Why do so many writers suck at writing WW

[stargazer01]

Yeah but the fact that that is the case resulted in the plane being part of the larger pop culture conciousness. So it's next to impossible to get rid of even when the comics get rid of it. So why not allow for it to exist and get use in her comics history?

Its really not asking a whole lot.

I think you guys make good points why the invisible plane should have a place in WW's mythos. Just give some kind of explanation and that's it. You are right, these superhero films shouldn't be taken so seriously. this is supposed to be mostly fun and escapism.

Sometimes I think Nolan did some real damage to the DC universe with his very 'realistic' and gritty take. It hurt Superman more than anyone. The only issue I find with the plane is that it makes no sense for Diana to have it if she can fly. Seriously.

[Agent Z]

Yeah but the fact that that is the case resulted in the plane being part of the larger pop culture conciousness. So it's next to impossible to get rid of even when the comics get rid of it. So why not allow for it to exist and get use in her comics history?

Its really not asking a whole lot.

People might know about the place but how many of them actually like it? The typical reactions I see to it when it shows up in adaptations is either indifference or annoyance. And her movie wasn't exactly hurt by it's lack of presence in it.

[SiegePerilous02]

People might know about the place but how many of them actually like it? The typical reactions I see to it when it shows up in adaptations is either indifference or annoyance. And her movie wasn't exactly hurt by it's lack of presence in it.

How many reactions are you monitoring? Unless you see how everyone reacts to it, that sounds anecdotal and not really solid.

Her movie wasn't hurt by it, but say a cartoon series (which we will likely never see) might want to use it. I just don't get why you seem dead set against it period, no matter what an author can do to update it. Or even having its place in her history make sense without getting rid of flight either. There are probably some who want to get rid of flight in favor of the plane, but not everyone is advocating for that, and I think the latter group is making a reasonable request. Just because you're indifferent to it doesn't mean it lacks fans or doesn't have a place in her mythos.

Sometimes I think Nolan did some real damage to the DC universe with his very 'realistic' and gritty take. It hurt Superman more than anyone. The only issue I find with the plane is that it makes no sense for Diana to have it if she can fly. Seriously.

It goes further back than that. Look at Byrne's (mostly awful) Superman stuff for example. That was an attempt to make the Super-mythos more serious. It worked for a lot of people, but it just made everything seem dumber to me because they weren't going all out. Like Supergirl being Superman's cousin is silly, let's make her a shape shifting slime from another dimension instead, because THAT's high art *eyeroll*.

[kjn]

People might know about the place but how many of them actually like it? The typical reactions I see to it when it shows up in adaptations is either indifference or annoyance. And her movie wasn't exactly hurt by it's lack of presence in it.

I think it's much like the ice cream: too much is a bad thing. You don't need to explain why Diana loves ice cream, just as you don't need to (or should) make a big point about the plane.

Not including the invisible plane didn't hurt the movie, but it was cram full of different nods to her history and lore anyway. Also, it I can't see a natural fit for it in the plot for the first Wonder Woman movie, and it wouldn't fit into the First World War aesthetic anyway, I think. WW84 is a wholly another proposition, though.

[SiegePerilous02]

A film is also a finite story with no room really to add absolutely everything. So it's ok if stuf2f is missing or changed to a degree. Even with a trilogy they cannot do more than scratch the surface.

The comics don't have that limitation though.

[Koriand'r]

A film is also a finite story with no room really to add absolutely everything. So it's ok if stuf2f is missing or changed to a degree. Even with a trilogy they cannot do more than scratch the surface.

The comics don't have that limitation though.

The movies don't either, not really. Aquaman managed to include his origin, 2 major villains, various locales, the 9 kingdom's of Atlantis, the Trench, a laviathon and Topo the drums playing octopus. His team had a stronger vision and actually cared about comic book accuracy, that was far from what happened to Wonder Woman. They couldn't even get her powers right.

[The I.A.D.C.]

This thread went from discussing writers to an argument about the invisible plane. Have any of you checked out the thread about Hallmark's new WW ornament for 2019? It's the invisible jet. While it may not be part of the comic lore anymore, it's still very much intrenched in the minds of pop culture. They associate the invisible plane with WW like they do the Batmobile with Batman. "She can fly. Why does she need an invisible plane." Because it's F--ing cool, that's why. Or at least, it could be really cool if you got a writer who would really lean in to the more outrageous aspects of her history and just go with it. When I saw the Helicarrier in the first "Avengers" movie, I thought, "Huh. It's a WW's invisible plane on steroids."

[ermac]

When was the last time WW was involved in something truly exciting? When she killed Max Lord?

[starlight25]

Superman is totally a Jesus figure to me. His otherworldly father Jor-El sent his only son to Earth to save us, inspire us and give us hope. He was even killed and came back to life. And he can fly and has superpowers that make him seem like a god. The Jesus/Superman parallels exist for a reason.

I can't see the Jesus/WW connection, though. Sure, she's powerful and different but I see her more like a warrior.

She is not just a warrior. And even then, it's been a long time since we have seen WW doing anything epic as a powerhouse. One would assume that epic action would be the easiest part for writers to get right. But it doesn't seem to be the case.

[kjn]

The movies don't either, not really. Aquaman managed to include his origin, 2 major villains, various locales, the 9 kingdom's of Atlantis, the Trench, a laviathon and Topo the drums playing octopus. His team had a stronger vision and actually cared about comic book accuracy, that was far from what happened to Wonder Woman. They couldn't even get her powers right.

Themyscira brought to life, in an improved Pérez fashion.

Doctor Poison and Ares.

Themyscira (real life!), London (real life!), Belgium (real life!), Flanders fields (real life!).

Crossing No Man's Land—one of the top superhero movie moments ever. And I'll take 20 horses in a real charge over 1,000 CGI laser sharks in a heartbeat.

As for comic book accuracy, it's tricky when half of the comics don't agree with the other half. But we got bullets and bracelets, ice cream, Diana's training and education, nice Amazons, the Lasso of Truth, super-strength, super-speed, super-empathy, Diana defying Hippolyta, Diana Prince alias, bubbly fun competent Etta Candy, Steve as a pilot, Diana's language knowledge, mercy as a plot point, and turning Ares's strength against himself.

Aquaman was a fun romp, but it doesn't hold a candle to the thematic resonances or character work in Wonder Woman.

[stargazer01]

btw, how does Diana know other languages if the Amazons can't leave the island and return?

[SiegePerilous02]

The movies don't either, not really. Aquaman managed to include his origin, 2 major villains, various locales, the 9 kingdom's of Atlantis, the Trench, a laviathon and Topo the drums playing octopus. His team had a stronger vision and actually cared about comic book accuracy, that was far from what happened to Wonder Woman. They couldn't even get her powers right.

Aquaman, while a great fun movie, was also kind of dumber and put more spectacle over substance. That doesn't make it bad, it's just different. Some say they went overboard and blew their load too early. I think WW and Shazam did a better job at not showing too much and saving stuff for sequels.

Everything in the Wonder Woman movie has roots in the comics. Just not the comics you'd prefer I guess (Perez's Amazons are just as likely to be used for adaptation as Marston's, if not more so). But that was bound to happen for some when the source material is so inconsistent with itself (she's so far left the island to deal with Ares during WWII, the Cold War and the present day, so it's hard to accuse the film of deviating from anything solid with WWI). As for her powers, he being unaware of them and slowly learning about them is an actual plot point. So it's inaccurate to say they did her powers wrong, just that they are unlocking them in a way you don't prefer. And well...the comics aren't very consistent either, so these movies are kind of screwed to an extent no matter what path they take.

This thread went from discussing writers to an argument about the invisible plane. Have any of you checked out the thread about Hallmark's new WW ornament for 2019? It's the invisible jet. While it may not be part of the comic lore anymore, it's still very much intrenched in the minds of pop culture. They associate the invisible plane with WW like they do the Batmobile with Batman. "She can fly. Why does she need an invisible plane." Because it's F--ing cool, that's why. Or at least, it could be really cool if you got a writer who would really lean in to the more outrageous aspects of her history and just go with it. When I saw the Helicarrier in the first "Avengers" movie, I thought, "Huh. It's a WW's invisible plane on steroids."

Superheroes run on Rule of Cool. Within reason, that's all that is required to justify the plane's existence.

And yes, the Avengers movies displaying the stealth invisible jets is exactly how the Amazon plane should function. Plus Paquette's art shows how it can look in the comics medium. It gets the point across, we don't need to see her sitting in mid-air anymore.

[DrNewGod]

Yeah but the fact that that is the case resulted in the plane being part of the larger pop culture conciousness. So it's next to impossible to get rid of even when the comics get rid of it. So why not allow for it to exist and get use in her comics history?

Its really not asking a whole lot.

Ah. I think I misunderstood your previous post. We agree.

[Angleman70]

I can see the usefulness of a jet versus being able to fly, depending on whether the jet has it's own arsenal, might be faster then her average flight speed, and is invisible to radar and other senses.

I’m sorry, I just am not buying the need for the plane. Batman, Green arrow, etc... I can get using an aircraft, but Diana absolutely not. So it’s ok for Superman, Supergirl, Power Girl, Martian Manhunter to fly without ever using an aircraft , but WW fans clamor for the jet. What this represents to me is that Diana is not worthy of Flying or to have that power to do so. As a matter of fact it’s an insult to Diana as an important powerful character more in line with Superman. Some of you may not have read the pre-crisis version where all she could do was glide on air currents and the use of the jet. That version devalued her power set. After the Crisis she FINALLY gets the full powers she was meant to have which includes the power of flight. I cannot in any logical way of thinking believe the invisible jet is valuable to her mythos. When Superman uses a jet to fly around in than maybe I’ll buy into the invisible jet.

[SiegePerilous02]

I’m sorry, I just am not buying the need for the plane. Batman, Green arrow, etc... I can get using an aircraft, but Diana absolutely not. So it’s ok for Superman, Supergirl, Power Girl, Martian Manhunter to fly without ever using an aircraft , but WW fans clamor for the jet. What this represents to me is that Diana is not worthy of Flying or to have that power to do so. As a matter of fact it’s an insult to Diana as an important powerful character more in line with Superman. Some of you may not have read the pre-crisis version where all she could do was glide on air currents and the use of the jet. That version devalued her power set. After the Crisis she FINALLY gets the full powers she was meant to have which includes the power of flight. I cannot in any logical way of thinking believe the invisible jet is valuable to her mythos. When Superman uses a jet to fly around in than maybe I’ll buy into the invisible jet.

Superman and the others never had a jet, and Wonder Woman did. Which is why some WW fans want the jet back in her mythos but don't demand anything for the other characters you mentioned. Seems simple enough. And if she was always meant to have flight, I imagine Marston would have given it to her.

The pro-jet people, at least in this thread, seem a little more willing to find a middle ground to satisfy everyone than the pro-flight only people. As a narrative, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Diana being flightless early on so she can use the Invisible Plane and show off Amazon tech that rivals the tech of other corners of the DCU, and getting flight later. Absolutely none. It reflects her actual publication history. With this, the plane and its place in her history makes sense even if it doesn't get active use in the present, which gives a satisfying status quo for everyone (or else it should).

This is what happens when you keep rebooting her. Things that used to have simple explanations no longer do so, for little gain. Wonder Woman's canon not having room for all of her stuff at any given time is why her franchise is such a shallow, contradictory mess. All her stuff gets dumped to be replaced by a new supporting cast, history, and lore, before that too is dumped. Rinse, lather, repeat. Rebooting, especially the kind of reboots from COIE onward, never do DC any good in the long run, her (among their major characters) in particular.