« Previous | Ain't too proud to blog | mail it | Next »

Posted: 01.13.2003
Objects in mirror are larger than they appear
Yet another case of Hollywood Photoshopping gone horribly awry... This makes me so angry on so many levels. As if we could ever measure up to the likes of Kate Winslet anyway -- but would it be so wrong for the readers of British GQ to be allowed to admire her as-is? It's one thing to touch up forehead shine and misaligned chins. It's quite another to lop 30 lbs. off a woman. And note to whoever edited the photos: If you're going to alter/stretch the main image, make sure you get the one in the mirror behind her as well.

Kate Winslet got digitally altered to look skinny — and there’s a lot of finger pointing going on over who’s responsible.

The “Titanic” star is one of the few celebs who has said she’s happy with her extra curves.

“What is sexy?” Winslet says in an interview with current British GQ. “All I know from the men I’ve ever spoken to is that they like girls to have an arse on them, so why is it that women think in order to be adored they have to be thin?”

So Winslet’s fans were shocked and dismayed by the pics accompanying the article [click each image for enlargements], which showed her with an impossibly slim waist and no arse to speak of.

Winslet herself blasted the magazine for tinkering with her extra pounds. “It’s an outrage,” the star complained to one paper. “The re-touching is excessive. I don’t look like that and I don’t desire to look like that . . . I haven’t suddenly lost thirty pounds.”

But Winslet’s outrage may be a tad disingenuous. According to PeopleNews.com, the star actually approved the slimmed-down pics.
Article from MSNBC.com's Scoop. Photos from discoverkate.com.

Hey boy take a look at me...let me dirty up your mind...

That's so sad ... but funny. I wish I'd had a chance to see the magazine shoot that Jamie Lee Curtis did. She had photos done of her without makeup (and not touched up), so people could see what stars look like without all the trimmings. What a gal!

¤ ¤ credit: tj | 01.13.03 at 07:49 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

Here is a link to an article about that layout with pictures. I am very fond of her for doing that layout.

¤ ¤ credit: sphinx | 01.13.03 at 11:32 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

Sphinx: you rock.

¤ ¤ credit: tj | 01.13.03 at 12:15 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

I think it's lame that magazines do that. I remember a few years ago on Oprah, that a magazine did the same thing to Cindy Crawford...slimming her thighs by photoshopping them.

¤ ¤ credit: elaine | 01.13.03 at 12:39 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Jeez, Kate looks terrible.
She's supposed to have some weight to her. She's a handsome woman, but that just looks unhealthy.

¤ ¤ credit: Quinn | 01.13.03 at 01:08 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

She looks MUCH better in the mirror. The human body is a perfect work of art AS IS. Don't mess with perfection.(are you reading this, Jackson?)

¤ ¤ credit: Chris | 01.13.03 at 01:28 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

how did they think they could get away with THAT much retouching...obviously if you care enough to read about Kate you have seen her movies...and since in every movie she's in you see her naked. Nuff said...it didn't even look like her!

¤ ¤ credit: tenika | 01.13.03 at 02:43 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Unbelievable! I guess they forgot about the mirror, just like Robyn said! What a bunch of idiots!! :op

¤ ¤ credit: Maria | 01.13.03 at 03:24 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

I saw this on the news last night and like you I was disgusted! I also wonder why they only did a woman seems kinda funny. There are plenty of famous over weight men they could have targeted .... or would that be pushing the double standard envelope??? (shrugs)

¤ ¤ credit: meredith | 01.13.03 at 07:20 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

URLs that have pinged me for this entry:

All old ping links have been removed from this blog. Die spammers, die!

Hey pretty, don't you wanna take a ride with me through my world?

Psssssst...pass it on!
email this entry to:

your email address:

additional message (optional):