Wonder Woman's Future

[Mavericker]

This is not the thread for Wonder Woman movie talk. This is for the character in comic form.

If you wanna ask the Olivia Munn question----ask it in THIS thread.



And for the record.....no. Olivia Munn should NOT play WW. If you wanna reply or debate this....reply to the WW movie thread.

Actually Vic-I don't really care-I'd rather see a GL movie.

 

[Ultimate Quicksilver]

Actually Vic-I don't really care-I'd rather see a GL movie.

If you don't care with did you ask if anyone would agree with you?




OnTopic: You know what I would like? Costume change, seriously, remember Donna's armor in the first issue of the new series? It was awesome, she should use something like that. Althought I can see people would hate the fact that she isn't covered with an american flag.

 

[Victor Von Doom]

OnTopic: You know what I would like? Costume change, seriously, remember Donna's armor in the first issue of the new series? It was awesome, she should use something like that. Althought I can see people would hate the fact that she isn't covered with an american flag.

I mentioned how awesome the armored costume was in the actual series thread. It does rule and should be the staple.

Another thing I never quite got was what is up with the American flag costume? I could kinda understand it back in the day----but now, if she's on a mission to save mankind globally, why ID with a single country? Why not have a generic costume like Batman or something?

 

[Ultimate Quicksilver]

I mentioned how awesome the armored costume was in the actual series thread. It does rule and should be the staple.

Another thing I never quite got was what is up with the American flag costume? I could kinda understand it back in the day----but now, if she's on a mission to save mankind globally, why ID with a single country? Why not have a generic costume like Batman or something?

Exactly! She has no point in using a flag now. The armor was awesome and should definetly be used again.

 

[ourchair]

People want to see Olivia Munn from G4tv's Attack of the Show play Wonder Woman in a movie-the was even a petition for it.

Does anyone agree?

Not actually relevant to this thread. And the last time you brought this up it was moved to the relevant thread. Leave it there. You already know better.

 

[David Blue]

You'll want to check out Paul Dini's Wonder Woman: Spirit of Truth, illustrated by Alex Ross then. Its in the Worlds Greatest Super-Heros hardcover. The whole thing is great.

...the Shazam story made me cry.

Thanks for the tip-off.

 

[David Blue]

Thumbsup.

 

[Ninja4peace]

Exactly! She has no point in using a flag now. The armor was awesome and should definetly be used again.

I didn't really know why she had the flaggy costume anyway..it's not even like she's an american citizen, or whatever..part of the point is she's amazonian.

I have this image of a wonder woman where she finally comes to US and is all Wowwed, full of wonder at the modern world. Walking around looking up at skyscrapers and planes and stuff.

Or I suppose when she first see Steve Trevor flying his plane over the island. I like the story (I've only read summary) from the first 2 volumes of WW vol 2.

Spoiler

It starts all like greek myth...then they test her with a gun they keep in a box..and you think how random...then later it turns out it's cuzza steve trevors mum who crashed onto the island before and it all starts making a bit of sense..and you think well that's a bit of coincidence, but it turns out ares arranged for it to happen like that for Irony

....Irony can be pretty Ironic sometimes

 

[David Blue]

Sounds like a manifesto to me! :thumbsup:

Thanks for the kind words.

I was thinking of Eowyn's movie pep-talk to Theoden, King of Rohan, who is aged and muted to the point of paralytic silence by the magic of Saruman the White.

The other big problem with superheroes is that almost all of them have come to a point where they stand for no ideology whatsoever. That's fine when you're talking about Spider-Man who's about doing the right thing and then neurotically obsessing over whether it was right or not, simply because he's an Everyman who hasn't and may never decide what his politics and ideologies are.

I think it's fine for a lot of others too. I think it's fine for the Fantastic Four. Reed Richards knows about as much of society as he does of sorcery. He stands for the thrill of discovery and the importance of family. That's about it, and that's OK.

But "many" is not "almost all". And as you say, "almost all" is what we've got. It shouldn't be.

But of course, Marvel and DC are dealing with mass market properties in a manner that they cannot stand the notion of having to defend the possible 'wrongness' in setting a socio-political tone of their characters. And by 'wrongness' I mean 'wrong' to those who disagree. So instead Warren Ellis does it in Planetary and Authority.

Pretty much.

To give credit to a legend of the past, Alan Moore always seemed to be able to imagine a hero standing for things that he, Alan Moore, personally did not stand for. That's valuable and too rare.

And to give credit to Frank Miller too, he seems to see characters as having the potential to tell certain kinds of stories that he wants to tell, rather than as ideological sock puppets who mustn't say anything unless the writer is committing himself personally to the same view. Frank Miller's Batman has been known to hold pretty definite attitudes, without them necessarily being Frank Miller's, any more than Marv's attitudes were necessarily Frank Millers. Neither Dark Knight Returns nor Dark Knight Strikes Again steered clear of political commentary, but it was apparently intended to be part of the fun, part of the story, and part of showing who Batman was, rather than a lecture.

And, Mark Millar! Ultimate Captain America stands for the two-fisted enforcement of a bunch of values and attitudes from the first half of the previous century, and Mark Millar has had no problem giving Cap's perspective justice (not making Cap a deluded idiot) and having fun with the character, even while happily presenting completely different political attitudes as common sense truth in the same comic. That's really the ideal. That's all the "fairness" I ask for from a writer who disagrees with me politically: that he still be able to revel in the heroes who he personally isn't on the same page with.

I think that's a more practical definition of "fairness" for superhero ideology than having almost every superhero be muffled to the point of mummification so the comic book companies never be seen sticking their necks out.

(I felt like these were the paths that Ultimates was going to go under Millar, and UFF under Ellis (and to a lesser extent Bendis) but no such luck now that the imprint no longer has the balls of Bill Jemas, a man who would easily approve of taking a character like Wonder Woman and doing what you suggest.)

I don't know his record. So I have nothing to say on this.

I think a pro-life Wonder Woman would be ****ing genius. And I say that as a pro-choicer.

OK, I know why I would love that. But why would you love that?

These are my reasons.

I. In Greg Rucka's Down To Earth, I was thinking that if I was in charge of any pro-life organization and Wonder Woman was real, I'd pay her anything she asked to speak out on abortion, and say anything she wanted including "fetuses are evil parasites, they have no souls, kill them all", provided the first thing she explained in every talk was her own origin as the soul of an unborn person, who due to male violence against her mother had missed out on her life as a human being.

Nobody has an origin like that. Nobody. Wonder Woman is the pro-life case incarnate: an innocent soul deserving of life, and the spirit of truth speaking out. She is the point, and every good deed she does is an affirmation that life is good, and that it is good to be allowed to live and have your shot to prove that you could be worth something.

II. Related to point I: if pro-lifers get only one heroine or hero ever to cheer for, ever, that's the one I want. No other could be a tenth as good.

And I do want someone to defend defenseless human life.

(It's fine by me for pro-choicers also to get their champions. Every other hero in the DC universe, for all I care. I think Batman should be pro-choice: abortion is not a crime, therefore people should stop raving on as though it was a problem rather than a right. Wouldn't that be how Batman would think about it? He's a crime-fighter, not a mystic.)

III. I like that it means she can't vanish into a movement, relax into the warm bath of anybody's all-embracing agenda. If you're a pro-choice feminist, of course, she's not one of you. If you're a pro-life non-feminist Christian conservative, she's not one of you. The part where people compromise certain features of their beliefs and edit away certain parts of their pasts to fit in and get along and get ahead doesn't - can't - happen with her. She's challenging, at odds with the whole world forever, and I think Wonder Woman should be that way.

If I can say this and have it be taken as a comment on Wonder Woman and not a shot at an American politician, I sort of see Wonder Woman as an un-Mitt Romney. Remember all the things she used to believe, but that would now stand in her way politically? Well she still believes them and she'll say so.

Those are my reasons for thinking a pro-life Wonder Woman would be a hot idea. But I can't imagine what yours are. And I'm intrigued.

What about a pro-life Wonder Woman strikes you as an exciting idea? Why is this a possible future direction for the character? Wouldn't pro-choicers feel that, Wonder Woman being feminist, they are kind of entitled to her? I'm not trying to take shots, these are real questions.

What I'm afraid will happen is, like her original character, this will be ignored till it can't be ignored any longer, and then it will be retconned away, so the character doesn't have an origin that situates her right on top of a moral, political, religious and cultural fault-line.

If you retcon a character repeatedly so that she's boring, so that every time an issue comes up that makes her "hot" and relevant she's no longer relevant to it - how can a washed out, faded, over-edited character like that compete with Batman, who started out fighting crime and who is still fighting crime?

I think to me the most fascinating aspect of the character is that she comes from an invisible society that is supposed to be light years ahead in wisdom and prosperity and moral principle than the World of Man, and I think that's something that should be explored, but must be done without over-emphasizing the gender aspect of her. The fact that this civilization happens to be all-female is merely incidental. Sure, some people might read that as a commentary on how a man-driven society as fundamentally flawed, but that's their bag.

So, you're seeing the steady stream of disasters hitting Themiscyra, and the Amazon Attack story line as perfect plotting?

 

[Ninja4peace]

OK, I know why I would love that. But why would you love that?

Here are my reasons.

I. In Greg Rucka's Down To Earth, I was thinking that if I was in charge of any pro-life organization and Wonder Woman was real, I'd pay her anything she asked to speak out on abortion, and say anything she wanted including "fetuses are evil parasites, they have no souls, kill them all", provided the first thing she explained in every talk was her own origin as the soul of an unborn person, who due to male violence against her mother had missed out on her life as a human being.

Nobody has an origin like that. Nobody. Wonder Woman is the pro-life case incarnate: an innocent soul deserving of life, and the spirit of truth speaking out. She is the point, and every good deed she does is an affirmation that life is good, and that it is good to be allowed to live and have your shot to prove that you could be worth something.

That's so true. I think wonder womans origin gets lost too much. We're always having recaps of bruce's parents getting shot and the kent's finding the crashed space-ship..why not have when the amazons were all killed before the souls were reincarnated, and wonder woman getting made out of sand. But seriously I'd love a pro-life wonder woman, and also i think i'm right saying she has no problem killing her enemies..so we could get interesting situations if cheetah or circe were pregnant...maybe..

...anyway good points all round, thanks guys.

 

[David Blue]

That's so true. I think wonder womans origin gets lost too much. We're always having recaps of bruce's parents getting shot and the kent's finding the crashed space-ship..why not have when the amazons were all killed before the souls were reincarnated, and wonder woman getting made out of sand.

Clay, not sand (if I recall right). Anyway, I'd like that too.

"Wonder Woman! The soul of an unborn girl who male violence had denied her chance at life, Wonder Woman has a perfect body molded from clay" (silhouette of heroic female form in the almost complete dark) "brought magically to life, and powers from the gods of Ancient Greece." (Image of lasso of truth, labeled as such, glowing in the dark, lighting the silhouette.) "She fights a never-ending battle for life, truth and woman's empowerment!" (Play music, show golden-lit up-angled shot of Wonder-Woman: star-spangled panties, American flag and golden eagle behind her. The eagle may not be on her bustier any more but that's all the more reason to make an effort to keep it in the shot.)

Fade into roar of the Amazing Amazon's super-stealth jet plane, and she's off on another mission, for example rescuing girls' school teachers in Africa from "Demon-Steed Militias" bent on rendering the nation of Dargur Negro-free. (No of course Wonder Woman can't fly herself, who do you think this is, Superman? And what's the problem with an "invisible" plane, when everything else in the air including the X-Jet seems to go to "stealth mode" all the time?)

Personally, I don't like the anti-male, female superiority thing. But so what. This is a real Wonder Woman, just as Mark Millar's Ultimate Captain America is a real Captain America, regardless of whether the writer agrees with all of the character's values.

And I think this is the way to go.

...anyway good points all round, thanks guys.

You too.

 

[David Blue]

And yes I would love regular flashbacks of the moment of Wonder Woman coming to life.

I would also like a creative team capable of bringing her comic out once a month on time.

 

[ourchair]

I think it's fine for a lot of others too. I think it's fine for the Fantastic Four. Reed Richards knows about as much of society as he does of sorcery. He stands for the thrill of discovery and the importance of family. That's about it, and that's OK.

For me, there're many ways of looking at Reed Richards, but if you want to write him as apolitical in the same way that Spider-Man is then that's exactly it --- the exploration, research and discovery are ends in themselves --- the fact that the citizens of the Marvel Universe aren't living more technologically advanced lives because of his creations might say something bad about the character, but that's neither here nor there.

To give credit to a legend of the past, Alan Moore always seemed to be able to imagine a hero standing for things that he, Alan Moore, personally did not stand for. That's valuable and too rare.

And to give credit to Frank Miller too, he seems to see characters as having the potential to tell certain kinds of stories that he wants to tell, rather than as ideological sock puppets who mustn't say anything unless the writer is committing himself personally to the same view. Frank Miller's Batman has been known to hold pretty definite attitudes, without them necessarily being Frank Miller's, any more than Marv's attitudes were necessarily Frank Millers. Neither Dark Knight Returns nor Dark Knight Strikes Again steered clear of political commentary, but it was apparently intended to be part of the fun, part of the story, and part of showing who Batman was, rather than a lecture.

And, Mark Millar! Ultimate Captain America stands for the two-fisted enforcement of a bunch of values and attitudes from the first half of the previous century, and Mark Millar has had no problem giving Cap's perspective justice (not making Cap a deluded idiot) and having fun with the character, even while happily presenting completely different political attitudes as common sense truth in the same comic. That's really the ideal. That's all the "fairness" I ask for from a writer who disagrees with me politically: that he still be able to revel in the heroes who he personally isn't on the same page with.

I totally agree with this, and have little to add.

But another thing: I think this kind of situation in comics writing leads me to have more problems with readers than writers. If a writer can clearly tell a story that may not reflect his own beliefs and attitudes with characters that do not necessarily reflect his own beliefs and attitudes, then why can't readers reconcile this in their heads? Does anybody really think that watching 24 means you condone torture and brutality? Does watching The Shield mean you approve of Machiavellian means of policing crime?

But more importantly, just because a writer puts Batman or Captain America in a positive spin or a negative spin, it doesn't mean he's tacitly approving of that character, nor is he expecting you to do the same. He's trying to understand where that character is coming from and its not his job to give a handjob to the readers' beliefs.

It's also not a writer's job to allow them to revel in the awesometitude of the character --- because if they DID make that their job, then they would have to write the character in a rather horrible place that is meant to please a reader's attachment to the canonical values and strengths of the character in question.

What Moore, Miller and Millar have done in the examples you've mentioned is take a character and try to determine what exactly is the literary appeal of the character in a manner that reflects something back to the audience rather than just focusing blandly on the save the world aspect. They have a fundamental appreciation for where the heroes' crusade is coming from.

I think that when a writer does that, it strikes the wrong note with the readers because they don't want to see their heroes' ideological bits and pieces taken apart in such a fashion, because if they find that underneath the surface these motivations or ideologies don't agree with what THEY believe to be their own beliefs it becomes off-putting for them.

Sure, I can appreciate Miller's patently insecure, totalitarianesque, quasi-sociopath Batman even if I don't particularly ENJOY it, but my understanding is that fans dislike it simply because they feel like they're being told they like or condone a patently insecure, totalitarianesque sociopath even if we won't know for sure if that is his intent.

Neither Dark Knight Returns nor Dark Knight Strikes Again steered clear of political commentary, but it was apparently intended to be part of the fun, part of the story, and part of showing who Batman was, rather than a lecture.

Yes. People fail to realize that the talking heads, media coverage and polemic bits were not talking to the reader, they were talking to the world of Batman.

Same deal with The Ultimates. The fact that Mark Millar happens to be a liberal-leaning person in reality is merely incidental and should not be confused with him preaching his OWN values back at the reader.

I will reply to your other points later.

 

[David Blue]

This time I don't entirely agree.

But more importantly, just because a writer puts Batman or Captain America in a positive spin or a negative spin, it doesn't mean he's tacitly approving of that character, nor is he expecting you to do the same.

It doesn't mean that must be the case, but that may be the case. The writer may have the Punisher slaughter jaywalkers because he's trying to understand the character - or because he hates the character. A writer may power up a female character, or any female character in the series, whoever is his pet now, and it may be because he's exploring expectations - or because he just loves to have the women rule. A writer may use a near clone of a character he has used before to make some point - or just because he loves that character and wants to keep using him or her, regardless of what other writers did with the character, including killing them off.

And in all cases it can work or not work. If anything, I think it's the less detached approach that works more often. In comic books, thoughtfulness and energy are both good, but energy is king and subtlety is just nice to have.

It's also not a writer's job to allow them to revel in the awesometitude of the character --- because if they DID make that their job, then they would have to write the character in a rather horrible place that is meant to please a reader's attachment to the canonical values and strengths of the character in question.

I disagree. That's very often how the great creators have powered their characters. Jack Kirby considered Captain America's patriotism 100% valid and presented it as such. I see nothing wrong in that.

My point on what Millar, Miller and Moore did right concerns what the writer (or the artist if the artist is pushing the agenda) does if they have a character who may be "big" but who they don't see eye to eye with.

Can the writer stretch their imagination and do justice to and have fun with heroes who totally represent what the writer does not agree with?

Or does the topic have to shift to the wrongness of the character, either them discovering how wrong they have been and that the writer's opinions are correct; or to the hero doing what the writer considers sinful and paying the price (proving they were wrong even if the character doesn't get that); or does the energy shift to a character the writer does consider correct and cool (Steve Rogers is suddenly a passenger in his own book and the action moves to Sam Wilson), or does the book just go flat, or what?

Sure, I can appreciate Miller's patently insecure, totalitarianesque, quasi-sociopath Batman even if I don't particularly ENJOY it, but my understanding is that fans dislike it simply because they feel like they're being told they like or condone a patently insecure, totalitarianesque sociopath even if we won't know for sure if that is his intent.

Maybe that is his intent. As you say, we don't know. And there's no obligation to like the work or a writer who's being very slart-Alec-y, and too cagy to say if he's actually insulting you or not. People don't like that face to face. They don't have to like it in print.

And even if you see no insult, as I don't, you may just not think much of the work.

Straight up, I do not like or think a lot of Dark Knight Strikes Again. (I don't like Frank Miller's Dick Greyson (at all), his Superman, his Wonder Woman (pretty much at all), his Billy Batson / Captain Marvel (at all), and all that and more adds up.

Same deal with The Ultimates. The fact that Mark Millar happens to be a liberal-leaning person in reality is merely incidental and should not be confused with him preaching his OWN values back at the reader.

Actually, that's exactly how it comes off to me. But, I can't know the writer's true subjective intent.

In any case, I think it is much more important for a comic writer to be able to have fun and show respect and do a good job with a character he doesn't agree with than to avoid polemic.

It is much better to have that good comic book energy, and let the character stand for something, preferably in a bold and timely way, even at the price of some false notes, than to avoid the hero or heroine saying or doing or standing for anything wrong.

When in doubt whether to be bold or whether to avoid perhaps screwing up the character for everyone who may follow you, that's when a bit of detachment comes in. You should look at the first or first successful version of the character. Maybe it was right, even if you don't personally like it. Maybe Sam Wilson, upright social worker, really is a better idea than "Snap" Wilson, cheap thug, and you should drop your bold new ideas.

Where I think Wonder Woman's been sold short is, she hasn't had enough writing that's bold or true to the ideals of the character, who is inherently bold and confronting. Some. I think A League Of One was a great product and fully worthy of the George Perez Wonder Woman. But not enough, over decades.

 

[compound]

OK, I know why I would love that. But why would you love that?

Obviously, I can't answer for Matt/Ourchair, but i'm in the same boat as him -- I'm decidedly pro-choice (and, if it matters at all to this discussion, I'm *inclined* not to regard fetuses as "lives", per se), but I much prefer the storytelling possibilities of an unapologetically, uncompromisingly pro-life Wonder Woman, mainly due to the point David Blue raised:

I like that it means she can't vanish into a movement, relax into the warm bath of anybody's all-embracing agenda. If you're a pro-choice feminist, of course, she's not one of you. If you're a pro-life non-feminist Christian conservative, she's not one of you. The part where people compromise certain features of their beliefs and edit away certain parts of their pasts to fit in and get along and get ahead doesn't - can't - happen with her. She's challenging, at odds with the whole world forever, and I think Wonder Woman should be that way.

Agreed. 100%. I like the idea that Wonder Woman sees her role as diplomat/emissary/ambassador NOT as a way to look for consensus between humanity and the Amazons, but as a way of proactively evangelizing the Amazon way, among humans (albeit doing so in a way that maintains the fragile balance of power between Themyscria and humankind).

Of course, I think they problem lies, really, when you get beyond the fundamentals of the character -- more likely, problems would arise from how the writer depicts the interaction of the various interest groups, in relation to Wonder Woman.

That's why i'm in favor of a Brian K. Vaughan taking over WW -- because he's never been one to allow a character's political affiliations get in the way of them being well-rounded individuals, first and foremost. (I'm referring to both Ex Machina and Y the Last Man, here.) And even when Vaughan initially presents a character as a one-dimensional cliche, within two issues they're usually broadened to reveal a greater complexity in how they respond to particular circumstances. Wonder Woman -- by virtue of her nature as a character; and her classic mythos -- demands that kind of complexity. WW herself may be set in her ways; but the world around her is not. And that tension is what makes Wonder Woman stories so potentially fulfilling.

 

[compound]

That's so true. I think wonder womans origin gets lost too much. We're always having recaps of bruce's parents getting shot and the kent's finding the crashed space-ship..why not have when the amazons were all killed before the souls were reincarnated, and wonder woman getting made out of sand. But seriously I'd love a pro-life wonder woman, and also i think i'm right saying she has no problem killing her enemies..so we could get interesting situations if cheetah or circe were pregnant...maybe..

The inherent problem with origin stories is that they need to relate directly to the character's defining characteristics:

* The image of the Kents discovering the spaceship nicely reinforces the theme of Clark's alien nature/origins; and the human nurture/environment of his adoptive, semi-rural, earth-bound family.

* The image of Bruce's parents being shot establishes his past (revenge driven; traumatized by crime); the encounter with the bat, within the safety of his own estate) establishes his present and future -- to take the fear inflicted by criminals, and to make it his own.

And this is where Wonder Woman's origin becomes troublesome...

Because her "secret origin" is a creation story. It's a story of how she came into being; as opposed to how she became a superhero. Throw in the kind of myth, magic, and mysticism elements that are often off-putting to people who enjoy more 'grounded' stories (not to mention traditionally coded as either "feminine", or "hopelessly geeky"), and it's easy to see why writers prefer to downplay her origins.

It really becomes a matter of focus then... "avenging the unjust slaughter of one's race, due to the cruelty of mankind" is a theme that shapes and motivates a character (and potentially resonates with readers). Being "reincarnated from magic clay" is not. (I'll grant that, as a story device, it's no less "relate-able" than escaping from an exploding planet, as an infant.)

I think this whole discussion brings to mind what makes Wonder Woman unique, especially in relation to other superheroes:

I.

Superman is a refugee -- he lost his homeworld and fled to Earth. Hence all the Jewish-centric readings of his origin.

But Wonder Woman is an immigrant. She made the conscious decision to leave behind her idealized homeland, to start over in the human world (generally) and America (specifically).


II.

Superman hides his origins, for fear of being percieved as a threat.

Wonder Woman is an ambassador and diplomat. She explicitly intends to represent her people. Moreover, she is here to oversee power relations between the Amazon and human realms. By force, if need be.


III.

Wonder Woman's origins are rooted in myth and mysticism.

Superman is an alien; to a certain extent, this defines aspects of his rogues gallery (Brainiac, Mongul); the kind of adventures he has; his personality (inability to conform to specific nuances of human social interactions).

Similarly, WW's writers should establish exactly the extent to which the 'magical' world informs WW's mission in the human world. Is it more like Ultimate Thor or the Harry Potter mythos, with otherworldly enemies messing with things behind the scenes, and the human world relatively unaware of its effects? Or is there a more direct conflict happening in public view?


IV.

Wonder Woman is specifically meant to uphold the Truth aspect of Truth, Justice (which is more Batman's territory), and the American Way (embodied more by a self-made hero like Spider-Man, or The Flash). That is not to say that all three aspects don't intersect, but in order to properly define Wonder Woman, her mythos should reflect this empahsis on truth-telling (the way it does for, say, Spider Jerusalem from Transmetroplitan, to mention an example brought up by another user on this thread).

All of these factors can be just as rich (in terms of story-telling) and no less "true" to the origins of that character than focusing on the aspects that are more specifically related to her gender.

Of course, the gendered elements will always be there -- they're almost impossible NOT to consider, when penning the character. But I don't think they should be placed front and center of an ongoing series. At least not for a couple of years.

 

[David Blue]

The inherent problem with origin stories is that they need to relate directly to the character's defining characteristics:

* The image of the Kents discovering the spaceship nicely reinforces the theme of Clark's alien nature/origins; and the human nurture/environment of his adoptive, semi-rural, earth-bound family.

* The image of Bruce's parents being shot establishes his past (revenge driven; traumatized by crime); the encounter with the bat, within the safety of his own estate) establishes his present and future -- to take the fear inflicted by criminals, and to make it his own.

Or you have the origin of Peter Parker / Spider-Man underlining that he was just a regular guy till... (How the origin of Ben Reilly the Scarlet Spider would have worked in the long run is something we'll never know, perhaps fortunately.)

The funny thing is, the comic-book Peter Parker was just a regular kid who was capable of inventing web-shooters and web-fluid and manufacturing unlimited quantities of the latter in his sink for zero dollars and zero cents and without his aunt noticing. So let's just say origins don't always have to be perfect to work out great.

Or, the origin of the Hulk, retaining its most essential characteristic in Hulk (2003) underlines that the nerd / geek scientist was willing to get involved physically and risk his life to save others before he had the brawn to back that up. So that's always worth replaying.

So, so far, I'm with you.

And this is where Wonder Woman's origin becomes troublesome...

Because her "secret origin" is a creation story. It's a story of how she came into being; as opposed to how she became a superhero. Throw in the kind of myth, magic, and mysticism elements that are often off-putting to people who enjoy more 'grounded' stories (not to mention traditionally coded as either "feminine", or "hopelessly geeky"), and it's easy to see why writers prefer to downplay her origins.

In wonder Woman's case, "came into being" and "became a heroine" are pretty much the same thing. She might as well have strung full-grown from from the forehead of Zeus, lacking nothing but the perfect (morally unambiguous) world in which to operate. (And of course, lacking a father, which is essential, to exclude evil, or to say the same thing in different words, to exclude any kind of male ties, or male authority or any kind of moral of family standing for any male.)

Briseis: Why did you choose this life?
Achilles: What life?
Briseis: To be a great warrior.
Achilles: I chose nothing. I was born and this is what I am.
- Troy (2004)

Wonder Woman divinely / magically perfect and untainted by masculinity. And that means, in a world that's anything but (that is, "man's world"), conflict is inevitable.

One (1) thing about Wonder Woman is fully "normally" human and therefore vulnerable: her soul. That, you have to represent visually in some way. And you need a caption for that, just as you need to identify baby Kal-El streaking away from Krypton as it explodes. It's a little more complicated in Wonder Woman's case, because "the soul on an unborn girl" is a less inherently visual idea than "an exploding planet", but basically it's do-able.

By the way, I think if you write Wonder Woman, Themiscyra is perfect. It doesn't matter if according to your own beliefs it would be anything but. It doesn't matter if you think the ideal created being would be male, androgynous or robotic. This is the gig, so go with it. Wonder Woman's Amazon ideology, like her magic-and-clay formed body is perfect, just out of step with everything and everybody that isn't. She's more of an alien, in that way, than Superman or Martian Manhunter.

It's just that, with her human soul, imperfect people and their conflicts and dilemmas don't bounce off her perfection. She bonds. She can be hurt.

It really becomes a matter of focus then... "avenging the unjust slaughter of one's race, due to the cruelty of mankind" is a theme that shapes and motivates a character (and potentially resonates with readers). Being "reincarnated from magic clay" is not. (I'll grant that, as a story device, it's no less "relate-able" than escaping from an exploding planet, as an infant.)

I think you granted me everything I want, right there.

I think this whole discussion brings to mind what makes Wonder Woman unique, especially in relation to other superheroes:

Before we go any further, I think we have to say that as defined by William Moulton Marston, what made Wonder Woman unique was her pure femininity. (Especially pure compare to Batman and Superman, both of whom have strong, important, deeply loved / respected father figures, which is right out of the question for Wonder Woman.) And almost equal to that, her warrior American patriotism. And then her Greek religious / magical origins. These three things, in a definite order, with femininity and feminism first, sharply distinguish her from Batman and Superman.

Being "beautiful as Aphrodite, wise as Athena, swifter than Mercury, and stronger than Hercules" did not create a gulf between Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel, and dressing in a flag suit, with an American eagle and star-spangled panties did not make her all that unlike Captain America, but the combination, with a strong feminist femininity (and lotsa lotsa bondage) being the keystone did make her unique.

That combination remains unique, and I think all its elements ought to be retained, even though they are now probably more controversial than ever. (Back in the day, it was OK to be a gung-ho American flag-suit character, with absolutely no concession that this meant immorality, cynicism, mercenary attitudes and "bad-***-ery". Less so now, perhaps. And I don't think the total package of a super-feminist American super-patriot tail-kicking magically-empowered Greek pagan has gotten any easier to swallow.)

There are lots of female heroes now, but there are remarkably few who can be considered any kind of competition for Wonder Woman.

Power Girl had the potential to be a more down-to-earth (though flying!) icon of truculent mega-powered feminism at DC - right up to where she got a father figure (Arion) foisted on her. It's been pretty much downhill from there.

Iconic status to some extent reinforces itself. Wonder Woman has it, Power Girl doesn't; so wonder Woman has been protected from insane retcons that poison the character at the root, while Power Girl was not protected, so the Amazon remains a basically good character and worth protecting, etcetera.

It's a good start that DC hasn't forced Wonder Woman to accept and be a pawn for a big daddy like Arion, hasn't forced her to be a womb for another uninteresting messianic baby and so on.

But for her to really be what she should be, a character interesting enough to compare with Batman and Superman, it's not enough to avoid destroying Wonder Woman, I think you need editors and writers and artist who like what she was originally about and who want to assert her, if I can put it that way.

And if you need something in the 21st Century to assert her against, and I think you do, now that Nazis are about as scary as Hannibal and his elephants menacing Rome or the deadly ambition of the Kaiser, then I think Al Qaeda is it. I can't think of any level on which she, the polytheist-powered, American flag wearing super-advanced missionary for feminism does not offend that cause as badly as possible. And vice versa. It's a perfect match.

Put Wonder Woman next to Al Qaeda terrorists, about as often as Captain America once fought Nazis, and you've pretty much defined her. Anything about her that you don't know, you can take a good guess at from whatever the boys of 9/11 hate most.

I.

Superman is a refugee -- he lost his homeworld and fled to Earth. Hence all the Jewish-centric readings of his origin.

But Wonder Woman is an immigrant. She made the conscious decision to leave behind her idealized homeland, to start over in the human world (generally) and America (specifically).

To me she's more a missionary. She has no intention of fitting in, of assimilating. Rather, she is all about changing the culture where she goes to be harmonious with hers. Than again, with multiculturalism, with assimilation no longer being the ideal to be achieved, this may be the role of a modern immigrant.

II.

Superman hides his origins, for fear of being percieved as a threat.

Wonder Woman is an ambassador and diplomat. She explicitly intends to represent her people. Moreover, she is here to oversee power relations between the Amazon and human realms. By force, if need be.

I wouldn't say that of Superman, but in this thread we're talking about Wonder Woman and I agree on that.

III.

Wonder Woman's origins are rooted in myth and mysticism.

Superman is an alien; to a certain extent, this defines aspects of his rogues gallery (Brainiac, Mongul); the kind of adventures he has; his personality (inability to conform to specific nuances of human social interactions).

Similarly, WW's writers should establish exactly the extent to which the 'magical' world informs WW's mission in the human world. Is it more like Ultimate Thor or the Harry Potter mythos, with otherworldly enemies messing with things behind the scenes, and the human world relatively unaware of its effects? Or is there a more direct conflict happening in public view?

That's a good point. I think supernatural manipulation and deceit would be best. It makes the spirit of truth and the power of the lasso as relevant as possible.

It also leads the readers into mystery stories that should be a relief from a steady diet of Al Qaeda as the HYDRA of the 21st Century.

IV.

Wonder Woman is specifically meant to uphold the Truth aspect of Truth, Justice (which is more Batman's territory), and the American Way (embodied more by a self-made hero like Spider-Man, or The Flash).

I think Tony Stark would be more representative of the self-made American way of power. Getting hit by a lightning bolt or bitten by a radioactive spider seems less on target for that than being a workaholic genius self-made tycoon nursing an addiction to alcohol and working on another and this time fatal heart attack.

But, back on topic... Yes, Wonder Woman gets the Truth slot. Which is confronting.

Superman is powerful, and he can put what most other people would do with that much power in an unflattering light by comparison by what he does with it, so that can be challenging, but he doesn't get in the reader's face and tell them what Truth is.

And Batman is concerned with Truth mostly in specific and acceptable contexts: the truth is, he dunnit, and she didn't, and here I've got the evidence.

Neither of them walks into the room with a challenging ideology that nobody is going to agree with all of, and a claim to be practically Truth incarnate.

That is not to say that all three aspects don't intersect, but in order to properly define Wonder Woman, her mythos should reflect this empahsis on truth-telling (the way it does for, say, Spider Jerusalem from Transmetroplitan, to mention an example brought up by another user on this thread).

All of these factors can be just as rich (in terms of story-telling) and no less "true" to the origins of that character than focusing on the aspects that are more specifically related to her gender.

I think you're trying to define the character in a way that makes her usable for writers.

I'm sympathetic to that, because I think Wonder Woman needs more great stories like A League of One, which if you haven't read - as they say "do yourself a favor."

Of course, the gendered elements will always be there -- they're almost impossible NOT to consider, when penning the character. But I don't think they should be placed front and center of an ongoing series. At least not for a couple of years.

I am not on board with the feminist stuff at all. I find it personally unpleasant. But I think this is the character. And if I was writing her, I would write her as being right. And I would make her cause and her rightness relevant. If I couldn't make them tacitly relevant, by using enemies whose known character makes the issues so obvious that they didn't require any speeches to make the point, then I'd resort to "Winged Victory" stories, with speeches. You can't sell the character short on what they stand for.

I like Wonder Woman's excellent character and her boldness. I don't need to agree with her. And I think that is something you have to demand of all your readers, if you write Wonder Woman, because nobody is going to agree with her on every issue. Or they shouldn't, if you writer as I think she should be written, as believing in a bunch of stuff that together won't let anybody feel thoughtlessly comfortable.

 

[Ninja4peace]

I
II
III
IV

Man, these posts are getting long...Yeah All good points. I like the idea the Batman is more realistic detective, superman is more science fiction and wonder woman is almost full on fantasy...maybe her popularity is due to the genre of fantasy comics not being as popular as scienc fiction ones.

Has anyone read Trinity? It's about their first meeting and how they have to reconcile their differing philosphies (apparently). Sounds interesting.

 

[Langsta]

Damn these posts are long. I think WW needs a definitive story. A "Year One" story. And something like "The Dark Knight Returns." Yeah, something like TDKR for Wondy was covered in Kingdom Come, but I'm talking about a stand-alone story. Something memorable. I can't remember any good Wonder Woman stories like that. Maybe All-Star WW will cover that? I don't know. But she needs more memorable stories. I can't name one WW story off the top of my head. Not one. Now, I'll be honest: I don't necessarily read monthly Batman or Superman titles. I like memorable stuff like Year One, Killing Joke, TDKR, stuff that impacts. None of Wonder Woman's villains or supporting characters are very strong. And when I say strong, I don't mean STRONG strong, I mean CHARACTER strong. Give them a personality. Give Wonder Woman a personality. If it means re-booting the god-damn series, then so be it. Update her costume a little. Get some better artists on this mother!$!^&@$. Make the title interesting. Another reason why I don't pick up many monthly DC titles is because they're not usually appealing. The art usually sucks, and there's so much to follow. That's why Marvel is appealing. They've got the Ultimate line and everything else. I'm not saying give DC an Ultimate line. I'm just saying, make it more interesting.

 

[Bass]

Damn these posts are long. I think WW needs a definitive story. A "Year One" story. And something like "The Dark Knight Returns." Yeah, something like TDKR for Wondy was covered in Kingdom Come, but I'm talking about a stand-alone story. Something memorable. I can't remember any good Wonder Woman stories like that. Maybe All-Star WW will cover that? I don't know. But she needs more memorable stories. I can't name one WW story off the top of my head. Not one. Now, I'll be honest: I don't necessarily read monthly Batman or Superman titles. I like memorable stuff like Year One, Killing Joke, TDKR, stuff that impacts. None of Wonder Woman's villains or supporting characters are very strong. And when I say strong, I don't mean STRONG strong, I mean CHARACTER strong. Give them a personality. Give Wonder Woman a personality. If it means re-booting the god-damn series, then so be it. Update her costume a little. Get some better artists on this mother!$!^&@$. Make the title interesting. Another reason why I don't pick up many monthly DC titles is because they're not usually appealing. The art usually sucks, and there's so much to follow. That's why Marvel is appealing. They've got the Ultimate line and everything else. I'm not saying give DC an Ultimate line. I'm just saying, make it more interesting.

"My plan is to start with Steve Trevor crashing on Paradise Island, and hilarity ensues," Hughes said. "The way the All Star line was pitched to me, and this was several years ago, was that this was gong to be the iconic interpretation.

"So what I've been doing is re-reading a lot of old Wonder Woman comics. As I see it, I'm getting to do this iconic approach to the character, and I'm looking at it the same way as the people who did…say, Batman: The Animated Series. You look over the sixty year history of the character, and treat it like a salad bar. You take the good bits, and leave the rest. You get the best of all possible worlds. I'm taking all the thinking I did about the character that I did when I was working on the covers…which is a lot of time to sit and think, people will probably say, because I'm so slow [laughs], and I'm taking the best bits from the Golden Age, the best bits from the George Perez run, and hopefully will come up with something where I can say, 'Aha! A happy, healthy balance.'"

The whole article is here. I think ASWW is what you're looking for.