Wonder woman’s membership in the trinity and big 7 is surface level.

[mathew101281]

To me sometimes I feel DC wants us to see Wonder Woman as a big deal, but they don’t actually want to put in the effort to make her a big deal. Her power and what she can do is all over the map, her supporting cast is small and under developed and her villains don’t seem to have any direction either.

Look at Green Lantern and Flash ( not even getting into Batman and Superman. They are on another level). Those characters, like Diana are the faces of the DCU. But those characters have clear cut directions. GL is the DCU’s main space “cosmic” book, and that moniker allows the franchise to soldier through even when individual characters in the franchise go through a rough patch. Same goes for the Flash. But when you come to Diana I feel that every character is defined by lack of direction. Her strongest theme is probably myth ( she is a character spawned from myth and three of her top five main villains are myth based) but then you have a rather strange sprinkling of spy/military/ government espionage elements in her franchise to.

[CSTowle]

You could say the same about Iron Man over at Marvel, but he's been an icon/Avengers mainstay for night-on 60 years. Her villains are weak, but outside of the top 2 in Luthor and Brainiac you could say the same about Superman (most of his others are pests/complications like Mxyptlk or Bizarro or not really top-shelf).

As to power and being all over the map, again welcome to Superman's world/history. And as for being sort of a pale nothing in the characterization department, that's been by design as DC's heroes traditionally have been paragons of goodness/heroicness (which tends not to lend itself to complication/nuance). There's been progress there, but any time you have a franchise that's been around 50-100 years it's hard to make even little changes stick. People always demand a return to the norm.

I see her as a female version of Thor (or, if you like, Thor is a male version of her). An outsider/mythological being with fantastic powers trying to do good in the modern world. I'm not a fan of the character, but I can see the appeal.

[mathew101281]

Yes Superman’s powers are all over the map but their are core components of his mythology that are constant. His origin his rogue’s etc. Wonderwoman can’t even stick to an origin consistently. I feel some of this inconsistency even dates back to the Golden age. Batman and Superman’s appeal at their cores were rather simple, but powerful.

Batman for example is basically a reimagining of the Shadow, Zorro and other pulp characters of the time.

Superman had pulp connections too but also pulls heavily from mythic heroic strong man archetype ( like Hercules ) Also easy and simple to sell and understand.

Wonderwoman: on the other hand even from the beginning seems to throw a lot of seemingly random things together. It’s a feminist power fantasy about a character inspired by Greek mythology that throws out a lot of the stuff people know about said myths. It’s also a government/ anti war story as well as a softcore skin book with BDSM undertones. That’s a lot of stuff. And it’s a concoction that really only it’s original creators have been able to sell consistently. Other creators seem to want to throw out certain elements. Perez seemed to want to throw out everything that was to separate from the myth stuff (That included Steve Trevor who up to that point had been one of the few consistent things in the Wonderwoman franchise). In the 70’s creators tried to down play the myth stuff and focus on the government/war stuff by turning her into a spy. And in the 90’s she and pretty much every other female character went hyper sexualized.

[CosmiComic]

That also means Wonder Woman can be varied in the kinds of stories she's in.

[Nomads1]

I don't have that problem. I find Diana totally badass, and think she has more then earned her place in the Trinity, and in the Big 7. It's like Superman is brawn, while Batman is skill, yet Diana is a combination of brawn and skill. She's balance. Go read Kurt Busiek's Trinity for a more in depth look if you don't believe me. As for her villains, Ares, Circe, Cheetah, Dr. Pshyco, etc... Like Supes and Bats, she has big ones and not so big ones (not every Superman villain is a Lex Luthor, nor every Batman villain a Joker). As for her being superficially written, I find that to be a common problem with many characters nowadays. The age of tight continuity and chartacter development seems to be in the rearview mirror. A shame, IMHO.

Peace

[LifeIsILL]

You could say the same about Iron Man over at Marvel, but he's been an icon/Avengers mainstay for night-on 60 years. Her villains are weak, but outside of the top 2 in Luthor and Brainiac you could say the same about Superman (most of his others are pests/complications like Mxyptlk or Bizarro or not really top-shelf).

Never felt her villains were weak. She has a really diverse cast of villains, which DC seems to forget.

[Alpha]

Hum, the 90s writers didn't hyper sexualize Diana at all. The artists did. The writing kept exploring deeper character stuff with the character.

[John Venus]

Her powers have been the same for a long time; flight, some degree of invulnerability, speed, strength, ability to speak to animals and the lasso of truth. The exact level of those abilities differ from writer to writer and some outright forget those abilities. Ability to speak to animals is the one that suffers the most.

Her rotating supporting cast is due to every subsequent writer feeling the need to reinvent the wheel or being told to do so by editorial. Though I think since Rebirth (or was it Nu52) her supporting cast has largely solidified with Steve Trevor and Etta Candy as mainstays.

WW as envisioned by Marston didn't anchor herself to any genre. Diana fought mythological villains (not just Greek but Asgardian foes like the Valkyries), aliens, magicians, spy/espionage plots and regular old criminals. The GA WW also had her own take on the Multiverse and Atlantis long before Barry discovered Earth 2 or Aquaman was introduced. This is the reason why I enjoyed the most recent story arc in her current run wherein she had to travel the Multiverse/Godsphere. Diana is at heart an adventurer and wherever she goes, she changes things for the better.

I believe Diana was neglected by the previous regime at DC and if not neglected, they tried to force her into some 'tough warrior woman who doesn't hesitate to kill' role which was the only way they could 'get' the character.

[atomicskull]

I never really found Wonder Woman all that important to the DCU. She's only considered "iconic" b/c she's the first.

[CosmiComic]

I don't think her villains are necessarily weak, but for the 3rd most famous superhero, she doesn't have nearly as famous villains

Her regular power set is a bit generic, too, though,

[Stanlos]

To me sometimes I feel DC wants us to see Wonder Woman as a big deal, but they don’t actually want to put in the effort to make her a big deal. Her power and what she can do is all over the map, her supporting cast is small and under developed and her villains don’t seem to have any direction either.

Look at Green Lantern and Flash ( not even getting into Batman and Superman. They are on another level). Those characters, like Diana are the faces of the DCU. But those characters have clear cut directions. GL is the DCU’s main space “cosmic” book, and that moniker allows the franchise to soldier through even when individual characters in the franchise go through a rough patch. Same goes for the Flash. But when you come to Diana I feel that every character is defined by lack of direction. Her strongest theme is probably myth ( she is a character spawned from myth and three of her top five main villains are myth based) but then you have a rather strange sprinkling of spy/military/ government espionage elements in her franchise to.

Sorry but no.

Her being a part of the Trinity is based on historical importance and performance. Comics very nearly died. The books helmed by Supes, Bats and WW were the only ones that managed to survive that period and be continuously published. That is the primary reason for all of them. Then there are their individual historical impacts. No other properties have that.

[Agent Z]

Hum, the 90s writers didn't hyper sexualize Diana at all. The artists did. The writing kept exploring deeper character stuff with the character.

No one said the writers hypersexualized her. In fact, when people complain about sexualization of female characters, they are (usually) talking about how the artists depicts them.

To me sometimes I feel DC wants us to see Wonder Woman as a big deal, but they don’t actually want to put in the effort to make her a big deal. Her power and what she can do is all over the map, her supporting cast is small and under developed and her villains don’t seem to have any direction either.

Look at Green Lantern and Flash ( not even getting into Batman and Superman. They are on another level). Those characters, like Diana are the faces of the DCU. But those characters have clear cut directions. GL is the DCU’s main space “cosmic” book, and that moniker allows the franchise to soldier through even when individual characters in the franchise go through a rough patch. Same goes for the Flash.

I don't see what direction the Flash has. The only consistency is that the book stars a guy who dresses in red and can run incredibly fast. His fans are all over the place in terms of themes, powers and personalities. Not to mention, how the Flash is depicted depends entirely on who is under the mask and even one single Flash varies from writer to writer.

But when you come to Diana I feel that every character is defined by lack of direction. Her strongest theme is probably myth ( she is a character spawned from myth and three of her top five main villains are myth based) but then you have a rather strange sprinkling of spy/military/ government espionage elements in her franchise to.

That's called variety not a lack of direction.

Yes Superman’s powers are all over the map but their are core components of his mythology that are constant. His origin his rogue’s etc. Wonderwoman can’t even stick to an origin consistently. I feel some of this inconsistency even dates back to the Golden age. Batman and Superman’s appeal at their cores were rather simple, but powerful.

Batman for example is basically a reimagining of the Shadow, Zorro and other pulp characters of the time.

Superman had pulp connections too but also pulls heavily from mythic heroic strong man archetype ( like Hercules ) Also easy and simple to sell and understand.

Diana is an Amazon princess who fights to save the world. That is also simple and easy to understand. Anything will seem overly complicated if you go out of your way to make it seem so and if you start focusing on superficial fluff or try to explain the character's history and original premise all at once.

Example:

Superman is a Jewish-coded strongman created two Jewish men. His stories kind of have an anti-establishment and possibly socialist-leaning theme with him taking on various corrupt businessmen and officials. Depending on the writer, he's either the nicest guy in the world or an abusive ******* who loves tormenting his friends. Oh and he has a kid now and a lot of stories have him going evil for one reason or another.

Wonderwoman: on the other hand even from the beginning seems to throw a lot of seemingly random things together. It’s a feminist power fantasy about a character inspired by Greek mythology that throws out a lot of the stuff people know about said myths. It’s also a government/ anti war story as well as a softcore skin book with BDSM undertones.

The feminism part is the book's ideology not its premise. The softcore stuff has largely been abandoned and she was only ever as sexualized as every other female character in superhero comics. Plenty of stories about myths didn't just focus on the gods. It also dealt with humans and their governments so this isn't exactly a clash.

That’s a lot of stuff. And it’s a concoction that really only it’s original creators have been able to sell consistently.

Hence, why most modern writers have ditched it. Grant Morrison is the first person since Marston to try to use it to mixed results.

Other creators seem to want to throw out certain elements.

Again, this isn't exclusive to Wonder Woman. Some Batman writers like a dark tone for the book, others prefers a campier direction. Some like the Batfamily, others hate it.

Perez seemed to want to throw out everything that was to separate from the myth stuff (That included Steve Trevor who up to that point had been one of the few consistent things in the Wonderwoman franchise).

Perez didn't just limit his stories to the myths and he still had Steve around as a supporting character.

[Agent Z]

I never really found Wonder Woman all that important to the DCU. She's only considered "iconic" b/c she's the first.

That isn't why she is considered iconic. Nor is she the first female superhero.

I don't think her villains are necessarily weak, but for the 3rd most famous superhero, she doesn't have nearly as famous villains

Which is due to her having less adaptations than Superman, Batman and Spider-Man.

Her regular power set is a bit generic, too, though,

Most superpowers are because there's nothing really new under the sun. Plenty of superheroes with "generic" power sets are still popular. Invincible got an animated series with pretty much the same powers as her.

[John Venus]

Also, her most well known and consistent villain is Cheetah who has appeared in roughly every modern adaptation of Wonder Woman with the exception of Bloodlines and her first live action movie.

As for her origin, for 70+ years, it has always been that she was sculpted from clay by Hippolyta and given life by the Goddesses. We had one run in 2011 that tried to reinvent her as the daughter Zeus that also made it's way into a movie. Nowadays most writers write around the whole 'daughter of Zeus' or barely reference it at all. They avoid it all together and even the upcoming Historia book avoids is going to use the clay origin for it's continuity. In the vast 80 years of WW's history, the daughter of Zeus idea is the DC equivalent of Spider-Man's clone sage/OMD or that story arc where Marvel revealed that Kang was manipulating throughout his life, villainized him and tried to replace him with a teenage version of Tony from the past. Some writers may reference it but people who understand the character would rather move away from it.

[king81992]

You could say the same about Iron Man over at Marvel, but he's been an icon/Avengers mainstay for night-on 60 years. Her villains are weak, but outside of the top 2 in Luthor and Brainiac you could say the same about Superman (most of his others are pests/complications like Mxyptlk or Bizarro or not really top-shelf).

As to power and being all over the map, again welcome to Superman's world/history. And as for being sort of a pale nothing in the characterization department, that's been by design as DC's heroes traditionally have been paragons of goodness/heroicness (which tends not to lend itself to complication/nuance). There's been progress there, but any time you have a franchise that's been around 50-100 years it's hard to make even little changes stick. People always demand a return to the norm.

I see her as a female version of Thor (or, if you like, Thor is a male version of her). An outsider/mythological being with fantastic powers trying to do good in the modern world. I'm not a fan of the character, but I can see the appeal.

Disagree that Wonder Woman's villains are weak. Her rogue gallery is deep and varied, with several world level or higher threats, buts writers want to shill the Greek gods, Cheetah or Grail.