I think most people see Wonder Woman as the classic comic character, a stereo-typical do gooder with a hot body. Lynda Carter brought the image to life on TV (nobody thinks of Kathy Lee Crosby if WW on TV is mentioned). Rose McGowan could certainly fill out the costume, but making an interesting character is the hard part. Any changes to that classic character will be a problem for a general audience. A period movie set back in the 40s or 50s might work as it did on TV. That would allow WW as feminist to make sense again. A Superman supporting role could make the old fashioned do-gooder role more credible.
Yes. God,* thank you* for finding a comic costume design that isn’t completely stupidly modernized, or completely hoary and lousy-looking in real life.
I mean, trying to redo guys like the Phantom is probably hopeless, but people can sure as hell do a lot better than what’s been done with a hell of a lot of superheroes.
Yeah, I was a HUGE comic book fan back in the day (Silver Age/Bronze Age/Molybdenum Age).
And I TRIED to like WW. Never succeeded. Read all the comics, watched the TV show. Meh. Sorry!
Put me in the “make up a new heroine” camp.
With good writing, anyone can be a hero. A new mythos can have as much impact as an old one. Notice how a previous poster said “female Rorschach” without having to explain “Y’know, Rorschach, the guy from Watchmen who…”. He was so well written that it’s as if he’s been around for ages.
So, I’m gonna call up Whedon (or Gaiman or Morrison or Stryzinski(sp?) or David or Waid, but we’re getting less name recognition as we go…) and tell 'em to write a new femme fatale so that she’s suddenly as important as WW in our modern culture.
You lucked out that no one got a post in before yours. Every time I try the Kuick Klever Kumback™, someone sneaks ahead of my post with a comment like:
Whedon already did. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the modern Wonder Woman. Not only has she crossed over into Whedon approved comics, but there are plans to reboot the series as a movie franchise with a new cast. Buffy has officially gone from being one man’s creation to a shared character with multiple interpretations like Batman or Superman.
Whedon already did that.
ETA: Must…read…thread…before…posting. :hangs head:
The answer? Because to do the character justice and to stay true to William Moulton Marston’s characterization, there’d have to be a fairly significant S&M presence (with both Wonder Woman dominating other men, and WW being dominated by other men), and that just would not go over at all in these politically correct times (especially the Wonder Woman-being-dominated part).
There was a recent Animated Wonder Woman complete with origin story that I thought was really well done and proved to me a feature film could work.
Comic adaptations are hard because they are different mediums and some things that look good in comics look terrible on screen. WW’s costume might be one of those things, I don’t know, but the character could easily work.
Has any WW story line ever acknowledged directly or indirectly, the more or less overt lesbian overtones of the “no men allowed” Isle of the Amazons from whence she originated? I’ve read a few WW stories which showed some slices of life on Paradise/Themyscira Island, but they reference nothing beyond the face the women are doughty warriors who get really pissed if men invade their sacred space.
According to TVTropes:
Other than the aforesaid note by Diana you noted, “acknowledged” where and how?
Has any version of the comic paid any attention to Marston in the last 50 years? Would even 1% of the movie audience know that it ever existed?
If I knew that, I wouldn’t have quoted TVTropes.
A point that was well made in the Civil War storyline that Marvel ran a couple of years ago. Short form: All the heroes split into two faction, one led by Iron Man that believed that all superpowered people should be registered with the government and be subject to review, training, liability for their actions etc etc. The other was led by Captain America, who believed in freedom no matter what.
In the “Civil War: Frontline” series, a journalist gave Cap a dressing down for essentially causing the Civil War by standing up for his ideals and what he believes America is, when he is so far removed from “real” America he arguably doesn’t know anything about it.
This is how it went down:
I vaguely recall a Justice League story where at one point all of the female members were taking coffee together and chatting, and one of them said something which unchallenged would imply that all the Amazons were lesbians, and Diana maintains her silence.
Cap’s out of touch because he doesn’t watch the Simpsons & NASCAR?!! Yeah, as if America is its pop culture & nothing else. :rolleyes: What a sad idea of the Republic that writer had. But I digress.
It’s pretty long established that while some other Amazons may be lesbian (if only for lack of options) Diana is mostly attracted to men. Though there was a nigh-asexual stretch for a few years there from the mid-1980’s to the mid-1990’s.
Note that my last paragraph is a good way to start an argument among Wondy fans.
But since the '80’s relaunch, her major romantic entanglements (Mr Barnes; Mr Tresser; the Hindu god Rama in an ill-advised story never to be referenced again) have been male. It’s even this way under writers that acknowledge Amazon bisexuality &/or homosexuality. Diana gets pursued by both sexes, often futilely (an Amazon named Io, unless I missed an issue; various males), giving the impression that she’s really oblivious or just doesn’t have much drive in that area.
That said, she seems to relate more easily to women as friends or surrogate family (Julia, Nessie, Tasha, the other Julia, Donna-that’s-actually-her-sister, the other Donna, Etta, Cassie) when she has a writer who can write those kinds of relationships. Which makes sense. Where it gets trippy is when those fans that think she’s “really” bisexual try to figure out which of those relationships would really be a lesbian coupling if DC editorial & marketing would allow it. :dubious:
The version before 1986 was* typically* written as straight. Maybe ambiguously bi. And yeah, I have one Justice League Task Force issue that implied Diana was merrily lesbian (by a fill-in writer who’s never been asked to write the regular Wondy book or the regular JLA book, so…yeah).
So, yeah, it’s come up. Occasionally.
Not really. The examples the reporter used have nothing to do with what America is about. They are pastimes, nothing more.
Although, if the rest of the US is as obsessed with trinkets as she is, she might be right.
The point was that he is so far removed from the everyday lives of the majority of Americans that he is in no position to be making decisions about what they stand for. Who, apart from himself, decided he was the one to be making those decisions?
To be honest, you are making a similar mistake. Something that isn’t important to you isn’t automatically unimportant to everyone.
Just to clarify, we’re talking about whether human rights violations are more important than stupid Youtube videos. If you think there is any justification for believing this is false, we’ll have to take this to Great Debates or the Pit.
Human rights violations aren’t at all the point. There were human rights violations far worse in the 1940s than there are today, but society choose to look past them. Cap isn’t a hero because he suddenly realized that human rights violations existed 60 years late.
The point is what Cap defines as American. That one-time near universal definition - minus the people thought of as less than human, let alone not really American - no longer exists. The American populace has split into segments that make that basic definition in wildly different ways. Insisting on one over the other just alienates half of America. Not very useful for a supposedly universal symbol.
Noting that Cap doesn’t even recognize the culture he is supposed to represent is a legitimate complaint, one that could never have been tossed at the Cap of the 40s. If it were the only complaint against him you might have a point. But even the whole Civil War fiasco, which was at best a failed attempt at political comment and more accurately was a prolonged exercise in stupidity, had more to it than that.