Joan Van Ark! What Happened to you?!?

[IdahoMom]

So 4 years ago at age 60 she looked like that???
Plenty of people do not look so good at half that age.

I think she looks dramatically unhealthy now, but that's just my opinion.

 

[nanandjim]

So 4 years ago at age 60 she looked like that???
Plenty of people do not look so good at half that age.

Donna Mills is still as attractive as ever! Wow!

 

[Nova]

ITA!! She was airbrushed in the first pic, and in the current pic, look at the lghting. It's so bad in the close up that she appears purple!!
Neither photo probably is an accurate photo of how she looks in person!....

That was my point. Actresses aren't just competing with their younger selves, they are competing with idealized, air-brushed versions of their younger selves. It can't be easy, particularly not in an industry where there is little work for "older" women.

 

[JanetElaine]

Oh, I agree! I am very devoted to my wrinkle cream these days! Here's the TMZ item about Joan:

http://www.tmz.com/2007/12/03/joan-van-arks-face-thats-knot-right/

That pic looks like it's been messed with big time. Look at the middle of her nose off to the sides, for instance. I'm not buying this. Could be anything (from photoshop to bad lighting or both) and I sincerely doubt she really looks that bad.

 

[Shazza]

She would fit right into a series of zombie movies, no makeup needed, think of $$ they will save.

 

[JBean]

The TMZ article said she'd just had a chemical peel. Hopefully the blue tint will fade. Ugh.

The Obagi Blue Peel does leave a blue tint to the face for a short time.

 

[PaperDoll]

OMG, and she was sooooo pretty... maybe it's just a bad photograph, well, apparently it is but look at her makeup.. it looks terrible. her eyes, looks like she is wearing lip liner around her eyes... Her eye brows look horrible, her skin looks pastey, her lips, :doh: I don't even like her hair... what happened to her? listen to me, I'm trashing her and I use to think she was such a cutie... ok, I'll give her this, she still has a nice body.. I think..

 

[close_enough]

She's scarey

i'll 2nd that..

 

[SeekingJana]

That was my point. Actresses aren't just competing with their younger selves, they are competing with idealized, air-brushed versions of their younger selves. It can't be easy, particularly not in an industry where there is little work for "older" women.

Nova, I was agreeing with you!! Actresses are given such high, unrealistic expectations and then, when they are photographed at a live event, the press and the public disses them because they DON'T and CAN'T look like the touched up, airbrushed, photos.

I remember when TV Guide put Oprah Winfrey's head on RAQUEL WELCH'S ( clothed) BODY in a fake photo!!!!

 

[SeekingJana]

OMG, and she was sooooo pretty... maybe it's just a bad photograph, well, apparently it is but look at her makeup.. it looks terrible. her eyes, looks like she is wearing lip liner around her eyes... Her eye brows look horrible, her skin looks pastey, her lips, :doh: I don't even like her hair... what happened to her? listen to me, I'm trashing her and I use to think she was such a cutie... ok, I'll give her this, she still has a nice body.. I think..

I'm sorry but I think your dissection of every aspect of a photo is cruel.
Your first sentence started off right- It's a BAD photograph.

 

[JBean]

That article may contain its own answer.

Look at the "before" picture from the 1980s. Van Ark is so airbrushed there, she doesn't even look human.

Maybe that's part of the problem: actresses competing with the air-brushed versions of themselves disseminated over the years.

well . Look at this article from the same newspaper. this is what it comes down to:

Cindy Crawford reveals her stretch marks - and shows she's human after all

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=499338&in_page_id=1773

 

[IdahoMom]

I'm sorry but I think your dissection of every aspect of a photo is cruel.
Your first sentence started off right- It's a BAD photograph.

You know what? PD is a sweetheart. She is beyond kind in most of her posts. She is entitled to her opinion.

Perhaps you should go scold posters for "dissing" Britney, Paris, Michael Jackson, etc for their pictures that aren't flattering? I mean, if that standard is going to be applied, get to work- there's a TON of "dissing" on this forum.

 

[JBean]

I'm sorry but I think your dissection of every aspect of a photo is cruel.
Your first sentence started off right- It's a BAD photograph.

Cruel? She is just writing down what we all see in the photo.

 

[Nova]

Nova, I was agreeing with you!! Actresses are given such high, unrealistic expectations and then, when they are photographed at a live event, the press and the public disses them because they DON'T and CAN'T look like the touched up, airbrushed, photos.

I remember when TV Guide put Oprah Winfrey's head on RAQUEL WELCH'S ( clothed) BODY in a fake photo!!!!

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I'm thinking the real tragedy here is that I can remember when Van Ark was very much a serious and highly respected actress. Now here we are obsessing over her crow's feet...

 

[SeekingJana]

well . Look at this article from the same newspaper. this is what it comes down to:

Cindy Crawford reveals her stretch marks - and shows she's human after all

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=499338&in_page_id=1773

I just saw that in the newspaper. No faking it there!
Honestly, she needs to stick to 1 piece suits.

I am around her age and I would die if I had skin hanging off my belly.

 

[PaperDoll]

I'm sorry but I think your dissection of every aspect of a photo is cruel.
Your first sentence started off right- It's a BAD photograph.

I guess it was pretty cruel.. but I also thought this thread was about surgery gone bad... IMO.. and she looks like she had a lot of surgery done.. it could very well be a bad photograph .. I'd like to see another one if there is one available but this was the one that was posted.

 

[IdahoMom]

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I'm thinking the real tragedy here is that I can remember when Van Ark was very much a serious and highly respected actress. Now here we are obsessing over her crow's feet...

I love her wrinkles. I wasn't knocking her age. That is beautiful, imo.

I think she has damaged herself and I think it is sad.

 

[JBean]

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I'm thinking the real tragedy here is that I can remember when Van Ark was very much a serious and highly respected actress. Now here we are obsessing over her crow's feet...

I've always obsessed over her crows feet and never found her a highly respected actress.
Does that lessen the tragedy?:innocent:


Although it always ruins the fun,I feel the need to point out that I am just kidding.

 

[JBean]

I just saw that in the newspaper. No faking it there!
Honestly, she needs to stick to 1 piece suits.

I am around her age and I would die if I had skin hanging off my belly.

WHAT!? Didn't you just scold PD for being cruel? LMAO.
I think Cindy crawford can wear whatever she wants!

ETA: the ridiculousness is in the fact that there is an article about her stretch marks... not that she is in a 2 piece for gosh's sakes.

 

[SeekingJana]

Cruel? She is just writing down what we all see in the photo.

The thing is, it is a BAD photograph which was noted by the poster. So all comments made after the " bad photograph" notation ARE cruel.

The lighting is wrong, and the photo has been given a purplish tint. Joan Van Ark isn't purple any more than you or I are purple!