The Face of Bo from NuDr Who, for example.
Of course, yours involves an scarred old hag with calluses and benign moles.
Mine involves a forever youthful looking hot chick.
Think I'll stick with mine, thanks.
Again, you're reading my analogy far too literally and simplistically, and are missing my point to a truly astonishing degree. "Scarred old hag?" That's not what I'm talking about at all, not even remotely. I'm talking about a woman like Elizabeth Hurley -- a woman who is still beautiful and impressive but is recognizably older than 25 -- being a credible choice to play an immortal. I'm saying that an immortal could just as credibly look 45 as 25 -- that even assuming an enhanced capacity for healing and regeneration, there could be enough subtle cumulative wear and tear to make an immortal look like a normal person in their healthy 40s. I'm talking about subtle changes to the body, not the exaggerated extremes you're assuming.
And it's not just about the skin. It's about the attitude, the life experience. A 22-year-old actress, say, might not be as able to convey the same maturity, the same sense of having been around the block a few times. Whereas a 44-year-old actress, say, could more easily pull that off and still look quite healthy and reasonably youthful. Heck, I'm 42 and people tell me I can easily pass for 30 -- and I don't undergo the kind of cosmetic treatments that Hollywood actresses get to keep young-looking. So it's entirely credible that an actress in her early 40s could be believable as an immortal.
^Sure, maybe. There's also Jennifer Lien as Kes on Star Trek: Voyager; even though she was playing a character who was only a few years old, she managed to convey extraordinary wisdom, poise, and maturity even though she was only 19 when she began playing the character. I'm not saying young people can't play immortals. I'm just refuting the G-man's assumption that nobody over 25 could credibly do so.
Dakota Fanning in anything she's ever been in.
They've being force feeding her the dialogue of a 30 year old to regurgitate since she was in kindergarten.
Wonder Woman might not be immortal and might only be as old as she looks. Remember she's the only kid born there since the Amazons went into self imposed exile and that could have happened as recently as 20 summers earlier if she wasn't magicked more or less fully grown as a new born babe.
They've being force feeding her the dialogue of a 30 year old to regurgitate since she was in kindergarten.
Wonder Woman might not be immortal and might only be as old as she looks. Remember she's the only kid born there since the Amazons went into self imposed exile and that could have happened as recently as 20 summers earlier if she wasn't magicked more or less fully grown as a new born babe.
Interesting fetish. Do you know Amy Pond?I see this and it says "college hooker."
Well gee, the new outfit looks like a Wonder Woman costume - imagine that.
It certainly doesn't look any sillier than the Linda Carter get-up.
It certainly doesn't look any sillier than the Linda Carter get-up.
J
Jetfire
Guest
^ This.
I mean the more I look at it...the more I like it...nothing wrong here.
I think she looks great!
[edit] The only tweaks I would personally make are what was done here: http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3084/49321523.jpg which is make the boots red and tone down the blue...but "as is" I like the costume.
I mean the more I look at it...the more I like it...nothing wrong here.
I think she looks great!
[edit] The only tweaks I would personally make are what was done here: http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3084/49321523.jpg which is make the boots red and tone down the blue...but "as is" I like the costume.
I actually think the cheap one on "Smallville" looks better
Damn, you're right.
At least it looks like fairly good quality material, perhaps leather and not vinyl. The skirt and belt have the right classical references. That wouldn't have been a bad jumping off point to a decently designed costume.I have a vague recollection of comic book artists being challenged to re-imagine various superheroes a while back (two years ago?) and Wonder Woman might have been one of them. I've googled to no avail. Anyone remember what I'm taking about?
You're talking about this.
Wow, talk about service! This place rocks, about ten seconds after I post (in the middle of the night, on Sunday night, why aren't you all tucked in bed with your teddy bears????) I get the correct answer to my esoteric and possibly imaginary query.
Ah yes, now I remember: Daniel Krall. That is our Wonder Woman. I loved the skirt. Hey, back then even guys wore skirts. Joel Carroll also had the right idea. I think we can lose the helmet, except for formal occasions.
Ah yes, now I remember: Daniel Krall. That is our Wonder Woman. I loved the skirt. Hey, back then even guys wore skirts. Joel Carroll also had the right idea. I think we can lose the helmet, except for formal occasions.
Or Stan Lee's take
Turns out we got time zones now.
What's sad is that the farcical Tick's Captain Liberty pulls off a better on-screen WW-inspired costume than what we're getting here.
ETA: Project Rooftop has WW submissions other than what was shown in that contest. I love this one
http://www.tencentticker.com/projectrooftop/2011/02/12/oliver-nomes-wonder-woman/
ETA: Project Rooftop has WW submissions other than what was shown in that contest. I love this one
http://www.tencentticker.com/projectrooftop/2011/02/12/oliver-nomes-wonder-woman/
Last edited:
The only thing I don't like at first glance about the Oliver design are the boots.
They are so high that she may as well be in pants. I like that the tiara is incorporated into a type of face plate.
They are so high that she may as well be in pants. I like that the tiara is incorporated into a type of face plate.
On Palicki's youth - has anyone seen her act? She tends to portray mature-before-her-time world weariness combined with a kind of fierce innocence. She may even be able to save some of what sounds like fairly cheesy material.
On the costume - I have more issues with the little things than the big things: the tiara is weird, and an accessory that could easily be ditched. It's extremely hard to make it work in real life, and even often in drawings (and it was one of the major weak points of Lynda Carter's outfit). The most important connection to the actual mythology of the Amazons - the belt, seems to have disappeared completely in favor of mere decoration. Perhaps a trivial issue, but as someone who was deeply fascinated by the mythological origins of Wonder Woman as a child, I personally hate to see it go. The lipstick is awful, but sure to change.
Yes, the candy-apple, or candy-ass, colors are a little weird, but given what's been leaked about the script they are hardly out of step with the general tone of where this all seems to be going. The one hopeful note actually is Pailcki. From what I've seen of her she can communicate genuine emotion and even has a bit of gravitas.
In short, still pics are fun to tear apart, but have little to do with final products. And the costume is far less a concern than the writing, which, at this point, looms as the potential series' real Achilles heel.
And when is this romantic nostalgia about Carter and Reeves going to end? Try to rewatch that stuff as if you were seeing it for the first time. I positively worshipped both of those portrayals - when I was 9. Now I can see them for what really worked, which was plenty - and what didn't, which was also plenty. Both Carter and Reeves were skinny kids in cheesy costumes, playing earnest, sweet innocence so hard it hurts. They both had real flair and charm, but, if you can take off the rose-colored glasses of your youth, they both had a lightweight quality that would never play today.
On the costume - I have more issues with the little things than the big things: the tiara is weird, and an accessory that could easily be ditched. It's extremely hard to make it work in real life, and even often in drawings (and it was one of the major weak points of Lynda Carter's outfit). The most important connection to the actual mythology of the Amazons - the belt, seems to have disappeared completely in favor of mere decoration. Perhaps a trivial issue, but as someone who was deeply fascinated by the mythological origins of Wonder Woman as a child, I personally hate to see it go. The lipstick is awful, but sure to change.
Yes, the candy-apple, or candy-ass, colors are a little weird, but given what's been leaked about the script they are hardly out of step with the general tone of where this all seems to be going. The one hopeful note actually is Pailcki. From what I've seen of her she can communicate genuine emotion and even has a bit of gravitas.
In short, still pics are fun to tear apart, but have little to do with final products. And the costume is far less a concern than the writing, which, at this point, looms as the potential series' real Achilles heel.
And when is this romantic nostalgia about Carter and Reeves going to end? Try to rewatch that stuff as if you were seeing it for the first time. I positively worshipped both of those portrayals - when I was 9. Now I can see them for what really worked, which was plenty - and what didn't, which was also plenty. Both Carter and Reeves were skinny kids in cheesy costumes, playing earnest, sweet innocence so hard it hurts. They both had real flair and charm, but, if you can take off the rose-colored glasses of your youth, they both had a lightweight quality that would never play today.
Reeves? Or Reeve? I think upthread the reference was to Christopher Reeve.
When will the nostalgia end? Probably at least not until we've seen a better live action portrayal of Wonder Woman or Superman, respectively. Sure it's true, for some it won't end even then. However, to date, Carter and Reeve are still widely considered to be the definitive live action portrayers of their characters. So, all future portrayals are naturally measured against those yardsticks. For many people, including me, making this sort of comparison is not blind nostalgia. The blind aspect comes from being too closed minded to even view a future remake. Also, there is a distinction between holding fondly to one's memories of a happy time, between crapping on younger peoples' happy times possibly being had now, and between crapping on older peoples' happy times they may have had way back when. There is nothing wrong with the first. I personally choose the first, while keeping an open mind about future remakes, and doing my best to avoid the second or third.
And personally, I disagree with you emphatically about Christopher Reeve, especially in the first film, as I still rewatch it regularly, and about his costume, as it was all but completely faithful to the comics, but that's really another thread. I'm somewhat older than nine.
I don't know about definitive, so much as they were the ones we saw at that starry-eyed age when you have no interested in the petty criticisms that bug you when you are older and more jaded.
But see, this makes no sense to me. Why should they be measured against those yardsticks? And what makes anyone think that anyone except the people of our generation would insist on such a thing?
I apologize if you find my comments "crapping on" anything. That was not my intention and I thought my comments about them were as complementary as they were critical. I work with children and see them, just like us, wide-eyed and adoring of certain versions and portrayals of these long-beloved characters. I also see them view the versions we loved so dearly and still cling to, with eyes very fresh and it has taught me that they are not nearly as perfect as we may think - they are simply ours, and so we love them. I'm just trying to remind myself and others that we can put down that 30 year old yardstick. It gets tiresome to hear the constant comparisons - the very thing that keeps these characters vital is the fact that they can be reinterpreted for each new generation, and that inevitably means that details, and even major issues from the previous generation's version, have to go.
No offense, but I'm not surprised to be emphatically disagreed with on this score - and I would expect it to be someone of my own age group who would do so, not a 9 year old because they are generally less impressed with these efforts from the 70s. I believe it takes a rather extreme amount of effort to see these portrayals clearly if you have loved them dearly for 30 years. In Superman: The Movie, Reeve is frequently awkward, the writing is frequently lame, and, I'm sorry, but his trunks in that flick - are god awful. The spandex suit, that plastic yellow belt, the boots - look just as much like a rented Halloween costume as the WW outift being discussed here. Which is not to say I don't have a very fond place in my heart for all of them and the movie in general, which manages to rise above its, sometimes considerable, flaws.
All I'm really saying is - it wouldn't hurt any of us to try to give a contemporary production the latitude we give the 70s productions. We might enjoy them a lot more that way.
Nostalgia?
I remember when Buffy the TV show lived in the shadow of Buffy the Movie.
Nostalgia can be eclipsed, smashed destroyed. It's possible.
My memories of Wonder Woman as a boy was that it was phenomenal, but every time I've rewatched it since, the bugger has just become more camp and cardboard and ridiculous...
Linda's Wonder Woman was so meek.
I remember when Buffy the TV show lived in the shadow of Buffy the Movie.
Nostalgia can be eclipsed, smashed destroyed. It's possible.
My memories of Wonder Woman as a boy was that it was phenomenal, but every time I've rewatched it since, the bugger has just become more camp and cardboard and ridiculous...
Linda's Wonder Woman was so meek.