Michael LandonDecember 6 2006 at 9:01 PM
|Jim (Login bigjim2004)|
from IP address 184.108.40.206
Here is a post from another forum:
On the Bonanza set,Michael Landon used to drive the prop men crazy. When a scene is shot, the next scene has to look like the previous one or it would lack continuity - often "bloopers" show up that way. Well, anyway, Landon would move his cock from right to left side, or visa versa just to freak out the guys who had to make sure it was in the same place for the next scene.
Re: Michael Landon
|December 6 2006, 9:04 PM |
Now a days he wouldn't be allowed to show it at all.
|This message has been edited by Nafana from IP address 220.127.116.11 on Jul 16, 2014 8:42 AM|
Sad, but true
|December 6 2006, 9:12 PM |
When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s most men showed a bulge down one leg or the other. It was common and accepted for men to show a crotch bulge. Things sure have changed. What happened?
|December 7 2006, 3:56 AM |
Well, one of the things which changed was the style of the underwear itself. Most modern briefs and boxer-briefs are quite tight so they may produce a bulge by lifting but they don't allow any hanging. And then there's the whole business of the new puritanism which has often been referred to elsewhere in this Forum.
Re: Sad, but true
|December 7 2006, 2:43 PM |
that was the way men were supposed to look, it was accepted that men had something between theirlegs that would make a bulge. i remember my dad and his friends all sported noticeable bulges in their pants (my dad alwasy wore boxers).
|December 10 2006, 11:16 AM |
In considering how things were back in the 1960s and 1970s, it was quite common to see guys with a little bulge in the crotch. Sometimes, it was a little to one side or the other and sometimes parallel with the zipper. Even a little "faded area" to that could accent it, sometimes.
As I recall, few young guys wore boxers. Briefs were the norm and then became to be associated with a more youthful and athletic orientation of that time. Then we started seeing some ads for Euro and French underwear and swimsuits. "Low Rise" briefs were introduced to go along with falling waistlines on fashion pants for men. Then can other underwear so the in-shape males would look good out of their pants, which was the start of the fashion underwear situation.
In those times, younger males were usually more height-weight proportionate than they became in the 1980s and later. A little more active and athletic, too, generally, than in more current times--this is a variable situation with respect to geographic situations, but "generally" and comparitively true.
By observation, some guys did wear boxers under their jeans, but they didn't show either. Older men who normally wore dress slacks as normal wear were the (observed) boxer wearers--with high waistlines too.
In college (circa 1970-74), there was a guy that lived down the hall from me in the dorm. He was the first guy that I knew that did not wear underwear. He was about 5'7" and was height-weight proportionate and was toward the "lean and muscular" side of "normal"--by genetics. The denim shorts he wore were "cut-offs" (as was fashionable for casual wear back then), which were mid-thigh length. He was also endowed more than average with a nice pair of "hangers", yet when he put on the denim shorts, nothing really showed as we would not expect it too. It was perfectly normal-looking, if that matters, for that time. He might have "dressed" to one side, but nothing was really obvious. Could be that his more leaner and muscular legs AND other things fit nicely in the size of the legs of the shorts? Back then, there was not typically the number of "cuts" of particular brands of jeans that there are now, so everything was generally sized toward the middle road of things--but that started changing with the bell bottom jeans from back then.
At that time, I never sought to emulate his non-underwear situation. He did wear briefs under his more dressy pants, though. However, when I got a private room in the dorm (i.e., no roommate), I did re-start sleeping nude and put both of the single beds together to make one big bed. That was the start of a continuing nude sleeping orientation that still exists today. I found, once again, that I slept much better when nude (whether under the sheets or not). College is a time for learning and expansion of horizons and orientations that can carry us into later life.
As we've evolved into the current generations of diabetic-prone early teens, clothing manufacturers have evolved to accomodate these "more endowed" body shapes. If the waist has to be large, the hips must be too, so that makes the crotch area larger than it was 40 years ago. One thing leads to another . . .
Re: Sad, but true
|July 16 2014, 6:47 AM |
What happened is that after WWII there was a marked switch from boxers to the more structured briefs, bikini briefs etc. When you think about it, it's perfectly obvious that boxers are worn for no other purpose than sanitary-certainly they offer zip protection if you catch something, a pole, a pot roast, a thrown object in the crotch only your pants offered any protection. Briefs offer a more jock style approach with some, modest, protection. This was also the time of conformity and looking asexual in your pants was considered less offensive. (My father was on the Board of Directors of Hanes Knitting so I heard this discussed ad nausea. Particularly when we were in Winston-Salem where the two games in town were Tobacco [R J Reynolds] and mens' underpinnings. I shudder to remember that I was a youthful model in some of their print ads generally with an older man, supposedly my "Dad", and we were "together" demonstrating, I guess, the agelessness of Hanes products. I particularly hated the sleep wear as I did not then-or ever-wear the pull on type of pajamas. Walking around a studio for several hours was uncomfortable and, if you go back and look at those ads, "Dad" is often only wearing bottoms. In other words, Sex comes to the Sears catalog. And you thought it was only used as a viable alternative to toilet paper in the out house.)We are now back in bulge land but it took some while to get there.
And, yep, as I worked at Paramount on the Bonanza unit, Landon did switch sides. Beyond that, he and his agent fought to make sure he got every syllable of dialogue he was contractually required to receive. Not to mention the two shows a year (we did 36 shows a season then) that pivoted around him. When he died, a guy I'd worked with called to see if I wanted to accompany him to the funeral; He said he was going to wear a red dress and dance on his grave...the problems with Bonanza were many and varied but, if I were to count up, Landon-or his agent-were easily responsible for about 35% of them. When I think of the roles I've played on that show. Really ones of Shakespearean proportion. The great ones like....Drunk at the bar, member of the posse, man in store, part of crowd but my biggest achievement came when I was called down to balance Dan Blocker in a scene. He was easily five or more inches taller than everyone, a fact that they tried to conceal by using all the tall guys at the studio to surround him or be visually near him. At least ten of us kept our "cowboy clothes" stuffed in our desks-boots were under the desk. On several occasions I had to haul ass from Paramount to USC where I was then in graduate school; One of the professors on my Doctoral Committee couldn't always remember my name-a common problem in Academia-so I was known to him as "Cowboy Bob". For those old enough, you'll think of Howdy Doody.
Hang right or left?
|December 8 2006, 9:39 PM |
I've heard the story that Prince Albert, for whom the piercing is named, had one so he hang the way he thought he should. Off topic, but his wife, Queen Victoria, was told, after she'd produced a number of children, that because of health problems she shouldn't become pregnant again, and she answered, "Oh, I shan't be able to have any fun!" Can't prove this, but have read it several places. Gives a whole new meanng to "Victorian Age", doesn't it?
Landon's cock and Chevelle SS
|July 15 2014, 9:26 PM |
During the 1963-1968 years of BONANZA the Producer was John Stillman? anyone know who his son is/was? JACK WRANGLER.
Mr Stillman thought Landon's cock made for great ratings..and back in those years, the stars of BONANZA were all doing ads for CHEVROLET Cars. Michael Landon was doing a 1966 Chevelle Super Sport(SS) btw these ads were shot live...so Landon gets into the drivers seat...and the camera goes right to his crotch to watch Landon buckle his seat belt...well fuck me to tears...and i was 10 yrs old..i saw his cock thru those pants...amazing...i couldn't wait for the commercial to run again...well..that ad was pulled so fast...it never aired ever again...but what i wouldn't give to see that ad again...wow
I grew up on ROXBURY DR...its in BH,Ca...Beverly Hills, Ca. the Stillman's lived across the street...the street was the address to reside on back then in Beverly Hills, Lucille Ball, Jimmy Stewart, Jack Benny, Dean Martin, Milton Berle, and Jane Powell...all lived on Roxbury. Jane had her own TV show then and she also taught Sunday School class to a bunch of the kids in the neighborhood. We were Mormon so we went to the Mormon Church were Dan Blocker was the Mormon Bishop. Lot of key people in Hollywood are Mormon...not like the Jewish influence but there none the less
and for the record Michael Landon was not Jewish. His mother was Catholic, Irish Catholic and attended the Catholic chruch
and by Jewish standards if ur mother is not Jewish than you are not Jewish by rites.
thus Ben Stiller is Catholic for his mom is Anne Meara a devout Catholic
Re: Landon's cock and Chevelle SS
|July 16 2014, 7:10 AM |
Paramount had the distinction of being known as being both Genteel and Gentile. Frank Freeman, studio head for many years was from Atlanta and brought a nest of prejudices with him. It will be remembered that this was just at the end of the time when hotels routinely posted signs that said, "Restricted" which meant no Jews allowed.
So many of the things you write....while not from Los Angeles, obviously I lived there. First at 570 North Rossmore-my next door neighbor was Mae West-and then I bought a home at 100 S. June in Hancock Park. Mr. Freeman never quite "got" Mormonism or I feel Blocker would have been written out. If there was one person he truly detested it was Jack Warner and, on occasion, if Warners wanted to borrow someone from Paramount, Warner himself was forced to call Mr. Freeman who, ever the Southern Gentleman, played him like a zither getting a bigger cut for Paramount and for whomever was going to be on loan. It will be remembered that of all the studios the one that's still in place and churning out hits is...Paramount. Disney, while Walt was alive, wasn't as concerned with live action-Mr. Disney was obsessed with Disneyland and, later, though he didn't live to see it, Disneyworld. Disney, typical of a man from Kansas City then, was prejudiced and Jews were among his. Par Contre, Louis B. Mayer who although he ran from it in some ways, promoted Judaism but...heaven forbid a star who was Jewish had a "Jewish Sounding name". Those of us who were indisputably Christian could have a tough time. For reasons too complicated to go into, I was a member of the Los Angeles Country Club at age 21. No club was more "Restricted" than the LACC and there was no love for "film people" none of whom were members. My passport in was the United States Golf Association and being connected to that. LACC desperately wanted to have a US Open held there and so they flattered, or tried to, various senior executive of the USGA. Actually, restriction was a feature of Coastal living in California. Jews were not members of the Balboa Bay Club, the La Jolla Beach and Tennis club etc. Of course, as it was often pointed out, "they" had there own clubs which lead to Groucho Marx commenting that, "Any club who would have me as a member I would not join." You make the clear and correct point that "Hooray for Hollywood" was only a song title.