Why do so many writers suck at writing WW

[Koriand'r]

I mean, it's not like being vulnerable to bullets is something unique to her.

No, her power set is unique. As well as contradictory like Wonder Woman herself, that's why so few writers understand her.

[SiegePerilous02]

This rears it's head every few months, it makes me sad people just can't accept the way things are and move forward. She's not bullet proof as Gaelforce mentioned in her post, whether it's nonsensical or not depends on the reader. Picking at a scab makes it worse. That's why despite Perez clearly showing Diana's soul in the Well of Souls people complained she had none and was a golem and that's how we got daddy Zeus. Changes are a slippery slope. I feel making her invulnerable invalidates bullets and bracelets and makes her just another Kryptonian and there's value in the differences.

Leaving it as is is almost as bad as picking at the scab, because it just confuses people and is how we get moments like what Priest did in Justice League, and also doesn't make sense when she can shrug off a nuke or swim through lava. People are always going to ask about it, and bullets and bracelets is similarly never going to go away, so come up with a simple way to reconcile them both: she has a tool (the bracelets) to make the bullets harmless whereas simply letting them bounce off her wouldn't. Plus she uses them as part of Amazon tradition, as normal Amazons wouldn't have her extra powers and need them for full protection.

Has there ever been an explanation for why she'd be vulnerable to bladed or piercing weapons? Seems like a nonsensical thing to give her when, as Gaelforce mentioned, she can swim through lava and take a hit from Kryptonians. And like Agent Z said, she's not exactly unique if she isn't immune to bullets because that encompasses the majority of DC's superheroes and there are other things to play up to make her unique from the Supers and Marvel family.

[VonHammersmark]

Leaving it as is is almost as bad as picking at the scab, because it just confuses people and is how we get moments like what Priest did in Justice League, and also doesn't make sense when she can shrug off a nuke or swim through lava. People are always going to ask about it, and bullets and bracelets is similarly never going to go away, so come up with a simple way to reconcile them both: she has a tool (the bracelets) to make the bullets harmless whereas simply letting them bounce off her wouldn't. Plus she uses them as part of Amazon tradition, as normal Amazons wouldn't have her extra powers and need them for full protection.

Has there ever been an explanation for why she'd be vulnerable to bladed or piercing weapons? Seems like a nonsensical thing to give her when, as Gaelforce mentioned, she can swim through lava and take a hit from Kryptonians. And like Agent Z said, she's not exactly unique if she isn't immune to bullets because that encompasses the majority of DC's superheroes and there are other things to play up to make her unique from the Supers and Marvel family.

Yes actually there’s a perfectly good explanation for it, which is that toughness doesn’t equal hardness. For instance, rubber is very tough which means you can’t very well break it with a blunt instrument, however, you can slash it with a sharp knife because it’s not hard. Glass is the opposite, it's hard but very brittle. Heat/fire-resistance is another, separate property

BTW, Diana wasn't dying from the bullet wound in Priest's Justice League story

[Koriand'r]

Leaving it as is is almost as bad as picking at the scab, because it just confuses people and is how we get moments like what Priest did in Justice League, and also doesn't make sense when she can shrug off a nuke or swim through lava. People are always going to ask about it, and bullets and bracelets is similarly never going to go away, so come up with a simple way to reconcile them both: she has a tool (the bracelets) to make the bullets harmless whereas simply letting them bounce off her wouldn't. Plus she uses them as part of Amazon tradition, as normal Amazons wouldn't have her extra powers and need them for full protection.

Has there ever been an explanation for why she'd be vulnerable to bladed or piercing weapons? Seems like a nonsensical thing to give her when, as Gaelforce mentioned, she can swim through lava and take a hit from Kryptonians. And like Agent Z said, she's not exactly unique if she isn't immune to bullets because that encompasses the majority of DC's superheroes and there are other things to play up to make her unique from the Supers and Marvel family.

Most flying bricks are invulnerable. Getting to know the ins and outs of Wonder Woman's contradictory powers is part of the fun of being a fan. It's hard for some to understand but that's why we have to explain it to them. Invulnerability also makes it too easy for her, think of all the good stories we would have missed had she been invulnerable. No Stoned, no Circle, no first Devastation arc, no Sacrifice, etc. It adds drama. Being bloody is how you know its really hit the fan for Wonder Woman. Like armor and a sword and shield used to be a signal that the stakes were high, now it's a wound no normal mortal could recover from. Plus like Achilles, the vulnerability to edged and piercing weapons goes with her mythological background and propensity for ancient weaponry. Without it every time she crosses swords with someone her opponent's has to be magical or have some other explanation for why it could hurt her and that gets old really fast.


WW NOT INVULNERABLE.jpg

[Agent Z]

Most flying bricks are invulnerable. Getting to know the ins and outs of Wonder Woman's contradictory powers is part of the fun of being a fan. It's hard for some to understand but that's why we have to explain it to them. Invulnerability also makes it too easy for her, think of all the good stories we would have missed had she been invulnerable. No Stoned, no Circle, no first Devastation arc, no Sacrifice, etc. It adds drama. Being bloody is how you know its really hit the fan for Wonder Woman. Like armor and a sword and shield used to be a signal that the stakes were high, now it's a wound no normal mortal could recover from. Plus like Achilles, the vulnerability to edged and piercing weapons goes with her mythological background and propensity for ancient weaponry. Without it every time she crosses swords with someone her opponent's has to be magical or have some other explanation for why it could hurt her and that gets old really fast.


WW NOT INVULNERABLE.jpg

Being immune to bullets won't mean she can't be harmed. I don't know why this argument persists when it doesn't apply to Superman. In Stoned, she was blinded by Gorgon venom, in Circle she was injured by Gorgon blood as stated clearly and she was fighting Superman in Sacrifice.

There are plenty of ways to show Diana being hurt without her needing to be vulnerable to bullets. People just misuse the word invulnerable when it comes to her. Her being harmed by specialised weapons wouldn't get any more old than seeing Superman get hit with kryptonite or red sun radiation repeatedly.

[Koriand'r]

Being immune to bullets won't mean she can't be harmed. I don't know why this argument persists when it doesn't apply to Superman. In Stoned, she was blinded by Gorgon venom, in Circle she was injured by Gorgon blood as stated clearly and she was fighting Superman in Sacrifice.

There are plenty of ways to show Diana being hurt without her needing to be vulnerable to bullets. People just misuse the word invulnerable when it comes to her. Her being harmed by specialised weapons wouldn't get any more old than seeing Superman get hit with kryptonite or red sun radiation repeatedly.

Nazis, terrorists like in the scene from Justice League, paramilitary groups, Team Poison, anyone with a gun, none of them are credible threats if bullets can't hurt Wonder Woman. It takes out a whole swath of potential enemies and storytelling possibilities. Though extremely difficult, knowing a sniper can get the drop on her or that she can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers adds tension.

Her bracelets are her invulnerability.

[Agent Z]

Nazis, terrorists like in the scene from Justice League, paramilitary groups, Team Poison, anyone with a gun, none of them are credible threats if bullets can't hurt Wonder Woman. It takes out a whole swath of potential enemies and storytelling possibilities. Though extremely difficult, knowing a sniper can get the drop on her or that she can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers adds tension.

Her bracelets are her invulnerability.

She hasn't fought Nazis in decades save for a few sparodic appearances.

The JL movie was not a good showing for anyone not named Superman.

Poison wasn't a threat to Diana in the film and that did not detract from the story at all.

Unless the sniper actually succeeds in killing Diana, given she doesn't have enhanced senses, then it's pointless tension.

More does not equal better.

[Ulysses]

I think there have been many good Wonder Woman stories. I'm fine with the somewhat inconsistent portrayal. I don't worry about continuity very much. As long as the stories themselves are good, I'm happy with an ebb and flow of character interpretation. Superhero comics are the largest modern day collective story telling endeavor. I think Diana would be proud of our ability to embrace diversity of viewpoint.

[Koriand'r]

She hasn't fought Nazis in decades save for a few sparodic appearances.

The JL movie was not a good showing for anyone not named Superman.

Poison wasn't a threat to Diana in the film and that did not detract from the story at all.

Unless the sniper actually succeeds in killing Diana, given she doesn't have enhanced senses, then it's pointless tension.

More does not equal better.

Change doesn't equal better. Superman can be harmed by magic, red sun radiation and kryptonite...none of which effect Wonder Woman. Taking away her one weakness makes her overpowered and boring. We'll never agree on this and that's fine.

[SiegePerilous02]

Most flying bricks are invulnerable. Getting to know the ins and outs of Wonder Woman's contradictory powers is part of the fun of being a fan. It's hard for some to understand but that's why we have to explain it to them. Invulnerability also makes it too easy for her, think of all the good stories we would have missed had she been invulnerable. No Stoned, no Circle, no first Devastation arc, no Sacrifice, etc. It adds drama. Being bloody is how you know its really hit the fan for Wonder Woman. Like armor and a sword and shield used to be a signal that the stakes were high, now it's a wound no normal mortal could recover from. Plus like Achilles, the vulnerability to edged and piercing weapons goes with her mythological background and propensity for ancient weaponry. Without it every time she crosses swords with someone her opponent's has to be magical or have some other explanation for why it could hurt her and that gets old really fast.

The contradictory drama is fun for some, and very annoying for others. It's one of the reasons Wonder Woman is so hard to get into for some people.

And again, is the specific vulnerability to edged/piercing weapons something that has ever been established, or is it just fan theories to fill in the confusing blanks we've been left with by all the contradictory writing?

Nazis, terrorists like in the scene from Justice League, paramilitary groups, Team Poison, anyone with a gun, none of them are credible threats if bullets can't hurt Wonder Woman. It takes out a whole swath of potential enemies and storytelling possibilities. Though extremely difficult, knowing a sniper can get the drop on her or that she can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers adds tension.

Her bracelets are her invulnerability.

Anyone with a gun isn't really a threat most read Wonder Woman (or Superman, or Captain Marvel) for. That's more of a Batman thing. She fights war and hatred with love, the terrorists with guns represent more of a threat for everyone else and is an ongoing problem she cannot solve just with her fists, whereas she can directly confront the God that represents it to a stand still. That's where the drama comes from.

I'm fine with ditching Team Poison altogether, they were the one weak area of Rucka's take on the villains. Maru is a mad scientist who doesn't need to be a direct threat to Wonder Woman. She creates poisons and plagues that she can drop in populated areas, or even create poisonous mythological monsters to sic on Diana. No gun required.

Change doesn't equal better. Superman can be harmed by magic, red sun radiation and kryptonite...none of which effect Wonder Woman. Taking away her one weakness makes her overpowered and boring. We'll never agree on this and that's fine.

Circe would beg to differ. She's one of Diana's biggest foes and repeatedly hurts her with her spells. Cheetah similarly can slice her up with her divine claws. Diana is really no more immune to magic than Superman is. His weakness tends to be exaggerated.

I agree that change doesn't always equal better and there is plenty of old school WW stuff that I feel never needed to be changed or should be brought back, but this specific thing never seemed to have a lot of consistent thought put into it to begin with

[Koriand'r]

The contradictory drama is fun for some, and very annoying for others. It's one of the reasons Wonder Woman is so hard to get into for some people.

And again, is the specific vulnerability to edged/piercing weapons something that has ever been established, or is it just fan theories to fill in the confusing blanks we've been left with by all the contradictory writing?



Anyone with a gun isn't really a threat most read Wonder Woman (or Superman, or Captain Marvel) for. That's more of a Batman thing. She fights war and hatred with love, the terrorists with guns represent more of a threat for everyone else and is an ongoing problem she cannot solve just with her fists, whereas she can directly confront the God that represents it to a stand still. That's where the drama comes from.

I'm fine with ditching Team Poison altogether, they were the one weak area of Rucka's take on the villains. Maru is a mad scientist who doesn't need to be a direct threat to Wonder Woman. She creates poisons and plagues that she can drop in populated areas, or even create poisonous mythological monsters to sic on Diana. No gun required.



Circe would beg to differ. She's one of Diana's biggest foes and repeatedly hurts her with her spells. Cheetah similarly can slice her up with her divine claws. Diana is really no more immune to magic than Superman is. His weakness tends to be exaggerated.

I agree that change doesn't always equal better and there is plenty of old school WW stuff that I feel never needed to be changed or should be brought back, but this specific thing never seemed to have a lot of consistent thought put into it to begin with

I've given my points of view and I don't mind if you disagree. I will say you're being shortsighted in wanting to fix what isn't broken. A lot of that occurs with Wonder Woman for some reason, which is a pity. It seems she's in constant need of fixing, even from her most ardent fans.

[SiegePerilous02]

I've given my points of view and I don't mind if you disagree. I will say you're being shortsighted in wanting to fix what isn't broken. A lot of that occurs with Wonder Woman for some reason, which is a pity. It seems she's in constant need of fixing, even from her most ardent fans.

Ardent fans of many characters want to fix what they perceive is broken even though others may not perceive it as such. This forum runs on it.. It's fine that you disagree too, but you have wanted things to be fixed before as well. It's fine, it's what we do.

There's going to have to be explanations for the contradictions no matter what. Explaining that she has a weakness to piercing or bladed weapons (again, ever actually confirmed in the comics?) is going to take as much time as any other method, and people are inevitably going to ask why she isn't immune to bullets when she's the same tier of power as others who are immune (and is immune to much more dangerous things). Where did the weakness come from? Explaining that the bracelets are made of a metal that rob bullets of their kinetic energy wouldn't take much more time and still preserve bullets and bracelets, and it's not like the bullets cause a lot of drama anyway. When it DOES, it causes division in the fandom, to put it lightly.

[DrNewGod]

This rears it's head every few months, it makes me sad people just can't accept the way things are and move forward. She's not bullet proof as Gaelforce mentioned in her post, whether it's nonsensical or not depends on the reader. Picking at a scab makes it worse. That's why despite Perez clearly showing Diana's soul in the Well of Souls people complained she had none and was a golem and that's how we got daddy Zeus. Changes are a slippery slope. I feel making her invulnerable invalidates bullets and bracelets and makes her just another Kryptonian and there's value in the differences.

I'm with you on all points. I'd rather that somebody establish and stick with the idea that Diana doesn't have to be super-durable, because her speed and skill allow her to evade injury, even by Superman or the Flash.

That almost always triggers some kind of reply that "if she's not invulnerable, her own strength would tear her apart." My answer to that would be to suggest that all Amazons have significantly greater stamina/resilience/strength/speed/agility than a "normal" elite caliber male athlete (i.e. Batman), that above average Amazons are able to boost their feats of strength and speed through mystical/psychokinetic disciplines, and that Diana is mystically/psychokinetically off-the charts gifted compared to even an elite-caliber Amazon.

[VonHammersmark]

Her powers are not necessarily "contradictory" as I explained earlier but Wonder Woman can only get shot so many times before you begin wondering why she doesn't armour up, that's why I'm not convinced this weakness works

[Guy_McNichts]

If it was up to me, I would just embrace the idea that Diana's powers are not fixed or static. That, thanks to her Amazon training, she can lower or raise her (for lack of better wording) "power level" depending on the situation--which would inlcude her durability/vulnerability as well as strength.

Meaning, she can push herself to a point where she can fight someone like Superman, and when she's in that zone...yes, she's for all intents and purposes invulnerable. But she doesn't stay at that level all the time because she doesn't want to hurt anybody and/or it requires a degree of exertion on her part like flexing a muscle.

I could be wrong, but that would actually not be far off from Marston's original conception of Amazon powers--thanks to their training, they essentially will themselves to be as strong as needed.
With Diana, because she has powers from the gods (or is part god depending on your preference) she can push herself far beyond any of the others.

I don't think that would invalidate her need for bracelets because, as said, she isn't always going to be going to pushing herself that hard, and even when she is, getting shot or tanking a blow from Superman is still an impact that I imagine would hurt--not to mention energy attacks, lightning, lasers, etc.--and the bracelets are her shield.

As for what happens if/when she DOES get shot, I'd rather it hew closer to the scene Greg Rucka wrote as opposed to that nonsense Christopher Priest wrote.