Grant Morrison Weighs In On "Batman v Superman's" Wonder Woman

[jimishim12]

People want variety in female characters. It doesn't have to be limited to "generic action girl" or "damsel in distress".

Besides, most of the time when D.C hype Diana up as the most dangerous woman alive, they still have her play second fiddle to Batman and Superman. Might as well focus on other traits that have nothing to do with fighting if she's going to be so inept at it.

Action heroines get criticized for a variety of factors besides being "soft" (whatever the hell that means).

I didn't coin Diana as a generic type action chick, I just think she needs to be more expressive in her warrior customs and open book convictions so she can give off the impression of having flaws despite her idealistic beauty and power but still have the strength to inspire and bring forth love and justice, without being sanctimonious and overbaringly noble.

And by soft for female roles, I mean most action chicks use the concept of affectionate love and emotional unstabilty to define their fighting convictions which makes them lose alot of layers of inner fortitute especially as a fighting concept. Just see characters like Sakura Haruno, Bella Swan, Katniss, and Hermoine Granger.

[Agent Z]

I didn't coin Diana as a generic type action chick, I just think she needs to be more expressive in her warrior customs and open book convictions so she can give off the impression of having flaws despite her idealistic beauty and power but still have the strength to inspire and bring forth love and justice, without being sanctimonious and overbaringly noble.

And by soft for female roles, I mean most action chicks use the concept of affectionate love and emotional unstabilty to define their fighting convictions which makes them lose alot of layers of inner fortitute especially as a fighting concept. Just see characters like Sakura Haruno, Bella Swan, Katniss, and Hermoine Granger.

It's also possible to go too far in the opposite direction and cause your audience to lose any sympathy for the character. That's how the WW pilot failed. They made her too much of a sociopath.

Also, Katniss and Hermoine are nothing like Bella and Sakura. Seriously, just putting all four of those names in one sentence is laughable.

[Bradley]

Count me among those really looking forward to this book, and among those who got tired of Wonder Woman as a warrior action hero right around the time she killed Maxwell Lord. This sounds like a welcome return to form, something new that builds upon the character's foundations, and I can't wait.

[dianafan1985]

Wonder Woman is a comic book character; she is not a deity, there are no religions dedicated to her as far as I know; therefore she has to kick @ss for people to gravitate towards her. I often feel that people have too high expectations for Diana - she is supposed to be this, she is supposed to be that - JUST LET HER BE! Why isn't he critiquing Superman killing Zod, or something else more mundane?

The movie has not even come out and he is dissing her portrayal, which makes his entire opinion null and void. Noone wants to watch nurture woman - most of us had a mom for that -- I personally want to see a Wonder Woman that kicks butt.

[Javier Velasco]

Wonder Woman is a comic book character; she is not a deity, there are no religions dedicated to her as far as I know; therefore she has to kick @ss for people to gravitate towards her... The movie has not even come out and he is dissing her portrayal, which makes his entire opinion null and void. Noone wants to watch nurture woman - most of us had a mom for that -- I personally want to see a Wonder Woman that kicks butt.

Your last statement is half right Of course, you are correct that you wish to see a "Wonder Woman that kicks butt. But you are incorrect is stating that "No one wants to see nurture woman." In the first place, there are plenty of people who have responded on this thread that that is exactly what they wish to see. In the second place, it is against board policy to speak for other groups of people. Especially those you disagree with

As for the idea of JUST LETTING HER BE! I am all for that. I wish Azzarello had just let her be. But alas he did not. So now a writer is saying, you know I want to do something radical, I want to write a stand alone WW story based on the character as envisioned by her creator. Given that anything goes since Convergence, I don't see an issue.

Likewise, as far as his negative appraisal of the character based on a few seconds of film... if his negative assessment is null and void because the movie hasn't come out yet, then any positive assessment must also be null and void for the same reason. So long as an opinion is given in a respectful way, it has a place on the board. While the movie hasn't come out yet, the clips that have show Diana with a sword and shield. While this is not enough to make a definitive statement about how she will be portrayed, it it is enough to show that they have chosen to show her in warrior mode. And people can respond favorably or unfavorably to that as they wish.

[Punisher007]

First of all, she got like ten seconds of screentime in the trailer, and ONE quick shot MIGHT be construed as "aggressive." The other's depict her as being smart enough to try and go undercover/in disguise in order to accomplish her goal first. So no Grant, not buying that you can tell anything from the trailer. Plus, being involved in an action scene isn't the same as being "inherently aggressive." She is a superhero after all, it's kind of part of the deal.

Second, I take issue with his notion that he somehow knows what Marston would have or have not thought of this. Marston has dead for a long time. So unless Grant is a fan of séances, I doubt that he's talked to Marston recently, so he cannot possibly know that for sure. Plus, I don't think that she necessary needs to completely adhere to the vision of a guy who created her 50+ years ago. Times have changed, attitudes have changed, and some of Marston's stuff probably just wouldn't work as well today. And the Superman that we've gotten over the last few decades isn't what Siegel/Shuster "originally intended," nor is the modern Batman what Bill Finger and Bob Kane "originally intended." And yet most people seem to have little trouble accepting that, so I see no reason why this example should be any different.

[wagthedog]

First of all, she got like ten seconds of screentime in the trailer, and ONE quick shot MIGHT be construed as "aggressive." The other's depict her as being smart enough to try and go undercover/in disguise in order to accomplish her goal first. So no Grant, not buying that you can tell anything from the trailer. Plus, being involved in an action scene isn't the same as being "inherently aggressive." She is a superhero after all, it's kind of part of the deal.

Second, I take issue with his notion that he somehow knows what Marston would have or have not thought of this. Marston has dead for a long time. So unless Grant is a fan of séances, I doubt that he's talked to Marston recently, so he cannot possibly know that for sure. Plus, I don't think that she necessary needs to completely adhere to the vision of a guy who created her 50+ years ago. Times have changed, attitudes have changed, and some of Marston's stuff probably just wouldn't work as well today. And the Superman that we've gotten over the last few decades isn't what Siegel/Shuster "originally intended," nor is the modern Batman what Bill Finger and Bob Kane "originally intended." And yet most people seem to have little trouble accepting that, so I see no reason why this example should be any different.

Sounds a little like hyperbole to me. 10 seconds?!?!? More like 3, or 4 seconds tops. Merely half second cutaways.

[Tayswift]

Wonder Woman is a comic book character; she is not a deity, there are no religions dedicated to her as far as I know; therefore she has to kick @ss for people to gravitate towards her. I often feel that people have too high expectations for Diana - she is supposed to be this, she is supposed to be that - JUST LET HER BE! Why isn't he critiquing Superman killing Zod, or something else more mundane?

The movie has not even come out and he is dissing her portrayal, which makes his entire opinion null and void. Noone wants to watch nurture woman - most of us had a mom for that -- I personally want to see a Wonder Woman that kicks butt.

Morrison criticized that superman killed zod on MOS

[SiegePerilous02]

Morrison criticized that superman killed zod on MOS

And said he should have punched Zod to Pluto or something. It was pretty dumb.

[RedComet]

That may have been the original creators intention, but the mythological society he picked are warriors...who go to war. Amazonomachy is a thing.

This Marston fella picked a myth out of a hat and apparently never researched them, or he intended for Diana to somehow be the only amazonian not steeped in war and questionable deeds.

I just don`t find natural how suddently with Morrison is all about "how Marston wanted".

TBH any time a creator decides they don't like how a character I've been enjoying is being portrayed I get defensive too, so I feel where you two are coming from. And before this I would have been highly skeptical based on his previous treatment of Wonder Woman (definitely a violent warrior every single time in JLA and in his big event stuff like Final Crisis, save for that nice final scene of her binding the earth with her lasso). He's admitted that in the past he didn't really "get" her. I've also seen Wonder Woman be plenty violent in Gail Simone's run and even the great Rucka run, so categorizing only this current storyline (and Azarello's, and her roles in JLA and Superman/Wonder Woman and in the trailer of that Batman v Superman movie... hey, she's in a lot right now, isn't she? ) as violent isn't completely fair.

That being said, we live in a time where a ton of research has been done on the character. We have access to these great Golden Age stories, we've got books like The Secret History of Wonder Woman that shed light on the character's origins and her creators' ties to the American suffragist and early feminist movements and the pre-1940s alt-sex scenes (this goes beyond Marston having two wives). I think something about this sparked Morrison's interest in the character and I couldn't be more excited to see where he goes with this. He is absolutely right in wanting to see her use her lasso more than a sword and shield IMO.

I also remember how fun the alt-scenes were in The Invisibles, and what a good job he did in bringing a touch of old pre-Crisis storylines and themes into the modern day Batman. This isn't a huge universe-wide event where his story can get bogged down and hopelessly confused with a million tie-ins. I think it'll be fun and won't take itself too seriously. Which honestly is a good thing since Marston's ideas could be kind of.... goofy. But one thing to keep in mind with the bondage thing is that while it definitely had a fun, sexual element to it, that absolutely was NOT the only thing he was going for with it. Like I said earlier, Marston was intimately acquainted with the early women's movements. Many of the original pro-liberation propaganda featured women being in the act of breaking their shackles. When Wonder Woman was bound, it was always to show her later freeing herself.

Anyway, this will be separate from the main storyline so even if it's bad it won't affect much. But having Morrison work on Wondy is definitely great publicity for her either way and I'm excited. What a great time to be a fan.

[tabo61]

Hope she has some good fight scenes in the movie

[Tayswift]

First of all, she got like ten seconds of screentime in the trailer, and ONE quick shot MIGHT be construed as "aggressive." The other's depict her as being smart enough to try and go undercover/in disguise in order to accomplish her goal first. So no Grant, not buying that you can tell anything from the trailer. Plus, being involved in an action scene isn't the same as being "inherently aggressive." She is a superhero after all, it's kind of part of the deal.

Second, I take issue with his notion that he somehow knows what Marston would have or have not thought of this. Marston has dead for a long time. So unless Grant is a fan of séances, I doubt that he's talked to Marston recently, so he cannot possibly know that for sure. Plus, I don't think that she necessary needs to completely adhere to the vision of a guy who created her 50+ years ago. Times have changed, attitudes have changed, and some of Marston's stuff probably just wouldn't work as well today. And the Superman that we've gotten over the last few decades isn't what Siegel/Shuster "originally intended," nor is the modern Batman what Bill Finger and Bob Kane "originally intended." And yet most people seem to have little trouble accepting that, so I see no reason why this example should be any different.

I still think Marston had good elements that should stay. wonder woman can't be a carbon copy of marston era but it still can take many lessons from that age

[SiegePerilous02]

I still think Marston had good elements that should stay. wonder woman can't be a carbon copy of marston era but it still can take many lessons from that age

I tend to agree. The best things about the Marston era were the colorful and varied adventures she had against supervillains, space aliens, myth and folklore figures, journeys into other dimensions and even regular human crime. She was also at her most fun personality wise, and it had the best supporting cast and interesting themes.

Really, the major things I'd get rid of are "women are inherently superior to men" stuff, the bracelets being bound by a man making her weak, and obviously the racist caricatures present throughout. Aside from making progress in those areas though, I don't think any of her modern counterparts have ever fully eclipsed the original.