Wonder Woman Controversial Opinions Part 2

[Pinsir]

In order to control the ricochet. She's not about to let bullets that bounce off her fly all over the place.

Superman and co. will sometimes just let people machine gun them.

Also, I think we all know the real reason...

[wonder39]

People who insist Diana shouldn't be bulletproof often argue it would make her too much like Superman. Of course, some of these same people have no problem with her having a secret identity or living in a fictional city just like Superman.

Has anyone ever considered that maybe sending a superhuman Amazon fighter against normal humans like sending cannons to kill flies?



What's wrong with the bracelets just being worn as accessories? You can still keep the history of them being worn so the Amazons never forget their enslavement. Of all the issues facing Diana's character, why can't she use the bracelets is very, very low on the list.

Of course, a secret id and fictional hub city are fairly standard superhero tropes. Taking away, or minimizing the " bullets and bracelets" aspect of her skills takes away something unique. Much like her always brandishing a sword and shield instead of her lasso. We have lots of sword and shield characters. And she certainly can use them when the for is bad enough, as a last resort. But let Diana have and use her unique and amazing gifts .

[Agent Z]

Of course, a secret id and fictional hub city are fairly standard superhero tropes. Taking away, or minimizing the " bullets and bracelets" aspect of her skills takes away something unique. Much like her always brandishing a sword and shield instead of her lasso. We have lots of sword and shield characters. And she certainly can use them when the for is bad enough, as a last resort. But let Diana have and use her unique and amazing gifts .

Swords and shields aren't exactly common for superheroes either. Despite what people claim, the lasso is not and never was going anywhere. The bracelets are still worn even if she is bulletproof and work as a part of her culture without needing to be tools that make no sense given her power set. She's had other powers that have fallen to the way side without much complaint but people seem to think the lasso and the bracelets which have never left and are in no danger of disappearing are the only unique things about her.

Superman and co. will sometimes just let people machine gun them.

Also, I think we all know the real reason...

One of the most immature comics I've ever seen.

[Pinsir]

What's wrong with the bracelets just being worn as accessories? You can still keep the history of them being worn so the Amazons never forget their enslavement. Of all the issues facing Diana's character, why can't she use the bracelets is very, very low on the list.

Bouncing bullets from her bracelets is so iconic to the character though and its not like the invisible plane too, where its iconic but goofy. Its a cool idea that is closely associated with her character. Plus, I'd also argue that if the bracelets become vestigial then there is a good chance they might disappear and never come back (RIP leotard).

I'm also okay with never seeing Diana Prince again too.

[Agent Z]

Bouncing bullets from her bracelets is so iconic to the character though and its not like the invisible plane too, where its iconic but goofy. Its a cool idea that is closely associated with her character. Plus, I'd also argue that if the bracelets become vestigial then there is a good chance they might disappear and never come back (RIP leotard).

I'm also okay with never seeing Diana Prince again too.

I don't really see it as a cool idea but YMMV. Iconography is not static and I feel is not an adequate reason for something to remain.

The leotard disappeared because it was an outdated costume and the movie used a better one. The bracelets can still be good aesthetic purposes.

[wonder39]

Swords and shields aren't exactly common for superheroes either. Despite what people claim, the lasso is not and never was going anywhere. The bracelets are still worn even if she is bulletproof and work as a part of her culture without needing to be tools that make no sense given her power set. She's had other powers that have fallen to the way side without much complaint but people seem to think the lasso and the bracelets which have never left and are in no danger of disappearing are the only unique things about her..

Never said the lasso and bracelets are going anywhere, but for several years they've been downplayed for the sword and shield. My comment was about the uniqueness of her classic "weapons" vs a more tradtional weapon set like a sword and shield, found pretty readily in a lot of classic and mythology and fantasy based stories...

Additionally, I was commenting about how people saying that making her bulletproof makes her too much like Superman doesn't conflict with those people wanting her to have a secret id and fictional city as the later is common with most if not all heroes created at that time, while the former does make her more like Super.

Basically, the " reality" of need her to be bulletproof because of physics, and " if she can take a punch from x" blah blah blah is just reading way too much into it. Don't care about the science of how Kal flies. Don't need to work out how Bruce could possibly learned everything he did in the short years before he became the Bat. Diana deflects projectiles with her bracelets. It's part of her skill set. It's a unique skill set. So why minimize or rationalize it out of her?

But totally agreed on that comic panel. Childish and more than a little sexist ...

[Agent Z]

Never said the lasso and bracelets are going anywhere, but for several years they've been downplayed for the sword and shield. My comment was about the uniqueness of her classic "weapons" vs a more tradtional weapon set like a sword and shield, found pretty readily in a lot of classic and mythology and fantasy based stories...

Diana is a mythology and fantasy based character. This is like complaining about aliens in science fiction.

Additionally, I was commenting about how people saying that making her bulletproof makes her too much like Superman doesn't conflict with those people wanting her to have a secret id and fictional city as the later is common with most if not all heroes created at that time, while the former does make her more like Super.

Again, if we want her to be unique, then giving her a secret identity and a fictional city is far more against that than making her bulletproof. The latter is actually far less common among superheroes in the DC universe than the former. Hell, the Diana Prince identity is just distaff counterpart to Clark Kent; an unassuming brunette with glasses whom no one pays attention to.

Basically, the " reality" of need her to be bulletproof because of physics, and " if she can take a punch from x" blah blah blah is just reading way too much into it. Don't care about the science of how Kal flies. Don't need to work out how Bruce could possibly learned everything he did in the short years before he became the Bat. Diana deflects projectiles with her bracelets. It's part of her skill set. It's a unique skill set. So why minimize or rationalize it out of her?

Because in addition to not making any sense, it gives the impression that writers aren't willing to respect her power level the same way they would any other powerhouse, especially the male ones. Being unique is not a good defense for why she has to deflect bullets when they can just shrug them off. She isn't a street level character so they should stop writing her like one.

[Jcogginsa]

My opinion is that Diana being bullet proof not only strips her of some of the little iconography that she has, but also gives her less narrative possibility.

Secret Identities and home cities do the opposite

[Agent Z]

My opinion is that Diana being bullet proof not only strips her of some of the little iconography that she has, but also gives her less narrative possibility.

Secret Identities and home cities do the opposite

There is no such thing as unlimited narrative possibilities. We had four decades of Wonder Woman stories mostly without the secret identity and any attempts to bring it back have fallen flat and been part of some of the worst Wonder Woman stories ever written. Two of Diana's most celebrated runs took place in real life cities and both of the movies are taking place in real life ones. And it isn't like we've gotten any interesting stories out of her getting shot so it serves no purpose. As I said, iconography is not static and there are far greater things in that category that should take priority.

[kjn]

If she's bullet proof then why does she need/use bracelets?

Possible causes:

It's fun. She's used to it. It means she can control the ricochet.

Superman's approach to bullets is to take them, because he can, and then punch the attacker. Flash's is to go out of the way, and then shove the attacker. Diana's is to disarm her opponent with the bullet they fired at her.

Which way is the most elegant and requires the most skill?

[DisneyBoy]

How is the leotard outdated...?

I prefer it to this skirt look, which always seems to cover exactly the same areas and amount of her body because of how it is cut.

[Tzigone]

My opinion is that Diana being bullet proof not only strips her of some of the little iconography that she has, but also gives her less narrative possibility.

Secret Identities and home cities do the opposite

I like secret identities. And I love her deflecting bullets. I don't think her being bulletproof really hurts narrative possibility much since actually getting shot or risking getting shot was never that much of thing (but used beautifully in the movie), but I do like the iconography of her actually blocking bullets and her being bulletproof really makes that unnecessary (you can say it's about controlling the ricochet, but that ends up making every other bulletproof hero look criminally irresponsible, which is not okay with me). I just think the deflecting bullets is really cool, and works better if she's not bulletproof.

I liked her golden age secret identity, but it was so tied to WWII, and I don't know that I've ever seen her secret identity well used past once that particular role is no longer applicable. I'd really love to see something done well in that regard.


My controversial opinion - I'm not interested in the Ambassador aspect. The embassy, the politics. It's mostly just really dull. I feel similarly about Arthur as King of Atlantis (but have other issues there, too).

Even more controversial - I'm just not very interested in Themyscira. I like some of the characters, and would like Diana to visit occasionally to see her family/friends or get some maternal wisdom. But I don't want stories set there, invasions, civil wars, etc. I'd like to get a bit more info on the daily life (farming, shopping, cooking, actual jobs) for background, but would prefer the vast bulk of Diana's stories not involve her childhood home.

[Agent Z]

How is the leotard outdated...?

It's not the 70s anymore and people expect better when it comes to female costumes.

[Manakel]

It's not the 70s anymore

So much this. As much as i hated N52 Superman, his costume was much more modern and refreshing. For wonder woman, modernisation of the costume is a more antique approach and work really well with amazonian warrior culture.

[SiegePerilous02]

Just keep the bullet and bracelets. Not everything has to be dissected so much.

The end result is the same as bullets bouncing off Superman's chest: the bullets aren't going to hit her, so who cares? It at least creates a visual difference. Not much of one for some people, but it can all get a little same-y when we already have not only Superman doing it, but Supergirl, Captain Marvel, J'onn, Power Girl...

Diana is a mythology and fantasy based character. This is like complaining about aliens in science fiction..

She isn't just a mythology and fantasy based character though.