Mimi Rogers MERGED

oedipus · « **Reply #30 on:** October 03, 2003, 12:25:41 AM »

last one for now

sheber · « **Reply #31 on:** October 03, 2003, 01:16:36 AM »

I've got both the dream on ep and the crypt on tape. When I find them I'll post. Oedipus, how about a link to any sites you've found?

turbo · « **Reply #32 on:** October 03, 2003, 02:23:47 AM »

Quote:

last one for now

I'm a Mimi Rogers fan from way back but that last pic clearly shows that she is in need of BOTOX ASAP!

As my friend Scones Johnson would say: Women should age gracefully not naturally.

And for the record, I still don't know how Tom Cruise could rationalize leaving Mimi for Nicole Kidman.

Kowalski · « **Reply #33 on:** October 03, 2003, 02:25:30 PM »

I heard that Nicole Kidman is now with Lenny Kravitz??!!!!?!?!?

GALVATRON · « **Reply #34 on:** October 03, 2003, 05:05:23 PM »

Bwaahh! Good work oedipus. where did you fond those? It is very difficult to come across good Mimi pictures that are not tiny and grainy.

Argyle · « **Reply #35 on:** September 05, 2005, 05:42:48 AM »

http://people.monstersandcritics.com/article_1040323.php/Mimi_Rogers_would_never_go_under_the_knife

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed....%20my%20breasts

http://www.cinematical.com/2005/08/05/rogers-forgives-men-for-staring-at-chest/

cynic · « **Reply #36 on:** September 05, 2005, 05:53:17 AM »

Thanks for the articles. I've always been a fan of Mimi's breasts
(and secondarily her acting).

None of these articles stated when the reduction was.

I wonder because I was going to rent the 2004 movie 'The Door in the Floor'
but I might pass if that was post-reduction.

GALVATRON · « **Reply #37 on:** September 05, 2005, 07:09:02 AM »

bwaaahhh!

So, she waited 48 years and then said, "That's it! I can't take these lucsious big sexy boobs any more!".
That seems kind of odd. Or did she have the reduction long ago? Either way, 34dd to 34d hardly seems enough reason for surgery. She could have spent 45 minutes on the treadmill to get that slight of a reduction. She probably just did it to get rid of some of the "gravitational effects".

Here she is in, "The Door in the Floor".
...These dysfuntional insecure actresses.

evilkirk · « **Reply #38 on:** September 05, 2005, 07:57:18 AM »

Mimi in happier times.

BarnacleBill · « **Reply #39 on:** September 05, 2005, 10:09:48 AM »

This is sad, because Mimi was one of those rebellious naturals who really "got it". She really understood that boobs were somewhat of a burden but IMHO she had the grace to take the good with the bad, which is a concept that all too many of Hollywood's actresses can't comprehend.

Too many spoiled stupid women just want the good and no bad, but everything has a price. The piper must be paid, and Mimi was willing to pay that piper of carrying around two big flesh sacks just because she enjoyed the persona of a well-endowed, confident, sexy woman.

Now she seems to have somewhat sold out.

But, then again, I think the real reason could've been serious sagging issues.

Perhaps Lindsey Lohan will carry the torch of the "Say It Loud: I'm Stacked and I'm Proud" ideal.

GA_Matt · « **Reply #43 on:** September 05, 2005, 08:00:06 PM »

I guess boobs make an actress less marketable.. You know.. you always want a sexless looking person playing the feminine roles.

If she got a lift, I say: hey whatever floats your boat. But the article was pretty funny... I haven't seen the adjective "Massive" attached to the 34DD size... maybe I'm just spending too much time in here.

WAIT A MINUTE!!! WHAT AM I SAYING???

Re: In memoriam: Mimi Rogers' breasts

Re: In memoriam: Mimi Rogers' breasts

Re: In memoriam: Mimi Rogers' breasts

Re: In memoriam: Mimi Rogers' breasts