But they revealed the costume at Comicon, and I wasn't impressed. I can almost see using the warrior princess, but why the drab brown leather color? They did say it will most likely change, but aren't they already shooting.

And what's wrong with her classic look?

By the way, Sydney G2 works pretty good in the face room...

Quote - I've seen a lot of DC animated movies with Wonder Woman, and she is always in this suit. So why not now? Even the tv series version she was in this suit at the end of the pilot...

In several story lines in DC comics when Wonder Woman went into a serious battle, specifically with a God or someone with Godlike powers, she switched to her battle armor and sword, which generally hid her red, white and blue outfit. The way this outfit is made, the skirt and leather armor could very well hide her leotard and regular crimefighting outfit. 

In George Perez' version of Wonder Woman, she first appears in "Man's World" wearing battle armor to fight Ares' threat and it wasn't until later issues she removed it, revealing her classic outfit once she switched to an Amassador from "Paradise Island"/crimefighting role to tone down her warrior look.

Yeah, but she's still got them damn scowling eyebrows. It's the one thing about Sydney that I just hated.

As for Wonder Woman/ Gal Godot, I;m guessing that she won't be Wonder Woman when we first meet her in the story, or at least she won't be dressed as WW, hence the drab brown leather. As i understand it, the story will pick up from not too long after Superman first appeared. He'll meet Batman and then Wonder Woman. I'm just speculating from all the rumors I've heard.

@terrancew_hod: I've seen those, but even in warrior garb, the colors were there, if not the stars and stripes, at least the red and blue. Her costume was designed by her mother in ode to Diana Treavor, the mother of the major, who ended up on paradise island at one point. I don't recall if she were dressed in a single colored armor. I have most of DC's animated movies on harddrive. I will have another look. I wish I still had access to my comic books, but I am in Japan right now and they are in Washington State...

@EClark: Yeah, those eyebrows can be manipulated some in the face room, but it makes her look like they are in a permanent surprised look.

Quote - @terrancew_hod: I've seen those, but even in warrior garb, the colors were there, if not the stars and stripes, at least the red and blue. Her costume was designed by her mother in ode to Diana Treavor, the mother of the major, who ended up on paradise island at one point. I don't recall if she were dressed in a single colored armor. I have most of DC's animated movies on harddrive. I will have another look. I wish I still had access to my comic books, but I am in Japan right now and they are in Washington State...

Most of the colors were obscured by gold armor in the comics. Though if they're taking a darker tone in the movie, it would make more sense for her to be in a more warrior look and less colorful one as she enters the DC universe for the first time then ease into her role and traditional outfit.

Quote - > Quote - @terrancew_hod: I've seen those, but even in warrior garb, the colors were there, if not the stars and stripes, at least the red and blue. Her costume was designed by her mother in ode to Diana Treavor, the mother of the major, who ended up on paradise island at one point. I don't recall if she were dressed in a single colored armor. I have most of DC's animated movies on harddrive. I will have another look. I wish I still had access to my comic books, but I am in Japan right now and they are in Washington State...

Most of the colors were obscured by gold armor in the comics. Though if they're taking a darker tone in the movie, it would make more sense for her to be in a more warrior look and less colorful one as she enters the DC universe for the first time then ease into her role and traditional outfit.

That's one of the things about DC movies that I like vs. something like the X-men franchise. They're in their costumes, not long black overcoats. I blame that on the Matrix for making it look cool. The problem with putting Wonder Woman in brown leather instead of her iconic colors is that it makes her Xena, not Wonder Woman.

WTF!

DC has had a tough time with Wonder Woman, over a span of decades.  She always remains in the DC Big Three, in spite of only having short periods when her books sell well.  She has been revised perhaps more often than any major comics hero.  Her original incarnation, like her creator, was an odd mix of elements.  A lot of what she has been is unpalatable to a modern audience.  William Moulton Marston, for instance, insisted that the prevalent bondage themes in the first several years of WW stories were essential to the character, allowing the escape from captivity to serve as a theme of female empowerment.  Nowadays, that just looks kinky or offensive to many people.  Her costuming is apparently increasingly problematic, too, along with... pretty much all female superhero costuming.  There's a push in some sectors of fandom for costume redesigns which desexualize the female characters, with the traditional form-fitting superhero costumes seen as exploitive and offensive.  DC has to try to balance all of this to sell WW, as well as work with that weird mainstream/Hollywood take on superheroes which seeks to sell them by making them less like superheroes and as much like any other action hero genre as possible.  As a fan of superheroes in their traditional (Golden Age through Bronze Age) form, I find all of it troubling.  I keep getting myself into trouble on other forums, when I get worked up about it.  :lol:

Basically, they don't know what to do with the character and they feel she under-performs compared to Batman, Superman, and others.  They have to try to avoid any "Hubba hubba!" appeal in a modern version, and they have to sell the character to an audience that doesn't really like superheroes per se.  I am sort of surprised that they've retained any hints of the traditional Wonder Woman at all, in the images I've seen.

When comics first appeared they used a cheap color printing technique dubbed "fake four".  The process was only capable of producing 64 tones or shades of color with primary and secondary shades looking the best.  I personally like the new 'realistic' take on costume design in movies and comics now and very much like the new Wonder Woman design.

Quote - Basically, they don't know what to do with the character and they feel she under-performs compared to Batman, Superman, and others.  They have to try to avoid any "Hubba hubba!" appeal in a modern version, and they have to sell the character to an audience that doesn't really like superheroes per se.  I am sort of surprised that they've retained any hints of the traditional Wonder Woman at all, in the images I've seen.

If there are three heroines DC should NOT desexualize, it's Wonder Woman, Black Canary and Zatanna. I don't quite know what to say about Power Girl, but another topic, another time. A few years ago when I was still following comics, I tried to let DC know why they were on the wrong track with Wonder Woman. It was the way they wanted to portray her. They got rid of her Diana Prince identity ( a big mistake in my opinion). That made her less human. For the most part she only ever fought females, and always the same ones, or some magical mythological creature. And despite her "warrior" looks, most of the time she tried to talk her enemies into giving up.

Quote - When comics first appeared they used a cheap color printing technique dubbed "fake four".  The process was only capable of producing 64 tones or shades of color with primary and secondary shades looking the best.  I personally like the new 'realistic' take on costume design in movies and comics now and very much like the new Wonder Woman design.

I would be a happier person, overall, if I could feel as you do.  :lol:  The superhero genre was shaped by its primary medium and its limitations, but what that genre became is what I love.  The bright colors, the simplicity, the bold designs, the secrecy.  I may like traditional superhero costume design more than superheroes, myself.  Hmm.

Quote - If there are three heroines DC should NOT desexualize, it's Wonder Woman, Black Canary and Zatanna. I don't quite know what to say about Power Girl, but another topic, another time.

I have a really interesting link somwhere, showing proposed redesigns of superheroine costumes.  Can't find it, but I'm looking.  The designs are perhaps admirable in intent, but they're dreadfully awful as superhero designs, completely rejecting what superheroes are and/or have been.  A lot of characters in weird, deliberately baggy outfits.  Oh my.

Power Girl's "boob window" (as it is called :unsure:) is a serious point of centention nowadays.  :lol:

I really like the new WW look, actually.  And something else about it that I don't think anyone else pointed out is that the new look shown is probably more appealing to non-American audiences than the traditional star-spangled panties.  Not to mention far less wedgie inducing. :P

I have to agree with cage. My perception of most of the superheroes was drawn (there's a pun there, I can feel it) on what I was exposed to as a hormone raging teen. Zatana and Wonder Woman (and let's face it, most heroines) were both drawn voluptuous and had very feminine qualities to them. The fact that they are drawing these characters and trying to portray them onscreen in an attempt to not offend someone actually offends me. Why not leave things alone?Just the longevity of the characters should speak for itself. I do contend there have been a lot of costume changes to WW over time, but the first time they brought her successfully to the screen (Linda Carter), she was in the above rendered costume.

DC is trying to move too fast with the Justice League in my very humble, often ignored opinion. They got onboard too late to catch up to the Marvel machine. This movie better exceed a lot of expectations or it will fall flat on it's face. There is a lot of ground to cover in the span of one movie. I fear the story will move too fast, and we will come away feeling unsatisfied at the very least. Or worse, it will be a two hour long story that never seems to get anywhere. I am both anxious to see if they can pull it off, and cautious that it might not meet expectations.

There was a story that came out that Ben Affleck is already having problems on set with his costume. It's too tight, too constrictive and he is having problems breathing in it. Seems they went the route of the Keaton suit and made the cowl and cape a single piece. So he will have to twist his trunk to turn his head. While I was no fan of the Dark Knight suit that Christian Bale wore, it did make more sense.

We will see...

Quote - I really like the new WW look, actually.  And something else about it that I don't think anyone else pointed out is that the new look shown is probably more appealing to non-American audiences than the traditional star-spangled panties.  Not to mention far less wedgie inducing. :P

But that's not Wonder Woman. That's Xena.

Here's that link I was trying to find, with superheroine redesigns.  I cringe when I look at these, because they reject everything characteristic of superhero design.  Note that I also cringe when I see designs by Jim Lee (What is his thing for straps everywhere?).

http://www.themarysue.com/fully-clothed-superhero/

Superheroes seem to be in a time of transition.  The comics industry, which gave birth to the genre, has been in trouble for some time.  The companies which own superhero properties seem increasingly focused on trying to market the characters in other media, to expanded or somewhat different audiences.  That inherently involves rejecting a lot of what superheroes have been.  But the definition of "superhero" has been muddied within comics for a couple of decades, too.  The end of the Silver-Bronze Age era saw a focus on a sort of "variations on a theme" with superheroes.  Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, the Burton films, then into the Darker-n-Edgier Era of comics.  This had to operate against the background of accepted and fairly set definitions of what superheroes were, those definitions having been established during the Silver and Bronze eras.  Against that stable background, new ideas about the genre could (often quite compellingly) be explored, but now there's perhaps less of a stable background.  Now we have a sort of Superheroes Classic approach, which tries to maintain the core defintions (somewhat nostalgically), with your Alex Rosses and Kurts Busiek.  We also get the monthly comics titles continuing the long run of trying to find a new angle on superheroes, accepting and rejecting different portions of the core definition at any given time.  (I guess Marvel is doing away with secret identities now.  I wonder how much they can remove from the idea of a "superhero" before it ceases to be a unique genre worthy of differentiation from other entertainment genres.  :unsure:)  And there are the video game and big budget film versions of superheroes.  Which of these will most shape the accepted parameters of the genre going forward is an interesting question, to me.

I could keep babbling about this.  I will restrain myself.  :lol:

Quote - I really like the new WW look, actually.  And something else about it that I don't think anyone else pointed out is that the new look shown is probably more appealing to non-American audiences than the traditional star-spangled panties.  Not to mention far less wedgie inducing. :P

This is really a very interesting point.  International audiences would be a greater consideration with a film than with comics.  This is one of those areas where the history of the character works against them.  Wonder Woman was conceived during the earliest years of the genre, when no one was quite sure what superheroes were.  Superheroes came and went at a wild pace for the first couple of years, and a lot of them carried patriotic themes at the core of their conception.  Wonder Woman was one of these, albeit less so than many others.  We can see DC trying to pull back from that aspect of WW, in their redesigns over the years, starting with the loss of the eagle motif on her breastplate.  The star-spangled motif has been downplayed in various designs, but they've had to keep coming back to it.  Man, did people freak out when they gave her long pants!  Recently I saw Superman and Wonder Woman used in some promotional artwork at a fast food restaurant.  Superman had lost his red briefs, but Wonder Woman had reverted from pants back to star-spangled panties.

When I see extreme changes to a character, like those shown by the WW design above, I wonder how much of a character can be changed before it's really not the same character any longer.  Eventually you're in "same name, different character" territory (I know this territory well, from any and all of the fan fiction I've written.  :lol:).  Have they gone that far with Wonder Woman, here?  It will be interesting to see.

I think they are going with the story line of her first coming to "the land of man"... and working it there. More than likely it was as previously stated. There are reports of her filming scenes for the movie in street clothes.

On a related note, I just watched Captain America Winter Soldier. Did not disappoint.

Hey Cage, I saw tyhe Superheroine redesigns and I hate to say it, but in most cases, those costumes would actually be MORE restrictive. And in Zatanna's case, she's a stage performer more than a superhero, so in her defense, sexy was what she was going for. Technically, all Supergirl or Mary Marvel wears is a dress or a skirt, so they're not really dressing any differently than women do in real life.

Quote - Hey Cage, I saw tyhe Superheroine redesigns and I hate to say it, but in most cases, those costumes would actually be MORE restrictive. And in Zatanna's case, she's a stage performer more than a superhero, so in her defense, sexy was what she was going for. Technically, all Supergirl or Mary Marvel wears is a dress or a skirt, so they're not really dressing any differently than women do in real life.

Yeah, other than a cape....

Yeah, other than the cape. So that only leaves about three superheroines at DC that well for all intents and purposes, only wear a one piece bathing suit and boots, Black Canary, Wonder Woman and Powergirl. Who's gonna get in their face and tell 'em that they dress like sluts? And truth is, they're basically more overdressed than most women on the beach. Or a gymnastics class.

"On a related note, I just watched Captain America Winter Soldier. Did not disappoint."

Yes I really liked this one as well
the attack on nick fury in washington DC was epic!!
we even got to see C.A.'s old nemesis batroc!!

great one on one fight scenes as well.

Quote - I really like the new WW look, actually.  And something else about it that I don't think anyone else pointed out is that the new look shown is probably more appealing to non-American audiences than the traditional star-spangled panties.  Not to mention far less wedgie inducing. :P

That is something you Americans are going to have to get used to: the film industry is appealing to wider audiences, especially the massive Chinese audience, so it isn't all going to be about you all the time.

Why do you think the main setting for Pacific Rim was Hong Kong, the Jaegars featured were American, Russian, Australian, and Chinese, and the last four pilots were American, British, Japanese, and Australian?

In the case of the Justice League film, assuming they stick relatively close to the current origin story, Diana/Wonder Woman isn't American and they've had to come up with some absurd explanations in the comics as to why she's wearing a clearly American-inspired costume. The eagle can get a pass since the eagle has been used in multiple cultures and it's not specifically a bald eagle, but the rest of the traditional costume?

The other thing to bear in mind is that what looks acceptable in the comics, or in animation, or even on low-rez TV in the 1970s (when, quite honestly, fashion was horrendous enough that the flag swimsuit looks good in comparison) doesn't necessarily translate well to high-def movies. You can see that in how Captain America's costume that he wore early in his film, which was closely modeled on the comic version, looks ridiculous compared to the other costumes he wore later in the film and the in the others he's appeared in.

Quote -  

Quote - I really like the new WW look, actually.  And something else about it that I don't think anyone else pointed out is that the new look shown is probably more appealing to non-American audiences than the traditional star-spangled panties.  Not to mention far less wedgie inducing. :P

That is something you Americans are going to have to get used to: the film industry is appealing to wider audiences, especially the massive Chinese audience, so it isn't all going to be about you all the time.

Why do you think the main setting for Pacific Rim was Hong Kong, the Jaegars featured were American, Russian, Australian, and Chinese, and the last four pilots were American, British, Japanese, and Australian?

In the case of the Justice League film, assuming they stick relatively close to the current origin story, Diana/Wonder Woman isn't American and they've had to come up with some absurd explanations in the comics as to why she's wearing a clearly American-inspired costume. The eagle can get a pass since the eagle has been used in multiple cultures and it's not specifically a bald eagle, but the rest of the traditional costume?

The other thing to bear in mind is that what looks acceptable in the comics, or in animation, or even on low-rez TV in the 1970s (when, quite honestly, fashion was horrendous enough that the flag swimsuit looks good in comparison) doesn't necessarily translate well to high-def movies. You can see that in how Captain America's costume that he wore early in his film, which was closely modeled on the comic version, looks ridiculous compared to the other costumes he wore later in the film and the in the others he's appeared in.

And that's how we get stupid ideas like Captain Planet. I seriously don't get the anti-American animosity towards American owned and created characters. Next, we aren't even going to be allowed to speak english because it might offend to many non-english speakers. Was Marvel supposed to make up a whole new language called "Asgardian" so Thor woulddn't be speaking english? I don't have a problem with the country from which the story originates setting the point of origin of some things like Harry Potter, and Dr. Who for example, or even some of the Japanese, French and Chinese films. But just because the majority of films come from the United States is no reason to junk everything in the story line that even hints at it just because you don't like America.

Quote - I seriously don't get the anti-American animosity towards American owned and created characters. Next, we aren't even going to be allowed to speak english because it might offend to many non-english speakers.

Okay, I realize this might come to a shock to Americans, but a few things.

1. English is spoken in more countries than the US. Do you know what are the 10 nations in the world that have the largest English speaking populations? The US, India, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the Phillipines, Germany, Bangladesh, Egypt, Canada, and France. You'll note that only three of those are traditionally considered "English speaking" countries.

2. Don't confuse recognizing that other people exist and would actually like to see someone that looks like them on screen from time to time with somehow being anti-American.

And to re-iterate the point, in her fictional world Wonder Woman isn't an American. Those of us in the world who aren't American, believe it or not, are often quite happy we're not American without having any particular animosity toward the United States. We don't secretly dream of being American, we have no particular desire to move there, and we certainly don't see the need to dress up in red white and blue costumes with white stars on a blue field. So when we see a fictional character who is not American, we don't see anything wrong with them not dressing up like a centerfold from All American Heroes of the United States Who Are From America. In fact, it seems entirely normal.

Yes, she was created to be an American character and the backstory given was originally a way to explain her being powered, but in the decades since her non-American mythological origins has been a larger and larger part of the mythos. Her enemies have been Circe and Ares, she was actually ascended to the pantheon of Olympus, her mother had a history with Herakles, and so on and so forth. She didn't grow up in the US like Superman, who because of that quite justifiably can be considered an American hero, and had (depending on the origin story) no contact with the US at all until she was an adult, so why would she bother dressing in an American flag?

Consider Wolverine. No one considers it the least bit odd he doesn't dress in American colours because he's always been portrayed as Canadian, even though he's had a much closer connection to the US for much longer (in his fictional universe) than Wonder Woman has had in hers, even to the point where he was seen fighting alongside Captain America in World War 2. If Wonder Woman had been created more recently (in real life), odds are she'd never have been in that red, white and blue costume at all because it doesn't make much sense given her story, no more than it would Wolverine.

It has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Americanism but simply people thinking about the background of the character in a more sophisticated way.

Quote - Hey Cage, I saw tyhe Superheroine redesigns and I hate to say it, but in most cases, those costumes would actually be MORE restrictive.

Agreed.  I think the designs are abysmal as superhero costumes.  I vaguely admire the motives for creating them, but I think the effort was misguided.

Quote - That is something you Americans are going to have to get used to: the film industry is appealing to wider audiences, especially the massive Chinese audience, so it isn't all going to be about you all the time.

This is a good point, but consider the nature of superheroes, as we've traditionally understood them.  The costumes are part of the characters.  It's going too far to state that the packaging is the product, but that's closer to being true with superheroes than with most other action-adventure characters.  Messing with a superhero character's iconic design does more than just modify the surface to make it look better in another medium or help it appeal to broader audiences or other cultures.  Such changes potentially alter the meaning or value of the superhero.  These characters have secret lives and appear in public in their special attire, by which they are identified.  Is a superhero without the costume still a superhero?  It looks a bit like the genre is being steered toward the decision that the costumes are nonessential, which is a bummer.  Something unique to the genre will have been lost.

Are the costumes actually essential?  In this case, are the colors (red, yellow, blue, white) and patterned motifs (stars, at least; possibly the eagle or the "WW" pattern) essential to Wonder Woman as a character?  Or is retaining the "silhouette" of the traditional design, or the background of derivation from ancient Greece, enough to capture the essence of the character?  With Wonder Woman specifically, they already have to dump so much of what the character has been in the past that severe modifications to the costume might drag her too far from her core character.  She needs something linking her to what Wonder Woman has been.  Otherwise, why not throw any character at all out there under the name of "Wonder Woman", or why bother to use that name at all?  At what point has a character been changed enough to become something completely different?

Quote - It has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Americanism but simply people thinking about the background of the character in a more sophisticated way.

I agree, this isn't about national pride or cultural primacy or anything so silly.  This is about the characters as characters and superheroes as superheroes, versus either as marketable properties.  To more broadly market the superhero genre, the owners of superhero properties have been (perhaps necessarily) removing more and more of what defines the superhero genre and makes it unique from other action-adventure genres.  Eventually it loses its unique character as a genre and just becomes mud.  This won't bother those who came to appreciate "superheroes" from one of the watered-down interpretations of the idea, but it bothers many who have a deeper appreciation for what superheroes are and/or have been.  The defintions are being changed, the future of the superhero as a concept and a creative form are being changed.  This is both fascinating, in a cultural sense, and troubling, from the perspective of a longstanding superhero fan.

Quote - > Quote - I seriously don't get the anti-American animosity towards American owned and created characters. Next, we aren't even going to be allowed to speak english because it might offend to many non-english speakers.

Okay, I realize this might come to a shock to Americans, but a few things.

1. English is spoken in more countries than the US. Do you know what are the 10 nations in the world that have the largest English speaking populations? The US, India, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the Phillipines, Germany, Bangladesh, Egypt, Canada, and France. You'll note that only three of those are traditionally considered "English speaking" countries.

2. Don't confuse recognizing that other people exist and would actually like to see someone that looks like them on screen from time to time with somehow being anti-American.

And to re-iterate the point, in her fictional world Wonder Woman isn't an American. Those of us in the world who aren't American, believe it or not, are often quite happy we're not American without having any particular animosity toward the United States. We don't secretly dream of being American, we have no particular desire to move there, and we certainly don't see the need to dress up in red white and blue costumes with white stars on a blue field. So when we see a fictional character who is not American, we don't see anything wrong with them not dressing up like a centerfold from All American Heroes of the United States Who Are From America. In fact, it seems entirely normal.

Yes, she was created to be an American character and the backstory given was originally a way to explain her being powered, but in the decades since her non-American mythological origins has been a larger and larger part of the mythos. Her enemies have been Circe and Ares, she was actually ascended to the pantheon of Olympus, her mother had a history with Herakles, and so on and so forth. She didn't grow up in the US like Superman, who because of that quite justifiably can be considered an American hero, and had (depending on the origin story) no contact with the US at all until she was an adult, so why would she bother dressing in an American flag?

Consider Wolverine. No one considers it the least bit odd he doesn't dress in American colours because he's always been portrayed as Canadian, even though he's had a much closer connection to the US for much longer (in his fictional universe) than Wonder Woman has had in hers, even to the point where he was seen fighting alongside Captain America in World War 2. If Wonder Woman had been created more recently (in real life), odds are she'd never have been in that red, white and blue costume at all because it doesn't make much sense given her story, no more than it would Wolverine.

It has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Americanism but simply people thinking about the background of the character in a more sophisticated way.

It has everything to do with anti-Americanism. Wolvering doesn't dress in American colours? Big Deal. None of the X-men do. Neither does Batman,rGreen Lantern, Flash, or Green Arrow. Your number one point up above is to point out that English is not native to any one country. Well, care to guess how many flags have red, white and blue, and several have stars as well?

And listen, you're talking to a black man, living in a country where you don't see that many black superheroes. And the few you do see were probably white first, like Nick Fury. So yeah, I get the point about wanting to see others like yourself  in movies.

Quote - At what point has a character been changed enough to become something completely different?

The characters have always changed, and not just tweaks in the costume. Take one of the most iconic: what do we think of Batman (in the comics) these days?

Doesn't use a gun. Doesn't kill (however much someone might deserve it). If Batman picks up a gun and shoots to kill, the situation is one so dire that the only choice of him not shooting to kill is literally the end of the world. There's a reason why "Batman Grabs a Gun" is the trope describing a situation so bad the guy who doesn't use guns has to.

In Batman's first few appearances in 1939 and 1940, he had no problem plugging the bad guy. He changed over time.

These days, the humourless crazy-prepared detective who doesn't trust anyone. In the 1950s and 1960s (and the TV series), cheerful goodball who made bad puns while hanging out with Superman for laughs.

Even in the civilian identity: Bruce Wayne, rich idiot with no day job versus the more modern Bruce Wayne, multibillionaire businessman who is very good at what he does.

Superman for quite some time was the real identity while clumsy Clark Kent was the disguise. His friends who knew both identities called him "Superman" or "Kal-El". For years now Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and smalltown boy made good Clark Kent is the real person while Superman is what he's called in costume. His friends who know both his identities call him "Clark".

So why should Diana/Wonder Woman be any different?

Quote - So why should Diana/Wonder Woman be any different?

She isn't any different, you're right.  The characters vary greatly over time.  The underlying genre is part of the issue as I'm trying to approach it.  I'm not necessarily asserting that Wonder Woman has changed enough here to have reached the point of effectively becoming a new character, but I do wonder if we're getting close.  It would be easier to do this with Wonder Woman at this point in her history than with Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Wolverine, or any number of others.  They've already been shifting her core defintion for a while now, emphasizing the warrior princess aspect, making her cool and remote, ignoring huge parts of what the character has been.  They have to pick and choose a bit more with WW than with the others, when they decide what parts of her concept, origin, history and background they work into a modern version.  She's already shifted away from her origins much more than Bats or Supes (which makes sense insofar as her back story is less... "archetypally resonant" perhaps :unsure:).  It's hard for me to reconcile a pre-Crisis on Infinite Earths WW -- the period when she and her peer characters and their genre were being defined -- with what I know of this upcoming project.  That doesn't mean her character has been tipped over the edge and become something else entirely, but it's moving in that direction.

The only reason I care is that similar things happen in dribs and drabs to all the characters which are modified to be sold to a broader audience.  And the only reason I care about that is because the future defintion of what superheroes are or can be may be at stake.  The core defintion of the superhero was established before the end of the Bronze Age.  Since then, they've done variations on themes, working a lot with tone shifts, or they've trimmed away select parts of the definition.  The movie and TV projects tend to remove parts, and that runs the risk of shifting the parameters of the defintion.  If that happens, the genre is diminished, potentially to the point where a "superhero" is indistinguishable from any other kind of action hero character.  That's where I become concerned, but there's some slippery slope reasoning in there.

This might actually be a fine and wonderful project.  I don't expect it to be, but it's possible.  It will be interesting to see what they end up with.

Quote - Superman for quite some time was the real identity while clumsy Clark Kent was the disguise. His friends who knew both identities called him "Superman" or "Kal-El". For years now Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and smalltown boy made good Clark Kent is the real person while Superman is what he's called in costume. His friends who know both his identities call him "Clark".

Recent changes to Superman are rather interesting, in themselves.  Did you follow the lawsuit, in which they went back and forth over whether DC actually owned certain core elements of the Superman character?  The rulings kept changing as the case advanced, and at least part of the time DC had lost the rights to Lois Lane, Krypton, the Daily Planet, and parts of the costume design.  I don't know where the case stands now, but the last I read had DC on the losing end.

And then we end up with a Superman revamp, one in which all of the contended elements have been removed.  Big changes to the DC flagship character, changes which they may or may not be able to revert back to the old form.  At the same time, the New 52 happens, obscuring the fact that the Superman alterations may have been driven by desperation.  Note that I don't care much for the New 52 changes, either.  :lol:

I suppose what bugs me is that these characters live in my imagination.  These aren't merely marketable properties, these are parts of people's lives.  It's saddening to me to see them diminished, or to see their owners doing the characters a disservice for legal or marketplace driven reasons.  Such changes happen, they're unavoidable, but still saddening.  Not all the changes to the genre are a bad thing.  Too many of them seem to be.  :sad:

It wasn't Wonder Woman that changed. It was Diana. Diana used to be the secret identity. Now, Wonder Woman has no down time and she's lost touch with the people she was supposed to relate to. Human females. Then DC goes and double downs by trying to make her a goddess of truth. The New 52 as I understand, has them Tripling down with having Diana directly related to Zeus.

When Marston first created Wonder Woman she was supposed to be a symbol of what women could become. That symbolism is completely gone in the new 52. About the only thing today's Wonder Woman has in common with human females is that she looks good in a bikini.

Quote - When Marston first created Wonder Woman she was supposed to be a symbol of what women could become. That symbolism is completely gone in the new 52. About the only thing today's Wonder Woman has in common with human females is that she looks good in a bikini.

That would be the point where they've lost the core archetype.  :lol:  How are they justifying the idea that this is still the same character, nowadays?

I think my intentions for starting this tread are getting off track. I don't want ugly arguments like I am seeing. Please keep this civil so it doesn't get locked. Thanks...

Already past it as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks, Earl...

Yeah, they took her too far from where she started. I don't mind the warrior princess idea, and even if she is wearing chest armor and a skirt, she was still Wonder Woman. It's like Cage was saying, they strayed too far from that. She isn't a simple character anymore.

Cage makes some interesting points, but those changes are more about trying to make the characters relatable to today's audience. Problem is, kids have always been the audience for comics, but the majority of comic readers today are actually FORMER kids. You're messing with the heroes and icons of their youth, so natuarally they're going to bitch about it. I bitched too when they started rebooting  the franchise back in the 80's.

[quote

When Marston first created Wonder Woman she was supposed to be a symbol of what women could become.

Bit more complicated than that. Marston had an obvious domination/submission fetish (he basically stated this in interviews, so it's not crap psychoanalyzing) and honestly believed the world would be a better place, and I shit you not, if run by what were essentially kind-hearted, loving, dominatrixes with a so-blatant-it's-a-hammer-to-the-forehead lesbian subtext (there's a reason why he had one of her catchphrases being "Suffering Sappho!"). The character was a method of trying to propagandize how awesome that would be.

So she wasn't a symbol of what women could become, she was explicitly a symbol of what he fetishized women should be, but even then he didn't have a consistent fantasy. She's a dominant, and carries a tool/weapon to assert dominance over others, but also wears symbolic manacles indicating submission, and for much of her early history getting tied up (and boy, was she tied up a lot) caused her to lose her power, ie submit.

There's an obvious reason that particular weakness got dropped.

To be honest, I much prefer her more modern incarnations.

Quote - I don't want ugly arguments like I am seeing.

I guess I didn't notice the argument part.    I hope I haven't done again here what I've done at other forums.  As I say, I keep getting worked up and causing problems when I start babbling about these things.  "Wound up" might be a better term than "worked up".  More toward an excited rush of thoughts than "I'm ready to fight, so take that, you...!"  :lol:  I will try to be more restrained.  Please tell me if I am going to far.  I don't want to ruin your discussion somehow.

Quote - Problem is, kids have always been the audience for comics, but the majority of comic readers today are actually FORMER kids.

According to the comics shop owners I've talked to, this is a lot of why the modern comics industry could be seen as being in crisis, and why the superhero genre is at risk of transforming while the comics companies look for new ways to market their characters.  When comics stopped being sold at newsstands, the target market changed and the range of potential readers (especially new readers) changed.  They now have trouble bringing in new readers, in a comics industry where the readership supposedly goes through almost 100% turnover every five years.  In my part of the country, I would have to drive for two hours or more to visit a comics shop.  I went to high school in a town not far from where I am now, and I had four merchants selling new comics every week, all within walking distance.  Mainstream comics have lost a huge part of their potential audience, and they just can't draw in the kids like they used to.  Or so I'm told.  :unsure:

Quote - There's an obvious reason that particular weakness got dropped.

They do have to be more selective with Wonder Woman than with most characters about what parts of her background they can admit into a modern form.  I guess that leaves them groping around for a part of her past that will appeal to modern audiences.  As far as I can tell, they've chosen "mythological warrior" or some such, but they've perhaps lost some other worthwhile bits.  Is she nice?  Does she have warmth and human kindness built into her, nowadays?  I'm not challenging, but asking.  I've followed the New 52 Batgirl title a bit, where all the characters just seem like mean jerks to me (which may be because I can't figure out how to read modern comics pages :lol:).  Wonder Woman, all of these characters, really, should be able to be nice.  This is a kind, caring person, at heart.  I hope they didn't lose that, at least.

@Cage: no, it wasn't you. It was the bit about the pro-American/anti-American thing that got a little twisted. Anyhow, it's died out.

I agree too, her past has changed significantly. If you take bits and pieces (the right ones in combination) she would be a really complex character with a lot to explore. But if they do take the warrior princess route, they will have to be very careful. The Greek god approach is a slippery slope. Those gods are usually protrayed as selfish, arrogant and completely uncaring of the human condition. If she is decendent of that, well, you see where that is going.

I am still hoping for the best, but ever since they announced the casting of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman I am having issues with it. I still think she is too petite to pull it off. Even if she bulked up, she has a small frame and stature. I sat down with a friend of mine (read HUGE comic fan) and he named off a dozen other women who could have been cast, but each had their downfall. The number one show stopper was their height.

If she could act, and you dyed her hair black, Rhonda Rousey would be a good fit...

At their prime, I always lobbied for two actresses, though obviously not at the same time. Catherine Bell and Catherine Zeta Jones.

Either of them could still play Hippolyta.

I could totally see either of them playing her mother. And yeah, Catherine Bell has the same gifts that Linda Carter has, if you catch my drift.

Another friend of mine and I were looking at the pic they released at Comicon again just a little while ago, and he mentioned out of nowhere that she doesn't have the right look, face-wise, to play Wonder Woman. His exact words were "she doesn't have Wonder Woman's beauty."

Quote - I agree too, her past has changed significantly. If you take bits and pieces (the right ones in combination) she would be a really complex character with a lot to explore. But if they do take the warrior princess route, they will have to be very careful. The Greek god approach is a slippery slope. Those gods are usually protrayed as selfish, arrogant and completely uncaring of the human condition. If she is decendent of that, well, you see where that is going.

I think the various Alex Ross projects featuring Wonder Woman have done a pretty good job of balancing aspects of the character.  Perhaps some of them have over-egged the warrior aspect, from my POV at least, but that may be due to the specifics of the stories.  But I tend to think that Alex Ross always gets it right.  :lol:  Alex Ross is to DC as Stephen Moffatt is to Doctor Who, in Cage's silly, little head.

It's a bit odd, perhaps, given what we do with character design in Poser, and particularly the Poser superhero projects which tend to absorb me, but I haven't really given much thought to the look of the performer for a Wonder Woman project.  I would like to think that if they come up with a compelling script and a worthwhile take on the character, perhaps the casting is somehow less essential.  I'm sure that isn't true, however... and I have my doubts about whether any mainstream, big budget film project will have the sort of storytelling constraints I imagine.  :lol:  I suppose the right performer with the right "look" and image could make or break a project like this.  "As beautiful as Aphrodite" might be a tough standard to meet.  (Assuming that idea is even part of the character now.  I can imagine that being one of the bits of background that might be less palatable to a modern audiences.  :unsure:)

Here's the thing for me... I want them to avoid the "warrior" princess route at all cost for two reasons. 1) that's not Wonder Woman, that's Xena, and 2)Diana doesn't come to man's world to fight wars. Once again, it's getting back to her roots. Otherwise, get rid of the stupid lasso and get her an axe.

Quote - Here's the thing for me... I want them to avoid the "warrior" princess route at all cost for two reasons. 1) that's not Wonder Woman, that's Xena, and 2)Diana doesn't come to man's world to fight wars. Once again, it's getting back to her roots. Otherwise, get rid of the stupid lasso and get her an axe.

Yeah, well, that pic of Gal Gadot has her wielding a sword... :glare:

Alex Ross has done some really good writing. I wonder if anyone thought to get his input when they started this thing?

Certainly not a sword. LOL.

We already have a 4/5 naked chick with a sword. LOL. In a temple. LOL.

Nah, WONDER woman needs a WONDER costume.

Where is the creativty here?
Come on?
Look into the future, not in the past what once has been?

Or?
Close your eyes?
How does YOUR Wonder Woman look?

In these modern days?

All she needs is a Smartphone or a Tablet.

LOL.

and, ha-ha-ha-, boobs to get Pumeco of the streets.

LOL.

Hey, I'm a traditionalist. I don't like Superman's new costume either. It makes him look like the Crime Syndicate's Utra-man.

Quote - Where is the creativty here?
Come on?
Look into the future, not in the past what once has been?

I agree with this, but (again) one has to work within a certain range of constraints for the genre and the character.  Otherwise, it would be better to create a brand new character, with full creative freedom.  That doesn't permit the companies to profit from their existing trademarks and copyrights, however.  :lol:

Quote - Or?
Close your eyes?
How does YOUR Wonder Woman look?

Some of the most compelling superhero works I've seen in recent years have been produced by imaginative and creative fans.  That is wonderful.  :laugh:  DC has been smart enough to avoid clamping down on fan works, most of the time.  To some extent, these characters belong to the public imagination.  I wish the owners of the properties saw themselves more as the stewards of worthwhile pieces of the culture or the public imagination.

Quote - Alex Ross has done some really good writing. I wonder if anyone thought to get his input when they started this thing?

From the recent interviews I've read, DC and Alex Ross have had a sort of parting of the ways, largely over the New 52.  They won't let Ross do his version of Superman for them any longer (as I noted above... they may or may not be able to allow that), and he isn't pleased about that.  :sad: