The difference is even as a NW3/4 he still looked good. Most people look sh*t at that stage. It did'nt go that quickly it took about 2 decades.hair_tomorrow said:Bruce is "one of our own".
He started losing it early (in his "Moonlighting" TV days). And once it started going - it went very quickly.
(sound familiar?)
The difference is even as a NW3/4 he still looked good. Most people look $#iT at that stage. It did'nt go that quickly it took about 2 decades.[/quote:1l45x2cv]s.a.f said:[quote="hair_tomorrow":1l45x2cv]Bruce is "one of our own".
He started losing it early (in his "Moonlighting" TV days). And once it started going - it went very quickly.
(sound familiar?)
Maxpwr said:Wow... time's getting the better of him, he looks so frail and old.
cal said:Bruce is like 50 years old these days. He's got a right to have a few laugh-lines.
Bruce lost it gradually. It just started getting very visible relatively early in his life. He used to have some hair back in Die Hard#1 but it was already receded & on the ropes even back in his early days.
Mel Gibson is the guy who totally had it for many years and then lost it FAST.
"Maverick" and "Braveheart" were filmed in about 1993-94.
"Signs" and "We Were Soldiers" were filmed in about 2000-2001.
Hard to believe that the same guy who was like 30yo with that huge mullet in Lethal Weapon#2 suddenly went so bald barely 15 years later. male pattern baldness is just not predictable.
s.a.f said:Yeah Tommy Lee's really a nw7!unk: