Oh, new thread? I guess I can't quote NaveTorment's walls again, I guess I'll just summarize:
A) I've never had a more productive discussion on SHH before. Certainly I've had positive discussions, and large discussions, but this is my first that is both, so thanks for that.
B) I think the maternal take on the gods can be an interesting texture, but because of it's nature as both mythological and feminist it will fail to capture the imagination of most of the audience. But I agree it should be there because even though that kind of texture can't make a movie good, but it can make a good movie great.
C) Still don't see how the maternal slant relates to the physical nature or exposition about the gods, but we get to that later anyway.
D) I definitely agree she should have an ambassador's spirit, but the idea of fighting poverty, war and famine isn't really what ambassadors do. Like you said, it works so well because on an archetypical level, she's actually battling the incarnations of these things. What she should be is, imho, a self made goddess, who is an ambassador from one abstract concept (Wonder Woman...ness) to another (humanity), and therefore not an 'ambassador' in title at all.
E) I would want the gods bassically spelled out in the beginning, and I would want Diana to balk at that in justified disbelief, and I would want them to be revealed to be notably different than what they were introduced as, and have that twist/revelation something built up to in the film. That way we have a clear line on what we're dealing with and we have the furthest distance from someone who is skeptical of the goddesses (instant audience identification) and joins with the thoroughly disbelieving Han Solo-ish Steve Trevor to someone who basically is a goddess and causes others, including Steve to believe. The divide between these gods and humanity is only a suitable focus if there is such a divide. With gods being a codependent product of humanity, she is dealing with humanity in an way that is no longer just metaphorical. These beings really do represent humanity, and their entire struggle is over humanity. They are, essentially, a living debate. After all, in reality, myth is, by and large, the product of humanity, thus the whole thing resonates even louder, I believe.
F) I like your notes about the Lasso and pretty much agree with all of it, I didn't read all the papers, but I get it. I never understood why the axe was pitched as a feminine weapon, but the lasso works marvelously on that level, especially on the level that it can ensnare and disarm a sword very easily. I don't think it by itself allows her to wear anything, because at the end of the day, men are still dressing her, and an action hero having her butt cheeks and breasts hanging out still won't fly, but it does make it clear why she's wearing something an athlete might wear, because her fashion is not informed by modesty or formality, but her own goals and drives: athleticism, exploration, impetuousness.
Overall, I like what we've come up with. Diana is the skeptic on an island full of radical believers. She meets another skeptic, she escapes her burdensome home to find a more burdensome world, and in it, while trying to find her way, she discovers the power of humanity, as manifested in the gods, and she taps into this power and saves the world from the worst of humanity (war) by representing the best (love). She conflicts with her mother's separatist radical feminist views (war masquerading as love), which are based on her entirely maternal view of the gods, and Steve's overprotective stubborn modern skepticism (love masquerading as war) based on his utter dismissal of the gods. It's incredible how much it sounds like the '09 DTV, really, but I guess it works. -shrug-