reading all the comments I understand why many think that superman is boring, his personality is boredom taking control over a body, you can not be more bland. The modern superman has gone from a man of action to being a submissive by nature.
ww the way I see it is a tsundere
If you find responsibility to be boring, sure, I guess he could be boring in that sense. I personally think it's one of the most complex and interesting conflicts to have.
As far as Wonder Woman, from what I read just now tsundere means someone who is very temperamental/ hotheaded and hostile at first but becomes warm and fuzzy after a while. This definitely isn't Diana. I think she is curious and wonderfull, but not like a young schoolgirl.
[QUOTE=Ascended;5334959]Oh, I'd suggest you hit up the WW forum, I'm pretty sure there's a dedicated recommendations thread and the folks there are more knowledgeable about Diana than I am.
But for myself, I really enjoy both of Rucka's runs (one from the early/mid 00's and one in 2016) and a huge chunk of how I view Diana is informed by his work. I like the original 40's material by Marston (which requires you read it kinda slanted, to account for the change in eras and social norms), Perez's run from the 80's (I think it's over rated, but still good), and....I wanna say Jimenez in the 90's? Was that a thing? Might be crossing my wires on that one. Probably a few more worth mentioning that I'm forgetting too. Simone almost had a fantastic run in the 00's, but was hobbled by having to uphold a previous status quo that didn't work for me at all.
I also liked a lot of what Azzarello did in the New52, but it's a really weird, uneven thing. The stuff where he hits, he hits perfectly (like Diana's characterization and the pantheon) but when he missed, he missed big (like the Amazons). It was well written, but a super, super slow burn with a lot of horror elements and....I dunno if I'd say I recommend it as a WW fan, but I think it's overall interesting and worth reading if you like Azzarello.[/QUOTE]
Jiminez's run was from the 2000s.
[QUOTE=Ascended;5334959]Oh, I'd suggest you hit up the WW forum, I'm pretty sure there's a dedicated recommendations thread and the folks there are more knowledgeable about Diana than I am.
But for myself, I really enjoy both of Rucka's runs (one from the early/mid 00's and one in 2016) and a huge chunk of how I view Diana is informed by his work. I like the original 40's material by Marston (which requires you read it kinda slanted, to account for the change in eras and social norms), Perez's run from the 80's (I think it's over rated, but still good), and....I wanna say Jimenez in the 90's? Was that a thing? Might be crossing my wires on that one. Probably a few more worth mentioning that I'm forgetting too. Simone almost had a fantastic run in the 00's, but was hobbled by having to uphold a previous status quo that didn't work for me at all.
I also liked a lot of what Azzarello did in the New52, but it's a really weird, uneven thing. The stuff where he hits, he hits perfectly (like Diana's characterization and the pantheon) but when he missed, he missed big (like the Amazons). It was well written, but a super, super slow burn with a lot of horror elements and....I dunno if I'd say I recommend it as a WW fan, but I think it's overall interesting and worth reading if you like Azzarello.[/QUOTE]
The high point of Azarello's run was Cliff Chiang's artwork. That man can [I]draw[/I] and his character designing was incredible.
Azarello's run would have been fine if it was an original series under the Vertigo imprint or if the protagonist was Artemis and the 'Amazons' in the story were the Bana or if the story was about Cassie Sandsmark who was already the daughter of Zeus in the previous continuity but even the weird stuff with Ares acting like a mentor would have clicked more. As it was I think it did more damage to WW especially now that you have all these people claiming that Azz finally 'fixed' WW and the movie not only cemented Zeus as her father but also made him the creator of the Amazons.
It is one thing to be responsible and another is to be submissive, Superman is submissive.
Batman is responsible (among other things) because he thinks about how to stop his teammates if necessary. Superman is submissive, because he leaves that responsibility to someone else.
Lois leaves and begins to live alone in a hotel, superman accepts it without more, submissive.
Jon wants to go with a psychopathic grandfather, superman instead of acting like a father accepts that Jon leaves, submissive.
More than once I've said that I don't like ww, maybe that's why I see the worst of the character.
[QUOTE=NaVi;5334970]reading all the comments I understand why many think that superman is boring, his personality is boredom taking control over a body, you can not be more bland. The modern superman has gone from a man of action to being a submissive by nature.
ww the way I see it is a tsundere[/QUOTE]
Well, that's what happens when you make a character as ISFJ afraid of his own power. Superman with his Golden Age personality and Silver Age powers could take over the world and remake it if he wanted to. Not only is that a scary thought, but it would also mean that the DCU would deviate more from our reality in terms of government and science, which would make it harder to write and less relatable-- It'd be a bigger fantasy than it already is.
Steve Rogers has the same personality type, but his lower power level allows him to be more proactive without making huge cultural waves or scaring people.
[QUOTE=SecretWarrior;5335690]Well, that's what happens when you make a character as ISFJ afraid of his own power. Superman with his Golden Age personality and Silver Age powers could take over the world and remake it if he wanted to. Not only is that a scary thought, but it would also mean that the DCU would deviate more from our reality in terms of government and science, which would make it harder to write and less relatable-- It'd be a bigger fantasy than it already is.
Steve Rogers has the same personality type, but his lower power level allows him to be more proactive without making huge cultural waves or scaring people.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, comics have long abandoned fantasy and focused on reality, which gives great strength to characters with a lower power level, but turns the most powerful into empty casings.
I knew Ascended would nail it and add some great layers. You're all welcome :p
To pick your brain some more, how do you feel about some of these scenarios? The OP was also trying to examine how they would both act differently in specific situations and whether they have distinct enough voices in stories with internal League/Trinity disagreement.
[QUOTE=Lightning Rider;5331817]I liked the earlier attempts to try and think of scenarios in which the both would react very differently.
I think the lasso of truth is almost a cheat in the sense that Diana can avoid a lot of difficult moral dilemmas by eliciting the truth from actors with ambiguous intentions. So the situation with Hawkgril in JLU could largely be resolved by putting the lasso around her and asking if she could be trusted. Though I guess asking for that in itself implies a lack of trust. Does being such a staunch believer in truth mean that she takes betrayal doubly seriously? I could see her asking her to take the lasso test as a show of good faith. While Clark would probably try to redeem her the good old fashioned way and just give her a second chance, without requiring more (though not without watching her closely).
In fact, I see Diana's use of the lasso as a liberty that Clark wouldn't be entirely comfortable with. Sure he infringes on people's privacy from time to time, but he probably sees the lasso as borderline coercion, an extrajudicial inducement of confession. But Diana sees the truth as a universal good that can't ever be bad.
That said, I can also see Superman going in guns blazes against someone he honestly and reasonably thinks betrayed him, puffing out his chest and asking direct questions, whereas Diana would be more patient at the outset.
I guess I'm arriving at the conclusion that Superman may have more of a temper, but generally respects institutions. Diana is more clear-headed, but has stricter morals that operate outside of man-made institutions.
The Ozymandias situation is a tricky one. I could see her wanting to spill the beans right away, but then compromising to let the truth be known after 10 years or something like that, if humanity can keep the peace.
Let me think of some others:
If the gods, particularly the more benevolent ones, came down and gave Diana a controversial mandate, I think she would instinctively follow their lead, so long as she thought it was with good intentions. She might defy them later, but Clark would be skeptical from the jump, if their demands were significant. For example, if Athena & Aphrodite asked Diana to preach and open temples in communities that had lost their way, in exchange for blessings, she might do it. Whereas Superman would be like, "1. I don't owe these 'gods' any special reverence, and 2. this is going to seriously rock the boat and make humanity dependent in a way I don't like."
I also think that if it came down to an actual war with humanity, in which both sides committed blunders and made mistakes, Diana would side with her Amazon sisters and fight to protect them. Whereas Clark would side with humans if Kryptonians could only exist by inevitably replacing humans. "Krypton had its chance", type of deal. Maybe my perception is colored by the fact that the Amazons are more uniformly good, but it also has to do with their actual relationships to their respective civilizations.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=NaVi;5335524]It is one thing to be responsible and another is to be submissive, Superman is submissive.
Batman is responsible (among other things) because he thinks about how to stop his teammates if necessary. Superman is submissive, because he leaves that responsibility to someone else.
Lois leaves and begins to live alone in a hotel, superman accepts it without more, submissive.
Jon wants to go with a psychopathic grandfather, superman instead of acting like a father accepts that Jon leaves, submissive.
More than once I've said that I don't like ww, maybe that's why I see the worst of the character.[/QUOTE]
Batman is not responsible. He is a control freak, but not responsible. The whole robin concept is proof of that (not just talking about Jason). He also creates the tower of babel by allowing the plans to be stolen. And all the complaints you pointed out are things from Bendis run, which plenty of Superman fans didn't like.
I like this question. Given that Wonder Woman was raised to be a warrior and Superman was raised as a human (and taught to blend in), you can see how their upbringing shaped who they are today. Superman is more of a pacifist while Wonder Woman can more easily shift into warrior mode and discard any compassion that could get in the way of justice. Superman can also have a more "fairy tale" view of the world while Wonder Woman, again relying on her warrior upbringing, can see things like they truly are.
[QUOTE=GeekSlop;5335927]I like this question. Given that Wonder Woman was raised to be a warrior and Superman was raised as a human (and taught to blend in), you can see how their upbringing shaped who they are today. Superman is more of a pacifist while Wonder Woman can more easily shift into warrior mode and discard any compassion that could get in the way of justice. Superman can also have a more "fairy tale" view of the world while Wonder Woman, again relying on her warrior upbringing, can see things like they truly are.[/QUOTE]
I think if you read through the thread, you'll find that more than a few people have made a strong case for Diana having the even more idealistic outlook when it comes with dealing with enemies, and Superman having more of a temper, even if he's slightly more reluctant to take a life.
[QUOTE=GeekSlop;5335927]I like this question. Given that Wonder Woman was raised to be a warrior and Superman was raised as a human (and taught to blend in), you can see how their upbringing shaped who they are today. Superman is more of a pacifist while Wonder Woman can more easily shift into warrior mode and discard any compassion that could get in the way of justice. Superman can also have a more "fairy tale" view of the world while Wonder Woman, again relying on her warrior upbringing, can see things like they truly are.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lightning Rider;5335998]I think if you read through the thread, you'll find that more than a few people have made a strong case for Diana having the even more idealistic outlook when it comes with dealing with enemies, and Superman having more of a temper, even if he's slightly more reluctant to take a life.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I totally disagree with Geekslop, but I also don't think Clark has a temper. I think if anything he is the one that has yo put himself the check the most. He has to be very responsible with everything he does, because it's far too easy for everyone to get scared of his powers, which means they are less likely to trust him and listen to him.
[QUOTE=Lightning Rider;5335760]I knew Ascended would nail it and add some great layers. You're all welcome :p
To pick your brain some more, how do you feel about some of these scenarios?[/QUOTE]
Me? Well.....
[QUOTE]I see Diana's use of the lasso as a liberty that Clark wouldn't be entirely comfortable with. Sure he infringes on people's privacy from time to time, but he probably sees the lasso as borderline coercion, an extrajudicial inducement of confession. But Diana sees the truth as a universal good that can't ever be bad.[/QUOTE]
Diana definitely sees truth as something external. Of course she does; everything in her culture from the sunrise to the harvest to intangible things like love, wisdom, and art, all come from external (godly) sources.
Clark, however, thinks that perception influences truth. How many times has he interviewed a group of witnesses, had them describe the same event, and gotten different stories from each of them, everyone convinced they were being utterly truthful? And you see this in his duality too; both "Clark" and "Superman" are the "true" him, and who he is at any given moment depends on the context. Of course, Clark's a habitual liar anyway, even about things he doesn't need to lie about (like his secret identity). And don't confuse "truth" with "morality." Clark's still got that binary world view, but being an outsider who never fully understands people has driven home the fact that one person's truth isn't necessarily the same for all others. It's an inverse of his black-white morality, and this is part of what causes him such stress when his binary morality is crashed up against his more fluid views on truth (like using lethal force).
So yeah, Diana trusts the lasso utterly, and it'd be a failing of hers if the damn thing was wrong more often. Clark, however, sees it as a tool; powerful and useful when used correctly but damned dangerous if not applied in its intended way.
[QUOTE]I guess I'm arriving at the conclusion that Superman may have more of a temper, but generally respects institutions. Diana is more clear-headed, but has stricter morals that operate outside of man-made institutions.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Clark most definitely has more of a temper than Diana. He's become very good at controlling it, but go look at an issue where Jon gets beat up a little or kidnapped by a Bat, and you'll see what kind of temper Clark actually has. Clark's temper is quick to ignite and quick to die, but with Diana, it takes a lot piss her off but once you do, there's no calming her down.
[QUOTE]The Ozymandias situation is a tricky one. I could see her wanting to spill the beans right away, but then compromising to let the truth be known after 10 years or something like that, if humanity can keep the peace.[/QUOTE]
In this case....yeah, tricky. Diana's love for truth would be completely at odds with the political machinery of Man's World, and it'd drive her nuts. Hard to say what she'd do and I think she could potentially come down in any number of ways....but Ozy being Ozy and manipulating everyone....I think Diana would reveal the truth immediately and use it as a call to action in an effort to unite everyone (ironically not far off from Ozy's own plans). But if the situation were just slightly different, she might compromise.
Clark wouldn't put up with Ozy's sh*t for one minute, for any reason, especially to protect a political system that's clearly been corrupted.
[QUOTE]If the gods, particularly the more benevolent ones, came down and gave Diana a controversial mandate, I think she would instinctively follow their lead, so long as she thought it was with good intentions. She might defy them later, but Clark would be skeptical from the jump, if their demands were significant. [/QUOTE]
Agreed. I mean, Diana doesn't trust the gods completely, she's been screwed over by them often enough, but they're still her gods and she's still their champion and at the end of the day, she'd follow them unless she was given a good reason not to. I also agree that Diana would side with her Amazon sisters in a conflict with humanity (assuming neither side was clearly in the right) while Clark would defend humanity from Krypton.
To be honest, I have no problem with their personalities being so similar. It makes such a unique dynamic when touched upon in comics that I feel is a unfortunate rarity nowadays.
It's this selfish-less streak and commitment to help others that make them the pinnacles of their respective genders when it comes to being a superhero, something that Diana's creator admitted though he thought that women are better suited for that role. It's these characteristics that make them stand above the other heroes that do it for other reasons such as a tragedy in their past.
It's also for all of the above that I enjoy the idea of shipping them together I suppose as I've found it interesting that they share this unique mindset that others don't seem to understand and that they stand as those who people aspire to be that I've seen posts online as couples who are inspired by them and dress as them together to be like them.
[QUOTE=Ascended;5334700]
Diana's an aristocrat, and accustomed to authority and rule. In her mind, it is correct and right for the masses to trust those who have been put above them and it is natural and right for Diana to often be the one who carries that burden. However, in the philosophy of loving submission, the Amazons view authority *very* differently than we usually do; it's about submitting to the people in every respect, not influencing your own views onto others (except Man's World; the whole WW mission is to get us to accept the clearly superior Amazon philosophy).
Clark doesn't share that trust in authority, he's American. And we can see this very clearly with their "civilian" ties; Clark's a journalist, who's job is to uncover the truth and reveal corruption while Diana usually works with some from of military, government, or intelligence agency, and while she may not trust individuals in those positions, it's almost always "you betrayed your authority" and not "the system is wrong."
[/QUOTE]
While I agree with everything that was posted in the above quote I did buy recently the Superman vs wonder woman newspaper size book which was a story set in WW2. In the story Wonder Woman was distressed that America had the capability of nuclear weapons which eventually lead to a fight between her and superman.
After a team up to save the day from Axis themed supervillains superman and wonder woman went to the white house where president Roosevelt promised to not to use nuclear weapons to kill which as we know in history class wasn't true. What's interesting is that superman walked away believing him while Wonder woman was more skeptical but hoped for the best. So sometimes I guess belief in systems can be reversed for the characters as well.
What I've found to be a difference in characters that I feel that hasn't been touched upon is the differences in their birth and how they were raised. Diana was not only born in a paradise but that she was also raised there and didn't know anything else. While Clark was born on a planet that held a society of great achievements but due to the planet's destruction was forced to be raised on earth, only with stories of his inspiring home world and great parenting from his earth parents to help him develop into the man he becomes.