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

[Marik Swift]

While there are many things separate them, and I initially wrote multiple paragraphs before on it, I eventually decided to sum it up best as:

One would cuss, the other wouldn't.

Clark is definitely the type of person you would never hear a F word from in your entire life, while Diana seems like the type who probably swears like a sailor at times, especially back on Themyscira.

[Alpha]

You think superman is chaotic?They call him the big blue boyscout.Let alone be chaotic and run around.Almost everything i posted is more goldenage.I am not particularly into popular takes and stuff like that.

I do find the way you look at Superman entertaining, but the more I read what about your view of him the more I realize the fundamental difference between how we see him.

I don't think Clark is a good actor. I think the way he behaves as Clark Kent is really the way he is. I think he is a humble calm, unimposing person who kind of expects a more quiet life. Superman is when he has a job to do and he comes out of his shell. I even think he shouldn't be a tall or ripped dude. Not really short, just average height. But even then, I think both Clark and Superman move and sit in the same manner. The big difference is that when people see Superman flying and lifting a truck they kind of forget the way he moves and just see this big macho figure. That's why the "disguise" works. Because people only pay attention when he uses his powers and ignore the softer side.

[achilles]

You probably wanted more of a comparison of how they handle action than what I wrote. Well I think Clark should always try to be like a tank. Once he decides to act he will move forward in front of the crowd and leading with them behind him, giving the enemies time to either move out of the way or be pushed aside by him. You will not stop him nor will you destroy him. Of course there are lots of villains that don't let him get away with this, and that's when Clark gets thrown for a loop and kind of just tries to hang on by a thread to take care of business.

I like to think that Diana is all about grabbing you. If Cheetah starts creating chaos and attacking someone Diana will lasso her and tie them both to each other and just drag Cheetah around, smacking her with the lasso into a wall or another and just keep trying to knock some sense into her. Imagine that scene in Into the Spiderverse where Miles is running away with an unconscious peter tied to him, well Diana would do this with Cheetah, just try to subdue her and force her to stop acting around. Of course that if the situation gets more serious Diana has to smack her around even harder and try to completely constraint and imprision the dangerous creature.

I think Diana would absolutely get frustated and embittered at having to kill someone but she was taught the procedure. I don't think the amazons have actually killed many people ever since they got to Themyscira. They are an isolated society and so they train for an invasion, but it has become theoretical at least until Diana leaves for Man's World. So Diana never killed someone before she went to our world. Clark and Diana both equally value life, but ironicaly I think Clark would be pro choice while Diana would be pro life with some uncertainty once she understands how in Man's world it's kind of a feminist issue. The big difference when it comes to killing villains is that I don't think Clark would consider himself worthy of deciding if someone should die. He would probably let the world decide, and then he would enforce it if asked to.

I would point out that the number of people the Amazons killed in the past say twenty years or so ranges from few to astronomical. Depending on the...er..."story" you happen to be reading. I won't even mention for example everyone's favorite WW/Amazons story, which rhymes with "Glamazons Attract". What was their death toll there, in the millions? Not to mention them getting all evil and hyper cruel in that story. So you need to consider that.

As to the OP, I'd say the difference is about what's written above and in other posts here. Diana's quite a bit more aggressive, while Superman does really seem to try to stop short of killing or even maiming.

[achilles]

Gosh, it seems the neck snap will hunt her character forever...As well as that awful "when I deal with them I deal with them" line

Yes, there are some mistakes that tend to live on and do lasting damage. In general, I think they should be more careful about doing something like that. It should serve more than just being an easy way to end a certain story, or just shock value; it should be worked out to benefit the character, (whether Diana, Clark, or someone else similar), long term, and provide the bones for a thoughtful examination of the character, (it would be too cliche to just examine yet again the morality of killing vs not killing for superheroes). Which...it really didn't in either Diana's neck snap, or MoSnap's neck snap.

Thankfully, they never did anything even remotely like that with my own favorite, PG...oh, wait. Never mind, forget that bit.

[SecretWarrior]

I've been mulling this over a little more and I think I've come up with an even simpler way of distinguishing between Clark and Diana. At heart, Clark is a big dork whereas Diana is easily the coolest woman in any room she's in.

I can see this. I think Clark is an introvert with people skills, but into stuff you wouldn't expect, like the music of some African tribe he visited in college. Diana would be an extrovert who goes around the room deliberately trying to improve the emotional atmosphere and make people feel included. She knows how to make people feel special. Both are assertive, but she's more clearly so.

[Alpha]

While there are many things separate them, and I initially wrote multiple paragraphs before on it, I eventually decided to sum it up best as:

One would cuss, the other wouldn't.

Clark is definitely the type of person you would never hear a F word from in your entire life, while Diana seems like the type who probably swears like a sailor at times, especially back on Themyscira.

I mean, I can see why Diana would find some fun in the strangeness and creativity of somr cuss words, but i don't think she would cuss just to seem edgier and powerful.
But expand a little bit on your interpretation of the character. I'm curious.

[Alpha]

I would point out that the number of people the Amazons killed in the past say twenty years or so ranges from few to astronomical. Depending on the...er..."story" you happen to be reading. I won't even mention for example everyone's favorite WW/Amazons story, which rhymes with "Glamazons Attract". What was their death toll there, in the millions? Not to mention them getting all evil and hyper cruel in that story. So you need to consider that.

As to the OP, I'd say the difference is about what's written above and in other posts here. Diana's quite a bit more aggressive, while Superman does really seem to try to stop short of killing or even maiming.

I was talking about the amazons when they were closed off from the world. The moment Diana leaves the island they become much more exposed and so that might be when they actually start to have battles. And yes, there have been many stories where they were portrayed as violent and war hungry, but not in my book.

I wouldn't consider Diana a very aggressive person. That's why she shouldn't use a sword, because it has nothing to do with the way she actually fights, which should be more like wrestling or dancing.

[Alpha]

I'm glad to see my interpretation of the two characters complements what most people here think of them too.

[SecretWarrior]

Where's the preview for Immortal Wonder Woman?

Edit-- Never mind, just found out it's from Dead Earth.

[mathew101281]

Superman and Wonderwoman along with Batman all represent the three major influences that came together to create the Superhero genre. Science fiction(Superman) mythology(WW) and Pulp costumed detective(Batman). Diana and Clark are both heroes but their genre influences mean that they are different types of heroes.

[SecretWarrior]

Superman and Wonderwoman along with Batman all represent the three major influences that came together to create the Superhero genre. Science fiction(Superman) mythology(WW) and Pulp costumed detective(Batman). Diana and Clark are both heroes but their genre influences mean that they are different types of heroes.

How does this influence their decision making or how they treat people? Genre in comics books is mostly aesthetic, not meaningful. We're looking for personality differences and differences in world view or motivation that would cause them to act differently in the exact same scenario.

[SecretWarrior]

I think this question will become more important once these two characters enter the public domain in 15-20 years. The general public may have a consensus that differs from what comic readers agree on.

[Agent Z]

Clark is an idealist, Diana is a pragmatist.

Ahhh yes, the "Diana totally kills people" argument.

The other Zod and the pocket dimension Kryptonians say hello. Clark kills too, and does so with an extremely heavy heart, but he does it sometimes. Hell, he pulled out green K and watched three Kyrptonians wither and die in agony at the finale of Byrne's run. But it doesn't fit the narrative of "Diana ENDS it!" Yeah, she talks about it more and is more receptive of doing it, but this paints both rather poorly. Rucka planned to give Diana her own fallout from killing Lord but DC just didn't rehire him despite letting him believe he'd be able to further develop that plotline. So instead she kills Max and moves on.

I'm pretty sure even Bruce "I never kill but I ally myself with murderers" Wayne has claimed he was going to kill his threats before, so boasts don't count.

Bruce has killed people before but because they weren't human his writers and fans are able to pretend it doesn't count.

[Frontier]

In her case it is actually a positive I think. It is the definitive case of her being more pragmatic(imo) to Batman and Superman no kill period. I like the contrast of Batman,Superman,Flash being "no kill"guys and Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Aquaman being "kill if it is last resort" people. For me I see them as "Heroes" and "Warriors".

But it led to this false implication of the kind of character Diana is and how she operates. It probably inspired that scene where Geoff Johns ignores Wonder Woman's entire Rogues Gallery and makes it sound like she doesn't have one because she ends all her villains.

Clark is an idealist, Diana is a pragmatist.

How is Diana not an idealist, though? She's driven by her own ideals inspired by the ideals of the Amazons.

Maybe she looks at people more honestly than Clark does.

[Robanker]

But it led to this false implication of the kind of character Diana is and how she operates. It probably inspired that scene where Geoff Johns ignores Wonder Woman's entire Rogues Gallery and makes it sound like she doesn't have one because she ends all her villains.

How is Diana not an idealist, though? She's driven by her own ideals inspired by the ideals of the Amazons.

Maybe she looks at people more honestly than Clark does.

The problem is they're very similar so it's hard to highlight their biggest traits because they both apply. This thread lives on quirks. Both are immigrants looking to bring change who are largely inspiring, hopeful figures with a penchant for the truth.

One of the reasons writers go so hard on Warrior Woman is she's immediately different and thus easier to write.