#High Tiny Hairs

[skunkes]

[adrianasunderworld]

Honestly out of all the Skullector collab doll that they could be doing, top of my list is any of the Scooby Doo girls. Obviously Velma, Daphne, and the Hex Girls should get MH dolls. But consider:

The Grimwood Girls. They walked so Monster High could run I will not be convinced otherwise.

[v3lnys]

crying real tears btw

[clamoridoll]

why is mattel so allergic to giving their dolls curly natural hair

[tendafoot]

why the fuck did i draw this

[pynkhues]

Apologies for bringing twitter stupidity to your tumblr, but I feel like I need a reality check lol. While the large majority of ppl who commented on that photo the fan in Sydney took with Sam were just saying how pretty or cute or rejuvenated he looked, the wet slicked-back hair and the angle, with his head tilted back so the hair is less visible, made some people start saying that he was losing his hair, and then a few people even started saying that Jacob and Assad were losing their hair too. And I just need to check that I'm not crazy because, with Sam, it's like, we just saw him 20 days ago? And he looked like this??

https://ton.x.com/i/ton/data/dm/1910615867832086697/1910615720955904000/xUuXOCoz.jpg:medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqMfH9lW0AA0hAZ?format=jpg&name=medium

And two years ago when they were filming s2 he looked like this, which seems exactly the way he looks in the fan pic with his hair pulled back tightly?:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqN2g_QbkAAsSMC?format=jpg&name=large

So unless they think he lost significant hair in the last few weeks, I don't get it. And with Jacob and Assad, I don't get it. Someone posted post s2 photos of them and they didn't look different to me from the s1 photos? Am I wrong? And where does this come from? I mean honestly it's not that many people, it was a lot fewer people making these comments than it was people talking about the people making the comments (which honestly is so often the way. I usually hear about something negative on twitter not because I come across it myself but because I read someone else commenting on it angrily). But is it anxiety that these men are playing vampires who aren't meant to age and yet they may show some human signs of aging if the show goes long enough? And maybe that's especially centered around Sam as a blonde man living in a sunny country (even though his skin has truly never looked smoother and glowier lol).

I mean, I can't say I'm particularly surprised, anon.

You're kind of asking me a whole bunch of questions here, haha, so I'll answer as succinctly as I can, but like - - yeah, the context of how and when pictures are taken matters. Of course all of them are going to look better in professionally taken photos at events they're professionally styled for than in candids where they're literally just hanging out in their hometowns, of course angles and lighting has an impact, but also of course they all look a little older today than they did three years ago, because they are? There's nothing wrong with that - all three of them look great (and I personally would say have aged pretty minimally), and the handwringing over it feels - -

I don't know.

Well, that's not true, I have my suspicions, haha. I think it's partially a manifestation of a global culture drenched in youth fetishisation, of which, to be fair, the vampire subgenre has been a part of at least since the 70s, from Valerie and Her Week of Wonders to The Lost Boys to Twilight to The Vampire Diaries - - hell, Anne herself writes it, given the Lestat of the book is an eternal 21. I think it's partially a fear that if the actors age, they might no longer look like they did in 1.01, or worse, that they might no longer find them 'hot', and I also think a big part of it is people trying to be funny or signal to a certain crowd that they can hang.

I also - - mm. I've mentioned this once before, but I do also think there's a little bit of a degree of inexperience in parts of the fandom, and while there's nothing wrong with that at ALL, I do think that there's a small subset within that cohort who read as female-incels to me. These are the ones who really go after the cast, particularly Sam, but not just him, in a way that feels deliberately punishing and obsessive, and I think for them these sorts of comments are lowkey a sort of negging akin to guys who feel the need to comment when they think an actress is starting to look haggard.

In that sense, I think it's both specific and really broad to internet culture, and really, unfortunately, I just think it is what it is.

[averlym]

don't wanna feel anything for anyone ever again

[so-very-small]

not talking to the giant of the house at all except for every six weeks where they bleach the roots of my hair for me. sometimes they even give me a little trim.

[anghraine]

Today's unhinged "good God I hate how much extreme generosity I'm expected to extend to the Peter Jackson films by people who make wildly bad faith arguments about things I like" rant:

I am very deeply tired of people insisting with zero evidence that of course the LOTR films are imperfect, but the difficulties of adapting LOTR are such that it wasn't possible for them to be better than they were—in, apparently, any respect. They just couldn't be done better, at all, because it was so hard to make something watchable at all.

This is always just like ... really? Really?? Just what prevented them from making better decisions about anything? What exactly made casting every actor of color as barely differentiated villainous hordes in the twenty-first century so necessary and unavoidable? The glamorization and vast expansions of battle scenes and insertion of "heroic" war crimes was the highest film as a medium could aspire to in the early 2000s because of what insuperable force?

What made it impossible to give Arwen a coherent character arc? The films could not have been made without the underlying assumption that most of the cast are NPCs who will only do the right thing, when they will, if prodded or manipulated or influenced by main characters? In what way is this an inevitability of adaptation or film that simply couldn't have been conceptualized differently, much less better?

There is zero explanation or justification for why any of this stuff (or the myriad other flaws) had to be that way and couldn't have been done better in any way at any point. It's just stated that the films that exist must be the best films that could have existed because they're the ones that do exist and are popular. QED.

That doesn't make any sense, though, and it doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree. The idea that they could not have been better in any way (including their worst quality, which again, is the extremely racist casting), that some force was preventing not only the actual filmmakers but any filmmakers that could possibly exist from doing anything better just seems patently absurd.

You can like them and respect what they did achieve without demanding that everyone buy into a baseless and irrational argument that their pop culture success means nothing about them could possibly have been done any better. Look, I was in my mid to late teens at the time. I remember the early 2000s quite well. It wasn't now, but we are not talking about an age so divorced from our own that any of these things were somehow fundamental to the media landscape.

There are ways in which the LOTR films were very good that were essential to their popularity then and now. This does not require anyone to accept that it was literally impossible for them to be better than they are or that some defense is required against every criticism of them ever.

I am not, incidentally, talking about removing Bombadil, an entirely understandable and defensible decision that the film defenders in my notes somehow always feel the need to bring up. I know that changes had to be made, that adaptation is not a word for word transcription, that it would always be a difficult text to adapt, that structurally minor elements had to go, that they are cinematically beautiful films that a lot of work and love went into. I know this. EVERYONE knows this, because for the last 20 years it's been impossible to criticize anything about them without being reminded. Their accomplishments, and their existence, do not mean that any choice made by the filmmakers must definitionally have been the right call and could not possibly have been better in any way.

[moonilit]

IM BACK AGAIN! this time….Joshua (who woke up from a coma and could still be child) trying to brush jote’s hair while she is asleep and he is trying not to have a nervous breakdown bc she precious short thingy

Joshua failing and having a meltdown because she, indeed tiny

[one-wing]

saw someone say the boss im at in the lop dlc is only like 50-60% of the way through it what the fuck?

[luminarai]

I’m actively feeling like a caricature of woman from a 90s comedy because I just spent half an hour trying and discarding outfits, ending up with a bedroom covered in clothing, still feeling like I have nothing to wear and everything looks stupid and feels wrong. All because I have an appointment at the hair salon later.

[arielluva]

just remembered that i dreamed that i had a g3 rochelle doll and she was the most beautiful doll i had ever seen but alas. twas a dream 😔

[daftpatience]

astarion's honestly the perfect candidate for one of those beautiful ball jointed dolls that are super nicely painted and have like tons of nice clothes but alas im not a wealthy hobbyist and i also dont enjoy any dolls bigger than 1/6 (and they just dont make a lot of dolls that small that aren't babies or fairies or animals... sigh)

[browngonzo888]

Le presento… mama O’Hara!

[killuaisaprincess]

LOOOOOOOOK PRECIOUS BABEY

BONUS 🥺🥺 PRECIOUS