Why Can't Wonder Woman Have a New Costume?

Because people are too clingy.

While I do agree that the vitriol toward Wonder Woman's costume was... Excessive, the sentiment that Batman and Superman's costumes are completely different seems inaccurate to me. Aside from losing the briefs, the costumes are more or less identical. Batman still has the cape and the cowl. Superman still has the cape and the shield. The main iconography of their costumes has never really changed. I do think that Wonder Woman's suit should have been armored up a bit more (maybe something along the lines of the armor we recently saw in issue 8, but with a more modern feel) to better fit her personality as a character, but the standard costume needs to remain, more or less, the same. In spite of the fact that her personality is very poorly defined (something evidenced by the very different incarnations we get between her solo book and the Justice League book), her costume is iconic, just like Batman and Superman's. Plus, comic fans are characteristically terrified of any real change, so there's no way they could think that they'd be able to make major visual changes to a character stick anyway.

It is because she has no iconic stories that people want to keep the costume the same, if you change it too much people will not "recognize" her. What she needs is a writer who is willing to give a long run, look at what Ron Marz did with Witchblade, he took a character based on nothing but sex appeal and turned her into a legitimate character with an complex and respectable background. The New 52 and Brian Azzarello have the perfect opertunity to give Wonder Woman the chance she needs to finally become her own character and eventually she will get a new, or at least different, costume

She can't have a new costume because its...whats the word...LEGENDARY!

It's not that she can't it's more ''she must not'' batman superman etc have seen them change but since her creation unlike others she've been lifted so many times, they've changed her origins her personnality and so many things, if they change the costume then it will the final touch. Anyway since the 600# she isn't WW anymore to me.

Very well written article. I don't understand the furor over what is, in many respects, a tacky, outdated costume. I have always liked the character but this most recent run makes her seem like something she never felt like before (at least to me): a real character with well-defined strengths, weaknesses, a personality and an origin story that connects her more closely to the myths she's always been connected to then her original one. I would say that there is so much outcry over any change to her appearance because fans of the character are used to her being overlooked and their defense of the character means any piece of canon needs to be legitimized and protected. Basically: It's hard for them to let go of her history, because she's a character that hasn't had as many big moments as the other members of the Big 3.

@NightFang said:

@krspaceT said:

Um....because woman are treated as unequal in society, and particularly in comics

That's not true, well at less in comics.

THATS not true. Actually MORE in comics.

I liker her latest battle armor-style costume, personally. The skirt could be fuller, but other than that it's pretty awesome.

As for this latest development with the Amazons, I like it personally. Do I like them any more than I did before? Not especially. But am I actually interested in learning more about them? You bet your ass. I'm sorry, but paragons of virtue rarely make for interesting reads, regardless of their gender.

Also, in regards to the old Amazons supposedly believing in gender equality, I'm sorry, but that's a bunch of baloney. You can't claim to believe in gender equality when you refuse to let a member of the gender opposite of yours lay one foot on your property. That's just ridiculous. That's like saying that those who believed in "separate but equal" back in the days before the Civil RIghts movement weren't racist.

@cagedleo730 said:

@DarthShap: Why Diana doesn't know about the evils of the Amazon is only a plothole if it's never resolved. Right now it's just a mystery.

It may be resolved in the future but I doubt it because it has not been addressed as a plot point like most mysteries are, in order to build suspense.

Also, the story is not going in that direction right now, moving forward instead.

Finally, I doubt it can be resolved. If the Amazons are proud of their values, and they are, so much so that they feel they should protect them from the world of Man by cutting themselves from it, there is absolutely no reason why they would not teach it to their children, especially if you expect them to rape, kill and abandon males along the way.

@cagedleo730 said:

As for Hades wanting marriage, it doesn't have to be about love. It could be power or domination. Marriages have been done for many reasons. The idea of multiple wives (harem or concubines) isn't foreign either.

First of all, it is foreign to Greek Mythology. Gods tend to have mistresses, not multiple wives. But even then, Hades is the exception to that rule. He only loves Persephone and is completely obsessed by her. He would never marry someone else.

The quote below is dead on. The suggestion that Superman and Batman have had some radical transformation is an absurd one. Funny how that suggestion totally missed and skipped over the jeans-wearing Superman! The current costumes/armor are pretty much the same iconography of those characters. So you add some lines... whoopity doo. Is it still a grey/black outfit with a bat-shaped cowl and cape and bat symbol on the chest? Yeah, that's not exactly entirely different then.

I agree the hate towards putting WW in anything different is over the top... all it needs is some creative context and people will understand. Haters, which typically are nothing more than loud idiots, will get used to it. And there is no reason why WW can't have multiple outfits ala Iron Man or Spider-Man.

kennyshat said:

While I do agree that the vitriol toward Wonder Woman's costume was... Excessive, the sentiment that Batman and Superman's costumes are completely different seems inaccurate to me. Aside from losing the briefs, the costumes are more or less identical. Batman still has the cape and the cowl. Superman still has the cape and the shield. The main iconography of their costumes has never really changed.

I would disagree with the entire premise of the article if you're saying that 'not one stitch has changed' between original WW and now, and saying that in contrast Superman and Batman's costumes are 'completely different'. This is totally not true. Now, if you're saying it's wrong for fans to obstruct a more major change to WW's costume by moving her from bare legs to leggings/trousers/pants, sure that would have been a significant structural change to her appearance and maybe fans should be more accepting of change. But really, saying that Batman and Superman have totally changed their looks and so should WW is just factually incorrect. They haven't. Call me when they lose their capes or move to wearing shorts instead of fully covered legs plus boots.

Also... let's go back in time when there was a Red/Blue Superman, or the Jean-Paul Azrael Batman. What were the reactions then? Are we trying to fool everyone into thinking people embraced those changes with open arms?

And another thought question... did it occur to anyone that the new and now forgotten WW design was just not good? You have to imagine there was probably lots of proto-designs and they went with the one that included some 80's/90s-esque leather, mid-riff jacket? Nevermind if the pants are long or if there is cleavage... it was a cheesy design all around. Why not give her a mohawk and some fingerless gloves while you're at it? I'm sure if the fans could have an inside look to every single artist's conception of a new WW costume, there is one out there that everyone could agree on and it won't necessarily look like something from Victoria's Secret.

@Cooke76 said:

Also, in regards to the old Amazons supposedly believing in gender equality, I'm sorry, but that's a bunch of baloney. You can't claim to believe in gender equality when you refuse to let a member of the gender opposite of yours lay one foot on your property. That's just ridiculous. That's like saying that those who believed in "separate but equal" back in the days before the Civil RIghts movement weren't racist.

It is nothing alike. The whole ban of men is a tradition mostly and when it is not respected, they do not flip out and kill the man in question. Other than that, Pre-reboot Paradise Island was just a place for similar people, like Israel, Native American reservations or the Amish. Are they racist? No, they just wanted a place to live among themselves for historic reasons.

I reckon because Wonder Woman's has never looked outdated, whereas Bat's and Superman's were. Playing Arkham City and seeing the old and new suits was very strange.

I don't see why people got to complain. I liked Diana's costume in "The Odyssey". :) It was one of my favorites from her many costumes. And the idea of her with pants in the New 52 wasn't too bad either, even if it got reneged.

Sexism? Double Standards? I personally loved the pants and the jacket, it made her so much more badass and legit.

And why're people arguing about gender equality? Comics are fictional stories, with fictional characters..

@DarthShap: Reservations are HORRIBLY racist, just ask any Native American. As for Paradise Island, while it's a pill that's a bit more easily to swallow because they are choosing to remove themselves from male society rather than forcibly segregating the people, the fact remains that they do refuse to allow men on their Island. Just because they don't necessarily react with violence doesn't mean the practice isn't sexist. The complete rejection of one group based on ideas like "men are the only ones who cause problems in this world" (which I've heard them say many times in what few stories I've read of them, which is bull when women like Margaret Thatcher, Karla Homolka and Ann Coulter exist) is still prejudism, no matter how great their "utopia" seems to be for the people living in it.

@luke_kerridge said:

And why're people arguing about gender equality? Comics are fictional stories, with fictional characters..

Definitely. And we also should fill them with the most racist, xenophobic, homophobic and antisemitic stereotypes because...you know...it's fiction so who gives a damn?

@DarthShap: You're right. They weren't racist. They were sexist.

As for historic reasons, careful. The exclusion of others because they weren't born a certain way is pretty historic, too.

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Reservations are HORRIBLY racist, just ask any Native American. As for Paradise Island, while it's a pill that's a bit more easily to swallow because they are choosing to remove themselves from male society rather than forcibly segregating the people, the fact remains that they do refuse to allow men on their Island. Just because they don't necessarily react with violence doesn't mean the practice isn't sexist. The complete rejection of one group based on ideas like "men are the only ones who cause problems in this world" (which I've heard them say many times in what few stories I've read of them, which is bull when women like Margaret Thatcher, Karla Homolka and Ann Coulter exist) is still prejudism, no matter how great their "utopia" seems to be for the people living in it.

I really am not comfortable about talking about this, especially in a foreign language.

The Amazons, like their historical counterparts, are people who survived genocide. Now, all they ask for is to be left alone and protect their culture from the outside world. Yes, the refusal to accept outsiders can be considered a prejudice of some kind but it is a precautionary principle that is not exactly gratuitous considering the past.

@Cooke76 said:

@DarthShap: You're right. They weren't racist. They were sexist.

As for historic reasons, careful. The exclusion of others because they weren't born a certain way is pretty historic, too.

That is not the point. You are not so much excluding someone as you are not allowing him to join something you created someplace else. Are you against the existence of Israel, Indian reservations and the Amish because they "exclude"? I hope not because it is a subject that is completely different from the civil right movement.

why cant they just let her wear pants? i liked her in pants

@luke_kerridge said:

And why're people arguing about gender equality? Comics are fictional stories, with fictional characters..

Because people think to hard about it... or take it to personally...

@Eyz: and people with no imagination or intelligence of their own will continue to repeat what others have said.

The reason WW can't get a new costume is cuz people lose their minds every time they try to change it, people lose their minds. When the look with the jacket came out, I thought it looked just fine, but everyone freaked out to the point that they ended up taking the jacket off right before Flashpoint. They tried to give her pants in the reboot, but once again, people freaked out and said they "changed it too much".

@Cooke76: I agree. Wonder Woman is supposed to be from a place based on an ancient warrior culture. I've said for YEARS, put some ARMOR on her. I REALLY dig the new look (that sadly probably won't last long). It's something very close to what I'd design personally, sot it'd be hard not to like. Either way. Batman's outfit has always been more or less functional, it's only gotten moreso in recent years. Superman could literally fly around in a speedo and it wouldn't make any difference to his origin (okay except for the S symbol), but to a warrior culture, a one piece bathing suit, is completely impractical and makes zero sense. THAT's the difference between the three. Actually, my main question about the 52 up dates is WHY does it look like there's some sort or armor in Superman's suit. Did I miss something? Is it anit-Kryptonite armor? They give the INDESTRUCTABLE (okay, mostly) guy, MORE armor, and give the realy tough, but NOT indestructable woman who's only armor is bracelets (sometimes gauntlets)? I know it's a comic book, but c'mon....

Still don't understand why they didn't keep the pant design.

Her costume is terrible. It makes no sense, if she can be cut/shot why doesn't she wear armor? Heck most female costumes are terrible.

I blame readers. They hate change and they want their women looking sexy. Its because of readers rage that writers are afraid to make any big changes to any character.

@SylentEcho said:

People just want to see her cleavage and her legs. End of. :p

Yep. True. =P

Batman and Superman's costumes were changed gradually here and there. Wonder Woman's would have to do the same so people can get used to it. I've never seen anything wrong with her costume and noticed it's mostly non-readers of her books that bitch "it makes no sense". Your face makes no sense =D

@Cooke76: I agree. Wonder Woman is supposed to be from a place based on an ancient warrior culture. I've said for YEARS, put some ARMOR on her. I REALLY dig the new look (that sadly probably won't last long). It's something very close to what I'd design personally, sot it'd be hard not to like. Either way. Batman's outfit has always been more or less functional, it's only gotten moreso in recent years. Superman could literally fly around in a speedo and it wouldn't make any difference to his origin (okay except for the S symbol), but to a warrior culture, a one piece bathing suit, is completely impractical and makes zero sense. THAT's the difference between the three. Actually, my main question about the 52 up dates is WHY does it look like there's some sort or armor in Superman's suit. Did I miss something? Is it anit-Kryptonite armor? They give the INDESTRUCTABLE (okay, mostly) guy, MORE armor, and give the realy tough, but NOT indestructable woman who's only armor is bracelets (sometimes gauntlets)? I know it's a comic book, but c'mon....

Never been big on the bathing suit costume myself. I'd rather her wear something that reflects her greek roots. I liked the armor she wore in Kingdom Come. I also like the armor she wore in the recent issue of WW. I get that her iconic costume will almost always remain though. One for brand recognition. Two to ensure she has "sex appeal". Also the in world logic for her costume works. Diana shouldn't have a sense of western body shame..that just doesn't track. And her high level of invulnerability means she has no fear of being harmed or needing to be armored. I think the big problem with most recent attempts to alter her costume is that the new designs have just been well....not very good. I mean that costume she wore in JMS clusterfrak of a run was just godbadawfully dated and 90's Honestly I'm glad she didn't get a new, overly detailed Jime Lee's 90s EXTREME!!! costume in the new 52.

To be honest, im a 19 year old male raised on anime and the dcau. My idea of a womans costume definitely involves skin. Im not proud of it (in public), but thats just the way its been all my comic & media life; I recognize wonder woman by her costume just like i recognize any male character. However, I think the sexualization in wonder woman's costume is more vague and less "shocking" today especially considering the direction the rest of the entertainment world has gone in. I think her costume is fine.

@DarthShap said:

@Grimoire said:

Then what would make Wonder Woman unique from the other amazons if not for her compassion and not judging and entire gender based on the bad experiences they once had with them thousands of years ago then and want to continue to do so? Where would the starting point be? She finally went along with her sisters on one of their rape trips (Read the actual myths and this is true point in the stories.) and decided she wasn't a love him and leave/kill him type so she boldly leaves her whole family for the sense of adventure in a world half covered with males?

In the new 52 also Ma and Pa Kent are dead and yet they have him being a hero when he grew up. This goes with the whole "nature" vs "nurture" argument and my opinion is that at the very core of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman they are heroes no matter where they grew up and anything besides an elseworlds storyline proves that. lol

That is not the point. Your reasoning starts with the Amazons being barbaric which just does not make any sense. And again, the "closer to the myth" argument is BS if Azzarello is not going to respect the most basic things like the existence of Persephone, Hades' wife.

Superman still being Superman makes sense because he still spent the first 20 years of his life with two of the most compassionate people of Earth. That they are dead does not change a thing.

Now if I was raised in Kony's legions, chances are I would not turn out so good and that is not even the best example because those kids have had prior education from their parents and still have some kind of access to the outside world. Wonder-Woman had none of those. If an entire culture is based upon the values that men do not deserve to live and are only good for two things, sperm and arms trade, there is no reason for it to be hidden, on the contrary you should teach it to the children as soon as possible. So that already does not make sense. On top of that, there is no reason for Diana to be compassionate towards them if she was raised by those people and again, had no exterior influence.

What the Amazons do on their male hunting trips and what they do to the male children in barbaric but when they are back on the island it is perfectly reasonable to say they don't share stories of what they do off the island as opposed to what they do on it. There are many countries and civilizations throughout history that painted themselves in the best light possible when taught to the children and even if its in the case that they are to become warriors they could still only pick the best looking/warriors to go as an elite group as done in the military. In RL there are still countries that have many citizen's that don't know what is common knowledge in others because their governments do not allow certain information and censor it on many levels.

Why also is the "closer to the myth" argument BS if Azzarello took only some pieces of the myth's and not others. Besides being all female the original storyline of WW was completely different than it was in the myths. In those stories they were not immortal, did not particularly act feminine and were much more barbaric than even the current storyline, cut a breast off to use the bow more effectively, no daughter to the Queen named Diana, etc..

WW was also not a half god before but she is now so when I saw Hades I just took it like the rest as a re-imagining. The Gods might also be all shape shifters like they use to be before. Its not a package deal and just because he used one part does not mean he has to use other parts and make it predictable.

@Agent_November said:

@DarthShap said:

Take a good look at Superman or Batman's original, 1930s costumes. They're completely different from either their current incarnation or even what most consider their "classic" looks. Now look at Wonder Woman's. In sixty years, not one stitch is different.

First of all, that is completely false. Exactly like other two, the only thing that really changed was the texture (details and colors).

Putting aside her BDSM-laden origin, (ah, phrases you only hear in comics) which was also titanically sexist, what defines Wonder Woman that doesn't define a myriad of other heroes? Determination? Easily the most generic personality trait to ascribe to a superhero. Caring? Is she? She's often portrayed much more as a militaristic-minded, hardened fighter.

The bondage stuff was sexist but the rest of original run was actually way more feminist than what we get now. The Amazons were a feminist utopia. Now, they are your usual barbaric misogynistic cliche and the compassionate nature of Wonder-Woman that made her the hero she is no longer makes any sense.

Firstly, Batman's original costume had a Da Vinci style glider strapped to his back, and his gloves were purple and not "barbed". Secondly I fail to see how a utopia, acheived though magic, plot convinience and the exclusion of males is "feminist". And thirdly the war-like and misogynist amazons are actually closer to the original myths, and could (in the hands of the right author) be used to reinforce Diana's compassionate nature, so instead of being the paragon of truth from a "perfect" society to a paragon from an imperfect one.

Your third point is absolutely brilliant. But batman and superman's most recognizable looks definitely outlasted their original appearences, respectively

Where can I see this new suit? Can't see it on her page -_-

I have no idea what this article is talking about. Wonder Women's costume has changed as much if not more so than Superman, Batman, Captain America, Wolverine, Spider-Man, Green Lantern, Black Panther etc etc etc.

There's a reason why people moan and complain when a costume gets changed, its usually because it's not very good. The "classic" costume is usually the best one and all it usually needs is a little tweak here and there which Wonder Women has received.

And face it, if not for the Linda Carter TV show, Wonder Women would be irrelevant. GL or Flash should really be among Superman & Batman as part of DC's trinity.

@Grimoire said:

What the Amazons do on their male hunting trips and what they do to the male children in barbaric but when they are back on the island it is perfectly reasonable to say they don't share stories of what they do off the island as opposed to what they do on it. There are many countries and civilizations throughout history that painted themselves in the best light possible when taught to the children and even if its in the case that they are to become warriors they could still only pick the best looking/warriors to go as an elite group as done in the military. In RL there are still countries that have many citizen's that don't know what is common knowledge in others because their governments do not allow certain information and censor it on many levels.

Teaching compassion towards men would make absolutely no sense because they do not believe it in the least. In this version, believing that men do not deserve to live is a value of theirs.

What is your version? That they teach compassion for the first twenty years of their lives and then "Surprise! Actually we are rapists, murderers and we either kill of sell our own children! Any question?"

And it is nothing like censorship because all of them has to know and reproduce at some point. If it were just a small minority, the examle you just took, I could understand but it is not, it is every Amazon.

In real life, you teach the most questionable values at the earliest age possible because that way, it does not become a problem later, especially when you HAVE to tell them the truth anyway.

@Grimoire said:

Why also is the "closer to the myth" argument BS if Azzarello took only some pieces of the myth's and not others. Besides being all female the original storyline of WW was completely different than it was in the myths. In those stories they were not immortal, did not particularly act feminine and were much more barbaric than even the current storyline, cut a breast off to use the bow more effectively, no daughter to the Queen named Diana, etc..

WW was also not a half god before but she is now so when I saw Hades I just took it like the rest as a re-imagining. The Gods might also be all shape shifters like they use to be before. Its not a package deal and just because he used one part does not mean he has to use other parts and make it predictable.

You misunderstood my point. What I was saying is that "it is closer to the myths" as an argument in favour of the change does not work when Azzarello is only doing what he wants and picking some elements and not others.

He is the one choosing to make the Amazons closer to what they were in the myths, that is villains created for misogynistic purposes.

Clearly he does not feel not tied up by the Myths and is ready to ignore important elements.

@cagedleo730: Oh...I thought they sorted that out wayyy back with the Post Crisis on Infinite Earths "reboot". He had some sort of force field around him that kept his suit from being destroyed when he flew, but often got his cape ripped up, or off. Okay, this makes a little more sense, thanks for the info

"

First, let's point out that the article above incorrectly asserts that the other 2 of the Big3 have received dramatic costume changes during the lifespan of those characters. It's totally not true. Batman's costume has always been the spandex bodysuit with cowl. The symbol has changed slightly and the colour palette has also but they were minor changes. The fans will NEVER accept dramatic changes to Batman's costume. EVER.

Superman has always had the red & blue tights with the cape as well. The only reason this recently changed is because DC lost the right to the image of Superman with red shorts, royalty free. And rather than pay the Siegel/Shuster estate royalties for the shorts they redesigned them out of the costume. And fans have also been vocal about disliking Superman's shortless look as well.

WonderWoman has also received very little redesign just like the other of the big 2. In fact, you could argue she's received the most redesign. She had a skirt, then shorts, then granny panties... and that's not even the recent attempts to update the costume within the last 15years. The symbol has changed as dramatically as Superman's but more than Batman's. Fast forward to current era and designers have attempted to redesign her look several times as well with the biker look and 2 Jim Lee attempts. That's the real problem here. No one tries to mess with the other big2's costumes, why do they try to do that with WonderWoman? Leave her costume alone!

Now, to address the real point of the article... the attempts to redesign her costume have failed for the same reasons that Superman's and Batman's costumes would fail if redesigns were attempted. Simply put, they were too dramatic. Every single artist who has tried to redesign her costume has attempted to redefine the character and make her theirs. The only successful redesign for ANY of these characters will have to be heavily inspired by their existing costumes and not be dramatic at all.

Putting WonderWoman in a jacket and pants is just as controversial as putting Batman in a miniskirt would be. You wouldn't do it because these are iconic characters that have established personalities in the public image. Any redesigns have to also make sense for the character. And really, all the supposition about the quality of the writing has nothing to do with it either. Sure WonderWoman has had little quality writing but Superman really doesn't have much better. Batman is a runaway fan hit so he's just got numbers on his side ... he's had plenty of garbage writing too. Writing has nothing to do with it.

I like the outfit recently seen in her comic, the more "armor-like" looking one, with the arm-guard, the picked up hair, the weapons, etc.

I for one, am not that interested in WW because she is hot. There is TONS of hot characters in comics running around in skimpy little outfits. I like, first, that she's suppossed to be this incredibly powerful woman, that even though, in-universe, she is the most beautiful woman in the world, she doesn't concern herself too much about it, and more than that I like her greco-roman mythology background. That aspect of ancient lore and magic, Gods and weapons.

If DC really wants to keep the traditional look, they should at least tweak it a little bit. More Warrior Woman and less chick with U.S flag on. Something perhaps like this?

Why can't Wonder Woman have a new costume? because it makes too much sense to give her one. plus what could be more protective or heroic looking than a metal boobblocker and a star covered pair of panties? that was cool back in the day (way back) but even the most iconic characters need an upgrade)

Because if it ain't broke... don't try to fix it...or people can't accept change..I can just look at my stats!

To be honest, I never really got what all the big fuss was about changing the superheroes' costumes a bit. It's not like their completely unrecognizable and people can't tell who they are by first glance.

The new Miss Marvel/Captain Marvel costume is interesting, but the sash around the hips isn't a positive addition. It's reminiscent of '90s hoodies/flannel jackets wrapped around the waist for fashion (or to hide hips).