[QUOTE=Greywolf73]
Gawker supposedly has an un-retouched photo from the photoshoot.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2006/09/suricruises.jpg
[/QUOTE]
Is anyone else receiving instructions to kill upon seeing Suri in that photo? I’d better stop staring at it.
[QUOTE=kittenblue]
Oh, come on, people…I’ve seen babies with a full head of (usually) dark hair before…
[/QUOTE]
I have too; I’ve just never seen one with the roots showing.
Does Katie ever get to touch the poor kid? At least Tom isn’t running around holding up the child and shouting “I’ve got great sperm!”, but those photos look like he’s putting up a physical barrier between Katie and Suri. Scary.
[QUOTE=Big G]
I had the same thought about the hair. As it happens, my son was born the same day as Suri and he barely has any hair and it’s not longer than half an inch. That looks like the amount I would expect on a 1 year old.
[/QUOTE]
My son is three weeks old, and was born with a crapload of hair, but mostly in the back where it’s dark and thick - the kid’s already got the beginnings of a mullet. He’s going to need a haircut in the back by the time he’s three months old. So I can buy Suri having that much hair .
I think she’s adorable, but she definitely looks Asian to me.
E.
[QUOTE=Jeep’s Phoenix]
Does Katie ever get to touch the poor kid?
[/QUOTE]
The Larry King whatever show is supposed to have all of the photos (tonight?). I heard of a picture of Katie lying on her back and holding Suri over her head, so there’s at least a couple minutes when she’s allowed to hold the kid.
Most likely it’s just the case that he’s the more famous of the two.
That last sentence doesn’t make sense if you’re not reading my mind.
What I meant was, the reason all the photos seem to be focusing on him rather than her is because he’s the more famous of the two.
[QUOTE=Greywolf73]
Also, she’s standing up on Tom’s knee. 3 month old babies don’t do that!
[/QUOTE]
When I was holding my daughter at about 1 hour old she flexed her little legs and stood up against my chest, and supported about 80% of her own weight. :eek: Shocked me, I was not expecting that.
So I can handle the legs at 3 months.
I have also seen Hispanic babies that had tons and tons of hair as newborns.
I still say the milkman was Asian.
[QUOTE=Cluricaun]
I think it’s nice how Tom’s jacket hides the body fur and tentacles.
[/QUOTE]
She’s a furry with a stringent pop.
[QUOTE=Scissorjack]
She’s a furry with a stringent pop.
[/QUOTE]
Hee!
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Most of the time, black hair falls out, to be replaced with the kid’s real hair color. But not always.
One daughter of a friend of mine had that huge head of ink black hair (both mom and dad have medium brown hair), that never fell out, but her hair after birth grew in blond! So at age two, she had shoulder length blond hair with black tips. Looked like someone dipped her hair in an inkwell. If Suri’s the same, that’s why she looks like she’s wearing a toupee.
[/QUOTE]
My parents both have brown hair, and when I was born I had a full head of black hair. It fell out and later my hair grew in really pale blonde. It gradually darkened (I’m probably dishwater blonde now, but its hard to tell due to highlights from a bottle).
My halfbrother was also born with black hair (his mom had dark brown hair), and it fell out and grew in a medium brown color.
That supposedly unretouched photo from Gawker looks to be photoshopped to me (especially around Suri’s eyes). She is a pretty baby, but her parents are still crazy.
[QUOTE=Scissorjack]
She’s a furry with a stringent pop.
[/QUOTE]
FEGHOOT!!!
I’m sure the various potshots we’re all taking at the baby will really bother Tom Cruise when he’s alternating his time between playing with his baby daughter and counting all his money.
I was born with a full head of hair. The nurses put oil in it and made it all wavey looking. When we got home, my dad gave me a crew cut.
Walloon, your dad has to be military or Southern!
I think Suri is adorable and I don’t care whether she’s been photoshopped or not. She will have a short time to be really cute and then she will get one front tooth just like her Dad. Ever noticed? That drives me nuts.
We’ll not hear about it if she did!
If sad feelings last a couple of days, then they can be considered “normal baby blues.” Post-partum depression can be very serious even though it’s not a psychosis. If the depression lasts for more than a few days, a physician should be consulted.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
I’m sure the various potshots we’re all taking at the baby will really bother Tom Cruise when he’s alternating his time between playing with his baby daughter and counting all his money.
[/QUOTE]
You mean the money he’s made from movies or from suing people who claim he’s either gay or sterile?
[QUOTE=McNew]
Ditto- I came in here to say that no baby I’ve ever seen has hair that dark. It looks dyed. Also, the kid looks a lot older than it really is. However, Suri has her mom’s pretty eyes, so she has that going for her.
[/QUOTE]
I was born blue-eyed and blonde (from almost choking myself to death with the cord, have I managed to scare all our moms-to-be?) with a lot of hair; what little you can see of me in my baptismal pics at age 3 days has as much hair as that kid.
That pic is still about as real as Pam Lee’s tits, mind you…
[QUOTE=ivylass]
It does look like [a toupee], doesn’t it? You can clearly see the reddish blond wisps underneath.
[/QUOTE]
(editing mine)
Well, I don’t have any babies, but I have “baby bangs,” little wisps of hair just like Suri’s at my hairline. I don’t think those “light” hairs are really much, or any, lighter than the rest of her hair, it’s just that there is less of it, so it looks lighter.
She is kind of a weird-looking kid, but a lot of kids are weird looking. And the weirdness could very well be more to do with the retouching than with the baby herself.
Why am I even writing about this? :o
I think it’s a testament to how far Cruise’s stock has dropped in recent months that people don’t believe that pictures are just… pictures.
[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
I think it’s a testament to how far Cruise’s stock has dropped in recent months that people don’t believe that pictures are just… pictures.
[/QUOTE]
Pictures are just pictures, but these particular pictures are more along the lines of a Fark Photoshop contest than they are a capturing of real moments.
Has anyone actually done an analysis of the photos? An expert would be able to tell the difference between customary magazine photo retouching and some kind of photoshoppery to disguise/alter the appearance, ISTM.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
You mean the money he’s made from movies or from suing people who claim he’s either gay or sterile?
[/QUOTE]
It’s all the same shade of green.