Wonder Woman Controversial Opinions Part 2

[Guy_McNichts]

"Xena" has become the short-hand label for a type of sword-wielding, kill everything, usually hates men, WARRIOR woman. When people say they're turning Wonder Woman into Xena-lite, it's more "what a bunch of male writers who never actually watched the show assume Xena was."
It is a disservice to the actual Xena who was capable of humor, warmth, and compassion. Honestly, from what I remember of the show, she was most likely to use hand-to-hand combat in a given fight.

Grant Morrison even brought this up:
"My take on Wonder Woman is that I don't like to see the sword and shield thing. I don't like that the only way to show strong women is to make them Conan the Barbarian."

As said, it's a symptom of a larger problem with writers who think the way to make Wonder Woman strong or bad-ass is to stick a sword in her hand and have her kill things. It not only goes against what she's supposed to be and robs her of elements that make her unique, it's often as a flimsy distraction from the fact the writer has no other purpose for Diana.
Not to beat a dead horse, but we see this in Snyder's Justice League. Who cares that Diana is effectively useless, she's killing things! That proves she's tough!

[Agent Z]

"Xena" has become the short-hand label for a type of sword-wielding, kill everything, usually hates men, WARRIOR woman. When people say they're turning Wonder Woman into Xena-lite, it's more "what a bunch of male writers who never actually watched the show assume Xena was."
It is a disservice to the actual Xena who was capable of humor, warmth, and compassion. Honestly, from what I remember of the show, she was most likely to use hand-to-hand combat in a given fight.

Grant Morrison even brought this up:
"My take on Wonder Woman is that I don't like to see the sword and shield thing. I don't like that the only way to show strong women is to make them Conan the Barbarian."

As said, it's a symptom of a larger problem with writers who think the way to make Wonder Woman strong or bad-ass is to stick a sword in her hand and have her kill things. It not only goes against what she's supposed to be and robs her of elements that make her unique, it's often as a flimsy distraction from the fact the writer has no other purpose for Diana.
Not to beat a dead horse, but we see this in Snyder's Justice League. Who cares that Diana is effectively useless, she's killing things! That proves she's tough!

How is she useless in Snyder's take? She saves the crowd in the museum and is far more effective in the fight against Superman and then Steppenwolf than Whedon's. You can't even say she's lacking in compassion here as seen in her asking the little girl if she was alright.

And Morrison doesn't exactly have room to talk given what they wrote their Diana doing. The conclusion to WW:E1 had far more disturbing implications about the type of people the Amazons are than just giving Diana a sword. Actually, given the anti-Arab racism and unintentional rape in WW:1984, that's two WW works that set out to avoid the "female Conan" take and put out something far more insidious. Slapping some bright colors, jokes and some superficial optimism and idealism doesn't mean ending your story by having your hero become a tyrant who brainwashes people is more revolting than Diana using a sword.

[Guy_McNichts]

You're mistaking Snyder's take with Whedon's. And she's treated with a hell lot more dignity in the former than the latter.

No. I'm really not.

A slight difference in odor, but I was still looking at two dumpsters.

[Agent Z]

No. I'm really not.

A slight difference in odor, but I was still looking at two dumpsters.

I think you and I watched very different movies.

[Gaius]

I think whether one thinks Diana was done better in either Whedon or Snyder is probably personal taste/choice situation.

Or the third option of both suck and the less Diana hangs around with League the better off she is.

[SiegePerilous02]

How is she useless in Snyder's take? She saves the crowd in the museum and is far more effective in the fight against Superman and then Steppenwolf than Whedon's. You can't even say she's lacking in compassion here as seen in her asking the little girl if she was alright.

And Morrison doesn't exactly have room to talk given what they wrote their Diana doing. The conclusion to WW:E1 had far more disturbing implications about the type of people the Amazons are than just giving Diana a sword. Actually, given the anti-Arab racism and unintentional rape in WW:1984, that's two WW works that set out to avoid the "female Conan" take and put out something far more insidious. Slapping some bright colors, jokes and some superficial optimism and idealism doesn't mean ending your story by having your hero become a tyrant who brainwashes people is more revolting than Diana using a sword.

She saves the crowd but also casually kills the terrorists when she has the power to not need to, and kills a defeated foe without showing any mercy. Neither of which are things even Rucka or Perez's Diana would do, and they write her as being willing to kill when necessary. The comment to the little girl is nice, but is also mood whiplash considering she just needlessly blew up part of a building to kill one dude and endangered the people outside. We can take WW84 to task for some things, but I think the intent it had for how Diana resolves things isn't inherently connected to its flaws. The Whedon cut has its own bad stuff that the Snyer cut thankfully excised, but you're overselling just how effective she is against Superman here.

As for Earth One, it doesn't end with her brainwashing the planet. Is actually explicitly has her go to Desira's world to see what such a scenario would be like and she's clearly turned off by it, and even arranges for Psycho to be released from it because she doesn't even like seeing him like that. Etta says at the end they can use brainwashing, but that's just her being a smartass and Thelma Tall shoots the idea down anyway. Aside from using the purple light to temporarily overwhelm the enemy combatants, there isn't any indication they brainwash anybody.

[Agent Z]

She saves the crowd but also casually kills the terrorists when she has the power to not need to, and kills a defeated foe without showing any mercy. Neither of which are things even Rucka or Perez's Diana would do, and they write her as being willing to kill when necessary. The comment to the little girl is nice, but is also mood whiplash considering she just needlessly blew up part of a building to kill one dude and endangered the people outside. We can take WW84 to task for some things, but I think the intent it had for how Diana resolves things isn't inherently connected to its flaws. The Whedon cut has its own bad stuff that the Snyer cut thankfully excised, but you're overselling just how effective she is against Superman here.

As for Earth One, it doesn't end with her brainwashing the planet. Is actually explicitly has her go to Desira's world to see what such a scenario would be like and she's clearly turned off by it, and even arranges for Psycho to be released from it because she doesn't even like seeing him like that. Etta says at the end they can use brainwashing, but that's just her being a smartass and Thelma Tall shoots the idea down anyway. Aside from using the purple light to temporarily overwhelm the enemy combatants, there isn't any indication they brainwash anybody.

They used brainwashing on Paula and the story still ends with them taking over the world and this being depicted as a good thing. Diana even brags about having allies from universes where men are kept as pets.

[SiegePerilous02]

They used brainwashing on Paula and the story still ends with them taking over the world and this being depicted as a good thing. Diana even brags about having allies from universes where men are kept as pets.

Yes, and she went to that universe and didn't like what she saw and had one of her enemies (Psycho) released from it. This was at the beginning of the book. Her boasting about it to the enemy forces is just a bluff, because we don't see evidence that people have been brainwashed in the far future.

Paula's Venus Girdle is removed.

Considering the state of the world, the Amazons taking over and being in charge doesn't seem like a bad thing as long as the brainwashing isn't in place. Which, again, doesn't seem to be the case. As Diana rejected Desira's version of the world and removed Paula's girdle, it seems she wants it off the table.

[I'm a Fish]

"Xena" has become the short-hand label for a type of sword-wielding, kill everything, usually hates men, WARRIOR woman. When people say they're turning Wonder Woman into Xena-lite, it's more "what a bunch of male writers who never actually watched the show assume Xena was."
It is a disservice to the actual Xena who was capable of humor, warmth, and compassion. Honestly, from what I remember of the show, she was most likely to use hand-to-hand combat in a given fight.

Grant Morrison even brought this up:
"My take on Wonder Woman is that I don't like to see the sword and shield thing. I don't like that the only way to show strong women is to make them Conan the Barbarian."

As said, it's a symptom of a larger problem with writers who think the way to make Wonder Woman strong or bad-ass is to stick a sword in her hand and have her kill things. It not only goes against what she's supposed to be and robs her of elements that make her unique, it's often as a flimsy distraction from the fact the writer has no other purpose for Diana.
Not to beat a dead horse, but we see this in Snyder's Justice League. Who cares that Diana is effectively useless, she's killing things! That proves she's tough!

I notice this rather recently with the MCU, where many of their female Heroes are quick to anger. There are a few exceptions, such as Shuri, Mantis and the Ancient One, but Shuri is a young, Mantis is usually treated as a joke (granted a lot of the men are too tbh) the Ancient one is a gender/race bent character soooo....

Ironically, Nebula has become my favorite MCU character because she went from a very violent person to someone much more calm by Endgame.

Having aggressive female characters isn't inherently the problem, it's just the alarming frequency in which is occurs. Do we really want to tell people you have to be aggressive to be taken seriously in media? Man or woman, it's not healthy.

[Perseus]

I'm of the mindset that Diana using a sword and shield isn't the main problem. Its the frequency, the when, where, and why that's usually the problem. I made a thread about how I would approach a morally dark Wonder Woman and stated that when she does use a sword and shield she does so with sorrow and as an absolute last resort. Diana using lethal weaponry should be a sign that she's tried doing things a peaceful as she can but fails, that she knows the villain or enemy has gone beyond redemption or rehabilitation and even a jail sentence. Mose so then that its a threat that is serious to Diana, something or one so powerful that Diana can't contain for long not canon fodder or less powerful villains. But, there also needs to be consequences for her if she chooses that action, so far only Rucka has shown that.

Having aggressive female characters isn't inherently the problem, it's just the alarming frequency in which is occurs. Do we really want to tell people you have to be aggressive to be taken seriously in media? Man or woman, it's not healthy.

This is very true and shouldn't be near Diana, because she isn't aggressive. Can she be violent? I guess if we are going with the "kills as a last resort" then yes, but aggressive? not at all. Diana's anger should be like a calm storm; subtle, gets its point across, but changes the scenery, it hangs in the back of you, and its the one that lingers in your heart the longest.

[Agent Z]

Yes, and she went to that universe and didn't like what she saw and had one of her enemies (Psycho) released from it. This was at the beginning of the book. Her boasting about it to the enemy forces is just a bluff, because we don't see evidence that people have been brainwashed in the far future.

Paula's Venus Girdle is removed.

Considering the state of the world, the Amazons taking over and being in charge doesn't seem like a bad thing as long as the brainwashing isn't in place. Which, again, doesn't seem to be the case. As Diana rejected Desira's version of the world and removed Paula's girdle, it seems she wants it off the table.

Brainwashing or no, a single country running the entire planet is not and should not be depicted as unambiguously a good thing. In any other story, the Amazons would be seen as the villains and rightfully so. And frankly, what I've seen of these Amazons doesn't make them seem trustworthy enough for such a task.

[Agent Z]

I notice this rather recently with the MCU, where many of their female Heroes are quick to anger. There are a few exceptions, such as Shuri, Mantis and the Ancient One, but Shuri is a young, Mantis is usually treated as a joke (granted a lot of the men are too tbh) the Ancient one is a gender/race bent character soooo....

I think you're greatly overstating this.

Black Widow, Monica Rambeau, Scarlet Witch, Sharon Carter, Pepper Potts, the female members of Agents of SHIELD, Carol Danvers (after she gets her memories back), Colleen Wing are not aggressive or quick to anger. Nebula, Jessica Jones and Misty Knight are the only female characters that fit this description, and even then, the latter two aren't as aggressive and temperamental as Nebula.

Having aggressive female characters isn't inherently the problem, it's just the alarming frequency in which is occurs. Do we really want to tell people you have to be aggressive to be taken seriously in media?

That isn't a message that should be sent. However, I would say that we are simply seeing more female characters being allowed to have a variety in personality and emotions rather than some increase in aggressive female characters solely.

[I'm a Fish]

I think you're greatly overstating this.

Black Widow, Monica Rambeau, Scarlet Witch, Sharon Carter, Pepper Potts, the female members of Agents of SHIELD, Carol Danvers (after she gets her memories back), Colleen Wing are not aggressive or quick to anger.

Black Widow was introduced in Iron Man 2 and wasn't taken seriously by the other characters until she beat up Happy. Her main purpose in that movie was to beat people up. Black Widow does have the benefit of being a female hero with the most screen time so she was aloud to grow beyond this.

Monica, yeah you're right she's also not in that boat.

Wanda is more complicated but she also was introduced as a terrorist and unleashed Hulk unto a city. (I would count anything the characters did in Civil War because the premise of that movie was that they fight each other.)
In WandaVision she psychologically tortured an entire town of people. Granted, she wasn't totally aware of it for a while, but she also tried to turn Monica into paste at one point when Monica just wanted to talk (like she didn't know she had powers). Meanwhile Vision never tried to hurt anyone. Wanda is an interesting character but she's also a deeply problematic one, but not more than Tony Stark I suppose.

(Agents of Shield isn't MCU same with the Netflix stuff, but the characters on that show do have the benefit of being in a TV show with more screen time to flesh them out.)

Pepper Potts and was introduced as a supporting character and love interest, and not a hero. She wasn't as hero until Marvel realized they needed more female heroes for their Endgame group shot and to have her be there to say goodbye to Tony as he died.

Carol's whole reason for being in Endgame was for fighting. And a the end of her movie she was shown taking pleaser in killing the Kree (honestly that's whatever, I was as emotionally numb during that movie as Carol was). Her personality is also a little bit...cardboard-y...

Nebula, Jessica Jones and Misty Knight are the only female characters that fit this description, and even then, the latter two aren't as aggressive and temperamental as Nebula.

A lot of female heroes are introduced through violence in the MCU.

Peggy decked a cadet for proof as to why she's his worthy to be there, while Steve is shown worthy by being willing to take a grenadine for his comrades. And I get it, 40's, sexism, but there are women who fought in WWII (and throughout history) who where also belittled despite their service and they certainly didn't prove their worth by decking their peers or subordinates, which makes her depiction stand out even more.
Peggy also held a gun to Cap and shot at him without warning for proof of the shield working...

So I suppose, it's more than personality I am referring to but overwhelming abundance of aggressive behavior from women. It might not always take the form of a quick-to-anger personality, but it is usually in the form of aggressive behavior. And that aggressive behavior is usually used as a justification tool to show that they are a "girl-boss".

And to see that from Wonder Woman in JL in the form of the terroirst scene (that we've all talked to death, lol) none of the other characters were introduced by killing people. That really says something.

That isn't a message that should be sent. However, I would say that we are simply seeing more female characters being allowed to have a variety in personality and emotions rather than some increase in aggressive female characters solely.

That would definitely help, yes. We still only have female led 3 blockbuster compared to the dozens of male led ones. Having women still being primarily kept in supporting rolls does nothing to help their character.
And again, I don't have a problem with any of these characters alone, and the more screen time they get the more layered they will become (I should hope). Xena herself probably would have been depicted similarly if she was limited to supporting roles and team films.

Edit: MCU women tend to fall into the category of "love interest" or "girl-boss". Same with the DCEU, they are certainly not without this problem too. Wonder Woman is the exeption for both franchises (in her films).

[marhawkman]

Pepper Potts and was introduced as a supporting character and love interest, and not a hero. She wasn't as hero until Marvel realized they needed more female heroes for their Endgame group shot and to have her be there to say goodbye to Tony as he died.

In the comics she was basically Tony's secretary(or something) but later started using his power armor tech. And IIRC that started before the MCU. The MCU also started having her as hero in the Iron Man movies. She started out as an Extremis powered meta-human, but yeah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DTltif08Q

[WonderLight789]

How is she useless in Snyder's take? She saves the crowd in the museum and is far more effective in the fight against Superman and then Steppenwolf than Whedon's. You can't even say she's lacking in compassion here as seen in her asking the little girl if she was alright.

And Morrison doesn't exactly have room to talk given what they wrote their Diana doing. The conclusion to WW:E1 had far more disturbing implications about the type of people the Amazons are than just giving Diana a sword. Actually, given the anti-Arab racism and unintentional rape in WW:1984, that's two WW works that set out to avoid the "female Conan" take and put out something far more insidious. Slapping some bright colors, jokes and some superficial optimism and idealism doesn't mean ending your story by having your hero become a tyrant who brainwashes people is more revolting than Diana using a sword.

Last time i checked. Her fight with superman in snyder jl treated her the same way. 2 hits from Superman is all itb took to take care of her. Her fight with steppenwolñf was just her winning some time until superman arrives. She later killed him with the sword once he was already defeated. She did nothing major against him with her own powers. Which is why i dislike the sword and shield. They are taking spotlight time away from her own powers. And making her look like her powers alone are not good enough to face any big threat. Like she needs the sword and shield to do anything to a major threat. See Doomsday, see steppenwolf. That is not the WW i remember.