Why do so many writers suck at writing WW

[starlight25]

Important to remember that sometimes writers are brought on specifically to revamp her. JMS and Azzarelo are recent examples. The movie helps provide some stability in that regard as they did for Batman and Superman.

Her first movie was good. But i wouldn't want that to be the portrayal of her everywhere else. I don't want to see a WW that depends so much on a sword and a shield. It is important to get the voice of her character right and portray her as a powerhouse as well.

So far DC still shows us no interest in being consistent with her. Maybe because many writers think they know her, but they don't. Diana is more than an ambassador of peace, or a warrior with huge power. She is a combination of many things. And if certain writers aren't willing to see that. We will keep seeing a portrayal that doesn't feel complete.

[Koriand'r]

Rucka gave her flight too soon in Year One. It was one of the decisions of the post-Crisis reboot I would have preferred been corrected. That should have happened some time between Year One and the Lies, but she needs a few years to get some use out of the Invisible Plane, IMO. It's better for her to be inclusive of all her iconic elements instead of discarding them willy nilly. Doesn't mean she has to rely on it NOW, but it should be in her history.

It is inclusive, it brought her to Man's World.

As for the WW film providing stability, I don't want the nerfed daughter of Zeus nonflying version stabilized.

[DrNewGod]

It seems to me, that there's two things going on that leave room for WW writers and editors to bolt off in different directions:

First, she carries a symbolic burden different from every other character in DC's stable, and that burden is open to a lot of interpretation. She was created as an aspirational feminine empowerment figure. Problem is, you can get a lot of opinions on what an appropriate feminine aspirational figure is supposed to look like from sources as diverse as The Roman Catholic Church to the LGBTQ community. So it's not like she has as "clean and simple" a purpose as Batman, whose schtick is all about fighting crime, or Superman, who's supposed to be a generic symbol of hope, and moral responsibility.

Second, WW's been more extensively reinterpreted than any character of comparable stature (the multitude of Flashes and Green Lanterns don't count, because those are separate characters, rather than a single character being made into something else). It's tempting to blame that on the post-Crisis reboot, or even the "Emma Peele" makeover before it, but it began as early as the early 1950s, when the Wertham fallout required female leads to pine for marriage. As such, there's less of a steady, consistent "Guiding North Star" for Wonder Woman's writers to look to in conceptualizing her than characters of similar prominence enjoy.

As others have pointed out, the success of the Gadot movie will probably impose some parameters on WW's characterization, at least for a while. IMO, if it's not perfect for a direction, we could do worse.

[SiegePerilous02]

It is inclusive, it brought her to Man's World.

As for the WW film providing stability, I don't want the nerfed daughter of Zeus nonflying version stabilized.

And then it promptly disintegrated. I would rather she get more use out of it before gaining flight, like her actual publication history. Its important for her to fly now, but I'm not so attached to the power that I need it by her first adventure when we could show off Amazon tech in the meantime.

The recent con footage seems to indicate she won't be flightless for much longer.

[stargazer01]

Her first movie was good. But i wouldn't want that to be the portrayal of her everywhere else. I don't want to see a WW that depends so much on a sword and a shield. It is important to get the voice of her character right and portray her as a powerhouse as well.

So far DC still shows us no interest in being consistent with her. Maybe because many writers think they know her, but they don't. Diana is more than an ambassador of peace, or a warrior with huge power. She is a combination of many things. And if certain writers aren't willing to see that. We will keep seeing a portrayal that doesn't feel complete.

And what are those things? I'd like to know because I don't know the character beyond the live action versions. I just know she's a warrior princess and an ambassador for peace.

Rucka gave her flight too soon in Year One. It was one of the decisions of the post-Crisis reboot I would have preferred been corrected. That should have happened some time between Year One and the Lies, but she needs a few years to get some use out of the Invisible Plane, IMO. It's better for her to be inclusive of all her iconic elements instead of discarding them willy nilly. Doesn't mean she has to rely on it NOW, but it should be in her history.

Do you really think the invisible plane works in the new live action movies? How would you incorporate it? Why would the Amazons need a plane to never use it? I understand in the movies they can't get out the island. This needs an explanation, you can't just suddenly show the plane.

[SiegePerilous02]

Do you really think the invisible plane works in the new live action movies? How would you incorporate it? Why would the Amazons need a plane to never use it? I understand in the movies they can't get out the island. This needs an explanation, you can't just suddenly show the plane.

I was talking about the comics.

The films used Perez's Amazons, but I think even they could retrieve Steve's plane, combined it with magic, and send it to Diana or something. As crappy as JL was, it did show Hippolyta sending Diana a message, they can leave she can just never return. As for the reason why: Rule of Cool, which is what superheroes operate on.

They don't really need it in the comics, but again: it's cool, so who cares? This is all silly make believe anyway. The plane exists to show off cool Amazon stuff, and you need a (initially) flightless Wonder Woman for it to have a use. So I'd prefer Wonder Woman not able to fly for the first 3-4 years of her career and use the jet, and then get full blown flight and keep it in reserve (and let Steve or somebody use it every once and a while).

[kjn]

First, she carries a symbolic burden different from every other character in DC's stable, and that burden is open to a lot of interpretation. She was created as an aspirational feminine empowerment figure. Problem is, you can get a lot of opinions on what an appropriate feminine aspirational figure is supposed to look like from sources as diverse as The Roman Catholic Church to the LGBTQ community. So it's not like she has as "clean and simple" a purpose as Batman, whose schtick is all about fighting crime, or Superman, who's supposed to be a generic symbol of hope, and moral responsibility.

I'd say it goes deeper than that. Diana is an agent for change in a way that Superman or Batman aren't. Batman is here to (at best) fix flaws in society, Superman is here to improve society, but Diana is here to change society. That's why she is so political a figure.

Second, WW's been more extensively reinterpreted than any character of comparable stature (the multitude of Flashes and Green Lanterns don't count, because those are separate characters, rather than a single character being made into something else). It's tempting to blame that on the post-Crisis reboot, or even the "Emma Peele" makeover before it, but it began as early as the early 1950s, when the Wertham fallout required female leads to pine for marriage. As such, there's less of a steady, consistent "Guiding North Star" for Wonder Woman's writers to look to in conceptualizing her than characters of similar prominence enjoy.

I can't say much about your specific thesis here, but even Marston had Wonder Woman longing for kids and marriage, and being envious of Diana White's marriage—to an extremely horrid man, no less!

And what are those things? I'd like to know because I don't know the character beyond the live action versions. I just know she's a warrior princess and an ambassador for peace.

Among other things: agent of change, LGBTQ icon, feminist icon, environmentalist, teacher, and organiser.

Do you really think the invisible plane works in the new live action movies? How would you incorporate it? Why would the Amazons need a plane to never use it? I understand in the movies they can't get out the island. This needs an explanation, you can't just suddenly show the plane.

The beauty of it is, the invisible plane is so iconic to Wonder Woman that you don't need to explain it. Just like you don't need to explain why Batman is rich, or explain why Superman has lasers in his eyes.

[Agent Z]

I'd say it goes deeper than that. Diana is an agent for change in a way that Superman or Batman aren't. Batman is here to (at best) fix flaws in society, Superman is here to improve society, but Diana is here to change society. That's why she is so political a figure.



I can't say much about your specific thesis here, but even Marston had Wonder Woman longing for kids and marriage, and being envious of Diana White's marriage—to an extremely horrid man, no less!



Among other things: agent of change, LGBTQ icon, feminist icon, environmentalist, teacher, and organiser.



The beauty of it is, the invisible plane is so iconic to Wonder Woman that you don't need to explain it. Just like you don't need to explain why Batman is rich, or explain why Superman has lasers in his eyes.

The difference being, Batman being rich and Superman having laser eyes actually reasons to exist in story.

The Invisible Jet is just included because it's what people know but it's existence has never truly been justified and it's main purpose is already occupied by one of Diana's powers.

[stargazer01]

I was talking about the comics.

The films used Perez's Amazons, but I think even they could retrieve Steve's plane, combined it with magic, and send it to Diana or something. As crappy as JL was, it did show Hippolyta sending Diana a message, they can leave she can just never return. As for the reason why: Rule of Cool, which is what superheroes operate on.

They don't really need it in the comics, but again: it's cool, so who cares? This is all silly make believe anyway. The plane exists to show off cool Amazon stuff, and you need a (initially) flightless Wonder Woman for it to have a use. So I'd prefer Wonder Woman not able to fly for the first 3-4 years of her career and use the jet, and then get full blown flight and keep it in reserve (and let Steve or somebody use it every once and a while).

As long as there is some sort of explanation, I can accept it. To just show the plane and that's it, nothing is said about its presence, it would feel like they couldn't even come up with a realistic reason to show it other than to sell toys.

Among other things: agent of change, LGBTQ icon, feminist icon, environmentalist, teacher, and organiser.



The beauty of it is, the invisible plane is so iconic to Wonder Woman that you don't need to explain it. Just like you don't need to explain why Batman is rich, or explain why Superman has lasers in his eyes.

Batman is rich because he inherited the money from his parents. Superman has lasers in his eyes because the sun's radiation and his Kryptonian genes.

I know the plane is part of her mythos, I don't hate it. I just need an little explanation why it's in a sequel.

Yes of course she's a feminist and LGBTQ icon.

[Vordan]

You don’t need to explain how the plane works beyond “magic”, “the Gods”, or “Amazon science”. But you do need to explain why Diana needs it. If she can fly why does she need a plane? Especially if it’s the whole “the plane is invisible but whoever is in the plane is not” gimmick. I can see an arguement for why Trevor would use it but not Diana.

[kjn]

You don’t need to explain how the plane works beyond “magic”, “the Gods”, or “Amazon science”. But you do need to explain why Diana needs it. If she can fly why does she need a plane? Especially if it’s the whole “the plane is invisible but whoever is in the plane is not” gimmick. I can see an arguement for why Trevor would use it but not Diana.

You could ask Black Canary…

13.jpg

[DrNewGod]

...she carries a symbolic burden different from every other character in DC's stable, and that burden is open to a lot of interpretation. She was created as an aspirational feminine empowerment figure. Problem is, you can get a lot of opinions on what an appropriate feminine aspirational figure is supposed to look like from sources as diverse as The Roman Catholic Church to the LGBTQ community. So it's not like she has as "clean and simple" a purpose as Batman, whose schtick is all about fighting crime, or Superman, who's supposed to be a generic symbol of hope, and moral responsibility....

I'd say it goes deeper than that. Diana is an agent for change in a way that Superman or Batman aren't. Batman is here to (at best) fix flaws in society, Superman is here to improve society, but Diana is here to change society. That's why she is so political a figure.

The point being, one possible answer to why WW seems harder to consistently write well is that the thing she's supposed to represent can be interpreted in a wider array of ways than the purposes of Superman or Batman. Even if we go with "agent of change," what needs changing kind of depends on just who you're talking to.

[SteveGus]

The point being, one possible answer to why WW seems harder to consistently write well is that the thing she's supposed to represent can be interpreted in a wider array of ways than the purposes of Superman or Batman. Even if we go with "agent of change," what needs changing kind of depends on just who you're talking to.

Rather, the character is supposed to be a product of a utopian society, and contemporary culture is not very accepting of, too suspicious of utopias. Ursula LeGuin nailed it: for contemporaries to accept utopias, there has to be a dark secret, some tormented child sniffling in the dark. But Wonder Woman needs her utopia, without it she does not work: because the pathos of her origin is that she was a product of a wonderful place, an earthly paradise, and that she left it behind for love or duty. Trying to mar the utopian nature of Themiscyra fails completely, and looks like uncomprehending vandalism to me.

[SiegePerilous02]

The Invisible Jet is just included because it's what people know but it's existence has never truly been justified and it's main purpose is already occupied by one of Diana's powers.

But it was easy to justify its existence, because Diana couldn't fly originally. So she needed it, simple as that.

It really only become confusing because they insist on giving her flight immediately in canon, thus robbing it of its purpose. If its something she needs at one point before gaining flight, what's the issue? It's kind of like Superman only being able to leap for a while before he flies. It can hang around in the background for occasional usage afterward, but there really was no confusion until the reboots and changes created confusion.

Her history seems more rich if she has all of this in it and goes through stages. They kept chipping away stuff and now there's not much left besides Greek gods and wondering where her home is.

As long as there is some sort of explanation, I can accept it. To just show the plane and that's it, nothing is said about its presence, it would feel like they couldn't even come up with a realistic reason to show it other than to sell toys.

I know the plane is part of her mythos, I don't hate it. I just need an little explanation why it's in a sequel.

Oh yeah, it would definitely need some sort of explanation instead of just randomly appearing, lol. I just don't think you have to get crazy detailed about it.

[Agent Z]

But it was easy to justify its existence, because Diana couldn't fly originally. So she needed it, simple as that.

It really only become confusing because they insist on giving her flight immediately in canon, thus robbing it of its purpose. If its something she needs at one point before gaining flight, what's the issue? It's kind of like Superman only being able to leap for a while before he flies. It can hang around in the background for occasional usage afterward, but there really was no confusion until the reboots and changes created confusion.

Her history seems more rich if she has all of this in it and goes through stages. They kept chipping away stuff and now there's not much left besides Greek gods and wondering where her home is.



Oh yeah, it would definitely need some sort of explanation instead of just randomly appearing, lol. I just don't think you have to get crazy detailed about it.

Having more stuff in your backstory doesn't automatically enrich it. Sometimes it overcrowds and convolutes it. They should have ditched the jet when she gained the power of flight as there was never any reason to bring it back other than nostalgia. Not everything in a character's history has to be kept.