I think she’s had her eyes done, but it has changed her face so much, I didn’t recognize her until she began speaking.
It reminds me a bit of what Jennifer Gray’s nose job did to her face.
Jenna before
Jenna after
I don’t know… She doesn’t look all that different to me.
Her face is the same; it’s the hair and makeup that are so radically different. Don’t believe me, compare a pic of Pamela Anderson with and without makeup to see how utterly different makeup can make you look.
I can’t see much of a difference between the two photographs.
Ha! Look what I found!
Sorry for the stutter posts, but here’s a pic that makes my point:
http://www.deansplanet.com/images/celebs/broads/pam_anderson/no-makeup_tired.jpg
I think she’s just gotten older, and as we’re used to her as being hippy chick Dharma, she looks a little unusual with heavy makeup on.
I think she Jenna Elfman looks great with long hair. Yummy.
I think she thinks she’s “over”, and is trying to look like a more generic bimbo-type to attract new attention.
Those photos demonstrate the power of a nice photo just as much as good makeup. I liked the ones of Michael Jackson :D.
She’s a few years older, her hair is different, she got married. I still think she’s yummy.
Her face is maturing. I think she looks better than she ever did.
Also, re: those without/with pictures. I can’t help but wonder how much of the “before” is airbrushed/photoshopped just to accentuate the negative. If half those girls were as unattractive as they appear, worlds woud collide! I know make-up makes a difference (I see it every day in my own mirror!) but we’re talking the difference between skid row haggard ho and Hollywood princess perfect! There’s no amount of spackle that can change the basic musculature and skin tone that much.
Too many sessions with an e-meter?
That was my thought too - well, not the motivation, so much as that in the ‘after’ shot, she looked like the generic blonde beauty that Hollywood seems to have cloned by the thousands. None of the distinctiveness to her good looks that are in the ‘before’ shot.
BTW, Keeping the Faith is one of my favorite comedies.
I dunno… I agree with the OP… To me he looks a helluva lot better to me in the picture with Edward Norton. In the other picture she looks like a washed-up porn actress or recovering alcoholic ex-country pop singer.
She looks a bit Botoxy, but other than that, I don’t think she’s had anything surgically altered. Just a change of makeup, hair, and a few years.
What a shame. She used to be so cute and quirky. I’m not a big fan of big hair, and especially not on women over, say, 25, but she just looks like a ho. I had been meaning to tell my boss that she reminds me of Jenna Elfman (cute, *before * Jenna), but now it would seem like an insult.
She was on Leno last night. She’s 35 now, or sometime this year, and she looks older than she did as Dharma, although she looks like she’s trying mightily to do the Hollywood “I’m not getting older” thing. Her hair was horribly unflattering too, although it didn’t look half as bad straight on. Someone should show her the video of her walking out to let her know what a disaster her hair was.
Tall, rain-thin Hollywood women tend to look superficially good as they age, but close up the lack of margin for softening the facial skin make them age more quickly than somewhat heavier actresses.
Actually it’s not just makeup. We’re used to seeing the rich and famous in print media AFTER it’s been touched up. I’ll try to find the web site (a photographer that’s showing the before and after shots of some of his work), but it is trully amazing the sort of changes they do. So those before and after shots could all be totally legit. Only the “with” pictures were the ones really touched up.
