Lynda Carter ~ Colleen Camp Picture Debate

[tertium]

Originally Posted by gregj1967

Fellas--I do have a copy of the issue of High Society featuring the BJ&TO pix with Lynda as Wonder Woman on the cover. I also have numerous issues of the HS publication Celebrity Skin which reprint those pix and add several more every time they re-present them. I posted at least one of those articles in its entirety some time back (including the text); I don't recall any interveiw with the airbrush artist, but I simply may not remember it. Unfortunately those magazines are in boxes underneath a whole bunch of other boxes that have yet to be unpacked after my move a couple of months ago, but I'll try and get to them soon and re-check the articles. Also--unfortunately--I DON'T have a copy of the Expose issue; I turned down one priced at around $20 several years ago at a comic convention which was obviously a mistake.

I think getting a copy of that Expose magazine and getting some high resolution scans of the contents especially the printed photos/paintings would go a long way to helping us figure out what is fact and what's fiction. But then again, it may just stir up another round of debate. But that's not a bad thing either. Hopefully a new member or even an old one (not age related) will come along with scans of the magazine. Here's hoping. (And hoping the centerfold is real!)

[Rubinski]

Oh Lynda,
What a beauty.

I don't have the Expose Oct82 that was requested.
These are out of a Harvey-Feb83.
They mentioned Lynda on the cover.
Inside, they said it was a scam.
I believe they did that because the did not have the rights to publish the photo.
Then if they were sued, they could get out of it.

Any interest in the text? I can post the full pages, if wanted. No clown noses.
They also printed some reader's responses in the following months.

From what I've seen and read, I believe it really is Lynda.
I am very sure it didn't come from that particular shot of Colleen Camp.

Wonder if Hef has the original slides. Might have been some different poses.
Playboy did print some other stills of Colleen when the movie came out.
Would those have been Lynda, if she had stayed in the movie?

Anyway, here are the scans.
Another printing of the Apocalypse Now centerfolds, and my feather job on the fold line.
It was a small print in the mag, but I did what I could.
Wished I had that centerfold from the Expose.

[tertium]

Originally Posted by Rubinski

Oh Lynda,
What a beauty.

I don't have the Exp0se Oct82 that was requested.
These are out of a H@rvey-Feb83.
They mentioned Lynda on the cover.
Inside, they said it was a scam. Probably so they wouldn't get sued.
Any interest in the text? I can post the full pages, if wanted. No clown noses.
They also printed some reader's responses in the following months.

From what I've seen and read, I think it might really be Lynda.
If it is a fake, I'm pretty sure it didn't come from that particular shot of Colleen Camp.

Wonder if Hef has the original slides. Might have been some different poses.
Pl@yb0y did print some other stills of Colleen when the movie came out.
Would those have been Lynda, if she had stayed in the movie?

Anyway, here are the scans.
Another printing of the Apocalypse Now centerfolds, and one of my attempts at retouching.
Kind of a small print in the mag, but I did what I could.
Wished I had that centerfold from the Expose.

Wow sir! Thank you! Every little bit helps. I for one would love to read what the magazine said. As you may have gathered from my previous posts, I'm interested in every little clue. We may never know the real truth, but if we get enough evidence one way or the other, I think we can make a reasonable guess. I'm still leaning towards "real". If it isn't too much trouble, scans of the text or the entire article would be very helpful. Thanks.

[Rubinski]

Here's what I found in Harvey on the Lynda C/F so far.
Really only one page of text in February 83.
The upper part of that page was Jackie O pictures, so I left that out.

They also printed a reversed enlargement of Lynda's C/F, but they cut it off at her tummy.
At least it was a full page, so I included it, and a retouched version of it.

They got some reader mail in April and June, so I also included those.
The June letter points out some of the differences between the Lynda and Colleen photos.
That's part of the reasons I believe they didn't fake it from that particular shot of Colleen.

I thought air brushing was primarily used to cover flaws, and cover up the naughty bits.
Yes, you can feather in a different face, but pasting up a picture with all those slight differences would have been very difficult, and extremely time consuming.
Especially if they used that particular shot of Colleen for the body.

And what about the face of Lynda?
Has that shot of Lynda's face ever been seen anywhere else?
Those usually turn up on fakes.

IMO - the centerfold IS Lynda.

Okay, here's the scans.
I included the first three again so the complete set from Feb 83 is here.




April and June

[gregj1967]

Outstanding job Rubinski, and very interesting. After reviewing the photos side-by-side and reading the articles, several things are now clear to me:

1-These are NOT the same photographs. The posing of Colleen and Lynda, while similar, is not exact, and I'm not sure that even high-quality professional airbrushing could be responsible for all of the minute but significant differences in body style, posture and lighting.

2-Although the jacket appears to be the same in each photo, the jeans are not. Look closely at the belt loops and trimming and you'll see what I mean.

3-These two photos seem to have been taken in the same studio. Look at the bottom right of each photo and you'll notice the same chair. At first glance it looks like peg-board or the cover to an old 1970's style stereo speaker, but my family used to have a set of chairs back in the early-mid 1970s (same time frame as these photos) with woven rattan-style backs inside slightly curving wood frames. Look at the bottom extreme right of the Lynda photo and you can see that the top of the chair back is curving upward slightly to its left as it would meet the other side of the frame at a high point in the middle (out of the picture frame). Also you can see the top right corner of the chair back contrasted against the lighter color of the photog backdrop, just to left of where the left-hand side of Lynda's jacket hangs behind the chair back. Look at the Colleen photo carefully and you can just make out the exact same top right corner of the chair back; there isn't as much of the chair in the colleen photo so it's not quite as visible, but it's the same chair.

Conclusion: The two photos were taken in the same studio and probably within 6 months of each other. Assuming the Lynda photo is real for the moment, why would they want the exact same style of centerfold shot using the same jacket top, background, and pose style for the Camp photo? The answer might be as simple as the head of the art department on Apocalypse Now telling the photographer that he wanted the "same type" of photo for Colleen as he had previously done with Lynda. The photog obliges, perhaps not knowing how close to the original the new one should be therefore making it extremely similar.

But there's another, and much more plausible reason why the two photos were done almost exactly the same. Recall that in Apocalypse Now Redux, Chef (Frederic Forrest) eventually gets together with Colleen Camp's Playmate character and tries to pose her in the same manner as she appears in the centerfold which is his favorite of all time. With this scene still in the script it would be necessary to have the "new" Colleen Camp mock centerfold (which is seen in much more detail on camera in Redux than in the theatrical release version of the film) look as much like the previous one with Lynda because of that scene. Whoever played the Playmate had to have been wearing the same kind of clothes, posing in the same way and shot in the same light because Chef's attempt to pose her in that centerfold pose is in the script; it's easier to keep the same look of a prop than re-write the script to suit a different looking mock centerfold. It might sound silly or far-fetched but it's the most plausible reason I can think of as to why the photo styles are almost identical. Any changes, no matter how minute, can cost big $$ when shooting a major motion picture. Had the Colleen Camp canterfold shot been done differently with different clothes, etc., all of those changes would had to have been written into the script and new wardrobe--requiring new fittings, etc.--would had to have been purchased. Colleen was probably selected in part because she fit into the clothes they already had or at least they could be altered easily since she is physically similar to Lynda.

It's also possible that these mock centerfolds were shot in the Phillipines where most of the film was shot which might also explain why the photog has never been identified; he--or she--may have been some "hack" who didn't retain any rights or authorship to the photo which would also save the filmmakers money since I believe the credited author of a photo would receive royalties or residuals for its repeated use. Laws regarding the credit and use of such material were probably different in the Phillipines than the USA (which may have something to do with the photo's limited distribution) and the cost of the photoshoots were probably lower as well. It's also possible that the two photos were simply shot by the art department on the film and therefore no individual credit for the photos were assigned since the photo was never intended for publication; it may have simply been one of numerous tasks performed by the art department--always named in a film's closing credits anyway--as part of their regular job.

There's more to say, but I think I've made my point. I'm now more convinced than ever before that the photo is possibly genuine (and remember that I'm the guy who's been arguing the other way all this time). All that remains now is for some truly "hard" evidence to surface such as the identity of the photog (unlikely) or some other confirmation from Lynda or members of the Apocalypse Now production team.

Fake or not?

Lynda has really distinct and prominent collar bones and that part looks exactly real.
Also a really long neck and that looks real.All though the head to neck alignment seems off,long necks can give that appearance.Lynda has this V above her nose bridge which seems to be missing but makeup and touchups can cover that up.I did not notice any other distinguishing body marks.Does Lynda have any that can be pointed out?Perhaps makeup or photo touch ups covered those though...
The other actress story makes it very believable that it is real.
Was her story before or after the photo appearance?

Most may not agree on this point but her nips look too big making me think it could be fake.Also the one person mentioned an article with the supposed artist saying it is fake.

Now seeing as how popular Lynda is that no one can find the original headshot if it is fake does not seem plausible.Therefore i think it is real...then again if this indeed does date back before computer fakes perhaps an original headshot does not exist as it could be painted/drawn.

The only other thing i can think would be a look alike model but that is highly doubtful as noted above most features seem to be identical to Wonder Woman.

One thing from this topic i did not see any caps or vids of i recall reading about is her live in concert or some type of show like that.Thanks to all for contributing.Great to see one of my favorites so well represented here.

[headmaster]

Was there ever any resolution to the whole Lynda Carter/Colleen Camp fake/not fake debate? I'm just wondering if anyone managed to get their hands on that Expose! magazine...

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by headmaster

Was there ever any resolution to the whole Lynda Carter/Colleen Camp fake/not fake debate? I'm just wondering if anyone managed to get their hands on that Expose! magazine...

No, no resolution. Just both sides digging themselves deeper in to their entrenchments.

[Mad_Hatter]

Well, re: the topless Apocalypse Now photos that some think are fake, I dug out the October 1979 issue of Playboy, that has this article entitled "Apocalypse Finally". Let me quote here from Colleen Camp:

"Actually, I think I'm psychic. At first, Linda [sic] Carter was cast in the Playmate role. Playboy did a centerfold shot with her, the whole bit (my italics). But seven months later, a typhoon had destroyed all the sets and Linda couldn't continue because of Wonder Woman, I guess."

Also, I found this on a blog:

No, anonymous has his facts completely wrong. First, the photo of Lynda topless IS entirely real. Second, the photo does NOT appear in Apocalypse Now, either the original or Redux.

The photo reproduced on this site is the top half of the Playboy centerfold shoot that she did when she was originally cast in Apocalypse Now (in the role later taken over by Colleen Camp). This was all explained in Playboy magazine, when they published the later centerfold shot of Colleen Camp and the photographer discussed how Lynda Carter had already posed for him before rains interrupted the film shooting and Carter had to drop out of the movie (to take on the role of Wonder Woman, actually).

The idea that there is some kind of 'photo-manipulation' going on here is simply an urban legend that is often repeated without having a close look at the facts. Some people think that the Carter centerfold is actually Colleen Camp's Playboy centerfold but with Lynda's head affixed. But those two pictures have different shirts, different jeans, different nail polish many points of difference.

The centerfold photo carried by the soldiers in all versions of the film is that of Camp, not Carter.

I got a copy of this photo through a mail-order company in the late 70s. I'm convinced it's real.

[JRay]

I recall reading the same PB article but I did not know any of the CF photos were available. So how about posting a scan in this thread?