Wonder women thread

Just watched injustice 2.
What's the reason for turning Diana into a bloodthirsty power hungry evil warrior woman ?
Diana from what I know, should actually be the most loving and caring amount the big there despite her Amazon warrior background

Injustice is an alternate universe in which absolutely nothing makes sense. It was fun the first two years, then it went to shit.

Oh, user, this rabbit hole goes deep.

One major reason is that a lot of writers and editors miss the point of the character entirely, generally assuming that warrior woman=manhating barbarian. See, the original Amazons of myth were created by the Greeks basically as anti-women propaganda. The Amazons of the DCU, however, were created by Marston explicitly as a subversion to the typical "grr me hate men, me kill" image. These Amazons are generally nice, if wary of the outside world due to having been shat on by it a lot. Diana is meant to be the embodiment of Amazon ideals, attempting to spread a message of peace love and understanding, a warrior yes, but one who would prefer negotiation over battle, the training and weapons being a last resort in case things go bad.

Unfortunately, a lot of people keep trying to force her into being a Xena knockoff because that's easier, and for whatever reason see the whole "warrior of peace" thing as a contradiction even though that easily describes what a superhero is in the first place. As you can imagine, this ungodly aggravating for her fans, and a bit of a headache for newcomers.

For me, a lot of it comes down to a handful of really major appearances that misdefined the character for a lot of people. Kingdom Come established the idea of Wonder Woman as a brash, brutal, militaristic warrior woman out of touch with humanity. Infinite Crisis established her as the Justice League member who will kill when the situation calls for it. And animated and videogame appearances ran with those kinds of traits because they're easier to grasp and cooler to portray than endless kindness, and at the same time allows for her to be an effective foil to Superman's pacifism. And those multi-media versions of her became increasingly popular, affecting public perception of the character.
In a nutshell, her problem is that her most popular/influential appearances are not really the best examples of her character.

Pretty much sums it up perfectly.

I've just now started reading the Rebirth Wonder Woman book, and for now it's pretty good However I remembered Philippus as a wise character, while here it almost feel like a strawman (strawwoman?) to highlight Diana's kindness with Philippus being the man-hating feminist. But maybe that'll change as I get nearer to the most recent chapters

However the thing I wanted to ask is how does Donna Troy fit with this?
Will they explain it later or as of the most recent chapter she has not been addressed?

>Why is this character from an alternate world and continuity different from the base character.
I don't know, man.

Philippus is a character who I think is distrustful of men and somewhat paranoid. She doesn't outwardly hate men but when faced with the prospect of them actually meeting her queen or princess she becomes agitated and fearful.

Of the pair that make up Hippolyta and Philippus, Philippus is the more pragmatic one, which is why Polly's more optimistic outlook complements her.

As for Donna, her origin is in the DCYou Wonder Woman series that followed Azzarello's. It's really awful so I don't recommend reading it.

But from what I remember, basically there was a faction of Amazons who were upset that Diana was allowing the lost sons (whenever the Amazons went out and "bred" with sailors, they'd keep the daughters and give the sons to Hephaestus). Diana was queen in Hippolyta's absence. This faction used some magic to create another golem who would be their champion, and that was Donna. Donna goes and slaughters all the sons, thereby absolving that entire plotpoint forever.

...

Rucka please leave

That for New 52, but aren't they re-retconning it to be the post-Crisis one, now, with Year One being basically as far as I've read a retelling with modern narrative techniques of the first Perez chapters, including the mention in passing that they are all reincarnation of women raped and killed by men in their previous life?

So how does all that "lost sons" thing fit, now that the Amazons didn't meet any person from outside Themyscira for millennia?
What I meant is that they will obviously have to retcon Donna's origin too, maybe bringing it back to what it was before or maybe trying to create a definite origin for her for at least the next 5 years

Do I have to take that as that until now they have not addressed Donna in the WW comic? Not that there is a problem with that, but since I'm mostly a Titans fan in the DC brand it was something I was really interested to know


Also I'm not so sure about Philippus. Maybe that was the purpose, but I really felt it as being mostly hatred toward men rather then desire to protect her sisters (not that it was a small part of it)
But it's not really that important a thing, maybe I'll read it again someday and I'll have a different opinion of it, after having read more of this version of her

>What's the reason for turning Diana into a bloodthirsty power hungry evil warrior woman ?

What's the reason of Injustice? It's just something made to cater to the edgy videogame fans who think Superman is lame.

This. Boon is an edgelord, he loves turning heroes into villains. To answer OP the reason is that they need WW and Supes to go evil otherwise one could take the other and we wouldn't get shitty Batwank. So Supes gets PTSD and WW becomes Sheev to drive Supes further into evil.

The Rebirth Titans Annual already tweaked Donna's origin a little, but it's not dramatically different from the Finch one.

I must have missed that
Thanks for the tip

There's a guy storytiming Titans right now so I imagine he'll post it

When you consider that WW is just a weird character in general who started out being a fetish caricature of the authors fantasies its not really surprising that really nobody understands her character because its always been a mess.

Thanks again

She really wasn't
Marston most likely seriously created a character with the purpose of giving young girls a strong role model that would make them better women when they would grow up
The problem is that he HAD some pretty strange ideas about what a female role model should be

>started out being a fetish caricature of the authors fantasies
This is a really overblown meme. There are elements of sexuality but it's more about feminism than sex. It's a reaction against the popularity of manly-man heroes who solve everything with violence and never show emotion.

>Marston most likely seriously created a character with the purpose of giving young girls a strong role model that would make them better women when they would grow up
No he was just a pervert. Regardless of the countless interpretations and re-writes to his character Supes is still very much the same character at his core from where he started, while Bats has seemingly transitioned from the goofy getup from where he started to everyone forever wanking off TDKR his lasting impact cannot be forgotten, WW started off as a completely different character from what people know her now and none of those traits were kept to the point where you can't really take anyone who's a serious WWfag with any merit

You're welcome to think that but I don't think your opinion is grounded by any actual facts and it seems like you're just repeating things you've heard other people say.

I storytimed the first three Wonder Woman comics in a similar thread to this yesterday to show that within her own comics she really hasn't changed much at all.

>I storytimed the first three Wonder Woman comics in a similar thread to this yesterday to show that within her own comics she really hasn't changed much at all.
The only thing you can say that remains in tact is her lasso but the tone of those stories and the way she's written are mostly different

No he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

The basics of her character are there: she's kind and non-aggressive, she's strong and typically serious. No different from the simpler versions of Batman and Superman from the same time. By the 70's her characterization had evolved in the same way Batman and Superman did.

It sounds like you haven't read any actual Wonder Woman comics and are just making these assumptions about her character.

>she's kind and non-aggressive, she's strong and typically serious.
Your entire stance is the equivalent to: she's a girl so she's the same and no you're wrong in that regard but nice try simplifying it.
>No different from the simpler versions of Batman and Superman from the same time.
No its not for one modern WW backstory has been retconned more times than Bats and Supes.

>No its not for one modern WW backstory has been retconned more times than Bats and Supes.

This is really not the case for Superman. His origin gets tweaked like once a decade and the changes are more significant than hers as well.

Supes
>Alien boy who came to earth raised to by farmers
>same

Bats
>Rich boy who becomes vigilante detective after the death of his parents
>same

Wonder Woman
>WAS ORIGINALLY MADE FROM FUCKING MUD
>Now is the daughter of Zeus or is it Ares?

Why do you think WW being conceived is a big change but ignore things like Superman being born on Krypton vs being born in a birthing matrix on Earth? And let's not forget the specifics when his powers come in and how strong they are at the time tend to differ as well.

>Wonder Woman
>>WAS ORIGINALLY MADE FROM FUCKING MUD
>>Now is the daughter of Zeus or is it Ares?
And now it's back to mud because they are bringing back post-Crisis and New 52 must disappear, so in the end

Wonder Woman
>WAS ORIGINALLY MADE FROM FUCKING MUD
>same

not that other user, by the way

>and the changes are more significant than hers as well
Not really, core is still the same only difference is that now the origin pretends it was always his fate

>Change of orgin is the same as changing the purpose of the character

The core of him being an alien who lands on Earth is the same as how WW is from an island of women remains the same. The specifics beyond that do change though.

I feel like you're not familiar with Superman origins here. It's not like Batman where Year One was the modern origin until Snyder. Superman has radical edits every couple of years.

I jumped in with the sub-discussion about backstories changing. I don't really care about the characterization debate.

What does his birth right have anything to do with anything? Hes the same character with the same upbringing just a different story.

>I jumped in with the sub-discussion about backstories changing
Another user already pointed out that all of them has had their origins changed repeatedly through the years.

Because the claim was that WW's backstory has been retconned more than Superman's and that's not true at all.

To add to this the basic Superman origin is the same, only the details change. Krypton is dying due to hubris, Supes parents send him away as the lone survivor, Martha and Jonathon raise him as their own and it's their ideals that make Clark who he is.

Whereas Diana flip flops all the time. Are the Amazons cunts or good people? Is she a warrior or a pacifist? Is she on good or bad terms with the gods? Is she Zeus' daughter or not?

That was upthread. I was responding to the recent one.