BvS 1941-2016: 75 Years of Wonder Woman

It's also occurred to me that I really don't think Snyder is actually smart enough to properly portray the values of the original WW. Especially if Sucker Punch is any indicator. It might be for the best he just sticks to his ballpark and makes her into Wonder Xena.

 

And she overcame it, no? She was not submissive to any man, right?

How many superheroines as famous as Wonder Woman use sexual themes to display the themes relating to: A) Woman's dominance, and B) the society of the hero to reflect consequences to those who commit potentially war crimes?

It's things like her snapping Max Lord's neck that undermine her character.

She is supposed to be. Always has been, but instead of being relatively subtle and used through her defeat of villains it became overt with gratuitous T&A. If you don't like it, it's just something about the character you just don't like. Like how some people don't like Batman not killing his villains.

Why are you under the impression it is either or?

Can you name any comicbook superhero introduced in the past 10 years (who is not a successor, I mean genuinely new)? It's hard to create new characters anyway.

But if they were created along with all the other mainstay characters several generations ago, you betcha I could.

The reason Wonder Woman became so one note was because she became Superman with boobs. He became one note too, as did all characters.

Then from like the 90's she became a generic warrior girl "bcuz amazon rite?"

Azzarello's run is a very good Wonder Woman run, but some of it undermines part of her character. The Ambassador of Peace and former Goddess of Love is now "GOD OF WAR, HEAR ME ROAR! Activate bezerker mode!"

Which makes me sad.

 

I was wondering about who would/could tackle the WW solo movie and thinking it might take a miracle to get all the intricacies right. But it just might not go that deep. At this point, I don't think there is even that much time for Snyder to really delve into the WW mythos. But he could set up something that has potential to be explored in an interesting way in a solo movie.

 

I'm sure some found it empowering in that time. But it's 2014 and attitudes change. I don't find that appealing at all. I'd like to see female power represented more without having it conform to what's sexy.

As for the costume, there seems to be a good amount of skirt/longer short drawings, but perhaps that was the final outfit. It doesn't change my distaste for the costume at all. I will never be in the "skimpy outfits are what female empowerment is all about" crowd. Again, would a male character ever be made to dress that way and then say it's empowering? Doubtful.

 

Trouble is, a male sexual character doesn't have the same connotations as a woman. It becames less "look at him be free and not care" to "look at that chauvinistic misogynistic man ****e". Doubly funny when there have been female writers write him in stories.

 

It's not about who's submissive or the specifics of how they apply these themes. It's about having to have those sexual undertones because she's female. They wouldn't do that with a male. At least, not often. There are many ways to show dominance. Why choose sex? That type of characterization is a relic that I have no desire to see.

 

Again, this is what Marston and WW's thinking in those stories was completely attacking. These very ideas that there's these divides that exist between men and women. WW dressed as she wanted and ignored all these ridiculous notions that gestate in our minds of objectification. She was always the moral compass, the hero, the truth.

 

I reckon that if this character was going to appear in a movie in 2014, very few, if any, people would be arguing for him to keep that costume for the movie.

 

That's what they thought they were doing. They had noble intentions, but still conformed to gender roles. Would anyone make a man "fight the establishment" by wearing short-shorts? No. Because that's not how men fight. That's how women fight, according to some views at the time.

 

Wonder Woman is a character designed to force people into compliance through dominance.

That is truth, from the words of Dr Marston himself. Before we go any further, if you don't like that, you don't like an underlying principle of the character (which is fine, I don't intend to come across *****e-y) and can disregard the rest of the post.

Now, the dominance can arise in two ways. Physical manipulation (the generic warrior incarnation) or psychological (Marston's).

He chose psychological, specifically sexual, a woman who would tie up her enemies, and have a rope that compels them to do as she says. That can connote to sexual means, despite being a physical act. Now, it's not actually sexual, but it preys on the mind, it looks sexual, therefore psychologically, rewarding, men almost want to be defeated by her. But the real reward is rehabilitation (not killing or maiming) of said foe, and rather learning compassion for those they wronged. Hence why Wonder Woman's foes are largely straight women, a lot of the tactics from Themyscira are useless on them, they as women (or the more sensible gender), already understand her, they just disagree.

The relic you speak of is why the Amazons exist, the Lasso, the iconography (I know you don't like it). In short, it IS Wonder Woman in the same way Batman is a dark avenger. It's like asking why Batman "needs" to be dark when, he doesn't, he just is.

If I might ask, how would you "modernise" the core of her character?

Then they are missing the point. Exact same, no, no character has been the exact same. But similar, I'd see it.

 

Femininity was celebrated though. It's something that most men lack, save our fabulous gay/transsexual brethren ha.

It's worth noting that WW's sidekick in many of the early stories was a confident, self-assured obese girl, Etta Candy.

 

Also in Morrison's WW:E1 he wants to explore how a female society would evolve over thousands of years into what fashion and why they would continue to wear makeup.

 

By the way though this is the whole point.

This attitude around sex and how it's inferior to expressing masculinity. It's not. Again it's just these chemical dispositions in our heads that make people think this. But there's no universal truth there. Marston himself introduced WW to present an 'alternative to the blood-curdling masculinity of the male superheros'.

And femininity and sex are just as powerful agents than male strength and war. The stories were about female politics and how they can solve problems peacefully.

 

I have nothing against any core principals that I find free of gender bias.

I am in favor of her using psychological means of persuasion, but I'd rather any heavy sexual undertones be left out. For starters, I'd change the costume. That would take away a lot of the innuendo right there. I do like these themes, I'd just want them less sexually rooted. To modernize her, I'd make her a peace-keeper above all. I'd give her a keen mind that she can use to persuade/trick and a compassion to reason with others before battle. If this should fail, I'd let her warrior side come out. She would study people at first, so she'd know her opponent, but also know who she can trust. I'd let her keep the lasso, but be careful about how it's used (keep the focus on truth seeking and not sexual imagery).

 

Interesting concept art and storyboard for a solo WW film. (Unofficial)

 

Most of this doesn't make sense.

"This attitude around sex" has nothing to do with anything. I'm not talking about sex phobias. I'm talking about gender bias.

I never said femininity isn't powerful. What I'm saying is that short-shorts and sexual imagery is not what defines it. I'm saying that these things are not required to show female power.

 

Well you were specifically asking 'why choose sex' and implying that it was because she is female.

 

That's a extremely imprecise assessment of Azzarello's run.

Diana being the God of War doesn't bring any of the violence or desire for destruction that is often related with the greek God of War, actually her first act after becoming a god was to spare her defeated foe, who had already caused her much pain. Even Ares before her wasn't the traditional God of War, a common feature in all Azzarello's take on greek mythology. Therefore, bringing outside preconceptions about gods in this run is a mistake.

Diana has not displayed a personality that would jusfity the "HEAR ME ROAR" either, not even in the end of the last issue. She is extremely compassionate, trusting and caring. But she also knows when to fight and use force.

Also unjusfied is the "activate berserk mode". First it's something that was brought back from past Wonder Woman incarnations, I'm not sure if they were from the golden age, but it's there. But mostly important, trying to use the berserk mode as an evidence that this Wonder Woman is brutal, barbaric or at least much more than she should be is a grave misinterpretation of what this power is actually used for. Godmode in this run is about building Wonder Woman as a character, it's about what she wants to be and self-improvement.

 

And I was wrong because? That's exactly my point. That is the reason. They have rarely, if at all, integrated sexual undertones into male characters in that fashion. Superman, batman, Ironman, Spiderman...none of them are frequently sexualized. Contrast it with WW, Catwoman, Starfire, Black widow, Scarlet Witch....

Note: I'm not saying sex is integrated into all of those characters in the same way, but they're all frequently sexualized. That is gender bias.

 

Well Wonder Woman is a gender bias character still. Would you do away with the Amazons? A utopian society that just so happens to be entirely female (provided it's not their rape and murder season).

What would be the psychological incentive for submission?

Would you update the costume or scrap it entirely? If scrapped, is that remaining true to a visual medium?

Isn't tying someone up in a struggle with a rope that makes them unable to tell lies and compelled to do as you say sexual fetish-y anyway?

The rest is already present in Wonder Woman (under good writers).

 

Did you ignore the previous sentence when I said the run was a very good Wonder Woman run?

MrsKent told me she didn't like when Wonder Woman goes all "Grrrr" and that did happen, when bezerker mode was activated as a "twist" in that run, and she also became God of War. Used fairly ideally, I'd say. It's almost as if its a subversion of both her character, and the role. Its halfway to brilliant, but I wish we saw more of Ares, the idea that war itself is tired and embittered really is great, and it's a theme that I love in MGS too.

 

Not, yet you clearly said those attributes went in opposition with Embassador of Peace and God of Love, and that's not true.

 

My responses in bold.

 

The role of God of War is in opposition with her prior roles.

Peace is the opposite of War, especially in archetypal roles.

 

That's why I'm saying you're misinterpreting what that means in Azzarello's run.

Wonder Woman can be the God of War and still advocate for peace.