What the hell is snyder doing?

[AmiMizuno]

I wonder if Wonder Woman could get her own editor, who should it be ?

[Stanlos]

Because she is so small. She is with Batman's editorial office. Unless she grows to the point DC feels they need to add another book in the main line there is no way DC will right now add another book. The reason is her numbers. However, at least her numbers at better.

I don't think she is small but as Byrne pointed out after his run ended there seems to those in key positions that are very interested in making her small and less than secondary.

[starlight25]

I don't think she is small but as Byrne pointed out after his run ended there seems to those in key positions that are very interested in making her small and less than secondary.

But why? Isn't this a business? Don't they want to make as much money as possible with her? She has had more than enough success through different formats to prove her potential. How come they don't want to gain as much as they can with her? Only more consistency and focus is needed. Her 2017 movie is the most recent example of the potential that is there.

[kjn]

I think it's rather because Wonder Woman is a tricky character to get a handle of for many people. Not because of who she is, but because of what she represents, and the way that threatens the dominant, default ideologies that dominates the world and have become internalised in our minds.

Because Wonder Woman is political and subversive at her core. She is kink-friendly in a puritan society with lots of taboos about sex. She is a feminist in a patriarchal world. She grew up with thousands of mothers in a world where the father is central for the narrative. She is queer in a heteronormative society. She is here to stop wars, and wars are fundamentally political.

While Batman and Superman represents two different American ideals, Wonder Woman is a challenge and a threat to those same ideals.

One reaction to this is to remove or play down some of those aspects. Pérez made her into a virginal goddess. Morrison made her into a rebel against her own society. Azzarello made her into a Diana, warrior princess, and a moral hero despite her upbringing. Robinson made men—Jason and Zeus—central in her narrative. Even Rucka wasn't immune, since he brought Steve Trevor into the special ops mythology and fetishisation. And so on. One can of course tell good stories using those premises. But since they all removed central aspects of what made Diana tick, she was made into a hollow character. Thus the frequent reboots and reimaginings, as new writers tried to patch the hole with something, only to rip out some other thing they were uncomfortable with.

I think that's why the movie and The Legend of Wonder Woman could feel so true to her character, because by setting it in the First and Second World War, Wonder Woman could be subversive, queer, feminist, and anti-war without threatening today's narratives. It will be interesting if that will survive into the 1980s with the next film, but I think if Patty Jenkins is allowed a free hand she can pull it off.

[starlight25]

I think it's rather because Wonder Woman is a tricky character to get a handle of for many people. Not because of who she is, but because of what she represents, and the way that threatens the dominant, default ideologies that dominates the world and have become internalised in our minds.

Because Wonder Woman is political and subversive at her core. She is kink-friendly in a puritan society with lots of taboos about sex. She is a feminist in a patriarchal world. She grew up with thousands of mothers in a world where the father is central for the narrative. She is queer in a heteronormative society. She is here to stop wars, and wars are fundamentally political.

While Batman and Superman represents two different American ideals, Wonder Woman is a challenge and a threat to those same ideals.

One reaction to this is to remove or play down some of those aspects. Pérez made her into a virginal goddess. Morrison made her into a rebel against her own society. Azzarello made her into a Diana, warrior princess, and a moral hero despite her upbringing. Robinson made men—Jason and Zeus—central in her narrative. Even Rucka wasn't immune, since he brought Steve Trevor into the special ops mythology and fetishisation. And so on. One can of course tell good stories using those premises. But since they all removed central aspects of what made Diana tick, she was made into a hollow character. Thus the frequent reboots and reimaginings, as new writers tried to patch the hole with something, only to rip out some other thing they were uncomfortable with.

I think that's why the movie and The Legend of Wonder Woman could feel so true to her character, because by setting it in the First and Second World War, Wonder Woman could be subversive, queer, feminist, and anti-war without threatening today's narratives. It will be interesting if that will survive into the 1980s with the next film, but I think if Patty Jenkins is allowed a free hand she can pull it off.

This is why i like her character so much. If you look at her classic comics. Her character was talking about equal rights, sexual liberation for women, homosexuality, racism, etc in a very conservative era like the 40s. She was ahead of her time. The thing is there is no reason to fear her character. Look at the way marvel is pushing carol danvers, even making her pretty much a femi nazi with the attitude she has in recent comics. Wonder Woman is not like that at all. If marvel can avoid being afraid of a femi nazi portrayal for the female hero they are trying to make their main female. Why would DC be afraid of Wonder Woman, when her ideas and concepts are not meant to be anti men? Specially in this social justice warrior era. It is ironic that they aren't taking the time to go deeper with her, since the themes her character has covered for so many decades, are more relevant than ever now. Society is still talking and discussing all these topics, in and out of the entertaiment world. And Wonder Woman is a character that genuinely incorporated them way before they were cool, and didn't use them as a mere tool to please. Like it's done so often with the inclusive agenda of today. Yet they try to basically run away from her legacy. If they supported her they could gain a lot. Her film in 2017 is another example of her potential.

[daBronzeBomma]

Why isn't Wonder Woman given the Golden Child treatment at DC that Superman had for 50 years, and then Batman has had for the last 30 years?

Two reasons.

1. Prejudice, mainly and specifically sexism. Because, DUH!

2. Unlike Batman in 1986-1989 (the period of time when he began challenging Superman for the crown till he took it outright with his movie), Wonder Woman has had a dearth of successful game-changing stories to dovetail with her movies success to grant her Golden Child status.

Basically, where is Diana's equivalent of THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS?

Where is her award-winning contained story that kicks off an avalanche of other writers and artists telling great story after great story? TDKR led to YEAR ONE, SON OF THE DEMON, THE CULT, ARKHAM ASYLUM, A DEATH IN THE FAMILY, a new ongoing solo title LEGENDS OF THE DARK KNIGHT, all right before or around the time of his 1989 movie. Bats was riding a creative wave that started in the comics and culminated onscreen.

Diana had the hit movie without the massive creative wave in the comics to sustain the momentum.

For the opposite end, look at GREEN LANTERN from 2005 - 2011. Crazy creative wave from the comics (REBIRTH, SINESTRO WAR, BLACKEST NIGHT, multiple new ongoing titles for the franchise, etc) but a total turd of a movie in 2011 stopped his momentum cold and he didn't overthrow Bats as the new Golden Child at DC.

So that's it in a nutshell. Wondy had only 1 of the 2 requirements in place when her moment came in 2017. Plus, you know, omnipresent sexism too.

[starlight25]

Why isn't Wonder Woman given the Golden Child treatment at DC that Superman had for 50 years, and then Batman has had for the last 30 years?

Two reasons.

1. Prejudice, mainly and specifically sexism. Because, DUH!

2. Unlike Batman in 1986-1989 (the period of time when he began challenging Superman for the crown till he took it outright with his movie), Wonder Woman has had a dearth of successful game-changing stories to dovetail with her movies success to grant her Golden Child status.

Basically, where is Diana's equivalent of THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS?

Where is her award-winning contained story that kicks off an avalanche of other writers and artists telling great story after great story? TDKR led to YEAR ONE, SON OF THE DEMON, THE CULT, ARKHAM ASYLUM, A DEATH IN THE FAMILY, a new ongoing solo title LEGENDS OF THE DARK KNIGHT, all right before or around the time of his 1989 movie. Bats was riding a creative wave that started in the comics and culminated onscreen.

Diana had the hit movie without the massive creative wave in the comics to sustain the momentum.

For the opposite end, look at GREEN LANTERN from 2005 - 2011. Crazy creative wave from the comics (REBIRTH, SINESTRO WAR, BLACKEST NIGHT, multiple new ongoing titles for the franchise, etc) but a total turd of a movie in 2011 stopped his momentum cold and he didn't overthrow Bats as the new Golden Child at DC.

So that's it in a nutshell. Wondy had only 1 of the 2 requirements in place when her moment came in 2017. Plus, you know, omnipresent sexism too.

The reason why she hasn't had as many epic stories in the comics is because she hasn't been given the chance. The last time she was the center of an event was 25 years ago. And how is she going to have a son of the demon, the cult, etc. If they are never consistent with her verse? They change things every 3 seconds, they nerf her, take away powers, etc. It's not her fault that they put almost zero effort into being consistent with her character and verse. The fact she has achieved all she achieved despite of this is impressive.

[Geraldofrivia]

I think it's rather because Wonder Woman is a tricky character to get a handle of for many people. Not because of who she is, but because of what she represents, and the way that threatens the dominant, default ideologies that dominate the world and have become internalised in our minds.

Because Wonder Woman is political and subversive at her core. She is kink-friendly in a puritan society with lots of taboos about sex. She is a feminist in a patriarchal world. She grew up with thousands of mothers in a world where the father is central for the narrative. She is queer in a heteronormative society. She is here to stop wars, and wars are fundamentally political.

While Batman and Superman represent two different American ideals, Wonder Woman is a challenge and a threat to those same ideals.

One reaction to this is to remove or play down some of those aspects. Pérez made her into a virginal goddess. Morrison made her into a rebel against her own society. Azzarello made her into a Diana, warrior princess, and a moral hero despite her upbringing. Robinson made men—Jason and Zeus—central in her narrative. Even Rucka wasn't immune since he brought Steve Trevor into the special ops mythology and fetishisation. And so on. One can, of course, tell good stories using those premises. But since they all removed central aspects of what made Diana tick, she was made into a hollow character. Thus the frequent reboots and reimaginings, as new writers tried to patch the hole with something, only to rip out some other thing they were uncomfortable with.

I think that's why the movie and The Legend of Wonder Woman could feel so true to her character because by setting it in the First and Second World War, Wonder Woman could be subversive, queer, feminist, and anti-war without threatening today's narratives. It will be interesting if that will survive into the 1980s with the next film, but I think if Patty Jenkins is allowed a free hand she can pull it off.

The movie had shades of her character from the comics but it still had Zeus, Amazons living with bows and Arrows.

It neglected a lot of her feminist themes and Woman empowerment for a generic storyline while movies like Black Panther proudly embraced Black empowerment, slavery, oppression of black people in the movie instead of shying away from its origin

No important female side characters, exclusion of female Gods from her and Amazons origin.Amazons not having technology or powerful magic. The movie was set in 1917 when Woman was not even allowed to vote and that barely is even in the movie.

WW have now become a generic female Superhero who is powerful because she is daughter of Zeus and there is nothing that differentiates her from Ms Marvel or Supergirl.

[RudHao]

This is why i like her character so much. If you look at her classic comics. Her character was talking about equal rights, sexual liberation for women, homosexuality, racism, etc in a very conservative era like the 40s. She was ahead of her time. The thing is there is no reason to fear her character. Look at the way marvel is pushing carol danvers, even making her pretty much a femi nazi with the attitude she has in recent comics. Wonder Woman is not like that at all. If marvel can avoid being afraid of a femi nazi portrayal for the female hero they are trying to make their main female. Why would DC be afraid of Wonder Woman, when her ideas and concepts are not meant to be anti men? Specially in this social justice warrior era. It is ironic that they aren't taking the time to go deeper with her, since the themes her character has covered for so many decades, are more relevant than ever now. Society is still talking and discussing all these topics, in and out of the entertaiment world. And Wonder Woman is a character that genuinely incorporated them way before they were cool, and didn't use them as a mere tool to please. Like it's done so often with the inclusive agenda of today. Yet they try to basically run away from her legacy. If they supported her they could gain a lot. Her film in 2017 is another example of her potential.

That direction for captain marvel has lead to multiple cancellations and relaunches due to poor sales.....

[SiegePerilous02]

The movie had shades of her character from the comics but it still had Zeus, Amazons living with bows and Arrows.

It neglected a lot of her feminist themes and Woman empowerment for a generic storyline while movies like Black Panther proudly embraced Black empowerment, slavery, oppression of black people in the movie instead of shying away from its origin

No important female side characters, exclusion of female Gods from her and Amazons origin.Amazons not having technology or powerful magic. The movie was set in 1917 when Woman was not even allowed to vote and that barely is even in the movie.

WW have now become a generic female Superhero who is powerful because she is daughter of Zeus and there is nothing that differentiates her from Ms Marvel or Supergirl.

Zeus was an afterthought compared to the way that aspect was implemented in the comics. He's an eleventh hour reveal and nothing else.

As for important female side characters: Hippolyta, Antiope and Etta. Dr. Poison as a villain. And obviously we are getting Barbara Ann soon. We don't typically have superhero movies where the superhero is trained by their aunt. And going by the Golden Age comics, for named female side characters she typically just had Hippolyta and Etta, with the Amazons and Holliday Girls just being groups with few distinct individual members.

[MajorHoy]

Maybe they need to decide if they want her to be able to glide on air currents and not truly "fly" for sustained periods (which is how she use to able to do things back in the last century).
And if they decide that's her limitation, she should have the invisible plane for sustained travel through the air.

[starlight25]

That direction for captain marvel has lead to multiple cancellations and relaunches due to poor sales.....

But they still pus cm in that direction of being almost feminazi. Wonder Woman is not like that. So what is thev problem with them? Nothing wrong with exploring the different themes that the character of Wonder Woman covers, as long as it is done in a respectul way, without attacking anybody. Nothing wrong with portraying her as a powerhouse, and nothing wrong with picking up one origin and stick by it.

[kjn]

The movie had shades of her character from the comics but it still had Zeus, Amazons living with bows and Arrows.

And so? The core about the Amazons isn't that they're high-tech, it's that they are a healthy, loving, supportive society that taught Diana about the value of love. I'd much rather have that then Morrison's dour Amazons who look down on everybody on the outside, flying bikes or not.

It neglected a lot of her feminist themes and Woman empowerment for a generic storyline while movies like Black Panther proudly embraced Black empowerment, slavery, oppression of black people in the movie instead of shying away from its origin

That is a side effect of that Wonder Woman was a much more focused film than Black Panther. Wonder Woman subordinated everything to a female-centric coming-of-age story. So it acknowledged the suffragettes, the racism, and the class divisions of the early 20th century, and introduced them to Diana as integral parts of her journey of self-discovery.

Black Panther on the other hand, suffered from that it hinted at working on lots of themes, but never really settled down to really dig into one of them. And its focus on the rightful king grated. It's still a good movie, but I hold Logan and Wonder Woman higher on a thematic level.

[Geraldofrivia]

Zeus was an afterthought compared to the way that aspect was implemented in the comics. He's an eleventh hour reveal and nothing else.

As for important female side characters: Hippolyta, Antiope and Etta. Dr. Poison as a villain. And obviously we are getting Barbara Ann soon. We don't typically have superhero movies where the superhero is trained by their aunt. And going by the Golden Age comics, for named female side characters she typically just had Hippolyta and Etta, with the Amazons and Holliday Girls just being groups with few distinct individual members.

Oh Wow, it was not like She was created and powered by Female Gods in comics. Also, the Amazon training means nothing in the movie since she ultimately uses the Godly powers she inherited from her father to kill Ares.

The third act of WW with appearance of Ares is completely against the theme of the movie that War is not caused by a Single person like Ares

I wouldn't be surprised if Barbara is nothing more than a dumb woman who is a pawn in the hands of Pedro Pascal's character( 99.99% Maxwell Lord). Also, her character arc will be incomplete and left for Legion of Doom movie which will never probably happen

The feminist foundation of this WW movie is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed in the sequel. Hope a rebooted WW movie in the future will be true to her origins.

[SiegePerilous02]

Oh Wow, it was not like She was created and powered by Female Gods in comics. Also, the Amazon training means nothing in the movie since she ultimately uses the Godly powers she inherited from her father to kill Ares.

She doesn't consistently get her powers from female Gods in the comics. She originally didn't get her powers from any Gods at all. In the Silver Age she got it from Hercules. it being an innate power inside of her due to genetics has the benefit of Athena not zapping her powers away on a whim.
She does more than fight Ares in this film, her skills as a warrior are used throughout the films when she doesn't have her full powers to fall back on, because she is still unlocking them. She will also not be fighting Ares in the sequel, obviously.

The third act of WW with appearance of Ares is completely against the theme of the movie that War is not caused by a Single person like Ares

Um...no. Ares is actively trying to make things worse, and she defeats him and doesn't give in to his philosophy. At no point does the film pin the blame for man's capacity for violence on Ares. She just comes to see all the facets of mankind, good and bad, and loves them anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised if Barbara is nothing more than a dumb woman who is a pawn in the hands of Pedro Pascal's character( 99.99% Maxwell Lord). Also, her character arc will be incomplete and left for Legion of Doom movie which will never probably happen

There are other avenues for Cheetah to appear in besides the Legion of Doom. If WW84 is successful, we'll be getting a third movie and I don't see why she won't appear there. Since Jenkins has been planning Steve's resurrection since developing the first film, a longer multi-film arc for Barbara is not outside the realm of possibility..
Barbara's hubris and envy making her easily manipulated by Gods is what we got Rebirth, and she is by no means a "dumb woman" there. She won't be here if she goes down a similar path. Dismissing female characters for not living up to a perceived narrative standard also doesn't strike me as very feminist.

The feminist foundation of this WW movie is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed in the sequel.

And yet, it was a hit with critics and audiences, particularly among women. So clearly your opinion is not shared by the majority.

Hope a rebooted WW movie in the future will be true to her origins.

Which origins would that be? Because they got most of the core stuff that remains consistent: princess of the Amazons, Amazons are loving and supportive, Steve crashes on the island, leaves island to stop Ares.

Should they be faithful to her clay origin or should they have Prince Theno be her father? Should she get her powers from Amazon training or from Hercules and Hermes or from Zeus or from Demeter? Should the Amazons be sci-fi or more sword and sandal like they were in Perez (the film's inspiration, and not by any means an obscure or unpopular run that didn't last for a while)?

Marston isn't the only game in town, hasn't been for a while. An adaptation takes bits and pieces from all over the long publication history of the character, because that's what they do. You say it's not faithful to her origins, but it is plenty faithful to certain source materials.