RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books is ww REALLY one of dc's "big three"?

batman - several cartoon series.
superman - a cartoon series.
wonder woman - shares a series (with above).

batman - 4 recent films.
superman - 4 quasi-recent films, and 2 good tv shows.
wonder woman - 1 quasi-recent tv show.

batman (and all related indica) sales - BIG.
superman (and all related indica) sales - BIG.
wonder woman (and all related indica) sales - NOT BIG.

so what gives?

everyone knows these characters, comic fan or otherwise. they're all icons, they're all classics, and they're all, collectively, referred to as "the big 3"

... so then how come ww (and her book) doesnt reflect this? whats missing?

march 2002 diamond ratings:
wonder woman hits #58

... but both batgirl and catwoman (supporting bat-characters) surpass it, at 37 and 45, respectively.

first and foremost, she's a girl. and, when you're little, you cant like a girl hero if you're a boy. ... its the law! and, i guess, no matter how old you get, part of that always sticks with ya a bit.

then, there was the cost issue -- if i only had so much to spend, i didnt have enough to spend on "trying" other comics, like wondie, no matter how good they were sposda be.

now, i get all my DC books for free -- so that voids the above two reasons.

buuuut... im still not a religious follower of the book.

because i havent been following the book, i really have no idea who wonder woman is. i know the lynda carter show, and i know all the super-friends shows... so i know the iconic representation of wonder woman, but, really, thats about it.

and anytime i tried to get into the book, i was shooed away by new weird continuity twists (her dying, her not really being diana, hipo becoming wondie, them both dying, new wonder women, diana being a godesss, etc, etc). worst of all the twists was when diana became the "new" wonder woman (meaning that she was a relative new hero on the dc block, and that long stay guys like batman and superman were actually just getting to know diana, as opposed to her being one of the originals, like them.)

so, all that really just messed with my head so much, that it made it too annoying to try to get into the books.

but, being the stereotyped fan that i am, i, of course, love jla. and, the more i read jla, the more i really liked the wonder woman character -- her strengths, her persona, her interactions with other characers (especially male characters, and all the perceptions that intertwined within).

so, that said, there were often times i figured, "hmm... mebbe ill check into her book, too." ... but, when i got to her book, i got nothing but confusion.

there never seems to be a great "jump on" point in wonder woman books, for new fans to bounce in. its more so an ever-evolving story, that takes current fans on deep and turning adventures -- which is great for them! but, for new readers, like myself, its a big stumbling block.

making it less user friendly, the book always seems to be really complex -- lots of on going stories, lots of text blurbs and word balloons, lots of pre-established dialog, etc. again, great for current fans, but difficult for newbies.

granted, me am not smart, so... the afore mentioned lists could be somewhat innacurate as the "average new fans" perspective.

anyway, all that said... its difficult for me to adequately answer the question you've posed. personally, id rather the book focus on being more simplified -- rather thatn focusing on a specific thing to focus on (like being romantic or political, or whatveer).

the JL wonder woman, i think, would be a great stepping point. she's reacing 3 million tv fans weekly, as opposed to 200,000 (or so) monthly comic fans. so, she'd quickly become the more popular wonder woman of the two.

and, i think part of her appeal (as with the animated superman, batman, etc) is her simplicity! nothing is overly complex or burderend with continuity -- she's a new character, amalgamated with all the cool and various elements of comicdom's 60 years of wonder woman; which is a great throwback to older/current fans, and a great appeal to newer fans.

getting a creative staff on the book (or maybe even a second ww book) like dini and timm (famed for their simplifying of characters) would help tons of new fans to get into the wonder woman books.

i think that, more than anything, would better the book (at least for me).

But in a contest wonder Woman can still "kick thier asses"...shes too ingrained in public consciousness to ever not be DCs premiere heroine. I may be off base here but I'm assuming Wonder woman makes more money for DC as a liscensing property than any one comic.

but that makes it even more confusing as to her poor sales.

if she's SOOO popular... why isnt she SOOO popular?

ok, so, yer suggesting she gets a push.

where, how, n'why? (and by whom? ... and when, just for completion).

perez is a cool guy and is being critically praised (at least) for his pencils. reviews are mixed on the stories.

should there be another book? (im still thinkin a dini/timm style book'd do wondie some justice, and help gather some new fans).

should the "feared" byrne make a return?

if all the rumors are true, and catherine zeta jones (or whomever) dons the tiara in a motion picture, will that help bolster things? (or will it be campified, and drop things down a few levels?)

esplain!

...many...people...looking...at...these...very...words!

...aaah!

<center> <img src="http://www.auction.2y.net/user/prbearboy/DK2DIANA.jpg"> </center>

ok, this chick (miller's wondie) IS a man-monster!

i can see where you're headed in your opinions (to favor the "amazon" over the "princess") but i think you'd attract more follows to your opinion (and the book, itself) if you comprimised a little more.

lets face it, catwoman and batgirl can acheive higher sales numbers partly (mostly?) because of their tie in to uber-icon, batman.

to be perfectly honest, i haven't given the comic book wondie a fair shot in a loooong time. but, from what i've seen of her characterization in the JL cartoon, i think thats more of a direction that everyone would want to follow.

she's pretty, she's caring, but she'll smack you around if'n she wants (needs) to. she's got the glamor and the gladiator (i call her "glamiator")

from what i've seen of jiminez' take on the character/book (and i've seen more than i've read, as i've mostly just flipped thru the pages), he's got a great handle on the visuals. granted, i havent given his scribing talents a fair chance, but i agree with (and really like) his artistic value.

i, for one, DO think that diana should be purdy -- she's a perfectly sculpted goddess / princess / amazon... thing! yes, she should have a hard edge to her (discernable muscle definition, more pronounced jaw line, etc), but she doesnt have to be a beast.

for the most part, as i've said above, and in this post (and... well... just about anywhere) i love the animated series' teams. they have such a knack at applying characteristics EVERYone loves, from ALL generations, amalgamating the ultimate incarnation of any given character.

and, i think their wonder woman is no different (physically, story-wise, etc). which is why i stress creating an additional book, with more of the animated-style in its format genre.

(an additional benefit to the animated style is its "friendly" look -- its very welcoming to new readers, without readily shunning away long term fans).

~*KNEEL*~

She is one of only three super-heroes that have ben conitinuously published since her creation in 1941. She is the most recognizable super-heroine in existence and one of the few to ever grace the cover of a national publication.

In terms of sales and marketability, there have been several occasions where her comic was sellign very well (Perez, Loebs, Byrne) and every little girl used to want to be Wonder Woman, devouring her lunchboxes, costumes, underoos, etc.

The Superman and Batman phenonena was spurred on by their respective movie franchises, animated series, etc. Wonder Woman has not yet been given this type of attention.

Remember, there was a time when Superman and Batman could not touch the success or popularity of the X-Men or Spider-Man. DC decided to invet in these characters' untapped potential. They have yet to do this for Wonder Woman.

What could turn this around? If you goal is to make Wonder Woman a viable franchise, let Alan Moore, Neli Gaiman and some big name artist take over the comic, have Warner Bros develop an animated series.

And please...please...don't have Sandra Bullock star in the movie!

*LOL*

its definitely true that, for some of her 60 years, wonder woman stuff was produced partially just so WB / DC (or whomever they were at the time) could hold on the the respective copyrights.

so, in that respect, it truly is simply an homage to the history (or potential future).

but, tho she's not as succesful as many other DC heroes, id still state confidently she's a 3rd of the big three. those who actually purchase and follow comic books and their sales might know better, but this wouldnt make her any less an icon! (and her icon status is assured, even by things as "silly" as the tv show, or the wonder woman shot glasses that filled the shelves at the former WB stores).

but, to the comic fans... why if its "so obvious" that she's one of the "big 3"... is she simply not one of the "big 3"?

a movie would be a big help, but no guarantee ( if you think sandra bullock would be bad for the character, im sure you wouldnt wanna talk to the steel fans about shaq ).

justlice league seems to be her greatest gift. the comic book (at least when the current series first began) gave wondie immediate attention, more than likely the most comic book attention she's received in... ever? excellent exposure. and, of course, the cartoon, JL, is an amazing outlet for her (figuring on 2-3 million who turn in and see her, 3 times a week).

but has any of this really carried over to her title? can she hack it on her own, without the aid of the other big names on the team? is her current title too different from the wonder woman we get in JLA or JL? if jim lee and jeph loeb took over for a year, would that turn things around?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
is her current title too different from the wonder woman we get in JLA or JL?

---

Like Heaven and Earth...just read it dude...I love the current JLA storyline(THE GOLDEN PERFECT) cuz in it she is portrayed as a fiercely passionate warrior,and the JL cartoon she shows kickass pizzazz... not to mention that she speaks like a human being...not too mundane,but not like the stilted way she speaks in her own book!
Read the WW book and you'll see...too wordy,boring,static..
she is bloodless and colorless,and seems to simply react to all around her...

Now for the reason why she's lasted so long, I'd recomend a reading of some of the original Wonder Woman stories from the Golden Age, when she was written by creator William Moutlon Marston, aka "Charles Moulton". If the character's popularity today hangs on the TV show from the 1970's, well the TV show was made possible by the massive success of the original Wonder Woman comics. And these succeeded because they were brilliant!

This Wonder Woman was an extremely vibrant, quirky, and exciting character, in her own way every bit as original and unforgetable as Superman, Batman, or any cape in comicdom. An early feminist, Marston had very specific ideas and opinions that he wanted to get accross, some very basic, some very specific, some downright bizzare, but all very deeply felt. He knew how to get them accross in ways that noone since has ever been able to approximate, much less surpass.

Wonder Woman in these days was a superconfident free spirit, bimming over with attitude and humor. The wonderful thing was that her moxie was not a matter of (unnecessarily) hurting anyone else, or a "holier than thou" attitude. Wonder Woman had attitude that came from confidence in herself, not a need to cut down others. There is something about the way she approached a villain a villain that was funny and powerful at the same time. For instance when some thugs were shooting at her, as she deflected the bullets she remarked "You boys shouldn't get so excited. It ruins your aim!"

And her compassion was every bit a part of what made her so powerful, not in any way a compromise. She was probably just about the first superhero to make an active effort to reform her villains, with some notable successes, Baroness Paula Von Gunther being a well known example. She always believed in her heart in the good inside all people, and she had the ability to bring it out.

As Diana Prince she was the rarest of secret identities for the time. Diana Prince may have dowdy and demure, but never "mild-mannered". The SI might have started as a disguise (actually an impersonation by origin, as seen in Sensation # 1), but it quickly became her real personality, Diana being Diana without the extra bagage of the costume and fame. She was strong-willed and willing to stand up for what she believed in without changing into her costume. This was decades ahead of its time, indeed the post-CRISIS Clark Kent sometimes reminds me of classic Diana Prince.

Steve Trevor was also an original and inspiring creation, a man who was not merely unthreatenned by a woman who was infinitely more powerful than he--he was turned on! He loved Wonder Woman, loved to be a part of her magical world. He was a secret fanasy of us male fans, a human man who got to be Wonder Woman's boyfriend, a (non-super) hero in his own right, but who would always be saved by an omnipotent guardian "Angel".

Etta Candy was the "fat" sidekick, a basic concept which at the time was common, but Etta herself was not common. She had every bit as much confidence and moxie as Diana. She ate candy, lusted after men, helped Wonder Woman save the day, and never gave any apologies or explanations for who she was. She wasn't nearly a member of a sorority--she was their leader, and she led a score of vibrant young women into Wonder Woman's cause with her. She and the Holiday Girls were frequently the recipent of calls on the "Mental Radio" to assist, and occassionally even save WW from danger.

Paradise Island was the fufillment of all of Marston's ideals, a land where women were free to develop skills and knowledge far surpassing the world of men. They worshipped the godesses Aphrodite and Athena, and had lively rituals in traditions borrowing both from Paganism and Marston's own psychological concepts of "Loving Submission". (See the "Diana's Day" celebration in Wonder Woman # 3) The fact that no men were arround at all may have been an unintentional compromise to the feminism though, as if to say that they couldn't have been the rulers if there were men arround to compete with them.

Unfortunately Dr. Marston had to go and die, and there has been noone since who could quite pull the character off in the same way. Writer-editor Robert Kannigher did significant damage, with twenty years of mind-numbingly repetetive stories and a relatively wimpy characterization of Diana that compromised much of the feminism in the concept. In the late 1960's and early 1970's she was reinvented by Mike Sekowsky and Denny O' Neil as a powerless Avengers-type character. Some of the feminism was restored and some exciting stories created but the character was almost unrecognizable.

Her costume, secret identity, and powers were returned to her in 1973, but unfortunately so was Robert Kannigher. After he mucked up the origin and continuity Martin Pasko did bring some interesting moments in, remembering Diana's toughness and spirit but not always delivering a great story. The TV show was, without a doubt, the most influential thing that happenned to Wonder Woman in the 1970's. In many ways the show was unforgetable, despite its flaws in scripting and direction, showing much of the excitement, moxie, and compassion of the original comics. However the late 1970's comics were largely unmemorable, with endless "filler" writers doing little or nothing with her, but things did turn arround (artistically if not commercially) in 1981 with a mini-revamp.

There were some very interesting stories in the last years of the first series, most of which unfortunately were completely ignored by comic buyers. Writer Dan Mishkin, in particular, did wonderful things with Diana's characterization and with her supporting cast, modernizing them without losing the essential attributes of the character. But thanks to a poor sales it didn't last, and the book was cancelled in 1986.

After all continuity was erased in the CRISIS and a loving mini-series called "The Legend Of Wonder Woman" filled in, the title was restarted by plotter-artist George Perez and scripters Greg Potter, Len Wein, and eventually Perez himself. There was great tallent behind the reboot, as well as a clarity of vision and a knack for storytelling that is rare in any title. But much was lost in the translation to post-CRISIS. Though "humanism" was the stated goal, much of the feminism that was at the heart of the character fell by the waistside. Rather than attitude or even confidence, the new Diana radiated the more conventional idea of feminine innocence. Such longstanding hallmarks as the Diana Prince alter-ego, the relationship with Steve Trevor, and Amazon training and super science, were thrown out alltogether, making for an inherently different (and I'd say less interesting) Diana. The immediate results were nothing but positive--the clean slate, the freshness and the excellent art and storytelling led to vastly increased sales at the time. But in the long run, damage was done to the character that has never been fixed.

In short, the current character has very little to do with Wonder Woman, or at least what "Wonder Woman" used to mean. Even in stories where some of the old confidence seems to return, as with the run of William Messner-Loebs, it has come at the expense of the current continuity, and caused great anger among fans. In the last 7 years the title has been subject to writing that has ranged from uneven (John Byrne, and I'm afraid Phil Jimenez too, despite excellent art) to just plain bad (a dismal, depressing run by Eric Luke.) But I don't think the character can be saved even by the best writer without another comprehensive revamp. If the first series had a continuity that was too murky to continue with, well the second one has a characterization that is even more so.

Just my opinion.

Andrew

we have a firm vision of who and what she's about, many nay-sayers to the contrary. it's only for dc/aol-time-warner to stand behind and push that into public perception. honestly, the publicist in diana's book did more to promote her than dc ever has.

just a brief thought.

-kassandra

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:
she's been written very well by both george perez and phil jimenez-kassandra

---

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkherelikeitornot:

Jimenez? Written well by Jimenez?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

[/LIST]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:
yes, for those who like a diana that's deeper than a paper cut.

[/LIST]

---

http://hometown.aol.com/akirsc5653/myhomepage/index.html

Andrew

and as far as my niece goes, it's really sad that a teenager who loves diana and finds inspiration in her should find such a (somewhat) sad lot of malcontents who many times display a total ignorance of the message the book teaches. that's okay, at least there are a few kind people left on the boards.

enjoy your hatefulness. it affects only you.

-kassandra

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkherelikeitornot:

Yep,for those who like Diana,the glamorous gay icon/diva with the Barbara Cartland dialogue and the paper thin "characterization"
Yep,being a "brilliant" writer must be a BITCH!
Oops,hope your niece doesn't see this post...I gues she's better off reading the constant boy/boy flirting and the constant celebrity "outing" that goes on in the WW boards!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MisterK:
If the character's popularity today hangs on the TV show from the 1970's, well the TV show was made possible by the massive success of the original Wonder Woman comics.

---

never read the first few years of ww, and im certainly too poor to do so now but, you're right -- these heroes are around today because they were around (and at least surviving) years ago.

being around 60+ years is a great claim to fame, and even without any other redeaming qualities, helps bolster popularity.

but im not sure if thats why people know her as part of the iconic "big three" (?). i mean, plastic man was around for just as long (tho not as frequently published, of course) and even starred in his own cartoon series (a feat even wondie hasnt done... yet). and yet he would never be classified as a big three guy. hula hula, maybe. but not plas.

mebbe if taking the "one thing lead to another" approach, you can say that this lead to that and eventually to the lynda carter show (which, personally, i think made her more popular than anything else before or since), but... i dunno if the original incarnation, alone, could justify her as one of the top dawgs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MisterK:
She was probably just about the first superhero to make an active effort to reform her villains, with some notable successes, Baroness Paula Von Gunther being a well known example. She always believed in her heart in the good inside all people, and she had the ability to bring it out.

---

intriguing! an actual "hero!" (btw, do you know if these are collected in a tpb of sorts? mebbe one o' the archive books?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by MisterK:
The TV show was, without a doubt, the most influential thing that happenned to Wonder Woman in the 1970's. In many ways the show was unforgetable, despite its flaws in scripting and direction, showing much of the excitement, moxie, and compassion of the original comics.

---

i still gotta go with "most influential thing of all time," as far as the tv show is concerned. character development, costume, plots, villains -- all of it be damned. when a hero gets on the big or small screen, they're made infinitely more popular. and tv shows, more than movies, have a way of permanently seeping into the mindset of the culture -- for better or for worse!

id say the same thing for the 1960s batman show, which, more or less, would define the character to the masses, probably up until the 1989 movie. and that batman only over-dominated the adam west version because of the tim burton movie's blockbuster attraction (and several follow ups).

it has nothing, really, to do with the comic character or book. no bearing on development of storylines. and could quite possibly create or destroy anything accomplished before or after it in comics, just because the movies/tv shows reach a larger audience (for 20+ years, america thought batman danced! and since the late 80s, people are confident he'll murder if need be!!)

but no matter how he is/was perverted... he's remembered because of (rather than inspite of) his screen appearances.

and, id say the same is true for the lynda carter wonder woman show. this, more than anything, stands the best chance of keeping diana in the "big 3" league.

but, like you said... this has little regard for her comic book and/or comic book audience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MisterK:
But I don't think the character can be saved even by the best writer without another comprehensive revamp.

---

mmmmmebbe. im a big fan of character revamps and updates. even if unsuccesful, it at least appears to be an attempt to update the character for a new audience.

however, with characters like wondie, batman, and superman... you have to be extraordinarily careful (duh). because they've been through many years, many fans, and many generations, you have to find a way (regardless of how impossible it is) to have the character appeal to new fans and older fans, at the same time!

and VERY few can handle this chore, artistically or storywise. guys like pad and byrne attract a split fan base, unfair or not. rucka has done amazing things with batman. i feel the same way about loeb for superman (tho many disagree).

but, better'n all of'em, again, id have to say is paul dini. storywise, i cant think of anyone better to write an appealing character. bruce timm utilizes the same comic magic. they just have this ability to merge variations of the character to its best incarnation. the best costume, the best personality, the best power level, etc. its uncanny how well they handle their version of characters.

introducing a second wondie title, with these two on board, could only do the character good. critical acclaim, no doubt. character development, certainly. id wager it'd even bolster sales on the existing wonder woman book (and perhaps lend a few ideas and techniques).

i know i'd become a regular fan!

quote:

---

Just my opinion.

---

and yer more than welcome to it!

as is kassandra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:
until dc actually stands behind diana firmly, and promotes her as "one of the big three" i don't think that the public or fans will take her as such. she's been written very well by both george perez and phil jimenez, but that tends not to appeal to those, one suspects, who were weaned on lynda carters portrayal of diana.

---

absolutely.

again, the tv show hit a few million people, weekly. the comic, maybe a few hundred thousand monthly, at best. thats just how the business goes.

and, while id never advocate removing the comic book version, in favor of an on-paper tv version... taking ideas and aspects of what the public knows best, and integrating them into the mainstream comic world couldnt hurt, as long as its properly balanced between both sets of audiences (sounds soooo easy! ).

and, tho it may be the unpopular theme (and certainly not the best of ways to go about promoting it)... funky does have a right to his opinion, as well. im sure there are quite a few fans out there that would like to read about a stronger (physically and otherwise) character for wonder woman.

but, again, i dont think it benefits anyone, fan or character, by going to an extreme, regardless of direction.

there are ways to beautifully combine all aspects of diana, to get the warrior, the peace-keeper, the princess, the amazon, the hero, the woman and the womyn, to merge together. what these ways are? ... y'got me! (and, apparently, decades of authors, as well!) its excruciatingly difficult to please everyone (or even most).

i dont think you could possibly fault a writer for doing their best. even if you're not a fan of jimenez, you cant deny that he obviously has a huge and loyal following. he must be doing something right for the character

quote:

---

(btw, do you know if these are collected in a tpb of sorts? mebbe one o' the archive books?)

---

The two volumes of Wonder Woman Archives are your best bet, and a third one comes out as well this May. They're not cheap (about $50 bucks a volume, I'm afraid), but they are infinitely cheaper than finding all the original issues! Archives is the source for the vast majority of my knowledge of the Golden Age WW.

Archives # 2 is the one which features Paula Von Gunther's reformation, reprinted from Wonder Woman # 3. From the same issue there is also a story featuring lively scene featuring the Amazons' rituals for "Diana's Day".

BTW back in the 1940's you could say WW had two books, her own title and the headlining spot in Sensation Comics.

Andrew

so were you a fan of wondie, and then read up on teh golden age, and decided you liked those best? or was that your first real exposure?

I think that Wonder Woman is one of dc's big three because she's the only character that along Superman and Batman has her title being published since the golden age, the other characters that are as old as her, have not this extraordinary record.

Alas, Wonder Woman isn't very respected, and sometimes not even by the very own house that publishes her. In this last volume of Wonder Woman (as I intend in the first one too), the inconsistency is an understatement.

About what's happening right now, well, I'm not liking it, and since I think we could talk a little more freely here than in the Message Boards, I think that sometimes, Phil talks very much alike his Wonder Woman in the comic. I respect everything about him on a personal level, but I cannot forgive him, for making her sound so corny and at times... so foolish!

As I've stated before, I respect the fact that Mr. Jimenez wants to clarify some things, but, come on, read his answers in that interview when talking of the Message Boards, try to forget you're reading an interview and could almost swear is the Diana we read in the book!

I can't forgive him for this, he must return us our Diana, not this muppet...

consider the world diana was born into, her gods/spirituality and the important role they play in her life, and the innocence she knew before coming to our jaded shores. it only stands to reason that she is always going to be taken aback somewhat by the arrogance of humans with regard to great gaea, her children, and our very own. accepting that and going with the superficial is simply not in her nature.

what i'd really find curious is why so many fans are threatened by this very honest depiction of diana. she really isn't that impossible a role model to follow. what is it about her world view that frightens some people? i think this by the number of posters who rush like lemmings towards the most shallow vision of diana. yeah, let her toss around other super-powered beings, move mountains without breaking a sweat...but never, oh never, reveal the woman within. and gods forbid that woman should be any different from the rest of us. it simply won't do. how sad. doesn't anyone care for *diana* at all?

-kassandra

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polux_Dioscuros:
<snip!>

I can't forgive him for this, he must return us our Diana, not this muppet...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:
and which diana would that be? this is the first time in at least a decade that diana has sounded like herself again. could it be that those who complain that she just isn't herself simply never knew her to start with? it really seems like most fans don't care one way or the other about diana herself, as long as someone is wearing the red white and blue.

consider the world diana was born into, her gods/spirituality and the important role they play in her life, and the innocence she knew before coming to our jaded shores. it only stands to reason that she is always going to be taken aback somewhat by the arrogance of humans with regard to great gaea, her children, and our very own. accepting that and going with the superficial is simply not in her nature.

what i'd really find curious is why so many fans are threatened by this very honest depiction of diana. she really isn't that impossible a role model to follow. what is it about her world view that frightens some people? i think this by the number of posters who rush like lemmings towards the most shallow vision of diana. yeah, let her toss around other super-powered beings, move mountains without breaking a sweat...but never, oh never, reveal the woman within. and gods forbid that woman should be any different from the rest of us. it simply won't do. how sad. doesn't anyone care for *diana* at all?

-kassandra

---

But THAT is exactly what everybody complains about....THERE IS NO WOMAN WITHIN....What Jimenez gives us is a bunch of platitudes about love dressed as WW. I want a real character,consistent and true to WW's essence,but interesting and exciting! Phil loves the character,but his skills as a writer are too small,he needs to expand his vision beyond the simplistic LOVE IS ALL WE NEED universe that he thinks WW operates on! Characterization is way more than a dry husk talking about how the world needs love! If you,Kassandra feel that is all WW is about,too bad! As a character,that is simply too little. We need a complex,fleshed out,slightly flawed person,not an idea,not a romantic notion.
And please,HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE DIALOGUES ?
Do they really sound less than corny and hackneyed to you?

I knew little about the Golden Age apart from the very, very few stories I could find reprinted. But once Arhcives came out, and I parted with the dough, I knew I had found the Wonder Woman I had always wanted from the comics. Arhcives # 2 was even better; I think Marston's storytelling skills progressed as went. And I also got my mits on the book put out by Gloria Steinem in the 1970's, reprinting some Golden Age stories, including a key one introducing Dr. Psycho.

Andrew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Viking Woman:
Wonder woman needs to toughen up and get some direction. I also think the Jla angle would work. Right now she is just not very interesting to me.

---

huh! i didnt even see this first time around. heya vk! and good call on the jla bit

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polux_Dioscuros:
Hi Funk... Viking Woman, my dear, you look so good here! , Kassandra, Mister K... a lot of people from the Message Boards here, a big hello to all of you.

---

i know! scary, right?? (heya polux!).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polux_Dioscuros:
About what's happening right now, well, I'm not liking it, and since I think we could talk a little more freely here than in the Message Boards, I think that sometimes, Phil talks very much alike his Wonder Woman in the comic. I respect everything about him on a personal level, but I cannot forgive him, for making her sound so corny and at times... so foolish!

---

well, yer free to say whatever you want here. i know the admin, he's cool

i guess i cant speak on this much, either. since im not that great of a ww fan, and i havent followed phil's stuff in heavy detail, i cant pass judgement. i dont have a "my wonder woman." i can relate to what you're saying, tho. my guy has always been batman, and when he's "not being treated fairly" (and please note, "fairly" just means "how you want" ) i feel cheated and betrayed. but, at the same time, others might rejoice in finding something that caters to them! weird sorta trap.

like with batman, people have different view points, none more poingniant than the "caped crusader" vs the "dark knight." neither incarnation is more 'right' than the other, tho popularity swings back and forth.

i think you're finding the same kinda double sided coin here, in ww. some want the offensive amazon, some want the princess hero. one isnt right and one isnt wrong, they're just different perspectives. as kassandra and all the other phil-phollowers know, this is great for them! polux and viking woman and funky are mebbe just lookin for the other half.

but other than the [broken record]dini/timm animated book idea[/broken record] there's really no way to deliver both halves (or the countless other variations) in one book.

this is a great example as to how adding another book would help satisfy fans ('detective' - crime stories, 'batman' - action stories --- maybe wonder woman needs the same kinda break down, for a spiritual and warrior book, etc).

quote:

---

Originally posted by MisterK:
Rob-I became a Wonder Woman fan thanks to the TV show, then got on board with the comics arround 1980 or 1981.

---

ah ha! -- i knew it! tv show fan!

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:
and which diana would that be? this is the first time in at least a decade that diana has sounded like herself again.

---

Now what exactly is Diana being "herself"? Since ten years ago was when George Perez left, I'm going to take it you mean his version. I find his version well-crafted and intellegent, but not definitive. Love or hate the Potter-Perez-Wein relaunch, it is a major departure in details, personality, and in spirit from the original concept.

quote:

---

could it be that those who complain that she just isn't herself simply never knew her to start with? it really seems like most fans don't care one way or the other about diana herself, as long as someone is wearing the red white and blue.

---

Well if that were the case noone would be complaining, as long as she appeared in the red, white and blue!

quote:

---

consider the world diana was born into, her gods/spirituality and the important role they play in her life, and the innocence she knew before coming to our jaded shores. it only stands to reason that she is always going to be taken aback somewhat by the arrogance of humans with regard to great gaea, her children, and our very own. accepting that and going with the superficial is simply not in her nature.

---

To tell you the truth I find the early post-Crisis Diana to be cloying. Like I said above, the very picture of feminine innocence, a fairly sexist ideal of a "the perfect woman" gorgeous virgin, a wide-eyed innocent, who goes out and prays naked, but seems to have no concept of her sexuality, except for a rather disconcerting fantasy of Superman as a godlike being.

I suppose you could make an argument for it being realistic, her having come from where she did--though I'd still say the conept is a far cry from the real Wonder Woman, a woman who is very aware and very much in control of her sexuality, with a superconfident outlook--but even accepting that the Perez characterization, I would then have to say it couldn't last forever. At least not unless she flew home crying and then hid under her bed for the last ten years. Sooner or later she would have to grow up, learn to understand the ways of the world arround her, and assess her role accordingly.

I would have to say that William Messner-Loebs explored that idea very well, and if anything I think that was when she was finally "herself" again. This was the post-Crisis Diana, but taken to the next level. Now she was no longer really naive--she knew the world wouldn't always conform to her expectations--but she was still idealistic. She still never let anything compromise her ideals. And now she had the confidence to to be who she was and fight for what she believed in. And she loosenned up a lot, showing she had a sense of humor. Etta Candy grew more comfortable with Diana, adn the pair had a merry friendship again for the only time in post-Crisis.

Now under John Byrne and Eric Luke, she pretty much felt like a nobody, or at least nobody in particular. Just a drawing on the page soeaking her lines, a relatively friendly nobody under Byrne, an aloof whiny nobody under Luke. Now under Jimenez there are times I see traces of both the Perez and Loebs characterizations, but there are times when I don't feel much more of anything than I did under Byrne or Luke. Things are sometimes a bit too "surface". If there is a distinct Jimenez hallmark, it must be that suspended look of shock in Diana's wide eyes, which may be recognizable, but does get old fast.

[quote]what i'd really find curious is why so many fans are threatened by this very honest depiction of diana. she really isn't that impossible a role model to follow. what is it about her world view that frightens some people? i think this by the number of posters who rush like lemmings towards the most shallow vision of diana. yeah, let her toss around other super-powered beings, move mountains without breaking a sweat...but never, oh never, reveal the woman within. and gods forbid that woman should be any different from the rest of us. it simply won't do. how sad. doesn't anyone care for *diana* at all?[QUOTE]

Kind of a braod generalization, don't ya think? Not liking this version doen't necessarily mean being "frieghtenned" by it (and I'm not so sure I'd rush to call this version "honest" either, but then I already ranted about that enough above.) Nor does it mean wanting only a "shallow" version of the character. There are more than two varieties of Wonder-fandom, not just "Perez fans" and "dumb guys".

In all honesty, I'd have to say Jimenez is a clear improvement after a rock-bottom run by Eric Luke and his Diana's lock-herself-in-the-wonderdumb-and-whine mentality, not to mention Luke's say-nothing-with-pomp-and-pretention apprioach to writing. Jimenez has ideas, some surprising and intriguing, some maybe not so much. But they aren't always fully realized. Perhaps with a good scripter/co-plotter, and with strong editorial direction, we could have better results overall.

Andrew

quote:

---

Originally posted by kassandra:
and which diana would that be? this is the first time in at least a decade that diana has sounded like herself again. could it be that those who complain that she just isn't herself simply never knew her to start with? it really seems like most fans don't care one way or the other about diana herself, as long as someone is wearing the red white and blue.

This is the first time that Diana that someone is trying to make Diana to sound as she were 10 years ago, granted, in DC Continuity, it has ellapsed around six or seven years (Power Company: Starfire), now, plese Kassandra, don't tell me that you do not change after seven years when doing something... surely you weren't the same at first grade than when in junior high... why? Because you evolved. I don't want Diana to be transformed into a blood thirsty monster, eating the guts of her defeated enemies, I want to see a complex character, such as she, since her very concept is complex, to be developed.

I haven't said ever, that I'm an expert on Wonder Woman, nor I'm an expert writter, I just read and like my favorite character to become more interesting, and make people wrong when reduce Diana into the simplistic notion of the 'woman in the star spangled bikini'.

consider the world diana was born into, her gods/spirituality and the important role they play in her life, and the innocence she knew before coming to our jaded shores.

Consider that a lot of us, as childs, were blessed by the fact of having an stable home, such things such as evilness and so on, are very far (if not misunderstanded concepts), but Diana grew knowing the horrible things made to her race by the gods and men (don't tell me that being banished into Paradise Island to guard the Doom's Doorway wasn't horrible please), so she wasn't in this 'perfect bubble' you want us to believe she comes from. She was (until Phil decided to throw that concept) the Princess of a Warrior Nation (I invite you to re-read the Perez' run, and you will see that Diana wasn't so naive and corny as this Diana, remember the Blood Moon saga? She was NEVER poisoned, yet, she knew to recognize this. In the middle of the story, we saw Diana killing a deer, because she have to learn this concept. Diana was taken aback when learning the true intentions behind Barbara Minerva, the words of the Silver Swan, etc., and yet she never said something as ridicule such as 'How could you be so cruel!', remember what happened when Circe revealed to her the true destiny of her aunt? She cried, but she fight back because she was then a PRIDE warrior, longing for an objective in her life. This Diana is so contempt with the so little things she could do, that is amazing that we see a Diana more conflicted with herself in another book such as JLA than in her own book!

it only stands to reason that she is always going to be taken aback somewhat by the arrogance of humans with regard to great gaea, her children, and our very own. accepting that and going with the superficial is simply not in her nature.

See above. I would like to add, that even when saving people, Diana was a warrior, remember when she was midwife to the baby of Vanessa's psychologist? She fought against the fears the baby was believed to have by the evil Dr. Psycho. She fought, yet, she demonstrated how corageous and decisive she could be. If it were the Diana is now, we would've seen Diana crying and crying until Donna or anybody else, told her what to do.

what i'd really find curious is why so many fans are threatened by this very honest depiction of diana.

She do not sounds as a woman. She sounds as Phil talking through her mouth... read the interview and his way of speaking, it's frightening!

(But I must say that I do not agree when he was attacked on a personal level, I just can critique his work)

she really isn't that impossible a role model to follow. what is it about her world view that frightens some people?

What frightens me is that someone believes that this Wonder Woman is the true great character is really... this is just a muppet.

i think this by the number of posters who rush like lemmings towards the most shallow vision of diana. yeah, let her toss around other super-powered beings, move mountains without breaking a sweat...but never, oh never, reveal the woman within.

I'm not a woman, and I would never even believe I could think such as a woman... but I think this is sometimes a rather, too visceral Diana, and I insist that it sounds... superficial to me. I don't mind to see Diana alone or surrounded by a thousand superpowered monkeys, as long she's presented as an evolving character, and not as stagnant and retro such as this. Phil is just trying to imitate Perez's rendition, but he has to realize that HE IS NOT GEORGE PEREZ, nor this are the 80's revamp of a character that by now, must have evolved.

and gods forbid that woman should be any different from the rest of us. it simply won't do. how sad. doesn't anyone care for *diana* at all?

I ask you the same question? Do you want Diana to be portrayed always the same?

-kassandra

Just clarifying, I don't bear any particular grudge against you, you're a fellow poster and I respect your points of view, it's just that... should I dare to say this? I breath a little more liberty here to express myself.

In any case, let's think that in some discussions, new light can be achieved, and certainly, I'm not closed to the good things that Phil has done for our Amazing Amazon. Some things I've liked, some things, I do not, but I aknowledge his enthusiasm into trying to do the best he can, is just, that for me, hasn't been enough.

---