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.
I am sorry, I don't mean to be mean (badoom tish), but I don't get all these relaunches; First of all they are all based around the same ideas: "racial diversity, prominent female characters, and the normal passage of time", thats all well and good but they lack a rudemetary understanding of the various mythologies that you are relaunching. All of your relaunches basically amount to random nameswapping and nonsense role reversal and copy/paste structure just makes the them look cheap. I think you're a really insightful guy and I like alot of your other stuff, but I think these relaunches are subpar, anyway I just wanted to say my piece.
"One thing I hate, when it comes to debating extraterrestrials: Anthropomorphism. What if they don't live on planets (i.e. space dwelling organisms, sentient energy patterns), What if they are intelligent, but not sentient, what if they are of an incomprehensible size (sub atomic or extra planetary), what if they are memetic lifeforms, what if they experience time differently, we have to consider the possibility of different kinds of intelligence. Even if we assume that Drake's equation is correct (Which is a pretty big assumption), and that there are earth like planets in our galaxy, then how can we know that the would even consider us "alive", hell they might not even know that they are making first contact. Or to go back the the timeless and/or memetic lifeforms, they might not be able to comprehend our existence or maybe the comprehend us in such a degree that they don't really care. I believe if there is a near-civilization of little grey men trying to make contact/and or observing/experimenting on us, their attitude would ultimately be one benevolence or indifference. "
this "
I know, it complete garbage, I should have proof read it or posted it on another forum...
Log in to comment