You Realize of Course This Means War
January 20th, 2010 - 12:26 pm
If you didn’t already think the New York Times was the worst paper in the history of everything everywhere, now they’ve gone and harshed on the lovely and talented Christina Hendricks.
To soothe your troubled soul, here’s Ms. Hendricks herself.
Click to, ah, embiggen.
omg – she looks just like Jessica Rabbit!
What golden globes.
(well someone had to say it.)
The NYTimes is one big error.
HAVOK!
LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR!
#1 Rule of very pretty girls: Be nice, among other reasons – because you can afford to be.
What does this say about the author of the piece?
I’ve never watched Ad Men, but she certainly looks…talented.
At the original post, some commenter posted a link to the NYT reporter’s picture. It isn’t hard to see why she’s jealous of beautiful women.
Whoa… good bible…
The NY Times doesn’t know anything about politics……now add women.
She looks at home in her skin 8)
Not easy, with that debarasser de riche.
Rachel Welch: I was a tomboy, all the guys called
me “Rocky”, then the equipment arrived, and they
switched to “Boom-Boom”.
Other than the obvious remark that Christina doesn’t need any artificial embiggening, it looks as if the Times cropped the original photo, copied what was left and then pasted it into Photoshop or some other program while widening the width of the image size to make her look, um, stockier. Either a lame attempt at making a point or an inept way to try and cover up a bad cropping job.
Um…dear God.
I’m sorry, what were you saying?
I think Christina Hendricks is already embiggened enough for any man.
As I recall she was not quite so amply endowed in the Firefly series. I could be wrong, but this picture doesn’t look right to me. Surgery or photoshop? Not that I’m complaining…
She was definitely that, uh, gifted on Firefly. I think the dress is accentuating her natural gifts.
If anyone didn’t notice those gifts on “Firefly,” it just shows what a (ahem) gifted actress she is.
Between #13 & #15, there seems to be a controversy. I think we need to delve deeper into this issue. . .
She was like that on Firefly,but she dressed differently, for the most part. IIRC, there were a couple of short scenes where her magnificently buxom figure was, ahhh, noticeable. Not to mention she’s a redhead.
I’ll be in my bunk…
Well, I tried to find a screen cap from the end Our Mrs. Reynolds, when Mal tracks down YoSaffBridge, but no luck. Much more flattering outfit than what she wore in the rest of the ep.
Garrett, see if you can find one from when she tried to seduce Mal in his cabin. I realize this was on broadcast TV, but it was Fox fercryinnoutloud.
I’d trade Vera for her any day, regardless of the outfit she’s wearing.
Yeah, but there’s a problem with trading Vera for her – never was it so literally true that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.
And the muzzies would put that in a burlap body condom?
That, my boys, is worth fighting for.
Oh, I’m gonna go to the special hell. -Mal
Race ya. -Me
The NYT alleges that the photo was unadvertendly distorted. Yeah right, just like a few years ago, another important paper (don’t remember) “unadvertendly” distorted Condolezza Rice’s facial features and changed the shape of her pupils into a thin oval. Like those of cats or… diabolic creatures (cf Michael Jackson in “Thriller”). The paper told that it was due to format conversion but no format converted has ever changed the shape of pupils