Don't forget James Cromwell, who played at least two different characters in TREK before being cast as Zefram Cochrane in FIRST CONTACT.
Heck, he was in a DS9 ep written by Dave Mack and John Ordover.
Wonder Woman headed to the small screen
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
Don't forget James Cromwell, who played at least two different characters in TREK before being cast as Zefram Cochrane in FIRST CONTACT.
Heck, he was in a DS9 ep written by Dave Mack and John Ordover.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
And yet in the last Trek movie they needed TWO actors to play Spock? What's up with that?
The role of Spock has grown just too big for one actor.
Indeed, I think it's safe to say that Spock has been played by more actors than any other individual character in Star Trek:
Leonard Nimoy: original adult Spock
Billy Simpson: voice of 7-year-old Spock, "Yesteryear"
Carl Steven: Spock c. age 9, The Search for Spock
Vadia Potenza: Spock c. age 13, TSFS
Steven Manley: Spock c. age 17, TSFS
Joe W. Davis: Spock c. age 25, TSFS
Frank Welker: voice of regenerating Spock, TSFS
Jacob Kogan: Spock c. age 12, ST 2009
Zachary Quinto: alternate adult Spock, ST 2009
Not to mention Carey Scott, who recorded some unused Spock voiceovers for ST V, and the infants who played Spock in his two filmed birth scenes, the one used in ST V and the one cut from ST 2009. And of course it doesn't count uncredited stunt doubles and stand-ins.
It WAS supposed to be a joke, but ....
I did take a long look. What's wrong about it?
I think that (along with the requisite 'tuck-in') happens in-between panels!
Irritating jokes aside, I don't think (in comics) there's anything specifically wrong with those shots. The good artwork is pretty much idealized. With everybody from Black Canary to Babs Gordon having a great bod (and same goes for Supes to Green Arrow having a great bod for those appreciative of the male form). It's the kind of idealized representation that is found in some Greek/Roman statues. I think it speaks of somewhat "protectionist" tendencies - ie. the young (assuming comics are for the young) shouldn't be exposed to idealized female or male forms. If I may point out - the obesity epidemic that everybody warns about, should lead to hopefully people being more careful. (I do understand that eating disorders are also being caused but I doubt that it's due to comics influence - it's more the ultra skinny models in the fashion world).
Nothing - as soon as I see Superman in a similar front and center butt shot in a thong. Got a link to that?
Hardly. These days, most superhero artists (Jim Lee, for example) draw male forms that are entirely impossible even for steroid freaks, whereas Greek and Roman art showed naturally attainable bodies even when representing Gods.
And while all superheroes are sexualized to some extent, the female heroes are much more so than males - just compare the amount of bare skin your average female hero shows to your average male hero, or how often thrusting nipples are drawn in on superheroines versus how often male heroes get a panel focusign on their finely formed ass. Female heroes are also often depicted in sexualizing and totally impractical gear such as high heels and fishnet hose. High heels serve no purpose other than to force your back into an arch, thus thrusting out your tits and ass. Don't believe me? Try a pair on.
It's got nothing to do with protecting young people from the human form (trust me, I teach in an art museum where I have introduced thousands of elementary school kids to nudes). It has to do with reducing what should be icons of female heroism to male sexual fantasies. We feminists tend to be against that.
And here I always thought high heels were worn because it was believed the shape of the leg looked better when the foot was at an angle. Though maybe that's in addition to what you said. Either way, it's sacrificing practicality for appearance, and thus doesn't make sense in the costume of a character who routinely engages in physical action.
Well, if the character has superhuman strength, their calf and ankle muscles wouldn't suffer any strain from constantly tilting up in heels, so it wouldn't be impractical. If they have telekinesis or flight, it would take care of both that and any balance issues, due to ... yeah, right.
And for that matter take pretty much any Greek or Roman sculpture of a goddess and, well, they're typically wider then the superheroine equivalent.
The famous example here would be the Hellenistic sculpture Venus de Milo, naturally. I don't think I've ever seen a superheroine looking anything like that.
^For one thing, superheroines usually have arms... 
J
Jetfire
Guest
Megan Fox is the lame one here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lynda Carter was great as Wonder Woman, she became an icon and we have yet to have another actress successfully play the strong beautiful Wonder Woman character.
But no ones tried.
No ones tried and failed.
I'm looking at Clooney here.
Kilmer too.
No ones tried and failed.
I'm looking at Clooney here.
Kilmer too.
More accurately, Megan Fox is too lame for Wonder Woman.
I can't take her seriously as a beautiful woman because she has lips like a baboons ass.
(I'm opening a can of worms here.) But I didn't dislike Kilmer. Thought his portrayal of a self-involved Bruce was probably more accurate than anything Michael Keaton (he was abominable as Bruce Wayne) or Clooney (he confused self-involvement with self-indulgence). But Batman succeeded and nothing succeeds like success.