Why do wonder Woman Fans hate Change with her character

[Black Angel]

I don't want any one to think this is an attack i don't need that here. I would just like to know why most wonder woman fans bash writers of her character at times and say they don't get her? Is it not the case with new eras there will be new imaginings and for different writer's a different perspective? Call me naive but why does it sound like this criticism seems to bash the character herself.

I have see arguments such as the new 52 wonder woman wasn't the real wonder woman
The clay origin is essential
wonder woman needs no lover interest

Please help me understand is it because she is so iconic or what?

[Agent Z]

While there are changes to be expected as time goes on, the WW writers and editors take it to a far greater degree with characters being ignored or retconned out with little to no explanation, origins unnecessarily changed, continuity being a mess etc. This leads to an ill defined mythos that is very difficult to get attached and being in new readers. change by itself is not bad but it needs to be done with care

[Black Angel]

While there are changes to be expected as time goes on, the WW writers and editors take it to a far greater degree with characters being ignored or retconned out with little to no explanation, origins unnecessarily changed, continuity being a mess etc. This leads to an ill defined mythos that is very difficult to get attached and being in new readers. change by itself is not bad but it needs to be done with care

Oh you know makes so much sense so in essence they complain because it seems she doesn't have a strong foundation as like say batman or superman do?

[Lex Luthor]

The changes are usually bad so we get tired of them

[Doctor Bifrost]

I'm a Wonder Woman fan. I like some changes and dislike others.

I oppose changes to Wonder Woman that, in my opinion, miss the point of the character. Of course, different people will have different ideas of when that happens.

There have been a lot of changes to Superman: increased powers, the decision that he was Superboy when he was younger (which has been changed back and forth several times), marriage to Lois Lane. None of that is change I object to. (I may object to the techniques they use to introduce the change, but that's different.) I don't think they miss the point of the character.

But if a writer decided Superman didn't come from Krypton, but instead was grown in a vat in by a mad scientist, and later mislead into believing he was an from an alien world, I would think that would be a bad change to Superman, altering something absolutely essential that should be kept.

If a writer revealed that, actually, the Kents had been members of the Ku Klux Klan and involved in several lynchings, and were only pretending to be "decent, salt of the earth Kansans" because they were hiding out from the authorities, and, when Superman discovered this fact, he had a crisis of conscience about who he really was and where his true values came from, I would think that was a pivot for the sake of a pivot, and a tremendous distraction from what the character is about.

Either of these could be interesting as Elseworlds or fanfiction. But not, in my opinion, as part of the ongoing, primary character.

I think some of the changes to Wonder Woman and her mythos have been at about the level of those last two Superman examples. And some changes aren't. I won't give examples because I'm merely trying to explain my approach to changes, not start a debate about specific changes.

(But anyone who has read my comments can probably guess. )

In any case, that's just me.

[Carabas]

Oh you know makes so much sense so in essence they complain because it seems she doesn't have a strong foundation as like say batman or superman do?

If editorial treated Batman the way they do Wonder Woman, he'd have a new butler every time he got a new writer, would move to a new city, sometimes his parents would be dead sometimes alive, sometimes he'd flip burgers to finance his crusade, sometimes he'd be Kryptonian...

[Dr. Poison]

I don't hate changes in themselves just certain poorly conceived changes such as making Diana the daughter of Zeus or turning the Amazons into man-killing, baby-trading, sex-pirates. I liked the changes that Perez made to Diana and Cheetah when he rebooted them although I didn't like the changes he made to Steve and Etta. I look at each change individually and then decide if I like it or not.

[Agent 86]

Changes can be good. Changes can be revitalising and invigorating. But, too much change or too many changes can lead to problems.

One of the biggest problems I have with Wonder Woman is inconsistency. Diana is a member of the Trinity, but while Superman and Batman both have aspects of their mythology and legacy which are damn near untouchable (except in dedicated Elseworld adventures), Wonder Woman is seen as ripe for manipulation by whatever writer happens to be on board.

I want Diana to have a single, defined, canonical origin. I want Diana to have a permanent base of operations. I want to understand what Diana does when she's not Wonder Woman. I want Diana to have consistent supporting characters, love interest/s and foes. I want Diana to have a stable set of powers, abilities, weapons and resources. I want Diana to have legacy characters that she regularly interacts with and actually builds a legacy with.

Some changes can be excellent. Diana is now canonically bisexual (or pansexual or maybe even omnisexual given the existence of aliens, gods, etc). That is a change that was long overdue and which I support. Other changes like turning the somewhat peaceful, idealised, near utopian and technologically advanced Amazons into ... well their New52 versions were pretty concerning. And perplexing since it didn't add a huge amount to the story and it didn't seem necessary for Diana's character development even if she was shown to be trying to lead the Amazons to adopt better values / standards.

The benefits of changes will obviously be subjective, but too much change becomes problematic for everyone. I didn't love it when Diana was suddenly Zeus daughter. But, maybe if they'd stuck with it, developed the backstory, developed an ongoing father / daughter storyline and really explored it in detail, I would have become accustomed to it. But, that change was jettisoned. You don't see the murder of Batman's parents and the destruction of Krypton being haphazardly amended and replaced for Batman and Superman. So, why is Diana seen as so malleable by DC. It's perplexing and as a far of the character it can be a little aggravating because it comes across as disrespectful to the character (even though it's really probably just about chasing sales combined with a lack of interest in the character).

[Gaelforce]

I think others have summed it up.

She has changed home cities at least five times that come to mind (and I'm sure I'm forgetting some) - DC, Boston, Gateway City, New York, London.

She changes her supporting cast with each writer - I'm not talking about adding or tweaking, I'm talking mainstay characters who suddenly cease to exist in the book to be replaced by whoever the writer is in the mood for.

We are now on our fourth or fifth edition of the Greek gods.

Her personality varies wildly between writers. In the nu52 alone we had crazy sword woman cutting her own teammate over an argument (no mind control/villains in sight) to weepy clutch a teddy bear and moan how she can't handle being a Queen and a hero and a girlfriend all at once.

And don't get me started on power levels. Even without the de-powered 'mod era,' her power levels have been all over the place, varying from writer to writer, several of which have taken one of her arch villains (Cheetah) and had her taken out by Catwoman, or one-punched by Batman.

Having been on CBR for 8 years and on various WW boards for the last 30 years (I go back to BBS and CompuServe ), the one thing I see fans constantly crying out for is consistency. Many of us dread a new writing team because it's "AN ALL NEW DIRECTION FOR WONDER WOMAN!!" or "WHO IS WONDER WOMAN?"

75 years and so many writers can't answer that last question.

So many of us have just had our fill of change at this point.

[Stanlos]

I don't want any one to think this is an attack i don't need that here. I would just like to know why most wonder woman fans bash writers of her character at times and say they don't get her? Is it not the case with new eras there will be new imaginings and for different writer's a different perspective? Call me naive but why does it sound like this criticism seems to bash the character herself.

I have see arguments such as the new 52 wonder woman wasn't the real wonder woman
The clay origin is essential
wonder woman needs no lover interest

Please help me understand is it because she is so iconic or what?

To fully engage that conversation a certain level of awareness is necessary. WW is treated VERY differently and the why's of that unusual treatment play a significant role in the reception of the changes made. A good exercise is to look at the DC event where the hero genders were changed. The new lady forms of the male heroes operated identically to their pre-gender swap versions. But take a look at Wonder Woman's and tell me what you see.

[Stanlos]

If the changes were coming from a place of celebrating the character and enhancing it then such changes would be be better received.

Even Grant Morrison can't put his fears and social baggage down long enough to go all Grant Morrison on his WW project. In Earth One he goes uncharacteristically small with the ideas he uses.

[Black Angel]

Man thanks guys i get the issues now was just tired of the constant complaining now it makes sense to me. @Stanlos i see a badass warrior princess striving for peace when i see wonder woman.

Man i so agree they kinda do need to set certain things in stone for her one a clear origin would do i think they should stick to the Zeus origin especially with the movie goign in that direction. It will let a broader audience have an origin so why not stick with that. I do agree with the basic city as well i mean i really can't pin point a base of operations for her to be honest. They should really stick to London or if they want to play the diplomat route to the fullest best stay in DC then.

Og BTw does she have a clear main villain like supes and bat does? I do wonder who it is to be honest is it Cheetah, circe or ares?

[CRaymond]

Og BTw does she have a clear main villain like supes and bat does? I do wonder who it is to be honest is it Cheetah, circe or ares?

Soooooo many threads about this. Diana has a variety of arch-nemeses. Look at it this way: When you think of an ending for Wonder Woman, who is it that she has finally defeated?

[AmiMizuno]

Because honestly many times it takes what the character stands for or something that wasn't need it. For example how does her mother sleeping with a rapist and a cheater look. Or making the amazons man haters? Diana always gets retcon . Some big and others small.Azz took away the female empowerment. All the females were even savages,weak or useless. Diana got her training from Ares not the amazons. She was bullied and no one stop it. It terms of villains if we go by Marston Ares and Cheetah seem to be the main ones. I always thought of Circe as a villain for both the amazons and Diana . I mean Circe's backstory was that the amazons banished her.


Also look st sales when you go to far out of norm for her it doesn't too good for her sales. With the way Rucka is going to finish his sales will be high for a Wonder Woman run.if we want sales to get better we have to use what's already here. We don't need to always have the characters were in the other arc but at least connected a few things and not retcon

[Nyssane]

Og BTw does she have a clear main villain like supes and bat does? I do wonder who it is to be honest is it Cheetah, circe or ares?

The most common perception is that Cheetah is her Joker/Luthor "personal nemesis", Circe is her Brainiac/Bane (Bane may be a stretch but I can't think of a Batman equivalent), and Ares is her Darkseid/Ra's al Ghul "big bad".