Wonder Woman Controversial Opinions Part 2

[phonogram12]

Maxwell Lord should be the anchor of Wonder Woman's rogue gallery. This does not mean that I think he should be her arch-nemesis; although, I do think he, Ares, Circe, and Cheetah should share the role. As the anchor, he should be the villain that anchors Diana's world into the larger D.C. Universe like Joker, Lex, Sinestro, Reverse-Flash, etc. do for their respective heroes. Circe and Ares are too powerful to ever be seen as equals to Lex and Joker and Cheetah is, so far, seen as the token female that is easily discarded and forgotten. Maxwell Lord allows for the respected inclusion in the larger D.C. Universe that Diana needs. All he needs is a stronger connection to Diana's rogues.

I would be totally down for this. Goddess of Truth vs. the Ultimate Manipulator.

God, now I really want to see WW1984.

[Guy_McNichts]

I'm not opposed to the idea of Diana not being the first/only Amazon Champion to leave Themyscira. As an example, I actually like the Post-Crisis origin of Nubia as the very first Champion from long before she was born.

But the idea of "Wonder Woman" being a legacy with dozens of Amazons through the ages does cheapen her.
Why would Steve Trevor's arrival on Themyscira really matter if Amazons have been sending Champions into the world of men routinely through the ages? Why would Diana's becoming Wonder Woman or her acting as ambassador be notable at all when there have been several before her? Why would the Man's World not react to her with: "Oh. The new one's here."

It reduces Diana to just another Amazon, and also the Amazons and "Wonder Woman" to defenders of the status quo.

I can see the appeal of downplaying the "Chosen One" elements of Diana, and having any Amazon being Wonder Woman can make for a more empowering message (like Into the Spider-Verse's "anyone can wear the mask" message). But I think fans get antsy about legacy because it often does come across that some creators feel Wonder Woman would be great...if she was anybody but Diana.
This seemed most overt in The Odyssey where JMS's approach to fixing Wonder Woman was to change everything about Diana to the point where she was an almost entirely new character.

So, I'd be okay with previous Champions. But only a small handful over the thousands of years. Diana should be the first and definitive "Wonder Woman"

[Marik Swift]

I mean, they kind of are in a lot of instances. There's a reason the Trinity are considered the important ones to make it out of the Golden Age along with a select few others, because they're the same ones invented with the titles and they endured this long without being permanently replaced. Contrary to popular belief, it's not really troubling to adopt a "costume sharing legacy isn't automatically the best storytelling option that should be applied to everything" stance

What? What are you talking about? That is not why these characters were successful. The X-Men, while each have their own superhero names, are all part of one bigger legacy and picture and they are the biggest franchise in comics.

You're not exactly providing convincing arguments on how this expands her mythos or what the positive net gain is here. The Amazons were nothing like the Kents in the post-COIE canon when the Wonder Woman title was given to her by a newspaper, I don't see why they or their legacy are like that just because Diana is the first to wear a Wonder Woman mantle.

I am, you just refuse to see it cause of some agenda against legacy characters.

You need not look no further than sports to see that stuff like the NBA championship, World Cup, UFC belts elevates every person who won them because of their history. I am providing actual proven facts and evidence, whereas your argument is essentially "I don't like it, so it's bad".

It accomplishes the main pro people give legacy characters and does so without derivative characters who share the title but the only discernible difference would be something like "Wonder Woman but in the Renaissance/Napoleonic Age/WW2!". Wonder Woman can be and has been different from Superman and Batman without making her a legacy title.

Her iconic status versus theirs says otherwise. Problem with Wonder Woman is that she has literally just been treading the same footsteps as Batman and Superman rather than trying to creating her own. This competitive drivel literally gets her nowhere and the sooner her fans realize it the better better.

And yeah, of course some would view "legacy Wonder Woman" with mixed reactions. Look at the Robin boy band, Barry vs. Wally, or the fractured GL fan base.

A good point that DC really has muddied most of their legacy characters, but that's mainly because these characters are still around. Diana wouldn't have the same problem cause the problem is that the various GL, Robins etc is that they have all made themselves redundant, whereas with Wonder Women at the end of the their would only ever be one claim to the title.

[Agent Z]

Her iconic status versus theirs says otherwise. Problem with Wonder Woman is that she has literally just been treading the same footsteps as Batman and Superman rather than trying to creating her own.

How? She doesn't have a secret identity, doesn't have a rule against killing, isn't the last of her kind, she has far less in common with them now than she did before. If anything a Wonder Woman legacy will make her more like those two not less.

And for the record I have no issue with legacy characters but it is incredibly disingenuous to claim that this will suddenly make her a success massive success let alone differentiate her from Superman and Batman when we know that not to be the case.

[Frontier]

Wonder Woman has always been a title and should be treated as such.

It's a title given to Diana though.

[Marik Swift]

It's a title given to Diana though.

Given to to her, not created for her.

The entire theme of Wonder Woman is elevation. That all women can/should be "Wonder Women".

Your entire argument is backwards and goes against her entire premise. Very same thinking that have women in society competing, because the media will prop specific women up as "better than the rest".

But you're right, let's make Diana a special snowflake and remove all her ties to the gods (they were the ones who gave her the title after all). Let's just have Diana be another metahuman without a legacy.

[SiegePerilous02]

At most, the Wonder Woman title should be the title given to the winner of the Contest, a recurring event for the Amazons. The winner keeps the title until the next Contest, where she retains the mantle or passes it to the new winner.

Diana should be the first Wonder Woman to have the title while also wearing that specific costume with the lasso and other tools, and be a superhero in Man's World.

What? What are you talking about? That is not why these characters were successful. The X-Men, while each have their own superhero names, are all part of one bigger legacy and picture and they are the biggest franchise in comics.

I'd say it did contribute to them being viewed as more enduring and important than a lot of the other characters in the Golden Age who fell by the wayside.

And if the X-Men can have their own unique superhero identities for the most part and be part of a bigger legacy....why can't Diana be the only Wonder Woman and be part of the bigger Amazon legacy? Like she already is?

I am, you just refuse to see it cause of some agenda against legacy characters.

You need not look no further than sports to see that stuff like the NBA championship, World Cup, UFC belts elevates every person who won them because of their history. I am providing actual proven facts and evidence, whereas your argument is essentially "I don't like it, so it's bad".

Not everything has to be an "agenda." Some fans just don't like legacy concepts applied across the board. This isn't even a knock on actual legacy characters like Wally West and Michael Holt or Kate Kane (all of whom I like), it's just questioning the need to apply the concept where it largely didn't exist before for no reason. Your sports analogy isn't "facts and evidence" of anything. Your argument is "it will expand the mythos" without really explaining how it will differ from what is already there to the point of making it worthwhile. You're basically saying "I like legacy and it should be applied to everything, to say otherwise is troubling regardless of the reasoning behind it."

Like Agent Z said, the point that this will differentiate her from Batman and Superman is pretty nonsensical. She's already pretty different enough, I don't see why what your proposing will suddenly make people wake up and realize she doesn't have to be in their shadows. If creators and fans don't already consistently care enough about her or her mother, why will they care about about a bunch of Amazon extras?

[Frontier]

Given to to her, not created for her.

The entire theme of Wonder Woman is elevation. That all women can/should be "Wonder Women".

Your entire argument is backwards and goes against her entire premise. Very same thinking that have women in society competing, because the media will prop specific women up as "better than the rest".

But you're right, let's make Diana a special snowflake and remove all her ties to the gods (they were the ones who gave her the title after all). Let's just have Diana be another metahuman without a legacy.

Well, created for her in the sense that her actions are why she's called that and the title is given to her.

I don't think the series being about elevating means Diana shouldn't be Wonder Woman or create a need for a bunch of other characters to use the codename. Other female characters can be elevated as individuals worthy in their own right, while Diana is still the main character at the end of the day.

I've never been advocating for Diana to just be another Metahuman. As far as legacy is concerned, I'm fine with Hippolyta serving during WWII and the Wonder Girls.

[Gaius]

Her iconic status versus theirs says otherwise. Problem with Wonder Woman is that she has literally just been treading the same footsteps as Batman and Superman rather than trying to creating her own. This competitive drivel literally gets her nowhere and the sooner her fans realize it the better better.

Of which she largely she achieved an iconic status without being a made into a legacy character.

[Marik Swift]

How? She doesn't have a secret identity, doesn't have a rule against killing, isn't the last of her kind, she has far less in common with them now than she did before. If anything a Wonder Woman legacy will make her more like those two not less.

And for the record I have no issue with legacy characters but it is incredibly disingenuous to claim that this will suddenly make her a success massive success let alone differentiate her from Superman and Batman when we know that not to be the case.

She doesn't have a secret identity, not from lack of trying, and even now there are still writers who would occasionally trying to pin a secret identity on her. Hell, in the movie she has a secret identity. So that argument literally just fell on its face.

I'll concede on her not having a rule against killing.

Batman isn't the last of his kind and uperman hadn't been the last of his kind literally since the golden age, with Zod, Faora, Supergirl and the entirety of Kandor being a thing. And even then, how many times have the Amazon's been killed of. And Diana generally can't return to Themyscira, which is just a different version of the same premise as being the last of her kind.

Don't even know why I responded to any of that, cause it's not about making her different from those two, but expanding her mythos/lore.

And how does her becoming a legacy make her more like them when they aren't legacies? What does that even mean? Are you just being contrarian for the sake of it?

Except nobody is claiming this will make her a massive success? Another problem with Wonder fans. You think success happens overnight. "Batman became the biggest thing in comics cause of the Dark Knight, so Diana should be able to do that too, and it's the evil writers and editors at DC holding her back". Yea, it has nothing do with the fact that fans are obsessed with making her walk the same path as Batman and Superman, two characters who have had to change over the years, some for the better, others for the worst.

And no, this isn't about changing Diana/Wonder Wlman. This is about EXPANDING upon WHAT'S ALREADY THERE. The very mature of Wonder Woman lends itself to being a legacy.

[Marik Swift]

Okay, not going to go back and forth on this since I'm on my phone.

But let me just test if you guys are just being stubborn or actually care remotely about expanding upon the Wonder Woman mythos/lore by asking this:

Would you be okay with Diana being the first "Wonder Woman", but there having been former champions (some of them better than Diana) who were referred to as something other than Wonder Woman?

Depending on your answer to that I'll see how progressive the lot of you are.

[Frontier]

Okay, not going to go back and forth on this since I'm on my phone.

But let me just test if you guys are just being stubborn or actually care remotely about expanding upon the Wonder Woman mythos/lore by asking this:

Would you be okay with Diana being the first "Wonder Woman", but there having been former champions (some of them better than Diana) who were referred to as something other than Wonder Woman?

Depending on your answer to that I'll see how progressive the lot of you are.

Did these same Champions become Superheroes in Man's World?

[SiegePerilous02]

Okay, not going to go back and forth on this since I'm on my phone.

But let me just test if you guys are just being stubborn or actually care remotely about expanding upon the Wonder Woman mythos/lore by asking this:

Would you be okay with Diana being the first "Wonder Woman", but there having been former champions (some of them better than Diana) who were referred to as something other than Wonder Woman?

Depending on your answer to that I'll see how progressive the lot of you are.

Is it really our places to "test" one another on stuff like this? Just because we have differing opinions on how to expand her lore, doesn't mean we don't care about doing it. There really is no final word on this, nor does it mean you get to deem "the lot of us" for not being progressive enough for not agreeing with you.

[Agent Z]

Okay, not going to go back and forth on this since I'm on my phone.

But let me just test if you guys are just being stubborn or actually care remotely about expanding upon the Wonder Woman mythos/lore by asking this:

Would you be okay with Diana being the first "Wonder Woman", but there having been former champions (some of them better than Diana) who were referred to as something other than Wonder Woman?

Depending on your answer to that I'll see how progressive the lot of you are.

You do know someone on this page actually suggested something like this, right?

And where do you get off judging WW fans for not being progressive or wanting to expand her lore just because they disagree with your ideas?

[Tzigone]

Depending on your answer to that I'll see how progressive the lot of you are.

I don't think putting other Wonder Women in the past counts as progressive - "progress" is the root word there, and you get that by moving forward more than revisiting/rewriting the past.

I admit, I'm not a fan of anything that radically changes what we already saw and says it's not what really happened, as a general rule. I especially don't like it when it says the characters' personalities or relationships were entirely different than they actually were. Changing Diana to not being the first very much changes the flavor of her origin. There are exceptions and changes I like, of course. And certain things built into the genre now (the timeslide). And sometimes things have to change because of that timeslide and being pegged to real world events (which they should know better than to do now, but of course would not have known in 1930s and 1940s). Comics do it all the time, though, and I admit it. And what's best for me isn't what's best for DC. Sacrificing fans who delve deep and care about minutia to a much larger, more casual readership makes financial sense.

But I honestly don't see how this does that, either, and it still alienates the people like me.

Also, once you make "Wonder Woman" just a title, it's easier to replace Diana with a new Wonder Woman. That's probably good for DC, but it irritates me. They already treat several code-names like this - they don't care about the character in the costume, just that the IP stay in use. Which sucks for me, because they discard characters I like so someone new can use the title. Don't want that for Diana.