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

[SecretWarrior]

I get that the fine details are different, but I don't see meaningful distinctions from things like class background or body posture. Things like that don't actually affect how they interact with other characters. Diana doesn't care if others are lowborn, and Superman is every bit as strategic. They have and follow the same values.

Even with the Avengers Trinity, it's not like Cap and Thor bear such similar personalities-- Thor is much more arrogant and quicker to fight.

[Frontier]

I get that the fine details are different, but I don't see meaningful distinctions from things like class background or body posture. Things like that don't actually affect how they interact with other characters. Diana doesn't care if others are lowborn, and Superman is every bit as strategic. They have and follow the same values.

Even with the Avengers Trinity, it's not like Cap and Thor bear such similar personalities-- Thor is much more arrogant and quicker to fight.

I think that's a misreading of Thor's character.

I feel Superman is strategic in a way only a normal human could be while Wonder Woman is strategic like an Amazon. I think in application it's totally different. Their shared values are pretty universal among all Superheroes.

[SecretWarrior]

I think that's a misreading of Thor's character.

I feel Superman is strategic in a way only a normal human could be while Wonder Woman is strategic like an Amazon. I think in application it's totally different. Their shared values are pretty universal among all Superheroes.

No, Batman's trust issues put him in opposition to others. Wally's quips make his enemies dislike him more, probably leading to more retaliation. John is sometimes overly rigid and by the book.

Thor's most consistent character flaw since the 60s has been his arrogance.

[Frontier]

No, Batman's trust issues put him in opposition to others. Wally's quips make his enemies dislike him more, probably leading to more retaliation. John is sometimes overly rigid and by the book.

They all share the same core values though. They all believe in redemption/reform to some extent and have a strong, core, sense of justice. It just gets applied differently in their stories based on their personalities and background.

Thor's most consistent character flaw since the 60s has been his arrogance.

He got over it pretty quickly though.

[Alpha]

I get that the fine details are different, but I don't see meaningful distinctions from things like class background or body posture. Things like that don't actually affect how they interact with other characters. Diana doesn't care if others are lowborn, and Superman is every bit as strategic. They have and follow the same values.

I think you are trying to respond to multiple people in this post so I'm not sure what part is about what I wrote and what part is about others wrote. I definitely define a lot of differences beyond their posture, but posture is in fact a big indication of how they react to others. So is the way the react to a joke. I was describing Clark as sort of an introvert in a way while Diana is a complete extrovert. I also described how both characters would deal with a threat in my personal interpretation of them, and it's completely different from one another.

Like I said, I have a hard time even comparing them to each other because I don't think they have many similarities in terms of personality. Like yeah, they are nice and powerful. But they are nice in completely different ways, and they use their powers in complete different ways, and their relationship with their powers themselves is completely different. I enjoyed WW84 and I thought it was one of the most inspired characterizations of the character, but it's still not how I would write her. Neither is Man of Steel or even Christopher Reeve how I would write Superman.

You know what, why don't you tell me what similarities you see between them in terms of personality?

[SecretWarrior]

They all share the same core values though. They all believe in redemption/reform to some extent and have a strong, core, sense of justice. It just gets applied differently in their stories based on their personalities and background.

He got over it pretty quickly though.

Important words: "to some extent."

Some heroes hold grudges, other don't. Some are trusting, others aren't. And like real people, they get past their flaws for a while before falling back into negative patterns.

That's why we see stories and adaptations like Tower of Babel and Civil War. That sort of internal conflict makes characters compelling, not just 2D icons. Characters like Wolverine and Batman are great for teams because they add friction. Sometimes the friction isn't overt, like Cap having trust issues for a bit when it came to Black Widow in the MCU.

Thor is still written as arrogant in the modern era, though it doesn't mean readers won't agree with him or won't like him.







If Thor completely lost his arrogance or was completely self-aware, he'd be a very boring, generic lead.

Priest's Black Panther is good because T'Challa's unnecessarily inconsiderate of other's feelings. Very distinct take on the guy. Not too different from Namor, really.

Even Captain America can think he knows better than everyone and be completely uncompromising about that (Civil War). Captain America can be more traditionally noble because he's surrounded by people who aren't and because he still holds onto loss in a way that can get you to empathize or sympathize with him.

[Frontier]

Important words: "to some extent."

Some heroes hold grudges, other don't. Some are trusting, others aren't. And like real people, they get past their flaws for a while before falling back into negative patterns.

That's why we see stories and adaptations like Tower of Babel and Civil War. That sort of internal conflict makes characters compelling, not just 2D icons. Characters like Wolverine and Batman are great for teams because they add friction. Sometimes the friction isn't overt, like Cap having trust issues for a bit when it came to Black Widow in the MCU.

Thor is still written as arrogant in the modern era, though it doesn't mean readers won't agree with him or won't like him.





If Thor completely lost his arrogance or was completely self-aware, he'd be a very boring, generic lead.

Priest's Black Panther is good because T'Challa's unnecessarily inconsiderate of other's feelings. Very distinct take on the guy. Not too different from Namor, really.

Even Captain America can think he knows better than everyone and be completely uncompromising about that (Civil War). Captain America can be more traditionally noble because he's surrounded by people who aren't and because he still holds onto loss in a way that can get you to empathize or sympathize with him.

Tower of Babel and Civil War (the comic version) have their detractors for how it compromised the heroes to a certain extent. Not that I'm arguing against conflict, look at the Hiketeia for a good Wonder Woman/Batman conflict story where they're both relatively in-character.

The first image isn't really Thor as arrogant, it's Thor as righteously angry, while the bottom image is very early Thor ala Lee/Kirby. I don't think Thor's arrogance was all that prominent in the Walt Simonson run and that's one of the most iconic takes on Thor and his mythos. He's a noble, adventurous, hero, not an arrogant warrior god.

[Timothy Hunter]

Diana strikes me as more of an outsider probably as she grew up in a completely separate world and has a point of reference for it while Clark grew up among regular humans (and depending on the version spent at least a few of his formative early years thinking he was one before his powers developed and the Kents telling him how they found him).

There's obviously she kills/warrior angle vs Superman who for the most part is characterized as not having a kill rule (at least among humans/human-looking lifeforms). But the certain writers who play that up only really have surface level views of the two in my opinion.

When in the comics did Wonder Woman become a warrior willing to kill?

[SecretWarrior]

[SecretWarrior]

[Gaius]

When in the comics did Wonder Woman become a warrior willing to kill?

If there was a singular thing to point to than probably Perez's run early on he had her kill Deimos, god of terror, but like the evolution of Bat-God, there's also later stuff that contributed to it like Kingdom Come and Sacrifice (as seen with Secret Warrior's image posts).

[Alpha]

@SecretWarrior what similarities do you see between Superman and Wonder Woman?

[Johnny Thunders!]

I think of Superman as the Man of Tomorrow. He is someone who pushes towards the future. He also appreciates the simplicity and truth of everyday heroes. I think of Wonder Woman as representing the lost wisdom of the ages. She represents an ideal, a matriarchal ideal that can make all the world a Paradise Island.

[Killerbee911]

Boys Scout and Warrior Princess

This and Wonder Woman will snap your neck if necessary

[Robanker]

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.