Wonder Woman

Basically, yeah.

There are many versions of all Greek legends. It isn't as if they were conceived at the same time by the same people.

Also, mythology is full of stuff we just do not find acceptable today. Like Incest. What we get most of the time (especially in comics) is the Theme Park version of the myths.

And more importantly, Wonder Woman is supposed to be *a superhero*. Everything else, including her being an Amazon, must come after.

And for the record, before the Perez reboot, the Amazons were both socially and technologically more advanced than the rest of the world (which makes sense given that they'd spent like 3000 years of isolation.) It's one of the things I didn't like of his version: it made Diana's mission to the Outside World (to teach their ways) harder to justify, as the barbaric amazons had little to offer.

Another thing I think weakens Wonder Woman's position with the public, is the lack of an iconic supporting class. Everybody knows about Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen or Perry White, but how many know about Steve Trevor, much less Etta Candy? Not to mention even those are removed altogether often. In fact nearly every take on her in the last two decades has completely changed her supporting cast. They need to select one and STICK TO IT. They should also bring back Steve. Just make him interesting in his own right and not just The Guy Diana Has To Save All The Time.

More thought has to be put into the villains as well. Yes you have Ares and Circe, who are legitimately dangerous and powerful, but they loses their edge and mystique the more often they appear. I always believed that if writers, editors and artists stuck to one version of the character, Cheetah would be one of those great villains, the ones you say in the same breath as Luthor or The Joker.

Besides, you have the Angle Man, Dr. Psycho, Giganta etc. There is a wealth of good characters there, they just need love and a consistent vision.

Agree about the supporting cast, however I've never been a big fan of the "comes to teach us a better way of life" thing. It just sorta reaks of smugness.

Well, Wonder Woman WAS invented specifically to show off her creator's ideals, which ranged from the positive (women having a stronger position in society) to the iffy (BDSM.) Still, as a character early WW felt unique, in that she bore out an actual philosophy, instead of just being a generic Good Guy Who Punches Out Her Foes. (And she, or rather the Amazons, actually reformed one of her foes -A Nazi, no less- and made her one of her most loyal allies. How many heroes can claim that?)

Sadly, this side of her character was one of the first things forgotten about her as the years went by, and as mentioned, reducing the Amazons to a bunch of sexy barbarians didn't help.

Btw, a truly wise character not only seeks to teach, but to learn from others. No room for smugness there.

edited 6th Dec '11 7:08:18 PM by Sijo

Look, I think a wise, philosophical main character who imparts their beliefs to others can work. What I have a problem with is when the character is objectively stated to be wise and imparting their philosophy to others is their explicit motivation. That's when you get on the road to being preachy.

An example of that sort of thing done well would be Rurouni Kenshin. The main character is a swordsman who has sworn a vow to never kill anyone and, during fight scenes, usually lectures his opponents about the value of non-violence. There are several components that make this work:

1) The main character (Kenshin) is not outright stated to be wise or correct. While Kenshin stays true to his beliefs throughout the story, the author does not shy away from pointing out when those beliefs are flawed, logically inconsistent, or naive. That Kenshin also acknowledges these flaws (even if they don't change his mind) is what keeps him likable as a character.

2) While Kenshin often makes big speeches about his philosophy and would certainly like it if more people believed as he did, converting people to his point of view is not his explicit goal. Kenshin's code of Technical Pacifism is pretty consistently portrayed as his personal way of life, and not something he expects everyone to embrace; at times he even discourages people from adopting his beliefs because he doesn't think they've really put enough thought into it to make that decision. Because of this, even though Kenshin often preaches his beliefs, he never actually becomes preachy.

3) Kenshin didn't just emerge into the world as a wise pacifist. He used to be an assassin working for a political revolution, and it's only after some war-time trauma that he makes his vow never to kill again. And even when the series begins, ten years after that point, he's still conflicted about a lot of the things he believes and doesn't really become fully firm and content in his philosophy 'til near the end of the series. So, even though Kenshin starts out already having most of his core beliefs, we still get to see how he arrived at that point thanks to constant exploration of his backstory, and even his present day beliefs aren't set in stone.

Those are the reasons why I think Rurouni Kenshin makes a wise, philosophical main character work, and they're why I'm skeptical of attempts to do the same with Wonder Woman, particularly when it's framed as harkening back to her original portrayal. Classic Wonder Woman wasn't just portrayed as wise; she had Wisdom with a capital W as a superpower, which doesn't leave much room for debate for anyone who finds her actions less than wise. And, while she always acted as a superhero, her explicit goal in going out into "Man's World" was to teach people to think as she does, which makes her almost inherently preachy. And, finally, she was raised in and learned all her ideals from a utopian society, and those ideals don't change much even after she enters the outside world; if her beliefs don't change, and if little to no conflict was involved in her acquiring those beliefs in the first place, then a whole lot of dramatic potential is just tossed aside.

Sure, when Wonder Woman first appeared comic book superheroes were pretty one-dimensional, so the fact that she had philosophical beliefs at all made her unique. But, in this era of more dramatic and well-developed comic book characters, the traits that once made her daring and original would instead make her boring and preachy. There's nothing wrong with wanting to portray Wonder Woman as a wise character who lives according to a philosophical code, but I don't think the orignal Wonder Woman comics are good model for how to do it.

I agree with you: A wise character can be interesting, as long as he/she doesn't preach all the time, nor is shown as always being correct. In Diana's case, it doesn't even have to be her only trait... all I'm saying is the only one that stands out, as well as one that has been ignored for a while because most writers simply don't know how to write a wise character well. And I wish someone would. I definitely like Wise Diana better than Off With Their Heads Diana.

Ok, as a big fan of Azzarello's wondie, I have something things to say.

1) Yeah, making WW a demigod instead of a golem makes her less unique. But when was the last time that her method of creation was used to anything? Making something unique is moot if you are nothing using it for something other than standing out. When Azz made her the daughter of Zeus, he did because he wanted to tell a story of the greek gods as the greek saw them, something entirely non-human, bitter and competitive to the bitter end. Diana's role in the story that unfolds (the disappearance of Zeus and the subsequent fight for the throne of Olympus) is based on her out-witting and out-manouvering the gods, with combat always being the last resource, when all of the other options have failed.

2)Wonder Woman should not ever have a Thou Shall Not Kill rule. She was born a warrior, grew in the teaching of the warriors and most important, she is a warrior.

3)As an addendun, making an warrior the embassador of peace is like putting the fox to guard the hen.

4)The pre-nu52 amazons were boring. Basically, it was a Mary Suetopia, where despite all of them growing in the ways of war, they were the only nation in the world that have achieved perfect peace. Unfortunate Implications doesn't even begin to describe.

I've made the point that almost every writer has refused to really do anything with this fairly distinct character trait, if not in this thread then in the one in the film section. If Azzarello had a passion to get this story told that's good it got done but why couldn't another half-human bastard have been used or created. Wasn't Sandsmark already Zeus's child? Why not use her?

Got no issues with her not being the never kill anyone ever type. She is not far removed from pastoralism society before you get into the Amazon warrior tropes.

If the society is largely warriors, what's wrong with their ambassador being one too? Their also isolated and probably a couple hundred years rusty on the whole diplomacy thing but just because your messenger can defend themselves(or slaughter an army) doesn't mean they are incapable of being a voice for good will. I think some Realpolitik would be in order though. She should ultimately be after her people's best interests before anyone else's.

4 and 3 go together. The Amazons were trespassers at best, kidnappers at worst, men haters who in some stories kept slaves and were known to shoot arrows at people for baseless reasons. They could mostly be good people but not be allowed to claim moral superiority over the rest of the world and be justified by the narrative for doing so.

edited 1st Oct '12 5:28:34 PM by Cider

Because the spartans were known for their diplomacy.

That's is what the Amazons were in the myths, spartans with tits instead of dicks. They would rape the men they defetead and then kill them.

As for the question of why not another demigod, this was on DC. They need to publish the character and Azzarello wanted to make a story of the greek gods.

The thing about Wonder Woman is that nobody knows what to do with her, but because of her status as an "icon", she has to get published in major events.

What happens is that she just gets to be the thug of the main 7 of the JL.

edited 20th Sep '12 11:15:40 AM by fakeangelbr

Gonna have to call bullshit on that. While the ancint Greeks saw their gods as often bitter and competitive, they did not see them as "entirely non-human". Much of Classical Mythology is based around the gods getting drunk, having love affairs, showing favoritism, and wanting shiny treasures all for themselves, just like human beings.

And so does Azz's gods, but they're human in a completely non-human way.

It's difficult to explain, really.

@fakeangelbr: Wonder Woman wasn't a golem unless you want to say that all humans are golems. In Greek myth man was first formed out of clay and given life by Prometheus, and arguably one source of Wonder Woman's power stems from being closer in form to the first humans (as the Greeks were big believers in the constant decay of society).

edited 20th Sep '12 11:20:55 AM by BigMadDraco

That's not how it is.

Wondie got her powers because she was blessed by the female gods, not because she was a golem or some bullshit like that.

At least originally, before the new origin story as a demi-god.

edited 20th Sep '12 1:20:01 PM by fakeangelbr

Once again not a golem just a new human made in the same way as the first humans.

It's still largely tangent to the character.

The last time I know that her origin story played any part in a story was in a bout between her and other members of the league against Clayface and all it did was remove her from the combat.

Compare it to bats and supes where their origin give them a lot of hooks to pull out new stories.

Hell, even Huntress origin story gives more character to her than pre-nu52 diana.

edited 20th Sep '12 11:41:49 AM by fakeangelbr

For years my view of Superman has been that the fact that he's Kyrtonian is among the least important features of his character. The fact that he's a foundling whose adoptive parents raise him to be a man of strong moral fiber is what makes Superman who he is. I honestly don't think who he is if were a fey left to be raised by mortals. The important part of a heroes origin isn't what gives them powers, but what gives them the will to do good. If you want to make a better origin for Wonder Woman have a good reason for her to leave the island as that is when she becomes a hero.

My objection to Zeus being the father of WW is mostly because it is exactly as cliche as saying she was a normal woman until she was exposed to radiation. I would be far, far more forgiving if they had picked literally any other member of the Greek pantheon.

Sparta wasn't always a glorified war machine and it wasn't able to maintain itself in that way either. The fact that it was conquered by Thebes would be enough reason for the Amazons to take a hard long look at themselves. So it took a thousand years for change but it's taken longer real life.

I tend to forget people were Prometheus's. I always think of him as the Titan who was eaten by birds. So not a golem but a deluge predecessor? Its going to take me awhile to come to take in all the implications of that but the Genocide storyline makes more sense now. You'd think that kind of thing would be happening more frequently actually.

Big Mad Draco is right about getting a really Hellenistic vibe out it though. And I suppose my earlier argument(they already had a Zeus's daughter) could just be reversed. Just throw the origin and everything that can be built on it to Sandsmark.

But the fact he is an alien is important to his character.

Hell, Zod and Brainiac wouldn't even be half the compelling villains that they are if not for the fact that they are directly attached to supes (the salvation of the civilization that birthed him vs. the one that grew him and the sole catalyst of the extinction of his people, respectively)

Just because you don't think that is important that doesn't mean it's not true.

edited 20th Sep '12 12:02:17 PM by fakeangelbr

Braniac is only the cause of Kryton's destruction in the DCAU, in the comics his main connection to Superman is that he shrunk down and kept alive a Krytonian city. A Zod equivalent could be formed from the fey. Moreover his greatest and most enduring villain is a human. Replace Krytonian technology with fey magic, replace alien with fey, and replace robot with golem and you can get most of Superman's origin unchanged.

edited 20th Sep '12 12:17:41 PM by BigMadDraco

I didn't talked about the destruction of Krypton but of the kryptonian civilization.

And the fact that Lex hates supes is directly related to the fact of the latter being an alien.

Yes, you can change all sci-fi to magic in supes OS to make something that looks like in some ways to WW, but she never had any villain that has much of a link to her.

My understanding of Luther's hate for Superman is less about him being an alien and more one of two things (depending how generous you want to be to Lex) 1) that he can't understand that someone with Superman's power would help people without an ulterior motive or 2) he resents the fact that Superman was handed great power without having to work for it. The fact that he's an alien is just a convenient hook for Luther, it would be the same if Superman was a magical creature or even if he was the result of a super soldier project.

I'm gonna have to direct you to Action Comics #900 for this.

And we are starting to get off-topic here.

edited 20th Sep '12 1:02:14 PM by fakeangelbr

I guess I'm the only one who likes the made from clay angle to her origin then?

I like it fine. It beats an origin that was cliche before man learned to forge iron and used by another DC character.