Originally Posted by
Guy_McNichts
Wonder Woman going public domain will raise some interesting questions in regard to how Warner/DC defines her. Arguably more interesting than Superman or Batman, because WW as defined by Marston offers enough info to work with, but is still broad enough to be open to interpretation.
It's important to look at this in comparison to stuff like Dracula or Sherlock Holmes than the recent Mickey Mouse (more accurately, the "Steamboat Willie" short) and Winnie the Pooh. The Mickey and Winnie stuff is just guys capitalizing on the easy hook of: "childhood thing is now a horror killer" because horror movies are cheap to make and usually therefore turn an easy profit. It's called "exploitation" for a reason.
Anyway...take Dracula...there have been dozens of re-imaginings of Dracula and not all of them have been confined to the framework of "ancient vampire leaves Transylvania to kill people in 1800s London and Abraham Van Helsing stops him."
Dracula's been reinterpreted in modern day, as a supervillain, as a superhero, as a government agent...or they just re-do the original Stoker novel with a unique spin.
It's just a matter of whether one interpretation of Dracula steps on the toes of another. Obviously, when working off the same foundation, there's going to be overlap, but you cnn't have your Dracula--for instance--look or act like Bela Legosi's Dracula because that version of him is owned by Universal Studios.
The Monster Squad had to dance around this when it was made (particularly with the Creature from the Black Lagoon). Sherlock Holmes has also run into similar issues with differing adaptations/updates running at the same time.
Marston's Wonder Woman going public domain doesn't necessarily mean she needs to be confined to World War II or wear culottes or other assorted specifics.
As said, he gave a lot to work with that is open to wide interpretation. The thing with the indie versions of WW will be whether they will clash with Warner/DC's version, and...this is where is gets interesting...that means they will need to define what their version of Wonder Woman is and isn't.
Take the flying issue.
True, Marston's Wonder Woman didn't fly. But his Diana got her powers from Amazon training their mental power to make themselves as strong as they needed to be.
Now...a valid interpretation of that is--and I've seen some users here on this board do this--it's not too dissimilar to Ki (or Chi) from things like Dragon Ball.
Sticking with the Dragon Ball comparison...Goku couldn't fly at first. But he eventually trained himself and learned to harness his Ki enough so that he could fly. Eventually, other characters could as well, and now pretty much everyone flies in Dragon Ball.
Suppose, when WW goes public, I make my own version of Diana that leans into the Ki training aspect. And my Wonder Woman eventually learns to fly because of it.
Warner/DC could send a cease & desist or outright sue. But in doing so, they would essentially declare their Wonder Woman does fly and must therefore always fly.
So, in a roundabout way, we may see an end to "Well, Wonder Woman won't fly in this show because reasons."
This extends to what costumes she wears, the extent of her powers, and other assorted details.
Wonder Woman going public is going to lead to some interesting results.