What do you think would be the same and what do you think would be different?
What do you think would be the same and what do you think would be different?
Not to be a pessimist but she’d likely be a character designed by commity, w. her origin ethnicity religion and sexual orientation all geared to placate/not offend the maximum amount of ppl.
Last edited by Riv86672; 12-13-2020 at 09:26 AM.
Characters have always been made to try and reach the maximum amount of people. This isn't new.
I find this to be such an interesting question, and I'm curious what you and others think. Honestly, I never really thought about how Wonder Woman would have to change it she was created with today's standards and expectations. Oddly, some of the things that made her so relevant and needed in the 1940s are still present today. Also, the things that made her controversial would still be controversial today.
Oddly, I actually think Wonder Woman would be a more regressive character if made today. I mostly argue this because Wonder Woman would have to be marketed and her message would have to appeal to the social media activists of today who want pithy statements they can share and like. As a result, I see Wonder Woman relying on rote social media sayings: Toxic masculinity, sex-positive, intersectionism, love is love, etc. My concern is that her role would simply be to repeat these messages ad nauseum - as that audience would presumably want her to do - and not question what these messages mean and thus why these systems and concepts should either be overturned or normalized.
I also question if Wonder Woman could truly explore the societal concepts and their material effects. For example, I wonder how cross-dressing villains would be seen today - which is different from being transgender. Would it still be seen as an acceptable way to explore gender roles, gender expectations, and even how gender plays a large role in how others are perceived and thus rewarded and punished? Would Wonder Woman still be able to explore polyamory and kink? Dominance, submissiveness, and power dynamics in sex? What would it say about same-sex relationships that haven't been said? (Side-note I actually dislike how Wonder Woman comics display same-sex relationships) Would it still be in the more subtle ways of the Comic Codes Authority censorship rules, or would they take a more unapologetic HBO graphic approach? Both are acceptable but would get vastly different results.
I guess I simply asked a lot of questions, but I think Wonder Woman would struggle to be an iconic character made today because she would probably be made to preach to a very specific social media choir. As a result, I doubt she would add anything new, different, or even memorable to today's conversation.
Not sure, seems lot of the conceptual basis of Wonder Woman comes from a lot of Marston’s own personality/quirks and his own interpretation of feminism in his time so kind of hard to imagine what a modern translation of that would be.
She would be a teenager.
She would definitely not have a red/white/blue color scheme.
She'd be allowed to be more openly bisexual.
She probably wouldn't have the battle skirt. Or maybe tights below them. I think in general, her costume would be more "modest".
Her supporting cast would be more diverse.
The Amazons would probably lose all their scientific brilliance and technology and only be skilled female warriors.
I think they'd ditch Aphrodite as the patron goddess and solely focus on Athena, or maybe (ugh) Zeus.
I meant new characters in general, not female characters specifically. That said, I have many favorites in Manga/Anime who are quite complex: Revy (Black Lagoon), Albedo (Overlord), Shalltear Bloodfallen (Overlord), Raphtalia (Rise of the Shield Hero), Filo (Rise of the Shield Hero), Bulma (Dragon Ball), Pan (Dragon Ball GT), Aqua (KonoSuba), to name but a few. Also, you can't forget the rest of the Sailor Scouts who are all interesting characters in their own right: I prefer the "Inners" (Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter) but the later additions also have their charm.
Last edited by Celgress; 12-13-2020 at 02:53 PM.
"So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."
An interesting question. I suppose the costume would be different because women today are far less shackled by society today than they were in the 40s. Marston wanted to celebrate the athleticism of the female body at a time when "modesty" was pretty much required and had morphed into shame about the woman's body. I think to answer this question one would need to go back and review Marston's design with the context that it was a response to the world in 1941 and then apply the same methodology but from the standpoint of responding to today's world. Some core problems still linger and his motion of marrying the feminine with dominant force is very much still relevant to offset society's maligning the feminine
Last edited by Stanlos; 12-13-2020 at 09:19 PM.