Superman and Batman's seemed to have pretty defined personalities yet Wonder Woman's personality is changing with every writer/reboot. One minute she is the embodiment of woman's loving nature and later she's some hard nosed warrior diplomat.
Therefore, I ask you this Sup Forums; in your opinion what quality/attribute should Wonder Woman ALWAYS possess regardless of incarnation?
The problem started in the late 80's when DC tried to pair Wonder Woman with Superman. John Byrne tried to kill the shipping in its birth together with George Perez, but later writers still felt that the teasing of a possibility would be great for both characters and thus worked to make them an item.
So every time the characters together in a team book or something they'd interact and for the characters to click together they needed to be slightly different from one another. Since Superman has a higher star power and Wonder Woman has the amazonian background, writers would often change her slightly to make her more naive, oblivious, pragmatic, violent and murder-sh. This way they could better bounce off each other.
The problem is that whenever she was out of her own book, where she was still her older self, she'd adopt this characterization, and since most people don't read Wonder Woman's ongoing, people would know her more by how she behaved in other books. So her twisted characterization ended up becoming more predominant and mainstream than her older one.
Today her being an oblivious and violent murderer is pretty much her consistent characterization. Even in cartoons and now movies.
Just make her The Boss
Tough but fair love.
Grace
>Same problem with She-Hulk
The real problem is this lousy Marvel/DC editors
hire "Marie Claire" editors to edit supah heroes comic books?
Wonder Woman's a warrior, yes, but she's also a princess. This is something that a lot of writers forget about the character. She is a princess. She serves her people, not only as a champion of their gods or diplomat worldwide, but during her entire life as her people's caretaker.
So i'd have Wonder Woman as a person who's always carrying herself with poise and grace, always masking her feelings and wants, always paying attention and serving to other's first and foremost.
I never liked how writers make her act selfish and emotional. Constantly doing what she wants first or being lead by her feelings, specially when it comes to romance. In regards to romance she should be like how she was in the golden age or how Batman normally is, which is: the mission comes first. Her people and duty comes first. She doesn't have time for romance.
Whatever the DCAU version was
Wonder Woman has long suffered from the writers failing to identify with her character, which is essential for writing a character.
You know why.
Given that it's going to be only the core morality of a superhero that survives this test, what else would be seen by everyone as a core trait through dozens of different writers over the years?
Whatever their take on the warrior woman idea, the standard superhero prerogative would still have to exist by necessity.
I have a bad feeling the DCEU Wonder Woman is everything I dont want to see in the character
They're going with the naive and idealistic princess that ends up becoming the pragmatic and cynical warrior.
I always thought that like how Superman was supposed to be the "dad", Wonder Woman was supposed to be the "mom". Batman's the crazy uncle, I guess.
>Pragmatic and cynical
Oh joy.....
That actually happened in the Kingdom Come universe.
Yeah, but in Kingdom Come Wonder Woman was the crazy stalker mom that wanted to execute prisoners and escalate the carnage.
You got it wrong. Actually Batman is the "dad" while Superman is the "mom", with Wonder Woman, who's the third wheel, acting as the "crazy uncle".
Every time the three are together Superman and Batman are working together in unison while Wonder Woman eventually does something weird that leave the others appalled.
This.
I've been on Sup Forums for a long time. And I'm really disturbed by the fact that we're turning back to those dark days where he had constant "How to Fix Wonder Woman" threads made by people who have never fucking read a Wonder Woman comic.
Wonder Woman comics are for girls, user. We can't read those, people will think we're gay.
I think Sup Forums evolved from that. I think that nowadays people actually like and know a lot about Wonder Woman, they're just depressed about how the character is handled.
Are you that angry user from that other Wonder Woman thread currently in the catalog?
Whenever I see bloodthirsty Wondie it feels forced. I get the feeling that she's stern, not that she's always itching for a fight.
>So i'd have Wonder Woman as a person who's always carrying herself with poise and grace, always masking her feelings and wants, always paying attention and serving to other's first and foremost.
So, Azzarello's Wonder Woman, which was criticized for Diana having no personality?
Because IT IS forced. Writers only do that because they feel she has to be different from Superman and Batman when interacting with them.
Superman's not scary or violent and doesn't kill.
Batman's scary but not violent and doesn't kill.
Wonder Woman, to be different, remain not scary but becomes violent and a killer.
You know, when by herself she's like Superman. Not scary, not violent and against killing.
But we ARE gay.
SHHHH
Morrison Earth 1 got it right. She was more fun, and her character more strongly defined and interesting than she's been in years.
This reminds me of the time Superman told Wonder Woman about the Dr. Light fiasco.
Wonder Woman had asked Superman and Batman why they were were arguing like bitter lovers and so Superman sheepishly started narrating about the night Dr. Light raped Sue and the league erased his mind. Of course, Superman left out the bit where Batman was there that night and suffered the same fate when he tried to stop them from erasing Dr. Light's mind.
Both Superman and Batman were expecting her to be shocked and side with Batman's point of view, but instead she only asked why nobody thought of just killing Dr. Light and be done with the problem once for all. Both Superman and Batman couldn't believe what they had just heard.
>these scars, proof I'm a mother
>I've given you training, I've given you weapons, endowed you with knowledge, the only thing left for you to take from me is my life
Nah
>Morrison Earth 1 got it right
Casual detected
Bruce is too much of a faggot to be anyone's dad.
>she was in the golden age
She was lusting for Steve's cawk in the Golden Age and married him pre-crisis.
Because noone read the original WonderWoman with the dyke undertones and bondage everywhere.
Pussies.
Lusting, yes, but she never accepted his demands to get married. They liked one another, but her mission was more important. Only years later that they married.
Yeah, by stupid people who need to have everything exposed clearly
Why can't writers ever give her a personality of both traits?
Batman is obviously the dad.
Batman is scary, while Superman is friendly. Batman's creepy, while Superman's charming. Batman's cold, while Superman's warm. Batman is harsh, while Superman's soft. Batman's rude, while Superman's respectful. Batman's manipulative, while Superman's earnest. Batman's violent, while Superman's mindful.
That's why they work so well together.
That's also why Wonder Woman suffers a lot when paired with Superman, because they try to twisted her to fit Batman's role thus making her come off as a huge cunt. Or when she's with Superman and Batman as a trio, since they try to make her more extreme version of two by having their worst traits.
Some did, making her "motherly", which means loving but who will also stand up to fight in order to protect "her children" and also be tough with them when necessary.
A lot of times it's one of the extremes so being both would mean a split personality though.
>That's also why Wonder Woman suffers a lot when paired with Superman, because they try to twisted her to fit Batman's role thus making her come off as a huge cunt
Aside from few badly written stories, when has this ever happened? The only significant difference between Diana, Clark and Bruce is that Diana grew up in a warrior culture without any trauma about death, so she has more pragmatic perspective to killing. That's entirely fine.
The real issue is that Wonder Woman has gained this whole cultural icon status where she's interpreted to embody all types of conflicting things that don't work in terms of storytelling in a superhero comic, and she hasn't been able to grow past that, like Superman did with being everyone's perfect dad with no flaws during the Silver Age. She's a warrior, but actually she can't show any warrior traits because she's meant to be an ambassador and peace loving person who makes people submit through her life, etc. And then there's the whole gender politics angle, where people feel she can't have faults, like say Batman has.
The one trait she should have and has had even in so different interpretations is not giving up, keep going. A certain amount of uncompromise.
Which is why I hate the DCEU version so much. Forget about the "raging warrior" angle... giving up on mankind for 100 years and staying cynical is the worst thing they could have made with Wonder Woman.
As examples I can cite original Rucka, Gail Simone and Azzarello
I can see that in Messner-Loebs run too, but it's more muddled and amidst a shit ton of crazy stuff.
Perez was much more naive and ideallistic and never came across as motherly to me. Which was fine because she was still a fish out of the water.
>Batman is scary, while Superman is friendly. Batman's creepy, while Superman's charming. Batman's cold, while Superman's warm. Batman is harsh, while Superman's soft. Batman's rude, while Superman's respectful. Batman's manipulative, while Superman's earnest. Batman's violent, while Superman's mindful.
>I'm a giant casual the post.
Start at the golden age for both characters and read on. Clark don't take shit from no one, hell he was ready to crack Bruce's head open because Damian messed with his boy. The only time the relationship between the two of them was this way was towards the latter half of post-crisis when Supes characterization went to shit.
>giving up on mankind for 100 years and staying cynical is the worst thing they could have made with Wonder Woman
If Superman can abandon humanity temporarily in Kingdom Come, why can't Wonder Woman in DCEU after coming to man's world with and witnessing the most devastating war in human history unfold in front of her very eyes?
Yes, Superman doesn't take shit from no one and i know a lot of Superman fans are cranky about the whole "boy-scout" thing, but Batman's usually portrayed as being scarier, angrier and harsher than Superman when they're paired together.
Because Kingdom Come sucked?
Because Superman has an existential crisis every year
>i know a lot of Superman fans are cranky about the whole "boy-scout" thing,
Honestly it's not hard to read up on the character considering how much of his material is free on the internet. The boyscout thing is usually a sign that the only understanding someone has of the character is from recommendation list rather than actually bothering to read anything on him. The first interraction between Superman and Batman post-crisis was Superman randomly attacking Batman in Gotham and attempting to drag him to jail even though Batman was doing nothing at the time.
>but Batman's usually portrayed as being scarier, angrier and harsher than Superman when they're paired together.
He's usually portrayed as an overly emotion faggot as well. Besides the vast bulk of modern Supes/Bats interaction is shit, modern writers know the previous writers have already done everything imaginable so they usually just strip-mine old material but exaggerate their personalities.
Exactly, it's already commonplace for Superman while it never happens with Wonder Woman
Even in Kingdom Come she acts the way she does because she is intransigent, refuses to "let the world fail". She becomes a bitch because of that, as she does in Injustice, but I find that much more in line with how Wonder Woman reacts than ragequitting. It's shitty to see her as a dictating bitch and it goes against her values, but that's way more likely to happen than "fuck the world, I'm out" when things go to shit.
Besides, Superman doesn't abandon manking for so long.
Why can't Diana have one too?
Why should she have the same kind of existential crisis?
She has some from time to time, but it's never about giving up on Wonder Woman, rather it's about "who she is, whom should her allegiance be with" and stuff like that, and not for 100 fucking years.
>Aside from few badly written stories, when has this ever happened?
Pretty much all most of them, user.
When she's paired with Superman, since they're alike in a lot of things, writers twist her so they can contrast one another in the same way Superman and Batman does. So the aspects she share with Superman gain a negative connotation and she gains some of Batman's traits.
For example both Superman and Wonder Woman are idealistic and inspiring. Superman because he doesn't want Earth to end the same way Krypton did and hope one day humanity will be able to take care of the world, and Wonder Woman because she wants to spread messages of peace love and hope one day that humanity will stop subjugating one another. But when paired together Superman is more relaxed about it and trusting of humanity's potential while Wonder Woman places all her self-worth in her mission and forceful in having her way.
Superman and Wonder Woman are both approachable and friendly as well. Superman because he's very good as PR and Wonder Woman for being diplomat. But when paired together Superman is shown as being a people's person, for having grown up in a rural state and living in a big city, while Wonder Woman is shown as completely oblivious and aloof, for being a foreigner that grew up in an isolated island.
Then there are the traits she gain from Batman. Superman and Wonder Woman are both compassionate and trusting. But when paired together Superman remains his old self while Wonder Woman becomes more violent and distrustful due to whole warrior bullshit. She also becomes more prone to act and intransigent, something she shares with Batman, again due to the whole warrior thing, because warrior are fearless and fierce, right?
You mix it all together and Wonder Woman end up coming off as a major turbo cunt.
>The first interraction between Superman and Batman post-crisis was Superman randomly attacking Batman in Gotham and attempting to drag him to jail even though Batman was doing nothing at the time.
Their first meeting was Superman coming to take Batman to jail for terrorizing Gotham and Batman threatening to bomb someone if Superman touched him, due to some contraption that would go off if Superman laid his fingers on Batman. Superman then played Batman's game and later found out he was a alright guy, specially after realizing that the bomb was strapped to Batman himself.
Superman didn't acted half-cooked.
>but it's never about giving up on Wonder Woman
It's not giving up on Wonder Woman because WW isn't a thing in the DCEU until she decides to help Batman form the Justice League. She just gives up on fighting wars in man's world, and seems to concentrate on helping people in other ways like running a business and charities and shit.
She gave up being Wonder Woman in Kingdom Come, though, after the Kansas incident and Superman pumping her full of babies. She gave up being a hero to become a stay at home mother.
Complementing: that's just how she is and the most consistent trait across so many different interpretations, like I said before. I don't care if "it makes sense" or "other characters do this, why can't she". That's exactly the point, she's not those other characters in that aspect.
You can find that aspect on every Wonder Woman run. Even when she lost her powers she still acted like a hero.
Even when she actually considered not being Wonder Woman anymore after Infinite Crisis (I know this contradicts my previous statement, but hear me out), she stil tried to help the world as an agent, and she tought Donna could be Wonder Woman in her place. And that last for only 1 year while she was "discovering herself". She didn't abandon mankind.
>running a business and charities and shit.
That's never even implied. Not even in the additional promotional material they say that, stating only that she's an antique dealer.
That's entirely your projection.
>Pretty much all most of them, user.
Not really. That's a very recent thing, if anything, when DC was pushing the warrior element. Most guest star appearances of Diana is Superman admiring Wonder Woman.
The fundamental difference between the two when interacting with people is that as Clark Superman is rooted to the lives of common people, where as Diana's a celebrity with no secret identity and is a princess, so their perspectives are different, as she's by default acting like a good will ambassador all the time.
Because she tought her mission would carry on with other Amazons
There's a difference between "my job is done and I think I did everything I could" and "Mankind is hopeless, so why bother?"
>Not really. That's a very recent thing
If by recent you mean the past 30 years.
>if anything, when DC was pushing the warrior element. Most guest star appearances of Diana is Superman admiring Wonder Woman.
Very few times he is shown praising her skills, user. Most of the times he's trying to calm her.
>The fundamental difference between the two when interacting with people is that as Clark Superman is rooted to the lives of common people, where as Diana's a celebrity with no secret identity and is a princess, so their perspectives are different, as she's by default acting like a good will ambassador all the time.
They mostly show her being completely oblivious about people and things. It's not a matter of perspective, but her being dumbed down. The difference is also meaningless in their books. They're both people's people. They both interact with people a lot. They're both compassionate and understanding. The problem lies when they're interacting together, because then everything goes out the window and Wonder Woman becomes stupider and colder. The whole "But, Kal, why are people like that?", "Kal, what did i do wrong?", "Kal, what should i do?" and so on.
Nothing changed from one point to the other, since Donna Troy had been there fighting for the world since the beginning.
She gave up being Wonder Woman because she had finally gotten what she truly wanted, which was Superman's cock. Her whole motivation in Kingdom Come was not to bring Superman back to the general world, but to HER world. The meta-human crisis was just the excuse she used to convince him.
I like the idea that Wonder Woman would be willing to kill under extreme circumstances, in a humane way. An execution, essentially. Batman and Superman have hangups about whether they have the right to do so as vigilantes (or, in Superman's case, as a godlike alien outsider and a moral exemplar for humanity). Where Wonder Woman comes from, she IS the highest authority in the land. She HAS that right. She also understands how important it is to not exercise this right willy-nilly, and she holds life precious. Even the lives of deeply flawed and malevolent individuals are important--obvious, or she wouldn't be doing superheroics--but the needs of society, and the danger some individuals pose to the world at large or to one's friends and loved ones, means that sometimes death is a regrettable necessity.
You can call it edgy or antiheroic, but it's the same view most people hold to some extent, and it's the basis on which a lot of people, institutions, and countries act. A lot of the time, we're even okay with or supportive of it.
Essentially, to tie it in to the broader point, WW seems to pretty consistently be pragmatic, wise, emotionally stable, and leaderly. There are a few exceptions, but that seems to far and away be the norm in comics I've read of her, and in interpretations I've seen in other media.
Wonder Woman being willing to kill is horrible and only serves to create drama inside the trinity. Marston's amazons are warriors, yes, but they're sexy warriors that use ropes as their primary weapons and believe you can rehabilitate anyone with loving authority. They aren't killers. They live immortal lives and hold life sacred. Taking a life should almost be sacrilege.
The whole bullshit about her being pragmatic and pro-execution stern from writers thinking of DC's amazons as nothing but the battle-hardened warriors from the myths.
>Essentially, to tie it in to the broader point, WW seems to pretty consistently be pragmatic, wise, emotionally stable, and leaderly. There are a few exceptions, but that seems to far and away be the norm in comics I've read of her, and in interpretations I've seen in other media.
She's usually intransigent, naive, emotionally volatile and insecure in most stories outside her book and even in adaptations. Geoff Johns's Justice League run and the DCAU cartoons are good examples of this.
I don't see WW being able to kill after no other alternative is wrong as a bad thing. Hell, even Superman is willing to kill things when he has no choice.
Order of willingness should go Diana > Clark > Bruce. Batman's on the bottom because he's got mental problems, and Diana is on the top because she's probably had to kill a bunch of things that didn't submit to the loving authority.
There's a difference between being pragmatic and "pro-execution". I don't think she usually is, or ought to be, depicted as "pro-execution" in the sense of supporting it as a general rule. I DO think that having her be more realistic about the necessities of statecraft, or running a party of warriors who fight gods and monsters, makes sense.
And I also know that's not how the Amazons were conceived in the Golden Age, but then, characters evolve. Batman used to shoot people, and random ship them bats that he'd gun down for shock value. Superman smacked around wife-beaters, knocked down slum housing before coercing people into rebuilding it better, and could shapeshift for a while. There are things about the original version of Wonder Woman that are brilliant and I love, but I don't think a code against killing under any circumstances strikes me as something really valuable to the core of the character. I can see why it might make sense for certain versions of Themiscyra/Paradise Island, and for WW, yeah... But for the most part it feels like it's just a thing because superheroes in the upper echelons are expected to have no-kill rules.
As for adding drama to The Trinity... Interpersonal conflict is sort of a good thing. Seeing how characters work together, and sometimes have trouble doing so, is why people LIKE team books.
I'd rather not. I prefer Wonder Woman as a pro-lifer dominatrix. She should be idealistic and think everyone can rehabilitate under the care of the proper master. She's an immortal. Life should be sacred.
Order of willingness should be Superman > Batman > Wonder Woman.
Batman in second because while he doesn't kill thanks to his own ethical beliefs and psychological hang-ups, he isn't above others doing it. Alfred carries a shotgun and he works with cops. He knows the drill.
>intransigent
Being extremely dedicated to a mission or ideal, and not giving up on one's beliefs, is sort of a core trait of most superheroes.
>naive
Makes sense for versions of the character who have just stepped off of Paradise Island. With the advent of more aggressive Amazons, though, we've been seeing that less and less.
>emotionally volatile and insecure
Outside of Superman/Wonder Woman stories, I can't recall seeing this crop up much. Examples?
But why should she be the pragmatic one who's willing to kill if needed when she didn't started like that, the others did? Be honest, is it just because of the whole warrior chick thing?
Really, it should be the other way round, if anything.
If it's about order of willingness to kill someone personally, themselves, surely Batman should be at the bottom due to those hangups?
Are you saying Wonder Woman should be constantly interfering with death sentences, disarming cops and soldiers, and stuff like that? I assume you're probably not, which means she ALSO knows the drill.
It's kinda stupid to come from a warrior culture that is entirely pro-life. But a lot of the basic concepts from Wonder Woman's early stories are kind of dumb.
>Being extremely dedicated to a mission or ideal, and not giving up on one's beliefs, is sort of a core trait of most superheroes.
The problem is that she ends up being shown as intransigent about almost anything. Be it a mission they shouldn't pursue as of that moment or winning-less fight they need to run from, be it a discussion on some moral quadrant or some stupid misunderstanding, and so on.
>Makes sense for versions of the character who have just stepped off of Paradise Island. With the advent of more aggressive Amazons, though, we've been seeing that less and less.
In comparison to the other leagues she's always shown as the naive and oblivious one that has to be taught better by her experienced and knowledgeable colleagues.
>Outside of Superman/Wonder Woman stories, I can't recall seeing this crop up much. Examples?
Other Superman/Wonder Woman type of stories, the DCAU cartoons, some Justice League comics like Joe Kelly's JLA and Geoff Johns' Justice League.
>Be honest, is it just because of the whole warrior chick thing?
She IS literally a warrior chick from a society of warrior chicks based off of quasi-historical warrior chicks. It doesn't hurt.
But no, it's actually because while Superman and Batman have had a strong aversion to killing consistently written into their characterizations for years, Wonder Woman's characterization is spotty enough to be the subject of this thread. If we're trying to find ways in which she's been characterized uniquely, and if we're all in agreement that "naive aggressor who wants to fuck Superman" isn't the best example, that IS one other way she's been set apart from her contemporaries.
Also: she fights a lot of monsters and such in comics, some of which have human intelligence, and she does so with a sword sometimes. Granted, that's also more recent, if this willingness to use lethal means when called for is showing up across multiple good AND bad stories, surely it counts as significant at this point?
>If it's about order of willingness to kill someone personally, themselves, surely Batman should be at the bottom due to those hangups?
>Are you saying Wonder Woman should be constantly interfering with death sentences, disarming cops and soldiers, and stuff like that?
No, but she should find it something appalling and one of the many flaws of Men's World. That men would treat life with such little contempt.
It makes perfect sense. Shut up.
>The problem is that she ends up being shown as intransigent about almost anything.
Consistently, or just in a few bad stories? Being dedicated to facing problems such as disagreements head-on doesn't seem like a bad trait for a hero over all, no matter how often you sue the word "intransigent" instead of "dauntless" or something more heroic.
>she's always shown as the naive and oblivious one
Again, I'm not sure this is as pervasive as you say it is. It's certainly not "always" the case. I'd be willing to bet a lot of the examples relate to her early career in various series.
In John's Justice League and the DCAU, I don't think I can think of any instance of her being particularly insecure or emotionally unstable. In the Johns comics I read, she seemed to be widely regarded as a calming and motherly presence in the League. In the DCAU, while she was definitely on the naive side (especially early on, being fresh off the island), she was usually pretty calm and forthright, and seemed pretty comfortable speaking her mind in a clear and not overly emotional manner.
I just don't like when they go that route with her.
Writers normally do it in an attempt to show that her, a woman, is more badass than Superman and Batman, two big boy-scouts out of touch with reality, and of course to have her as a cool warrior, but the end result is pure drama between the trinity and Wonder Woman coming off as cold, hasty, too set in her warrior ways, too intransigent to think of other ways.
Then why haven't they created weaponry that is completely non-harming if they have purple heal rays and invisible flying planes? Why don't all amazons just uses lassos and bo-sticks instead of spears and swords?
I have a question. A lot of people in this thread seem to disagree with Diana having various flaws like stubbornness or naivety. What flaws should she have?
>In John's Justice League, I don't think I can think of any instance of her being particularly insecure or emotionally unstable. In the Johns comics I read, she seemed to be widely regarded as a calming and motherly presence in the League.
Come on, man. She wasn't motherly at all in the Johns' JL. She was the hot head of the team.
>Why don't all amazons just uses lassos and bo-sticks instead of spears and swords?
That used to be the case. The whole spear, sword and battle-axe thing is pretty modern.
Actually, you're right. I had a brain fart and mixed up my runs. It's pretty late here. My bad, not sure what I was thinking.
Yeah, Johns' run sucked.
Best example of this was in S/B when they were with Supergirl or any of their interactions ith Post-Crisis Kara.
What run where you thinking about then? Morrison/Kelly/ETC's JLA? Because if so, yeah, she was very motherly there. Specially with Wally and Kyle.
You've got a pretty depressing view of what dads are like
Morrison's was the main one I somehow mixed it up with, yeah.
Dad's are supposed to be mean and beat us, right?
>Consistently, or just in a few bad stories? Being dedicated to facing problems such as disagreements head-on doesn't seem like a bad trait for a hero over all, no matter how often you sue the word "intransigent" instead of "dauntless" or something more heroic.
She's the one that won't change her mind about things in several comics. Specially in the Nu52 continuity. She'd just make up her mind and do whatever she wanted, consequences be damned.
>I'd be willing to bet a lot of the examples relate to her early career in various series.
Most Justice League type of comics. Writers think "She's a princess from an isolated island, she must not know about this stuff" and this no matter how many years after she'd spend in Men's World.
Has anyone ever tired to just...let her be herself in the presence of superman? Would it really be so terrible to have two similar characters sharing the same space?
I guess user means in terms of the behaviour stereotypically assigned by men and women. Still a pretty dismal view that leans way too hard on the negative stereotypes of men and ignores the positive ones. And vice versa, since sometimes-rude directness is more stereotypically masculine, while duplicity and manipulation are historically flaws ascribed to women.
If you don't play with the differences a bit it could be a bit boring.
>Nu52
Well that's just a shitshow for all three of them.
>I like the idea that Wonder Woman would be willing to kill under extreme circumstances, in a humane way
Same here and that's also how I see Cap as well (although he doesn't do it because he feels he has the authority but because he measures the consequences and also his soldier background).
Although both of them would leave the killing as a last measure when everything else has been exhausted.
It's like Diana once said
>We have a saying, my people.”Don’t kill if you can wound, don’t wound if you can subdue, don’t subdue if you can pacify, and don’t raise your hand at all until you’ve first extended it.
>she didn't started like that
Batman shot and killed people and Superman threw them out windows and watched them fall to their deaths, characters change from what they originally were.
Also Marston created a fetish superheroine, lets not kid ourselves, and the characters has moved beyond that.
Dude, not even Batman is allowed to really be himself when paired to Superman.
When they're paired together in comics writers usually lean more on the "Dark Knight" interpretation of Batman in order to create the necessary contrast with Superman. So he becomes more autistic and wild.
To be fair, Superman suffer this to an extent as well. Superman becomes dumber and more naive when paired with Batman and more judgmental and standoff-sh when paired with Wonder Woman.
Men aren't stereotypically manipulative. That's a woman thing
Geoff changed how he wrote her when he actually started reading WW stories and found that he liked the character.
>I'd rather not. I prefer Wonder Woman as a pro-lifer dominatrix. She should be idealistic and think everyone can rehabilitate under the care of the proper master.
That sounds so stupid.
>Also Marston created a fetish superheroine, lets not kid ourselves, and the characters has moved beyond that.
Definitely need to keep Amazonian BDSM philosophy around as a formative element, though.
He still wrote her badly. Instead of constantly being angry she was constantly smug and every narration started with her remembering some mythical shit to remind us she's a demigodess warrior.
Well that was pretty much the core idea in her creation. Without it she's just aimless, which she's been for years
not to mention she ends up being a failure if her villains never reform, and her only course of action to rehabilitate is to send them to jail.
A maternal streak rooted in weird notions and submission and dominance is a pretty enduring element of Wonder Woman too.