It's a superficial question, but I think Barbara Parkins was absurdly gorgeous.
shareI agree that Barbara Parkins is extremely beautiful-thought so since Peyton Place, but Sharon Tate's beauty is in a class by itself. I would classify Patty Duke as "cute" in this movie.
share[deleted]
Both were equally beautiful, probably two of the most beautiful women to ever grace the silver screen.
share[deleted]
SHARON
I feel Barbara was more 'vacant' than Sharon.
Sharon had a more unique look with her sharp features,much like Farrah Fawcett.
Barbara looked like another beautiful model in Vogue magazine.
Sharon Tate was obviously a beautiful woman but Barbara Parkins is one of those timeless, classic beauties. I've never seen anyone that can compare to her. Plus, she has the greatest voice.
sharewell,revellr,
How is Tate not a timeless, classic beauty? Beauty itself is timeless.
Parkins is just your type,as Jaclyn Smith would be your type
There is no right/wrong..just what appeals to us.
HaHa, you are probably right about that Jimellis. I never could say no to a dark beauty and I actually did always find Jaclyn Smith to be the prettiest Angel. But, what I was trying to say is that, to me, Sharon Tate's beauty is more tied to the 60s look while Parkins beauty is more timeless, classic in any era.
shareHaHa, you are probably right about that Jimellis. I never could say no to a dark beauty and I actually did always find Jaclyn Smith to be the prettiest Angel. But, what I was trying to say is that, to me, Sharon Tate's beauty is more tied to the 60s look while Parkins beauty is more timeless, classic in any era.
------------------------
Yes, I know what you mean, but that is a stereotype by the media.
For example, it's not like all women who looked like Tate only started being born in 1942.
Also,consider Parkin's demeanor,voice, and hairstyle,etc.
[deleted]
true, but in Valley of the Dolls, Tate did have a very Sixties look in style (in fact, her look helped define the era) while Parkins did not. Tate's hairstyles, make-up etc would look out of date today but Parkins look would still be considered fashionable.
share'true, but in Valley of the Dolls, Tate did have a very Sixties look in style (in fact, her look helped define the era) while Parkins did not. Tate's hairstyles, make-up etc would look out of date today but Parkins look would still be considered fashionable.'
---------------------------
Actually, Tate's look was very much BEFORE the times, while Parkins looked more 60's.
Tate's hair/clothes were very early-mid 70's,and that always struck me as unusual for a 1967 film.
I have heard that Europe has always been 10 years before the U.S. in style; perhaps her character was modeled after that, I don't know.
Tate's hair would be very stylish today; I noticed the style today is what is was in the 70's. (I hate to date myself,but I was there)
But,Parkins' hair would be stylish today too; anything goes today.
[deleted]
You could line up 10 actresses in the 60's and 70's that look exactly like Tate, she was attractive of course, but not striking or unique.
Barbara has alot of qualities that set her apart from other actresses.
--------------------
...and there were not 100 actresses that looked like Parkins?
If you went to 'classy" England, you would find every other women looking like Parkins.
Tate was very unique-looking, not her clothes,hair,or sexy-image, but her FACE.
I think it goes back to personal opinions because I could use your exact same argument to describe Parkins instead of Tate. I've never seen anyone with the beauty of Barbara Parkins. If every other woman in England looks like Parkins, why are they all hiding???
share[deleted]
They were different types of beauties. Sharon the carnal, earthy kind of beauty. Barbara the classic, refined beauty. But stunning examples of both. It's a draw.
shareSharon's beauty is far more rare, striking, and timeless. I mean, who could you more easily picture on a runway today, Sharon or Barbara? Sharon's beauty was ahead of its time.
share'Sharon's beauty is far more rare, striking, and timeless. I mean, who could you more easily picture on a runway today, Sharon or Barbara? Sharon's beauty was ahead of its time.'
-------------------------------
Exactly, Valley.
I had commented on this; glad to see someone relates.
I guess in today's world, Jennifer would be 'The Gillian Girl'!
share^I agree with you, Chasndari03. Each was strikingly beautiful in their own way. Both had memorable looks and were extremely photogenic. I think Parkins had more of a conservative look going, while Tate was more avant-garde in her looks, make-up, hair and clothes. Parkins looked very classy and Lord & Taylor; Tate looked more exotic, high-fashion and hip. Both women, however, had that clean, girl-next-door kind of beauty. Both were perfect 10's.
I turned 'Stranger' into 'Starman' in the Sunday New York Times.share
there's no denying that Sharon was a stunning beauty but, in my book, nothing can compare to Barbara Parkins.
share' no denying that Sharon was a stunning beauty but, in my book, nothing can compare to Barbara Parkins.'
--------------------------------
There's no denying that Parkins ws pretty, but nothing can compare to Sharon Tate.
There's a difference between what's attractive to each one of us and what can be described as objective beauty. I've taken time to study Barbara Parkins pictures a lot before writing this, as well as watched the film again, and she's cute but she has a pretty average features all over - nothing excepional if you look at lips, chin, eyes, nose, etc. Sharon Tate, on the other hand, was stunningly good looking, almost on the verge of unreal. To me she was almost 'too much'. There are very few women that can even qualify for comparison (perhaps Sophia Loren, Gene Tierney, Michelle Pfeiffer, maybe a few more)
This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator
^I agree with you: Sharon Tate, Michelle Pfieffer and Gene Tierney are three of my favorite beauties of all time. All three had/have that "unreal" quality you speak of: so beautiful as to be almost not real.
I think Sharon looked her most beautiful in this film and in Don't Make Waves. Tierney in Laura and Leave Her To Heaven (looking stunning in Technicolor!). And Pfieffer in The Witches of Eastwick and Married To The Mob.
I turned 'Stranger' into 'Starman' in the Sunday New York Times.share
It's the same principle when people compare Jacyln Smith and Farrah Fawcett.
Smith has a Vogue-magazine type of beauty, while FF has the unreal-quality you speak of. It's no about who has the most perfect features,which makes it all the more interesting.
Of course if you say this on the Jaclyn Smith board,they will devour you alive(they don't get it)
Oh my god, no comparison.....Sharon Tate was a FLAWLESS, chisled, magnificent beauty. Her eyes were huge, a thin, smooth nose, beautiful skin, pretty mouth...every one of her features was far more refined and gorgeous than those of Barbara Perkins. I see people at stores every day who are as pretty as or prettier than BP...but not Sharon Tate.
sharemm
That's what I meant before about unique looks and charisma,and how I used Jaclyn Smith & Farrah Fawcett as comparisons.
Of course people are going to blast us; it happened to me on the Barbara Parkins-board.
In fact I must correct myself... There's one more actress worthy a comparison, she may not be equally famous but she's equally near-perfect - Joan Severance. She's completely FLAWLESS too. I also think she's too good looking for her own best - she's more talented than the roles she's been given but how can you give a role where looks don't matter to someone with those looks!?
The differnce is Sharon Tate had the warmth and sort of mature innocence that remains unequalled...
This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and this one beholds Barbara Parkins as the most beautiful woman ever!
shareYou know friends, we could get this thread up to 100 replies, and have no agreement. It's about what your type is.
I have always found Tina Louise the most beautiful ever,and too goodlooking for her own good,since she is a competent actress.
Maybe the word 'beauty" is the wrong word; Vogue magazine(or the Kmart flyer) has the most beautiful women ever,but there is a radiance that sets a person apart; you can't really define it.
I agree and, btw, I'd put Tina Louise right up there with Barbara Parkins!!!
shareI agree and, btw, I'd put Tina Louise right up there with Barbara Parkins!!!
------------------------------------------
misto!
I never thought anybody would agree with me, and so promptly!
I thought Tina had that radiance,that "glow" to enhance her beauty.
When I'm watching Tina,it's as though I can't take my eyes off her-- and I mean in it a platonic-sense!
(actually what about her as Helen Lawson,although she is too mature and not box-office)
Sharon by a mile. She's the type if you see her in a picture or film she takes your (my) breath away. Barbara is very pretty but not strikingly so.
well, as jimellis posted earlier, we could go on debating this one forever. Interestingly, Barbara Parkins has stated many times that Sharon Tate was the most beautiful woman, inside and out, that she has ever known.
share'Sharon Tate was the most beautiful woman, inside and out, that she has ever known.'
------------------------------
...with a life that reached the peaks,only to hit the Valley of despair.
"I'm sorry,Sharon."
I usually go for the brunette type of classic beauty (like Hedy Lamarr or Vivien Leigh etc) and would normally find Barbara Parkins above most others when it comes to beauty.
But Sharon Tate was absolutely exquisite. She had enormous eyes, high cheekbones, a lovely slim nose and beautiful smile. Her hair, skin and figure were second to none. I'd go so far as to say Sharon was the most beautiful actress in movies of all time. So, although Barbara was very beautiful, Sharon Tate was in a class of her own when it comes to beauty.
[deleted]
I adore both women, but sharon reminded me more of Bond Girl, and for me this means gorgeously sexy!
Barbara has a more elegant beauty, whereas Sharon's features were more dramatic, and very deep like an infinity pool.
More science, less fiction.
Sharon has the Farrah Fawcett-type of uniqueness to her(angular features,etc,)
--and Parkins, Jacyln Smith's more common beauty.
Sharon has the Farrah Fawcett-type of uniqueness to her(angular features,etc,)
Fawcett was all lower face, Tate was all eyes and cheekbones, some of the biggest, prettiest and most soulful eyes I've ever seen on a woman. Farrah's eyes were a bit on the small side, but what lit up her face was that magnificent and electric smile.
-----------------
Huh?
Farrah had very prominent beautiful eyes,and were her chief asset. (I never believed in the "hair & teeth" mainstream-opinion about Farrah)
Huh? Farrah had very prominent beautiful eyes,and were her chief asset. (I never believed in the "hair & teeth" mainstream-opinion about Farrah)
And no one ever said that Farrah didn't have pretty eyes, they just weren't huge like Tate's. So again, please stop penciling in what you want to read, and read what I write instead.
No one is trashing your screen idols, but I do get the impression that you're trolling for arguments.
-----------------
Well, you're impression is wrong; I don't know about "penciling".
Farrah had/has very big eyes. Now, take a breath,don't answer yet, and go to IMDb and see her photos. (what Farrah are you talking about?)
...also,he word "trolling" is not the auto-word whenever you disagree on something.
"trolling" is not the auto-word whenever you disagree on something.
So there's no need to get bent out of shape in regard to 'my' opinions, as I never said anything to you in the first place. But you sure seem pissed off in regard to mine. So calm down, no one is attacking your goddess
-----------------
Why must she be my goddess to make a point? She is not my idol.
You assume too much...and btw, the "goddess" is dying as we speak, so I think your sarcasm is reprehensible.
"Learn it"
You assume too much...and btw, the "goddess" is dying as we speak, so I think your sarcasm is reprehensible.
I thought BP was extremely attractive as was ST. I would be hard pressed to pick one over the other. One lovely actress from the late 60's and early 70's that I just love to watch is Joanna Pettit. She was a gorgeous blonde with such expressive eyes. Go check out some of her pictures. She's pretty much retired from acting so there may not be a lot of pictures of her around.
share' thought BP was extremely attractive as was ST. I would be hard pressed to pick one over the other. One lovely actress from the late 60's and early 70's that I just love to watch is Joanna Pettit. She was a gorgeous blonde with such expressive eyes. Go check out some of her pictures. She's pretty much retired from acting so there may not be a lot of pictures of her around.'
-----------------
I bumped into her at the CA Dept of Motor Vehicles,and recgonized her. It was sad to hear about the devastation loss of her son a few years back,which she may never had gotten over.
She has moved back to Europe.
( I thought BP was extremely attractive as was ST. I would be hard pressed to pick one over the other. One lovely actress from the late 60's and early 70's that I just love to watch is Joanna Pettit. She was a gorgeous blonde with such expressive eyes. Go check out some of her pictures. She's pretty much retired from acting so there may not be a lot of pictures of her around. )
I realize this is years later but I never noticed this post before. Funny you mentioned Joanna Petit but it's interesting that you mention the two because it turns out they were friends and if what I was told was true she was at Sharon's home the day of the killings but left earlier.
Sharon was more beautiful by far but then Barbara was the better actress by far.
shareFor me, though both women, in reality, are as strikingly beautiful as the next in their own way, I'd have to say (and I'd absolutely hate to mention this and continue to equate her life to her terrible fate) that Sharon Tate's comes out front because of the tragedy of losing her so soon, so young, and so horribly. There is something about all of that ugliness that amplifies her beauty even more.
share