DC's big three... [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

Spiffy

06-18-2009, 10:48 PM

RyleKayner

06-19-2009, 01:56 AM

I think part of the reason may be her incredibly stupid outfit.

Batman wouldn't scare the cr@p out of anyone if he turned up in a mankini and some ugg boots. Wondy can't be taken seriously unless she puts some pants on.

There are other reasons too - the character is so poorly understood by most writers, she doesn't have a stellar supporting cast and the Wondy family (Donna and Cassie) tend to be treated either as ice-queens or as Hilton-esque bimbos and so no one gives two hoot about them, their legacy or their books.

If I had to do Wondy (*pauses to sigh*), I'd write her a personality. Make her wise, straight-forward and someone who didn't take crap. I'd probably make her the kind of person who wants to effect real change in the world instead of beating up Giganta. She'd step on several toes, set about freeing nations, ending wars and inspiring women everywhere.

And she'd do it all wearing pants and a top that doesn't let her boobies hang out.

Constantine Drakon

06-19-2009, 02:14 AM

I've seen this thread before. Here's how it usually goes:

Some people agree that it's Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern.

Some people disagree, and say it's Batman Superman and Wonder Woman.

Some people say "no, it's Batman, Superman, and Flash."

Sometimes someone says "No, it's Batman and Superman, then a big gap, then Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Lantern."

I've also seen "No, it's Batman and Superman, then a big gap, then Wonder Woman, then another gap, then Flash and Green Lantern."

That sort of comment sparks an indignant "But Green Lantern also has the Green Lantern Corps, and sells more anyway"

People end up discussing whether "the big three" should be determined by cultural impact, by lasting status, or by popularity among comic fans at this given moment.

Wonder Woman's costume will be mocked, and the character will be bashed (we've already got that one, I see. Comes with the territory. Aquaman talks to fish, Batman's just a guy going around yelling "My Parents Are Dead", and Hal Jordan's made of cardboard).

Then, when all is said and done and the thread stops getting new replies, people will still continue to refer to Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman as DC's "Big Three" or "Trinity", and they'll remain DC's most well known superheroes worldwide.

numberONE

06-19-2009, 02:34 AM

My original question was, basically "why doesn't DC use Wonder Woman more?" Not "do you guys think Wonder Woman is part of the big three?" Although that is an interesting discussion, and I don't mind talking about it - just thought I'd clarify.

Here's another question: Superman is probably the most famous (with Batman really, really close behind and gaining)...but whens the last time he had a #1-selling comic? It could be recently for all I know, but I have a feeling it's been awhile.

Constantine Drakon

06-19-2009, 04:08 AM

Oh, the "why" is easy. She's a girl. The comic industry has gotten better at handling female leads, but you're still stuck with Wonder Woman's long history. Her start was somewhat shakey - Marston genuinely tried to create a decent superhero, but the book also contained his warped views on feminism, and yeah, you ran into things that let you knew Marston was a kinky guy. That's what was around for about 7 years.

Then Robert Kanigher took over for 20 years, and, with all due respect to that absolute Titan of the industry, his Wonder Woman run wasn't good (IMHO). His most well known Wonder Woman creations? Angle Man and Egg Fu. Maybe you can throw in Nubia. And that's 20 years of stories right there, that some people may remember fondly, but which built very little in the way of a "mythology" (while Batman and Superman were doing much better). Plus, Kanigher did a (IMHO) poor job using the characters Marston had left. By the time Superfriends rolled around, Cheetah had about 11 appearances in total (I'm counting Marston's run too), and Giganta had only 5. And these are her best known villains?

So I'd say a big part of it is that the Silver Age was not kind to her. But like I said, part of that is that she's a girl - and according to Wertham (and the Comic Code Authority) a strong and independent female lead was a threat to America, that would teach girls to be lesbians and destroy the family unit. It's no surprise that the book floundered as a result.

After Crisis the book had a fresh start and things were going well, until the double-whammy of the 90s and WML. In the 90s you had the bad-girl craze, and it was hard to push a female lead that was a "good girl". And, to be blunt, WML's run of Wonder Woman was awful, and completely squandered the momentem Perez had built up. Since then the book's had its ups and downs (with Byrne making a mess of several iconic characters with his idiotic decision to make Hippolyta the Wonder Woman of WWII). Rucka's excellent run was followed up by a decision on DC's part to tear down everything he had done, salt the earth, then write the worst Wonder Woman stories ever told, OYL.

She's had some bad breaks, and a big part of it is that it hasn't been easy all these years, being THE girl in the boy's club.

galactica

06-19-2009, 05:31 AM

dumbstruck

06-19-2009, 05:34 AM

and Hal Jordan's made of cardboard).

What? You mean Hal isn't made of cardboard?

:wink:

Spiffy

06-19-2009, 05:36 AM

I think you can make a convincing argument for SM/BM/WW, SM/BM/GL, SM/BM..........WW, SM/BM...................WW/GL/Flash/Hawkman, etc. It is noticeable that few people dispute the SM/BM.

GL is part of the argument now because of what Johns and Tomasi has done for the franchise for the last 5 years.

However WW was having similar sucess right noe, I don't think there would be all these questions because WW have a lot of things over GL. I think something similar tot eh success of GL can be replicated for Wonder Woman and Gail Simone may already be doing that.

The greatest story arc in the universe isn't going to make WW stop being female, and may only marginally move a small percentage of comic fanboys to risk emasculating themselves by being seen buying a "chick title".

If WW is a member of the Big Three it's not based on sales--its based on other things like the strength of the concept, the total history, her unique position in the DCU, etc. Or just the plain fact that people say she is. That alone may be all that matters. The sales though will NEVER equal Bats or Supes. That's a given.

galactica

06-19-2009, 05:51 AM

The greatest story arc in the universe isn't going to make WW stop being female, and may only marginally move a small percentage of comic fanboys to risk emasculating themselves by being seen buying a "chick title".

If WW is a member of the Big Three it's not based on sales--its based on other things like the strength of the concept, the total history, her unique position in the DCU, etc. Or just the plain fact that people say she is. That alone may be all that matters. The sales though will NEVER equal Bats or Supes. That's a given.

Maybe it's because I have no problem buying WW or Supergirl or Power Girl but I don't think "emasculation" has much to do with it. Yes there are some who won't buy a WW title for that reason but if Geoff Johns and Gary Frank were announced as the creative team for a second WW title, that book would be Top 10 the first few issues and Top 25 for a long time after that.

Maybe it's because some people just don't like the character, it's not like WW is the only character selling at that level.

discodicky

06-19-2009, 06:20 AM

Ari Gold

06-19-2009, 07:05 AM

At this point I think it has to do with the writers . . . although Gail Simone is a pretty popular one in many respects it's not enough of a draw to start picking up a book that "doesn't matter".

I've been going back and forth on adding Supergirl to my pull list solely to see how Sterling Gates writes . . . and if Geoff Johns was given the WW: Rebirth it would most certainly sell-out.

So I think that's the largest issue at hand. The secondary one, and it may be a close second, (and this might just be me personally) is there is a perception that it's a girly book that deals with girly problems, especially bc its currently being written by a woman. So I feel like it's supposed to attract women comic readers but that there would be too much melodrama for my liking. Obviously that's not a fair assumption to make until I've actually tried it out, but it's hard to feel the impetus to dive in there.

dumbstruck

06-19-2009, 07:17 AM

I've always been interested in the character, ever since the Perez relaunch. At that time I would have been about 12 yrs old. I think Perez's heavy use of mythology is what attracted me. However I've only ever been an on-again/off-again reader, usually due to financial reasons. It boggles my mind that anyone who reads comics would view this as little more than "a girly book". Teen readers new to the hobby, maybe. But when it comes to older readers, I have a hard time thinking anyone would be so ignorant as to disregard the book simply because it's about a woman.

WorstThingUS

06-19-2009, 07:22 AM

It's not you. There are no Wonder Woman books. WW is considered one of the big three because she's flat out the most famous female comic book hero on the planet, period, not because she's got the top-selling book or an army of ancillary titles like Batman has, Superman once had or GL is trying to have (she could given she's got Troia, Wonder Girl and Artemis in her camp). You can stop any average person in the street and ask them to name three women in comics and it's going to be Lois Lane, Catwoman and Wonder Woman. Everyone else starts at 4th and she's the only one who stands on her own. Lois is Superman, Catwoman is Batman and in that 4th place slot are going to be the women of The X-Men.

But GL hardly replaces her within comics because frankly he doesn't "represent" an archetype anymore than she does and all these attempts to give her something have continued to fall flat. Even Gail can't do it and as far as I'm concerned that means no one can.

K-DoG7p7

06-19-2009, 07:23 AM

>Her back story isn't as well-defined

Its not?.. huuh..

>Her character is inconsistent True.. but you can say that about anycharacter in comics..

>Her rogues gallery is severely lacking You know.. its not.. its just that the best once are never used.. WHERE IS DOCTOR POISON!!!.. ohh right.. she helped make Genoside..

>Amazons Attack put me off even thinking about buying WW why? its not like its the same creative team on the title anymore

I am tempted to read WW because of GS writing it. Can anyone tell me if its in the same league as Secret Six?
No.. but then again.. SS is so DAMN good..

GHalecki

06-19-2009, 07:43 AM

Wonderwoman's history is FAR more ill-defined and portrayal is far more inconsistant than any other charachter that should even be in the discussion.

They can put out the DEFINITIVE story arc right now and make it very clear who and what she is and what she has done. It wouldn't matter. Because most people wouldn't bother reading it, and would still have the same concept of the charachter that they do now.
Then one of those people would start writing the book in two or five or ten years, and they would write ehat they know, not what is, making her inconsistancy and lack of definition a self feeding cycle.

Personally, I thgough that the best work done with the charachter since crisis AT LEAST, was Byrne's, by virtue that it was the only run that kept me interested enough to keep reading. I liked WML's work a great deal, but it couldn't really hook me the same way.

WorstThingUS

06-19-2009, 07:47 AM

I liked WML's work a great deal, but it couldn't really hook me the same way.

My favorite run on Wonder Woman ever.

dumbstruck

06-19-2009, 07:50 AM

They can put out the DEFINITIVE story arc right now and make it very clear who and what she is and what she has done. It wouldn't matter. Because most people wouldn't bother reading it, and would still have the same concept of the charachter that they do now.
Then one of those people would start writing the book in two or five or ten years, and they would write ehat they know, not what is, making her inconsistancy and lack of definition a self feeding cycle.

Is it that you don't know what you're talking about? Or are you just not explaining yourself very clearly? I find it oddly strange and ridiculous you think this happens only with Wonder Woman. This happens with every character. Byrne revamped Superman's origin. Then Waid revamped it again in Birthright. Johns did a soft retooling of Superman during OYL, and now is giving us another complete revamping again with Secret Origin. This is a self perpetuating cycle that affects all, I repeat all long running characters in comics.

The same thing happened with Hal Jordan. He was rebooted with Emerald Dawn. And Johns just did it again with his Secret Origin arc. Johns also just retooled Barry Allen's origin in Flash: Rebirth.

Damo

06-19-2009, 11:02 AM

While Wonder Woman has a small number of stand-out villains (and really, that's about as much as most heroes get), there's something I personally find striking about her Rogues Gallery, which I think is part of why the character's had some difficulties.

Here's a list of her writers and what villains they've used. It's a little loose, I'm sure someone more fanatical will point out flaws, but it's good for getting the general idea.

Those villains that got used by more than one Wonder Woman writer are in bold. The ones in red are the guys I think are most closely associated with the character at the moment.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/deetee/wonderwomanvillains1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/deetee/wonderwomanvillains2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/deetee/wonderwomanvillains3a.jpg

Damo

06-19-2009, 11:03 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/deetee/wonderwomanvillains3b.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/deetee/wonderwomanvillains4a.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/deetee/wonderwomanvillains4b.jpg

It seems like, very often, writers come on and push their own big new villains (Dr. Cyber, White Magician, Devastation, Sebastian Ballesteros, The Shatered God, Veronica Cale, and sure, The Circle/The Ichor/Genocide/Achilles). Those "big new villains" are lucky if they get briefly used by one more writer. And then there are some appearances by the best known Wonder Woman villains, like Cheetah and Giganta (and I have to wonder how big they'd be without Superfriends), and a few guest villains. It seems like the biggest problem with Wonder Woman's rogues gallery is that everyone wants to add to it, but it's unusual to see writers trying to use or update older villains.

Scott Taylor

06-19-2009, 11:27 AM

George Perez really put together a great run on WW. Personally, I think the most intriguing stories with WW have centered around her mythology. But its become a bit overdone at this point, and she really needs another direction. How about cosmic Wonder Woman? :biggrin:

Anyway, she isn't going anywhere by default. Doesn't DC have to keep her title going to retain rights to the character?

G. Wayne

06-19-2009, 11:51 AM

K-DoG7p7

06-19-2009, 12:05 PM

Wonderwoman's history is FAR more ill-defined than any other charachter that should even be in the discussion.
.

Really?

has there every been any major changed to her origin?

bongoes

06-19-2009, 12:06 PM

I think the problem with Wonder Woman is a combination of the things people have mentioned. Her origin isn't as simple as other heroes and her most famous villains were picked rather arbitrarily. She doesn't have the same type of recognizable supporting casts that Superman and Batman have and she isn't very well respected by some people.

How about cosmic Wonder Woman? :biggrin:

Please don't suggest that, you don't know who could be reading this.:wink:

And I just remember this, pretty interesting read
http://io9.com/5272808/why-all-the-wonder-woman-hate

K-DoG7p7

06-19-2009, 12:12 PM

1) Name the iconic Wonder Woman villain. Someone to stand up to the likes of Luthor, Joker and Sinestro in popularity and history with the character. Is it Cheetah? Giganta?
Its Cheetah.. most people (even uite a few non comic readers) know that

2) Name a good Wonder Woman story that -really- defines the character.
Don't know to be honest.. its mostly entire runs, not a singel stand out story

3) And for that matter, what is her definitive origin?
the question is, has she ever NOT had a definitive origin..
seriusly.. the only thing thats not clear about her origin is; Donna Troy her Sister-Sister or "sister" and was her mother WW2 Wonder Woman or not?

4) And finally, it's been brought up here that most writers don't understand Wonder Woman. You ask me, I think most -people- don't get Wonder Woman because the character was never firmly established. What's her goal? What does she do? Is she a female Thor or something?
Her ultimate goal is to bring peace to "mans world", not by fighting but my teaching and protecting
What she does is teach and ... protect.. and was an ambassador/writer, but now a government agent after having her name be kinda dragged through the dirt
And NO.. shes not a female Thor.. that is the dumbest thing i ever heard..

Thor is a male Wonder Woman..

galactica

06-19-2009, 12:49 PM

Its Cheetah.. most people (even uite a few non comic readers) know that

That true but when you put compare Cheetah and her relationship with WW to Luthor, Joker, Black Adam, Sinestro and their relationships with their counter parts, Cheetah is severely lacking. Partly because many people, myself included, haven't heard of any great stories that show why Cheetah is WW's #1.

Her ultimate goal is to bring peace to "mans world", not by fighting but my teaching and protecting
What she does is teach and ... protect.. and was an ambassador/writer, but now a government agent after having her name be kinda dragged through the dirt
And NO.. shes not a female Thor.. that is the dumbest thing i ever heard..

Thor is a male Wonder Woman..

Really I think the emphasis placed on that goal is quite unnecessary because isn't that the goal of every superhero? And she really doesn't go about it any differently? I think there should be less emphasis on that especially when you consider the Amazons literally come from paradise and do not involve themselves in the larger world beyond building shelters.

Ari Gold

06-19-2009, 12:58 PM

Wonder Woman lacks a few well known elements that Superman, Batman, Flash and Green Lantern have at this point.

1) Name the iconic Wonder Woman villain. Someone to stand up to the likes of Luthor, Joker and Sinestro in popularity and history with the character. Is it Cheetah? Giganta?
2) Name a good Wonder Woman story that -really- defines the character.
3) And for that matter, what is her definitive origin?
4) And finally, it's been brought up here that most writers don't understand Wonder Woman. You ask me, I think most -people- don't get Wonder Woman because the character was never firmly established. What's her goal? What does she do? Is she a female Thor or something?

Chicken or the egg . . .

In my mind the only reason those elements are not well-known is b/c nobody cares for the character, not vice versa.

Anybody born after 1980 yet never touched a comic book in their lives could tell you oodles of information about Batman & Superman, their origins, maybe some of their villains (the same could not be said for Green Lantern & Flash by the way). Between Lois & Clark, Batman: The Animated Series, & Smallville and the movie chains of both properties, the average teen-30yr old has been inundated with background on these guys.

So did DC not push Wonder Woman bc it lacked the depth and approachability/attractability as those other franchises, or did ppl not buy into WW bc DC never pushed it . . .

[B]
Its Cheetah.. most people (even quite a few non comic readers) know that

I'm a relatively avid comic reader and did not know that . . .

Her ultimate goal is to bring peace to "mans world", not by fighting but my teaching and protecting
What she does is teach and ... protect.. and was an ambassador/writer, but now a government agent after having her name be kinda dragged through the dirt.

That actually sounds pretty cool & unique . . . how well is that message getting across currently in the title?

And NO.. shes not a female Thor.. that is the dumbest thing i ever heard..

Thor is a male Wonder Woman..

I can't tell if you're joking or being serious . . .

K-DoG7p7

06-19-2009, 01:12 PM

That actually sounds pretty cool & unique . . . how well is that message getting across currently in the title?
Its kinda not.. after all the entire ambassador thing has been dropped..
Hope Gail fixes that soon

I can't tell if you're joking or being serious . . .
A mix..

celticguy

06-19-2009, 01:43 PM

West Mantooth

06-19-2009, 02:04 PM

Simple. Wonder Woman doesn't sell.

The reasons for that are pretty complex, and always open to debate. But many of them come down to guys (still more comic fans who are guys than girls) who don't want to be seen walking into a comic book store picking up a title starring "some chick". The book has often been given less of a priority because of that, which has lead to some mediocre writers (Gail Simone, currently doing it is one of the better ones, but some of her predecessors REALLY made a mess of things), bad or misinformed use of the character in crossovers, and a general but constant confusion between the comic book character and the only implementation stuck in most of the public's minds--the cheesy 70s TV series.

While I certain the "girl" factor plays a role, the fact that WW fans use Buffy as an example of a female character book that appeals to comic fans enough to sale well. It's truly a double-edge sword of an explanation.

The girl factor has less to do with it than people care to admit. I see a lot of WW fans site the tv series as an influence on them, but maybe the other fans don' t necessarily have a bad feeling towards it but they don't care about it at all. Where as Buffy is something from their childhoods/young adults that elicits good memories so they are more interested in the comic. The same is true of Superman and Batman.

WW will never sell to the aging fan because he/she lacks that childhood connection. And there aren't enough young people to fill in.

And look at the recent press for Wednesday comics. In most of the publicity a boat load of characters are mentioned, but WW often isn't (even though she's definitely part of that project).

Look, she's on the back cover! (http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/preview2.php?image=previews/dccomics/wednesday/wedc_1.jpg) Right next to "Metal Men" and "Demon Cat". Meanwhile on the FRONT cover, along with Supes and Bats are such A-listers as "Deadman" and "Kamandi"!

Or maybe because the writers/artist of those stories are more popular draws. No offense to Mr. C, I'm sure his story will be great.

Constantine Drakon

06-19-2009, 02:48 PM

The greatest story arc in the universe isn't going to make WW stop being female,

Careful, someone might see that as a challenge.

Wonderwoman's history is FAR more ill-defined

Rubbish.

While I certain the "girl" factor plays a role, the fact that WW fans use Buffy as an example of a female character book that appeals to comic fans enough to sale well.

Buffy is a relatively new character and is held to different standards. Compared to Buffy, Wonder Woman actually has some good well-established villains, a good well-established supporting cast, and some strong storylines. Compared to Buffy.

But people don't compare her to Buffy, they compare her to characters that have been around as long as she's been around, like Superman and Batman. And it's true, her supporting cast, villains, etc. aren't nearly as well established as Superman's or Batman's. And that's where "because she's a girl" comes in. She was a girl during the Silver Age, and that hurt her.

Characters that have been around for a long time are evaluated by their decades of history, and for a good chunk of that history (be it a failure on the part of the writers, or the result of the Comic Code being especially hard on female characters) she just wasn't well written.

Her villains have plenty of potential, it's just hard to get around the fact that Cheetah, her best known villain, had about a dozen appearances in all the decades before Crisis.

1) Name the iconic Wonder Woman villain. Someone to stand up to the likes of Luthor, Joker and Sinestro in popularity and history with the character. Is it Cheetah? Giganta?

Ares. Circe is on her way too.

2) Name a good Wonder Woman story that -really- defines the character.

Gods and Mortals is her "Year One". I'd also throw in Eyes of the Gorgon and The Hiketeia.

3) And for that matter, what is her definitive origin?

Gods and Mortals.

4) And finally, it's been brought up here that most writers don't understand Wonder Woman. You ask me, I think most -people- don't get Wonder Woman because the character was never firmly established. What's her goal? What does she do? Is she a female Thor or something?

Sure, if you like.

She's many things for many people. Lots of heroes are.

I'll throw it back at you: What's Thor's goal? What does he do?

The answer is "Lots of things."

What? You mean Hal isn't made of cardboard?

No comment.

Phantom Druid

06-19-2009, 03:43 PM

Green Lantern's a biggie. I've been wondering when will we get a Green Lantern Corps forum here at CBR? It would probably average more views than the Superman one.

G. Wayne

06-19-2009, 04:43 PM

...
Gods and Mortals is her "Year One". I'd also throw in Eyes of the Gorgon and The Hiketeia.
...

Thanks for the recommendations. I'm a big fan of mythology, and a big fan of superheroes. I also don't care about reading comics that star female characters. For what its worth, I don't buy the "girly" argument when, visually speaking, most mainstream American female comic book characters sure as hell seem like they're designed and/or drawn to be ogled by men. Anyway, with that in mind, it sure seems like I should find Wonder Woman more interesting than I do.

And I still think WW and Thor have a good bit in common. :tongue: Both are honorable powerhouses from ancient, secluded, mythology based, warrior cultures. Thor, sometimes anyway, still has trouble understanding non-superhero humans. And with JLU being the bulk of my exposure to WW, at least in the DCAU she was shown to have the similar issues every now and then.

kidfresh512

06-19-2009, 05:41 PM

The reason I haven't ever got in to WW in the same was as Bats/Supes is because:
>Her back story isn't as well-defined
>Her character is inconsistent
>Her rogues gallery is severely lacking
>Amazons Attack put me off even thinking about buying WW

I am tempted to read WW because of GS writing it. Can anyone tell me if its in the same league as Secret Six?

I completely agree. These are also the main reasons I think they are finding it hard to get her movie off the ground as well.

Batman's main strength in my opinion is he has one of if not the best rogues gallery in all of comics. So many characters in there with complex issues and stories, and backgrounds. And it is not just his villians, his supporting cast is very interesting as well, the robins, the batgirls etc. There is just so much there to draw from to create interesting stories that people will flock too.

Wonder Woman after all the years just really doesnt have even close to the same appeal in her villians, or supporting characters. You need interesting characters to put her up against that will push her overall story.

numberONE

06-19-2009, 05:59 PM

Green Lantern's a biggie. I've been wondering when will we get a Green Lantern Corps forum here at CBR? It would probably average more views than the Superman one.

Me, too. I mentioned in another thread that I'd like to see that. There's five Marvel forums...with a GL forum, there'd be five DC forums, too.

West Mantooth

06-19-2009, 06:21 PM

Buffy is a relatively new character and is held to different standards. Compared to Buffy, Wonder Woman actually has some good well-established villains, a good well-established supporting cast, and some strong storylines. Compared to Buffy.

But people don't compare her to Buffy, they compare her to characters that have been around as long as she's been around, like Superman and Batman. And it's true, her supporting cast, villains, etc. aren't nearly as well established as Superman's or Batman's. And that's where "because she's a girl" comes in. She was a girl during the Silver Age, and that hurt her.

Characters that have been around for a long time are evaluated by their decades of history, and for a good chunk of that history (be it a failure on the part of the writers, or the result of the Comic Code being especially hard on female characters) she just wasn't well written.

Her villains have plenty of potential, it's just hard to get around the fact that Cheetah, her best known villain, had about a dozen appearances in all the decades before Crisis.

I appreciate you replying to my post but you totally gutted it to respond to a single statement. And I never even mentioned her villains....?

I'm saying, like comfort food, Buffy is something male fans have good memories of so they are more willing to buy a Buffy comic. Because of the lack of non-comic WW material in the years between the tv show and JLU, a whole generation of comic nerds grew up without a chance to see the character and gain even a little appreciation or understanding.

I know. I've read comics my entire life and through some weird subconscious thing, I thought the Steve Trevor angle still played as a love interest and had never even heard of Perez's reboot. The only reason I decided to read the current run was because of what I heard about Gail's writing and Whedon's WW as in the works. So I started researching the character.

Thok

06-19-2009, 06:33 PM

Buffy is a relatively new character and is held to different standards. Compared to Buffy, Wonder Woman actually has some good well-established villains, a good well-established supporting cast, and some strong storylines. Compared to Buffy.

Really? I'd argue that Buffy's supporting cast is already more established than Wonder Woman's current supporting cast. Remember, Wonder Woman's current supporting cast is essentially a revamped Etta Candy, some albino white gorillas, and Nemesis, and most of that dates back to Infinite Crisis at best. I'd take Willow, Xander, and Giles and their seven years of interaction over that without thinking (and without even mentioning a half dozen other characters that were supporting cast members at a time.)

(I'd argue villains also, but Buffy tends to kill her better villains in the season finales.)

Constantine Drakon

06-19-2009, 07:34 PM

I appreciate you replying to my post but you totally gutted it to respond to a single statement.

But it's a crucial statement, and while you raise other points, it's the statement I particularly want to respond to. You say that being a girl isn't a stigma if Buffy can do well. And that's somewhat true, yes. But that sort of argument ignores a pivotal fact: for years it was a much bigger problem for any comic character to be female. Just look at the lobotomy that Lois Lane got in the Silver Age. Golden Age Lois was a tough reporter looking for scoops (and inevitably getting into trouble, of course). Silver Age Lois' life revolved around finding out Superman's secret identity to get him to marry her. Wonder Woman, as a woman, had it rough in the Silver Age. If she didn't swoon over Steve every few minutes, the CCA might call her a lesbian (Sufferin' Sapho!).

Right now society has changed enough that a show/book like Buffy can be written, but we're still stuck with all those Silver Age stories, which often revolved around her love for Steve Trevor, didn't do much with her Rogues gallery, and did a poor job building up a mythology. Since she's been around so long, people judge her as a character that's been around since the 40s, and by those standards she has some serious problems. I can name some great cast members and villains, but they'll be fairly recent additions for the most part, and some people will always go "but those are recent things".

Buffy started out as a character that was decapitating vampires, being self-reliant and tough, and not too "girly" (although she had her fair share of romance, but that was with a tortured split-personality vampire, not some whitebread army guy). People see Buffy on the shelves, that's what they expect.

People see Wonder Woman on the shelves, there's much more of an expectation that she'll be like she was in the Silver Age, because that's often what people remember about her. In the minds of casual readers, she's much more "girly". So she faces a greater stigma.

Really? I'd argue that Buffy's supporting cast is already more established than Wonder Woman's current supporting cast. Remember, Wonder Woman's current supporting cast is essentially a revamped Etta Candy, some albino white gorillas, and Nemesis, and most of that dates back to Infinite Crisis at best.

The Amazons and gods are back. Her supporting cast is Etta Candy (with Steve), Hippolyta, Artemis (she should be returning the book soon, she's in Secret Six now), Phillipus, Io (Gail has said she'll be showing up again), Donna Troy, Cassandra Sandsmark, the various Bana, the gods, and yeah, some nameless albino white gorillas and Nemesis. The DEO stuff was definitely a low point for her supporting cast (aside from Etta's return), but it's being wrapped up in the current issues. And hey, kinda reminds me of that period when all of Buffy's main supporting cast members went off to do other things while she was stuck working for the government and dating a blonde dude.

(I'd argue villains also, but Buffy tends to kill her better villains in the season finales.)

Considering how often they get reused, some of Diana's villains may as well be dead...

ScottyQuick

06-19-2009, 07:57 PM

Io (Gail has said she'll be showing up again)

Wait, really?

Constantine Drakon

06-19-2009, 08:08 PM

Wait, really?

As I recall, yes. She also indicated that Io was meant to appear among the "potential suitors" in the dream sequence Diana had, back when D'grth was tempting her in the Black Horizon storyline. But there wasn't enough space to fit all the characters and Io was among those that got cut. Shame.

GHalecki

06-20-2009, 10:08 AM

Could you tell me what you think is so well defined and flushed out abotu Wonder Woman's backstory?

To the average comic fan, we know that Wonder Woman came to mans world from Paradise Island on some kind of mission, almost like a PR tour.

At some point she met up and became close to Superman and Batman. She at some point joined the JLA, maybe helping found it or not.

She had a couple villians like Cheetah, and Dr Psycho, and Circe, that readers have a tiny bit of exposure to and could not tell you anything but the most basic information about.

That is all anyone can say for sure about the charachter's 70 year history.

Anything beyond that is completely up in the air and undefined to the average fan, meaning it is undefined in every way that actually counts.

shades of eternity

06-20-2009, 10:25 AM

the wonder woman dvd that was released this year is pretty much my defining wonderwoman story...and it really should be the basis of any of her future storytelling.

the only thing that didn't quite fit is that stupid @#$#$ invisible jet.

Constantine Drakon

06-20-2009, 11:55 AM

Could you tell me what you think is so well defined and flushed out abotu Wonder Woman's backstory?

Could you tell me what you think is so well defined and flushed out abtou Superman's backstory?

When did he meet Lex Luthor? Metropolis? Smallville? Is Lex a brilliant scientist? An evil businessman? Kingpin? All of the above?

Is he the LAST Kryptonian, or are there a billion others?

What other villains does he have? Brainiac and Zod right? And one's a Kryptonian supercomputer and the other's a Russian cosmonaut that Superman killed in a pocket universe, right?

But I suppose Superman's unusual. Most heroes are very simple and unmuddled. Like Batman, the guy that trained his entire life to fight criminals after that fateful night when young Bruce Wayne watched the Joker kill his parents.

GHalecki

06-20-2009, 12:10 PM

Could you tell me what you think is so well defined and flushed out abtou Superman's backstory?

When did he meet Lex Luthor? Metropolis? Smallville? Is Lex a brilliant scientist? An evil businessman? Kingpin? All of the above?

Is he the LAST Kryptonian, or are there a billion others?

What other villains does he have? Brainiac and Zod right? And one's a Kryptonian supercomputer and the other's a Russian cosmonaut that Superman killed in a pocket universe, right?

But I suppose Superman's unusual. Most heroes are very simple and unmuddled. Like Batman, the guy that trained his entire life to fight criminals after that fateful night when young Bruce Wayne watched the Joker kill his parents.

With Superman, his story is getting more conveluted with every story it seems. But in his case, it doesn't really matter. You know why? Because when anyone thinks of Superman, they have something pretty solid in mind. It doesn't matter if it has been fiddled with, or even if it is accurate. It is something to hook onto. Even if all the remember is the highlights of the silver-age stuff that is all left behind. The basic premise of the silver age stuff at least has some substance. Wonder Woman doesn't have anything of substance in her past for people to hook onto in order to want to find out about the current version of the story.

And why would you say that about the Joker killing Bruce Wayne's parents? You obviously know that it is not accurate, and has only been portrayed that way one time, and not even in a comic book at all. And even if someone just knew Batman from that one movie, that one detail is virtually inconsequential to any current story either way.

Avenger08

06-20-2009, 12:48 PM

Because honestly, IMO i think they jsut kindof made her nothing. They could have used her more and didnt, and so their opportunity has come and passed. Also, shes much more limited than Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. Those characters are all brilliant and very creative and can really evolve, but an Amazon Princess fighting crime doesnt have that much room to expand.

Batman: A man with no powers but an indominatable will and the world's greatest detective, protecting his corrupted city against those who murdered his parents
Superman: An alien rocketed away from his homeworld and growing up as the "soul" survivor of his race and wishes to protect his homeworld
Green Lantern: The officer of the galactic police, peace keeping force for earth who has grown to be the greatest green lantern throughout troubling trials
Flash: Superspeedster who gave his life to save the multiverse and has been given another chance to live

Wonder Woman: an amazon princess who fights crime for reasons im still not sure about.

She just doesnt have any WOW factor anymore.
She was one of the big three because wasnt she the third superhero ever created by DC or the first female superhero? Im not positive, but im pretty sure that is why

Constantine Drakon

06-20-2009, 01:19 PM

Let's go back to your original question.

Could you tell me what you think is so well defined and flushed out abotu Wonder Woman's backstory?

Hidden island of Amazons. Princess made from clay. Pilot crashes. Contest for a champion. Masked warrior wins. Turns out it's Diana, she becomes Wonder Woman, goes off to fight the god of war, Cheetah, Giganta, Dr. Psycho, etc. And yes, she ends up helping found the Justice Society/Justice League/Superfriends.

Sure it gets convoluted, just like other characters, and retellings may vary in the details. But it's as well-defined and flushed out as your average superhero's.

Now you bring up the fact that with Superman things more people know the basics.

That much we can agree on. But that doesn't mean she's an especially ill-defined hero compared to the others.

(And I've met people that thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Burton's Batman movie. My point was that Batman's not immune to confusion due to things changing from one telling to the next.)

Green Lantern: The officer of the galactic police, peace keeping force for earth who has grown to be the greatest green lantern throughout troubling trials

Flash: Superspeedster who gave his life to save the multiverse and has been given another chance to live

Wonder Woman: an amazon princess who fights crime for reasons im still not sure about.

It becomes easier if you replace "crime" with "evil." I mean, a god of war trying to start the Apocalypse seems to go a bit beyond mere "crime".

Why does Green Lantern fight evil? Yes, sure, he's a cop, but why did he decide to go out and fight evil? Why did Flash?

When did "because they were raised well and know evil sucks, that's why" stop being a legitimate answer?

Avenger08

06-20-2009, 01:27 PM

Constantine Drakon

06-20-2009, 01:40 PM

^ Yes, but her backstory is much less clear than the other two.

Less clear, or less well known?

Darrell D.

06-20-2009, 01:45 PM

^ Yes, but her backstory is much less clear than the other two.

most people dont know all that about her.

But ask anyone in the US about the basic backstory of batman or superman and they'll most likely be able to tell you

If you showed a person a picture of Wonder Woman, Superman or Batman, they will recognize them.
The backstory and villains and everything else is meaningless to them.
Which, as mentioned before, is why the big three for DC is Bats, Supes and Wondy.
If they make a GL movie that does Iron Man numbers, it could change. Not holding my breath, though.

ScottyQuick

06-20-2009, 03:48 PM

But ask anyone in the US about the basic backstory of batman or superman and they'll most likely be able to tell you

I have. They can't. Everyone can name Wonder Woman, Batman, and Superman. They might know "Oh, Wonder Woman is an amazon" or "Batman's parents are dead, right?" but beyond that, it's not well known at all.

Avenger08

06-20-2009, 04:01 PM

If you showed a person a picture of Wonder Woman, Superman or Batman, they will recognize them.

That is very true.

That IS why they are the big three. But, well, i meant my comment about the backstory because, like, I have been reading comics for YEARS and im STILL not clear on Diana's backstory. I know exactly what Batman and superman's are, but not at all wonder womans.

Avenger08

06-20-2009, 04:03 PM

Also, i think many more people DO know of Batman and Superman's backstories than wonder womans because they are much more highly used in media. their characters have near limitless possibilities. There could be a million more batman movies, and they STILL would be great (if directed by Nolan). Same with superman. Wonder Woman, itd just get boring after a while

Constantine Drakon

06-20-2009, 04:10 PM

That is very true.

That IS why they are the big three. But, well, i meant my comment about the backstory because, like, I have been reading comics for YEARS and im STILL not clear on Diana's backstory. I know exactly what Batman and superman's are, but not at all wonder womans.

That means her backstory is less well known, not that it's "less well defined" than their stories are. And I'm still not clear why you said "Wonder Woman: an amazon princess who fights crime for reasons im still not sure about."

Thor is a Norse prince who fights crime, every bit as much as she does.

And you said "Green Lantern: The officer of the galactic police, peace keeping force for earth" as if that's a good explanation for why Hal Jordan fights evil. Why is it that you see being a cop as a reason for fighting evil, but think being a soldier isn't? It worked for Captain America! Heck, before becoming a GL, Hal was in the Air Force!

West Mantooth

06-20-2009, 04:50 PM

But it's a crucial statement, and while you raise other points, it's the statement I particularly want to respond to. You say that being a girl isn't a stigma if Buffy can do well. And that's somewhat true, yes. But that sort of argument ignores a pivotal fact: for years it was a much bigger problem for any comic character to be female. Just look at the lobotomy that Lois Lane got in the Silver Age. Golden Age Lois was a tough reporter looking for scoops (and inevitably getting into trouble, of course). Silver Age Lois' life revolved around finding out Superman's secret identity to get him to marry her. Wonder Woman, as a woman, had it rough in the Silver Age. If she didn't swoon over Steve every few minutes, the CCA might call her a lesbian (Sufferin' Sapho!). .

I didn't say it wasn't a stigma. Just that it's not as upfront as may be believed. Guys can make the connection to a female character but thing have to done in a certain way.That's why the rest of the post was important.

When Superman Returns came out, one of the main complaint I heard was that Lois wasn't the tough as nails, investiagator. Becuase, as I believe, the outside comics, cartoons and tv show, reinforced the proper Lois dynamic established by Siegel and Shuster.WW hasn't had enough varied forms of entertainment for fans to find a version to latch onto and figure out what attributes actually make WW who she is.

I was shocked to learn that WW didn't run away from Paradise Island in her origin after watching JL. The lasso didn't have it's truth abilities. And nothing really changed. (The comics did a whole alternate history about a Nail to Superman). In the new movie, she lost flight. Every comic fan would have lost their sh-- if Supes had been in two animated projects missing something because at this point in time, after so many alternate versions(super jumps, no super hearing) of Supes, we know what we want and expect.

Buffy started out as a character that was decapitating vampires, being self-reliant and tough, and not too "girly" (although she had her fair share of romance, but that was with a tortured split-personality vampire, not some whitebread army guy). People see Buffy on the shelves, that's what they expect.

People see Wonder Woman on the shelves, there's much more of an expectation that she'll be like she was in the Silver Age, because that's often what people remember about her. In the minds of casual readers, she's much more "girly". So she faces a greater stigma..

While i don't disagree with your proposed belief, I argue that Buffy has on a deeper level, over 100 episodes of good memories for fans. That doesn't mean they'll buy anything(like a Whedonless Buffy) but their interest is peaked. Good memories elicit good responses.

I know the new TMNT is better than the old cartoon structurally, but it holds a special place in my heart as a kid. That's the only reason I care to hear about new projects.

My basic point is that if the WB had done more non-comic projects with WW in the 80s and 90s, fans would have had a chance to make those good memories with the character even if they didn't read the comic. That doesn't mean everyone would love her or she'd be on Bats or Supes level, that's where I do believe the "girly" factor comes in, but I think she'd be in a better, different place.

And wouldn't keep having these same threads popping up question her place.

[]D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite

06-20-2009, 09:40 PM

Batman's just a guy going around yelling "My Parents Are Dead"

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/816/batmansparentsaredead.jpg

K-DoG7p7

06-21-2009, 03:59 AM

what about Wonder Womans Origin is so damn unclear?

Darrell D.

06-21-2009, 05:01 AM

what about Wonder Womans Origin is so damn unclear?

Nothing, really.
'Formed from clay, Amazon princess is sent to Man's world from Paradise Island.'
The rest is filler. Same for Superman. Same for Batman.

Spiffy

06-21-2009, 05:34 AM

^ Yes, but her backstory is much less clear than the other two.
To you.

But I agree. Her origin is actually pretty clear, and across the main interpretations of her, actually fairly consistent (in the big details at least). At least as consistent as Superman's origin (Batman's is the most consistent of the three, I'd say, if you ignore ancillary issues like "what was the name of the man who killed his parents" and "what age did he become Batman").

As others have said, the problem is people knowing the origin, or for that fact CARING to know it. Once they do, it's not that hard to understand or retain. This all gets back to people caring about the character, not some nebulous objections about her being hard to pin down or understand.

I still personally think a lot of the lack of care gets back to the gender divide, but hey, come up with whatever riders on that you want. But you can't just chalk this up to her being confusing or inaccessible.

Lets see how much we can compress her origin down?

--U.S. soldier crash lands on a secret island of women.
--Princess disguises herself to win the right to accompany him back to the "man's world".
--Princess stays in man's world to fight for truth and justice (and in most versions, peace).

That's all you need. And I'm not even sure how "necessary" the U.S. soldier is--the origin could be redone without him, giving a different motivation for the "contest" the Princess from the "secret island of women" wins (those two parts ARE necessary though). You don't even have to know she's made from clay (although that's consistent too). You certainly don't need to know anything about Donna Troy, the Invisible Plane, how she first met Superman, how old she is. If she's immortal or not. Why Ares has it in for her. What her civilian job is. What her bra size is. It's all ancillary.

Any maybe Batman isn't much shorter/easier, as I'd assumed "up-post", because thinking it out you need ALL of this:

--Rich boy watches his parents killed in front of him.
--Swears to avenge himself on all criminals
--Uses his enormous resources and drive to train himself.
--Later sees Bats flying around and decides to use the symbolism of the Bat to strike fear into the hearts of criminals.

Darrell D.

06-21-2009, 05:40 AM

To you.

But I agree. Her origin is actually pretty clear, and across the main interpretations of her, actually fairly consistent (in the big details at least). At least as consistent as Superman's origin (Batman's is the most consistent of the three, I'd say, if you ignore ancillary issues like "what was the name of the man who killed his parents" and "what age did he become Batman").

As others have said, the problem is people knowing the origin, or for that fact CARING to know it. Once they do, it's not that hard to understand or retain. This all gets back to people caring about the character, not some nebulous objections about her being hard to pin down or understand.

I still personally think a lot of the lack of care gets back to the gender divide, but hey, come up with whatever riders on that you want. But you can't just chalk this up to her being confusing or inaccessible.

Lets see how much we can compress her origin down?

--U.S. soldier crash lands on a secret island of women.
--Princess disguises herself to win the right to accompany him back to the "man's world".
--Princess stays in man's world to fight for truth and justice (and in most versions, peace).

That's all you need. You don't even have to know she's made from clay (although that's consistent too). You certainly don't need to know anything about Donna Troy, the Invisible Plane, how she first met Superman, how old she is. If she's immortal or not. Why Ares has it in for her. What her civilian job is. What her bra size is. It's all ancillary.

Any maybe Batman isn't much shorter/easier, as I'd assumed "up-post", because thinking it out you need ALL of this:

--Rich boy watches his parents killed in front of him.
--Swears to avenge himself on all criminals
--Uses his enormous resources and drive to train himself.
--Later sees Bats flying around and decides to use the symbolism of the Bat to strike fear into the hearts of criminals.

Right. You could tell the origin for Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman in two panels, minimum. And it is all that is needed to understand what the character is about.

Spiffy

06-21-2009, 05:45 AM

One thing which may be unsaid here is that her origin is less TRAGIC, less visceral. How that translates to someone objecting it's "unclear" or "inconsistent" I don't know.

And IF they bothered to form that objection correctly, I might even agree. Visceral gut wrenching origins are more memorable.

But not always necessary.

What's the most famous Super-team in comics history? Quick...

If you said anyone but "The Fantastic Four" you're probably a product of a certain later age of filtering things through specific TV shows or movies. Because of ALL time? It's got to be the FF.

And their origin is BORING. Totally er... "un-visceral". But it doesn't really matter much, now does it? They're still great characters, who everyone understands.

AllisterH

06-21-2009, 11:04 AM

1. She's 0 for 2 in headliner events.

War of the Gods was presumably the WW-headline event to celebrate her 50th anniversary. Similarly, Amazon attacks is a headlienr event a la Blackest night and both of these are one of the common choices among DC posters as to the question of "What are the worse crossovers ever?"

2. No boyfriend - no consistent supporting cast - no city.
This can't be ignored but WW is still a single girl and has had no longterm attachment compared to her compatriots. We're talking about something like Clark's Daily Planet staff or Alfred and Jim Gordon. Similarly, she has no home city. Sure, the island of Themscyira is used but it is treated a la krypton and OA are..

3. Villains suck and mythos hardly gets used
Captain Marvel doesn't have his own book yet the mythos surroundingthe Big Red Cheese gets lots of love. Sivana for example, seems to have supplanted Lex as the "mad scientist of the DCU", Captain Nazi is perhaps the most famous nazi villain around and arguably the greatest JLA/JSA teamup (certainly the best post Crisis) starred the Seven Deadly Sins. Of course there's also Black Adam (nuff said)

Now then, other than Ares killing Highfather (which NEVER gets used or mentioned for some reason), Ares has had no impact on the DCU. Personally, I believe the problem with using Ares is that Ares as a big bad doesn't really work especially given how poorly Heracles gets treated in the DCU.

Then you have Circe and foes like giganta and cheetah. Cheetah for example is supposed to be Diana's top physical villain yet in Batman and Cawoman books, Catwoman can break Cheetahs nose with a punch and Batman can actually cuff Cheetah to a lamppost and cheetah isn't strong enough to even break it.

The less said about Giganta the better (seriously, is there a more useless superpower to have than "I get big" - who hasn't beaten giganta?)

Constantine Drakon

06-21-2009, 12:06 PM

1. She's 0 for 2 in headliner events.

War of the Gods was presumably the WW-headline event to celebrate her 50th anniversary. Similarly, Amazon attacks is a headlienr event a la Blackest night and both of these are one of the common choices among DC posters as to the question of "What are the worse crossovers ever?"

Fair enough. But it bears noting that Amazons Attack was originally going to be a very different story by Greg Rucka, and I believe War of the Gods was tampered with too. Editorial incompetence really hurt the character post-Rucka.

2. No boyfriend

And? There are a lot of popular male superheroes who have gone through a number of different girlfriends.

- no consistent supporting cast -

The Amazons have remained a big part of her supporting cast fairly consistently since her first appearance. There have been periods where they were gone, sure, but there were times when Alfred was gone (and that period when Alfred was dead).

no city.

What cities do Iron Man and Hulk live in?

3. Villains suck

I disagree strongly. I think her Rogues Gallery is comparable to that of many other heroes, like Iron Man, Hulk, or Thor (now that everyone's stolen half of his Rogues Gallery). A few stand-out villains, some stinkers, and some with potential that's never been realized.

(seriously, is there a more useless superpower to have than "I get big" )

Being able to time travel, one second per second, forward in time.

who hasn't beaten giganta?

To the best of my knowledge the only ones she's lost to are Wonder Woman, Wonder Girl, Superman/Batman, and the Blue Beetle crew.

Cheetah for example is supposed to be Diana's top physical villain yet in Batman and Cawoman books, Catwoman can break Cheetahs nose with a punch and Batman can actually cuff Cheetah to a lamppost and cheetah isn't strong enough to even break it.

That's just in Catwoman, not in Batman.

And those gems were written by Will Pfeifer. His use of Angle Man and Cheetah was enough to tip off anyone with half a brain that he had nothing but contempt for Wonder Woman and her mythos.

So they put him in charge of Amazons Attack, of course.

jv2k

06-21-2009, 12:42 PM

WW has three inherent problems.

1.She isn't taken as seriously as the other two by the community. Part of the problem is the fact that the comic industry is dominated by male 20-40 year olds who don't want to read about a wonder woman but there is more to it than that. She suffers from aquaman syndrome. She has a magic lasso, uses a tiara to hide her identity(or used to anyway), dresses in a one piece swim suit that has an american flag on it(the recent animated movie gave a good explanation for it), and she flies in an invisible jet(that used to just show her sitting inside of it).

Yea they have tried to justify most of it, and for the most part it works, but people still see her as that corny chick in Superfriends and I don't think that'll ever really be overcome.

2. People think she needs to be fixed and as a result we see writers redefining her instead of adding to her. The biggest example is her change in status quo post IC or when she lost her powers way back when.

3.She needs to have her mythos defined. A good start would be to give her a clear beginning with a WW year one or something like that. Yea her mythos is already defined, but we could use a good retelling.

AllisterH

06-21-2009, 01:06 PM

Fair enough. But it bears noting that Amazons Attack was originally going to be a very different story by Greg Rucka, and I believe War of the Gods was tampered with too. Editorial incompetence really hurt the character post-Rucka.

And? There are a lot of popular male superheroes who have gone through a number of different girlfriends.

Please name a character that has been published consantly since the original CRISIS that doesn't have a SO. Romance _IS_ a large part of any superhero character especially one that lasts for a long time.

By my count, she has had only two characters in her own book that she actually had any interest in. Rama which I think was only for 5-6 issues and Trevor Barnes who was widely hated on Jimenez short run...

Yeah, there's a problem there....

The Amazons have remained a big part of her supporting cast fairly consistently since her first appearance. There have been periods where they were gone, sure, but there were times when Alfred was gone (and that period when Alfred was dead).

THe Amazons are like the Oans in Green Lantern or Asgardians in Thor but I would say only one, Hippy/Ganthet is a core member of the supporting cast. Yet again, the fact that every new writer seems to want to move Diana to a new city has not given the consistency over the years to build up a core group of cast members a la olsen, lois and perry or alfred and jim gordon.

What cities do Iron Man and Hulk live in?

Given that Wonder Woman is a DC character AND we were referring to other DC characters, why would you answer with MARVEL characters?

I disagree strongly. I think her Rogues Gallery is comparable to that of many other heroes, like Iron Man, Hulk, or Thor (now that everyone's stolen half of his Rogues Gallery). A few stand-out villains, some stinkers, and some with potential that's never been realized.

Having your rogue's gallery is actually a mark of honour IMO. This is another reason why Thor gets lots of respect since not only does his villains get used, but his playground is used a lot. For example, the X-men/Alpha Flight asgardian crossover and the new mutants in asgard storyline are still considered some of the best writing. Where's the issue of other heroes exploring the WW mythos?

Why are people getting hyped for Green Lantern's Blackest night yet there was absolutely no buzz for Amazon attacks?

Hell, I'll take even the fact that the Controller, Mandarin and the Radioactive Man get more play in the wider mu than any of WW's crew.

To the best of my knowledge the only ones she's lost to are Wonder Woman, Wonder Girl, Superman/Batman, and the Blue Beetle crew.

Let's not forget the Atom. More importantly, she loses EASILY

That's just in Catwoman, not in Batman.

And those gems were written by Will Pfeifer. His use of Angle Man and Cheetah was enough to tip off anyone with half a brain that he had nothing but contempt for Wonder Woman and her mythos.

So they put him in charge of Amazons Attack, of course.

Well then, here's another reason why WW isn't getting much respect. DC apparently has little for her since they assigned Pfeiffer to her...

Really, then, other than Ares in War of the Gods (which I might add, got promptly ignored), please name some great portrayals/shwings of WW villains

I listed Captain Marvel and he doesn't even have a freaking book yet his mythos (not just the villains) gets used a lot.

Constantine Drakon

06-21-2009, 01:47 PM

Please name a character that has been published consantly since the original CRISIS that doesn't have a SO.

Batman? Catwoman's a fan favorite, but he's had several girlfriends. Dini even hooked him up with Batgirl in the animated series.

THe Amazons are like the Oans in Green Lantern or Asgardians in Thor but I would say only one, Hippy/Ganthet is a core member of the supporting cast.

I'd say they do better than the Oans in terms of providing different characters.

Hippolyta's the obvious one, and the longest lasting.
Phillipus has been a pretty consistent one since the Perez reboot.
More recently, Artemis proved to be an excellent addition (and was used in the DVD movie).
(And I'm optimistic about Io, although it's a bit too early to tell with her).

But Hippolyta is her Alfred-level cast member.

Given that Wonder Woman is a DC character AND we were referring to other DC characters, why would you answer with MARVEL characters?

Because they're all comic characters. It'd be nice if we had a fleshed out location in her mythos, aside from Themyscira, but there are many comic characters that do just fine without one.

Having your rogue's gallery is actually a mark of honour IMO. This is another reason why Thor gets lots of respect since not only does his villains get used,

Eh. A small number of Thor villains get used in a way that makes people think "that's a Thor villain". More commonly his villains were just outright stolen and used around to the point where your average comic-reader has no idea where they originated. I mean, did YOU know that Ego the Living Planet was originally a Thor villain?

his playground is used a lot. For example, the X-men/Alpha Flight asgardian crossover and the new mutants in asgard storyline are still considered some of the best writing. Where's the issue of other heroes exploring the WW mythos?

There's some truth here. The New Mutants story was back in the 80s, at which point Asgard had been fairly well fleshed out by writers. Meanwhile, over at DC, Wonder Woman had been rebooted and her gods were being fleshed out essentially for the first time.

Why are people getting hyped for Green Lantern's Blackest night yet there was absolutely no buzz for Amazon attacks?

There was a little buzz, but it probably has something to do with the fact that AA was being written by a little-known writer that had no experience with Wonder Woman. Had they stuck with Rucka... ah, what might have been.

Let's not forget the Atom. More importantly, she loses EASILY

In the pages of Atom she was defeated by Wonder Woman (although Choi did manage to escape her the first time, I wouldn't call that defeating her).

Well then, here's another reason why WW isn't getting much respect. DC apparently has little for her since they assigned Pfeiffer to her...

I said "anyone with half a brain" should have been able to tell Pfeiffer was a horrific choice. I don't believe the people that put him in charge of Amazons Attack had half a brain. I see that less as a case of editorial not showing her respect (they even mentioned Amazons Attack in that hit series Countdown!), and more a case of bloody-minded incompetence.

please name some great portrayals/shwings of WW villains

In other books?

Dr. Psycho in Manhunter, Secret Six/Villains United, and Superman.

I listed Captain Marvel and he doesn't even have a freaking book yet his mythos (not just the villains) gets used a lot.

Because his villains were well-known and well-used during the Silver Age. Wonder Woman's villains were not. Repairs are underway and things are definitely getting better, but it's hard to get around how badly things went for her during the Silver Age.

numberONE

06-22-2009, 12:55 AM

What's Geoff Johns doing after Blackest Night?

galactica

06-22-2009, 05:27 AM

1. She's 0 for 2 in headliner events.

War of the Gods was presumably the WW-headline event to celebrate her 50th anniversary. Similarly, Amazon attacks is a headlienr event a la Blackest night and both of these are one of the common choices among DC posters as to the question of "What are the worse crossovers ever?"

I think the biggest reason for the lack of WW events is the lack of WW titles. There is no way to do family events like SCW, New Krypton and Battle for the Cowl, because there isn't a family of books. They can do try a crossover with another book like Superman, but the Superman line will have their own stories that have nothing to do with WW.

2. No boyfriend - no consistent supporting cast - no city.
This can't be ignored but WW is still a single girl and has had no longterm attachment compared to her compatriots. We're talking about something like Clark's Daily Planet staff or Alfred and Jim Gordon. Similarly, she has no home city. Sure, the island of Themscyira is used but it is treated a la krypton and OA are..

I don't think she needs a boyfriend but a supporting cast on the level of Jimmy, Perry, Lois, Alfred, Gordon is needed. I think part of the reason there isn't one is because she doesn't have a city. The Daily Planet crew live and work in Metropolis with Superman. Gordon lives and work in Gotham. No city leads to no regular supporting.

You also get things like Starlab, the Science Police, the Gotham City Police Department, and all the characters that come out of them. Not to forget all the heroes and concepts who can be added to the city to make the WW-verse richer.

3. Villains suck and mythos hardly gets used

Now then, other than Ares killing Highfather (which NEVER gets used or mentioned for some reason), Ares has had no impact on the DCU. Personally, I believe the problem with using Ares is that Ares as a big bad doesn't really work especially given how poorly Heracles gets treated in the DCU.

Then you have Circe and foes like giganta and cheetah. Cheetah for example is supposed to be Diana's top physical villain yet in Batman and Cawoman books, Catwoman can break Cheetahs nose with a punch and Batman can actually cuff Cheetah to a lamppost and cheetah isn't strong enough to even break it.

The less said about Giganta the better (seriously, is there a more useless superpower to have than "I get big" - who hasn't beaten giganta?)

I think Ares as a big bad can and should work. But in the context of DC Comics he is on the level of someone like Metallo. The third of forth WW villain after Cheetah, Circe and Giganta. But I think all it would take for DC Ares to make it big time would be a good JLA appearance.

galactica

06-22-2009, 05:32 AM

What's Geoff Johns doing after Blackest Night?

I hope you are not suggesting that Geoff Johns write a Wonder Woman book because there are people who would cause riots if such a thing wee announced.:smile:

After BN, I imagine he'll be doing Adventure Comics, Green Lantern, Flash(probably), maybe a return to Action Comics...

AllisterH

06-22-2009, 05:39 AM

Because his villains were well-known and well-used during the Silver Age. Wonder Woman's villains were not. Repairs are underway and things are definitely getting better, but it's hard to get around how badly things went for her during the Silver Age.

Actually that's not true...Even in the Silver Age, Captain Marvel and crew hardly gets used. You probably can count on two hands how many appearances Marvel's villains made an appearance.

Of course, that said, when they did make an appearance, they are considered some of the best classic Silver Age stories around compared to Diana having no "great" Silver age story (Kanghier really did nothing good for WW IMO). Ex: The JSA teamup with the marvel family is well remembered by JSA fans and similarly, the Black Adam crossover with Superman gets some love from Superman fans.

As an aside, I think this is why Superman fans have been more accepting of Marvel being Superman's equal than of WW. Pre Crisis, the Superman books made it explicitly clear that physically, Marvel was Superman's equal (and that's the Silver Age superman) - that JSA crossover also showed that the Golden Age Superman was nowhere near the marvel family in terms of power...which was true of the GA Superman compared to the SA Superman

Ari Gold

06-22-2009, 06:44 AM

So, WW was created from a pile of clay . . . is that how all Amazons are generated?
Does it affect her in anyway emotionally that she isn't naturally human? Is that something that was explored but was boring? Do ppl born of clay have a soul?

I hope you are not suggesting that Geoff Johns write a Wonder Woman book because there are people who would cause riots if such a thing wee announced.:smile:

I don't really get the connotation of that remark . . . who would be upset . . . it seems likely, to me, that Johns will pen a rebirth for WW, Aquaman, or maybe Batman even when Bruce returns.

Given that Wonder Woman is a DC character AND we were referring to other DC characters, why would you answer with MARVEL characters?

Probably for the very same reason that within that response you utilized analogies to Thor . . .

KYLeo71

06-22-2009, 07:03 AM

So, WW was created from a pile of clay . . . is that how all Amazons are generated?
Does it affect her in anyway emotionally that she isn't naturally human? Is that something that was explored but was boring? Do ppl born of clay have a soul?
Well, according to the Perez reboot, while the amazons' bodies were constructed of clay and given life, their souls were in fact the souls of woman throughout time who had been murdered or had their lives end in an untimely fashion by men. Diana has a soul and is truly Hippolyta's daughter because Hippolyta had been pregnant at the time of her death in her previous life and the soul of the unborn baby girl ended up being Diana. Of course, that was 20 years ago when that was written, so I'm not certain whether any of that is still cannon, but it made good sense to me at the time.

galactica

06-22-2009, 07:34 AM

I don't really get the connotation of that remark . . . who would be upset . . . it seems likely, to me, that Johns will pen a rebirth for WW, Aquaman, or maybe Batman even when Bruce returns.

Some WW fans think Geoff Johns does not write WW well, mind you many of them say the same thing about anyone who isn't George Perez or Gail Simone. Post something on DCMB or YABS about Johns writing WW and see the reaction you get. I think the reaction WW fans have toward Johns is unwarranted but a lot of them say they don't like him writing her.

Probably for the very same reason that within that response you utilized analogies to Thor . . .

AllisterH's original point was about WW not having a Metropolis or Gotham City.

Constantine Drakon responded by asking 'what city does Ironman have?'

First, Ironman has like 99% of Marvel characters have New York City.

Second, in the DCU characters on the level of WW all have cities. Green Arrow has Star City, Hawkman has St. Roach, Atom has Ivy Town, Superman has Metropolis, Batman has Gotham City.

Marvel groups all their characters in NYC(why there are still criminal is Marvel NY, I don't know).

KYLeo71

06-22-2009, 07:38 AM

Wait... Wonder Woman's not still in Washington DC? I've always thought she was in DC. I know Perez put her in Boston from some stupid reason, but I've always considered DC as WW's home city.

galactica

06-22-2009, 07:56 AM

Wait... Wonder Woman's not still in Washington DC? I've always thought she was in DC. I know Perez put her in Boston from some stupid reason, but I've always considered DC as WW's home city.

She's in DC now but it is in noway her Metropolis or Gotham, partly because different writers have put her in different cities.

Ari Gold

06-22-2009, 08:00 AM

Well, according to the Perez reboot, while the amazons' bodies were constructed of clay and given life, their souls were in fact the souls of woman throughout time who had been murdered or had their lives end in an untimely fashion by men . . .

Just interesting stuff on a character I don't know all that well.

- It sounds like being entrenched in Amazon "literature" would encourage a somewhat mythological backdrop for the character. Is that the way WW is usually written?

Some WW fans think Geoff Johns does not write WW well . . .

Where has Johns written her?
And in what ways does he portray her that people think is all wrong?

AllisterH's original point was about WW not having a Metropolis or Gotham City.

Oh ok, I hear that point better.

I still don't really get it having been a Marvel zombie who has more recently delved into the greater DCU. But I guess it could be hindrance for DC fans to get behind a character written so differently than the DC characters they enjoy reading.

KYLeo71

06-22-2009, 08:00 AM

She's in DC now but it is in noway her Metropolis or Gotham, partly because different writers have put her in different cities.
Geez, every WW issue I've ever read (Golden Age reprints, Bronze Age, Silver Age, recent issues) except for the Perez stuff places her in Washington. Where else has she been?

(And I always thought Hawkman was in Midway City. What's St. Roach?)

galactica

06-22-2009, 08:47 AM

Where has Johns written her?
And in what ways does he portray her that people think is all wrong?

I wonder the same thing. Going by some comments I've seen you would think Johns had a horrible 50 issue run on WW.

Constantine Drakon

06-22-2009, 09:18 AM

What's Geoff Johns doing after Blackest Night?

Staying the heck away from Wonder Woman, I hope and pray.

I don't think she needs a boyfriend but a supporting cast on the level of Jimmy, Perry, Lois, Alfred, Gordon is needed.

Etta and Steve, Hippolyta, Phillipus, Artemis, Cassandra Sandsmark, Donna Troy. I agree it'd be nice if they stopped moving her around all the time, but she does have some excellent cast members. And she also has Donna!

I think Ares as a big bad can and should work. But in the context of DC Comics he is on the level of someone like Metallo. The third of forth WW villain after Cheetah, Circe and Giganta. But I think all it would take for DC Ares to make it big time would be a good JLA appearance.

Dr. Psycho?

I think she's got a number of villains that would work as Big Bads that could be used in other books as easily as her own. The trouble is getting the writers to use them. It seems most writers look at her Silver Age stuff and see a relative lack of decent villains, leading to an "I'd better invent new villains!" conclusion. Then when subsequent writers come along, those new villains don't get used much, if at all. White Magician, Devastation, Doctor Cyber, the Shattered God, Sebastian Ballesteros, Dark Angel, Veronica Cale (although in fairness that last one is because Rucka asked that nobody else use Cale).

Actually that's not true...Even in the Silver Age, Captain Marvel and crew hardly gets used. You probably can count on two hands how many appearances Marvel's villains made an appearance.

I stand corrected. I thought DC's Shazam series (on Earth S) started a few years earlier than it actually did. It's in the Bronze Age all right. Still, around the time he got his relaunch, Wonder Woman's book was in serious flux following the Silver Age, one moment an unpowered Emma Peel, the next moment transported back to WWII (because the TV show was set in WWII, natch).

And Captain Marvel's villains weren't noticeably left out of his book for two decades. That's really the kicker, IMHO.

First, Ironman has like 99% of Marvel characters have New York City.

Stark's been all over the place. New York was an occassional home base, maybe, same way Themyscira is for Wonder Woman. But he goes all over the globe.

So, WW was created from a pile of clay . . . is that how all Amazons are generated?

The Amazons were shown bursting out of the ocean's water, fully formed, created from clay by the gods. So yes, but not the exact same clay, I think.

Does it affect her in anyway emotionally that she isn't naturally human?

No. She's as "naturally human" as the rest of her family.

Do ppl born of clay have a soul?

Yes. All the Amazons were given the souls of women that had been murdered. Hippolyta had been pregnant when she was killed in her past life, and that's where Wonder Woman's soul comes from.

I don't really get the connotation of that remark . . . who would be upset . . . it seems likely, to me, that Johns will pen a rebirth for WW

People like me, that have read his take on Wonder Woman and been disgusted with it. Of all the characters he's written, Wonder Woman is the one he's worst at. His brief use of her in the JSA Thanksgiving issue and in Infinite Crisis were especially bad. He and Morrison also outvoted Rucka in writing 52, so we got a directionless Wonder Woman going to Nanda Parabat to have Rama Kushna say "yeah, you're a total failure. You've never known real pain or suffering. No, none of those dead friends and loved ones count, because you weren't using a secret identity at the time. No, the time you saved all of reality doesn't make you a success, nor the times you saved the world, or brought peace in outer space. You should go put on some glasses and call yourself Diana Prince, THEN you'd be a good character." From what I've read by him, I get the impression that he thinks the Perez reboot was a bad thing and would prefer to have back Silver Age Wonder Woman. Heaven help the character if he pens a "rebirth" for her.

Geez, every WW issue I've ever read

You missed Byrne and Rucka's runs, I guess? Byrne put her in "Gateway City" which seemed to me to be San Francisco only without any of the cool stuff. Rucka put her in New York, since she's an ambassador for the U.N., and that's where the U.N. is.

Ari Gold

06-22-2009, 10:06 AM

People like me, that have read his take on Wonder Woman and been disgusted with it. Of all the characters he's written, Wonder Woman is the one he's worst at.

I'm not sure how I'd go about checking out those particular issues, could you describe briefly what he doesn't get about the character?

Is it the way she carries herself? Dialogue?

galactica

06-22-2009, 10:17 AM

People like me, that have read his take on Wonder Woman and been disgusted with it. Of all the characters he's written, Wonder Woman is the one he's worst at. His brief use of her in the JSA Thanksgiving issue and in Infinite Crisis were especially bad. He and Morrison also outvoted Rucka in writing 52, so we got a directionless Wonder Woman going to Nanda Parabat to have Rama Kushna say "yeah, you're a total failure. You've never known real pain or suffering. No, none of those dead friends and loved ones count, because you weren't using a secret identity at the time. No, the time you saved all of reality doesn't make you a success, nor the times you saved the world, or brought peace in outer space. You should go put on some glasses and call yourself Diana Prince, THEN you'd be a good character." From what I've read by him, I get the impression that he thinks the Perez reboot was a bad thing and would prefer to have back Silver Age Wonder Woman. Heaven help the character if he pens a "rebirth" for her.

I read that scene very differently and I think it's unfair to blame him for how WW was handled during the relaunch, which is what it seems a lot of people do.

Constantine Drakon

06-22-2009, 11:20 AM

I read that scene very differently

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time seeing how that scene could be interpreted in any way except "Wonder Woman done without the Diana Prince secret identity is WRONG."

and I think it's unfair to blame him for how WW was handled during the relaunch, which is what it seems a lot of people do.

We have no idea how much he may or may not have contributed to the decisions of OYL Wonder Woman, so obviously it would be wrong to blame him for what was done. That said, he's shown he's definitely in favor of the direction the book took. Going over the times he wrote her that I can recall - in JSA she came off as extremely cold, stern, and difficult to like, with her contribution to the issue being a lecture at Thanksgiving about how the "first people of this land" had to suffer smallpox, cholera, and genocide. Okay, that might be that he had good intentions and just made her a little on the cold side unintentionally. But then you look at Teen Titans where she came off as an extremely unlikable person, ordering Wonder Girl around. Then, in Flash, we have Wally being Geoff's mouthpiece, saying how he doesn't really like Wonder Woman, and thinks she doesn't know how to be human. It's an opinion that's reiterated in Infinite Crisis, where an unbalanced Wonder Woman seems to use excessive force with looters, leading to a mob throwing stones at her, until the day is saved by the timely arrival of pre-Crisis Wonder Woman, who again tells her that she's just not human and she really needs to start being human (by which Geoff means "put on a pair of glasses, and reverse your name like Dracula. Princess Diana = Diana Prince. NOBODY WILL EVER FIGURE IT OUT!) This of course, is coming right at the end of Greg Rucka's run, where it was normal for her to fly home, shower, put on a pair of jeans and a shirt, and interact with friends and family, including a single father of two. Guess that sort of thing (along with frequently losing loved ones) isn't human enough. To really drive the point home, Johns gives us a OYL bit in Green Lantern where we're informed that since Batman and Superman gave her a secret identity she's become a much more likable person (even "cute"). Johns clearly likes the secret identity. I do not. Frankly, I'm more intrigued by a Wonder Woman that's completely open about who she is, and makes friends with regular people anyway. That's fine, this wouldn't be the first time I don't see eye to eye with a creator. But in Johns' case he seems to like "Diana Prince" so much that he thinks if the Secret identity isn't there, then Wonder Woman is an awful, inhuman, and unlikable character. And I have a problem with that kind of attitude.

KYLeo71

06-22-2009, 11:54 AM

AllisterH

06-22-2009, 12:08 PM

I still don't really get it having been a Marvel zombie who has more recently delved into the greater DCU. But I guess it could be hindrance for DC fans to get behind a character written so differently than the DC characters they enjoy reading.

The thing about the city is that the city itself becomes a character....For a long time, there was no appreciable difference between a Metropolis and a Star City, but I've noticed that after Starman's run where James R. turned Opal City into a fully fleshed out breathing character, the DCU writers have really picked up on that....

Ivy Town, in the short Atom series, really felt like a college town, Metropolis is the city of the future, Gotham is the dark, gothic city of the DCU, Fawcett City that seems to be a Art Deco city and one that we imagined from the 40s/50s etc...

Good writers have made the city of the DCU heroes as important to the character as their SO (again, something which Diana lacks and I point out, no other DCU hero with a long lasting series has) and Perez gave Diana her own city, namely Gateway City but post Perez, they've ignored it.

Ari Gold

06-22-2009, 12:11 PM

alright, really great to hear from such a fan of WW.

In my limited knowledge of the character, I always thought she had a secret identity like Clark Kent.

Don't know where that notion is rooted from though . . .

Reading solely what you wrote it would sound to me that Johns can relate to the character better via a secret identity and that he believes the character would relate better to readers that way too. It's probably based on the notion that nearly every character in DC has an alter-ego and it's just something familiar.

So is a Diana Prince alter-ego her original origin or not?

The other thing I find interesting about the way you described Johns' take is that he almost wants to make her struggle with her humanity, which is quite similar to my initial reaction from learning more about her history. Being created out of clay and raised amongst Amazons might isolate her from others. Interesting, but I can respect the fact that it might go against decades of built story and development.

According to you, a cold, strict verison of WW seems to go against the grain. So what is her general attitude. Is she supposed to be sweet and charming? Is she always in control of the situation like the other big guns?

KYLeo71

06-22-2009, 12:30 PM

Alrighty, the original story regarding Diana Prince...

In her original original, Diana went to 'man's world' after Steve Trevor crash landed on Paradise Island (which seems to be one of the few constants across all versions of the origin). Of course, Steve was the first man she'd ever seen and it was love at first sight (blah blah blah). Once she took him back to America and dropped him off at the hospital, she wanted to be close to him, but thought herself a little obvious in her star-spangled getup. She meet an Army nurse named Diana Prince who, as luck would have it, looked almost exactly like Diana except that she wore her hair up and wore glasses. Diana Prince longed to be with the love of her life, but couldn't afford it, so Princess Diana *bought* her Diana Prince ID from her so she could be close to Steve without being WW and it just developed into a secret identity from there. Real Diana Prince eventually became Diana White (her married name) and was supposedly the bio-mother of Super Friend's Marvin (of Wendy & Marvin fame), but that's all out of continuity now. As far as the origin of the Diana Prince ID during the Silver Age and Bronze Age, I have no idea, but Diana Prince was a firm part of the Wonder Woman mythos as her secret ID from her introduction in 1941 until the Perez reboot in 1987.

Ari Gold

06-22-2009, 12:38 PM

As far as the origin of the Diana Prince ID during the Silver Age and Bronze Age, I have no idea, but Diana Prince was a firm part of the Wonder Woman mythos as her secret ID from her introduction in 1941 until the Perez reboot in 1987.

a. So why would WW fans be so pissed that it would exist?
b. Did Perez get rid of the secret identity? And did he completely erase it from existence or just give WW a reason not to need/use it anymore?

celticguy

06-22-2009, 12:40 PM

Geez, every WW issue I've ever read (Golden Age reprints, Bronze Age, Silver Age, recent issues) except for the Perez stuff places her in Washington. Where else has she been?

(And I always thought Hawkman was in Midway City. What's St. Roach?)

She lived in Boston for a while I think that was under Perez which you noted.

Great thing DC has is the teleporters which makes it easy to spread the heros.

KYLeo71

06-22-2009, 12:47 PM

a. So why would WW fans be so pissed that it would exist?
b. Did Perez get rid of the secret identity? And did he completely erase it from existence or just give WW a reason not to need/use it anymore?
The original Crisis completely erased all previous versions of Wonder Woman from existence. The Earth Two version vanished when all the infinite earths combined. The Silver/Bronze Age WW was sent back through time and became the earth of Paradise Island from which she'd been formed (in much the same way that when Barry Allen died, he sped back through time and became the lightning that had original crashed through his lab window and gave him his powers). When Perez launched 'Wonder Woman' Vol. 2 #1, it was as if she was a brand new character in 1987 and no one had ever even heard of Wonder Woman (because, in the post-Crisis reality, she'd never existed). Consequently, Diana Prince had never existed. Think of Perez's 1987 reboot of WW like the 1994 reboot of the Legion of Super-Heroes -- it completely replaced all previous versions (which, at that point, never existed). Of course, this created problems because the reboot meant that WW had never been a member of the Justice League (necessitating a new origin story) and Wonder Girl (aka Donna Troy) had been around *longer* than Wonder Woman herself (necessitating a new origin story for Donna Troy and started that character on a long, long path to screwedupedness). Subsequent writers have attempted to tie Donna back into Diana (but the girl has had more origin stories than I can deal with) and Infinite Crisis restored Wonder Woman's longer tenure in the superhero world including her founding status with the Justice League.

carabas

06-22-2009, 01:26 PM

I've never understood the Diana Prince hate. IMO, it's a key part of the mythos and an integral part of who Wonder Woman is. Of course, I'm partial to the Steve Trevor love interest and the invisible plane, too. IMO, they're all as much part of the WW story as Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, and the Daily Planet (as well as the Fortress of Solitude) are a part of Superman's.
Ther are two distinct, seperate Wonder Woman mythoses that have very little to do with one another: pre- and post Crisis. And almost all attemps to mix them have lead to disastrous consequences.
And secret identities are antithesis to post-Crisis wonder Woman's personality int the same way that Uzis and Batman don't go well together.

Plus it's a really silly secret identity. It's as if Superman were not Clark Kent but Manny Supre.

KYLeo71

06-22-2009, 01:31 PM

Plus it's a really silly secret identity. It's as if Superman were not Clark Kent but Manny Supre.
Actually, that would make Superman's secret ID El Kal.

Ari Gold

06-22-2009, 01:38 PM

Plus it's a really silly secret identity. It's as if Superman were not Clark Kent but Manny Supre.

So it's safe to assume that Wonder Woman as WW is known publicly as Princess Diana?

carabas

06-22-2009, 02:28 PM

Yes, the entire world knows that Wonder Woman is Princess Diana of Themyscira. It is her official name. She even wrote a best-selling book under that name.

Ari Gold

06-22-2009, 02:58 PM

Yes, the entire world knows that Wonder Woman is Princess Diana of Themyscira. It is her official name. She even wrote a best-selling book under that name.

Haha, that's awesome. So as Diana Prince she wears glasses?

If she had a different name would WW fans care less about dual identity?

Constantine Drakon

06-22-2009, 04:50 PM

I wanted to get home and get this...

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r196/ConstantineDrakon/dianaprince.jpg

There are a bunch of reasons why I personally don't like Diana Prince, and I'm sure I share these feelings with others.

1. It's a lie. Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, Oliver Queen, Barry Allen, Wally West, Hal Jordan, and Dinah Lance grew up as Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, Oliver Queen, Barry Allen, Wally West, Hal Jordan, and Dinah Lance. Diana Prince is pure fabrication. Considering how tightly the character has been linked to "Truth" Post-Crisis (what's the name of the WW book Paul Dini did with Alex Ross?Spirit of Truth), that's a glaring problem in the eyes of some fans.

2. She's the Princess/Ambassador of an entire country. And her faked identity is... a position in the American military? I understand the original patriotic reasons for it (just like the Star Spangled costume), but it doesn't sit right with me. The morality isn't as black and white any more.

3. It's just not necessary for her supporting cast. Steve Trevor is someone that crash-landed on her home island, Etta is someone she met, there's not much there that depends on her being Diana Prince. Every once in a while I hear someone claim that the problems with her supporting cast are due to her lack of a Secret Identity (SI). Baloney. She's had more good characters added to her cast since Crisis than in the entire Silver and Bronze Ages. Most of the cast members she met as Diana Prince were military brass nobody ever gave a damn about. I'll take Ferdinand the minotaur chef over "Steve Trevor's room mate" any day. And I don't think Ferdinand would have shown up had we kept the Diana Prince SI.

4. It really comes off as a pale imitation of Superman's secret identity. The "add glasses, nobody will recognize you" bit is blatantly stolen (and she reverses her name like a Vampire. Princess Diana -> Diana Prince, making it even more laughable). Then there's the dynamic where Diana Prince loves Steve while Steve looks down on Diana Prince and loves Wonder Woman. Can anyone say Clark Kent, Lois Lane, and Superman? She gets compared to Supes enough as it is, thank you.

5. It's just not a very good secret identity. I don't think much of interest comes from it. Meanwhile, post-Crisis, we've had her as a major hero that's completely open about who she is, an ambassador with an open-door policy. I think her time in Rucka's embassy was far more unique than "Diana Prince" ever will be. Let's face it, Diana Prince will never be half as good a secret identity as Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne. But as a major superhero that's open with her identity, she's something unique to DC's upper echelon. I loved things like her walking around openly in her civilian clothes, signing books, shopping, etc. You can have the former or the latter, and I'd much prefer the latter. If you want to read about a superhero that manages an approximation of a normal life by putting on a pair of glasses, I can recommend some excellent Superman stories.

KYLeo71

06-22-2009, 04:59 PM

Funny that you posted that sequence because I absolutely LOATHED it when it was first published and still do today. Why must writers continue to write her like a cross pollination of Peter, Paul, & Mary and Xena, Warrior Princess. I've always thought of WW as a superheroine -- secret ID and all -- and that's what I like to read about her. Also, why do writers insist on writing about her nobility and ambassadorial while the artists draw her all T&A. At least Lopresti (whose art I really like) draws her respectfully.

Constantine Drakon

06-22-2009, 05:25 PM

Whereas I found Silver Age "superhero, by the numbers, has a secret identity because everyone else does" Wonder Woman to be one of the worst, most generic, and least imaginative books DC's ever published. I LOVED that page when it was first published, and still do today. It made me a fan of a character I had always looked down on.

So you see, Kylun, just changing the name from "Diana Prince" to something else isn't going to repair the divide in the fandom.

carabas

06-23-2009, 12:30 AM

Also, why do writers insist on writing about her nobility and ambassadorial while the artists draw her all T&A.This is not a Wonder Woman specific problem. It aplies to pretty much all superheroines.

Shouldn't Black Canary or Miss Marvel be taken serious because their costumes are basically fetish gear? Are all heriones drawn by, say, Ed Benes or Greg 'Xerox' Land automatically devoid of nobility?

dumbstruck

06-23-2009, 08:26 AM

dumbstruck

06-23-2009, 08:35 AM

When did "because they were raised well and know evil sucks, that's why" stop being a legitimate answer?

When Geoff Johns retconned Barry Allen's origin so that his mother being murdered is what drove him into police work.

Lorendiac

06-23-2009, 08:40 AM

carabas

06-23-2009, 09:25 AM

All these years, and I never realized I was emasculasting myself each and every time I let myself be seen spending some of my money on chick titles!You are not the world. And while the idea of being books like that is emasculating is silly, there are plenty of comics fans who buy into that idea.

galactica

06-23-2009, 10:07 AM

When Geoff Johns retconned Barry Allen's origin so that his mother being murdered is what drove him into police work.

I don't think whatever problems or perceived problems Wonder Woman has had over her nearly 70 history has anything to do with something Geoff Johns wrote 3 months ago.

dumbstruck

06-23-2009, 11:03 AM

I don't think whatever problems or perceived problems Wonder Woman has had over her nearly 70 history has anything to do with something Geoff Johns wrote 3 months ago.

:rolleyes:
In the words of everyone's favorite blockhead....

"Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it?"

Hyperzoanoid

06-24-2009, 01:02 PM

I also wouldn't consider WW to be part of the big three, in fact, I'm one of the people that says that DC has a 'big two' rather than a Trinity. I do think that when thinking of 'big three' concerning DC Comics, Wonder Woman has the largest potential to become a part of it.

In a WW comic there are lots of things to explore: herself and her powers, her interaction with humans/metahumans, gods, other amazons, etc. She could appeal to superhero-readers, sword-and-sorcery-readers (yes), those interested in the greek mythos of old and adress modern topics too in one publication. But even though lots of writers have tried lots of things she's still not up there - going by direct sales in north america.

That WW is not up there isn't Gail Simone's fault of course - I think it's highly unlikely that a mainstream WW-title will reach the top 10 sales chart in, say, the next 5 or 10 years. Excluding books that maybe tied to a large event.

If I was Didio I would try to branch out a little with WW with another title, but not an All Star book. Give Gail or another writer the chance to go all out with WW and try to establish her as true standalone star character. Start from scratch, forget about the DC Universe and make a new one in which she's the big shot. It doesn't really matter if it's an ongoing title, a mini-series, or a couple of standalone issues. All of that with one mission: appeal to new/other fans. I know, that's quite hard for the comic book industry but special editions can be marketed in various ways and might be more succesful with a good hypemaking strategy.

And for the record, I don't even care that much for WW. I just think it would be nice see another iconic superhero in the spotlight, that's all.

Shellhead

06-24-2009, 01:07 PM

Ollie and Diana should trade last names.

carabas

06-24-2009, 01:11 PM

Oliver Of Themyscira... It does have a certain quality to it.

galactica

06-24-2009, 02:05 PM

:rolleyes:
In the words of everyone's favorite blockhead....

"Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it?"

Most of the time when I hear it, but not always when I read it. :tongue:

superchick

06-25-2009, 08:54 AM

Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are supposedly DC Comics' "big three". So, why is it that I see all these huge Superman stories, these big Superman stories, big Flash stories, and this year's main crossover based around Green Lantern, but nothing for Wonder Woman.

I don't know anything about the character really, so I don't keep taps on her much, but is it just me, or is there hardly any Wonder Woman books? The only Wonder Woman book I can think of is her flag-ship book, but than Superman, Batman, and Green Lantern have at least five each.

Superman, Batman, and Green Lantern are the new big three?

This is why I don't believe in a big 3. Once Green Lantern comes to the movies AND has a higher selling comic and spin off he has recognisability and sales to back it up. Right now wonder woman looks like a token character. This is why DC should downplay the idea of a big 3 or big 7.Its one thing to have fans creating status and impressing it onto a comic reading its totally different when it starts to happen in-universe. There is no reason Superman should be more than Hal, or why Batman should be more important than green arrow.

Its actually one of the reasons I like Legion more, the founders were never the most important. Its not until this retro-boot put a big fat 'Big Three' name tag on the. Legion was always more a democracy. The best person for the job would be leader no matter when they joined the team.

Lorendiac

06-27-2009, 10:56 PM

The greatest story arc in the universe isn't going to make WW stop being female, and may only marginally move a small percentage of comic fanboys to risk emasculating themselves by being seen buying a "chick title".

"Emasculating"?

At various times over the years, I have been known to buy new issues of regular series and miniseries with such titles as Glory, Batgirl, Huntress, Supergirl, Mantra (okay, so she was only biologically a woman, but with a man's soul inside), Birds of Prey, and occasionally Wonder Woman.

I've also collected lots of series and miniseries as cheap back issues -- and reprint editions of old backup features from other titles -- including ones about Supergirl, Storm, the original Batgirl, Spider-Woman (the first), Spider-Woman (the second), Spider-Girl, Magdalena, Tomb Raider (man, that first story arc on her Top Cow title was some miserably inconsistent writing! But I bought the TPB before I knew better!), and so forth.

All these years, and I never realized I was emasculating myself each and every time I let myself be seen spending some of my money on chick titles! I feel so embarrassed! Why didn't anyone warn me what a hideous, unmanly mistake I was making? Now my image is probably ruined forever in the local community! :redface: :eek:

You are not the world. And while the idea of being books like that is emasculating is silly, there are plenty of comics fans who buy into that idea.

Huh? I never claimed to be the world. But back in the 90s, when I frequently saw such covers as

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/1/11307/406909-21754-131203-1-maximage_super.jpg

and

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/4/33764-4955-37698-1-catwoman_super.jpg

. . . well, somehow it never occurred to me that those publishers were afraid that their obvious target audience for those titles (fanboys, not women!) would think, "Gosh, I'd love to buy that book . . . except the title character is obviously a chick instead of a macho man! Therefore, being seen purchasing this would emasculate me! I don't dare take the risk! I'll just buy something about Wolverine instead!"

That's why I thought Spiffy's original comment was hilarious! It seemed completely contrary to the assumptions made by various editors and creators, working at various comic book companies of the last 20 years, when they're trying to launch a new title and hope it will click with a significant number of (presumably male) readers!

But I'm willing to learn something new! Is there any real evidence -- polls done by CBG or Wizard, for instance -- that most of the "voluptuous babe" titles of the 1990s had their sales figures suffer terribly because lots of prospective male customers were scared off in each case by the title's horrible handicap of obviously being all about a female lead instead of a masculine lead or an entire team of characters?