Wonder Woman: Bloodlines (2019)

[Vordan]

And the DCAU version was based on Kingdom Come.

How though? She didn’t use a sword, her romance was a one-sided crush on Batman, she was the rookie of the team, etc.

[Guy_McNichts]

I wrote a blog a while back about Kingdom Come and how it impacted Wonder Woman. (Link here) if interested.

It basically boiled down to people (fans and creators) only seeing the surface level "Wonder Woman is a no-nonsense bad-ass with a sword" aspect of her depiction without considering the how and why she was acting that way in the story. And that eventually grew into the "Wonder Woman is a joyless WARRIOR" characterization which probably reached its apotheosis in the New 52 (or pretty much any time Geoff Johns wrote her).

I never considered if the DCAU's interpretation of Diana also owed something to Kingdom Come. Perhaps not overtly, but there is definitely some of the "WARRIOR first, all else second or optional" approach there and maybe that did come from KC.

Regardless, in many ways JLU probably had the more negative impact because--aside from reaching a larger audience--it, unlike Kingdom Come, doesn't have an in-universe reason for Diana to act that way. So people see JLU and assume that's just how Wonder Woman is. Hell, even the Injustice games make it clear that's an alternate universe.

Honestly, I think the only real positive to come of JLU is it established for a generation of audiences that Wonder Woman does indeed fly and she is supposed to be an upper-echelon powerhouse character.

[AmiMizuno]

https://www.cbr.com/warner-bros-wond...-origin/tldr/8

This is true.

[DochaDocha]

I think another appeal of Diana stealing the armor and leaving is it saves time. To take the live action movie as an example...yeah, they could've done the whole contest thing and everything that goes into it. But then we're over an hour into the movie before Diana even leaves the island. For the sake of running time and pacing, it was better to convey Diana's skills with the training montage and Hippolyta insisting Antiope make sure she's the best warrior.

Similarly, with Bloodlines, I think they just wanted to recap Diana's origin in the first five minutes as quickly as possible before moving onto the meat of the story. Hippolyta outright attacking Diana was a little over the top though, I'll agree.

https://www.cbr.com/warner-bros-wond...-origin/tldr/8

This is true.

I'd argue, though, for Bloodlines that recapping her origin was not all that useful.

These particular animated movies aren't like the live-action films in which they're supposed to be Wonder Woman 101 classes for n00bs. A good number of viewers are probably people who are watching WW for the first time, but they're mostly aimed toward comic fans, as well as fans of the animated line themselves who've watched a prior movie in the line. Why did we need to see her origin again? Look, I don't want to compare Bloodlines to All-Star Superman or Batman: Year One as far as being influential stories, but just imagine what a waste of time it would've been if those stories (and corresponding movies) spent time showing Martha Wayne's pearls and Krypton exploding. The time would've been better spent on developing the supporting characters of the movie.

[marhawkman]

How though? She didn’t use a sword, her romance was a one-sided crush on Batman, she was the rookie of the team, etc.

Realistically, most of the DCAU characters got written like that. It's the origin of the JL, so they don't have much experience working as a team and most of them were written as being new to heroing. They had TWO entire episodes where Stargirl talked about how much she felt inferior when Kryptonians showed up to a fight.

[kjn]

I'd argue, though, for Bloodlines that recapping her origin was not all that useful.

Agree.

I think the problem isn't so much that Wonder Woman's origin story gets retold, as that (a) there is a lack of other Wonder Woman stories, (b) that a lot of the retellings are poor.

If we take Bloodlines, what purpose does the opening serve? It's not particularly action-y, as in the classic James Bond opening scenes. It also does a disservice to Wonder Woman's ethos by making Themyscira a place she escapes rather than leaves. The only purpose the opening scenes have is introducing Themyscira so we can return to it as a place to be threatened later in the movie, but it fails in that because Themyscira isn't shown as a place that we should care about.

I also think that as origin stories go, Wonder Woman has a lot more in common with Spiderman than she does with Superman or Batman. Superman and Batman usually start from a place of no agency, and then have a lot of undefined growing up stuff that is elided before they appear more or less fully formed. In contrast, Wonder Woman's and Spiderman's origin stories are stories in their own right.

[SiegePerilous02]

I also think that as origin stories go, Wonder Woman has a lot more in common with Spiderman than she does with Superman or Batman. Superman and Batman usually start from a place of no agency, and then have a lot of undefined growing up stuff that is elided before they appear more or less fully formed. In contrast, Wonder Woman's and Spiderman's origin stories are stories in their own right.

I don't think I agree. Batman is definitely not fully formed in Miller's Year One at least, and it's definitely a story in its own right. All three of the trinity usually start at a place of agency. Clark and Bruce make the active choice to become superheroes and start their own journey, it just happens earlier in their life than Diana. Her agency decision is really the Contest, but stuff like Ares being active prompting Steve's crash and even further back with the origins of the Amazons don't require her to be an active participant any more than the destruction of Krypton or Joe Chill firing his gun.

Maybe its due to her being the one who was most thoroughly rebooted in the 80s and we followed her journey without time skips. But it also may be due to her origin being re-told even more than Superman's because DC usually has no clue what to do with her, so they just rehash the origin. But for the majority of her publication history, I don't think that she's any less of a static fully formed icon than the other two or had more agency. Just agency of a different sort.

[kjn]

I don't think I agree. Batman is definitely not fully formed in Miller's Year One at least, and it's definitely a story in its own right. All three of the trinity usually start at a place of agency. Clark and Bruce make the active choice to become superheroes and start their own journey, it just happens earlier in their life than Diana. Her agency decision is really the Contest, but stuff like Ares being active prompting Steve's crash and even further back with the origins of the Amazons don't require her to be an active participant any more than the destruction of Krypton or Joe Chill firing his gun.

Yes, both Superman's and Batman's origin tales can be told in several different ways, and some of them emphasise the story aspects. "Man and Superman" by Wolfman and Castellini is an excellent example of Superman's origin told as story (but note that it focuses on Metropolis, not Krypton or the Kents). But in most cases the stories don't do it that way, and in the original versions the characters appear more or less fully formed after the initial situations are set up.

On the other hand, Wonder Woman's origin story might not be as evolved as Spiderman's, but it does involve several decision points, pieces of conflict, and to some degree consequences. We have the decision to investigate Steve's crash and the decision to accompany Steve to Man's World in defiance of Hippolyta's wishes. Especially the last piece is critical here, since it gives the story a basic moral conflict that is a core part of her origin.

[SiegePerilous02]

Yes, both Superman's and Batman's origin tales can be told in several different ways, and some of them emphasise the story aspects. "Man and Superman" by Wolfman and Castellini is an excellent example of Superman's origin told as story (but note that it focuses on Metropolis, not Krypton or the Kents). But in most cases the stories don't do it that way, and in the original versions the characters appear more or less fully formed after the initial situations are set up.

On the other hand, Wonder Woman's origin story might not be as evolved as Spiderman's, but it does involve several decision points, pieces of conflict, and to some degree consequences. We have the decision to investigate Steve's crash and the decision to accompany Steve to Man's World in defiance of Hippolyta's wishes. Especially the last piece is critical here, since it gives the story a basic moral conflict that is a core part of her origin.

IDK, Golden Age Wonder Woman still doesn't strike me as being much less fully formed than Superman and Batman. I don't think Marston was interested in developing her all that much, nor that she needed to be. As far as he was concerned she was already awesome and we should all be more like her, why does she have to change?

There are basically just those two decisions, the last conflict is very brief and resolved before the end of an 8 page story. Yes Hippolyta is resistant to Diana leaving, but she gives up fairly quickly and seems amused when Diana defies her and wins the contest. And Wonder Woman can come and go as she pleases throughout the Golden Age. If she was giving up paradise, Marston abandoned the idea fairly quickly. It doesn't strike me as being emphasized more than Clark experiencing his adopted parents dying and resolving to use their teachings to help him navigate his adult life and mission, but he'd ultimately have to do it on his own. I think Superman and Wonder Woman in particular are interesting in the Golden age more so because the thought processes of their creators came through in the work, but writing styles being what they were, neither one of them were as layered as they could be later on. And both (and Batman) really started to get more in depth origin stories around the same time. Diana had the extended run by Perez, but Clark also had stuff like Birthright or Morrison's Action run.

Like I said, I think all three are just different in the way they do things, but they've all been in the same storytelling mold or static fully formed icon molds at various points.

[DochaDocha]

Realistically, most of the DCAU characters got written like that. It's the origin of the JL, so they don't have much experience working as a team and most of them were written as being new to heroing. They had TWO entire episodes where Stargirl talked about how much she felt inferior when Kryptonians showed up to a fight.

WW is the only one of the core seven who was really new to heroics. John Stewart specifically called her the "rookie in the tiara" (of all the aspects of her costume, why her tiara is what he commented about is funny to me) in the pilot three-parter. Since the first two seasons of the show focused on the main seven, being that group's rookie is a bit different from being one of the many rookies who appeared later in JLU.

I didn't find WW's greenness to be a big problem, but when you compare how unsophisticated she seemed compared to Gal Gadot's WW (who albeit had many of the same shortcomings but also had more positive things to bring to the table), the animated version comes across as lacking. And then there's some of the really annoying stuff DCAU Wonder Woman had, like the occasional pettiness and that really unappealing squabbling with Hawkgirl.

[SiegePerilous02]

Even when we overlook Diana, there really wasn't a single aspect of her mythos except maybe Steve and Circe that was done justice on that show.

[PopQuezy]

Even when we overlook Diana, there really wasn't a single aspect of her mythos except maybe Steve and Circe that was done justice on that show.

I honestly don't even remember Steve's appearance on that show. Circe had a wonderful visual and a memorable episode. Sadly, it had very little to do with Diana. I would also argue that Cheetah's most memorable moment was also with Batman.

[SiegePerilous02]

I honestly don't even remember Steve's appearance on that show. Circe had a wonderful visual and a memorable episode. Sadly, it had very little to do with Diana. I would also argue that Cheetah's most memorable moment was also with Batman.

I honestly almost forgot Steve too lol. He was in the season one finale when they travel back in time. I thought their final scene was sweet.

Everything to do with Cheetah was godawful. Ares was kind of a buffoon too.

[Vordan]

I honestly don't even remember Steve's appearance on that show. Circe had a wonderful visual and a memorable episode. Sadly, it had very little to do with Diana. I would also argue that Cheetah's most memorable moment was also with Batman.

Yep. Batman seducing her because he was just that awesome is what everyone remembers.

Timm and co. have said they didn’t really “get” Diana and it showed. They didn’t do anything with her mythos.

[Zahina]

Yep. Batman seducing her because he was just that awesome is what everyone remembers.

Timm and co. have said they didn’t really “get” Diana and it showed. They didn’t do anything with her mythos.

Also they never let her use the lasso of truth power except for one episode where Wonder Woman and Hawkgirl went to Tartarus to save Hades from Felix Faust.

They claim that the lasso would easily solve mysteries yet allowed Martian Manhunter use his mind reading power. Does that make any sense?