|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Apr 30, 2011 5:31:12 GMT -5
The head and boobs are a bit off, but the rest seems accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Apr 30, 2011 6:23:03 GMT -5
I think the head is simply because that's the biggest size an actual Barbie head comes in unless someone wants to make their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 30, 2011 23:30:06 GMT -5
According to this, the measurements of a Barbie doll are 4.6-3.5-5. By those numbers, her scaled measurements (keeping hips constant) would be about 30.4-23.1-33. Unhealthy, but nowhere near as monstrous as in the picture. I'm inclined to trust the BBC more. I've seen the 39-18-33 proportions floating around the tubes, I'm guessing Slayen went with those rather than measure a doll herself. A quote near the beginning of the text where she calls them the "supposed measurements" also points in that direction. |
|
|
|
Post by The_WHHAAAMMMM_Burgler on May 9, 2011 20:41:44 GMT -5
Normally I would say that model is top heavy but I know Mattel did not care about her head or whats in it for that matter.  |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on May 13, 2011 10:06:18 GMT -5
This is what happens when your plastic surgeon does meth before your operation. |
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on May 16, 2011 13:29:19 GMT -5
the breasts are a bit more extreme then actual Barbies but otherwise it's about right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 19, 2011 13:57:25 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be easier to photoshop a picture of Barbie into a picture with a person in it?
|
|
|
|
Post by matante on May 19, 2011 17:42:25 GMT -5
But this seems to have been made for a real life event, not just for the picture... and I'm impressed by the tentacle-arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 20, 2011 13:57:04 GMT -5
But this seems to have been made for a real life event, not just for the picture... and I'm impressed by the tentacle-arms. That's why we have things called "printers"  But in all due seriousness, I understand. I'm just being silly. |
|
