Why Do Wonder Woman's Villains Suck?

[dshipp17]

Oh god, not this again...


Dr. Psycho doesn't have issues of looks. He has issues of being an unrepentant, misogynistic, murderous, rapist supervillain.

Also, Hercules is not getting any spotlight either.

Well, than it appears that you don't understand the character well at all. Dr. Psycho has never raped anyone. Dr. Psycho is not a murderer. Dr. Psycho is not unrepentant, as that's not a topic that's really been explored. These concepts would apply to characters like Joker and Lex much more than with Dr. Psycho, and could even apply to a character like Catwoman as much as to Dr. Psycho; these characteristics could apply to a character like Deathstroke even more so than to Dr. Psycho, as he gets enough spotlight to become repentant. Hercules is a one dimensional character, so, I'm not too concerned if he got much spotlight, but, it would be good to see him appear again, at least once, to see how the writer and editor would handle him; but, right now, Dr. Psycho needs to be in the Wonder Woman book.

[Carabas]

Well, than it appears that you don't understand the character well at all. Dr. Psycho has never raped anyone. Dr. Psycho is not a murderer. Dr. Psycho is not unrepentant...

You do know Psycho is the short one with the mind powers, right?

[shades of eternity]

http://breadthofpopsanity.blogspot.c...ts-part-1.html

I've said my piece about wonder woman's villains and it still stands.

Her rogues gallery doesn't suck, but cripse it needs fine tuning.

Give her a "12 labours" storyarc and use it to flesh out the effect on their world and use her villains in other comics to show their awesomeness.

[Amazon Swordsman]

She has so many Doctor villains, why hasn't a story arc been done to have them team up against her from a scientific angle?

She should have rogues that oppose her from various angles, scientific, magical/mystical, divine, and all out brawn one.

[mathew101281]

I think their should be a moratorium on new villains for WW for a while. Fix the tools that are already in the tool box first then, add new tools. Otherwise the current trends will just continue.

[Outside_85]

Diana's punched Ares numerous times and there were no headlines made.

And don't forget the original premise of Wonder Woman has always been an Amazon who leaves Paradise Island to live in our world and deal with us mortals. It makes sense for her to be fighting humans (superpowered is preferred, obviously). It also makes sense for her to fight mythical monsters sometimes, too. But not all the time.

Maybe not, but it gives more respect to the character that she is able to take it to that level.

While that is true, it only makes sense if those mortals act accordingly with the knowledge they are trying to take down someone that powerful. Like my recurring examples with Lex and Joker, they engage their nemesis' at a distance before the eventual confrontation ocurs, they fight smart and try to weaken their opponents while Diana's often try to take her head on... which by now is like running head first into a wall.

I totally disagree with you; I agree that Hercules would be a one dimensional misogyny figure, but, Dr. Psycho is a multi-dimensional character.

What Dr. Psycho does is either expose or potentially expose that possible false facade of a perfect character in the same way Lex exposes Superman. Dr. Psycho's looks and trauma inflicted upon him by his experiences with women makes him the perfect character for gender politics; that way, the Amazons can't get this perception of the perfect victims, while men get the perception of victimizers; Dr. Psycho brings the perception that women sometimes need to bear the burden of their own decisions. Dr. Psycho has not been in a relationship, because of his looks, where women can be as shallow as men, when it comes to looks.

Hercules, on the other hand, does not bring this important dimension, and I think you knew that, from prior comments I've made in the question of why Dr. Psycho but not Hercules. Why would you want people with issues of looks stay marginalize and never have any spotlight, as is currently the case? This is especially important in issues of women; when it gets spotlight, it's usually to further demean the character of men and that shouldn't be used to prop up feminist themes, especially.

Depends if you choose to write him as such. Whoever wrote that Aquaman appearance certainly did boil him down to being a one-dimensional roaring monster. But I find it kinda odd to see you champion Psycho as multi-dimensional, when he has for the past 30 years been written as very one dimensional, he has his hatred of Diana and his psychic powers, and thats about it. The exception is his appearance in Odessey, where we finally see him without his cartoony level of evil he put out at all other times.

Which is also why Psycho is a relic; he's short and ugly, back when he was created, that was all that was needed to put one on the path to villany or a spot as the sidekick of some herculean exemplar. In his own way, Psycho should be as offensive to short people as the racially charged sidekicks of the Spirit and Hal Jordan were to their groups.
Tell you what, Psycho would actually work better today if he was a person of normal stature and average-to-good-looks, who has gotten a small scar or blemish on his face and simply couple it with a preexisting case of narcissism of the nth degree. That way, his uglyness is all in his head, and his own powers are simply driving him down that road that he thinks he's repulsive and now takes out his anger on people he thinks are undeservingly pretty.

Because in this case the marginazied group is being held up as villains and madmen, which is not how you include people in your community. And like you basically said; comics these days have the duty to be inclusive and be for everyone, but comics are not for short people if one of the very few characters with their condition is a sadistic madman. Wonder Woman served as a symbol in comics of what women could be. Short people deserve better than Psycho as their representative.

Hercules however, he is the direct opposite of what Diana was trying to achieve back in the day, he is the old system driven by masculin machismo where all the dude-bro's hung out and were totally awesome in their local clubhouse and all the women were totally dependent on these fools while stuck in the kitchen and raising the kids. Where Psycho is an attack on appearance and vanity, Herc attacks the message Diana was originally created to bring.

[WonderScott]

Womder Woman's villains are never allowed to be as provocative and frightening as they could/should be.

[SiegePerilous02]

See, thats where you misunderstand what I mean.
You are right that Batman could also kill all of his adversaries if he wanted to, but the difference between him and Diana; is that his foes actively try and avoid and delay a physical onfrontation with him for as long as possible according to their plans, while Diana's are often in her face at first given oppertunity. Also there is the fact that Batman is only human, so are most of his foes, while some are physically greater than him. In Diana's case, it's the opposite much of the time.

It's like with Giganta, it's very impressive to have the 200ft woman stomping around down town, but what actual threat is she to someone who can move techtonic plates?

Batman may have been a lousy example, but there are other heroes who have frequent physical fights with their superpowered foes like the Flash, Spider-Man, Superman, the X-Men and others. Whenever one of their villains is thwarted in their attempts at villainy and the hero doesn't feel the need to kill them afterward to prevent further destruction/escape attempts, we don't get fanboys calling them lame and ineffective. Why is this logic only being applied to Wonder Woman's villains? They are unable to kill the superheroine who is the star of the book (what a shock), and their effectiveness is mostly inconsistent across their appearances, but the same could be said about pretty much every recurring villain from the Big Two at one point or another.

Sure Wonder Woman is a little more willing to cross that line than others, but that wasn't established until post-Crisis canon, and it isn't even consistent. It also seems to piss off half the fanbase when it crops up anyway. We shouldn't come to the conclusion that Diana doesn't view her villains as true threats if she doesn't feel the need to kill them, or that Diana is holding back for some reason if they manage to harm her; we should really just accept the truth that DC is unwilling to dispatch the few recurring and somewhat iconic villains she has. Sometimes there just isn't a sensible in-story rationale for characters' decisions.

As for Giganta...just make her physically stronger than WW while in giant form. Who cares if that's inconsistent with what came before? Those stories suck anyway. Giganta can be as strong or weak as the writer wants her to be. For some reason, DC writers seemed determined to make her a pushover, but if a writer wants to tell a story with Giganta and make her a force to be reckoned with, they shouldn't be forced to adhere to her previous outings, or even come up with an in-story justification for the power boost.

Some of WW's foes could use some work, but I don't think WW's rogues suck. Many good ideas in here.



That "determined effort" (or lack thereof) is key, imo. DC really needs to hire and empower a passionate editor for WW; one that will fight for her. No more Green Arrow punking Cheetah; No more Doom Patrol stealing Veronica Cale. Better treatment of WW's world is a must for a better WW.

I also agree with Nyssane (and others) that WW works best when the stories are a nice mix of myth and super heroics. Too much myth and she kind of becomes an "me too, also ran." For example, she kills Ares and becomes God of War? As a concept, I've already played that game. Just as the mythical side makes her more unique among her super friends, the super heroics makes her more unique from her mythical counterparts.

While she's playing in the mythical world, don't limit her to just Greek. Sure, that's the foundation, but it's a big world out there, don't restrict her. Let her get out and explore more. And make it matter. Azzarello was right when he said she isn't allowed to save the world like others do.

DC should make an effort to showcase her and her rogues in her own title, in stand alone ogn, and in a big, company event.

I think in a perfect world, there'd be an equal blend of myth and superheroism in the Wonder Woman book. Marston had it best when he had her facing mythical threats and also demented human criminals.

Agree with both of these. I also think what made the original stories so fascinating was Marston's unique takes on psychology. As dated and weird as they were, the combination of that, the classical mythology and the superheroics made that WW more unique than her modern counterparts. There's nothing really interesting about her just arguing with the Olympians or punching a Minotaur. Adventure stories starring a female hero and a mostly female cast of allies and villains that explore ideas like gender, psychology and sexuality in a variety of settings and genres (mythical, superhero, sci-fi, fantasy, crime thriller, horror, etc.) would give her the variety she desperately needs to be interesting. Superman and Batman fight organized crime, supervillains, encounter aliens and monsters and go on time travel adventures. Diana's just stuck doing the myth stuff and dealing with whatever crap the Amazons are whining about at any given time.

[Outside_85]

Batman may have been a lousy example, but there are other heroes who have frequent physical fights with their superpowered foes like the Flash, Spider-Man, Superman, the X-Men and others. Whenever one of their villains is thwarted in their attempts at villainy and the hero doesn't feel the need to kill them afterward to prevent further destruction/escape attempts, we don't get fanboys calling them lame and ineffective. Why is this logic only being applied to Wonder Woman's villains? They are unable to kill the superheroine who is the star of the book (what a shock), and their effectiveness is mostly inconsistent across their appearances, but the same could be said about pretty much every recurring villain from the Big Two at one point or another.

Look, what I said was that Diana easily could kill many of her enemies, not that she would or should. My point about bringing up Batman and Superman villains is that they either make them run around before meeting them (Batman has to do a fair bit of detective work before finds out where they are hiding) or somehow have ways of evening up the playing field a bit (Superman, how many of them come with krytonite, red sunlight, armored suits, powerdrains and so on?).
Diana's by contrast are only a step or two above starting a riot down town and then wait for her to show up and stop them, normally without much of a plan to back them up or with anything to even the playing field... see the fights in Who is Wonder Woman; Giganta calling her out by stomping around down town while others lie in ambush only to get beaten off by Diana and her allies. And then the later mass fight where Diana pretty much takes on every single one of her non-deity enemies. Thats not just a sign of how good Diana is, it's also a sign how massively under-powered her enemies are to need that kind of get together to have a hope in stopping her.

As for Giganta...just make her physically stronger than WW while in giant form. Who cares if that's inconsistent with what came before? Those stories suck anyway. Giganta can be as strong or weak as the writer wants her to be. For some reason, DC writers seemed determined to make her a pushover, but if a writer wants to tell a story with Giganta and make her a force to be reckoned with, they shouldn't be forced to adhere to her previous outings, or even come up with an in-story justification for the power boost.

That would be nice... but yes the inconsistency would be fairly annoying unless there is some inbuilt reason why it happened.

[Nyssane]

Well, we haven't really been given a full view of New 52's Giganta's power levels. She could be significantly stronger if we actually see her fight wonder woman beyond the one page spread in SM/WW.

[Outside_85]

Well, we haven't really been given a full view of New 52's Giganta's power levels. She could be significantly stronger if we actually see her fight wonder woman beyond the one page spread in SM/WW.

Pandora blew one of her eyes out with an exploding sword...

[Dr. Poison]

Pandora blew one of her eyes out with an exploding sword...

So? Pandora was also powerful enough to alter continuity at the end of Flashpoint. Her weapons may be just as powerful. If anything, Giganta taking on Pandora may be a step up from fighting Wonder Woman as Diana certainly can't alter continuity.

[SiegePerilous02]

Look, what I said was that Diana easily could kill many of her enemies, not that she would or should. My point about bringing up Batman and Superman villains is that they either make them run around before meeting them (Batman has to do a fair bit of detective work before finds out where they are hiding) or somehow have ways of evening up the playing field a bit (Superman, how many of them come with krytonite, red sunlight, armored suits, powerdrains and so on?).
Diana's by contrast are only a step or two above starting a riot down town and then wait for her to show up and stop them, normally without much of a plan to back them up or with anything to even the playing field... see the fights in Who is Wonder Woman; Giganta calling her out by stomping around down town while others lie in ambush only to get beaten off by Diana and her allies. And then the later mass fight where Diana pretty much takes on every single one of her non-deity enemies. Thats not just a sign of how good Diana is, it's also a sign how massively under-powered her enemies are to need that kind of get together to have a hope in stopping her.

I agree that "Who is Wonder Woman" is atrocious, and precisely because it makes everyone in the story look like an idiot, not just the villains. Except for maybe Circe, but it's hard not to look like a genius when everyone surrounding you is a moron. See also "Amazons Attack."
But up until that point, the WW villains stomping around like Kaiju wasn't really in character for them, at least not Cheetah and Psycho. In the issues that Brian K. Vaughn wrote where she battles Clayface, Clayface disguises himself as Cheetah and rampages around. Diana deduces fairly quickly that it isn't Minerva because mindless rampages aren't in character for her. If Cheetah and Psycho were established by Perez from the beginning as being mindless monsters I would see your point, but I don't see the point in ignoring better stories in favor of preserving the lackluster stories that nerf their powers and intelligence for no reason. And which are also poor stories in general.

That would be nice... but yes the inconsistency would be fairly annoying unless there is some inbuilt reason why it happened.

I don't think it would be annoying personally. Justifying why Giganta was weaker in earlier stories that didn't amount to much at the end of the day hardly seems worth the effort. If whoever the next writer on the WW book writes a great Giganta story, why should they be shackled with having to explain away a forgettable Pandora comic? DC's isn't adhering to a strict continuity anymore, and while that might have some drawbacks, making it easy to ignore crappy comics (Hello Cheetah in Green Arrow) is a definite plus. Being too hung up on continuity is probably how we got stuck in the "Wonder Woman's Villains suck" situation in the first place.

[ssupes]

The public domains characters are the reason the mythological aspect is so interesting. You can make and break your First Born's and that kid the Finch's came up with, and no one would give a damn. You will give a damn however when she punches Ares or Hades in the kisser.
Bolded: Well, thats kinda a basket of farts, because all of those characters are either direct or indirect rip-offs of Diana, so ceding the area to the pretenders makes it looks like giving up.
Actually she is the equivalent to Thor, so why should she not embrace her world rather than that of Superman?

You say that DC should embrace the public domain characters like Marvel does with Thor yet the only memorable villain Thor has is Loki and given that you wish to see Wonder Woman villains more threatening yet Loki is only intimidating with a army of aliens behind him. Let's face it DC has already scrapped the barrel on ancient Greek antagonists and the only ones that have seemed to stick is Ares and Circe and occasionally Hades.
Also I find it funny that you wish to see Wonder Woman less like Superman and more like Thor when the Marvel film studios are making the Thor films more like a sci-fi genre that looks almost exactly like adventures on krypton.

[Darrin Kelley]

I'm going to answer the thread's initial question very succinctly.

None of Wonder Woman's villains suck. The only thing that sucks in the equasion are the writers who lack the imagination to properly present and make use of them.