buzzer to pick OJ up and got no answer for several minutes, then he saw a tall black man drive up, go onto the property and into the house, minutes after the murders were committed, then the buzzer got answered. The prosecution proved that those gloves belonged to OJ. Nicole purchased them 2 years prior for him. And Nicole's murder was a "rage killing". It was overkill. Her head was almost cut off. Reminds me of when Jodi Arias killed Travis. Same thing. She stabbed him, tried to cut his head off, then shot him. Overkill. Not to mention all the 911 calls Nicole made when OJ beat the crap out of her. The guy obviously has a temper.

As far as his pension goes, I never said he didn't earn it. But he went into playing football by his own decision to make money. If he has injuries from doing it, it's part of the game. He should have known that going in.

The Goldmans and the Browns won the civil suit against him. That jury obviously thought he did it. He owes them money whether he likes it or not.

Just like the jury on the armed robbery trial can't bring prejudice into deliberations because of the criminal trial outcome, just like the Goldmans and Browns have to accept what the jury found on his criminal trial whether they agree or not, OJ still owes that money whether he likes it or not. Everyone has to abide by what the jury found. In all these trials. And that includes OJ.

Dilligaf said...

Katie,

Think about what you just said. You said t was a rage killing, real overkill, which it was. However, with two victims, in essence, decapitated, the blood spray would have covered the assailant. Such coverage would have led to great transfer on to the vehicle, which as we know, had only trace evidence. Further, I always had a problem with a blood soaked sock lying in plain sight in OJ's bedroom. If you are going to discard all blood-covered clothing, you are not likely to leave something like a sock in plain sight. Furthermore, as Dr. Lee testified, the blood transfer from one side of the sock to the other, when an ankle was between the two sides, did not make sense. Lastly, why was no blood found in the shower plumbing at all, if OJ had showered after the murders?

To me, these are the type of questions that lead more to reasonable doubt than conviction.

katie8753 said...

Hi Dill! Maybe OJ did what Tex & the girls did, stopped at a neighbor's house and hosed down. Maybe he had a seat covering over his seat in his Bronco. There was blood found on his car door, and also blood inside the vehicle on the steering wheel, console & carpet. Even one drop of blood is evidence to me if it contained Nicole's & Ron's DNA.

The bloody socks? I have no idea about that. But there was a travel bag that was in OJ's possession when returned from Chicago and his friend Robert Kardashian picked it up and walked off with it. We can only imagine what was in that bag.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Lol lots of maybes, couldas and wouldas....but......no......conviction

Dilligaf said...

Katie, the problem with the blood evidence being found on the console, the door, and other areas of the car was that they were small amounts. there was nothing said about diluted blood in or on the Bronco. This was a circumstantial case that had as many zigs as it had zags. I have no problem believing that the LAPD tampered with evidence here, just as I believe that the LAPD conducted shoddy work all the way throug. Add to that that the LACDA''s office had already lost the first Menendez trial as well as the Rodney King Trial. They needed a win badly and went into this case with an overzealous attitude that bit them in the butt.

I know that will not change your mind, and that's cool. I just look at this from a different perspective and inside knowledge on how cases are tried. Do I believe that somehow OJ was involved? Absolutely. The actual killer? No, not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Dill. Like I said earlier, the fact that Fuhrman plead the 5th on being asked if he planted evidence on Rockingham made it look like a "yes". And if you have even one guy that seems to admit to planting evidence, it clouds the entire investigation with extreme doubt.

The LAPD shot themselves in the foot.

But I look at the entire case and ask the question: If OJ didn't do it, who did?

This was not a random killing. Too much carnage.

This was not a robbery. Nothing taken.

Some have implied that it was a drug hit, but there's no real evidence that Nicole was into the "drug lord scene".

Do you think OJ hired someone to kill his ex-wife? And if so, did he give the killer his very own gloves to do it? Because those gloves belonged to OJ.

We know that OJ has a bad temper. Not only with Nicole, but his future girlfriend has called 911 on his battering, and he had a road rage case, both after he moved to Florida.

There are a lot of weird unanswered questions in this case, but I'm reminded of the TLB case and there are lots of weird unanswered questions there too. Does it mean the killers are innocent. No. They're all guilty.

The only difference I see is that Susan Atkins blabbed about the killings, and OJ didn't.

At least he hasn't yet.

katie8753 said...

Hey Dill, I meant to thank you for sharing all your expertise in these legal matters because it helps us understand the legal system!

katie8753 said...

Oh and some people think that OJ's son killed Nichol and Ron, basically because he asked her to come to his restaurant that evening after her daughter's recital and she declined and went to her fav restaurant Mezzaluma. That seems like a lame reason to kill someone.

Dilligaf said...

I have heard rumors of his son, I have also heard rumors of his longtime friend A.C. Cowling. But there are still stories floating around, and most likely always will, of drug dealers due to Nicole Brown-Simpson's history of cocaine abuse. As you said, much like TLB, there are so many unanswered questions, rumors, and innuendos....

Butterfly Little Hawk said...

Remember, the dead have no rights! When we made the movie FRANCES one of her cousins tried to stop us. They failed!

If Charlize Theron were younger, she'd be perfect.

Also this article is full of mistakes. Roman was not "filming" in Europe. He was with my late husband doing scouting or preproduction on Day of The Dolphin, which ultimately Mike Nichols directed.

Linda Kasabian did not get a life in prison sentence, she went Scott free for turning states evidence and getting a conviction on her co conspirators. I don't see Tex Watson name anywhere.

5 others were killed that night!

Paul Richard Polanski was murdered when they murdered his mother!

Butterfly Little Hawk said...

Exactly!

Butterfly Little Hawk said...

You are right about Sharon's beauty. Natural Beauty through and through! Sharon taught me to apply makeup so it looked as if you were not wearing any at all.

Butterfly Little Hawk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Butterfly Little Hawk said...

Oh! I digress. (Stopped for lunch.) I remember what I was actually going to write After the OJ murder I sold a copy of People Magazine with OJ on the cover fir $100.00. I was happy to get rid of it!

katie8753 said...

Thanks Butterfly! Interesting info!

Charlize Theron was definitely beautiful when she was young. I was surprised they uglied her up that much in that movie Monster.

She's a good actress!