Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate

Robbie is very pretty & talented but I can't see her as Sharon Tate.

Tate's beauty was other-wordly. Like stop you in your tracks beautiful.

Brad Pitt and Leo

Could they not find a picture of Sharon to refer to?

I was intrigued by the concept of this film, but meh.

She looks nothing like her.

She’s so pretty

[Quote] Tate's beauty was other-wordly. Like stop you in your tracks beautiful.

Loooord here we go.

She doesn't really look like her, but it could have been worse.

Rose Byrne would have been the closest, 20 years ago.

More like Sharon Taters.

Who could play her though?

R1, I know just what you mean.

Of course I heard she needed a little help to stop in her own tracks, you know. But we met her in the middle, so to speak. It all worked out.

By today's standards, Sharon would be considered fat. Margot looks great.

Good casting.

The hair is too contemporary. Why is it so difficult for movies/tv to get the period hair right?

Cindy Crawford, especially in her youth, had that same breathtaking beauty. Not a fit for Sharon Tate though.

R11, oh Jesus Christ, no she wouldn't. And Marilyn Monroe wasn't a size 12.

She's perfect to play Tate.

Leo's head looks like a fucking pumpkin. Lol.

I was looking at the cast list for this. 19 males, 4 females (one of which is a child actress). I guess he is no longer pretending to be a feminist filmmaker...

It's also a very white cast, r18. I thought Tarantino would at least write a part for Samuel L. Jackson.

I think Robbie looks a lot like Tate in OP’s pic.

Why isn't a trans actress playing her?

You mean a black trans actress?

Better than Jennifer Lawrence. But the Sharon Tate trolls will never be satisfied.

she (MARGOT) looks much more like a young Michelle Phillips in that pic...to R10 i know you are trying to be funny, but sorry Sharon was 8 months pregnant and butchered,,,NOT funny.

Margot is very pretty but, she ain't no Sharon Tate.

It works and I'm sure she'll do a passable job in a movie I will definitely not be seeing.

Yea, I ain’t watching this.

"Margot Robbie..."

Why?

Sharon Tate and serial killer Dean Corll both went to the same elementary school in Pasadena, Tx at the same time. She would later be killed by a notorious serial killer.

I went to the same elementary school but I didn't come along until the 80's.

I love her. She is so effortlessly sexy. She reminds me of a young sharon stone. Perfect casting.

Wow, not feeling it at all.

Margot Robbie, is the female version of Jude Law? She seems to be in every friggin' movie these days.

Better than that fat troll haley duff.

Once again, Dataloungers think for some insane reason that to make a movie about an actual person means the filmmakers have to hire an EXACT DEAD RINGER for the person in question, when that just isn't possible 99.999% of the time.

It's once thing to complain about Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, who is short and dark-haired (and did not bother dyeing his hair for the role) and incredibly fit, playing Henry VIII who was over six feet and red-haired and grew to be obese. It's another to insist that Henry VIII must be played by an exact physical replica of Henry VIII, or that Anthony Hopkins cannot play Nixon because he did not look EXACTLY like Nixon.

This is the only forum on-line where people get so bizarrely attached to this weird idea.

She looks like Peggy Lipton

Bitches bitch R34 it's their raison d'être

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The real thing

Hope she’s more believable in this than as Tonya Harding,

[quote]Tate's beauty was other-wordly. Like stop you in your tracks beautiful.

LOL. I’m imaging a stack of Life magazines from the charity shop under this poster’s bed. And a spider plant in a hanging macrame holder.

Face it bitches: you only want those white boots.

Robbie was amazing as Tonya Harding. She’s gorgeous and perfect for Tate.

It’s actuslly possible the murders won’t even be depicted. We know the movie is about the craziness of LA at that time. We don’t know if the movie is about the actual murders.

The released picture tells me all I need to know. They couldn't even get Sharon's hair color correct. I mean come on! All I see is Margot Robbie dressed up for a 60s themed Halloween Party.

That costume ain’t doing her any favors. Tate was the epitome of “willowy blonde”- all leg. Those trash bag gogo boots and too long sweater make Robbie look squat. The boots are of the wrong look too- by ‘69, knee-high and taller boots that hugged the calf were the look.

This should be LiLo.

I never thought Sharon Tate was all that. Barbara Parkins, OTOH.....

Has Sharon Tate's sister started her complaints against Margot? It was hilarious when the sister bitched to the media when she thought Tarantino was going to cast Jennifer Lawrence as Sharon, but Lawrence was actually being considered for another role.

Robbie is one of the most beautiful actresses in Hollywood at the moment, and she's talented. I think this is great casting.

This being a Tarantino movie makes me nervous as I don't believe he'll shy away from any gruesomeness when it comes to portraying the murders.

More like Sharon Gless.

In 10 years, more like Sharon Osbourne.

R47, Exactly, like a dead baby oozing out of her and such...I'm sure he'll make it as sick as possible....which is why it's not for me

Robbie didn’t capture one bit of Tonya.

Sharon Tate died much too young and never had the chance to be known as the great beauty she was. There were two women in Hollywood who had breathtaking beauty during the '60s, and that was Sharon and Elizabeth Taylor. There was a robustness to each's beauty, in coloring and features, but there was also a delicacy about their beauty which could not be mimicked by plastic surgery. So much of their beauty seemed real and perfect for film. Elizabeth was legendary for the life lived; Sharon was legendary for the life of which she was deprived.

R51 your last sentence is ubermary and I salute you for that.

Ha, indeed, R6. Dear lord, I remember that infamous loony thread from yester-year about Tate's "otherworldly beauty". The Tate fangurl pushed that thread to 600+ posts.

Gotta hand it to the Tate fangurl though - he can give DL's other infamous resident fangurl (the Janet super-stan) a run for his money.

[quote] Sharon Tate died much too young and never had the chance to be known as the great beauty she was.

Intriguing fact: Tate was the exact same age when she died as Grace Kelly when Kelly left Hollywood and retired from the movies. Both were 26 years old when their careers ended, one way or another. So theoretically Tate had the chance to become like the iconic Kelly by age 26. It just didn't happen for Tate.

Looks like Joy from "My Name is Earl" with 60s fashion.

Robbie has left me cold in every film she has made, seriously no idea why the industry is so fucking obsessed with her, very run of the mill talent. And this film is just so tacky

Other than Robbie not quite not capturing the essence of Tate or the time in those photos, I was most taken by how disgusting (or rather, more so than usual) Tarantino looks.

Who will play Karen Carpenter for the ST/KC orgy Polanski filmed.

Sharon Tate lived in Pasadena, Texas for many years. Went to my elementary! Mary!

Emilie Hirsch was an awful choice to play Sebring. He should have played Manson instead.

SO agree, [R60]! It’s bizarre you said that, because shortly after I heard Robbie was cast as Tate I found myself wondering who should play Manson (and who could play him well).

I tried to think of every decent actor within a certain age group and almost immediately thought of Hirsch as a standout and how perfect he would be in the role. He was the only one I could picture delivering the goods as Manson.

I have to admit too, that I have seen “Into the Wild” for the first time ever this past year and was shocked at how good (and charismatic) Emile was in it—and was also very surprised that he didn’t become a much bigger star after that film came out.

He would have none an amazing job as Manson and fit the role perfectly (in my opinion).

Rose Byrne would have made a perfect Tate. Both have a slightly wispy, wistful, doe-eyed look and come across as gentle. The kind of look you have when you're slightly high / inebriated and daydreaming.

Pity that Byrne at 39 is too old now to play a 26-y.o.

Let's see if Robbie can pull this off, acting-wise. She didn't look like Harding either - but she was actually partially right for that character role because she's a bit of a hick bulldozer just like Harding. But I'm not sure she'll able to convey Tate's doe-eyed passiveness - Robbie usually plays very "alpha"-type roles, like Harding or Harley Quinn or that ball-busting Italian wife in "Wolf of Wall Street").

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I believe Rose Byrne can still pass for a 26 y/o with the right lighting and makeup. She's a very underrated actor who is also excellent at accents.

Margot looks nothing like Tate. I’m also sick of seeing her everywhere now.

Every possible actress would fall short, but with the right hair and makeup I think Maika Monroe could come close.

Rose Byrne.

Not really, r65.

[quote]Margot looks nothing like Tate

SO what? It's not a fucking documentary. Face it, fuckface r64, they made their casting choice without consulting you, so you're just going to have to live with it. If you don't like it, don't go to the movie. Problem solved!

Rose Byrne is 40 and looks it.

This is what Tate really looked like (without the dramatic drag-queen 60s makeup).

It's a standard white European (British type) good-looking face.

Is there seriously no one in Hollywood who looks more similar to this look? I see young, attractive yoga moms like this walking up and down upscale streets all the time.

This was her natural look.

Someone like Olivia Palermo would be a closer fit. Though of course Palermo is not really an actor and looks more Italian.

They need to ramp up the hair and makeup big time.

Sharon was so incredibly and specifically pretty I don't know who could 'be' her. But Robbie is a good actress and will make you believe it.

Another foreigner takes the role of an American in a U.S. movie... American actors are in danger unless they hone their professionalism and dedication.

Sharon Stone in her youth is the closest physical match I can think of.

[quote] Sharon Stone in her youth is the closest physical match I can think of.

Stone looks nothing like Tate. Different types. Stone looks more Germanic.

Stone:

Young Stone:

Tate:

Tate:

R11

Doesn't look fat to me. Photograph dated 1967

Tate wasn't a blue-eyed blonde type like Robbie or Stone. Tate had brown eyes, brown eyebrows - she was a light brunette. She was a cross between a north European and south European look. I suspect she had some Italian or Mediterranean heritage.

Doesn't matter for an actor's job, of course. Just thought it was interesting.

Robbie’s hair in that pic is completely wrong: color, texture, style all hopelessly contemporary. She looks like she just emerged from a Drybar salon.

In r76 pic she looks like one of the Fanning sisters

Whose pole is she shining to get that much exposure? She's the Jennifer Lawrence of 2017-18. The way she's been hyped you'd think she's the Second Coming. She's fine as far as the actual acting skills go and she's pretty but nothing that outstanding.

Who's playing the girls in the family who did the killing and Tex Watson? That would be a good part got Jennifer Lawrence.

They already have Leo, adding Lawrence would cost too much. Her going taste for a film is over 10 million.

R80, the Fanning sisters have a very teenager, cutesy look.

Whereas Tate always looked older than her age. She was in her mid-twenties, but looked like she was in her late twenties / early thirties.

Hailey Baldwin if she was an actress.

Dakota Fanning is playing Squeaky Fromme..Have any pics surfaced?

Debra recently gave her blessing for the film so I'm curious as to how they're going to portray Sharon. Then again Debra also approved of Kate Bosworth of all people to play Sharon so who knows.

Bo Derek in her prime would've been comparable to Tate's beauty but she couldn't act.

Poor Jaime Pressly. This Robie crook from Australia (home of the prisoners tossed out of England) comes over to the US and steals all her roles with her lookalike face. She's a flash in the pan. Her Tonya was condescending and a foreigner's mockery of an American.

Kate Bosworth (35) is almost a decade older than Tate (26).

But, to be fair, Tate looked older than her years and Bosworth can play gentle, passive characters, so perhaps it's workable casting.

Kate is only playing Sharon because her husband is directing the film/biopic. Kate would have never been considered to play Sharon otherwise. That picture is laughable.

[quote] Debra recently gave her blessing for the film

I wonder how much Tarantino paid her to reverse her position.

R78

I know that Tate had some Native American heritage. She was also 2nd or 3rd cousins with Dennis Quaid.

Robbie just looks too hard to play Tate.

Robbie is okay and resembles her enough for a film but she certainly doesn't have the beauty of Tate. But practically no one did or does.

I like Robbie for the role. American actors of today focus too much on image and SM following, and not enough on actual talent and hard work. That's why Robbie is getting so many roles.

I never really knew anything of Sharon Tate. All I knew was Manson had killed some people and that was about it.

R96, um Robbie has a million+ followers on instagram and carefully curates her page. She spends a lot of time on SM

She's way too plain.

So why exactly are you advertising your ignorance, r97? It doesn't make you look younger, just dumb.

" I see young, attractive yoga moms like this walking up and down upscale streets all the time."

Oh, please. There very many "yoga moms" who have a face like Sharon Tate. Or many actresses, either. Her beauty was exceptional.

She was also quite petite, only 5'3 according to her autopsy report. Early photos of her show her with a much fuller face and darker hair. After Hollywood got a hold of her her hair was made blonder and she was told to lose weight. Her look changed, but she was always stunning to look at. I guess her looks sealed her fate; looking like that what else would she have done except try to be a movie star? But I think Sharon Tate would have been better off going to college, meeting some nice guy, marrying him and having babies. She wasn't meant to be an actress. Judging from her performances she had little acting talent; all she could do was look beautiful. Yes, if she'd never gone the Hollywood route I think she would have been much happier. And she certainly would still be alive.

In a past thread someone suggested dyke Kristen Stewart to play Sharon.

[quote]he was also quite petite, only 5'3 according to her autopsy report.

66 inches. 5' 6".

OMG so I looked up to see if Sharon went to school with the serial killer Dean Corll. Not only did she, but they died on almost the same date (but not same year.)

Do we really need to again pay homage to Charles Manson & Family ?

That was a horrible time for this country.

What part is Leo playing? And how far are they going into the story? Are they going into the Beach Boys angle?

[quote]she certainly doesn't have the beauty of Tate. But practically no one did or does.

Sharon Tate was hardly the most beautiful woman in movies. Really, she was just another 60s blonde. Good-looking enough, certainly, but neither an eternal nor ethereal beauty. And when she wore a dark wig (as she did in The Beverly Hillbillies), she looked perfectly ordinary.

Sharon as Janet Trego

Was Sharon Tate a thing? She looks like a Price is Right model. Margot Robbie is going to win an Oscar one day.

Sharon did look kinda fat in that Matt Helm movie.

Who is playing Mansion.

Fat shaming a non-fat dead person, only on datalounge.

That's certainly your opinion, r107, not historically shared by many.

Wow, r84, I would not have guessed that that was Sharon Tate. I guess I'm so used to seeing photos of her with a lot of makeup.

R111, Yes, if she is considered fat then I am big enough to be Godzilla. Whoever said that must be a walking skeleton and about to die of starvation at any minute.

Have any of you bozos seen the Matt Helm film she starred in ? She was beautiful stunning funny a first class movie star but also a little fat. Call it fat shaming if you must.

[quote]Debra recently gave her blessing for the film so I'm curious as to how they're going to portray Sharon. Then again Debra also approved of Kate Bosworth of all people to play Sharon so who knows.

[quote]I wonder how much Tarantino paid her to reverse her position.

I don't think Tarantino had to pay her anything. Debra threw a bitch fit last summer when she thought Tarantino was going to cast Jennifer Lawrence as Sharon. She went on rants to TMZ saying that JLaw wasn't pretty enough to play her sister. Lawrence wasn't up for the role of Sharon. She had been meeting with Tarantino about another role. Tarantino or one of people probably had to contact Debra and reassure her that the hideous Lawrence monster wasn't going to play Sharon.

Debra will probably throw another bitch fit once the movie is released and will complain about the movie not focusing enough on Sharon.

[quote] Robbie just looks too hard to play Tate.

I agree. Margot Robbie's features are too harsh and animated which is why she was perfect to play Harley Quinn.

Wasn't that novel "The Girls" optioned for a film too? We're going to be all Manson-ed out.

Robbie was a creepy looking child.

R118 Yup. Scott Rudin bought the rights.

"The Girls" was terribly overrated. The hype surrounding that book was unreal.

R51, Respect for the thought you put into the construction of your last statement.

R119, That's a Bad Seed for sure!

r81, no she's sexier and much more prettier than Jlaw.

"66 inches. 5' 6".

In "Helter Skelter" her height is listed as 5'3. She looked more that size than 5'6. The autopsy report stated that she was "Sharon Marie Polanski, 10050 Cielo Drive, female Caucasian, 26 years, 5'3, 135 pounds, blonde hair, hazel eyes. Victim's occupation: actress." Her cause of death was stated as: "Multiple stab wounds of the chest and back, penetrating her heart, lungs and liver, causing massive hemorrhage. Victim was stabbed 16 times, five of which wounds were in and of themselves fatal.

I have seen it, bozo r115. And here's what bozo r115 calls "Fat" Sharon Tate from "The Wrecking Crew."

Really, hunty, take a rest.

Can we stupid-shame r115? If we must.

look how grotesquely fat

[quote] she certainly doesn't have the beauty of Tate. But practically no one did or does.

[quote] Oh, please. There [aren’t?] very many "yoga moms" who have a face like Sharon Tate. Or many actresses, either. Her beauty was exceptional.

Cue massive eyeroll. I've seen plenty of females around town who look like Tate. She was beautiful and nice to look at. But not “exceptional” or unusual. Brown eyes, light brown hair (dyed blonde), European (British-type) features.

I love Marla Maples. Oh, it's Sharon Tate. This discussion has done already had herses. Sharon Tate was pretty, but not a great beauty.

[quote] if she'd never gone the Hollywood route … she certainly would still be alive.

Terminal diseases (cancer, etc), car accidents, random fatal attacks and criminal assaults, domestic violence, etc happen to non-Hollywood people just the same. She might’ve been alive today, she might’ve not. It’s far from “certain”.

When we talk about how legendary movie stars looked, we have to remember that for movies and portrait sittings, they have many highly paid professionals working on them. It is a collaborative effort that costs tens of thousands of dollars just for makeup, clothes, styling and hair. And that's before you even get into lighting, cinematography etc.

It doesn't mean the performer's not naturally beautiful to begin with, but they don't walk around looking like this:

Tate in ordinary circumstances:

Tate is not a legendary movie star, she wasn't even a star.

Sharon Tate​ visiting the set of ‘Rosemary’s Baby’, August 28, 1967 at Fifth Avenue and 57th Street in New York City. Photo by Santi Visalli.

She's very pretty....but what I'm saying is, no one really looks like this on their own:

R138 That book is great if you're a fan of Sharon, the pictures are gorgeous.

A true beauty is beautiful in any light. They don't require studio trickery and a pound of makeup. This is a movie star and a legendary beauty.

Margot Robbie is a good match for Sharon Tate for a film. She doesn't look exactly like her, just as no one looks exactly like Margot Robbie...but it's all in the same ball park.

It's also rather insulting to suggest someone is all about how they physically look. I think any beautiful person -- or even any regular looking person -- would tell you they'd like to be portrayed as more than a mere mask.

[quote] r140 A true beauty is beautiful in any light. They don't require studio trickery and a pound of makeup. This is a movie star and a legendary beauty.

Yes, Vivien Leigh was also a naturally pretty woman. But she didn't roll out of bed looking like a screen goddess. Film can heighten and enhance some special people's looks...it's called being photogenic.

Hollywood doesn't have a good track record of casting current celebs to convincingly play celebs of yore. I'm not even talking about "matching faces" but about "matching type / nuanced character".

Nicole Kidman as Grace Kelly. (Kidman is a good actress, but couldn't quite convey Kelly's statuesque, very East Coast preppy-type presence.)

Jennifer Love-Hewitt as Audrey Hepburn. (Hewitt is a bit comical like Hepburn so it was a workable match. But Hepburn, being a trained ballerina and descended from a Baroness mother (nobility), had a more elegant, sophisticated, aristocratic manner which wasn't quite conveyed by Hewitt.)

Lindsey Lohan as Liz Taylor. (No comment)

Sienna Miller as Edie Sedgwick. (Complete mismatch. Sedgwick was a pixie type who looked like a vulnerable underage child - that's why her story drew empathy, because she looked like a kid. One of the Fanning sisters could've played her believably, as they look like children too. Whereas Miller looks like a mature, classical bombshell.)

*Lindsay

Yes, r145, you have proven my point. Sharon was an ordinary sexy looking chick. Like a model at a car show.

Vivien Leigh was one of the most exquisitely beautiful women of the 20th century.

Nicole Kidman looked amazingly like Grace Kelly to me in THE OTHERS. I wonder if it was an inside joke that they named her character Grace.

Young Catherine Deneuve and Sharon looked a lot like each other.

[quote]r149 Yes, [R145], you have proven my point. Sharon was an ordinary sexy looking chick. Like a model at a car show. Vivien Leigh was one of the most exquisitely beautiful women of the 20th century.

I don't know...if I had to magically spend my life looking like one of them, I'd choose Sharon. Vivien Leigh aged far before her time, and was rather matronly, fast.

R140 A woman like Claudia Cardinale in her prime was far more beautiful than Vivien Leigh who always looked too pasty and British for my liking. Monica Bellucci is another example of a true beauty. Also Greta Garbo.

STOP IT YOU FUCKING LOON!!! Nobody cares about your ST obsession.

I did a search on Sharon Tate's natural hair color, and HERE her sister says it was "in between ash blonde and mousy brown." I wonder if she'd have had as much impact that way.

Her favorite color was ecru, and she liked ballet slippers and yellow roses. She was allergic to perfume.

Who knew?

[quote]r155 STOP IT YOU FUCKING LOON!!! Nobody cares about your ST obsession.

Mother, don't get excited.

I'm not excited, I pity you.

R155 Calm down..

Would Sharon or Viv win a mud wrestling match?

Sharon was taller...but the Vivling was manic.

[quote] Young Catherine Deneuve and Sharon looked a lot like each other.

Um, no. They were quite different, especially in profile view. Each with their own type of beauty. Tate had a more angular face; very square jaw; slightly protruding chin; long, sharp, slightly aquiline nose.

Deneuve had a more oval-shaped face; softer jawline; non-protruding chin; shorter, slightly concave nose.

Tate:

Deneuve:

I always though Gwen Wells from NASHVILLE looked a lot like Tate

This photo of Tate attending the 1968 Golden Globes with Polanski doesn't link properly, but if you follow it it shows Tate's slightly aquiline, Romanesque features. It's not a bad thing at all, but it's a specific type.

Her genealogy says British + Swiss / German, but I'm guessing she had a bit of Italian too.

Did Tate actually have a decent rack? The whole point of Jennifer North in the book VALLEY OF THE DOLLS is she's supposed to have this amazingly lush body (like Marilyn Monroe or Carole Landis) but Tate seems more or less petite, that way.

Sharon Tate was groovy. Sexy little bird with a twitchin ass and a witches chin.

Welcome to my pushup bra

"Cue massive eyeroll. I've seen plenty of females around town who look like Tate."

You're going blind, then. I see a lot of fit blonde women around, too, but they sure as hell don't look like Sharon Tate.

It's really funny to hear the dips on this thread portraying Sharon Tate as just another cookie-cutter Hollywood blonde. She was and is considered one of the most beautiful women of her time. Many people hold that opinion. But there are always going to be twits saying she was ordinary looking. And FAT!

She's very, very pretty.

Unfortunately, couldn't act to save her life (no bad joke intended)

She’s gorgeous

[quote]It's a standard white European (British type) good-looking face.

Tate’s bone structure does not read British. Her cheekbones and chin are too sculpted.

This is British.

I would agree that Sharon Tate seemed to have little in the way of acting talent. I think she was born to be a wife and mother. It's just so sad that she chose Roman Polanski as her husband.

By the way Polanski didn't want her for the female lead in his film "The Fearless Vampire Killers." He wanted his then lover Jill St. John to play Sarah, the Jewish innkeeper's daughter. But studio executives where promoting Tate as a new star and wanted her for the role. Polanski thought she looked very American, and not right for the role. . So a frowsy red wig was slapped on her head to make her look more Jewish. It didn't make her look more Jewish. In fact, the wig looked pretty ridiculous. It was during the filming of the movie that Tate and Polanski became seriously involved. Their romance didn't start out very promising; as a method of seduction he literally jumped on her and they fell to the ground. She got up and walked off, while he laughed like a hyena. Later she became impressed by him as a director and she always went for domineering men. So she hooked up wit Polanski. They were in their time considered an "it" couple, always sought after and fawned over. Actually, it was a match made in hell.

Why did they divorce? Is she still alive?

[quote]r172 Polanski didn't want her for the female lead in his film "The Fearless Vampire Killers."

Sharon whored herself out to PLAYBOY to promote the film.

I adore the Vivien Leigh troll.

And the Sharon Tate haters are quite amusing, too.

I don't have [bold]#TateH8[/bold]. I admire her looks and everyone seemed to adore her, in life.

I just think she was a lousy actress.

Maybe she would have been decent in TESS.

R101 R103 Only the autopsy report lists her as 5'3". Everything else I've read states 5'6" and she towered over 5'4" Roman

R169 Girl was only 26 when murdered, so she might have improved with time. Think of how awful Ann-Margret was. Not until she was 30 in Carnal Knowledge did she get a decent review.

ATTACHED is 60 sec clip of Sharon taken in June 1968 during filming of The Wrecking Crew. Fat ? Hardly.

Damn, she was so trashy looking.

R181

Yeah, like you've ever been with a woman.

I think it was Polanski who took the nude pictures that ended up in Playboy. Anyway, Sharon was very compliant. Polanski probably told her to pose nude would help her career.

I believe Sharon could speak Italian. Her father was stationed there.

I like that she was caftan-friendly.

[quote]r183 Polanski probably told her to pose nude would help her career.

Well yeah. Why else would she do it?

She looks fat here.

R187

Not fat. Pregnant. This photograph was taken at Cielo Drive the week she was murdered.

PROVE IT!

why datalounge is so vile ?

I didn't know she was dead! Did her husband kill her?

She tripped. It was sad.

It lead to a new municipal code about banisters, though, called "Sharon's Law."

This thread is so embarrassing.

Ah, now I feel bad for saying she looks trashy. She tripped while pregnant killing herself and the baby? It's those terrible white sandals with the stack heel. They look like my grandma's church shoes. Sharon's Law has done a lot of good for Margo Robbie to be starring in a movie about her. Course they can cover her time in Valley of The Dolls too. That was a bit hit series at the time. Sharon was pretty from the front, her chin would have saved her if she weren't pregnant when she fell. RIP.

All my relatives are buried at Holy Cross. Whenever I visit, I stop by Sharon’s grave. Next time I’ll give DL regards.

Remember Jackie Susann's The Love Machine? Made into a 1971 movie starring Dyan Canon and John Phillip Law. They had a character named 'Amanda' who was the Jennifer North of that film. They hired a model from Kansas named Jodi Wexler who got the job because of her resemblance to Sharon Tate. She never acted again, married a rich guy and died a few years ago of cancer after raising 3 kids,

R15 Yes, Marilyn very possibly was a size 12. My mother was a high fashion model in the fifties and she, like all the runway models was a 10/12. Sizing was completely different back then. It has slowly changed in order to flatter the thin and to help keep the pudgy from being so stigmatized. I was 5'8 and 120 LBs in high school in the early 70s and I wore a 9/10.

So Marilyn being a 12 would be equal to a six or an 8 today.

[quote] I see a lot of fit blonde women around, too, but they sure as hell don't look like Sharon Tate.

Where do you live, R168? Because if one lives in a big, cosmopolitan world capital that attracts many models, actresses, singers, dancers and rich beautiful wives - one comes across many young ladies who look like Tate (brown eyes, brown eyebrows, mousy light brown hair, square-ish jaw).

Here is Tate in Cannes. I've been to Cannes many times and have seen girls on the Côte d'Azur beaches who look like her. She was beautiful and very nice-looking but not exceptional or unusual.

[quote] Tate’s bone structure does not read British. Her cheekbones and chin are too sculpted. This is British [Kate Winslet].

R171, we’re talking about skeletal structure, not body fat. Kate Winslet has an oval-shaped face (and used to be a bit fat).

But most British female celebs and regular females tend to have square-ish jaws (think Keira Knightley, Daisy Ridley, Rosamund Pike, Kate Moss, Gabrielle Wilde, etc.).

Sienna Miller has a familiar British look – long face with a square-ish jaw, long nose, blue-eyed.

As mentioned above, Tate’s facial frame looks British (hence the similarity to Rose Byrne), but her aquiline thin down-sloping nose looks Italian.

Swiss females tend to have 'sculpted', thin-boned features. Tate apparently had a bit of Swiss ancestry in addition to her main British heritage.

But I find them a tad too geometric. Personally I prefer watching females with softer, more oval faces.

Tate often looked very thin.

If you look at her face below - it's not so much that her cheekbones were prominent, it's more that the cheeks themselves were a bit sunken in, due to lack of fat reserves on the face.

R196 - I heard a Radio 4 documentary discussing the MARILYN WAS A SIZE 16 myth. Her average measurements were 35-22-35. She looked very curvy because her waist was freakishly small.

She would be a contemporary 2-4 (with her waist being 0-2) , and would have gone up to a 6-8 when she was pregnant as in some scenes of TPATS.

White people really need to up their game when it comes to calling someone breathtakingly beautiful.

Sharon should have stayed with Jay Sebring. He was dead serious about marrying her, and would have treated her much better than Roman did. Also, married to Jay, she never would have gone near Cielo Drive. Jay would have become Paul Mitchell, and Sharon would have been a very pampered Hollywood housewife.

she has the stance right and the attitude and the clothes....Sharon s stunning beauty was just off the charts tho and that is very hard to duplicate. Next Aug is 50 year anniv of the murders..........so I see why there are to be 3 movies made about it.......at least one of them looks to be fairly interesting possibly. There have been more gruesome murders since and other murders with famous people as the victims but there is just something about this that seems to stick with people. If you really read everything out there, there wasnt really a clear cut motive for the murders of Sharon and the others or the ones the next night. I think the...... to create a race war thing was mostly made up by prosecutor Vincent Bugilosi as a motive to get a conviction. He didnt use that as the motive to convict separately Charles Tex Watson in a separate trial the following year.. One thing I read that Sharon s mother said at some point........... was that Sharon was even more beautiful when she was in her teens than she was in her mid twenties and that practically since Sharon was a baby people use to stop and stare in public at Sharon,,,,,,,,,,,pretty much her whole life. Boy that can really mess with your head, but it didnt seem to in Sharon s case.

Marilyn Monroe was a size 12 dress at one point in NY when she first married Miller and wasnt making movies for fox constantly. Her body changed thru her career and in some times she was stunning and at others larger but still beautiful. Interestingly the last 2 years of her life she became anorexic believe it or not....... and she lost a hell of a lot of weight. She was extremely thin the last 9 months......at her autopsy (marilyn) weighed 116 lbs and was 5 ft 6.

R205 I didn't think Bugilosi prosecuted Tex?

So, I have mixed feelings about Quentin Tarantino in particular making this movie. Is it just going to be torture porn?

I'm watching the 2004 version starring Clea DuVall on youtube, and the most interesting thing about the story to me is the cult mind aspect...losing one's identity to a misguided group/individual, to the point where you'd actually MURDER. What happened is also KIND of a cautionary tale about LSD, as that's what the whole Family was doing round the clock for months on end.

I wonder if this new version will emphasize the characters, or the era, or the courtroom drama aspect...or just wallow in the blood.

(shudder)

[QUOTE]nd at others larger but still beautiful. Interestingly the last 2 years of her life she became anorexic believe it or not....... and she lost a hell of a lot of weight.

Marilyn lost the weight in 1961 when once she had her (faulty) gall bladder removed. I wish you know nothings would disappear.

Tate's sister said she went over the script and is now not upset at all. Obviously Tarantino is not going to show her getting stabbed and tortured on camera.

On another note, those Playboy pictures were Tate being marked for death by the illuminati. The one picture where the guy is holding up the devil horns. Bang. That was symbolic.

[quote] Tate's sister said she went over the script and is now not upset at all.

Tarantino likely wrote her a fat check and now she’s predictably “not upset at all”.

Tate's sister Debra has been fucking her corpse for 50 years. She profits from her death daily. Being Sharon Tate's sister is her profession. Fucking creepy vulture fame whore. Sharon Tate was a pretty bimbo, a bikini model. Please accept it. Tarantino would once have exploited her but he's out to untarnish his own image, right Mira and Uma? #MeToo.

[quote] Sharon s stunning beauty was just off the charts tho and that is very hard to duplicate.

The only thing hard to duplicate is her extra thin, long, aquiline nose. This type of nose isn’t common among American actors.

Her long nose and pointy chin gave her a witchy face. They are more detractions than assets.

OKAT....I was the one saying we shouldn't give professional Hollywood beauties ALL the credit for the images of them we know, because those were created as a team effort alongside hordes of highly paid professionals whose job it was to make performers look unforgetable.

HOWEVER, Sharon Tate IS regarded as one of the most beautiful women to ever pass through Hollywood. There's no way around that.

At the same time, I don't think her career would have reached any greater heights than she already enjoyed as a B level performer....unless Polanski directed her in something amazing and somehow got some remarkable performance out of her. She probably would have retired to have several kids with him, or some studio head.

Mama Tate is goddamn SERIOUS.

This is what actors strive to do and can rarely deliver: speak with absolute and complete conviction without turning a hair.

[quote] HOWEVER, Sharon Tate IS regarded as one of the most beautiful women to ever pass through Hollywood. There's no way around that.

Exactly - one among hundreds of other beautiful actresses.

Not many people "regard" her as anything outside of her home country. Some females became instantly iconic (worldwide) sensations (like the young Brooke Shields). Tate was beautiful, but not distinctive enough aesthetically to be an overnight sensation on her looks alone. There were too many other beautiful actresses in the 60s.

A plain woman playing a plain woman ~Grace Kelly

You know, I am not the Sharon Tate fanatic troll, and I never thought I would be in the position of comparing these two before...but honestly, I would say, upon reflection, I would consider Sharon Tate to be even more beautiful than Grace Kelly.

Keep in mind, I have always considered Kelly and Ava Gardner to be the two most beautiful of Hiollywood's stars...but Tate's face has more individuality and sensuality to it. Grace Kelly is very delicate and symetrical, but she's also pure WHITE BREAD. Tate's features are larger, and there's some Cherokee or Italian or whatever in her bloodline that just gives her features a more pronounced caste.

Grace Kelly is exquisite, but Tate's face is sublime.

This is my favorite pic of Kelly, BTW

[quote] symetrical, but she's also pure WHITE BREAD ... Tate's features are larger, and there's some Cherokee

That could describe Tate as well. Very white look. She doesn't look Native American (they have a look similar to Central Asians because their ancestors migrated from Asia, and Tate doesn't look Asian at all).

Exceptional, remarkable faces usually combine rare elements (e.g. dark hair or dark skin + light eyes (e.g. blue, grey or green eyes, green being the most rare - it's estimated only 2% of the world have green eyes). It seems most Hollywood actresses have light eyes - because they're more rare (scarcity creates demand). Or a rare element like very full lips or a perfect natural Greek nose.

Tate was beautiful, but in a normal way. Her main interesting features were the thin, downsloping, slightly aquiline nose, nice skin and nice teeth. She also looked far healthier earlier when she had more meat on her bones. She looked very gaunt in the face by 26.

To clarify...I am discussing Tate and Kelly's looks as they were professionally presented as groomed PRODUCTS. They were both described as breathtakingly beautiful by people who met them, offscreen, but since we didn't, we're not really talking about them as people in real life, but as marketed images.

Everyone has different tastes. You think Kelly was better looking than Tate, I see it as the other way around. It's not based in any universal truth about what's attractive - it has more to do with one's past associations, and what you unconsciously respond to...such as the time in your life you first became aware of them, etc.

Oh well.

Sharon had the quintessential late 60's California look - long blonde hair, parted in the middle. And gorgeous eyes.

Her sister Debra worked as a make up artist and worked on Liz Taylor. There had been a rumor Sharon had a featured role in Liz's film The Sandpiper. Sharon never appeared in the film and Debra asked Liz about it. Liz told Debra she had Sharon fired from the film - "You remember how she looked?' LIz told her.

Magot Robbie looks like Michelle Phillips, yes. Sharon Tate, no.

Incidentally, Liz's clothes and hats etc. are horrendous in that movie, but I think she was at the apex of her beauty in the stills from that, as well as THE TAMING OF THE SHREW (shot fairly close together). There was a time I loved the really tight, sculpted, immaculate look of the 1940s and 50s, like Grace Kelly had...but now I think women tend to look more alluring when they're more unbound and relaxed. It's just sexier and more human.

That more casual (but still very studied, when speaking of movie stars) look really looked good on Liz in the 1960s.

Then she eventually took it too far, of course, and just became a fat slob.

[quote]r224 Magot Robbie looks like Michelle Phillips, yes. Sharon Tate, no.

Well, a young Michelle Phillips would have been fine playing Sharon Tate in a movie, too. So really it's all the same.

Oh my sides, r198, r212, r217, and r221! Sure, Jans--Sharon Tate was an average beauty, just a dime a dozen.

You Marys are hilarious!

Had Sharon lived, I think she would’ve had her baby, divorced Polanski, and eventually married a studio head or CEO still connected to showbiz. Her new husband would’ve raised her son as his own and they would’ve had a few more kids.

Nah, R222, you dissed Kelly as "pure WHITE BREAD" (in caps no less) @ R219, while elevating Tate (ironically also a normal white female). There's irony in that.

And we don't need to know them in real life. There are many photos and videos of them (including many candids outside of work, where they're in casual situations), so we can form opinions based on them.

The people who work with actresses will obviously describe them all as 'looking beautiful' and 'looking gorgeous' and other looks-related flattery. Why would a (normal, well-behaved) co-actor, stylist or journalist declare to the press or the public that an actress he just worked with "looks ok, but nothing special". He'd be labelled an asshole in the industry. And it could even land him in trouble if the actress' husband is a star film director.

We lived in Cheviot Hills in 1969. I was 8. My family was scared when these murders happened. (Cheviot Hills is close to BH.)

R227, yes, she was your usual Hollywood beautiful actress (a light brunette dyed the standard boilerplate blonde). If she were somehow unusual, people around the world would've remembered her. Go to Sweden or Italy or the Czech Republic, say "Sharon Tate", people will shrug. Show them a photo of her, people will say it's yet another beautiful girl among a plethora of other beautiful local girls.

^^^^

Virna Lisi had a similar face to Sharon’s, although Lisi was really touted as the next Marilyn Monroe.

Lots of beautiful girls out there, R227. And some have combinations of features that are far more rare than Tate's and so naturally eye-catching.

IF Tarantino wanted to capture that era he should have Michelle Phillips and Mia Farrow as characters. Both were friends of Sharon Tate's. Michelle had her finger in a lot of pies during the decade. She had an affair with Roman Polanski the year Sharon died, she was estranged from John Phillips, etc. Her story would be wild.

[quote] Had Sharon lived, I think she would’ve had her baby, divorced Polanski, and eventually married a studio head or CEO still connected to showbiz. Her new husband would’ve raised her son as his own and they would’ve had a few more kids.

Oh jeez, people are now writing ST fan fiction on this thread. Fine. She’d live (‘69), divorce Polanski immediately, get Aristotle Onassis to annul his ‘68 marriage to Jackie O and marry her instead, participate in the Stonewall 2nd-wave riots after summer ‘69, prevent the breakup of the Beatles in 1970, start an underage affair with J.P. Getty III and get kidnapped along with him by Italian mobsters in ‘73. She’d bravely escape only to befriend Patty Hearst and get kidnapped again with her in ‘74.

In ‘75 she’d co-found Microsoft and in ‘76 she’d co-found Apple with Steve Jobs. She’d beat out Carrie Fisher to play Leia Organa in Star Wars in ‘77. She’d help Elvis overcome his alcoholism and drug addiction and save him from his death in ‘77.

She’d run away from Onassis after discovering he’s even more of an ass than Polanski and marry 70s HBO TV exec Jerry Levin, who was called both “the most powerful media exec in the world” by New York magazine and “the worst American CEO of all time” by CNBC. She’d become his 3rd wife, have 5 more kids and convert to Judaism.

She’d become BFFs with Grace Kelly and Liz Taylor and become happily fat like them in middle age. Tragically, she’d perish together with Kelly in that cliffside car accident in ‘82.

Her 6 offspring would survive her. One would start a hippie commune in French Polynesia. Another would marry JFK Jr. and perish with him in that plane accident off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. A third would develop health complications after radioactive exposure to the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster, and sue the government for millions, which he’d then charitably donate to good causes.

HBO exec Jerry Levin would tragically lose his son, who became a simple English teacher and got shot by his own student in ‘97 (the last bit is a true story).

Wow she does look like Olivia Palermo. Incredible resemblance.

Keep it up, r231 and r234. Delicious!

In terms of interesting looks, I’ve recently come across this girl. I think she’s American of South Asian (Indian or Bangladeshi) and Polish ethnicity. Beautiful features and full, luscious lips which are a nice bonus trait in South Asians.

She looks short

R236 needs anger management.

R241 needs reading compression if he assumes fan fiction that satirises a previous post is “anger”.

R242 is an loathsome asshole.

"Tate's sister said she went over the script and is now not upset at all."

So she thought the script she saw was the one Tarantino is actually going to film? She must be pretty gullible, because scripts go through a lot of changes before filming. I think she'll be shocked by the final product. She should consider the case of Blanche Barrow. Barrow was given a "Bonnie and Clyde" script that she was satisfied with, so she gave her consent for her character to be used in the story. Boy, was she surprised when she saw what was REALLY done with her character. She moaned that they'd made her into a "screaming horse's ass" and tried to sue. Considering Tarantino's penchant for graphic violence in his films I think it's a safe bet that he's going to show poor Sharon and her house guests being butchered and splattered in a river of gore.

R243 needs to take his own advice and sign up for an anger management class.

So much talk about the beauty, (or lack thereof) of Sharon Tate, is this to ignore what a truly fucking dreadful actress she was? Cause she stunk

R236 needs to heed R241

R247 needs to heed R242.

I loved Debra's book but I don't believe her little stories included at all. She seems like a complete liar to me and obsessed with trying to convince people that she was part of Sharon's Hollywood life.

Well duh Debra was Sharon's sister and she idolized her. She's all that's left of the family, She went to war with late sister Patti's partner Alisa Stratman who actually was a ghostphile who lived in the guest house on the Cielo property (where Garretson had lived) and Stratman wormed her way into Patti's and father Paul's life. She clearly had an agenda.

I truly believe that had she lived, Sharon would have found the cure to cancer and her beautiful full breasts would have ended hunger worldwide. She also would have brought peace to the Middle east with her caring, easy going manner. Just saying .........

R251 Sharon didn’t have full breasts.

R252

I'm sure that they weren't as big as yours Ed but don't be so jealous.

"shocked at how good (and charismatic) Emile was in it—and was also very surprised that he didn’t become a much bigger star after that film came out."

Strangling a woman in front of a crowd of movie industry people might give the impression he's difficult to work with, don't you think?

I'm sure it's considered normal behavior for Weinstein favorite Tarantino, however.

R253 I’m a 36C and female.

I, for one, won’t be watching Tarantino’s film. Watching a movie about a maniac who tortured to death a heavily pregnant female, among others, is not my kind of Friday night.

Tarantino will probably reign in his trademark style a little and skip his usual grotesque, cartoonish violence, given the subject matter. But it will still likely be a queasy viewing experience.

And the same goes for the other 2 Manson films.

Calm down, Mary at r246.

[quote] You Marys are hilarious!

[quote] Calm down, Mary at r246.

R258 doesn’t understand what the DL exclamation “Mary!” means. He keeps hilariously misusing it in every post.

His own posts such as “Practically NO ONE did or does have Tate’s beauty!” @ R95 are the classic definition of “Mary!” posts.

r259, it's calling Mary! on those Marys who protest too much in the other direction--Tate wasn't nearly as pretty as..., Tate was just your average beauty and nothing special, what a terrible actress.

MARYS!

I expected better!

Nah, R260, you’re the protestor on this thread, calling Robbie “okay” (i.e. average). You also started pushing the phrase “average beauty” regarding opinions on Tate (no one else used that phrase but you). Because you obsessively consider compliments saying she was “beautiful” NOT ENOUGH. Tate herself would’ve likely been very content with being called beautiful among other beautiful HW stars. Being called a member of a group of aesthetic females is not an insult.

But you’re such a super-stan that you override her and screech at other posters that calling smn beautiful (while objectively recognising that HW is full of beautiful people) is not enough and “too far in the other direction!”. Your insistence that she’s more uniquely aesthetic than all other females living and dead in history - is the textbook definition of a Mary!

I bet Tate would’ve been embarrassed to have a hyperbolic-praise stan like you.

Love it, r262! Keep your obsessive, long-winded posts coming, Mary!

Why do people keep saying this is about the Manson murders? Patently false.

It's a comic, buddy caper movie with Leo and Pitt involved in high jinks a la Travolta and Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction with Quentin's usual non-linear garbage etc and that stylized crap.

It's not a movie about what happened in the house that night on Cielo Drive.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure r264 has that exactly right.

It could be the case as I haven’t seen anything on who is cast as any of the killers.

Sharon was pretty. But the overall effect was kind of like a sexy girl dancing on a TV variety show. She had a stripper quality to her movements and her voice was very baby doll studied. Robbie is a bit like that too. She's an "ordinary" great looking blonde. Nothing elevates her to being a beauty.

Regardless the Tarantino movie is not about Sharon Tate.

Just what the world needs, another movie about Charlies Manson and his Family. Here are some previous tv shows and films about Charlie and his gang:

The Helter Skelter Murders (1971)

Manson (1973)

Helter Skelter (1976)

The Manson Family (1997)

Helter Skelter (2004)

Manson, My Name is Evil (2009)

Aquarious (2015, tv series)

I think the only new thing Tarantino will bring to yet another version of Manson's atrocities is unrestrained gore.

R268 Tarantino's isn't the only one. There's three different movies in production right now. Gotta cash in on the 50th anniversary of the murder of her and her unborn child

Debra apparently sees no problem there, as long as the premiere date is pushed back a bit later than the anniversary date. (As if a few weeks / months later changes anything.)

R263 sounds like a DL novice. Still doesn’t get what Mary means. Amusingly writes like a Tumblr fangurl or a budding comediante:

[quote] she certainly doesn't have the beauty of Tate. But practically no one did or does.

Now that joke is worthy of a “MARY!”.

R255

Sure Jan

I’m hoping they will change history like they did for kill the nazi movie.

My main complaint is they could have least gotten the hair. Sharon’s was very thick.

In Tarantino’s version, I hope Sharon lives.

I hope it is a musical.

MARY, r271! STILL going on!

Quentin Tarantino really brings out the Mary.

Kill Mary ! Volume 1

Did Sharon Tate make the first Hollywood sex tape? Polanski says he retrieved theirs from the Ciello Drive house after the muders, and destroyed it.

But why? Probably it would have sold pretty well.

Given that Polanski raped a a teenaged girl, I think the loss of the tape might not have been such a loss for anyone outside of the pedophile consumer.

I love how people say that Robbie couldn't possibly be Sharon Tate because x, y and z. Sharon Tate is dead and has been for decades. Nobody is going to be her. I guess if they had an unlimited budget they could recreate her via CGI and use snippets of her recorded voice for dialogue and all sort of other uncanny valley nonsense like they did with Laurence Olivier in the Sky Captain movie. It seemed quite ghoulish at the time. I doubt it would be any different especially in the context of this movie.

Newsflash to Tate fans: every day brings you closer to death. A perfect Sharon Tate doppleganger isn't going to bring her back and isn't going to make you any younger. Just be grateful Charles Manson is dead and move on.

Very nice speech R280. But was Sharon Tate the most beautiful woman of all time? Why else are we here.

There's no way to know if she was one of the "most beautiful women of all time", but she's pretty much considered one of Hollywood's most beautiful actresses.

I don't think she comes to mind right off the bat, because the only film of hers that's widely seen is VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (which was, let's face it, a joke)...but then when her name does come up, people say, "Oh. YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS....she's about the prettiest woman, ever."

You can't realistically ask for too much more...

Polanski mentions the sex tape in his memoir. Videotape was new back in those days and considered a novelty. He suggested to Sharon that they make a tape of them having sex. Sharon, ever compliant and obliging said "Fine. What characters should we play?" He said the tape was a frivolity made for future amusement, not lewd or exhibitionistic. He figured they would watch it when when they got old and get a kick out of watching their younger selves getting it on. Polanski seemed to regard the tape as a harmless joke but it seems very gross to me. I guess a perv like him would considering making a sex tape normal sexual fun.

You can buy a little Sharon Tate doll HERE, to cuddle or stick pins in as desired:

I don’t think Tarantino’s film is about Sharon, but a parallel of what was happening in Hollywood at the same time.

Usual Quentin style: zany characters, over worked dialogue, gross moments, some bloodshed, gay rape of some sort, non linear story that connects 56 characters in one movie from the past to the future and back again, stylized look and decent soundtrack with classic tracks ..... then fade out.

Perfect.

"I don’t think Tarantino’s film is about Sharon, but a parallel of what was happening in Hollywood at the same time."

Maybe the film won't be "about" Sharon, but I'm pretty sure it's going to feature a nice bloody scene of Sharon and her house guests getting butchered by Tex and Sadie (Susan Atkins) and Katie (Patricia Krenwinkle). I think Tarantino is going to want it to be the most graphic depiction of the murders ever filmed. That's his style.

So much revisionism about Sharon Tate in this thread, it's breathtaking. It must be her sister trolling DL.

She was hardly a great movie star. No one, but no one, thought she was anything but a mildly competent actress. Her beauty was standard-issue for the times. Not one of the "great all time beauties," but a beauty nonetheless. This fawning over her does not relate to anything in reality, especially not to the way she was regarded at the time (when she was regarded at all. Her biggest fame was her murder).

[quote] Her beauty was standard-issue for the times.

So how did she get a long term contract and acting work practically the first day she landed in Hollywood?

It's true no one fooled themselves into thinking she was any great shakes as an actress...but her beauty was immediately recognized and cashed in on. And rightly so.

Whitney Dylan as Sharon in the 2004 version of "Helter Skelter."

Sharon has always been played by a pretty (sometimes not even THAT pretty) blonde in the movies that have been made about the Manson murders. But none of them have come anywhere near to how beautiful she was. A reporter who knew her said that she was "an astonishingly beautiful woman with a statuesque figure and features of great delicacy." And that was true.

One thing I think some are overlooking. Sharon wasnt afraid to go out in public without makeup. So a number of photos of her on this post are with no makeup. Not very many actresses in that time period would have ever do that. In full makeup movie star regalia she looked stunning. Her face had amazing bone structure which not all movie star faces have. Is it really necessary to go on and on about the extent of her beauty? She was more importantly supposedly extremely beautiful as a human being, which is a great thing.

No she isnt a very good actress but with time she might have improved.

Finally, her sister came on board with the movie after she read the script, for one reason. It portrayed Sharon as a person and not just as a murder victim. The public will get to see an enactment of at least a small portion of the person, sharon tate. When you look at all the press in the last 50 years its mostly been Manson, Manson, Manson. Not that much is out their about the victims. Debra tate owns the rights to Sharons image so its only natural she was consulted.

Listen up, bitches! Nancy r287 and Mary r288 are keeping it real for us.

[quote]r292 No she isnt a very good actress but with time she might have improved.

That doesn't really mean anything. So could any bad actor.

That actress at R290 looks a lot more like her than Robbie does.

She was 26 when she died and she was only in one decent movie. Bad moviemaking AND she was early-mid 20s.

Really, cunts.

Yes, she would have been better, maybe much better. She already had a good sense of humor and had some comedic talent.

[quote]Debra apparently sees no problem there, as long as the premiere date is pushed back a bit later than the anniversary date. (As if a few weeks / months later changes anything.)

Debra is probably already mapping out media interviews with print magazines, 20/20, ID, etc for the 50th anniversary. She knows that the media is going to want to focus on the Manson murders because it was one of bigger stories of 1969. The moon landing anniversary will get a lot of attention.. Chappaquiddick happened in 1969, but the Kennedys still manage to keep media attention on the down low. Mary Jo Kopechne was an only child-so there are no siblings like Debra to make the media rounds to speak for Mary Jo. But, when it comes to crime of 1969, Debra will have that locked up when it comes time for 50th anniversary interviews.

Was Sharon ever a prostitute? Or just a casting couch whore. She isn't beautiful. There are hundreds of young women better looking than her in any shopping mall.

R298 is a VERY lame troll.

I love it, r298! He goes for pure character assassination, like a cunt in an alley with a shiv.

Oh, and also what r299 said. Lame like low-IQ lame.

[quote]r298 There are hundreds of young women better looking than her in any shopping mall.

Um....hardly.

We all know, r302. You're obviously right. But you shouldn't feed the trolls.

It's laughable to read all these reviews of a movie that hasn't even finished filming yet.

Sharon and Margot are both beautiful in their own way, but don't look much alike. On looks alone, Margot could very convincingly play 'Adult' actress Samantha Strong if she ever writes her memoirs and has them turned into a biopic. I imagine Samantha has some very interesting tales to tell of her years in the sex industry. This is a snippet from a story online about her "Strong was plain and simply the bad girl of porn - dating gangsters and doing things for the fuck of it and, later, having a good laugh over the fact that she got away with everything. Strong’s reputation for flaking porn shoots and dance gigs was second to none, but her dealings with strip club owners was also legendary. Bowen and I talked about the time Strong was scheduled to appear at a club - maybe it was New Mexico. Her deal with the club was to have a limo at her disposal plus her fee in cash money up front. As Strong got off the plane, she took the money, fucked the limo driver on the spot and ran off with him to Mexico for a week, ignoring the gig."

I'm guessing this movie is going to obliterate the box office, like Inglorious ....$350 million type shit. Leo and Pitt and Robbie will be EVERYWHERE.

The question is will Quentin get awards and noms without Harvey doing his usual Oscar work behind the scenes.

Don't laugh, Kelly Ripa looks more like Sharon Tate than any of the names bandied about in this thread.

Of course, she's too old and too short to play Sharon, but I've always seen a facial resemblance.

Kelly Ripa never even remotely resembled Sharon Tate, not with that elf face.

They won't be able to find an exact look-a-like but I think we'll get the drift just the same.

Kelly Ripa doesn't look like Tate.

Polanski is Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ....

-ish.

Robbie is a decent actress and will most probably win a Academy Award in the future.

The only problem that I have with her is the amount of fillers she uses, especially in her lips. It doesn’t look normal or natural on anyone, and it actually detracts and distracts from her natural beauty.

Hollywood actress are pressured to look young for as long as possible, so I understand why they use fillers. However, aside from looking unnatural, it looks cheap, and makes women look like porn stars or bimbos. It’s sexist as fuck, I know, but a serious actress shouldn’t fuck with her face.

Sharon Tate was beautiful, but she wasn’t other worldly. No one is. And Hollywood’s great beauties were Grace Kelly, Rita Hayworth, and Sophia Loren.

Here, here. Grace Kelly was staggering.

[quote]I'm guessing this movie is going to obliterate the box office, like Inglorious ....$350 million type shit. Leo and Pitt and Robbie will be EVERYWHERE.

I think at best it will make a $100 to 200 million. Taratino is smart to release it before the 50th anniversary of the Manson murders. He knows that TV shows, magazines, and possibly podcasts will be covering it because of the anniversary and younger people unfamiliar with the murders might have interest in the seeing the movie.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rosemary LaBianca's daughter tries to cash in one of the 50th anniversary attention and compete with Debra Tate for interviews. Some years back Jay Sebring's nephew did occasional interviews with the media whenever one of the Manson family members came up for parole. Reporters will probably try to get comments from all the victims' families. The Folger family will continue to stay quiet.

[quote] The Folger family will continue to stay quiet.

As will the Parent family. Voytek Frykowski had one son who was about 8 or 10 at the time of the murders; he too has since died. The son was living in Poland with his mother in the summer of 1969.

Leno LaBianca had two daughters with his first wife Alice. Neither daughter has come forward publicly though the first wife Alice did a few times; she died about 7,8 years ago. I believe that some of Leno's sister's children have attended parole meetings in order to keep the m family behind bars. It's Rosemary's daughter Susan who has attended some of the parole meetings and claims to have forgiven the murderers, even having championed Tex Watson's bid for parole to which Doris Tate called her "one stupid shit" . Rosemary also had a son from her first marriage; he was the one who realized something was wrong at the house when he came home and called his sister Susan who came over with her then boyfriend. The two guys went through the house leaving Susan in the kitchen. Rosemary's son was about 15 at the time.

Doris Tate is a very annoying woman. I absolutely understand that she suffered a horrendous loss. What happened to Sharon Tate was gruesome. However, others who were left behind in these bizarre murders have the right to feel however they want about those who committed these crimes.

Doris feels like she a special person, and that her grief is unique, and apart of the grief of others. And that is the case because everyone’s personal grief is subjective to how they experience it. But there’s no need to call other people a stupid bitch, while she runs around denigrating most people who try to tell this story by being involved in projects that do so.

She needs to stay in her own lane, and offer others the respect she continues to demand.

R317 You mean Debra? Debra is a notorious liar anyway.

"Doris Tate is a very annoying woman."

She died in 1992 you dumb cluck.

I was never annoyed with Debra Tate until last year when she went to TMZ and other outlets bitching because she thought Tarantino was going to cast Jennifer Lawrence as Sharon. JLaw was being considered for another role.

A part of me hopes that the script that Tarantino shared with Debra wasn't a final script and he will do something in the movie that will piss her off because she was a bitch last year about his casting processes. There have already been movies about the Manson murders, but Debra seems to clamoring for attention because this will be a theatrical release.

R37 looks a lot like a young Farrah.

I always thought Sharon Tate had a difinitively Italian looking beauty. Margot has an American beauty. Both beautiful women, but very different looking. It will be fine.

If I were a woman (and let's be clear, I'm glad I'm a man), Margot Robbie is who I'd want to look like. No doubt.

If I were a woman, which I am, I’d want to look like myself, and luckily, I do!

And yes, I meant Debra Tate, not Doris.

The actress from The Magicians, Hannah Levien, looks a bit like Tate. I wonder if they considered casting her. Funnily enough she's also Australian like Margot Robbie. I'm interested to see Robbie's performance though, she's a gifted actress .

R317 is a dumb cunt

R325, why are you bumping up this thread and replying to a post from 9 MONTHS ago? Jeez.

I didn’t bump up the thread r326