moonblossom:chenisthebestkitty:geekdonnatroy:castayel:fuchsimeon:viperpilot:Well, this is embarrassi
moonblossom:chenisthebestkitty:geekdonnatroy:castayel:fuchsimeon:viperpilot:Well, this is embarrassingLeft: Adrianne Palicki promo shot for NBC’s Wonder Woman.Right: Kimberly Kane promo shot for ‘Wonder Woman XXX: An Axel Braun Parody’.….is it just me or does the porno version outfit not only look WAY BETTER crafted and prettier, the actress also has more muscles, a nicer fitting chest piece and a waaay more fitting body type and skin tone. Also the porno version doesn’t look more “feminine”/more sexy whatever.That… is EMBARASSINGthe “official” one looks like a really bad Halloween costumeI mean fuck the porno one has bigger wrist cuff I REPEATE: BIGGER WRIST CUFFS PORNO WOMAN IS BETTER DRESSED TO KICK ASS *cries*can someone contact the designer of the porno clearly he/she knows how a womans body works.It’s embarrassing when the official looks a like a porn and the porn looks like the official thing.The thing that makes me stunned the most is that even the boobs of the porn version are cupped and held in better by her clothing than those of the official thing…The moment a porn movie treats the boobs of a woman with more subtlety than a big name production, some staff changes are in order.What both fascinates and disturbs me the most about these is the body language and facial expression.The “official” TV version looks passive, slightly confused, her pose is sort of ambiguous and floppy. She’s waiting for the viewer to do something before she reacts. The XXX version looks determined and fierce, and is taking literally 0% of your shit.One of these Wonder Women looks like a sex toy, and it’s not the pornographic one. -- source link