![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Raging about wrinkles.
Oct. 3rd, 2012 03:43 pmI am perfectly capable of understanding--on an abstract, philosophical level--why other people might not like the same things that I do.
However, when confronted with the actual reasoning behind other people's opinions, well: my natural urge to argue takes over. (As far as I'm concerned, "agreeing to disagree" is something that happens to other people.)
Was reading this thread at![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
fail_fandomanon where someone asked Doctor Who fans to explain why people don't like the Ponds. (My initial reaction: "Wait, people don't like the Ponds?!" Fangirl denial is a beautiful thing.)
Now, there's a whole lot I could rant about over there, but I knew I'd get a better response here. And since I do need to go to work today (and I want to preserve my mental health as best I can) I'll only pick up one point raised there to argue here.
Anon said: It's supposed to be HOW MANY YEARS later and they didn't even wrinkle up Amy and Rory. Not even a little. And their hair didn't change. (NB: Anon is talking about The Angels Take Manhattan.)
About the hair: whatever.
About the wrinkles: Seriously?!
First of all: Arthur Darvill is 30, which is just a couple years shy of the age Rory presumably should be in this episode. Not so big a leap to imagine he's two years older than he is.
This was the reply I left there: I don't really find a lack of wrinkles to be that unconvincing. I don't mean to be unkind, but: have anons not actually met anyone in their 30s before? Sure, wrinkles start to show up, but they're tiny and easily covered by makeup. (This particular anon is 30, and though I can see faint lines in my forehead that were not there before, everyone else thinks I'm crazy. They're not even at the point where they show up in photographs yet.)
Just how wrinkly do anons expect a woman of 32 to be?!
However, when confronted with the actual reasoning behind other people's opinions, well: my natural urge to argue takes over. (As far as I'm concerned, "agreeing to disagree" is something that happens to other people.)
Was reading this thread at
fail_fandomanon where someone asked Doctor Who fans to explain why people don't like the Ponds. (My initial reaction: "Wait, people don't like the Ponds?!" Fangirl denial is a beautiful thing.)Now, there's a whole lot I could rant about over there, but I knew I'd get a better response here. And since I do need to go to work today (and I want to preserve my mental health as best I can) I'll only pick up one point raised there to argue here.
Anon said: It's supposed to be HOW MANY YEARS later and they didn't even wrinkle up Amy and Rory. Not even a little. And their hair didn't change. (NB: Anon is talking about The Angels Take Manhattan.)
About the hair: whatever.
About the wrinkles: Seriously?!
First of all: Arthur Darvill is 30, which is just a couple years shy of the age Rory presumably should be in this episode. Not so big a leap to imagine he's two years older than he is.
This was the reply I left there: I don't really find a lack of wrinkles to be that unconvincing. I don't mean to be unkind, but: have anons not actually met anyone in their 30s before? Sure, wrinkles start to show up, but they're tiny and easily covered by makeup. (This particular anon is 30, and though I can see faint lines in my forehead that were not there before, everyone else thinks I'm crazy. They're not even at the point where they show up in photographs yet.)
Just how wrinkly do anons expect a woman of 32 to be?!