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

[achilles]

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.

Well I wish they'd stop doing stuff like that. I like my Amazons a little less murdery, and my Diana a bit less Xena, warrior princess. Less neck snapping and more saving people and being just plain heroic.

[Frontier]

Well I wish they'd stop doing stuff like that. I like my Amazons a little less murdery, and my Diana a bit less Xena, warrior princess. Less neck snapping and more saving people and being just plain heroic.

Less sword and shield and more lasso .

[SecretWarrior]

Well I wish they'd stop doing stuff like that. I like my Amazons a little less murdery, and my Diana a bit less Xena, warrior princess. Less neck snapping and more saving people and being just plain heroic.

DC already has Superman-- Why do they need two?

[SecretWarrior]

I'm not gonna bring down characters like Plastic Man, Booster Gold, Animal Man, Vixen, Doom Patrol, Metal Men Metamorpho, Etrigan, Raven, Cyborg or Hawkman. There are plenty of unique characters in the DC universe that get under represented.

But this doesn't mean that the core seven are uninteresting and "of the same type". Give me an example of a decision the Justice League has to make and I'll tell you how I think Clark, Diana and Bruce would react.

-Hawkgirl betrays the team in the same way and for the same reason as in Starcrossed. Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman have to vote to let her in. Superman thinks everyone deserves a second chance, while Batman feels letting her on the team would create a security risk for the League and therefore the world. How does your Diana vote and why? Will there be consensus between your interpretation and the fanbase?

-A new Kryptonian colony is established near Earth. Superman welcomes them with open arms and tries to build a network between New Krypton and Earth to maintain peace between the civilizations. Batman, less trusting, activates Brother Eye to protect Earth in the event of an invasion. How does your Diana react? How would it be received by her fan base?

-Captain Atom accidently detonates over a civilian population. In response, the UN wants to mandate the League get permission from them before undertaking activities on foreign soil. Superman agrees to maintain a line of communication because he fears accidently becoming a dictator or making the situation worse. Batman starts the Outsiders to work covertly without even an inkling of government red tape. The queen of Bialya subjugates her detractors psychically and secretly runs a drug smuggling operation from her country, but the UN doesn't have any evidence. Outsiders setting foot on Bialya without permission is a crime. Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman cannot coordinate for this scenario. Batman decides to work without permission to find evidence. Superman feels his hands are tied unless more evidence comes to light or something overtly sinister pops up, so he waits. Again, without being allowed to coordinate with Batman or Superman, what would Wonder Woman do and why? Would it be any different than her team mates, and how would the fan base react to your response?

[SecretWarrior]

It's not just Diana-- Clark teaming up with Steve Rodgers presents the same issues.

[Robanker]

DC already has Superman-- Why do they need two?

Because that's her character.

Less sword and shield and more lasso .

I see Diana isn't the only spirit of truth around these parts.

[Alpha]

-Hawkgirl betrays the team in the same way and for the same reason as in Starcrossed. Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman have to vote to let her in. Superman thinks everyone deserves a second chance, while Batman feels letting her on the team would create a security risk for the League and therefore the world. How does your Diana vote and why? Will there be consensus between your interpretation and the fanbase?

-A new Kryptonian colony is established near Earth. Superman welcomes them with open arms and tries to build a network between New Krypton and Earth to maintain peace between the civilizations. Batman, less trusting, activates Brother Eye to protect Earth in the event of an invasion. How does your Diana react? How would it be received by her fan base?

-Captain Atom accidently detonates over a civilian population. In response, the UN wants to mandate the League get permission from them before undertaking activities on foreign soil. Superman agrees to maintain a line of communication because he fears accidently becoming a dictator or making the situation worse. Batman starts the Outsiders to work covertly without even an inkling of government red tape. The queen of Bialya subjugates her detractors psychically and secretly runs a drug smuggling operation from her country, but the UN doesn't have any evidence. Outsiders setting foot on Bialya without permission is a crime. Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman cannot coordinate for this scenario. Batman decides to work without permission to find evidence. Superman feels his hands are tied unless more evidence comes to light or something overtly sinister pops up, so he waits. Again, without being allowed to coordinate with Batman or Superman, what would Wonder Woman do and why? Would it be any different than her team mates, and how would the fan base react to your response?

1- I actually think Diana would be far more likely of giving Hawkgirl a chance than Superman would. I think Clark sees everything they do as fundamentally fragile, ans even if he wouldn't specifically try to punish Hawkgirl, he wouldn't be able to work with her. He would react the same way to Batman in Tower of Babel. Diana would definitely put Hawkgirl through the grinder but ultimately she might even keep her closer to make sure they are on the same page. Specially since Diana herself also has double loyalties to her people and to Man's World.

2 - I think Superman would accept Batman's distrust of the Kryptonians and the need of some form of protection, but I don't think he would accept Batman having the power of Brother Eye all by himself, without any accountability to the world other than the Justice League. Wonder Woman who comes from a very isolated and socialized society probably agrees with Clark but would be hesitant as to who exactly should have control over it and how to share it. She would ultimately accept that Batman hold control over it because she trusts the Justice League as a fail safe to Batman himself.

3 - I think Diana would have to act on instinct and despite understanding Clark's hesitation and her own responsibilities as political representative of Themyscira would decide to act and follow Batman's lead. She doesn't have the same sense of overwhelming power that Clark has. Her notion of responsibility is something that was dictated by her people, not one she arrived at by herself. So while she does believe in it, she can easily be swayed to accept her responsibility as an individual rather than as a political Super Power.

I don't know how the fanbase would react to these things because the way I view Superman and Wonder Woman is slightly distinct from how most people view them (and even then it's hard to figure out how most people view them, I admit). But I have a feeling that in these cases they would recognize the qualities I affirmed for each character.

[SecretWarrior]

Because that's her character.

That's an honest answer, but that's also why I have a hard time taking complaints about Wonder Woman being relegated to a secondary position seriously. A redundant character won't be able to have as big an impact as the more prominent character with the same disposition representing the same viewpoints. So then you look to other things you can do with her, but her fans: are (justifiably) fearful that she'll play second fiddle in romantic relationships; don't want her to have a less traditionally heroic disposition, sense of humor, or other interests; and don't explain what unique dynamic her villains bring to the table besides being Wonder Woman-specific villains. Diana needs to break from the Silver Age mold and stand out from her peers, not just in terms of aesthetics or mythology. On the John Stewart thread someone mentioned that the military leader thing was done to death at this point-- That's how I feel about having multiple versions of the same traditional hero mold operating together.

[Agent Z]

Diana should not be seen as more pragmatic than Clark. In fact, Clark should actually be the more pragmatic since he grew up around these people, unlike Diana.

Why would that make him more pragmatic than her?

And there's nothing interesting about making Diana a pragmatist in her own stories.

Rucka and Perez alone disprove this.

[SecretWarrior]

1- I actually think Diana would be far more likely of giving Hawkgirl a chance than Superman would. I think Clark sees everything they do as fundamentally fragile, ans even if he wouldn't specifically try to punish Hawkgirl, he wouldn't be able to work with her. He would react the same way to Batman in Tower of Babel. Diana would definitely put Hawkgirl through the grinder but ultimately she might even keep her closer to make sure they are on the same page. Specially since Diana herself also has double loyalties to her people and to Man's World.

So Clark is the center point who ends up voting the same way as Diana?

2 - I think Superman would accept Batman's distrust of the Kryptonians and the need of some form of protection, but I don't think he would accept Batman having the power of Brother Eye all by himself, without any accountability to the world other than the Justice League. Wonder Woman who comes from a very isolated and socialized society probably agrees with Clark but would be hesitant as to who exactly should have control over it and how to share it. She would ultimately accept that Batman hold control over it because she trusts the Justice League as a fail safe to Batman himself.

This is what Clark allows with the Kryptonite ring, so his and Wonder Woman's responses here are the same.

3 - I think Diana would have to act on instinct and despite understanding Clark's hesitation and her own responsibilities as political representative of Themyscira would decide to act and follow Batman's lead. She doesn't have the same sense of overwhelming power that Clark has. Her notion of responsibility is something that was dictated by her people, not one she arrived at by herself. So while she does believe in it, she can easily be swayed to accept her responsibility as an individual rather than acharacters a political Super Power.

I can see arguments about why she'd care less about sovereignty than Clark, as someone who doesn't have as much respect for man-made governments, but it's hard for her to go back to the U.N. and be taken seriously as a diplomat if what she does comes to light.

Diana is mostly used as a tie-breaker, not as someone with her own approach. Story-wise, if Clark is not around, she fills in for his perspective. I'm not sure if she'd ever fill-in for Bruce's. If it were just her and Clark, I don't think she'd independently come up with the idea of secretly breaking into a country without permissions to gather evidence, but I see why people would disagree.

I just don't want Diana to be "What if Superman had two X-chromosomes and was a magic fantasy character in instead of a science fantasy one?"

[Agent Z]

Well I wish they'd stop doing stuff like that. I like my Amazons a little less murdery, and my Diana a bit less Xena, warrior princess. Less neck snapping and more saving people and being just plain heroic.

This is a shallow reading of Xena's character in the first place. Her main story arc was atoning for her crimes as a brutal warlord and she showed several times to be a compassionate person not unlike Wonder Woman herself. Killing a villain is not inherently a heroic action and even saving someone can end up screwing someone else over if the person saved is a villain.

[Agent Z]

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.

I think it says something that of all the legal and ethical lines superheroes frequently cross, it's only when it results in the death of a villain (and particularly evil villain at that), that fans suddenly demand consequences and follow up. The multiple instances of Batman abusing his wards or torturing opponents, Superman's defrauding of a newspaper and gaslighting his love interests, Diana's subverting people's free will with the lasso, these are either forgotten, ignored or just accepted as part of the genre. But killing Turbo Hitler is where we draw the line.

[Agent Z]

That's an honest answer, but that's also why I have a hard time taking complaints about Wonder Woman being relegated to a secondary position seriously. A redundant character won't be able to have as big an impact as the more prominent character with the same disposition representing the same viewpoints.

There are numerous factors that affect why one character may not have the same impact as another. Redundancy might be an issue but as they say, there is nothing new under the sun. It's easy to get caught up in Diana's similarities to Clark but there are still plenty of differences between the two of them. The people who watched her movie certainly didn't mind the similarities to Superman. In fact, they embraced them.

So then you look to other things you can do with her, but her fans: are (justifiably) fearful that she'll play second fiddle in romantic relationships; don't want her to have a less traditionally heroic disposition,

You talk about Diana being redundant due to being heroic in a way Clark is but did you ever think that being less traditionally heroic will also make her seem redundant? It certainly isn't like DC is lacking in antiheroes and someone could easily argue that she'd just be written like Batman and why do we need two of him if we don't need two of Superman?

sense of humor, or other interests;

Who said anything about being against a sense of humor or other hobbies?

and don't explain what unique dynamic her villains bring to the table besides being Wonder Woman-specific villains.

Have you asked anyone in the Wonder Woman fandom what dynamic her villains bring to the table?

[Alpha]

So Clark is the center point who ends up voting the same way as Diana?
This is what Clark allows with the Kryptonite ring, so his and Wonder Woman's responses here are the same.

Not exactly. Kryptonite ring only affects kryptonians. Clark doesn't think Batman should have control over Brothereye for any purpose whatsoever. It's a technology that can be used against much more than just kryptonians. Clark would be against Bruce having control over Brother Eye whereas Diana would accept it begrudgingly. I don't know how far Clark would act, would he destroy brother eye? Would he force Bruce to give up it's control? I would only know the answer once I started writing the story.

I can see arguments about why she'd care less about sovereignty than Clark, as someone who doesn't have as much respect for man-made governments, but it's hard for her to go back to the U.N. and be taken seriously as a diplomat if what she does comes to light.

Yes, and that's literally the point of that storyline. It's testing the values of each character. So the consequences of this story would be that Diana sacrificied the trust of the U.N. in order to resolve a crisis outside her jurisdiction. It's a game changing moment for her, which doesn't mean she is acting out of character.

Diana is mostly used as a tie-breaker, not as someone with her own approach. Story-wise, if Clark is not around, she fills in for his perspective. I'm not sure if she'd ever fill-in for Bruce's. If it were just her and Clark, I don't think she'd independently come up with the idea of secretly breaking into a country without permissions to gather evidence, but I see why people would disagree.

I told you the reasoning for each decision. You can't then tell me that wonder woman is used as tie breaker, because I don't agree that she fits in a spectrum between Batman and Superman. She has values and defining features that neither of them have. I also think Diana would only be swayed to break into the country once Batman tells them he is going in. Not because she does everything that Batman tells her to, but because she sees someone taking the initiative by themselves and that's what she wants to do to. Seeing someone else do it, specially someone as vulnerable as Bruce, isn't good enough for her. But if Bruce or anyone else, didn't go I think she would be somewhat pacified into staying away.

[SecretWarrior]

There are numerous factors that affect why one character may not have the same impact as another. Redundancy might be an issue but as they say, there is nothing new under the sun. It's easy to get caught up in Diana's similarities to Clark but there are still plenty of differences between the two of them. The people who watched her movie certainly didn't mind the similarities to Superman. In fact, they embraced them.

Superman wasn't in her movie, so there's nothing to contrast against. If Wonder Woman remains a solo character in her own Superman-less bubble going forward, that's not a problem. It's basically like giving Peter Parker and Miles Morales the same personality.

You talk about Diana being redundant due to being heroic in a way Clark is but did you ever think that being less traditionally heroic will also make her seem redundant? It certainly isn't like DC is lacking in antiheroes and someone could easily argue that she'd just be written like Batman and why do we need two of him if we don't need two of Superman?

By default, there are more ways to deviate from the mold than there are ways to adhere to it.

Who said anything about being against a sense of humor or other hobbies?

The only time she's written comically is when she's a fish out of water, and people have a problem with that. I think they'd have the same problem if she were a jokester.

She isn't shown to have unique hobbies or interests that would really differentiate her identity, like Flash and Green Lantern being comic book nerds.

Have you asked anyone in the Wonder Woman fandom what dynamic her villains bring to the table?

It came up in the DC Comics forum on DCAU Hawkgirl and Wonder Woman. Besides being magic and Wonder Woman specific, it's not like you can't tell the same stories with other rogues. A rogue's gallery alone isn't enough to make a character really stand out. Flash's, Hawkgirl's, and Green Lantern's villains were less prominent than Wonder Woman's in the DCAU and those characters were still all better received.

Most kids who watched the show didn't know whose villains were whose. I doubt many kids knew who's villain Grodd was or the Shade's was.