Personality-wise, how do you distinguish Wonder Woman and Superman?

[Alpha]

There are more pictures of Clark curbstomping Diana than the reverse, and it's always stupid either direction. Let's not go down this path.

True, but it was hilarious to see that photo as a response to Agentz. I think John Venus deserves a round of applause.

[manwhohaseverything]

Clark being able to inflate his muscles is a terrible idea. Just stick with the glasses. Turning him into All Might because adults have trouble suspending disbelief in a story about a living alien solar battery who can bench press a galaxy because of the secret identity is goddamn stupid.

It's the conceit. Like how the Batmobile doesn't get stuck in traffic like it actually goddamn would. Because that's not fun or cool.

People dunk on the glasses because they want to dunk on Superman and it's an easy target. If you fix that they're just going to make fun of Kryptonite or something. Don't apologize for the character just because people can be petty.

You do realise that solar battery surreal explanation exists because people can't or don't buy that a guy can bench press a universe after doing "100 pushups,100 situps,100 squats ...etc" or something absurd like that. May be it's cause superman has inherently become too damn serious.superman can fight godzilla and still can't kill a mosquito.American comics as a whole compartmentalize things far too much.Something funny can have deep meaning.What works ,work.for whatever reasons,People don't get it.for better or for worse.it's like being comedian.You crack a joke.Sometimes you get laughs.Sometimes you get crickets.Just saying people inherently hate superman is not a solution.Maybe they do or maybe they don't.The question is why?

[Agent Z]

I don't think the difference between the amount of strong enemies that Superman and Wonder Woman have is big enough to justify him becoming more muscled after a lifetime of her training as an amazon. And stop comparing Clark lifting trucks and throwing around trees to Diana literally being trained as a warrior to the breaking point of her body.

Which do you think takes more effort; lifting heavy objects larger than your body or training with people weaker and slower than yourself? And yes, the number of physical opponents Clark would be facing compared to Diana would make a difference.

She was raised by the best warriors in the world to be the best among them.

Which has nothing to do with her physique when her strength isn't even normal to begin with.

Her being a slim woman doesn't really fit the name "amazonian".

The Amazons in the myths were not any more muscular than men or normal women. Marston didn't depict Diana as especially muscular. In fact, one of his early stories has Diana defeat a larger woman to show that muscle means nothing to her in regards to a fight.

Also, it's ironic that someone who has spent a great deal complaining about how Diana is too much of a warrior is not arguing that she should be more muscular than Superman to convey her training.

[Agent Z]

I'm reminded of Kyoshi in Avatar: The Last Airbender. She killed one guy in the show and that was after he conquered several territories, didn't listen to warnings and partly by accident but fandom acts like she is a bloodthirsty killer akin to the Punisher. Even in the novel she hated the fact that she had to do those things to maintain peace.

Many of the loudest voices in fandom are also the ones who lack a much needed understanding of nuance.

[Alpha]

Which do you think takes more effort; lifting heavy objects larger than your body or training with people weaker and slower than yourself? And yes, the number of physical opponents Clark would be facing compared to Diana would make a difference.

Do you realize that Amazons are usually portrayed as much stronger than normal human beings? I think they probably could lift a tree. It would be much harder for them than it would be for Superman, or even Wonder Woman, but it still means that she would be fighting multiple tree lifting amazonians at once. Plus the amazons are all about testing your limits, so they would design specific gym equipment, and super human trials to make Diana into the best she could be. She would be challenged to lift things no other amazonian could, and they would add more weight based on how easy it was for her.

As far as enemies with super strength, she has Giganta, she has Cheetah, she has Grail, she has First Born, she has Genocide, she has Medusa, she has Dr Cyber, she has Paula von Gunther, she has Baron Blitzcrieg, she has Ares and many other gods and mystical creatures that she fights like the minotaurs and hydras. I do think Superman's rogues gallery is mostly more powerful than these (with the exception of the gods) but Wonder is absolutely tested regularly

Which has nothing to do with her physique when her strength isn't even normal to begin with.

So what exactly is your argument for Superman being more muscular than her since Muscles have nothing to do with strength? Because to me I think it makes sense that while Superman would naturally be able to lift 600 pounds, he would at most lift 70 hundred pounds while doing farm work. Which to him doesn't take much effort. So his body would have no reason to create additional muscle. And maybe Diana can only lift 300 pounds, but when she was being trained with the amazons they created special equipment to test her limits, so she would regularly be lifting 200 pounds, which while not increasing her strength by much, would still put her body under stress and force it to create muscle. Thus she would be far more tested than Clark. Amazonian training always tested Diana to her limits, making her build muscle. What Clark did growing was very easy for him to do, not only because it was weaker training, but also because he was much stronger, so there his body wasn't put in pressure and didn't need to build muscle

The Amazons in the myths were not any more muscular than men or normal women. Marston didn't depict Diana as especially muscular. In fact, one of his early stories has Diana defeat a larger woman to show that muscle means nothing to her in regards to a fight.

Sure, but I think it makes more sense for a woman who does actual trainning and specified exercise to have an athletic body than for Superman whose exercises never push him to his limits. And again, there is a huge list of strong villains that WW faces along with regular monsters. So get the main difference between the two of them is that Diana probably had a whole gym designed around her to test her strength.

Also, it's ironic that someone who has spent a great deal complaining about how Diana is too much of a warrior is not arguing that she should be more muscular than Superman to convey her training.

I think wonder woman as a wrestler is the perfect idea for her. I never said I liked the ambassador portrayal. What I despise is the idea that she has this legendary status as someone who killed plenty of people in a war, considering that if anything, that could've only happened after she left for Man's World, not before it. And even here I doubt she would think of killing someone as a normal thing to do for resolving conflicts. Killing should still be an emotionally draining thing for her that she knows is her duty at points in her life. But training as a wrestler? I think it's perfect for her. Go in, grab them, force them on the ground until they get exausted out. And quick but powerful kicks and punches so they can't escape your grasp. In fact, this is why she would train strength on the island, to be able to subdue powerful creatures with her bare hands. You are trying to turn my argument into an inconsistent attack, when it isn't at all.

[The World]

Where does the idea that Superman was sitting on his butt all the time as a kid come from? The Superboy comics specifically threw that notion out and showed that even as a kid he was an adventurous and curious fellow constantly off getting into all sort of trouble and adventure. Pre-Crisis Superman had done more by the time he was 20 than most of the DCU had done by the time they were 50. Pre-Crisis Superman's was a combination of hardwork, evolutionary development, and tenacity.

Even Post-Crisis he was an athlete however the problem with Post-Crisis is that as his power developed very slowly and its likely his muscles would turn to dough since he wouldn't really be using them all that much anymore especially since the Post-Crisis writers tried to explain that Superman lifted things by making them float or some nonsense like that via psionics or something like that. Once again the Post-Crisis writers sort of miss the point of the material they're working with.

P.S. that "normie" as someone described Kal-El, has saved the day time and time again without powers. Dude ain't no "normie" even if John Byrne badly wanted him to be

[The World]

Also looking through this thread. My god is the opinion of Superman low. Post-Crisis writers really did a number on old boy.

[hareluyafan1]

I actually think Wonder Woman should absolutely be willing to kill. Maybe this is stemming from the fact that Kingdom Come was one of the first major DC events I read (at least one that had ALL the characters in it) and that version of Diana imprinted on me.

I'm well aware of the fact that A) her part in Kingdom Come is not the most well regarded aspect of that story and B) she's kind of shown to be "wrong" in the story

"Kingdom Come" was the worst thing that ever happened to Wonder Woman. It's a great story but it's also the root of every bad direction the character has been taken in. In "Kingdom Come" Wonder Woman had lost her title and been exiled from Paradise Island. She felt like a failure and that caused her to become hard-hearted, ruthless and aggressive. Her entire arc in that story was realising she had lost her way and needed to rediscover her true nature as a champion for peace.

Sadly so many writers and fans became tainted by this depiction (as you yourself admit) and that led to WW being written as a bloodthirsty savage. Don't give me that "she's a warrior" nonsense; practically EVERY superhero is a warrior because they fight evil. Superman is a warrior and he doesn't go around chopping people up with a big grin while boasting about the enemies he's slaughtered.

Wonder Woman is supposed to be a champion for peace, compassion and forgiveness. That's what she was created to be. She's not Kratos, she's not Conan the Barbarian, she's Wonder Woman.

As for this bit here:

I also don't know why she wouldn't be? She's literally an Amazon. I think its harder to argue she should not be killing her foes to be honest. She can't because it's comics and we want Cheetah to come back sometime but why would an Amazon not decapitate or shoot an arrow through her enemy? It doesn't actually make sense.

Someone else beat me to it (and was far more eloquent than I'd be).

Diana was created to be a subversion of Greek Mythos so we can examine them from a different perspective. We don't know what the RL female warriors were like but the ancient greeks were spooked by them because they saw women as little better than baby incubators thus the 'violent baby killing Amazons' were a subversion of that myth. Marston sought to be subvert the myth by making the Amazons a peaceful nation that had advanced beyond war, Hippolyta actually outsmarts Hercules and in response he subjugates her because his ego couldn't take it.

Exactly.

[The World]

Also idk why people want Diana to be some kind of blood thirsty whackjob. You don't need special training to kill someone nor do you need any kind of special mindset. Note all of the school and workplace shooters that blow their peers to smithereens. If you find killing people badass then more power to you but Diana was trying to stop needless bloodshed not add to it. I don't mind her killing if she had to but treating the act of killing in and of itself like it is some kind of strength that she's willing to do it comes off as juvenile.

[hareluyafan1]

She was a fish out of water in the movie and no one had a problem with that. The only time people have taken issue with her being a fish out of water is when it is handled in a shallow, immature way like in the New 52 movies or when it ignored that she had been in man's world for a long time like in post-Infinite Crisis.

Correct.

The New 52 movies (and comics they were based on) mistook "fish out of water" for "stupid." Here's an example, in the "Justice League: War" comic she's wandering around with a drawn xiphos, people are looking at her with terror in their eyes and she's completely oblivious. Even a "fish out of water" should realise they're scaring people.

Plus in both the comic and animated movie she threatens an innocent man to get free ice cream (she points her xiphos at him). Again, not only does she somehow not notice he's scared but it's illogical since someone who's had combat training should know that weapons are not toys. You don't point a weapon at someone unless you're willing to kill them.

There's a difference between "fish out of water" and "no common sense or deductive ability at all."

[Gaius]

I actually think Wonder Woman should absolutely be willing to kill. Maybe this is stemming from the fact that Kingdom Come was one of the first major DC events I read (at least one that had ALL the characters in it) and that version of Diana imprinted on me.

I'm well aware of the fact that A) her part in Kingdom Come is not the most well regarded aspect of that story and B) she's kind of shown to be "wrong" in the story

But still, my impression of Diana versus Clark (and Bruce) is that she is the one much more willing to get violent and if necessary kill.

I also don't know why she wouldn't be? She's literally an Amazon. I think its harder to argue she should not be killing her foes to be honest. She can't because it's comics and we want Cheetah to come back sometime but why would an Amazon not decapitate or shoot an arrow through her enemy? It doesn't actually make sense.


As someone who is more Marvel than DC, I appreciated the thoughtful posts in this thread. Still, I do think that Clark and Diana are often presented as overly similar. They somehow are both about "Truth" in a fundamental way that doesn't really make sense for either of them? But if it makes sense for one of them it's Diana cause of the Lasso. As Bendis rightfully pointed out, Superman's Truth, Justice, and the American Way thing never rang true when he was actively lying to the most important people in his life for decades and decades.

Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman are the "trinity" but that has MUCH more to do with publishing history than the three of them actually forming an interesting triangle. There is not actually that much there. I mean Batman and Superman can be a great pair but I agree with some here who pointed out that its not entirely accurate to portray Clark as the optimistic/naïve one and Bruce as pessimistic/cynical. Bruce isn't pessimistic and Clark isn't naïve. But at least there is a lot you can do comparing these two characters (night and day, powers and no powers, Gotham vs Metropolis, Joker vs. Lex, etc.)

But you throw Wonder Woman in there and none of it works totally. There just isn't much to connect Bruce and Diana or to distinguish Clark and Diana. What on Earth is there to connect Batman and Wonder Woman other than they're both heroes? Batman would be much closer to Barry Allen, Martian Manhunter, or Green Arrow than Wonder Woman in my opinion. Superman and Wonder Woman are an iconic duo when paired but unless you are playing up their differences (which to me really just boil down to their willingness to commit to violence as a solution to problems) than they are not that dynamic together either.

My favorite Wonder Woman/Superman dynamic is from that one scene in The New Frontier where Wonder Woman has freed the women who were in captivity and led them in a slaughter of their male captors. I love that Diana is drinking with the women, is taller than Superman, and has no interest in listening to American foreign policy (or letting male slavers live for that matter).

Kingdom Come is an alternate universe and as you note, she’s used as a strawman to show killing is bad and a prop for Superman’s character arc. It should have no more a influence on how Diana is supposed to be than DKR should have on Superman being a lapdog of the US government. Even Mark Waid has noted he isn’t fond of how he wrote her in that as time went on.

It’s just Injustice Wonder Woman. It’s an alternate version of her, and quite frankly it’s an incredibly poorly written version of her alternate universe or not.

[Alpha]

Where does the idea that Superman was sitting on his butt all the time as a kid come from? The Superboy comics specifically threw that notion out and showed that even as a kid he was an adventurous and curious fellow constantly off getting into all sort of trouble and adventure. Pre-Crisis Superman had done more by the time he was 20 than most of the DCU had done by the time they were 50. Pre-Crisis Superman's was a combination of hardwork, evolutionary development, and tenacity.

Even Post-Crisis he was an athlete however the problem with Post-Crisis is that as his power developed very slowly and its likely his muscles would turn to dough since he wouldn't really be using them all that much anymore especially since the Post-Crisis writers tried to explain that Superman lifted things by making them float or some nonsense like that via psionics or something like that. Once again the Post-Crisis writers sort of miss the point of the material they're working with.

P.S. that "normie" as someone described Kal-El, has saved the day time and time again without powers. Dude ain't no "normie" even if John Byrne badly wanted him to be

Oh cmon, the Superboy concept was only introduced because they wanted to target Superman even harder to boys by making him one of them. He didn't have the appeal of Captain Marvel so they had to do Flashback stories. They didn't add it out of a logic and storytelling necessity

I personally don't like the Superboy for a myriad of small reasons having to do with his secret identity, but mostly because it takes away from Smallville being a normal place where he was just a normal kid, and choosing to be Superman was something he decided once he fully understood the consequences of his actions and really knew what he wanted his place in the world to be and what responsibilities he was willing to accept. And it keeps Smallville as the place where people only knew him as Clark Kent and his life was so simple.

[Alpha]

Heck, if he was getting into all this trouble in Smallville I can't imagine him abandoning the town to go to Metropolis. Who was gonna protect Smallville his home when the alien monster disguisee himselr as a normal high schooler? (I haven't read more than a handful of those stories so I only know the Smallville tv show version of Clark as proto Superman)

[Alpha]

And when I said that Clark was a normie I clearly wasn't talking about his personality, I was saying that as Clark Kent he is the type of person you could never imagine getting into a fight, much less be Superman. If he is as huge as artists usually portray him as then that comparison feels off, not even in terms of continuity, but simply aesthetics. Dave Bautista actually seems like a shy and very calm, non confrontational person from the way he talks. But you can tell by his body that nobody is gonna mess with him. Same thing would happen with Clark. Nobody would go up to his face even with glasses and insult his mother.

[Gaius]

Another reason these "Wonder Woman kills" storylines are so tiresome is usually it's just used to make Superman or Batman look good for not doing it so they can wag their fingers at her. There's Kingdom Come obviously that's been brought up already but then there's also Sacrifice, Injustice, and whenever hacks like Tom Taylor write her.