NYCC: Phil Jimenez At The LGBT Panel – Why Would Anybody Want To Make A Movie Out Of This Wonder Wom

[Top Carnivore]

I only took issue with the double d comment because it wasn't true, but if we always go hyperbolic with our remarks, people might start to think it's true.

In Lynda's case she was obviously very well endowed (blessed by the chest fairy) and looked like the current Wonder Woman being drawn in the comics at the time.

Now, if you made the remark that almost all superheroines, with very few exceptions, are drawn with double d chest, then I think you are on to something. Yet, based on who was cast, Gal Gadot, for the movie, it's obvious breast size wasn't considered at all.

Honestly, I doubt that ANY actress will ever look as much like WW as Lynda Carter. She was PERFECT. If time travel were possible, I'd have plucked Lynda from the 70s and cast her in BvS in a heartbeat. Long live the Queen!

[wagthedog]

Honestly, I doubt that ANY actress will ever look as much like WW as Lynda Carter. She was PERFECT. If time travel were possible, I'd have plucked Lynda from the 70s and cast her in BvS in a heartbeat. Long live the Queen!

You and I can agree on that!

[Darius]

I dare say others will say that they never really liked his run and it didn't sell enough books.

But I loved it, and personally I agree completely

I think his run was full of promise ... didn't NAIL it, but a lot of that had to do with circumstance and the fact that he was still quite young. I'd love to see what he could do with her now. I think when he was writing her he was still very much developing and to be honest was very derivative of Perez ... he's got his own voice now and IMO could do great things with her.

[TrekkieGal]

Jiminez is on the mark. It is that lack of character is why I can't handle the Nu52 Wonder Woman. His insight is perfect as he states "Jimenez felt the original ?queer? version:* ?crazy, fun-loving, up to the challenge... not covered head to toe in gladiatorial gear" was uniquely compelling". Yet that is the current view of her. If she's not wielding an battle axe, and massive armor and rippling with muscles then she's not believable evidently. Is she difficult to write, yes but not impossible, yet everyone seems to want to make her in their own image which to me has made her very unlikable. I guess this is why I prefer they NOT make a movie, this generation can never appreciate Wonder Woman unless she looks a certain way, and be a butcher.

[Robotman]

Warner Bros. is investing/risking hundreds of millions of dollars into a potential Wonder Woman franchise and Jimenez is confused as to why they'd want to use the version with the most broad appeal? Probably because they have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in a potential film franchise!
It's a global market and they can't just make her appeal to a small demographic. But as long as she still has aspects of the classic Wonder Woman and isn't just a hack and slash simpleton like Johns' version I'll be happy.
Having the current version of Wonder Woman in the movie doesn't kill the character. She's still alive in many different forms. Wonder Woman '77 is a shining example.

[Silvanus]

If she's not wielding an battle axe, and massive armor and rippling with muscles then she's not believable evidently.

This so doesn't sound like what I've been reading in Azz's book. Even the armor, when she wears armor, isn't all that massive.

ww34.jpg

[AmiMizuno]

Warner Bros. is investing/risking hundreds of millions of dollars into a potential Wonder Woman franchise and Jimenez is confused as to why they'd want to use the version with the most broad appeal? Probably because they have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in a potential film franchise!
It's a global market and they can't just make her appeal to a small demographic. But as long as she still has aspects of the classic Wonder Woman and isn't just a hack and slash simpleton like Johns' version I'll be happy.
Having the current version of Wonder Woman in the movie doesn't kill the character. She's still alive in many different forms. Wonder Woman '77 is a shining example.

2009 movie was the biggest seller and still one of the biggest. So I don't know what your talking about. Diana origin was the answer to male dominating character. I wouldn't mind if she was born to a regular man but Zeus is a stupid to overly use. Also Azz sells are around pre 52 so again nothing special in fact the highest sell is Marston in the million but hat shouldn't matter since the 40s. Perez run in the highest modern run hit. If we look at the best writers after Azz All the classic writers won so adding all the numbers still shows classic wins. We need comprise not chose one over the other.

[Robotman]

2009 movie was the biggest seller and still one of the biggest. So I don't know what your talking about. Diana origin was the answer to male dominating character. I wouldn't mind if she was born to a regular man but Zeus is a stupid to overly use. Also Azz sells are around pre 52 so again nothing special in fact the highest sell is Marston in the million but hat shouldn't matter since the 40s. Perez run in the highest modern run hit. If we look at the best writers after Azz All the classic writers won so adding all the numbers still shows classic wins. We need comprise not chose one over the other.

The industry as a whole doesn't sell nearly as many comics as it used to so citing sales as an example of a better story doesn't really work.

[AmiMizuno]

The industry as a whole doesn't sell nearly as many comics as it used to so citing sales as an example of a better story doesn't really work.

All I'm saying is this the clay origin is not a something if the animated movie sold well and still did . The new animated movies don't sell well.

[TrekkieGal]

This so doesn't sound like what I've been reading in Azz's book. Even the armor, when she wears armor, isn't all that massive.

ww34.jpg

Yes but she wears ARMOR!, and she isn't the Wonder Woman of old on so many levels. She's a appeasement, and that's all. I've read enough Azz to figure out he fits Jimenez criticism, HE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH HER, so this is HIS VERSION. As to compare this to what I stated would be the inevitable, there was a time she needed NO ARMOR, but what do I know, I'm just a fan.

[brettc1]

I see that Doomed panel continues to be purposely taken out of context to make a point. I get some people don't like her saying such things whatsoever, regardless the circumstances and fair enough there, but the circumstances still deserve to be noted. This was a life or death situation against a monster that is more or less the herald of death, mixed with a little tongue-in-cheekiness. Thus not a very good example of bloodthirsty Diana, as I'd have a hard time accepting any hero, regardless their morality views, not actively rooting for Superman to kill Doomsday here. Unless readers truly want to think that Diana actually expected Superman to deliver Doomsday's head on a pike instead of seeing it for what it was; a warrior trying to be strong and talk up the guy she loves at the same time before a battle which only one combatant is coming back from (in which case I can't help you).

The tongue in cheekiness you refer to is entirely at the purview of the reader - there is nothing explicit in the art of dialogue to show that Diana is not being 100% serious. Indeed given the way she is written outside her own book I find it entirely believable.

Regardless, there is simply no context in which Wonder Woman should be advocating this kind of behavior, even in jest. Artemis, sure. Diana? No.

[Silvanus]

Yes but she wears ARMOR!, and she isn't the Wonder Woman of old on so many levels. She's a appeasement, and that's all. I've read enough Azz to figure out he fits Jimenez criticism, HE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH HER, so this is HIS VERSION. As to compare this to what I stated would be the inevitable, there was a time she needed NO ARMOR, but what do I know, I'm just a fan.

That time must have been before Jiminez's "Our Worlds at War" tie-in issues, right?

[brettc1]

That time must have been before Jiminez's "Our Worlds at War" tie-in issues, right?

Evidently so, which does not necessarily invalidate the opinion.

Though I kind of like the Screaming Chicken.

[Silvanus]

Evidently so, which does not necessarily invalidate the opinion.

What opinion? That there was a time when she didn't need armor? That's evidently true; I don't remember a lot of armor in Marston's run. I don't find that she really "needs" armor now, either, and she hasn't spent all that much time in it, though I think the rather light armor Chiang occasionally draws strikes a nice visual balance between connotations of "strong" and "human."

I do think the "screaming chicken"--particularly on that cover--illustrates that whatever differences there are between Jiminez's version and Azzarello's*, they probably not best represented by the "headt-o-toe...gladiatorial gear" Jiminez cites. To be fair, maybe Jiminez would agree; he does say "including myself" at one point when talking about male writers of Wonder Women, thought I can't tell how much he meant to imply that he too had a hard time getting her right. If he was implying that, maybe he's being too hard on himself; both "Our Worlds at War" and last month's #34 show, it's possible to have tender mother/daughter moments (even at the brink of death) while Wonder Woman is wearing armor.

(*Yes, I do realize that Azz's isn't the only or even most-read New 52 portrayal of Wonder Woman, but it is one such portrayal, it' s happening in her solo book, and Jiminez didnn't exempt it from his critique at this panel, so I think it's appropriate to ask whether this critique really fits that portrayal.)

[TrekkieGal]

That time must have been before Jiminez's "Our Worlds at War" tie-in issues, right?

Actually yes, but like no other writer ever cleaned up someone else messes. He criticized not everyone else, but also himself.