web
counter
 

Wonder Woman, Slut-Shaming And Mastering The Art Of Sexploitation

By Joanna Robinson | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (48)



adrianne_palicki_20100427_6006.jpeg

So I consider myself a feminist. Is that a bad word, feminist? Does it make you think about man-hating? That ain’t the case, kids. Feminists are just after equal treatment. That’s why, on this site, for every bosomy female, you’ll see a shirtless dude. We’re equal opportunity objectifiers here at Pajiba. WW AP Costume.jpegBut of course I got my feminist knickers in a twist when I saw the first image of David E. Kelley’s Wonder Woman. Want a refresher? Here it is. I mean, it’s bad. A lot has been written about how bad it is. How garish, how cheap looking. Some clever photoshoppers over at Bleeding Cool even tried their hand at fixing the costume. Deepening the red, toning down the makeup, removing the heels, etc. To which I say, fine. Better, sure. Still bad.

A more interesting reaction, I think, was the back and forth between The Nerdist contributor Kiala Kazebee and her friend Bobby “Fatboy” Roberts. The writers had plenty of critiques (“it looks like a costume I could have grabbed half-off, November 1st, at those Halloween stores that take over abandoned Party Depots”), but were more concerned with the accusation of “slut/whore/tramp” being levied at Miss Palicki’s vinyl clad thighs. Kazebee fumed at the detractors who insinuate “that [Palicki] will be playing a hooker who fights crime.”

While Kazebee and Roberts make plenty of great points, I disagree with their central thesis that there is nothing amiss with the sexiness of this costume. Listen, if this were Diana’s fav outfit that she wore to go clubbing (or whatever the hip young Amazonians do these days), I would have no problem with it. But this is her uniform that she wears for her job, which is, correct me if I’m wrong, kicking ass. Kazebee remarks, “Do cheap fabrics somehow imply Wonder Woman is gadding about town DTF 653.x600.timein.bamber.open.jpeganyone who buys her a drink (because that is what ‘sluts’ do, I guess?) or, I don’t know, just anyone she finds attractive? Even if this were so, who gives a fuck? Why is that ‘bad’? In fact, a promiscuous Amazon would really not be so very far-fetched.” I agree with Kazebee and have zero problem with Wonder Woman racking up some notches on her bedpost. However, if I recall, we’ve already seen a DTF kick-ass television babe, and that sexy number on the right there? That’s what she wore to work.

Okay, but obviously Wonder Woman is not going to be fighting crime in a bulky flight suit. Palicki is a super gorgeous woman with a great (possibly fake? I don’t really care) rack and I wouldn’t mind seeing her pummeling bad guys while wearing something revealing/body conscious. But can she even MOVE in that thing? Some people say those preposterous painted on leggings are more practical than a skirt for stomping ass. I dunno about that. Xena: Warrior Princess did okay for herself (plus she was pretty DTF). Xena.jpeg

Later on in The Nerdist article, Roberts writes, “If I remember correctly, [David E. Kelley’s] written (poor) reasons for why this costume looks like it does into the script. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but I remember seeing an excerpt that shows Diana acknowledging the sex-appeal of her costume, and her chest specifically.” This is where, if you’ll excuse me, I might lose my sh*t (not at Roberts). Wonder Woman does not need to use her sexual appeal as a weapon, she has SUPER POWERS. There’s a tradition, in television and film, of badass females exploiting their bodies and their appeal in order to triumph over evil. (The villainesses adopted this trick long ago.) You’ll sometimes see ficitional female spies use their wiles (breasts) to catch their prey off-guard. I’ll admit, it makes sense for females (often at somewhat of a physical disadvantage) to gain whatever upper hand they can. I will readily cheer for Nikita, Sydney Bristow, or Sarah Walker when they deliver a breast-baring beat down. But, you know what, THEY DON’T HAVE SUPER POWERS. Take note of the photo on the left, “Wonder Woman” producers, that’s how you do tight, blue and shiny.

spies.jpg

Additionally, the operative word in the above paragraph is “sometimes.” Because sometimes, those lady spies get to wear kevlar, or fatigues, or f*cking sweats when fighting crime. Wonder Woman has to wear that thing ALL THE DAMN TIME. Okay, but let’s take the example of a famous television heroine who DID have super powers. One of the things I loved about Ms. Buffy Summers, is that she never used sex in combat (that was Faith’s gimmick). Was she sexy? Well, that’s a matter of some debate, but I say hell yes. But when you’re stronger, faster and smarter (or at least have smarter friends) than your enemies, you don’t need the sex. Once again, “Wonder Woman” producers, note the better execution of shiny. Also, remember when Sarah Michelle Gellar used to eat and, therefore, had a stellar rack?

Buff.jpg

Going back to The Nerdist article for a moment, Kazebee exclaims, “FUCK. HAVE ANY OF THESE PEOPLE SEEN A SUPERHERO COSTUME BEFORE? They are all — every single one of them — bright, shiny, primary colored, tight in the sex places, and ridiculous.” Well, that’s not true. Take Christian Bale’s BatKevlar or the new Captain America’s leather number. I’ve heard Cap’s new costume described as baggy. I know I’m in the minority, but I LOVE the rugged look of his outfit, especially compared to how that outfit is drawn in the comics or, god help us, the CGI monstrosity that was painted onto Ryan Reynolds’ body for the new Green Lantern film. By the way, can you imagine how preposterous people would find it if Reynolds were to shake his green painted nethers at a bad guy in order to stun him into submission? (Stop drooling, YOU!)

boys.jpg

Finally (and this is where I may get my feminist card pulled), if the goal of the Wonder Woman outfit is to show off Palicki’s body, they are DOING IT WRONG. Kazebee, Roberts and I all agree that Adrianne Palicki was kick-ass on “Friday Night Lights” and has both the physical prowess and the acting chops to pull off this role. She’s also a babe. A stone cold fox. And that vinyl diner booth of an outfit is not doing her legs or chest any good. I agree with The Nerdist authors that sexy does not equal slutty. But if you’re going to do sexy, do it right.

AP.jpg

Joanna Robinson has never read a single Wonder Woman comic. Have at thee.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Films with the Greatest Rewatchability Factor | This Week on British TV: "Doctor Who's" Matt Smith Plays a Gay Writer, Makes Love to Caspar









Comments

That picture of Palicki in W.W. costume--I thought it was Kat Von D, whom I do not think is at all appealing. My bad.

Posted by: DenG at March 24, 2011 4:24 PM

First train of thought ran to a comment Miranda from "Mass Effect 2" (based on and voiced by Yvonne Strahovski) makes about having been genetically-engineered to be the perfect everything -- scientist, warrior, leader -- and how she said that she wore her skin-tight outfit as acknowledgement of the fact that she was engineered to be the perfect specimen. Also cause guys would drool long enough for her to put two between their eyes.

But that's not Wonder Woman. And that's kind of the point Kelley is missing. Wonder Woman is supposed to be the pinnacle of femininity -- not just tough and capable and daring, but just, loyal and inspiring.

What is that Wonder Woman up there inspiring any girl to? Other than a Halloween night full of Jell-O shots?

Posted by: Fredo at March 24, 2011 4:27 PM

Great article. I agree with every single word. If only my employer didn't prevent me from accessing Facebook while at work, I'd share this immediately.

I would like to expound on only one thing: You write, "Finally (and this is where I may get my feminist card pulled), if the goal of the Wonder Woman outfit is to show off Palicki’s body, they are DOING IT WRONG."

First, you're not getting your femist card pulled for that; we should be just as confident talking about a woman's body as a man's. Second, you have struck upon my most major complaint with the costume; that woman looks terrible in the outfit. Regardless of how the outfit looks on a hanger somewhere, some effort should be made to at least make her look good while she's in it.

Posted by: superasente at March 24, 2011 4:29 PM

Yes, yes and yes. I agree with you on all points and am glad SOMEONE said it.

Posted by: Nesto at March 24, 2011 4:29 PM

That last frame, picture on the left? Boobs defintely fake.

/missing the point

Posted by: Ian at March 24, 2011 4:31 PM

I agree with you Joanna. I don't have any problem with Palicki showing off her physique in her costume but they are most definitely doing it wrong. She's gorgeous in the pictures you've posted of her but she looks cheap and silly in that Wonder Woman costume. I hope they cave to public outrage and change it.

I love that Captain America costume. This is my first time seeing it so I haven't been paying enough attention. The costume in and of itself makes me want to see the movie.

Posted by: becks at March 24, 2011 4:35 PM

Oh gawd, they are, Ian. I didn't really look at that one.

Fakes not make rack great.

Yeah, this costume's like a child of the new and old looks in the book, and coming out with a lot of the recessive genes. But I think those writers were talking about costumes as drawn, which are always like that as far as I can remember.

Posted by: Jay at March 24, 2011 4:40 PM

I too prefer the more practical approach they're taking with Cap'n Merika's new outfit plus I also miss Sarah Michelle Gellar's former curves, but as for the new Wonder Woman, I'm afraid the costume is only half the problem.

Now I don't wanna speak too harshly of Miss Palicki because I've never seen Friday Night Lights and perhaps she's much more animated when in motion, but that promo pic makes her look like a goddamn RealDoll!

I feel that Diana: Warrior Princess should have a countenance that commands respect and says "Look all you want but make a move I don't like and I'll break you in ways that'll never heal right." not "I wonder when Heff is taking us shopping again?! I hope Fred Durst isn't at the mansion this weekend"

Posted by: Murderbot at March 24, 2011 4:40 PM

My angry feminist self loves this article; I think your card is probably pretty safe.

You should read Susan J. Douglas' Enlightened Sexism. The third chapter is all about Xena, BtVS, Alias, etc, and how those shows "fused feminism and femininity in a fantasy reconciliation between the fury of Riot Grrrl and the body politics of Cosmo." It's awesome.

Posted by: Angeleno Ewok at March 24, 2011 4:48 PM

I'm not sure Buffy could have used her sexuality as a distraction in combat, given the nature of the creatures she went up against, but I see what you're saying.

I'm opposed to the whole idea of the Wonder Woman TV show, but after much thought I've come to the conclusion that the only way they could do the costume in a way that makes sense is to go the fully-covering dark leather route the way Batman and the X-Men have. Obviously there'd be Wonder-Womany features, a yellow "W," red stars, and whatnot. But the classic Wonder Woman costume, for all that I think it should never, ever be changed in the comic books, simply doesn't work in the modern, real world. And the closer they try to get to it, the worse it gets. And so you get crap like this.

Posted by: Todd at March 24, 2011 4:49 PM

Princess Diana's costume should have been armor in the right shape for an Amazonian Princess. This cheap crap makes my eyes burn. She's noble, dammit, not a tramp with a whip and high heels.

Did no one actually review Alex Ross' work before starting this disasterbacle?

Posted by: Hater from Siloam Springs at March 24, 2011 4:56 PM

Ye gods. Only a newly-minted feminist would write such drivel and think it insightful. What's next, shall we be treated to a debate between bell hooks and Mary Daly on whether Wonder Woman's lack of a "y" as the final vowel demonstrates Diana's continuing oppression at the hands of the Patriarchy?

This doesn't even make sense as feminist criticism. The author has mistaken her personal feelings about tight clothing for a valid criticism of costuming-as-gender-signalling. And, no, the personal is not the political. For the author, getting her "feminist knickers in a twist" about a costume is actually the author longing to return to mandatory skirt lengths and dress codes. Nice.

You're really arguing that a super-powered demi-goddess can't function because her tight pants are too tight? Really? What level of bagginess would be suitable? And who will decide? Shall we have roving bands of "feminist" inspectors meeting women on the street to measure? Possible "slut-shame" them back to their homes? Any of this sounding suspiciously familiar?

As always, scratch a feminist, find a misogynist.

Posted by: ironchefoklahoma at March 24, 2011 4:59 PM

aside from the foil balloon costume, that actress looks more like wonder girl (wonder teen?) than wonder woman. I don't really buy her as an adult, let alone an powerful brazen heroic adult who is also CEO of a major corporation.

Posted by: idleprimate at March 24, 2011 5:03 PM

I grew up watchingthe Lynda Carter version of WW (but not reading the comics) so obviously that's my ideal. I think this new costume is garish and will probably make too much noise for WW to be effective at sneaking up on the bad guys.

Now, to go completely off topic... I just started watching the Buffy series a couple of months ago, having never watched it during it's original run. Tonights episode is "The Body" and I cannot wait to get home and crash in front of the TV. Unfortunately, tonight is baseball practice night for my son, so I have a really long wait.

Posted by: elsie at March 24, 2011 5:11 PM

Oh, to read Camille Paglia going off on this. Under-awesoming an icon of female power, one with archetypal references yet, would get her in such a state. She already can't say everything she needs to fast enough. (Seriously. She's the only person I want to remind to breathe when I'm reading something she's written.) I'm off to see if she's writing her column again, because she won't be able to not comment on this at some point, and it will be awesome.

Camille Paglia is my hero, the patron saint of feminism with balls. Er - so to speak. Or ovaries, but that's not the colloquial expression. The point is owning your power, dammit, including the lower in the tingly bits. But you don't have to use them if you don't want to. And there's a nurturing principle that's all ...

Oh, hell. Cut me some slack. I was traumatized by gaggles of run-amok Dworkenites in my formative years.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at March 24, 2011 5:12 PM

So I'm trying to unpack all of the issues we are bringing up here and I actually think that it is a mistake to frame this as primarily a feminist issue. It seems that above all the biggest complaint about the consume is that it is just tacky (or fugly, or whatever parlance for poorly designed you want to use).

So if the problem is that the outfit is tacky, and does a terrible job of showcasing the heroine or flattering the figure of the actress, then that really doesn't need to be primarily a feminist issue, it's just poor production design. Framing it as a feminist issue muddles the point and leads people to make dumb emotional and defensive reactions online.

The costume is bad because it is objectively, esthetically bad. It is cheap looking, not flattering, impractical, and unrealistic. It is ugly.

Now, once we have established that we can go on to discuss all of the secondary and tertiary issues, including a feminist reading of the costume design. Here I think Joanna does a great job of providing positive examples of female beuty and sexuality in the genre to highlight just how many things are wrong, offensive, and tone-deaf re: this getup. And then there is the history of sexualizing female characters in super hero comics, "slut-shaming", the implications of taking a powerful female figure and dressing her in a halter top and hooker pants, &c &c.

Those are all interesting points, but a public discussion on the internet on a fanboy-dominated message board is not going to engender a very good discussion, especially if you don't compartmentalize the feminist criticism from the esthetic criticism.

Posted by: Yossarian at March 24, 2011 5:15 PM

I, TOO, AM OFFENDED THAT WOMAN DO NOT WANT TO PUT ON UNFUNCTIONAL AND CONSTRICTIVE ARTICLES OF NOT-QUITE-CLOTHING SO THAT WHEN THEY PUNCH THING THEIR BOOBS MAKE WITH THE JIGGLING WHILE I RUB MY HOWLING COMMANDOS. ironchef you speak to me!

If you can't high-kick your enemies in stilettos while maintaining perfect balance and co-ordination, and if you can't fill a screen with your tits, get back in the kitchen! HUZZAH AND SUCH!

Posted by: MAN'S MAN at March 24, 2011 5:18 PM

kazzbee is wrong. she/he is just plain wrong on every count. All superheros wear clingy costumes, that is not the issue. Whether you are a feminist or not, this costume is more than ill conceived and tragic, does nothing to enhance the character, her super powers and certainly does not make her seem like a serious threat to anyone other than the "Camel Toe Queen of the Amazon 2011".

Posted by: JuiceinLA at March 24, 2011 5:26 PM

I have a sneaking suspicion that MAN'S MAN is actually superasente. Call it a hunch.

JoRo and (of course, obviously, again) Yossarian touch on basically everything I've thought about and would say on this topic. I'll just add, it really is a shame Joss Whedon didn't get to do his version; not just because I'm a dyed in wool Whedonite (I am), but because out of everyone in Hollywood, he's created/written some of the best heroines since, well, Wonder Woman. Probably better, actually, if not as iconic. David E. Kelley is best known for putting Calista Flockhart in a miniskirt while she imagined dancing babies and never once stepped foot in a court room.*

Fortunately (or, Un-, depending on your perspective), Wonder Woman isn't too big to fail.

* Of course she did, but do you remember any of her cases?

Posted by: RobP at March 24, 2011 5:30 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE!

Posted by: MAN'S MAN at March 24, 2011 5:32 PM

I'll tell you what IS too big to fail, RobP...ah hell, never mind.

Posted by: Ian at March 24, 2011 5:36 PM

Wonder Woman is an Amazon from the island of Themyscira who as an ambassador to the United States wears the colors of that nation. Her bracers were formed from the remnants of Athena's legendary shield and the lasso of truth was forged by Hephaestus from the golden girdle of Gaea.

That is for anyone who does not know the origins of Wonder Woman and her costume.

*Comic Geek*

Posted by: Nesto at March 24, 2011 5:44 PM

What Yossarian said. And RobP. And Ian, the first time around.

I'm feeling rather lazy today.

Posted by: nosio at March 24, 2011 5:49 PM

People, people we'll have plenty of time to discuss the merits of the costume/uniform once the show is canceled after six episodes.

Posted by: John W at March 24, 2011 5:51 PM

What's that, Ian? Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark? No, that can't be right. It's just true, not funny. Hmm... consider me stumped.

Posted by: RobP at March 24, 2011 6:18 PM

I tried to post using a similar name to MAN'S MAN, but he put a stop to that before it got out of the planning stage. He literally found me at work and brutalized me with his body odor and chest hair before forcing me away from my keyboard with nothing but a yellowed snarl. I was terrified and aroused by it all at once. I still have the taste of his musky sweat in my nose. It certainly isn't just a clever name people; he is a MAN'S MAN.

[cue 6 Million Dollar Man theme song as performed by Twisted Sister]

Posted by: superasente at March 24, 2011 6:25 PM

I should have said "what are too big"
It was a dumb joke anyway.

Posted by: Ian at March 24, 2011 6:25 PM

Can I just say, Powergirl, who is known for her Superman like powers and her enormous rack, has actually stated that the hole in the front of her costume is to distracted most of her foes so she has the element of surprise... And she has superpowers.

It's a stupid costume, but a leg up is a leg up, even if it's a nice set of boobies.

Posted by: Brian at March 24, 2011 6:31 PM

It will take Diana Prince what, an hour, to put that vinyl suit on (by then criminals would have skipped out). And it will squeak like crazy (giving heads-up to criminals when she tries to sneak up to them). Finally--can you imagine how stinky it is going to be when she sweats in it? Yet another way to tip off the bad guys (hey, I smell Wonder Woman around here!).

Posted by: True_Blue at March 24, 2011 6:45 PM

I'm in the camp that thinks her costume is incredibly tacky (ok there probably is no other camp). I agree with a lot of what you said up there and they are definitely not properly showcasing Ms. Palicki's assets correctly. I have to say she's on a pretty short list of women who I'd consider switching sides for.

Also this post makes me miss Buffy, Alias, and BSG. Intensely.

Posted by: Even Stevens at March 24, 2011 7:43 PM

How the hell do I get rid of the little yellow bird ad which is parading across every page I try to access on Pajiba? Clicking the cross at top right does bugger all.

Posted by: Ali at March 24, 2011 7:53 PM

I'm just amazed that costume got approved. Everybody hates it. I haven't heard one good word about it. Just tasteless is one thing, but tasteless and unpopular together have no place in TV.

Posted by: Lucas at March 24, 2011 8:05 PM

My problem is not that it's supposed to be sexy. Linda Carter managed to look less tacky while exposing far more skin, in my opinion. And, while I do object to how much more sexualized female superhero's costumes tend to be than those of their male counterparts, this one is offensive on other grounds. This one, as many of you have pointed out, is hideous. It can't be offensively sexy, because it's too tacky.

I don't understand why she's not wearing something closer to what she wears now in the comic book. I don't actually like what she wears in the comic book now, but at least it wouldn't look like she'd bought it for $6.99 at Spirit, a size too small, the day after Halloween.

Posted by: elisamaza at March 24, 2011 9:27 PM

That costume looks like it would split to pieces if she sneezed wrong, let alone tried to kick someone. Somebody needs to kidnap Adam Hughes and Alex Ross, lock them in a basement with a bucket, a box of MREs, a picture of Ms. Palicki, and some drawing supplies, and not let them out until they could come up with something resembling clothing fit for a human female body.

And I gotta agree: it isn't a strictly feminist issue. It's a taste bordering on common sense issue. And considering the little firestorm over WW's costume in the actual comic (which is probably a reason why they tried to avoid using it for the show), to see that this is eclipsing it should be clue one something is wrong.

But I get the feeling that Kelley is pulling a Tim "I would NEVER read a comic book, now see my Batman" Burton on this project. With half the talent. And no Jack Nicholson.

I also want to point out that Ms. Palicki managed to look a hell of a lot better (and less cheap) in Women in Trouble. And she was playing a porn star in that one.

Posted by: Vermillion at March 24, 2011 9:51 PM

Exactly Brian, and PowerGirl is as powerful as Superman (both Kryptonians.) It works in the comics, and doesn't come off as stupid or sexist.
Also, superpowers mean nothing if your opponent is equally as powerful, and since super heros fight supervillans, many of whom are men with ego issues, sexuality definitly becomes a weapon. When done right, it works.

But, that new costume fucking sucks. It looks like my fiance's valentines surprise for me. They could at least have made it look more durable. Started with this: http://fanartexhibit.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wonder_woman_movie_still_new.jpg and went from there.

Posted by: Gamal at March 24, 2011 10:18 PM

I don't know if there's anything I care less about in the history of the human race than wonder woman's costume.

Posted by: John G. at March 25, 2011 12:01 AM


If you can't high-kick your enemies in stilettos while maintaining perfect balance and co-ordination, and if you can't fill a screen with your tits, get back in the kitchen! HUZZAH AND SUCH!

Posted by: MAN'S MAN at March 24, 2011 5:18 PM
---
Hear! Hear!

Here's how to do it right:

www.moviecritic.com.au/images/diana-rigg-as-emma-peel-from-the-avengers1.jpg

Posted by: , at March 25, 2011 1:56 AM

As usual I'm overwhelmed by both the article and the comment threas and completely underwhelmed by the subject (I mean, seriously, people got paid actual cash currency to design and produce that outfit? I could've just pointed the director to the sex shop round the corner from my house. But that's another story.)

Posted by: cinekat at March 25, 2011 4:41 AM

Was (Buffy Summers) sexy? Well, that’s a matter of some debate, but I say hell yes.

I didn't realize that was a matter of ANY debate. Maybe for blind people.

Posted by: TylerDFC at March 25, 2011 8:52 AM

Honestly, when I first saw the photo, slutty was not what came to mind. (Neither did sexy might I add.) That never really occurred to me until I got to this article.

My problem with it, is that it just looks bad. I did read that a lot of people thought the new costume was more revealing than the original, which I don't totally agree with. She's totally covered...even though it's super glued to her skin and just overall ridiculous looking.

They could do, much, much more with the original uniform and still make it modern. Which is a little weird, 'cause the big trend right now is 50's and 60's revival or whatever "fashion experts" like to call it. So they actually...probably don't even need to change it at all.

Posted by: Candee at March 25, 2011 10:53 AM

Agreed on the costume hate.

But I just don't get why, if boobies are so powerful, apparently tipping the balance in the woman's favor if her "opponent is equally powerful," Hilary couldn't beat Barack?????

Posted by: Anon at March 25, 2011 1:27 PM

Much ado over nothing? Chances are this show will last 5-6 episodes anyway.

Posted by: logan at March 25, 2011 2:13 PM

Some points that struck me:
1-Yes, it is ridiculous but it IS simply part of the genre. Sexy colorful outfits. I'm just aghast at how many people are aghast that a superheroine is wearing shiny tights. Really? This is a shocker?? We have to go into how it isn't 'practical'? It's superheroes! They wear outlandish outfits! Most of them in real life would look like they're on the way to a fetish night club or a costume party! Swallow it or avoid the genre on the whole, I'd say. How many people yelling about her tight pants complained that Spider-Man's suit was equally tight?? Oh right, absolutely no one. But now it's a woman and now suddenly it's 'ridiculous' and an 'issue'.

2-Just because a superheroine is wearing a sexy outfit does not mean she is 'using her sexuality as a weapon.' It has nothing to do with needing it or having superpowers or not. It just means she's a superheroine. They dress in tight, shiny outfits. Seriously. Pick up a comic.

3-I agree about the colors. Tone them down. Some elements that work on a comic page don't always work on the screen. Also, they simply misunderstood the recent redesign of WW's costume: in comic art, a lot of black ink combined with some support blue usually means to convey black. Not blue.

4-At least with that redesign and here for the show, some attempt was made to improve things for the screen. Does anyone REALLY claim that star-spangled hotpants look better? Yet many people decrying this redesign LOVED that. Now THAT spells 'hooker' to me.

5-This show is not going to last either way...

Posted by: Arco at March 25, 2011 6:33 PM

I just Googled the comic book version, and it looks so much more awesome than this. Same busty boobs, and same tight pants. But it looks so awesome! And I love the little leather jacket thing they gave her.

Geeze. I'd take the comic's version way more seriously than this .

Posted by: Candee at March 26, 2011 9:56 AM

The most unrealistic thing about Buffy's clothing choices was how damn expensive her wardrobe was.

Posted by: TWoP_Fan at March 26, 2011 2:27 PM


"The most unrealistic thing about Buffy's clothing choices was how damn expensive her wardrobe was.

Posted by: TWoP_Fan"

And extensive. Her closet must have been the size of the Rose Bowl. Did not diminish my love, howsomever.

Posted by: bentjohn at March 27, 2011 4:07 PM

the problem with the wonderwoman costume isn't that it's sexiest or anti feminist, it's that it's fucking hideous. Don't get me wrong I would bang the shit out of Placki if she gave me the chance but she looks fucking hideous in that outfit. It's not sexy at all.

Honestly if they wanted to go away from the swimsuit look just put her in the outfit from the begining of New Frontier wich was basically Xena's outfit painted red and blue.

Posted by: Ben at March 28, 2011 12:06 AM

t of these, but The Tourist? Everyone laughed at that one (although it didn't look too bad when I actually saw the preview), so I'm surprised it raked in plenty of dough.remember Johnny Depp’s career.
My version of this sentence replaces Chocolat with
I feel that Diana: Warrior Princess should have a countenance that commands respect and says "Look all you want but make a move I don't like and I'll break you in ways that'll never heal right." not "I wonder when Heff is taking us shopping again?! I hope Fred Durst isn't at the mansion this weekend"

Posted by: cosplay costumes at April 5, 2011 5:28 AM