
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My favorite looks of the night: Gracie Abrams absolutely stunning Klimt-inspired gown
Plastic surgery addicted nepo baby who looks like a teen boy. Like, why are these people even invited? The Gala has no class or aura anymore.
You seem to not like the waif look. I can almost guarantee you that this person has not had plastic surgery. Maybe they're on weight loss drugs, however. The two looks you dissed are my two favorites.
+1
Gracie Abrams is just a very slender person, something that really annoys trolls.
I don't even know this young gal but we can all Google Image what she looked like in 2018-2020. She was naturally not chubby but certainly fuller figured, had a larger nose, a round face, and no cheekbones. Now in 2026 at age 26 she looks like a waif, sunken face, a button nose and high cheekbones. No work though. Sure, sure.![]()
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Maybe it's an attempt to reference the Madam X portrait, but it's not well done.
As a woman of a particular age > she has aged wonderfully imo.
Has she though??
Because also as a woman of a particular age, I think aging well means aging. Not staving off aging via surgical interventions (and not insignificantly so). If someone were to say she seems to be using her considerable resources to surgically defy aging, she has a great team, etc. - sure OK.
She’s certainly not alone in that of course. But it would be nice if people continue to remember what actual aging does look like. Not aging poorly, but just aging like a normal human doing what they reasonably can.
In Nicole’s defense - IF she did have cosmetic surgery and that is the only reason that she looks so good at her age…..well then why don’t ALL celebs who are the same age look just as good as she does??
I mean, for instance look at Madonna.
I am sure that she has more money in the bank yet at sixty she didn’t even look an iota as good as Nicole does.
If plastic surgery, fillers, Botox, etc. is all that is needed to look fabulous then why don’t all celebs look as good??
I mean, Mama June had a ton of cosmetic surgery plus new teeth but she has never been even close to stunning.
One must be pretty in the beginning to look good.
Plastic surgery enhances ->> not creates beauty.
Enhances? Uh, often not.
Nicole was always an exceptional beauty if you ask me, but now she's looking off. They always end up going to far and cross some threshold that just causes me to have an knee-jerk reaction to the creepiness of it. It is sad to me that so many of you think the creepy face is now beautiful. It's perverse, really.
DP. Are you still nattering on about "creepy faces"?![]()
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My favorite looks of the night: Gracie Abrams absolutely stunning Klimt-inspired gown
Plastic surgery addicted nepo baby who looks like a teen boy. Like, why are these people even invited? The Gala has no class or aura anymore.
You seem to not like the waif look. I can almost guarantee you that this person has not had plastic surgery. Maybe they're on weight loss drugs, however. The two looks you dissed are my two favorites.
+1
Gracie Abrams is just a very slender person, something that really annoys trolls.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My favorite looks of the night: Gracie Abrams absolutely stunning Klimt-inspired gown
Plastic surgery addicted nepo baby who looks like a teen boy. Like, why are these people even invited? The Gala has no class or aura anymore.
Ok, weirdo. You sound pleasant. Gracie Abrams is gorgeous, as is her gown.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My favorite looks of the night: Gracie Abrams absolutely stunning Klimt-inspired gown
Plastic surgery addicted nepo baby who looks like a teen boy. Like, why are these people even invited? The Gala has no class or aura anymore.
You seem to not like the waif look. I can almost guarantee you that this person has not had plastic surgery. Maybe they're on weight loss drugs, however. The two looks you dissed are my two favorites.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Maybe it's an attempt to reference the Madam X portrait, but it's not well done.
As a woman of a particular age > she has aged wonderfully imo.
Has she though??
Because also as a woman of a particular age, I think aging well means aging. Not staving off aging via surgical interventions (and not insignificantly so). If someone were to say she seems to be using her considerable resources to surgically defy aging, she has a great team, etc. - sure OK.
She’s certainly not alone in that of course. But it would be nice if people continue to remember what actual aging does look like. Not aging poorly, but just aging like a normal human doing what they reasonably can.
In Nicole’s defense - IF she did have cosmetic surgery and that is the only reason that she looks so good at her age…..well then why don’t ALL celebs who are the same age look just as good as she does??
I mean, for instance look at Madonna.
I am sure that she has more money in the bank yet at sixty she didn’t even look an iota as good as Nicole does.
If plastic surgery, fillers, Botox, etc. is all that is needed to look fabulous then why don’t all celebs look as good??
I mean, Mama June had a ton of cosmetic surgery plus new teeth but she has never been even close to stunning.
One must be pretty in the beginning to look good.
Plastic surgery enhances ->> not creates beauty.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Maybe it's an attempt to reference the Madam X portrait, but it's not well done.
As a woman of a particular age > she has aged wonderfully imo.
Has she though??
Because also as a woman of a particular age, I think aging well means aging. Not staving off aging via surgical interventions (and not insignificantly so). If someone were to say she seems to be using her considerable resources to surgically defy aging, she has a great team, etc. - sure OK.
She’s certainly not alone in that of course. But it would be nice if people continue to remember what actual aging does look like. Not aging poorly, but just aging like a normal human doing what they reasonably can.
In Nicole’s defense - IF she did have cosmetic surgery and that is the only reason that she looks so good at her age…..well then why don’t ALL celebs who are the same age look just as good as she does??
I mean, for instance look at Madonna.
I am sure that she has more money in the bank yet at sixty she didn’t even look an iota as good as Nicole does.
If plastic surgery, fillers, Botox, etc. is all that is needed to look fabulous then why don’t all celebs look as good??
I mean, Mama June had a ton of cosmetic surgery plus new teeth but she has never been even close to stunning.
One must be pretty in the beginning to look good.
Plastic surgery enhances ->> not creates beauty.
Enhances? Uh, often not.
Nicole was always an exceptional beauty if you ask me, but now she's looking off. They always end up going to far and cross some threshold that just causes me to have an knee-jerk reaction to the creepiness of it. It is sad to me that so many of you think the creepy face is now beautiful. It's perverse, really.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Maybe it's an attempt to reference the Madam X portrait, but it's not well done.
As a woman of a particular age > she has aged wonderfully imo.
Has she though??
Because also as a woman of a particular age, I think aging well means aging. Not staving off aging via surgical interventions (and not insignificantly so). If someone were to say she seems to be using her considerable resources to surgically defy aging, she has a great team, etc. - sure OK.
She’s certainly not alone in that of course. But it would be nice if people continue to remember what actual aging does look like. Not aging poorly, but just aging like a normal human doing what they reasonably can.
In Nicole’s defense - IF she did have cosmetic surgery and that is the only reason that she looks so good at her age…..well then why don’t ALL celebs who are the same age look just as good as she does??
I mean, for instance look at Madonna.
I am sure that she has more money in the bank yet at sixty she didn’t even look an iota as good as Nicole does.
If plastic surgery, fillers, Botox, etc. is all that is needed to look fabulous then why don’t all celebs look as good??
I mean, Mama June had a ton of cosmetic surgery plus new teeth but she has never been even close to stunning.
One must be pretty in the beginning to look good.
Plastic surgery enhances ->> not creates beauty.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Maybe it's an attempt to reference the Madam X portrait, but it's not well done.
As a woman of a particular age > she has aged wonderfully imo.
Has she though??
Because also as a woman of a particular age, I think aging well means aging. Not staving off aging via surgical interventions (and not insignificantly so). If someone were to say she seems to be using her considerable resources to surgically defy aging, she has a great team, etc. - sure OK.
She’s certainly not alone in that of course. But it would be nice if people continue to remember what actual aging does look like. Not aging poorly, but just aging like a normal human doing what they reasonably can.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Janelle Monae, also got the assignment!
Love her, she is everything! Breathtakingly gorgeous!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kidman has finally lost the age battle with her face. No complaints, she had a great run.
She's lost nothing, she looks great.
+1
I agree.
She looks amazing and stunning for a woman with four kids, two divorces behind her and pushing the big 6-0!