Real-life – maybe to fold one’s babies up in the wing to prevent falling, with easier access to the nipple?
Movies – now that would be an extra-special fetish.
2 Likes
Whenever I’m asked who my favorite Batman is, I always answer Kevin Conroy.
2 Likes
Hahahahaha! For the Joker, it would be Mark Hamill, correct?
4 Likes
Easily. The only BTAS version character I didn’t like better than their live-action counterparts is Lucius Fox, who Morgan Freeman portrayed more perfectly IMHO.
I don’t understand people’s fascination with Jack Nicholson’s Joker. I mean I love me some Jack Nicholson, but he played Jack Nicholson, not the Joker. After mark Hamill I’d go with Heath Ledger.
3 Likes
Actually, now that I think of it - and how could I forget - Lucy Lawless was asked to play WW during her success with "Xena: Warrior Princess’, but said that she would only do it if the character was flawed.*
And thank goodness that they didn’t decide to do the Cathy Lee Crosby WW!
*Obviously, whoever made the offer in H-wood withdrew it because, GAWD FORBID a strong woman character be flawed.
7 Likes
No Cesar? No white-painted mustache?
3 Likes
2 Likes
Another actor I love, just not my preferred Joker. I will say that he was the perfect choice for the Adam West Batman, and I’m glad all the versions exist.
Well, except the newest one. But I’ll say that I was expecting to hate Ben Affleck as Batman. In truth he and Gal Gadot as WW were the only things I really liked about Batman v Superman. He wasn’t a great Batman, but he at least did a serviceable job. He’s another actor who usually just plays himself - though in his case I’m not much of a fan - but he did a fair job of fitting into the character instead of the other way around. Combined with my low expectations, I was pleasantly surprised, even if his character was terribly written (but then so was that entire movie). /end_rant
2 Likes
That would be interesting. While I actually like the character Xena better than WW, they’re different enough that I’d worry about Lucy Lawless playing WW too much like Xena’s personality. Then again, Lucy Lawless is awesome, so I’d certainly have given it a go. More Lucy Lawless can never be a bad thing.
1 Like
The asking for the character to be flawed was too much to ask for.
4 Likes
Is it just me, or does that trailer feel a lot like a gender-reversed Captain America: The First Avenger?
Thought #1: That’s somewhat unavoidable, given the similar powers, and the fact that both are involving themselves in a World War.
Thought #2: CA:TFA is one of the best MCU movies to date. That might not be a bad thing.
Thought #3: Even so, the invulnerable shield makes the comparison a little too obvious. Wait. Why does she even have a shield? Aren’t her bracelets supposed to stop bullets?
Thought #4: Though the music in the CA:TFA trailers are not exactly memorable, at least it doesn’t detract from the trailers. Can’t say the same for this trailer.
Final thought: I haven’t seen any of the new DCU movies, as I’ve heard increasingly bad things about each. But I think I might actually go see this one.
IIRC, she is well versed in a myriad of weapons and armor, including sword and shield. Remember she’s supposed to be from a warrior race of Greek Demigods.
1 Like
I get that. I’d expect her to wield a shield excellently, if she picked one up.
It’s just that, given her bracelets, I don’t expect her to ever need one.
And, while I’m not too familiar with the comics, I don’t remember an indestructable shield being among the gear she usually carried. I mean, Cap does, but his shield is legendary and almost integral to his character. If she had such a thing, you’d think it’d be up there with her bracelets and her lasso as an iconic piece of her image.
Yeah, you’d think even if the indestructible shield was in some of the Wonder Woman comics they’d downplay it for the movie if only to avoid the obvious comparison to the other star-spangled superhero who recently had a big screen outing set during a World War.
I guess it’s a little too early to hope for an invisible jet though.
4 Likes
I don’t know if her shield is indestructible. Most likely magical. I have seen her with a sword and shield in comics, and even spears and bows. Bracelets are nice, but a full shield is going to be a better defense against large melee weapons or power beams wider than your bracelet.
The character has like 65+ years of history, so there are going to be several different versions of her through the years, just like any other long lived character. I am sure that the bracelets will be in the movie, but 1) the movies don’t usually stick to the comics well, and 2) even if they did, she has used many other weapons in her history.
Invisible bi-plane, maybe?
5 Likes
Just as long as this movie doesn’t have her facing off against the Crimson Cranium for control of the Cosmic Cone.
1 Like
Diana has been using a shield fairly regularly for the last few years in the comics. It’s funny that so many have fixated on the shield, yet ignore the sword which is equally absent in the older comics (part of the shield gear of late as well). From the reflecting bullets perspective, even the bracers are pointless as Diana has invulnerability on par with Superman’s. Think of getting pinched a lot; it doesn’t do any physical damage to us, but few will stand still and keep getting pinched. Sure she can survive a tank shell to the face, but it’s reasonable to assume she’d prefer that she not get hit in the first place.
5 Likes
Ah, that makes more sense. If it’s a recent thing, it hasn’t had a chance to become iconic yet. Is it the same type of shield shown in the trailer (absorbs energy blasts, effortlessly deflects multiple machine gun streams simultaneously, i.e. invulnerable)?
The difference is that, while the shield is pointless due to bracelets/invulnerability, the sword has a point. That is: as an offensive weapon, she is more lethal with it than without it.
Having looked up WW on the DC Wiki, it seems that by crossing her gauntlets, it forms a kind of shield in front of her anyway making the shield doubly pointless.
