Quote:
Originally Posted by Fango
Really?!? I've only posted better quality and longer versions of my #1 most favorite nude scene of all-time here about two dozen times, in threads devoted just to it.
And attached is the "topless MPs" sketch from "Tracey Ullman's Show". Clearly looks like prosthetics to me. You can see a rubbery sheen on it, and it noticeably contrasts with her actual skin around her neck. I frankly don't quite understand what the point of doing that is. If you're going to do a sketch where it appears that you're that realistically topless, then why not just go topless? 
Enjoy
Fango
|
Thanks on both counts Mr F, you're a hero
. I did have that same version of the Nude Practice sketch but thought it would fall foul of the forum's 'no watermarks' rule- there's a clear P@r@mount logo.
On the Tracy Ullman, fantastic, thanks- but all kind of things convince me that Haywood's nudity was real. First, Ullman's prosthetics are
blatantly false, with no skin variegation and simplistic moulding, matt shadowing etc. Haywood's 'chest' colouration is much more subtle, with a healthy sheen. Second, Haywood's flash is just a second or so, compared with Ullman's 30 secs or so. Also, Ms Haywood was in her 50s, which explains the skin tonal difference between her usually exposed neck and her less exposed chest.
I don't know, these arguments were well had when it first aired, opinions are opinions. But your excellent high res video has just convinced me further after all this time!
