As BunnyGirl said in the “Tomb Raider” thread, “I wonder how much makeup they needed to cover up Jolie’s ‘Billy Bob’ tattoo…”
What’s the deal with movie actors, some of whom (if they hit the big time) stand to make EIGHT god damn figures per flick, having multi-colored ink injected into prominent parts of their physiques?
Isn’t this an extremely odd thing to do, in terms of limiting one’s potential future roles?
Big Hollywood Producers: “We really want Honeysuckle McJuggs for the role of Emily Dickinson, but there’s that Walden Pond skinny-dipping scene, and she’s got ‘Property of the Minnesota Vikings’ tattooed all over her ass…so I guess we’ll have to go with our second choice, Feminique Bazooms.”
I always think of Tom Arnold when someone mentions tattoos.
Not that we’d WANT to see him with his shirt off, but he had a Mogen David tattooed on one pectoral, and Roseanne’s face tattoed on the other.
I can only imagine his face when he awoke from THAT drinking binge!
I saw an interview with Tom Arnold where he revealed that Rosanned had a tatto on her butt that read, “Property of Tom Arnold.” He remarked, “that makes me one of the largest property owners in the state.”
I don’t know, Ike – anybody that’d have Feminique Bazooms as only their second choice for leading lady wouldn’t have the sense to check for tattoos anyway. IMHO.
Given that practically anyone in a movie is going to be wearing plenty of makeup anyway, it can’t be that much more of a bother for the makeup artists to cover up their tattoos. There is even waterproof makeup that could keep Ms. McJuggs in period for her skinny dipping scene.
incidentily even celebs are not above peer pressure. in fact they have to be hooked in so they can stay ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ so they get belly button stuff and tattos and who knows what else. incidentily can you identify from my post if i’m hip or not. I’m sure you can
