Great Point Made By I09 Of An Inherent Flaw In Wonder Woman

[Death Itself]

I take I09 with a grain of salt for the most part but like a broken clock can be right twice a day, sometimes they get it right, as in their examination of why Captain America has a movie and Wonder Woman does not. Of course they dismiss the most obvious and actual reason (gender) because honestly, then they'd have nothing to talk about or have to talk about sexism, so they
but branch off in an interesting comparison between the two as products of their times and inherently tied to them, but while this works to Cap's favor it holds Wonder Woman back because her basic reason for leaving the island was to fight Nazis. Not world peace, but to kick Nazi ass. Take that out and you're left floundering trying to give her purpose creating embassies and all sorts of things that aren't that interesting. I'm sorry, but even if she were a man, no one wants to read about the adventures of an ambassador of peace. Superman fights for truth, justice and the American way. Batman fights crime. Wonder Woman fights...for peace, which is contradictory. They also suggest that maybe what she needs is to be more like Cap and just accept the permanent tie to WWII and also be fighting for the dream of what America could be. While I love Cap to death, I'm not entirely comfortable with making Diana back into a nationalist hero. On the other hand, she surely needs something. Something other than David E. Kelly.

Here's the link: http://io9.com/5736950/why-is-captai...yline=true&s=i

Thoughts?

[Alan2099]

Good point.

As for the issue of it having to be Nazis, that can be updated. Maybe in the newer version she could leave to fight some more up to date real world terrorist organization, or if that hits too close to home, perhaps a fictional country or some Death-Cult or something.

[BnL]

Oh, good. Another "why Wonder Woman sucks" article. I didn't bother reading the entire thing, because it's rubbish.

[pippl]

There's no reason that a movie Wonder Woman couldn't have a World War II origin and then, as an age-defying Amazon, simply continue her crimefighting over the intervening decades.

I can sort of envision a montage of our heroine fighting bad guys from the 1950s to the 2010s, perhaps using scenes inspired by the period-appropriate comic books, at which point the movie's main narrative takes over. Our heroine would then have the best of both worlds, like Cap. She would have fought the good fight then and is still fighting it now.

It would also excuse the costume. There'd be a funny scene about how, after all those years, she decides to update her look to NuDiana, only to find that everybody insists she go back to her classic outfit.

You probably couldn't get away with it in the comics because it would screw up DCU continuity, but for a stand-alone film franchise it might work -- rather like that Wolverine movie where he's been knocking around for over a century. Or the WW TV series where our heroine has a history of fighting both 1940s Nazis and 1970s psychic disco skateboard UFO thugs.

[Hamdinger]

Or she fought in WW2 kicked Nazi ass then went back home and only returned to the outside world recently. Is that so damn hard? I guess DC thinks so.

It would also make Wondy a bit more of a big deal when she returned! But instead we got Donna 2.0 or whatever.

[Silvermoth]

Interesting article. I wouldn't classify it as a "Why Wonder Woman sucks" story. It's more of an interesting interpretation of her mythos. I for one never thought of her going to Patriach's world for a reason other than her idealogy but because she has to go to fight off a big bad is pretty cool.

[Death Itself]

Oh, good. Another "why Wonder Woman sucks" article. I didn't bother reading the entire thing, because it's rubbish.

Except that's not at all what it's about, but don't let what you see as judgements based on ignorance stop you from making some of your own.

Or she fought in WW2 kicked Nazi ass then went back home and only returned to the outside world recently. Is that so damn hard? I guess DC thinks so.

It would also make Wondy a bit more of a big deal when she returned! But instead we got Donna 2.0 or whatever.

Actually, that's what Byrne wanted to do and when he couldn't he put Hippolyta in WWII.

[T Hedge Coke]

This

Of course they dismiss the most obvious and actual reason (gender) because honestly, then they'd have nothing to talk about or have to talk about sexism

says more about the problem with contemporary Wonder Woman than any four letter word beginning with N and ending with azi.

If she does nothing badass and remains understated or whatever, she isn't a hero, if she does't something superheroic, too many people have sarcastic "stab at empowerment" responses leap out of their throats reflexively. She isn't allowed to be an ambassador, too often, or to be a superhero, without having to cut down her capacity to be accomplished at either.

Wonder Woman was created - however patriotically - to not toe the American line. It's amazing to me that a transgressive figure like Wonder Woman got the market it got when she was introduced to the world, but it seems like most narrative use - indeed, most conversations about her, like this article linked here - do their damnedest to avoid any transgression or remotely useful confrontational material. And, too often, they do this by making her a parody of Feminism and unity. Or, forgetting that the female experience is the human experience (as much as the male), and reducing it to overwrought didactic metaphors.

That said, I think a good number of writers have done her right Post-Crisis and in modern animation, many by selecting the parts of her concept, character, and world that work for them, so that it can be done with veracity. Let's not forget, they spent tons of money, time, effort and designs trying to generate a film for a Superman with "the eyes of a killer." Batman, in almost every film context, lacks one of the most identifiable marks of comics' Batman, his refusal to kill (or let die). The Crow was a considerably nicer person in the film adaptation, while the Mask was nearly unidentifiable in tone. But, there are reasons why whenever Xena or Buffy or Kill Bill or what have you come around, people immediately ask if it's the next Wonder Woman or today's, and it may have something to do with the fact - all other positives or negatives aside - those shows, those movies, those properties do not shy away from the confrontational, the transgressive aspects that arise from the basic superhero deal or from having a woman who is violent for good.

[BnL]

Except that's not at all what it's about, but don't let what you see as judgements based on ignorance stop you from making some of your own.

I was talking about the article you linked, not your post. Although your post does include the words "inherent flaw in Wonder Woman." So yeah.

And I read enough to know exactly what kind of article it was, so I'm not making an ignorant judgment. The entire concept of the article doesn't work for me, because I disagree that Wonder Woman doesn't work unless her origin is tied to WWII. It's an erroneous assumption on it's face, as far as I'm concerned.

Every once in a while, someone decides that they, and they alone, have it all figured out about why Wonder Woman is so destined for failure. And if DC/WB would only do THIS or THAT, she'd be a smashing success. But if we raked over every minute, petty detail of any superhero, we could come up with dozens of things to nitpick about. Personally, I think she's a great character as is. Is there some room for improvement? Sure. But I'm not convinced that her "problems" are as crippling as so many people seem to think.

[Hamdinger]

Or she fought in WW2 kicked Nazi ass then went back home and only returned to the outside world recently. Is that so damn hard? I guess DC thinks so.

It would also make Wondy a bit more of a big deal when she returned! But instead we got Donna 2.0 or whatever.

Except that's not at all what it's about, but don't let what you see as judgements based on ignorance stop you from making some of your own.

Actually, that's what Byrne wanted to do and when he couldn't he put Hippolyta in WWII.

Oh god, I am thinking like Byrne now! Does this foreshadow that I am destined to be a mean crazy guy in a few years?

[Wonder39]

I take I09 with a grain of salt for the most part but like a broken clock can be right twice a day, sometimes they get it right, as in their examination of why Captain America has a movie and Wonder Woman does not. Of course they dismiss the most obvious and actual reason (gender) because honestly, then they'd have nothing to talk about or have to talk about sexism, so they
but branch off in an interesting comparison between the two as products of their times and inherently tied to them, but while this works to Cap's favor it holds Wonder Woman back because her basic reason for leaving the island was to fight Nazis. Not world peace, but to kick Nazi ass. Take that out and you're left floundering trying to give her purpose creating embassies and all sorts of things that aren't that interesting. I'm sorry, but even if she were a man, no one wants to read about the adventures of an ambassador of peace. Superman fights for truth, justice and the American way. Batman fights crime. Wonder Woman fights...for peace, which is contradictory. They also suggest that maybe what she needs is to be more like Cap and just accept the permanent tie to WWII and also be fighting for the dream of what America could be. While I love Cap to death, I'm not entirely comfortable with making Diana back into a nationalist hero. On the other hand, she surely needs something. Something other than David E. Kelly.

Here's the link: http://io9.com/5736950/why-is-captai...yline=true&s=i

Thoughts?

First, the writer couldn't take the time to spell "Hippolyte" or "Hippolyta" correctly.

Second, their point that WW's mission was soley to fight Nazis is flawed-- the very images from her origin that were selected for the article mention nothing about Nazis


Granted, it is implied that she will be fighting the big bad of the time--she's fighting the Axis (Nazis were a part of that) but officially her mission is to "fight the forces of hate and oppression" and to "go forth to fight for liberty and freedom and all womankind".... Was every one of her GA adventures against the Nazi forces?--no She fought plenty of other baddies that sought to force their will and power over the innocent. Do those adventures not count because they didn't involve the Axis forces?

Also, that was her Golden Age origin-- Silver Age Diana had no Nazi threat to bring her to America, neither did Post Crisis Diana.

This paragraph seems ill conceived:

"More recently, I'm just not sure why the Amazons decided, after 2,000 years, to send their best warrior to the United States — it seems to have been so that she could be a kind of ambassador and lecture us about peace and love and shit. Which seems like a weird thing to send your reigning bullets-and-bracelets champion to do. And the explanation of why she's dressed in an "America-fuck-yeah" outfit gets more and more confusing — it's all Greek mythological symbolism. Meanwhile, the writers have tried a bit to reconnect Diana with the Greatest Generation, by changing it so that Diana's mom, Hippolyta, was the one who visited our world in the 1940s as Wonder Woman."

In the previous paragraph he talks about the Perez reboot-- yet in the above paragraph he acts like that is a different Diana than today's Diana (not counting crazy timline shift Diana) and The Hipployta as Golden Age WW is no longer in continuity. No one seems to realize that a mission of peace really isn't that crazy for her. She comes from a Utopian society-- the DC Amazons aren't the war-monsters as depicted by myth!! Her gifts (I hate to call them "weapons") are mostly defensive-- bracelets to deflect attack, a lasso to ensnare a foe... Only under serious threat has she/should she brandish armour and heavier weapondry (If I see one more image of her with a sword and shield I'll barf...lol) She's not a pacifist-- she tries to solve situations peacefully, and if that is not possible, it's about subduing an adversary by whatever means needed, in order to protect the innocent.

I'm kind of sick of folks who profess a love or interest in WW, yet seem to rail against everything that she is.... make her more Xena, make her more kick ass, she needs to be reinvented, less mythology, more urban, she needs a new costume....*sigh* It even feels like the writer wants her to be Cap. America....!

"And the other problem with Wonder Woman is, the farther you take her away from the World War II setting, the more everything to do with her turns into Greek Gods talking God talk. You wind up with Clash of the Titans set in the present day."

Now, the writer does mention they hate the myth stuff (again, why bother reading WW then?)-- but there were a TON of Golden Age stories that dealt with mythology and the gods....

Matt
I'm just bitching now.... lol

[brettc1]

If you go back and look at Iron Man's origin issue, he is fighting communism is South East Asia, and in later issues Vietnam is specifically mentioned.

Fast forward forty years, and the conflict that turns Tony Stark into Iron Man has shifted to the Middle East. The enemy now is not communism, but terrorism and genocide.

The point is, what is good for the gander is good for the goose. Just because the threat of facism is not the greatest threat to world freedom at the moment does not mean that another threat could not easily be substituted, which is exactly what George Perez did over twenty five years ago.

As for nobody being interested in a warrior for peace - somebody better explain that to George Lucas, so that he can give back all that money he has erroneously made from movies and tv shows about those kooky Jedi Knights.

[LightningRider]

They could always just say she's off to fight Ares, cuz y'know, he's all ready to start trouble and war and all that.

Yeah, I don't have anything productive to say.

[Wulfmir]

Nice points. Wish there was someone out there who could make Wonder Woman work and have the creative freedom to do so.

[Cardinal!]

If you go back and look at Iron Man's origin issue, he is fighting communism is South East Asia, and in later issues Vietnam is specifically mentioned.

Fast forward forty years, and the conflict that turns Tony Stark into Iron Man has shifted to the Middle East. The enemy now is not communism, but terrorism and genocide.

The point is, what is good for the gander is good for the goose. Just because the threat of facism is not the greatest threat to world freedom at the moment does not mean that another threat could not easily be substituted, which is exactly what George Perez did over twenty five years ago.

As for nobody being interested in a warrior for peace - somebody better explain that to George Lucas, so that he can give back all that money he has erroneously made from movies and tv shows about those kooky Jedi Knights.

He admits that the Perez reboot with Ares and the nuclear holocaust is a sufficient update, but then presumes that this no longer works in a modern context and acts on the assumption that her current origin is just that she left the island for the sake of spreading peace with no workable catalyst left in her origin. First of all, it's the DCU, not the real world; I don't think we need her origin to recap those exact sociopolitical factors of the '80s in order to maintain most of the '80s origin. Ares is a god of war and a manipulator; he manipulates people to go to war. We don't necessarily need the Cold War factored in there. I'm not saying the exact script and story for "Gods & Mortals" has to be maintained forever and ever, but the author seems to assume that it's invalid now and then makes the further jump in logic that this means she needs to be taken back to WWII in order to have a justifiable origin. And his solution is to make her like Captain America and have her get stuck in ice or stuck in a time warp or something, because of course, an obvious duplication of another well-known hero won't be damaging at all to her character or mythos? Does anyone really take this seriously?

Personally, I agree with Brett, that an origin grounded in the current climate of terrorism, political insurgencies/corruption, and genocide could work actually pretty well for a Wonder Woman movie, and could more effectively establish the relevance of her mission of peace for all of the annoying people who keep insisting that an ambassador who works to promote peace and stop war is boring and stupid and uninteresting for a super-hero movie. Um, have you people not noticed the breadth of conflict material there is in the real world alone for a character who fights threats against peace to be a totally kick-ass idea for a movie? Nuclear arms? Religious wars? Power-hungry dictators? Crimes against humanity in the third-world? Suicide bombers? Biological warfare? Mass murderers? Anyone? To say nothing of wargods, witches, demons, mad scientists, and were-cheetahs?

To hell with all that, we need more NAZIS!!! Because, you know, there's nothing evil and bad going on in the world now to fight against. *eyeroll*