
![]() |

Lets face it, a good reboot that invests in the concepts of a character is better than a cookie-cutter superhero in undies any day. So what are the core concepts of Wonder woman that would make the Reboot?
Your Thoughts?

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Greg Potter, George Perez, and Janice Rice need not fear any competition from your end. The reboot of the late 80's was more than likely the high point of the comic.
They ditched the entire secret identity nonsense, (in fact, she refers to herself as "Diana", and isn't really big on the "Wonder Woman" moniker) turned Steve Trevor into a surrogate father figure instead of lover, and recast her name as Diana as honoring Themisycrya's new first contact with Man's World, Diana Trevor, Steve Trevor's mother who crashlanded on Paradise Island and died in defense of the Amazons, who was so impressed by her that they made a ceremonial costume and armor to honor her. (which is the origin of the Wonder Woman costume, and the battle armor she wore in the "War of the Gods" storyline.
Another major renovation was to tie her more closely to her mythic origins.
Your reboot ideas are something that's more appropriate for a Wonder Woman as a Troma film.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

You cant she is an anachronism like Captain America (and Superman), there are only limited stories you can have for a character like that.
It is better to pass the torch on to a new generation of Superheroes that fit in with the time, look to now and the future not at the past.
So rebooting her as MAN HUNTER: a gladiator woman from the matriarch ruled flesh pits and bondage underground of New York who hunts down male serial killers, rapists, and abusers of women and children in the alleys and penthouses of the under-city.
Not working for you?

Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |

She's still got the Greek origins...only now she's not made from clay.
Yes, they went right to the source and decided that she's now a demi-goddess and the daughter of Zeus and Hippolyta.
And the Amazons are a warrior culture. They have children by attacking nearby ships and having their way with the men. Their male children are sold off to Hephaestus in exchange for proper weapons and armor from the forge god, he turns them into workers at his forges.
Mmm. Still, at least they finally explain what happens to male children of the Amazons.
==Aelryinth

![]() |

She's still got the Greek origins...only now she's not made from clay.
Yes, they went right to the source and decided that she's now a demi-goddess and the daughter of Zeus and Hippolyta.
And the Amazons are a warrior culture. They have children by attacking nearby ships and having their way with the men. Their male children are sold off to Hephaestus in exchange for proper weapons and armor from the forge god, he turns them into workers at his forges.
Mmm. Still, at least they finally explain what happens to male children of the Amazons.
==Aelryinth
That's the pretty version. hephaestus was vulcan and both were of the Ul-cae. The Ul were eaters of human flesh.

sunbeam |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They've rebooted her almost continuously since the 80's crisis.
Most of you are too young to remember the pre-Crisis Wonder Woman. It wasn't a great book (honestly most DC books weren't then) but at least it was something. They had a character mythology (Paradise Island, Invisible Plane, Golden Lasso), supporting characters (Steve Trevor, Etta Candy), a sort of semblance of a non-hero life (her job as an Air Force officer in the Pentagon).
Since then we have had the Perez reboot, the Byrne (not really a reboot, but the character was different from Perez), some other people, Gail Simone, whoever is doing this new one.
It's getting old. By the 70's it was pretty clear the title needed to change, but I don't think anyone ever had a good angle on what to do.
Byrne came the closest, though it pains me to say that. It still wasn't exactly what I would call good though.
As far as the costume goes, maybe it is an age thing and when you were first exposed to the character. But she looks stupid in pants.
Kind of like Superman needs his underoos to look right.
Her costume is pretty iconic. It didn't change very much for close to 50 years after they ditched the 40's miniskirt (though there were some "experiments." But we don't really want to talk about that 60's white pantsuit thing.
Aah, heck let's go there:
Wonder Woman Throughout The Years
This title and character need someone to come up with a good angle on it. Batman, Superman, Flash, just about all the other A-List characters have had numerous takes, most of them successful.
Why a character as iconic as this one flounders I don't know. I mean she is pretty recognizable, and the basic origin story is pretty well known, like Batman and Superman's.
If she is selling now, I take it back. I picked up the first issue after the Flashpoint reboot and wasn't that impressed.

thejeff |
They've rebooted her almost continuously since the 80's crisis.
Most of you are too young to remember the pre-Crisis Wonder Woman. It wasn't a great book (honestly most DC books weren't then) but at least it was something. They had a character mythology (Paradise Island, Invisible Plane, Golden Lasso), supporting characters (Steve Trevor, Etta Candy), a sort of semblance of a non-hero life (her job as an Air Force officer in the Pentagon).
Since then we have had the Perez reboot, the Byrne (not really a reboot, but the character was different from Perez), some other people, Gail Simone, whoever is doing this new one.
It's getting old. By the 70's it was pretty clear the title needed to change, but I don't think anyone ever had a good angle on what to do.
Byrne came the closest, though it pains me to say that. It still wasn't exactly what I would call good though.
<snip>
This title and character need someone to come up with a good angle on it. Batman, Superman, Flash, just about all the other A-List characters have had numerous takes, most of them successful.
Why a character as iconic as this one flounders I don't know. I mean she is pretty recognizable, and the basic origin story is pretty well known, like Batman and Superman's.
If she is selling now, I take it back. I picked up the first issue after the Flashpoint reboot and wasn't that impressed.
I don't think any of those, except the post-Crisis Perez one were reboots. Each creative team had their own take on the character, but that's a different story. Minor retcons aside, the continuity was the same from Crisis until the New 52, right?
I'm not sure why you think the character's been floundering for 40 years.
I know Perez's take was very good and lasted 5 years, though it lagged at the end. It got good critical reaction and as far as I know sold well. I didn't really follow WW after that, so I can't comment on the others, though I remember some good runs.

sunbeam |
I think you can reboot a character without a universe shaking event.
The character can be very different depending on who writes it. Perez had Diana working at Taco Wiz or Big Belly Burger. She was a stranger in a strange land with his take.
Byrne's Wonder Woman was more worldly and knowledgeable. The personality was totally different to me. Plus he had some junk about Darkseid in there (Talk about a shoehorn).
Simone's was different from both of those. I still don't know what she was going for with that.
Moore and Swamp Thing is pretty well known. You could definitely argue that was a true reboot shaking the foundations of the character.
You don't have to change continuity to get something totally different. Denny O'Neil and the Batgod were totally different from anything that had come before.
If you would like I can point at other changes I personally think were reboots with other DC characters. Superman, Flash, Green Lantern all had extensive changes, even without the various crises.

sunbeam |
I just wanted to add that I do believe the character has been floundering for at least 40 years. Longer even.
They always seem to keep her in print, because she is so iconic. But her book never sells.
Of course nothing really sells for DC but Bat and Superman books. The Legion and Teen Titans had big runs in the 80's, but in general DC books just fade away unless they are Batman or Superman titles.
Another way it can be considered to be floundering is the lack of good runs in the storyline. I'm talking about runs like the Avengers had with Roy Thomas and Englehart in the 70's. Levitz on the Legion in the 80's. Lee and Kirby on Fantastic Four through about issue 60 or something.
Stuff you just can't wait for the next issue to get on the shelves.
I have never gotten that with Wonder Woman. And to be honest I don't think it is so much a matter of taste. Most of the time when a book really grabbed me, you can find a lot of comment about it.
The ones I didn't think were very good just seem to have gone in the memory hole.
I mean I just did a google for "who wrote the Avengers in the 70's." Issues 150 to 200 is my all time favorite era of the Avengers. Lots of discussion of it still.

DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |
15 people marked this as a favorite. |

I think the issue with Wonder Woman in the comics is that DC itself doesn't really know what to do with her. Generally, they want to largely attract a young, male audience and use very specific themes and tropes to do so. (Their sales reflect this)
Wonder Woman
a) was designed by William Moulton Marston to attract female readers and give them a role model, which is something DC has no interest in doing as far as I can tell, and
b) She uses tropes and themes that do not fit well into the contemporary DCU, because of this and other reasons (her more mythological origins, etc.)
Frankly, I think the Marston estate were fools to let DC get the full rights to her (for awhile, DC only had the rights to use her as long as they published her title), and should have held out for a creative company that could have done the character much more justice. And I am enough of a snobbish elitist Wonder Woman fan to even say DC Comics as it is currently run doesn't even deserve to have Wonder Woman. They're not good enough for her.
(And yes, the New 52 Sales figures for her are dropping. Anecdotally, reviewers I read who are longtime fans say the character is no longer recognizable, and they hate what DC has done with the Amazons.)
The thing is, Wonder Woman is iconic in the broader world. Many typical comic book fans don't like her, but the world does. Wonder Woman merchandise sells in many major stores -- you can get Wonder Woman snack tins in Target and Wonder Woman mugs and wallets at gift shops more than easily enough. When I went to Six Flags recently, they had a nice sized corner of their DCU-themed store dedicated to her, which indicates the products are selling well, or they wouldn't bother. So, Wonder Woman makes money--or let's face it, in today's profit driven world, they would have dropped the property ages ago. That's why they keep trying--even if failing--to get some kind of movie or TV show off the ground. It's not for the comic book fans, it's for the mainstream ones. The problem is, Warner Brothers, like DC, really has no idea how to write her, how to market her, or to whom.
The other problem with Wonder Woman is that at her core... if she's done RIGHT, in the spirit that Marston created her (bondage jokes aside)... Wonder Woman is...
Well, she's nice.
Wonder Woman is a loving person. She's a loving person with warrior training, but she is kind. She is compassionate. She wants, ultimately, everybody to get along. Batman angsts because he witnessed the murder of his parents. Wonder Woman is sad sometimes because the world in general has so much anger and violence in it. The difference between Wonder Woman and Batman is that Wonder Woman believes humanity can eventually be taught to shed its violet ways.
And nobody wants to write nice superheroes these days. They all have to be "dark and edgy and gritty."
Which is a shame, cause frankly, personally? I am goddamn sick of all the angst. I actually like watching a superheroine who just accepts what she is, goes out, helps people, and kick ass.
I think when I get home from work tonight, I might pull out my Gail Simone trades and pop in a Lynda Carter DVD. Sounds like a good night.

![]() |
I just wanted to add that I do believe the character has been floundering for at least 40 years. Longer even.
They always seem to keep her in print, because she is so iconic. But her book never sells.
If the book didn't sell, it wouldn't be printed. She'd be like Doctor Strange in Marvel, relegated to playing second or third stringer in other titles. But it does. She's just at a bit of an odd point with the current fashion trends in superhero movies.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Not to (overly toot my own horn) but I'd been writng how I'd do a Wonder Woman TV series here.
Amusingly the only post I've not made yet is who I'd cast as Diana herself.

sunbeam |
sunbeam wrote:If the book didn't sell, it wouldn't be printed. She'd be like Doctor Strange in Marvel, relegated to playing second or third stringer in other titles. But it does. She's just at a bit of an odd point with the current fashion trends in superhero movies.I just wanted to add that I do believe the character has been floundering for at least 40 years. Longer even.
They always seem to keep her in print, because she is so iconic. But her book never sells.
There are other reasons to publish a book. Marvel comics trots out a book called "Captain Marvel" in some way every so often. I did some reading on this once, but I've forgotten the terms used.
But from what I gather it is to keep the name reserved. I don't think they really care about ticking off DC in this era of the game, but they just keep that particular name in their Intellectual Property.
The unfortunate side effect to me is the the World's Mightiest Mortal will probably never be published in a book called Captain Marvel.
And if you thought DC didn't know what to do with Wonder Woman...

sunbeam |
Something else I want to point out it that in my opinion they don't really make their money off of sales of individual books like they did in the old days.
Captain Marvel came close to selling 5 million books a month on one of the titles he was in during the early 50's (before that DC lawsuit).
Now there aren't many books that sell 30,000 copies a month.
My take is they can't possibly make the revenue to pay all their people off of direct sales. This isn't the 1940's and Timely Comics, where you have a couple of admin people, an editor and a stable of writers and artists. These guys are subsidiaries of conglomerates now, and they roll with real companies. Offices, execs, lawyers, the whole nine yards.
I think they pretty much serve as repositories of stories and concepts that can possibly be turned into movies. Recent comic book derived movies have done well.
They do develop some new ideas as well, 300, Sin City, whatever that movie was with Nicholas Cage and "Hit Girl" as well. Some others that I won't mention.
They might make more money off of graphic novels than regular books, I understand the margins are better, But that isn't enough to satisfy the monkey these guys have on their backs now.
Movies and merchandising is how they make their money now. Sales are an afterthought in some ways. If we were privy to their internal numbers, I'd hazard a guess that they lose money on some books they keep printing.

sunbeam |
Wow, I am chatty today.
I just got through reading a couple of articles on that site DeathQuaker linked to.
Sales in general are stronger than they were about '08 or '09. Either they are doing something right or the economy has improved.
Maybe they are doing something right. Sales across all books were monotonically declining for ... decades honestly till the last time I looked 3 or 4 years ago. Just the books I read about on that site seem about 10,000 units a month stronger than I would have expected, after adjusting for the reboot sales jump.

DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |

LazarX wrote:sunbeam wrote:If the book didn't sell, it wouldn't be printed. She'd be like Doctor Strange in Marvel, relegated to playing second or third stringer in other titles. But it does. She's just at a bit of an odd point with the current fashion trends in superhero movies.I just wanted to add that I do believe the character has been floundering for at least 40 years. Longer even.
They always seem to keep her in print, because she is so iconic. But her book never sells.
There are other reasons to publish a book. Marvel comics trots out a book called "Captain Marvel" in some way every so often. I did some reading on this once, but I've forgotten the terms used.
But from what I gather it is to keep the name reserved. I don't think they really care about ticking off DC in this era of the game, but they just keep that particular name in their Intellectual Property.
This is not true. It used to be, but is no longer the case. They have no legal obligations at this time to continue to print a Wonder Woman title.
The following was posted by comics writer Kurt Busiek to the DC Comics Message Boards on 25 January 2005:Q: For years there have been rumors that if DC were to quit publishing Wonder Woman for a certain length of time, that ownership of the character would revert back to the Martson estate. A few years ago some people on the old DC boards were stating that you had refuted those claims in a post.
So are the rumors true? Were they ever true? Or, do you just not know, one way or the other?
A: They are no longer true, but they were true for a long time — as I understand it, the terms were that DC had to publish at least four issues with "Wonder Woman" as the banner lead feature or rights would revert. That's why DC did the LEGEND OF WONDER WOMAN mini-series that I wrote and Trina Robbins drew — the Perez revamp was in development, but coming along slowly, and they had to publish something to fulfil the contract terms.
They specifically didn't want something that would be attention-getting, because they didn't want to undercut the revamp. So they wanted something gentle and nostalgic, and we had fun doing it.
In the intervening years, though, I'm given to understand that at some point DC bought the character outright, and thus those contract terms are no longer in force.
So no, if they are publishing the title, it is because they want to and feel it has some kind of merit; it is not to do with maintaining the IP.

DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |

Also, somewhat OT, but an interesting documentary about Wonder Woman and the evolution of the superheroine that was on PBS:
Wonder Women! The Untold Story of American Superheroines
You should be able to watch the entire video at pbs.org until June 15.
If you do watch it, I'd suggest watching the whole thing before commenting. It is rather interesting.

GreenDragon1133 |
@DeathQuaker: I wanted to be excited about those dropping sales figures. But they only cover from Vol.4 #1 for the first year of the New 52
The reboot began a year before under JMS, with average sales in the 30K range. The last issues of Vol.3 prior to that only averaged about 25K. In your link, they are still over 40K, and the article anticipates a drop only to the mid-low 30K range.
So, while the new character that replaced Wonder Woman is crap, its good selling crap.

DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |

How would I reboot wonder woman? I wouldn't. I would pay my wife, one of my best friends and most talented dms and Top 16 rpg superstar 2011 markthomas66 and our own DeathQuaker scads of money to do it.
I will take that as a compliment!
GreenDragon, it was bound to be higher selling than prior, it started with a BRIGHT SHINY NEW #1. And prior to that was JMS's boring as piss reboot, and prior to that was Gail Simone's run which sadly got a bit convoluted. I still think Gail is one of the best writers of the character but I think she was trying so hard to fix the errors of her predecessors rather than make a clean break and do her own thing, that things got a little messy; I hate to admit it because I am a huge fan of hers (I finally got to meet her, briefly, about a month ago) but the title had its issues. I just wish she had been given the opportunity to right it rather than have it taken from her and entirely rebooted--twice in a series of two years.
And I'm not saying folks should rejoice or be said, sales are still declining. That's all. Something about it is in the process of losing readers. Take it for what you will. It will be interesting to look at it in another year.
If you want to look at prior sales, JMS's era goes around 30,000 or so and Gail's started around 40,000 and dropped to 25,000 (but was going back up toward the end), with a zip up to 50,000 for the #600 special.
Prior to that sales were generally between 20,000 and 45,000, going up and down for many years.
In the big picture, the sales actually aren't much different. Meaning ultimately all the changes they've made have not altered its saleability on a broad scope -- it's not like it's gone from 10,000 to 100,000 or something (and note the highest selling comic usually goes for around 130,000 copies).

sunbeam |
Okay, I'll bite.
What sells 130,000 copies these days? I take it you aren't talking about the big crossover events.
So what title sells 130,000 copies a month? Last time I did much reading on this, it was an uncommon title that sold over 50,000. For DC it was pretty much Batman and Superman. For Marvel X-Men has fluctuated a lot over the years, but it has a pretty high threshold it never goes under.
If things are still the same a Spider-Man book will odds are be the best Marvel seller. And it is pretty hard to get even that title up to 100,000 copies a month.

DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |

According to this list here, Batman sold 132,000 or so in April. AFAIK that's usually around where that sells. The same list shows Spider-Man selling at 200,000 several months ago, I reckon that's about as high as it gets.
By all means if you've got other sources of numbers post them, that's the source I was using. The more data the better. I did only look back about 6 months or so.

sunbeam |
I'd rather see her done by an indie company.
Come to think of it, some things just work better if they are not part of Disney or Time Warner.
I'd like to see both companies become independent again.
I won't hold my breath though.
That site is kind of wonky with the sales figures. I clicked a few times and had trouble finding things.
One thing I did notice was how many books were in single digits. Good sales figures if it keeps up.
By way of comparison I think in the 80's dipping much under 100,000 was grounds to consider canceling a book.
Things have really changed.
Just for the heck of it, here is an excerpt from here: http://www.comicsbulletin.com/interviews/3621/cancelled-comics-cavalcade-30 -years-later-with-paul-kupperberg/
"Paul Kupperberg (PK): Not hardly, nuh-uh. I didn’t touch anything, I don’t know how comic books got broken in 1978, I swear! I was just a cog in the wheel. A wheeling accomplish, if you wheel. (That was me channeling Julie Schwartz. It won’t happen again.)
JB: Ah, yes, I could sense the great man himself there for a moment. So then, what caused the Implosion? ‘Bad weather’ was stated as one of the causes…surely it had to be more than just that?
PK: It was a combination of things. It started about 1975, which is the year I got into comics, writing for Charlton and DC. Again, just a coincidence. Not my fault no matter how bad most of those early stories were.
DC and Marvel both went on this competitive expansion jag, each trying to muscle the other off the newsstands … here’s where I do the old fart thing: back in the olden days, comics weren’t sold in comics specialty shops. They were sold in drugstores, candy stores, bus and train stations, newsstands, etc. The company would print, say, 500,000 copies of a comic (yeah, that’s right, and that was for one of the low selling titles), send it out through the distributor, who passed them on to the wholesalers, who sent them out to the retailers, and whatever the retailer didn’t sell, got returned to be pulped and recycled. That’s opposed to the modern system, where the retailer buys his comics outright, no returns."
"The company would print, say, 500,000 copies of a comic (yeah, that’s right, and that was for one of the low selling titles), send it out through the distributor, who passed them on to the wholesalers, who sent them out to the retailers, and whatever the retailer didn’t sell, got returned to be pulped and recycled."
Of course we don't know how many of a run like that actually sold on the shelves, and how many were returned.

DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |

I wonder what would happen if Marvel acquired Wonder Woman? She's so built as a character story character, I wonder what would happen if Wonder Woman was written by a Marvel writer and explored the very depth of her character every month.
That Marvel explores character depth and DC does not is a fallacy. I have read Marvel comics where there's been just a bunch of explosions and superpowers going off. Heck, I collect FF right now because it's silly and fun, not because of the character development (although there is some). Before the New 52, the DC titles I collected were BECAUSE of the character development: Birds of Prey, Secret Six, for example, and when i was collecting those books alongside X-Men, I preferred the character development in BOP and S6.
I have to ask, have you read a Wonder Woman comic ever, and if so when, and who was writing it? Wonder Woman has had plenty of writers who really tried to explore her character. Greg Rucka, Gail Simone, to name a few. Phil Jiminez, if I recall, as well. Others as well.
The hard core DC fans then complain when that happens that usually Wonder Woman is "failing to be relevant." Of course, they do that anyway.
Is her character developed in New 52? Dunno. Maybe someone who reads the title can speak to that. The only New 52 books I read are Sword of Sorcery and The Movement. The first is pulpy, as it ought to be. The second promises good character development.
Now, could a Marvel writer handle Wonder Woman better than a DC writer? Dunno, and besides, many of them have written for both companies. Could be better. OTOH, both Marvel and DC are getting plenty of flack for their editorial decisions, I don't really think it would make a difference. Although maybe the one real benefit if Wonder Woman changed universes is it would get her away from all the Flashpoint and Crisis nonsense. I don't know if you could conceivably write the Amazons and a Marvel-plausible backstory for her though, in the existing universe. Unless you make the Amazons from some forgotten branch on Yggdrasil but you can't add to that exactly willy nilly without screwing over mythology.

thejeff |
GM Elton wrote:I wonder what would happen if Marvel acquired Wonder Woman? She's so built as a character story character, I wonder what would happen if Wonder Woman was written by a Marvel writer and explored the very depth of her character every month.
That Marvel explores character depth and DC does not is a fallacy. I have read Marvel comics where there's been just a bunch of explosions and superpowers going off. Heck, I collect FF right now because it's silly and fun, not because of the character development (although there is some). Before the New 52, the DC titles I collected were BECAUSE of the character development: Birds of Prey, Secret Six, for example, and when i was collecting those books alongside X-Men, I preferred the character development in BOP and S6.
Now, could a Marvel writer handle Wonder Woman better than a DC writer? Dunno, and besides, many of them have written for both companies. Could be better. OTOH, both Marvel and DC are getting plenty of flack for their editorial decisions, I don't really think it would make a difference. Although maybe the one real benefit if Wonder Woman changed universes is it would get her away from all the Flashpoint and Crisis nonsense. I don't know if you could conceivably write the Amazons and a Marvel-plausible backstory for her though, in the existing universe. Unless you make the Amazons from some forgotten branch on Yggdrasil but you can't add to that exactly willy nilly without screwing over mythology.
I dunno. There are Greek gods in the Marvel Universe too. It wouldn't be too hard to link Wonder Woman and Amazons to them. I don't think Amazons have been used in Marvel, not prominently anyway.
While Marvel doesn't seem to do the complete reboot thing like DC does, it does drag characters into massive crossovers where they don't really belong and is just as likely to have a new writer do a different take on a character's personality and role, just without actually throwing rewriting the history of the whole universe.
![]() |

Well Marvel does have Amazons. Hippolyta is now part of the Secret Defenders. There was an amusing bit in JLAvengers where Marvel Herc and Wonder Woman squared off. In DC history Hippolyta was raped, in Marvel history, it was consentual between her and Herc. So he honestly didn't know why Diana was so torqued off.

thejeff |
Well Marvel does have Amazons. Hippolyta is now part of the Secret Defenders. There was an amusing bit in JLAvengers where Marvel Herc and Wonder Woman squared off. In DC history Hippolyta was raped, in Marvel history, it was consentual between her and Herc. So he honestly didn't know why Diana was so torqued off.
As I said, not prominently. Hippolyta's past appearances have been few and far between. We'll see if this one takes off.

Aaron Bitman |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

...I wonder what would happen if Wonder Woman was written by a Marvel writer...
I've never actually read it, but I heard of a comic called Just Imagine Stan Lee that speculates what various DC heroes, including Wonder Woman, would have been like had Stan Lee created them.

![]() |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

I wonder what would happen if Marvel acquired Wonder Woman?
While I don't disagree with Deathquaker's disclaimer about Marvel vs. DC regarding who does better characterization, I do think that the Marvel universe might be a better fit, thematically, at times.
In Marvel, characters with 'mid-range' super-strength, like the Beast, Spider-Man, Luke Cage, Ms. Marvel, etc. are more front and center in groups like the X-Men and Avengers, while DC tends to have less 'kinda strong' characters, going zooming right past that niche and into 'Superman-strong' characters that can drop kick the moon into the sun without using their full strength. (Aquaman is a better example of 'kind of strong' for DC. Able to flip over busses, but not someone who is going to start an earthquake by punching the ground.)
Over at the DC messageboards, before they shut them down, fans would get pretty venomous over whether or not 'Diana' was stronger than 'Clark' and whether or not Wonder Woman could be relevant if she wasn't stronger than Superman, or whether or not a Wonder Woman who wasn't as strong as or stronger than Superman was an insult to women, or to men, or to feminism, flew around like bullets. And, it seemed to me, that any attempt to define Wonder Woman by how big her Amazon dick was compared to Supermans was an exercise in missing-the-point.
If DC wants to run with a 'trinity' metaphor, and Superman has all the powerz, and Batman has all the skillz, then Wonder Woman has to find another niche. She needs to be the soul. And how does one address 'soul' in a comic book, or in a superhero conflict?
Wonder Woman, interestingly, is probably the first superhero to 'Face Heel Turn' one of her adversaries, the 'evil scientist' and Nazi spymaster, Baroness Von Gunther, who got out from other that and became her ally. This storyline started in 1942, mind you, so it's so far before other villains-becoming-heroes that's it not even in the same ballpark (and, unlike Deadpool or Lobo or various other 'bad guys who are kinda / sort good guys, didn't involve the character turning into a neck-snapping anti-hero, but actually transitioning into a flat-out good guy).
That's the sort of thing that throws the nature of other superheroes into question, and turns *their* 'relevance' on it's head. Are any of the DC comic reading fanbase ready for a story in which the hero can not only save kittens from trees, but can also redeem crooks and (using her magic lasso, perhaps) show them a better path, so that they become better people?
More importantly, as their readership continues to contract, year after year, decade after decade, should they perhaps consider that the fanbase that *won't* accept that isn't going to sustain them much longer, and maybe they *need* to explore attracting different sorts of fans, who would be attracted to stories that don't necessarily follow the exact same formula as works in the Bat-books, where Bats punches someone in the head, sends them Arkham, and, six months later, they are out and killing people again, leading to more face-punching, to be repeated every six months until the Armageddon?
I think it's less important to fuss over her origin, or whether or not she has an invisible plane, or get all mythic and focus on the gods and monsters of Greek mythology, than on figuring out exactly where the character stands, and what she stands for.
I don't care if she's weaker or stronger than Superman, physically, or a more or less skilled hand to hand fighter than Batman, because defining her character based on how it compares to other male characters is, IMO, an auto-fail.
Unfortunately, as Aquaman has bumped his fishy head into many times, DC fandom seems to have a 'ceiling' for people with super-strength who aren't functioning on Superman's level. At Marvel, 'kinda strong' characters like Luke Cage, Spider-Man, etc. seem to get a lot more respect.

thejeff |
GM Elton wrote:I wonder what would happen if Marvel acquired Wonder Woman?If DC wants to run with a 'trinity' metaphor, and Superman has all the powerz, and Batman has all the skillz, then Wonder Woman has to find another niche. She needs to be the soul. And how does one address 'soul' in a comic book, or in a superhero conflict?
Wonder Woman, interestingly, is probably the first superhero to 'Face Heel Turn' one of her adversaries, the 'evil scientist' and Nazi spymaster, Baroness Von Gunther, who got out from other that and became her ally. This storyline started in 1942, mind you, so it's so far before other villains-becoming-heroes that's it not even in the same ballpark (and, unlike Deadpool or Lobo or various other 'bad guys who are kinda / sort good guys, didn't involve the character turning into a neck-snapping anti-hero, but actually transitioning into a flat-out good guy).
That's the sort of thing that throws the nature of other superheroes into question, and turns *their* 'relevance' on it's head. Are any of the DC comic reading fanbase ready for a story in which the hero can not only save kittens from trees, but can also redeem crooks and (using her magic lasso, perhaps) show them a better path, so that they become better people?
More importantly, as their readership continues to contract, year after year, decade after decade, should they perhaps consider that the fanbase that *won't* accept that isn't going to sustain them much longer, and maybe they *need* to explore attracting different sorts of fans, who would be attracted to stories that don't necessarily follow the exact same formula as works in the Bat-books, where Bats punches someone in the head, sends them Arkham, and, six months later, they are out and killing people again, leading to more face-punching, to be repeated every six months until the Armageddon?
I think it's less important to fuss over her origin, or whether or not she has an invisible plane, or get all mythic and focus on the gods and monsters of Greek mythology, than on figuring out exactly where the character stands, and what she stands for.
Of course redeeming a villain can make a great story. The trouble with it in a serial medium like comics is, just like killing a villain, it also gets rid of a good villain.
Batman puts villains in Arkham and they break out again, not for any reasons of realism or because it's Batman's niche, but because they're cool villains and people want to see more stories with those villains. The same is done with every other super-hero.
If you try to make a super-hero whose thing is reforming villains, she's going to have to fail most of them time. And when she succeeds most of them will ultimately relapse. Because you need villains. And good villains will support more than one story.

sunbeam |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are parts of Wonder Woman, the parts that everyone "knows," regardless of whether a writer tries to change.
1) She is a member of a race of Amazons that live on an island that is mystically separated from "Man's World."
2) Her mother, Hippolyta, the leader of the Amazons, formed her from a lump of magic clay.
3) She won a contest her mother didn't want her to enter, for the position of being an emissary to Man's World.
4) She blocks bullets with her bracers.
5) She has a Golden Lasso that compels people to speak the truth. She wears it at her side.
6) She has an Invisible Plane.
And something that has bugged me since the Crisis reboots, I don't think she should be able to fly. She has super-speed which is rarely played used in her books, she ought to use that more.
But she doesn't fly. Traditionally, in classic DC manner, she would jump ... into the stratosphere and ride the jet stream.
Everyone and their brother flies, she can be different.
I think she should maintain regular contact with her people. It's not something she should do every issue, but if she wanted to go to Paradise Island to talk to someone, use some resource, or whatever it shouldn't be like she was exiled. You can always use them in a plot of course.
The Amazons shouldn't be some psycho race of warrior nuts. They made the decision to separate a long time ago, the gods enabled it, and they don't really want to rejoin. Though I would imagine they are curious.
Mythology, magic, and the gods should play some part. Lot of plot hooks there. But Diana is different from most heroes in that you can put her on distant planets, other dimensions, do time travel, battle science villains, and do all the magic threats at the same time.
I think the Cheetah should be her Arch Villain. I really liked the take Alex Ross had on her in Justice. So much more primal and feral than the kitty kat version.
I have a soft spot for Giganta. I laughed my rear off when Giganta and Rita (Elasti Girl) had that catfight in Justice.
Come to think of it, I guess it was more or less the 70's league in that book, but the personality Diana had in that is the one I want to see.
So now I'm going to say I wish Alex Ross would be the guy to take her book.
I'm not sure how that art style of his would do for a monthly though. He might could pull it off, but he wouldn't have time for anything else.

DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Set and Matthew, you make good points about the Marvel Universe.
sunbeam, actually, Wonder Woman's most long-used origin, that she is a superpowered Galatea isn't a broadly "known" thing. If you are a comic book fan, yes.
But first, that was not her original origin. Originally she was just one of the Amazons, born to Hippolyta the normal way, and her super strength and such came from Amazon training. And because THAT was the origin used in the Lynda Carter series (which largely drew from the earliest Golden Age stuff and then went from there), I would say that is the origin the mainstream is most familiar with (and thus would be what "everyone" knows). Heck, I've been a Wonder Woman fan for 33 years and it was well into that till I learned the clay thing.
Secondly, I do not believe that is her current origin in the New52. She is currently daughter of Hippolyta and Zeus.
Personally I prefer the original Golden Age version myself (simply that she is the best of the Amazons), and wish they had never changed it. Were I ever in the position of writing her (in a dream world, or perhaps FHDMs), that is the one I would use. I think it's the best one because it's about dreaming about maximizing human potential, and I want Diana to be human, including human born.

![]() |

kmal2t wrote:Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:Make her gay?That would be like making the Pope Catholic..."That would be like making the Pope Catholic..." Huh?
Speaking of that, ARE there any prominent lesbian super heroes? Am I remembering correctly that Bat Girl came out at one point?
Batwoman did, Batgirl didn't. Both redheads in Gotham but only one is canonically a lesbian. Internet fan ships obviously are another several matters.

thejeff |
kmal2t wrote:Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:Make her gay?That would be like making the Pope Catholic..."That would be like making the Pope Catholic..." Huh?
Speaking of that, ARE there any prominent lesbian super heroes? Am I remembering correctly that Bat Girl came out at one point?
Batwoman is gay. And in a relationship with Gotham PD's Maggie Sawyer, who's been known to be gay since the 80s.
ASFAIK, none of the various Batgirls have ever been gay.

DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |

kmal2t wrote:Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:Make her gay?That would be like making the Pope Catholic..."That would be like making the Pope Catholic..." Huh?
Speaking of that, ARE there any prominent lesbian super heroes? Am I remembering correctly that Bat Girl came out at one point?
Batwoman, Kathy Kane, is a lesbian. (Batgirl, currently Barbara Gordon is not.) Her lover IIRC is Renee Montoya, the Question (although whether that's still true in the New52 I've no idea).
I think Batwoman is about as "prominent" as you get. In the DCU other lesbian characters I can think of are Holly Robinson (Catwoman's sidekick of sorts), Scandal Savage (a villain, Vandal's daughter), and Knockout (a villain) (although she might be bisexual, I can't remember). Scandal also had another girlfriend for awhile, but she was not a superhero.
I remember Greg Rucka wrote an Amazon who was in love with Diana (I want to say Phoebe, but I don't think that's right), but I don't think it was requited. Diana was nice about it though. Diana has generally been consistently written as heterosexual by most writers. In the New52, I believe she's dating Superman.

![]() |

Knockout's bi. There was a bit in one of the mini-series where she bedded Deadshot. Then offered to kill him because it upset Scandal.
The line towards the end of Secret Six, "Woudl one of you three, the only men I ever loved, hold me." was especially poignant to me for all of that. (And in my Wonder Woman Reboot, Jeanette at least would be a semi-recurring character)
I think you've hit them all in the DCU or DCnU.