Wonder Woman - General Discussion

[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;6143555]I think Morrison definitely views Marston's (and therefore the Amazons') philosophies and flawed and bizarre, and they're entire approach to Wonder Woman was satirical. The original Golden Age strips had some political satire in them, and Max Lord!Ares consulting with his generals in Volume 3 brings more of that flavor.

I don't know if Morrison necessarily firmly sides against the Amazons as they've written them though. Realistically, the Amazons saying "screw it" and using their superior technology to take over the world is problematic and ominous, because a monopoly of power like that is dangerous. it'd be similar to Miracleman where the human race becomes a joke by surrendering their power to the superior God-like beings and being changed by them. On the other hand, taking a casual glance at the world around us (particularly with the situation in Ukraine and here in the US)...the idea of the Amazons taking over honesty has some appeal at this point.[/QUOTE]

I did like the stuff with Ares and his flunkies but I do give a major knock to it for including Max Lord (even if it's more In Name Only). Dude's got zero business in modern stuff let alone stuff that's a pastiche of the Golden Age.

[QUOTE=bardkeep;6143705]Just as a heads up, Morrison uses they/them pronouns and doesn't identify as a man! But I will now go on to explain why I hate Earth One.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=SonOfBaldwin;6143710]They aren't a man. They are non-binary, which means neither man nor woman. Thank you.[/QUOTE]

My bad! thank you !

[QUOTE=bardkeep;6143705]Everything about it screams "we didn't have a single woman on the entire creative team." It speaks volumes that the editor was later fired from DC following sexual harassment allegations. I don't think Morrison meant to mock the character and I can see the care that went into the book, but I do think they profoundly missed the point and it's salt in the wound knowing we could have gotten a Greg Rucka/JH Williams III book instead.

First off, if the first pages of a GN are a graphic, fetishized scene of a man attempting to sexually assault a woman, even if that scene ends in the victim's retribution...that shows a fundamental disrespect for women readers. It's basically the opposite of the intense care that Kelly Sue DeConnick and Phil Jimenez put into depicting violence against women in a way that wasn't triggering or exploitative.

Also I didn't think her origin could get worse than Daddy Zeus but Morrison somehow pulled it off. I've said it before and I'll say it again - subverting WW's mythos just means opting for the hegemonic narrative. The idea of a woman bearing an incredibly powerful child through her own love and the love of her sisters and their goddesses is deeply subversive. Making Diana the child of Hippolyta's rape by Hercules, making said rapist the source of Diana's power, and warping Diana's intended mission into Hippolyta's rape revenge fantasy that she has to be taught is wrong...there's nothing subversive or feminist about that. Diana acting as the embodiment of the Amazons' liberation and working to repair the relationship between man's world and the Amazons is a really important part of the character IMO, but to frame the Amazons as hateful misandrists and Diana's olive branch as "not all men" is the exact wrong way to do it.

And then there's the bondage. The bondage fetishism is laid on so, so thick, with just a tiny scrape of the thematic depth Marston put into it (and I say that as someone who detests the bondage obsession in early WW comics). That scene with Diana putting a collar on Black Steve was in such bad taste that I have to wonder if they spoke to a single Black person before including it.

It just sucks that Morrison's All-Star Superman showed so much admiration and respect for the character's mythos while their Wonder Woman hyper-focused on bondage fetishism and warped (or just misinterpreted) a lot of the essential political messaging. And the fact that a huge part of her arc involved her being manipulated by a PUA is just...ugh, regardless of intent. There's a place for that story, but it shouldn't be told in a book that's meant to get to the absolute core of what the character stands for, and it certainly shouldn't be told when there isn't a single woman offering substantial creative input.

The only things I liked were (a) Diana actually addressing and welcoming non-cis women, (b) actually showing the Amazons in queer relationships (including Diana!), (c) the return of some of Marston's sci-fi elements, and (d) no sword/shield warrior woman. And there were some cool ideas in there - I like the premise of the government being so threatened by Diana's radical message that they take military action, and the idea of writing the Amazons' dialog in dactylic hexameter was pretty cool even if it did read awkwardly at times. But any merit is outweighed by the undercurrent of misogyny.[/QUOTE]

I can agree with many of the things you expose, both positively and negatively, but I insist that I do not think that Morrison wanted to make fun of Diana or her myth, nor do I think that he wanted to disrespect her on purpose, I doubt that he has sitting down to think about how he was going to make Diana look bad.
With respect to everything else, like Azzarello, he has had a chaotic vision linked to a lot of premises that do not quite encapsulate what Diana represents for many of us. But I want to believe that there have been good intentions, even though hell is paved with them.

[QUOTE=bardkeep;6143705]And then there's the bondage. The bondage fetishism is laid on so, so thick, with just a tiny scrape of the thematic depth Marston put into it (and I say that as someone who detests the bondage obsession in early WW comics). That scene with Diana putting a collar on Black Steve was in such bad taste that I have to wonder if they spoke to a single Black person before including it. [/QUOTE]

She didn’t put the collar on him. She offered to and he turned it down and she didn’t understand why because putting a collar on someone is like a “going steady” ring on Thymescira. Not that that doesn’t make the scene problematic but she didn’t force it on him.

What I found to be in bad taste personally was when she grabbed his crotch to “feel” if he was a man. That kind of joke is a about as poor taste to me as a man “accidentally” falling on a woman’s breast’s.

[QUOTE=bardkeep;6143705] It just sucks that Morrison's All-Star Superman showed so much admiration and respect for the character's mythos while their Wonder Woman hyper-focused on bondage fetishism and warped (or just misinterpreted) a lot of the essential political messaging. And the fact that a huge part of her arc involved her being manipulated by a PUA is just...ugh, regardless of intent. There's a place for that story, but it shouldn't be told in a book that's meant to get to the absolute core of what the character stands for, and it certainly shouldn't be told when there isn't a single woman offering substantial creative input.[/QUOTE]

Someone should do a Superman: Earth One but with silver age Superman’s personality. :p

Way different story.

[QUOTE=Sebastianne;6143701]Do you really believe that a man who declares himself as Non-Binary, and who went through a whole process of self-discovery as an adult, would mocking of Diana and her concepts?
I believe that her declaration of love on Earth One is totally sincere and respectful, perhaps not the best, but with good intentions.[/QUOTE]

You could be a woman and still write sexist crap.

You could be gay and still be racist.

You could be non binary and still be sexist.

No matter which category you fall into, we're all capable of the same errs.

[QUOTE=Guy_McNichts;6143650] By the time I finished the [I]Earth One[/I] books, I was left wondering if Morrison was celebrating Wonder Woman with these books or mocking her.[/QUOTE]

It may be a case of Morrison themselves not knowing which of these two stances to take. Or were deliberately going for both.

[QUOTE=Sebastianne;6143701]Do you really believe that a man who declares himself as Non-Binary, and who went through a whole process of self-discovery as an adult, would mocking of Diana and her concepts?
I believe that her declaration of love on Earth One is totally sincere and respectful, perhaps not the best, but with good intentions.[/QUOTE]

Morrison is human just like the rest of us. It doesn't matter who you are, there may be some subconscious biases at play in your art or unintentional insensitivity or tone-deafness when writing about something you can't directly relate to.

Morrison is a great writer (one of my favorites), but they are just as capable of whiffing every once and a while as anyone else. I think there are things in the books that are respectful and love letters to Wonder Woman. The last few pages to book 3 stand out. But it's definitely a mixed bag.

[QUOTE=I'm a Fish;6143733]She didn’t put the collar on him. She offered to and he turned it down and she didn’t understand why because putting a collar on someone is like a “going steady” ring on Thymescira. Not that that doesn’t make the scene problematic but she didn’t force it on him.

What I found to be in bad taste personally was when she grabbed his crotch to “feel” if he was a man. That kind of joke is a about as poor taste to me as a man “accidentally” falling on a woman’s breast’s.
[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah for sure, I should have said tried to put a collar on him but as you said, still really uncool, particularly under the pen of a white writer. Agree on the other point as well, and in general "Diana grabs a dude's package" is one of my least favorite bits that periodically pops up. See: the moment in Azzarello's run where she grabs Orion's crotch and threatens to castrate him and it's played for laughs...

[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;6143798]It may be a case of Morrison themselves not knowing which of these two stances to take. Or were deliberately going for both.

Morrison is human just like the rest of us. It doesn't matter who you are, there may be some subconscious biases at play in your art or unintentional insensitivity or tone-deafness when writing about something you can't directly relate to.

Morrison is a great writer (one of my favorites), but they are just as capable of whiffing every once and a while as anyone else. I think there are things in the books that are respectful and love letters to Wonder Woman. The last few pages to book 3 stand out. But it's definitely a mixed bag.[/QUOTE]

I don't think Morrison intended to celebrate OR mock. Maybe at first they had a value judgment in mind, but the tail end of volume 3 felt like a thought experiment - like they were legitimately trying to imagine what the most extreme sort of Marstonian utopia would look like, and writing from the perspective of someone who genuinely believed in that vision. It read as mocking because let's be real, Marston was a really weird dude. Yes, he had some amazing ideas that are still deeply resonant today, but taking everything he espoused equally seriously will obviously yield something ridiculous.

It's definitely an interesting concept, and the parts that explored it were easily the best parts of the project (including the last few pages of vol. 3, which I thought were genuinely brilliant). But it was nowhere near enough to redeem the whole series.

Kinda relevant vid

[video=youtube_share;adOJEoaRjVE]https://youtu.be/adOJEoaRjVE[/video]

Granted more about the Venus girdle than about Earth one.But it contains some Grant M quotes and somr interesting thoughts about it at the end.[I][/I]

[QUOTE=SonOfBaldwin;6143685]This. I actually finished the series feeling as though they were mocking the very idea of her.[/QUOTE]

#Yup

And almost expressly saying eff you to Feminists and her fans. Volume 2 is ESPECIALLY awful.

[QUOTE=Stanlos;6144569]#Yup

And almost expressly saying eff you to Feminists and her fans. Volume 2 is ESPECIALLY awful.[/QUOTE]

I did like the concept of psycho being like a MGTOW/PUA type and that he's just a short otherwise average looking guy. But I DID NOT like how Morrison had the "confrontation" go down.

The Batgirl news is seriously nuts. I'm guessing projects like Black Canary, Zatanna, Supergirl, the Michael B. Jordan Superman movie, and potentially Blue Beetle are on the chopping block next (though BB is planned as a theatrical release so maybe that's safe?). Very sad to see the tie that binds - all of these projects star women and/or people of color. I'm wondering if this is a sign that they're planning on either pulling The Flash or seriously reworking it so it doesn't set up a future for Michael Keaton Batman.

Regardless, it sounds like WW3 is in jeopardy and the Amazons spin-off that was seemingly in limbo is definitely dead. Yes, Gal's WW is rivaled in value only by Momoa's Aquaman and Pattinson's Batman (even The Rock's Black Adam isn't a sure bet yet), but everything's stacked against it. There's been almost no news about the movie since it was greenlit, it's still at least 3 years down the line, and after Shazam 2/Aquaman 2 it'll be the last remaining thread of the old DCEU. Plus WW84 was kind of a trainwreck and with the COVID/HBO Max situation there's no real proof of its financial performance in either direction.

I'm curious - how would people feel about a reboot? On one hand, I'd be really bummed for Patty if she couldn't close out her vision and we'd probably have a loooong wait ahead if they had to start from scratch. But on the other, it'd be kinda nice to start fresh. I'd love to see a director/screenwriter take the reins who doesn't have to deal with the lousy decisions Patty made with her mythos (killing off the gods, Daddy Zeus, Diana outliving her entire supporting cast...) and they could finally kick Geoff Johns to the curb. Plus now that Greg Rucka is doing more screenwriting it'd be a dream for him to write a WW movie. It'd really suck if they gave the franchise to someone who had no real investment in the character and/or decided to meddle in the creative process with demands that Diana be more warrior-like, but in the right hands I'd be happy to see a change of the guard.

Who even knows what's safe anymore.

Kind of worried they'll can the video game also.

I think WW3 will happen at least. Don't know if an Aquaman 3 will happen either.

Regarding a reboot; I would love it but we are still several years away from that. I'm not a fan of Gal Gadot and there is a lot of story problems in Patty's movies but I think she and Gal should at least close out their trilogy so the hand off to the next WW would be more elegant (if we get to see a next WW live action in our life times. >_>).

Official word from Zaslav is they want future DC movies to be "event" blockbusters made for theaters (unless you're Joker, I guess). Which means lower-key stuff like [I]Batgirl[/I], which was meant for HBOMax is getting flushed. I expect [I]Zatanna[/I], [I]Black Canary[/I], and maybe even [I]Blue Beetle[/I] are going to get similarly torpedoed.

But who knows what this will mean for Wonder Woman's future.

She's got cameos set for [I]Flash[/I] (assuming it ever gets released at this point) and allegedly the next [I]Shazam[/I], too. For what that's worth. I think it's safe to say--and most of us likely guessed already--that Amazons show isn't happening.
Last I heard, Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins have both said they're still in the script-writing stage of the next solo movie. Assuming Zaslav means what he says, [I]WW3[/I] would likely qualify as the type of blockbuster they'll keep on the slate. But they're still a long way, and a lot can change between now and then.

I won't lie, there's a strong sense of dread hovering over all this. Whenever these things happen, it tends to be the female-led and minority driven projects that get the axe first. Even though the first [I]Wonder Woman[/I] was a huge success, who's to say Warner won't decide that was just a fluke and pull the plug? Lest we forget the "no more female superhero movies" mandate they pushed on the animated films not that long ago.

And even if [I]Wonder Woman 3[/I] is safe, who knows what nonsense the executives might push in order to make it more of an "event?" Remember those awful rumors it was going to be a diet [I]Justice League[/I] with Hawkgirl, Supergirl, and other random female characters teaming up with Diana? Or the rumor is was basically going to be an Aquaman crossover?
I mean, [I]Black Adam[/I] is at least partially meant to lead to JSA movies. Who's to say they won't just use [I]WW3[/I] as a glorified advertisement for potential spin-offs?

Speaking of...I kinda cringe every time the Rock opens his mouth about [I]Black Adam[/I] and his hopes/plans for DC's future. It seems Dwayne wants to reshape the DCEU with him as the centerpiece everything revolves around. Not to mention his apparent insistence he stand at the top of the totem pole as the strongest, most unbeatable character of them all.
I very much dread what his "I will only take three punches and never lose" contract could mean in regard to Wonder Woman. Bad enough we saw her get stomped on in both versions of [I]Justice League[/I], do we need to see the Rock do it, too?

Woof. Warner/DC really is a mess. I just want [I]Wonder Woman 3[/I] to wrap up the trilogy, be about her, hopefully be good, and for that to be the end of her part in this sinking ship.

Beyond that...I'm not opposed to a reboot. But only if it's not part of shared universe. I'd rather DC as a whole take more of a page from [I]The Batman[/I] and just do self-contained movies.
But I have a feeling they won't do that. I have this fear that, much like the animated movies now, we'll only ever see Wonder Woman in [I]Justice League[/I] crossover films once Gal's movies wrap up.
[IMG]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1a/08/14/1a0814cd3ec79fd27b5ee7b14cdaa4fe.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Gaius;6146347]Who even knows what's safe anymore.

Kind of worried they'll can the video game also.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't be too worried about this, especially because it sounds like the game has been in development since 2019ish. It seems like the issues with the films stem from WBD totally changing their strategy around HBO Max (sounds like they may be consolidating it with Discovery+?), plus they've got a whole botched cinematic universe to deal with.

It's also very normal for games to be announced and then disappear off the map for a year. For example, we got the first Mass Effect 4 (5?) teaser trailer/announcement in late 2020 and the only thing we've seen since then is a vague poster that was released about a year later.

I don't trust Warner Bros, and I wont believe that WW3 exists until we have a trailer

I just want a cartoon.

It would be nice for the WW trilogy to, well, be a trilogy.

[QUOTE=I'm a Fish;6146697]I just want a cartoon.

It would be nice for the WW trilogy to, well, be a trilogy.[/QUOTE]

I am not sure how they can take WW2017 and WW84 into a cohesive trilogy with whatever they come up with in WW3. The first two movies are totally different from one another and that is besides the point the superiority of the 1st movie over the second. If they bring in Steve Trevor again, somehow, then I am out of there.

If WW84 had been better received (and been a better film), I would say WW3 is safe, but I'm not sure. It depends on whether this truly is Discovery wiping the slate clean. It's not that there was groundwork laid for a third film, at least I don't remember anything.

Given what I've learned about Zaslov in the past hours, I'm just praying they don't reboot WW in the style of Azzarello.

[QUOTE=BiteTheBullet;6146752]If they bring in Steve Trevor again, somehow, then I am out of there.[/QUOTE]

And the only reason they bring Steve in is because they believe, very deeply, that white cisgender heterosexual men and boys won't go see [I]Wonder Woman[/I] without a heroic male to latch onto because they don't believe white cisgender heterosexual men and boys have the psychological or emotional maturity to identify with and root for a woman hero.

[QUOTE=SonOfBaldwin;6146922]And the only reason they bring Steve in is because they believe, very deeply, that white cisgender heterosexual men and boys won't go see [I]Wonder Woman[/I] without a heroic male to latch onto because they don't believe white cisgender heterosexual men and boys have the psychological or emotional maturity to identify with and root for a woman hero.[/QUOTE]

Thissss. Even if we got a different stand-in white man I'd be annoyed.

I hope The Marvels absolutely kills it so Hollywood sees that a film where the lead characters, director, and screenwriter are all women can succeed (especially considering 2 of the 3 leads and the director are WOC).

[QUOTE=Avi;6146865]If WW84 had been better received (and been a better film), I would say WW3 is safe, but I'm not sure. It depends on whether this truly is Discovery wiping the slate clean. It's not that there was groundwork laid for a third film, at least I don't remember anything.

Given what I've learned about Zaslov in the past hours, I'm just praying they don't reboot WW in the style of Azzarello.[/QUOTE]

True about the lack of setup (other than setting up Lynda Carter's character) but on the other hand the fact that it's entirely self-contained and can exist outside of the DCEU may protect it. Could go either way.

And the one good thing about the whole Snyder mess is that at least now the studio knows edgy/grimdark isn't the way.

[QUOTE=bardkeep;6146434]I wouldn't be too worried about this, especially because it sounds like the game has been in development since 2019ish. It seems like the issues with the films stem from WBD totally changing their strategy around HBO Max (sounds like they may be consolidating it with Discovery+?), plus they've got a whole botched cinematic universe to deal with.

It's also very normal for games to be announced and then disappear off the map for a year. For example, we got the first Mass Effect 4 (5?) teaser trailer/announcement in late 2020 and the only thing we've seen since then is a vague poster that was released about a year later.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, good point. Not really a gamer, so keep forgetting these projects can take years.

It also looks like canning Batgirl because of a tax write off was also due to a limited time table to do that.

[QUOTE=SonOfBaldwin;6146922]And the only reason they bring Steve in is because they believe, very deeply, that white cisgender heterosexual men and boys won't go see [I]Wonder Woman[/I] without a heroic male to latch onto because they don't believe white cisgender heterosexual men and boys have the psychological or emotional maturity to identify with and root for a woman hero.[/QUOTE]

OR…because Steve has been an integral part of her story for over 80 years and not everyone will base a decision on something as nonsensical as “white hetero” this or “cisgendered” that…

[QUOTE=Natamaxxx;6147299]OR…because Steve has been an integral part of her story for over 80 years and not everyone will base a decision on something as nonsensical as “white hetero” this or “cisgendered” that…[/QUOTE]

Do you really believe that Hollywood doesn't cater to white cisgendered heterosexual men & boys?

Steve was also irrelevant from 1987-2011. Some of us were born and grew to be adults in that period.

Steve was meant to be a non toxic man but I have to side eye the way later writers have used him, like how in the 2009 movie his entire purpose is boiled down to telling WW 'not all men' are bad and generally 'putting her in her place'.

WW'17 was the first time the character was done right in a modern context but WW84 kind of pissed all over that by bringing back from the dead, having Diana's entire character arc revolve around her love for Steve and oh yeah, [I]having her sleep with him after he was possessing the body of someone else[/I].

[QUOTE=Natamaxxx;6147299]OR…because Steve has been an integral part of her story for over 80 years and not everyone will base a decision on something as nonsensical as “white hetero” this or “cisgendered” that…[/QUOTE]

If that was truly the case, then it doesn't seem likely that they would have killed him in the first movie and then brought him back through some mysticism that implicated Diana in a rape scenario in the second.

And it's [B][I]cisgender[/I][/B]. It's a noun, not a verb.

[QUOTE=John Venus;6147390]Steve was meant to be a non toxic man but I have to side eye the way later writers have used him, like how in the 2009 movie his entire purpose is boiled down to telling WW 'not all men' are bad and generally 'putting her in her place'.[/QUOTE]

And the mansplaining disguised as "oh you're new here and I have to tell you these things--but I'm going to leave out the part about how my people kill Native Americans and Black people. I'll let the Indigenous person tell you that himself. But it won't matter. You'll still love me and mourn my death longer than you mourned your aunt's, who you grew up with, versus me, who you only knew for 11 minutes."

[QUOTE=John Venus;6147390]Steve was also irrelevant from 1987-2011. Some of us were born and grew to be adults in that period.

Steve was meant to be a non toxic man but I have to side eye the way later writers have used him, like how in the 2009 movie his entire purpose is boiled down to telling WW 'not all men' are bad and generally 'putting her in her place'.
[/QUOTE]

Outside of '09 when has this really been a thing with Steve in modern comics/media? Since as you brought up, he was irrelevant for most modern DC stuff up to 2011 and ever after that he wasn't in WW comics consistently again until 2016.

You'd probably find more examples of Batman and Superman doing that with WW than Steve.

[QUOTE=SonOfBaldwin;6147401]If that was truly the case, then it doesn't seem likely that they would have killed him in the first movie and then brought him back through some mysticism that implicated Diana in a rape scenario in the second.

And it's [B][I]cisgender[/I][/B]. It's a noun, not a verb.[/QUOTE]

It’s a nonsense made-up word.

[QUOTE=Natamaxxx;6147554]It’s a nonsense made-up word.[/QUOTE]

All words are made-up?

[QUOTE=Natamaxxx;6147554]It’s a nonsense made-up word.[/QUOTE]

The only people who ever say this are people who hate transgender people. And I don't talk to anti-trans people.

[QUOTE=SonOfBaldwin;6147805]The only people who ever say this are people who hate transgender people. And I don't talk to anti-trans people.[/QUOTE]

Pat yourself on the back, I guess…

[QUOTE=SonOfBaldwin;6147408]And the mansplaining disguised as "oh you're new here and I have to tell you these things--but I'm going to leave out the part about how my people kill Native Americans and Black people. I'll let the Indigenous person tell you that himself. But it won't matter. You'll still love me and mourn my death longer than you mourned your aunt's, who you grew up with, versus me, who you only knew for 11 minutes."[/QUOTE]

Why would Steve go through the entire history of America?

[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;6147971]Why would Steve go through the entire history of America?[/QUOTE]

That you would ask this question, and don't already know the answer, is instructive and evidence of my point.

[QUOTE=SonOfBaldwin;6148033]That you would ask this question, and don't already know the answer, is instructive and evidence of my point.[/QUOTE]

No. Not really.

[QUOTE=SonOfBaldwin;6148033]That you would ask this question, and don't already know the answer, is instructive and evidence of my point.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, great argumeent on your part

(I'm being sarcastic)

[QUOTE=Natamaxxx;6147554]It’s a nonsense made-up word.[/QUOTE]

You do know that all words are made up, don't you?

With Zaslav gutting Warner and slashing things left and right, some have speculated/feared the actual DC comics might be on the chopping block.

Personally, I don't see it going that far, but suppose he did torpedo the comics division. As far as I know, the "Wonder Woman comics must be published or the rights go back to the Marston family" clause is still in effect. So, if DC folds and unless there's a re-negotiation, what happens to Diana?

For a start, when they say the rights go back, to what extent? I guess it's a similar situation as when the IPs become public domain, but what exactly goes back to the Marstons? What elements of her lore would still be regarded as DC creations and stick with Warner?

But the other question is what the Marstons could or would do with it? The obvious suggestion would be sell to Disney/Marvel, but who knows? Wonder Woman, one way or another, is a valuable IP. I don't know how ambitious or business savvy the surviving Marstons are, but there are other avenues they could pursue.

Again, I doubt this will happen, and I'm not sure it would necessarily be a good thing if it did, but one wonders.
And imagine if Diana were to actually thrive afterward? How sad would that be...that all this time, it was just Warner/DC that held her back?

Well Discovery considers Wonder Woman to be one of their most important franchises
[ATTACH=CONFIG]123611[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Guy_McNichts;6149249]With Zaslav gutting Warner and slashing things left and right, some have speculated/feared the actual DC comics might be on the chopping block.

Personally, I don't see it going that far, but suppose he did torpedo the comics division. As far as I know, the "Wonder Woman comics must be published or the rights go back to the Marston family" clause is still in effect. So, if DC folds and unless there's a re-negotiation, what happens to Diana?

For a start, when they say the rights go back, to what extent? I guess it's a similar situation as when the IPs become public domain, but what exactly goes back to the Marstons? What elements of her lore would still be regarded as DC creations and stick with Warner?

But the other question is what the Marstons could or would do with it? The obvious suggestion would be sell to Disney/Marvel, but who knows? Wonder Woman, one way or another, is a valuable IP. I don't know how ambitious or business savvy the surviving Marstons are, but there are other avenues they could pursue.

Again, I doubt this will happen, and I'm not sure it would necessarily be a good thing if it did, but one wonders.
And imagine if Diana were to actually thrive afterward? How sad would that be...that all this time, it was just Warner/DC that held her back?[/QUOTE]

This is something I've wondered as a thought experiment, independent of the current Zaslav stuff, if DC ever failed to uphold the agreement.

I assume it'd probably be all the stuff Marston can be specifically credited with (Wonder Woman, the Diana Prince identity, Steve, Etta, Priscilla Rich, Giganta, etc). Of course Hippolyta, the Amazons, Themyscira, Circe, and the Gods are all public domain so they'd be fair use either way.

[QUOTE=John Venus;6147390]
WW'17 was the first time the character was done right in a modern context but WW84 kind of pissed all over that by bringing back from the dead, .[/QUOTE]

That makes no sense. Bringing him back didn't change his character. He was the same person.