Register on the forum now to remove ALL ads + popups + get access to tons of hidden content for members only!
vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum
vintage erotica forum

Go Back   Vintage Erotica Forums > Discussion & Talk Forum > Vintage Erotica Talk

Follow Vintage Erotica Forum on Twitter
Best Porn Sites Meet Our Girls Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices
Vintage Erotica Talk Talk about vintage erotica right here! Maximum date of the content allowed to be posted here is 1995.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-08-2008, 04:58 PM   #21
tertium
Senior Member
 
tertium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 177
Thanks: 943
Thanked 4,390 Times in 182 Posts
tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregj1967 View Post
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!)
tertium is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tertium For This Useful Post:
Old 08-09-2008, 11:46 AM   #22
Rubinski
Model ID Moderator
 
Rubinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In profile
Posts: 2,091
Thanks: 15,868
Thanked 48,286 Times in 2,036 Posts
Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+
Default

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.

Last edited by Rubinski; 08-09-2008 at 11:55 AM..
Rubinski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 01:45 AM   #23
tertium
Senior Member
 
tertium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 177
Thanks: 943
Thanked 4,390 Times in 182 Posts
tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+tertium 25000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubinski View Post
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.
tertium is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tertium For This Useful Post:
Old 08-10-2008, 09:32 PM   #24
Rubinski
Model ID Moderator
 
Rubinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In profile
Posts: 2,091
Thanks: 15,868
Thanked 48,286 Times in 2,036 Posts
Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+Rubinski 175000+
Default

Here's what I found in H@rvey 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 off 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 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 time consuming.
Yes, it is possible, but if that is a fake, it's a dam good one.
Especially if they used that particular shot of Colleen for the body.
Was there another shot of Colleen that matched better? Still would have been difficult.
And what about the face of Lynda? Has that shot ever been seen anywhere with the real body?
Those usually turn up on fakes.

However, if the C/F is real, why did they try to make Colleen's C/F's look so similar?
Maybe they thought they might want to use some of the long shots filmed earlier that had Lynda's prop C/F in it.

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



April and June

Last edited by Rubinski; 08-10-2008 at 09:44 PM..
Rubinski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 10:50 AM   #25
gregj1967
Vintage Member
 
gregj1967's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon USA
Posts: 1,163
Thanks: 43,390
Thanked 37,549 Times in 1,157 Posts
gregj1967 175000+gregj1967 175000+gregj1967 175000+gregj1967 175000+gregj1967 175000+gregj1967 175000+gregj1967 175000+gregj1967 175000+gregj1967 175000+gregj1967 175000+gregj1967 175000+
Default

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.

Last edited by gregj1967; 08-12-2008 at 09:55 PM..
gregj1967 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to gregj1967 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-07-2008, 12:26 AM   #26
maesfan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2009, 01:34 AM   #27
headmaster
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 46
Thanks: 82
Thanked 1,122 Times in 39 Posts
headmaster 5000+headmaster 5000+headmaster 5000+headmaster 5000+headmaster 5000+headmaster 5000+headmaster 5000+headmaster 5000+headmaster 5000+headmaster 5000+headmaster 5000+
Default

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...
headmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to headmaster For This Useful Post:
Old 07-20-2009, 05:04 AM   #28
DTravel
InterDimensional Traveler
 
DTravel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Between universes, lost in another TV series project
Posts: 11,473
Thanks: 8,506
Thanked 102,120 Times in 11,345 Posts
DTravel 500000+DTravel 500000+DTravel 500000+DTravel 500000+DTravel 500000+DTravel 500000+DTravel 500000+DTravel 500000+DTravel 500000+DTravel 500000+DTravel 500000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by headmaster View Post
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.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you have a request for reupping any of my screencaps, please send a PM.
DTravel is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DTravel For This Useful Post:
Old 09-18-2009, 02:28 AM   #29
Mad_Hatter
Vintage Member
 
Mad_Hatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 718
Thanks: 10,915
Thanked 17,539 Times in 799 Posts
Mad_Hatter 50000+Mad_Hatter 50000+Mad_Hatter 50000+Mad_Hatter 50000+Mad_Hatter 50000+Mad_Hatter 50000+Mad_Hatter 50000+Mad_Hatter 50000+Mad_Hatter 50000+Mad_Hatter 50000+Mad_Hatter 50000+
Default

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.

__________________
"And yes I know how lonely life can be. The shadows follow me, and the night won't set me free..."

Last edited by Sam Spade; 09-18-2009 at 05:13 PM.. Reason: Removed banned link
Mad_Hatter is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Mad_Hatter For This Useful Post:
Old 09-18-2009, 03:06 AM   #30
JRay
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,340
Thanks: 1,667
Thanked 31,161 Times in 1,063 Posts
JRay 100000+JRay 100000+JRay 100000+JRay 100000+JRay 100000+JRay 100000+JRay 100000+JRay 100000+JRay 100000+JRay 100000+JRay 100000+
Default Re: Apocalypse Now

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?
JRay is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JRay For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:01 AM.






vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.