http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/03/18/wonder-woman-adrianne-palicki-photo/

EW.COM

Red alert! Or should we say blue? EW has obtained an exclusive first look of Adrianne Palicki as Wonder Woman — aka Diana Prince — from NBC’s reboot of the classic 1970s series.

What’s different from what we’ve seen before? Well, how about those shiny blue pants? And blue boots instead of red ones? Compared to Lynda Carter’s get-up, this body-hugging extravaganza de-emphasizes the patriotism and seems to play up the comic’s Greek mythology. And a special shout-out to those bracelets!

Wonder Woman is being remade by Boston Legal writer David E. Kelley, who has incorporated the superhero’s signature lasso, cuffs, and plane in the pilot. NBC promises the project, if picked up to series, will offer a serious, non-campy take on the DC Comics character.

Along with Palicki, Elizabeth Hurley (Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me) and Cary Elwes (Saw, The Princess Bride) have joined the cast. Hurley’s character runs a pharmaceutical company that is creating a drug that makes people stronger while Elwes plays the CEO of Diana’s company, Themyscira Industr

The hair looks weird. I just don't like the look of it. Seeing Lynda Carter pic on the same site, she looks more natural. Adrianne looks squashed into the top of it

As far as I'm concerned the one to watch is La Hurley, looking unbelievably gorgeous at 46...

It looks like they plopped a wig on Adrianne's head and said "Now you're Wonder Woman"

That costume looks like a cheap Halloween getup. It's not flattering, the material is gaudy, and it makes Wonder Woman look common.

David Kelley has done nothing but humiliate women for decades - only in Hollywood would he be given a project that was supposed to be about the power of women.

She looks awful as Wonder Woman..how cheap and tacky...This show is going to fail big time

Here is the real Wonder Woman

That costume looks like a cheap Halloween getup. It's not flattering, the material is gaudy, and it makes Wonder Woman look common.

David Kelley has done nothing but humiliate women for decades - only in Hollywood would he be given a project that was supposed to be about the power of women.

Unfortunately, they are staying true to the comic book. The geniuses in charge decided WW needed a more modern look

I haven't read DC comics in years and years but I think that if NBC wants this to succeed they should try their own look. It looks like she is a prostitute. Unfortunately this does seem to reflect the media's view of women today.

Edited March 18, 201115 yr by CarlD2

the pants are too bright. Id go for a darker shade of blue, like more navy

I haven't read DC comics in years and years but I think that if NBC wants this to succeed they should try their own look. It looks like she is a prostitute. Unfortunately this does seem to reflect the media's view of women today.

they are trying their own look. I dont get the comment about her looking like a prostitute by reflecting a modern media view of women. Wonder Woman has ALWAYS dressed scantily clad in her costumes. This look in fact is more covered up than the classic look she is known far. She at least has pants instead of running around in her underwear. Heck even the new comic version barely has her showing skin. Seriously this new costume is more conservative than what she has worn before as her clothing isnt oversexified

Edited March 18, 201115 yr by Cheap21

I just don't understand what was wrong with the original look. It's pretty iconic, along with Superman and Batman. I realize that WW has not been really popular since the 1940s and only continues to be published because of the marketing value of the property, but her wardrobe wasn't her problem. I guess next we will see Archie and Jughead in sagging jeans and hoodies.

the pants are too bright. Id go for a darker shade of blue, like more navy

they are trying their own look. I dont get the comment about her looking like a prostitute by reflecting a modern media view of women. Wonder Woman has ALWAYS dressed scantily clad in her costumes. This look in fact is more covered up than the classic look she is known far. She at least has pants instead of running around in her underwear. Heck even the new comic version barely has her showing skin. Seriously this new costume is more conservative than what she has worn before as her clothing isnt oversexified

That's like saying the Rick James girls weren't oversexified because they wore "pants." Those are tacky looking, pseudo-pleather pants, painted on.

The media today generally just sees women either as shrews or as tramps, and this costume comes across to me as the latter.

I never thought her original look was sexualized. I thought it was more about power. This seems more like, "What do we want the men to drool over." I can't believe any superhero would ever wear those pants.

I never thought her original look was sexualized. I thought it was more about power. This seems more like, "What do we want the men to drool over." I can't believe any superhero would ever wear those pants.

I read their thinking was along the lines of "well, how come Wonder Woman wears shorts and none of the men do?" and their answer was because boys want to drool over hotties in shorts and this was not empowering or respectful of women. Then they go ahead and dress her in hooker pants.

That's like saying the Rick James girls weren't oversexified because they wore "pants." Those are tacky looking, pseudo-pleather pants, painted on.

The media today generally just sees women either as shrews or as tramps, and this costume comes across to me as the latter.

I never thought her original look was sexualized. I thought it was more about power. This seems more like, "What do we want the men to drool over." I can't believe any superhero would ever wear those pants.

But now are you talking about the girls are the clothing ? Ccompared to underwear, yes pants are less sexified. The costume isnt oversexualized, but the actress is with her big boobs and pose. Her costume shows less skin than it did in the past. I bet they had gone with her in a costume where she is simply wearing underwear with her butt hanging out, the same complaint would be made about her, so they cant win either way

Edited March 18, 201115 yr by Cheap21

Aside from the fact that it does look like a cheap Halloween costume, Adrienne Palicki looks so damn uncomfortable. It's almost as if she's thinking "WTF is this? But, anyway, I gotta smile! Smile!" Unless that's her trying to look sexy and strong... which has definitely back-fired.

But now are you talking about the girls are the clothing ? Ccompared to underwear, yes pants are less sexified. The costume isnt oversexualized, but the actress is with her big boobs and pose. Her costume shows less skin than it did in the past. I bet they had gone with her in a costume where she is simply wearing underwear with her butt hanging out, the same complaint would be made about her, so they cant win either way

The girls and the clothing. These types of pants are the type of pants that are often used in movies or TV or videos if they want the women to look cheap. Dorothy Lyman's Opal used to wear these.

I think it's not so much about skin as it is the overall costume. You can show skin and not be overly sexualized. This costume seems overly sexualized to me, and a trashy kind of sexuality. It turns Wonder Woman into a bad pin-up poster, not a heroine.