dataweaver wrote:No offense intended, but you're absolutely right: I don't like your ideas for Wonder Woman.
Eh, no offense taken. We agree on some things and disagree on others. I knew going in that my ideas would throw some, or even many, or maybe most, fans, but this is what I would do.
dataweaver wrote:I'm not necessarily opposed to Diana being as powerful as Superman; in fact, depending on how you define "powerful", I would insist that she be as powerful as Superman: at the very least, she should be able to hold her own against him in a fight. But if, by "as powerful as Superman", you mean something more along the lines of "anything you can do, I can do better" (or even "just as well"; the key phrase is "anythingyou can do…"), then I have to disagree. Simply in terms of storytelling, this is a bad move because it makes the two of them interchangeable at best, and Diana clearly dominant at worst. From a symbolic perspective, I'm for harmony of the sexes, rather than domination of either one by the other. In particular, she already has a number of advantages over Superman, ranging from her various tools such as her infamous Golden Lasso to her extensive martial training (in which she is far more proficient than everyone else in the Justice League); making her as strong and tough as him as well would mean that he wouldn't be able to hold his own in a fight against her.
I mean just generally on his level. She doesn't have to do the "anything you can do, I can do better; I can do anything better than you!" thing. The way I'd see it, she'd probably defeat him more often than not, simply by virtue of being a much better fighter, even if he has more raw power.
Your mention of the Lasso reminds me of something else I'd change, too: her weapons. Give her an Aegis Shield capable of deflecting attacks, rather than the bracelets. Get rid of the Lasso entirely, as I find it a dumb weapon. Give her a sword, maybe, of some import.
dataweaver wrote:She doesn't use the name "Wonder Woman", and she doesn't wear the costume: honestly, I could get behind this, to an extent: the official Wonder Woman did this very thing for a time, although I doubt you'd approve of the approach they took — she voluntarily surrendered her powers and started engaging in adventures that had more of a secret agent vibe than a superhero vibe.
As for how stupid and silly the name and the costume are, I'll have to agree with that point as well — but then, she's hardly unique in that regard. Superman's name and costume are equally ridiculous — if not mores, in terms of the names; at least "Wonder Woman" is alliterative. If Diana gets to go around wearing armored hoplite gear all the time, then Superman should get to wear ancient Kryptonian armor instead of the silly skin-tight suit with underwear on the outside that he traditionally sports. (That said, note that Wonder Woman does have a suit of Thymescrian Armor that she wears from time to time — mainly when she's expecting an unusually challenging fight. Another advantage that she'd have if confronting Superman.)
Superman seems less egregious to me for some reason. His name isn't as bad. It doesn't seem to come with the same level of silliness that accompanies "Wonder Woman". Granted, I can't see anyone in real life wearing that costume without it looking stupid, but like I said, with Diana, she doesn't wear armor because she needs to. It's just because I'm trying to think of something good she can wear that doesn't look like a stripper outfit. I mean, a little leg is fine — we're talking about a very vibrant and passionate woman, and sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, as opposed to over-sexualization. But still not something that looks like it'd fall apart and leave her nude in the slightest scuffle, or something that looks like a swimsuit. Diana should be sexy because she's powerful, because you can see in her bearing (and in her actions) that she is a woman of courage, nobility and strength.
dataweaver wrote:I do get your point about the oversexualization of women in comics; but I think you're going too far to the other extreme. It's entirely possible to modify the costume to make it practical without abandoning it entirely. Consider the costume that she was wearing in the comics as recently as four months ago: shoulder straps to ensure her top stays on; full-length pants. Originally, that costume also sported a jacket. She looked good in it, without looking like a swimsuit model. Also consider the costumes of Spider-Girl (the May Parker version) and Batgirl (the Cassandra Cain and Stephanie Brown versions): those were traditional superhero garb without being overly sexualized.
I don't really care for that costume, but it's better. I don't hate it or anything. Something like that wouldn't be bad. I'd prefer something with more of a Greek feel, though.
dataweaver wrote:As for her being a lesbian: No. Just, no. An integral part of Diana's story is her relationship with Steve Trevor. Granted, the original version of Steve is not someone I would inflict on anyone; but then, I could say precisely the same thing about the early Lois Lane. Lois got a makeover that turned her from being Superman's default damsel in distress into being a competent character in her own right; the same thing can be done for Steve. Indeed, from what I've seen of the Steve Trevor in the new Justice League series, it has been done for him. He is now someone who I can actually believe that Wonder Woman would fall for (once she gets to know him) rather than merely being the first man that she ever laid eyes on, followed by an instant crush.
Here, we will never agree, for several reasons. One is that I just don't care about Steve Trevor. I feel nothing at all is lost by getting rid of him entirely, or writing a new role for him. Second, I think it would be nice to have a high-profile gay character, and particularly a lesbian character. Wonder Woman is definitely the highest-profile superheroine, though honestly I don't think she deserves it. There are a lot of heroines with better rogues, better writing and better development, I feel. That Wonder Woman has retained her profile is a testament to the costume (the one I'd get rid of) and the name (that I'd get rid of), funny enough. And probably Linda Carter.
dataweaver wrote:Passionate? Sure! But also disciplined. Warrior? At times; but not exclusively. She should also be the most adept of the JLA when it comes to diplomacy, with an almost instinctive knowledge of how to resolve disputes peacefully — as well as when a peaceful resolution is not possible. She's not Diana, Warrior Princess; she's far more versatile than that.
Well, yes, I didn't mean to make it sound like she'd be a warrior only. Particularly as I think she would be one of the ones who adapted the best to the modern world, to the surprise of many, as she is considered one of the exemplary Amazon.
dataweaver wrote:I wholeheartedly agree with your plot hook suggestions, and indeed would expand on them: as I've mentioned in my own post on the subject, I see Wonder Woman being at odds with the Olympians. far from serving them, she opposes their meddling in human affairs. Conversely, I don't see the Thymescrians as being primitive per se; I see them as deliberately choosing not to use "modern technology" for fear that it would make them dependent on it.
For your latter point, I agree. I don't see the Themyscirans as primitive at all. But, like many peoples, they're resistant to new cultural influences, at least at first. Many might also see the modern people as weak and frail (never mind that they're not, well, magic) and be afraid of dependency, yes.
dataweaver wrote:And I also agree wholeheartedly about completely forbidding any scenes or situations resembling bondage, dominance, or sadomasochism involving Wonder Woman: she is neither into that sort of thing, nor willing to tolerate it. When something involving the exploitation of women (or children; or men, for that matter) does show up, it should be portrayed as something ranging from creepy to horrifying, and is the sort of thing that she puts a stop to at the earliest opportunity. I can see there being a rumor floating around that she loses her powers if you bind her arms, and she doesn't dissuade anyone of this notion when she hears it — because it's completely false, and anyone who chooses to act on it will immediately put himself at a distinct tactical disadvantage in the ensuing fight — if you ca call the likely one-sided thumping a fight.
I agree completely here. I can see her being the more... aggressive and confident partner in a relationship, but that's as far as that goes. Largely because she's an aggressive (though not too much -- she is thoughtful and intelligent, after all) and confident woman, as is her right.
Honestly, other than maybe a little bit of costume stuff and the sexuality issue, we at least have some similar ideas. I would never budge on the lesbian issue, though (unless maybe you give me Supergirl ) . It'd be kind of a dream come true for me, and I can think of stories along those lines. Heck, I can see two routes: she can fall for mortal Stephanie Trevor, or maybe another heroine!