Wonder Woman - General Discussion

[WonderLight789]

You can't say "immortals can't die" and then go "there can be a specific way to kill them"

Superman is not immortal since he still ages. The Amazons are immortal since they never age and will never die unless wounded. The gods are immortal but can still die as they have countless times. WW had an entire mini series titled The Immortal Wonder Woman.

WW can be killed by anybody that is morre powerful than her. And in some versions badly writen. A bullet is enough to do the job. She is not truly immortal. Immortal means you can't die. Not aging isn't the same thing.

[WonderLight789]

I think it was clear that she was the winner on land in JL. But underwater, Aquaman should always have the uppderhand against any of the League imo.



She did kill him in Flashpoint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWM1...istercustodian

And he never beat her on ground in JS, the battle was never truly over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSAb...el=VeteranWolf

But I am surprised that they've fought so much in animation.

He was overpowering WW on land in the JS movie. She needed her 2 hands to try to get rid of him holdsing her with one hand.

I am not surprised they have fought a lot. In current comics they have fought many times. And they always portray AQ as equal to her on land and above her underwater. Sigh. Sm can beat AQ underwater. And one shotted AQ on land. At best, WW has to settle for winning with difficulty on land. WW is so ''powerful'' nowadays.

[HestiasHearth]

Speaking of, I would actually love an Immortal Wonder Woman series that follows Zach Snyder's general idea for the first Wonder Woman film. Wonder Woman at different wars throughout time in her search to defeat Ares. I think it was Gaius or Dr. Poison who suggested once that a different Wonder Rogue should be the leader of each war. Wonder Woman throughout time until she confronts Ares in a hypothetical World War III in present-day could be a phenomenal mini-series.

No, thanks! Isn't one of his "great" ideas for the "totally badass" WW that she collects the decapitated heads of her fallen enemies? That totally defeats the purpose of who she is and goes against the character that Marston created. Yeah, yeah, I know she is a fierce warrior, but she can be such and still not be a blood-thirsty Wolverine/Lobo clone. That is not who WW is.

[Koriand'r]

Honestly, I don't understand the idea of Diana being "royal". If anything, what makes her special and beloved is that she's the only child of an island of women, and blessed with those amazing gifts and force of will.

Noooo the Princess part is very important, not to her but to us and how we see her. She was born into a leadership role that she wields effortlessly and compassionately. She shouldn't be spoiled, entitled, arrogant or aloof because of her royal station. She should just be the Disney Princess with superpowers we all know and love.

[Primal Slayer]

No, thanks! Isn't one of his "great" ideas for the "totally badass" WW that she collects the decapitated heads of her fallen enemies? That totally defeats the purpose of who she is and goes against the character that Marston created. Yeah, yeah, I know she is a fierce warrior, but she can be such and still not be a blood-thirsty Wolverine/Lobo clone. That is not who WW is.

They arent saying follw his idea to a T. Its the general idea of her being around 5000 years

[PopQuezy]

No, thanks! Isn't one of his "great" ideas for the "totally badass" WW that she collects the decapitated heads of her fallen enemies? That totally defeats the purpose of who she is and goes against the character that Marston created. Yeah, yeah, I know she is a fierce warrior, but she can be such and still not be a blood-thirsty Wolverine/Lobo clone. That is not who WW is.

Hence why I said the "general idea." I never said she must be bloodthirsty or collect heads. However, I do like the idea of following Diana/Wonder Woman through different wars throughout history. It'll also be cool to see how D.C. would adapt different Wonder Rogues at different points in time, i.e. how they reinterpreted Dr. Poison in the first Wonder Woman movie. It would be a great use of her immortality and exploring her character in a mini-series.

[Guy_McNichts]

The thing is whenever the topic of who Marvel's "Trinity" or equivalent of Superman, Batman, & Wonder Woman comes up, the real question is in what capacity.

Who is Marvel's "Superman" in the sense of "inspiration leader figure that other heroes rally around in times of crisis"? That would be Captain America.
In the sense of "the face of the company, their most iconic character who gets plastered on all merchandise and media"? Spider-Man, though a case can be made that's shifted in recent years thanks to the MCU which has seen the public awareness Iron Man and Cap and others rise.
In the sense of "most powerful, almost indestructible hero"? Well, you've got Sentry. Some have slotted Thor or even the Hulk.

That's really one of the key differences between Marvel and DC is Marvel doesn't really have the same kind of hierarchy of characters. It's most iconic ones are not necessarily the most in-universe important ones. It's most powerful or smartest characters are not necessarily the leaders.
Hulk may be the strongest, but he's a raging monster. Reed Richards is the smartest, but he's not the guy leading the Avengers into battle.
In DC, Superman is the strongest, the icon, the benchmark, and all that both IRL and in-universe. Batman, similarly, is the best, the smartest, the greatest fighter, the peak of human ability, etc. For better or worse.

So, who is Marvel's "Wonder Woman"? Again...in what capacity?

Their "most iconic, female face of the company"? I don't know.
As said, recent years has seen an effort to put Carol Danvers in that spot. Thanks to the movies, some people might point to Black Widow. I remember there was a brief period in the early 2000s when it looked like they were trying to get Elektra into that spot. Some have said Storm. Some have said it should be Jean Grey. I think John Byrne once said it should be Invisible Woman. I think Peter David said it should be She-Hulk.

Who is Marvel's "inspirational symbol of female empowerment"? Well, here's a better question: should that character and their most iconic one be the same? As I pointed out, Spider-Man is Marvel's most iconic character, but he's not the leader or inspirational figure Superman is. Marvel's characters are defined by their flaws, so their iconic female character probably wouldn't be their paragon of female empowerment. Or would she?

And, yeah, they have plenty of "warrior women" and plenty of "strongest women" and they have "compassionate, empathetic women" from She-Hulk to Storm to Valkyrie to Captain Marvel again.

That's why I think it's a mistake to look at how Marvel treats a Wonder Woman analogue like Thena or Power Princess or whoever and use that to gauge how they'd treat Diana if they got the rights to her.
Thena, no offense to the character or her fans, means nothing. She's "Wonder Woman" in the most surface-level way. She doesn't have the cache or symbolic value.

As of now, based on the movies, they've positioned Captain Marvel as their symbol of female empowerment. And I think it's worth noting, even though she didn't have a big part in Endgame, when Carol was onscreen, they made her look like a mega-star. She no-sold a head-butt from Thanos and held her own against him one-on-one. She scared him. That's not nothing. More than DC allowed Diana in either version of Justice League.
But it was still a small part, and focus stayed on the guys who's been there from the beginning in Iron Man and Cap.

It's also worth remembering that some people--who saw Black Widow as Marvel's lead female character--weren't happy with how things turned out for Natasha. They thought she deserved a better death and/or an actual funeral scene alongside Tony.

Are either of those examples indicators of how Marvel would treat Diana? Don't know.
One thing I think the MCU does do better is roll with what works and adjust accordingly. Iron Man was a B-list character until Robert Downey, Jr. Loki was just a Thor rogue until they saw they stumbled onto something good with Tom Hiddleston.
I've harped on this in past threads, but it really shows how ill-prepared Warner/DC was with their movies that Wonder Woman and Aquaman emerged as the break-out stars, but too late, they were already full-steam into a Justice League that was all about Batman and how Superman is Jesus.

If Marvel somehow did manage to buy the rights of Wonder Woman off Warner/DC...well, for start, that would be a huge deal in itself that would garner a lot of media attention. They would kind of have to do something big with Diana...at least at first. And if it worked, Marvel doesn't seem afraid to capitalize on a good thing.
Hell, they just recently did a big event crossover which ended with Venom of all people becoming the most powerful hero in the universe. I don't think that had anything to do with his movies. I think that was just Donny Cates saying, "I'mma make Venom a god 'cause why not?"

But would it last long-term? Would Marvel feel obligated to keep Wonder Woman as a top gun or would they let her settle into her own niche corner of their universe? I think in the grand scheme, some thing might improve. Some things would get worse. In the end, it would even out.

[I'm a Fish]

Marvel reserves more lighthearted approaches for heroes who are teenagers. The adult heroes in Marvel are a mess.

And when I say "mess" it's not in terms of a narrative failure. Marvel goes head-first into the "flawed hero" category, it's kind-of how they build their brand. (Although the DCEU and MCU would have you think it's the other way around. )

If Marvel inherited Wonder Woman, in the 80's especially, I can't say what she would have been like but I seriously doubt it would be something like Perez. Wonder Woman tackled complicated themes under Perez and since, but Diana herself has rarely been the one at fault for problems that unfold in the comic. She's an actual stable and healthy individual who most often responds to stress in a mature manner.

Actually, this reminds me of Rucka's second run when she finds out she had never been home and suffers from a psychotic break, it was probably the most "Marvel" moment I read in a Wonder Woman comic (not saying that as a bad thing, I actually though it was an appropriately vulnerable and human reaction which Diana needs from time-to-time).

Anyway, if Marvel bought Wonder Woman now, maybe they would keep her IP in mind when making creative choices to increase toy sales or something. IDK. But frankly, I look at what they did with Captain Marvel (and when she was Ms. Marvel) and the crazy things they put here character through. Even more recently, with that Civil War 2 nonsense, where they had Carol indoctrinating young teenage heroes into her cause to hunt down people who were charged with committing a crime they hadn't done because some guys future vision said they would do it, and no other proof. Like, WTF was that Marvel?

[Gaius]

I'd imagine how she'd be treated would actually vary amongst the various arms of Marvel Entertainment. People've joked about it, but I imagine Disney would get a lot of mileage out of making Diana somewhat associated with their Disney Princess line.

Comics wise, I think aside from Batman and Superman, Marvel would probably give preference to their "home grown" talent so I wouldn't see them tossing aside all the work they've done with Carol to make Diana the female character like she is at DC. I imagine the deal with the Marston estate that DC has would still carry over in any of sort of corporate acquisition so there's that at least.

I don't read Marvel so I could be wrong, but it seems aside from that period with the Inhumans vs. X-Men and them not publishing an F4 comic, it seems the MCU doesn't wholly dictate the direction of the comics. Captain America and Iron Man I believe were relatively big deals to Marvel readers if not known to general audiences pre-2008 and from what I can tell, Hulk and Thor these past few years haven't been anything like what you get in the MCU. Though there are the properties that the MCU has elevated that are now more important to the comics than 10 years ago like BP and GotG

Though if Zdarsky is indicative of the kinds of writers at Marvel, I wouldn't have much faith in the people they'd put on Diana.

[Guy_McNichts]

Yeah, when I say Marvel is good at capitalizing, I mean the movie division more than the comics. The movies are good at anticipating what audiences will latch onto and adapting. The comics...put it this way: off the heels of WandaVision, the comics killed Scarlet Witch. I'm sure she'll be back, but....

And, yeah, Civil War II was a disaster as far as Carol was concerned...right in time for her movie, too. From the moment they announced that story and the premise, pretty much everyone knew there was no way she was coming out of that without coming across as the bad guy.

There's no guarantee Diana's status as a goddess or powerhouse would be respected either. Look at Avengers vs. X-Men where Thor's entire role was getting his s**t thoroughly wrecked by everyone he faced. The Hulk once knocked Captain Marvel out (and into space) with a flick of his finger.


A reasonable comparison to what Marvel might do with Wonder Woman if they got her is Angela. When Neil Gaiman sold her rights, they introduced her in a big way. They made her out to be a beast and gave her a big push as Thor's long-lost sister and later the Queen of Hell. But, once the initial hype died down, she settled into a recurring character for the Guardians of the Galaxy.

I can see something similar happened to Diana. She'd get a big introduction. Probably be the centerpiece of an event. But once the buzz settled, they'd find a niche for her.
OR--and I can totally see Marvel doing this--decide Diana is too good for the sinful earth, have her ascend to a higher plane of existence and pass the mantle onto a young protege, and THAT character would be Marvel's Wonder Woman from then on.

[WonderLight789]

Yeah, when I say Marvel is good at capitalizing, I mean the movie division more than the comics. The movies are good at anticipating what audiences will latch onto and adapting. The comics...put it this way: off the heels of WandaVision, the comics killed Scarlet Witch. I'm sure she'll be back, but....

And, yeah, Civil War II was a disaster as far as Carol was concerned...right in time for her movie, too. From the moment they announced that story and the premise, pretty much everyone knew there was no way she was coming out of that without coming across as the bad guy.

There's no guarantee Diana's status as a goddess or powerhouse would be respected either. Look at Avengers vs. X-Men where Thor's entire role was getting his s**t thoroughly wrecked by everyone he faced. The Hulk once knocked Captain Marvel out (and into space) with a flick of his finger.


A reasonable comparison to what Marvel might do with Wonder Woman if they got her is Angela. When Neil Gaiman sold her rights, they introduced her in a big way. They made her out to be a beast and gave her a big push as Thor's long-lost sister and later the Queen of Hell. But, once the initial hype died down, she settled into a recurring character for the Guardians of the Galaxy.

I can see something similar happened to Diana. She'd get a big introduction. Probably be the centerpiece of an event. But once the buzz settled, they'd find a niche for her.
OR--and I can totally see Marvel doing this--decide Diana is too good for the sinful earth, have her ascend to a higher plane of existence and pass the mantle onto a young protege, and THAT character would be Marvel's Wonder Woman from then on.

I think in the comics. There would still be issues. Because comic writers still seem to struggle when it comes to portratying strong female powerhouses. They tend to write them as bitchy and angry. Like Bloodthirsty warrior Diana in some stories, or Nazi Carol in Civil War 2. But on the silver screen. I think Diana would fare way better. Because Disney is behind. And they have proven themselves capable of selling unknown character and make them shine as a big deal to the general audience. What they did with MCU Carol is far bigger than what DC and WB have done for Diana. I doubt we will ever see a DCEU Diana fighting Darkseid, the way Carol was able to do against Thanos. As long as WW is surrounded by people that only give lipservice about how big of a deal she is, but never put their money where their mouth is when the push comes to shove. We will never see an improvement.

[HestiasHearth]

Hence why I said the "general idea." I never said she must be bloodthirsty or collect heads. However, I do like the idea of following Diana/Wonder Woman through different wars throughout history. It'll also be cool to see how D.C. would adapt different Wonder Rogues at different points in time, i.e. how they reinterpreted Dr. Poison in the first Wonder Woman movie. It would be a great use of her immortality and exploring her character in a mini-series.

Fair enough. I guess I get a tad reactionary whenever Snyder's Wonder-Woman-In-Name-Only is brought up in a manner that makes her seem like the "ideal" Diana. I know now that is not what you did, and I apologize for my reaction.

[Rightoya]

I think it was clear that she was the winner on land in JL. But underwater, Aquaman should always have the uppderhand against any of the League imo.



She did kill him in Flashpoint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWM1...istercustodian

And he never beat her on ground in JS, the battle was never truly over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSAb...el=VeteranWolf

But I am surprised that they've fought so much in animation.

That was not clear but the DCAU Wonder Woman was just bland and weak anyway, and it would make no sense for Aquaman to win underwater against Wonder Woman, Superman, Green Lantern, Flash or Martian Manhunter either, except water would work like kryptonite for them. Because the pressure of the water should be neither enough to reduce their strength, nor their speed that much, and even less their special abilities or weapons.

They have also fought quite often in the comics and basically each of these fights was just bad written trash, and they didn't even make Aquaman look strong but just Wonder Woman weak and incompetent, and sometimes even both incompetent. I wouldn't even have a problem with good fights between Aquaman and Wonder Woman on land or underwater after he gets an upgrade, and i mean an upgrade that makes him consistently a believable threat to kryptonians or high Green Lanterns, but until then have i zero interest in even more fights were Wonder Woman just gets turned into a weak jobber let alone fights were both just look incompetent like this:

[BiteTheBullet]

I think it was clear that she was the winner on land in JL. But underwater, Aquaman should always have the uppderhand against any of the League imo.



She did kill him in Flashpoint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWM1...istercustodian

And he never beat her on ground in JS, the battle was never truly over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSAb...el=VeteranWolf

But I am surprised that they've fought so much in animation.

I beg to differ for the Justice League animated series. The fight was equal for them both until they hit the water. Then in seconds, Wondy was knocked out.

In the Justice Society movie, the fight on land was going Aquamans way and he would have won had not Steve Trevor interfered by ramming a car into her. Again, Wondy was beaten in seconds underwater when they fought.

As far as the flashpoint movie, again they were very evenly matched on the ground.

So it sounds to me like the higher ups in control of content on animation give Aquaman the upper hand in basically every encounter. If Diana is second in only strength to Superman (that made me laugh) and her other skills such as being the best melee fighter, reflexes and the like, Aquaman shouldn't even be much of an afterthought on a land situation. Water, I will concede, but only after they have a much better fight that is more than a few seconds.

[Primal Slayer]

That was not clear but the DCAU Wonder Woman was just bland and weak anyway, and it would make no sense for Aquaman to win underwater against Wonder Woman, Superman, Green Lantern, Flash or Martian Manhunter either, except water would work like kryptonite for them. Because the pressure of the water should be neither enough to reduce their strength, nor their speed that much, and even less their special abilities or weapons.

They have also fought quite often in the comics and basically each of these fights was just bad written trash, and they didn't even make Aquaman look strong but just Wonder Woman weak and incompetent, and sometimes even both incompetent. I wouldn't even have a problem with good fights between Aquaman and Wonder Woman on land or underwater after he gets an upgrade, and i mean an upgrade that makes him consistently a believable threat to kryptonians or high Green Lanterns, but until then have i zero interest in even more fights were Wonder Woman just gets turned into a weak jobber let alone fights were both just look incompetent like this:

In JL TAS, Superman can't breathe underwater. Aquaman took WW to the depths of the ocean where the water pressure knocked her out as im sure it would've done to SM as well.