I think what's interesting to trace is how the different interpretations have been of her throughout the decades. We look back to the 70s and almost immediately the Second Wave of feminism comes to mind, the fact that Wonder Woman had such a successful show during the advent of the movement is just fitting in retrospect. Lynda's WW was graceful, a true Princess who came to Patriarch's world in a bid to change it. Even if we forget the WW2 setting we see that the character herself lives in a simplified world. The Nazis are the enemies, it's all black and white. All harmless, unadulterated fun, with a little nod towards the contemporary. A creature of camp, but not one of ridicule (the Batman series did make fun of itself, this isn't ultimately pure camp). This even made way into Super Friends in some form. Wonder Woman is presented as an ideal role model, the Princess archetype at its fullest, complete with a super-hero secret identity.
But decades later she's found more resonant dimensions as a character rather than as an archetype. She is fighting mythical forces like Ares and Hades (animated), her costume is altered not for the sake of believability but for the sake of acceptability, we can only guess how this would be addressed within the context of the upcoming series. Which itself is trying to react or 'tone down' the mythical aspects of her character. She is no longer a Princess disguised as a yeoman but is rather an independent CEO promoting Themysciran values. Something seems missing.
If we look at Wonder Woman's colleagues in the Justice League, we see that both Superman and Batman have had at least several steps between their 'archetypal' and 'character-based' interpretations. For the Man of Steel we've seen him grow from a series played by George Reeves, which is essentially the Lynda Carter equivalent, to the Christopher Reeve movie. A WW equivalent would've explored the many worlds that the character is associated with, such as the mythical dimension, her role as a superhero, her qualities as a Princess, her sisters being Amazons etc. But the media never had the chance to focus on that, and hence, instead of a definitive 'Lex Luthor' kind of villain to identify with the character, the general audience only barely remembers that there is someone dressed in a leopard suit who opposes a Greek Amazonian Princess. In fact, the word 'Amazon' isn't even explored properly either. Batman in '89 and '92 had two strong and serious films where the superhero archetype is replaced with a more character-driven, artistically ambient interpretation. Batman is now associated in pop-culture both as a Neo-Noir detective as well as a Gothic creature. The archetype was expanded. With Diana, lacking such a definitive interpretation, her current TV series and showrunners jumbled to find multiple archetypes. Heck, both Batman and Superman enjoyed a brief retro-life in the media, with films like Batman & Robin and Superman Returns that sought to 'go back' to the wholesome nature of the old interpretations. A movie like that somewhere in the middle would've been ideal and would have served to give this current show a push it seriously lacks. The movie could've explored the 'Diana Prince' character from the 70s, moving away from the previous mythic dimension. The series today could then see what worked and come up with the best of two worlds. Heck, the only reason Smallville has been so successful is because it focuses keenly on an aspect of Superman's world that hadn't been explored in the media before: his youthful years. The same for Batman Begins; Chris Nolan and his team would've probably arrived at the threshold Tim Burton did if there was a void between the Adam West series and the current franchise. Bottom line: you need some of those interpretations, both the good and the bad, to finally arrive at something that is both a critical and commercial success, that finds the balance between product and art. Both Batman and Superman has had the luxury of experimenting with different/additional genres, WW, who perhaps has an even greater amount of sub-genres, never had that.
Now Wonder Woman is trying to find a ground without having a strong backbone. The series is avoiding an origin story because, we can only imagine, the producers feel that no one would be interested in a Princess Diana story without knowing a full Wonder Woman story (in terms of series of course). And thus, they are making the folly of expecting the audience to already be familiar with her origin from the older series. Guess what? New fans won't be.
But make no mistake, I am not in any way saying that Wonder Woman the show is doomed to fail because we haven't had other WW shows. But rather, I'm saying that her peers have had an advantage that she now cannot depend on. David E. Kelley's challenge is immense, and right now the new Wonder Woman will have to work even harder to capture the imagination of viewers who haven't heard of her in a long while. I have faith in the character, let's see if the producers have that too.
