Search results

Oh, I don't. I don't ever make observations like those that have been made here - it would never occur to me to do so, and I'm not sure I believe the memories of those who say they saw the film in 1975 and thought the actress in question looked too "old." I don't know anyone in 1975 who wasn't...

She wasn't forty-five when she HAD the kid - you are amazing. She would not have been a grandmother at thirty-five (can't remember how old Alex is right now) or even thirty-seven. THAT is the point. Unless she had a kid at sixteen and that kid had had a kid at sixteen or seventeen. But you...

I believe he knew exactly what I was responding to. That never seems to matter, though :)

Well, not doing the math right doesn't hold a candle to the point you're making. I'm not the only one telling you that the way in which you're looking at this is skewed - YOU said it - "by today's standards." That is skewed. There's a whole slew of reasons people of 45 look younger today and...

I think you know exactly what I meant, and nothing you write above is really relevant to it. I'm saying that a lot of people today cannot or will not look beyond their own generation in terms of understanding things about the past. That's why some people watch Psycho and think its lame. Not...

Let me just make it simple: I don't care about "today's standards" :) Today's standards are not a way to evaluate anything. My parents had me when they were 42 (mom) and 45 (dad) - and if you saw photos of them today at that age you would have thought they were in their late 50s. So what...

She looks exactly her age - I don't get this stuff at all.

This, of course, is conjecture on your part, but you knew that.

My mother was forty-two when she had me. So apparently there is a "frickin'" way for her to be his mother.

So there you are. So what people "think" is clearer in their memory or on the documentary with the laserdisc clip is what it's always been. Thank you for the confirmation.