Meh, the heels ruin it.Agreed. I have never seen anything Joe and I thought this statue was fabulous. Sexy and geek all in the same gal. For me = hit.
Picture's worth a thousand.
Baroness didn't actually appear in G.I. Joe #18, nor could she have been wearing heels if she did, as she was confined to a hospital bed with her entire body (excepting her hair, oddly) wrapped in bandages from injuries sustained in G.I. Joe #16.She has had heels in the comics for so many years I think I posted pictures of the heels in various issues many pages back I think she started in issue 18 of the marvel run
Baroness didn't actually appear in G.I. Joe #18, nor could she have been wearing heels if she did, as she was confined to a hospital bed with her entire body (excepting her hair, oddly) wrapped in bandages from injuries sustained in G.I. Joe #16.
Her costume had flat heels in her first appearance in the first issue, and thereafter her boots appear to fluctuate between having high heels and being as as flat as the card art for the action figure, often in-between panels in the same issue, so obviously there's some artistic inconsistency in the visuals in the comics.
As far as the statue though, it's just... it's like if Rob Liefeld was given charge of making a statue based on v2 Snake Eyes.
Sweet. Post it when you do.
Hence my citing the card art as the authoritative depiction.ok I got my issues mixed up she first had stilletos in issue 39:
these are from issues 15-39, she goes from clunky heels to flat heels to no heels to stilleto in 39 and she should have the higher bangs, but I thought that was an artist interpretation....been awhile since I seen these issues...makes me want to read them again.
You're thinking of Todd McFarlane. Rob Liefeld is more notable for not drawing heels (or feet, for that matter) at all.and the Rob Liefeld remark isn't accurate, she doesn't have one heel larger than the other....ba...zing!
Hence my citing the card art as the authoritative depiction.
Enter your email address to join: