So I was sitting here comparing the Kelly Garret figure's head to pictures of Jaclyn Smith from her Angels days.
I have to wait until I'm Stateside in a few weeks before I can get my Kelly from family who ordered her for me and really look at her close up.
But I'm already daydreaming about small touches I can do to make her look more like Jaclyn / Kelly.
For one thing, Jaclyn Smith's eyes are not pale blue like that - I think they're a darker blue-almost-gray.
And of course her cheeks are one of her more prominent features - maybe a little blush to try to shape them?
It doesn't look like much went into giving her a classic Angels hairstyle either - another modification I could make.
I think eyebrows can change the whole look of a person - in this case, they seem too thick and not arched.
And then there's the open mouth... Jaclyn had a great smile, but I always picture Kelly with kind of a glamorous pout.
In some ways I think the Charmed girl looks more like Kelly than Kelly - paint applications can go a long way in changing the look of a figure.
Anyway, I think these are small changes that could be made to Kelly her up a bit more.
All of this isn't to complain, 'cause I do like the figure.
But this got me to thinking about actor likenesses and licensing and how far can a company go in making something look like an actor without an actor's consent.
The super hero figures are less complicated - lots of actors have played Batman or Superman, plus they have an established comic book look already.
But when you have Charlie's Angels or Cheers or Golden Girls or whoever, how close can you get to an actor's looks without crossing a legal line?
I'm guessing the Angels aren't approved likenesses, since the packaging doesn't even feature actor photos.
Maybe Mego just thought "brunette and flared pants" was enough to translate as Kelly?
Or maybe they were worried if she looked too much like Jaclyn Smith there would be legal issues?
Does anyone know if Mego secured actor likeness approval for any or all of the new figures? Fonzie? Sulu? Star Trek? Tootie?
Are actor likenesses automatically included in licensed properties like Star Trek?
Like is it an actor likeness or a character likeness? Are the 2 separate things?
Is every licensed property different - like Star Trek license includes actor likenesses but Charlie's Angels doesn't?
What about comic books and artwork that show characters clearly drawn like the actors?
Like I said, paint deco can go a long way in changing a simple facial sculpt that isn't based on an actor or actress to make it look closer.
So at what point do they have to stop and say "This looks too much like the real person, let's back up and be more generic..."
Would just changing the eyebrows or the cheeks be a step too far?
What happens when an actor sees an unlicensed likeness and says "This looks too much like me" -- or even "This looks nothing like me but it's the character I played"?
I have to wait until I'm Stateside in a few weeks before I can get my Kelly from family who ordered her for me and really look at her close up.
But I'm already daydreaming about small touches I can do to make her look more like Jaclyn / Kelly.
For one thing, Jaclyn Smith's eyes are not pale blue like that - I think they're a darker blue-almost-gray.
And of course her cheeks are one of her more prominent features - maybe a little blush to try to shape them?
It doesn't look like much went into giving her a classic Angels hairstyle either - another modification I could make.
I think eyebrows can change the whole look of a person - in this case, they seem too thick and not arched.
And then there's the open mouth... Jaclyn had a great smile, but I always picture Kelly with kind of a glamorous pout.
In some ways I think the Charmed girl looks more like Kelly than Kelly - paint applications can go a long way in changing the look of a figure.
Anyway, I think these are small changes that could be made to Kelly her up a bit more.
All of this isn't to complain, 'cause I do like the figure.
But this got me to thinking about actor likenesses and licensing and how far can a company go in making something look like an actor without an actor's consent.
The super hero figures are less complicated - lots of actors have played Batman or Superman, plus they have an established comic book look already.
But when you have Charlie's Angels or Cheers or Golden Girls or whoever, how close can you get to an actor's looks without crossing a legal line?
I'm guessing the Angels aren't approved likenesses, since the packaging doesn't even feature actor photos.
Maybe Mego just thought "brunette and flared pants" was enough to translate as Kelly?
Or maybe they were worried if she looked too much like Jaclyn Smith there would be legal issues?
Does anyone know if Mego secured actor likeness approval for any or all of the new figures? Fonzie? Sulu? Star Trek? Tootie?
Are actor likenesses automatically included in licensed properties like Star Trek?
Like is it an actor likeness or a character likeness? Are the 2 separate things?
Is every licensed property different - like Star Trek license includes actor likenesses but Charlie's Angels doesn't?
What about comic books and artwork that show characters clearly drawn like the actors?
Like I said, paint deco can go a long way in changing a simple facial sculpt that isn't based on an actor or actress to make it look closer.
So at what point do they have to stop and say "This looks too much like the real person, let's back up and be more generic..."
Would just changing the eyebrows or the cheeks be a step too far?
What happens when an actor sees an unlicensed likeness and says "This looks too much like me" -- or even "This looks nothing like me but it's the character I played"?
Comment