Wonder Woman Controversial Opinions Part 2

[Psy-lock]

This one is very controversial. I actually prefer most of Diana's post-COEI love interests to Steve, particularly Rama Chandra. But looking back, Trevor Barnes and Tom Tresser weren't all that bad either.

[PopQuezy]

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.

[Marik Swift]

Diana shouldn't be the first Wonder Woman.

Whenever this is brought up, make fans response is that "Diana shouldn't be s legacy character". But to me at the end of the day, the Wonder Woman mythos/lore is more important than Diana herself and overall benefits her. "Wonder Woman" being treated like an actual mantle/title elevates it's status, and in turn, elevates Diana even more. There should have been dozens of champions before Diana, with Hippolyta having been the Wonder Woman from World War I/II.

Most of her fans problem with her being a "legacy" character is also because "b-b-but, Batman and Superman are not legacy characters". And Wonder Woman fans need to understand that if they keep comparing Diana to Bruce/Clark, she's ALWAYS going to be stuck in their shadow cause she's only doing things that is done with their characters, but nothing original is actually being done with her character. n

[Agent Z]

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.

Couldn't this also be said of Reverse-Flash and Sinestro?

Even putting that aside, it's an odd choice to make Diana's equivalent of Luthor and Joker a guy who wasn't even created to be one of her villains in the first place.

[Gaius]

Diana shouldn't be the first Wonder Woman.

Whenever this is brought up, make fans response is that "Diana shouldn't be s legacy character". But to me at the end of the day, the Wonder Woman mythos/lore is more important than Diana herself and overall benefits her. "Wonder Woman" being treated like an actual mantle/title elevates it's status, and in turn, elevates Diana even more. There should have been dozens of champions before Diana, with Hippolyta having been the Wonder Woman from World War I/II.

Most of her fans problem with her being a "legacy" character is also because "b-b-but, Batman and Superman are not legacy characters". And Wonder Woman fans need to understand that if they keep comparing Diana to Bruce/Clark, she's ALWAYS going to be stuck in their shadow cause she's only doing things that is done with their characters, but nothing original is actually being done with her character. n

Diana being inspired by the Amazons who raised her like in the movie accomplishes the same thing without making Diana a retroactive legacy character to non-existent legacy.

[Psy-lock]

Cheetah is, so far, seen as the token female that is easily discarded and forgotten

The token female is still more unique than Lex Luthor with superpowers which is what Max Lord essentially is. He'd be utterly redundant on the same team with Lex.

[Marik Swift]

Diana being inspired by the Amazons who raised her like in the movie accomplishes the same thing without making Diana a retroactive legacy character to non-existent legacy.

No, it really doesn't.

Cause it doesn't expand upon her lore or mythos at all and the movies differ widely from the comics.

And it's honestly troubling how much Wonder fans use the word "legacy" as if it's some sort of bad word.

[PopQuezy]

Couldn't this also be said of Reverse-Flash and Sinestro?

Even putting that aside, it's an odd choice to make Diana's equivalent of Luthor and Joker a guy who wasn't even created to be one of her villains in the first place.

Does not being specifically created to be her villain mean he can't be a marquee villain for her? Wasn't Mystique originally a Ms. Marvel villain and now she is one of the most well-known and most frequently used X-Men villains.

Also, Maxwell Lord has left a long-lasting impact on the Wonderverse. An impact that should be explored and honored.

[Frontier]

No, it really doesn't.

Cause it doesn't expand upon her lore or mythos at all and the movies differ widely from the comics.

And it's honestly troubling how much Wonder fans use the word "legacy" as if it's some sort of bad word.

How doesn't it expand on the lore and mythos by making the Amazons and their teachings so impactful to the actual lead character?

[SiegePerilous02]

No, it really doesn't.

Cause it doesn't expand upon her lore or mythos at all and the movies differ widely from the comics.

And it's honestly troubling how much Wonder fans use the word "legacy" as if it's some sort of bad word.

How does it expand upon her lore when the ties to the Amazons and Greek myth already do that without needing to turn Wonder Woman into a legacy title? Hippolya doesn't need any such title to be a big deal, she's friggin Hippolyta, queen of the Amazons. The Wonder Woman mythos only exists because it was created to go along with Diana, it literally doesn't exist without her. So it's not bigger than her. Even making Hippolyta the Wonder Woman of WWII would just be taking stuff from Diana to give Hippolyta a role she doesn't require.

There is a difference between overly relying on comparisons with Superman and Batman and just straight up turning Wonder Woman into something she isn't. No way will this be the thing that gets her our of their shadow. Stuff like the upcoming Historia is going to depict a rich history for the Amazons, so Diana will be part of that legacy, but inheriting a mantle that was created for her would be a demotion. Rejecting that definition of legacy isn't a troubling stance at all.

[Marik Swift]

How doesn't it expand on the lore and mythos by making the Amazons and their teachings so impactful to the actual lead character?

Because we already know if does.

The Amazons are her essentially her parents, that's essentially their job. Them doing what they are suppose to do doesn't expand on her mythos or lore anymore than the Kents does.

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

[Marik Swift]

How does it expand upon her lore when the ties to the Amazons and Greek myth already do that without needing to turn Wonder Woman into a legacy title? Hippolya doesn't need any such title to be a big deal, she's friggin Hippolyta, queen of the Amazons. The Wonder Woman mythos only exists because it was created to go along with Diana, it literally doesn't exist without her. So it's not bigger than her. Even making Hippolyta the Wonder Woman of WWII would just be taking stuff from Diana to give Hippolyta a role she doesn't require.

There is a difference between overly relying on comparisons with Superman and Batman and just straight up turning Wonder Woman into something she isn't. No way will this be the thing that gets her our of their shadow. Stuff like the upcoming Historia is going to depict a rich history for the Amazons, so Diana will be part of that legacy, but inheriting a mantle that was created for her would be a demotion. Rejecting that definition of legacy isn't a troubling stance at all.

Your entire post can be summed up as "legacy characters are less important", so not even worth debating.

[Agent Z]

Does not being specifically created to be her villain mean he can't be a marquee villain for her? Wasn't Mystique originally a Ms. Marvel villain and now she is one of the most well-known and most frequently used X-Men villains.

There were a few factors at play here. One is that Mystique being a Mutant could far easily fit into the X-Men universe. Max has no such way to easily fit into Wonder Woman. Another is that Mystique has an interesting niche as a shapeshifter and being the mother of two prominent X-Men. Max as a villain is a Lex Luthor clone with psychic powers in a book that already has Veronica Cale and Dr Psycho. Thirdly, is that Mystique becoming an X-Men villain was something done by her creator Chris Claremont whereas Max even being turned into a villain was an editorial edict and those tend to not go very well for Diana. Finally, Mystique had very few appearances in Carol's books and has far more often appeared in X-Men or X-Men adjacent books.

Also, Maxwell Lord has left a long-lasting impact on the Wonderverse. An impact that should be explored and honored.

You're giving him way too much credit. We aren't talking about the Killing Joke or The Night Gwen Stacy Died Here. The story with Max was a cheap stunt that Rucka barely managed to salvage and then DC spent the next several years pissing away any goodwill for it. There are still plenty of people who hate Max being a villain.

[SiegePerilous02]

Your entire post can be summed up as "legacy characters are less important", so not even worth debating.

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

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.

[Gaius]

No, it really doesn't.

Cause it doesn't expand upon her lore or mythos at all and the movies differ widely from the comics.

And it's honestly troubling how much Wonder fans use the word "legacy" as if it's some sort of bad word.

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.

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.