@agent41: Her power levels remained the same. Loebs wanted her fighting street crime, so made her weak.

I'm worried this is going to be another Superman 3. No matter how much effort the main actor puts into the part and how close they get in look and style the actual film is likely to let them down. Let's face it B vs. S was garbage before Cavill and Affleck recorded a line

"I never said he had no fans. His run overall is not acclaimed by critics and a majority of WW fans. As both sides don't consider it one of the highlight moments of the character. That's what i'm saying. His run is not one of the essential parts of the character."

What exactly is blocking your mind from understanding that a certain fan base has been driven away, and the people you're referring to as "majority" is what's left? Again, without that understanding, your point is out of context and so, misleading and a misrepresentation.

"Don't make a mistake. There are people hiding behind the term feminism today that aren't real feminists. Since they don't fight for equality between men and women like the real feminists do."

Well, sure, and, sometimes, I may be misdirected; but, essentially, I'm talking about people who make a big grip at what is now termed objectification or portraying Wonder Woman in a realistic situation where she does not always come out on top; those are just a couple of examples, but, you know, things along those lines.

"Marston was a feminist and created WW to be a feminist icon. That would inspire girls to be more than society expected from them. That would help to create a more diverse and equal ground for female characters in comics. That's also why he meant her to be just as powerful as the male power fantasy character known as Superman."

Again, as you were previously corrected, this is just your perception of why Wonder Woman was created. Wonder Woman was not created to cater to feminists. Feminists just latched on to her; and, this perception is what stifled creativity with the character, particularly in recent years (e.g. since Summer-2010); while no one speaking to this issue or topic was in the mind of Marston, the fact pattern is clear that Wonder Woman was created first; she was a very sexualized charater by the standards of the 1940s (e./g. this is very different from what's considered sexualized now); and, than, during her depowered period, a few decades later, feminists latched onto Wonder Woman; it's nothing wrong with them latching onto the character, but, than, it becomes a problem when a group gets a sense of entitlement about the creative growth of a character in an audience for male readers; that's the key, Wonder Woman was a female character created in a male audience; previously, only male characters were in the male audience. Now, being another male, I understand the psyche of other men at a level different from women; likewise, the same goes for women understanding the psyche of other women. Now, with that being said and being honest with myself, Marston's sole purpose for creating Wonder Woman was not to create a female Superman, especially making her progressively sexy for the 1940s; sure, part of it might have been to create a female equivalent of Superman, but it was not the primary reason; now, had Wonder Woman's creator been a female, than, this perception would fly; but, bluntly speaking, either you're trying to patronize me, you're legitimately confused about the concept just explained, or you're trying to portray your interpretation as a fact, when it's just the perception you want or need to be true.

And, additionally, while I'm very indifferent about someone making super, fictionalized characters, I also keep that separated from reality. So, if I'm getting this right, you literally think that Marston actually created Wonder Woman so that women could think that they are just as strong as men? Now, you need to get real with yourself. Men are naturally bigger, stronger, and more durable than women. There's just nothing to change that law of nature. Sure, this is not to say that every single man, by simple virtual of being a man, is stronger than every single woman, just that proportional, all things being equal men are stronger than women. And, likewise, women can't do everything that a man can do, because of this simple fact of nature. But, on the other hand, sure, in the other context (e.g. intelligence), women are just as smart as men and women can think just as good as men; all things being equal, women could actually be smarter than men (e.g. to think, in their infinite wisdom, what if women were just simply letting use men fly free, because they understand better the male psychology?). And, also, I'm feminist in this certain way; although women might be limited, physically, compared to men, as much as I love women, I don't want any restrictions placed on her freedom to decide her own fate; if a women what's to be, say a solder, have at it; if women wanted to play American football, have at, etc; just like with an adult male, if you think he's about to do something boneheaded or not irrational, you do your best at persuading him away; but, if, despite, he still makes the decision, and losses his life or is paralyzed for the rest of his life, you feel bad, but, you should rest and be at peace with yourself, if you did your best at persuading him away; but, the problem is, that the Western environment doesn't just let this concept apply to women; and, as such, it can extend into things like even economics and homeless prevention. For example, I'll pose this question to you, seeking an honest response: what would you think of a man that got taken for all that he's worth? Would you feel protective of him or would you be more likely to be questioning his judgment?

"loebs, like other writers including very recent ones, went against many of Marston's ideas. You say you love Marston. But you fail to understand that he'd be furious to see some of the things that loebs, and some writers before and after him did with his character."

And this comment stems from your misleading perception that Marston created Wonder Woman to cater to feminists and not to be sexualized, although, not exclusively.

You need to go see the context of the story and realize that Messner-Loebs wasn't going to be another writer showing Wonder Woman always winning; remember, just prior, Perez depicted Wonder Woman as always winning and incapable of losing and the readers got tired of that approach. I'm quite sure that Cheshire didn't just beat Wonder Woman like she would be another plan human being; and, this tells me that you were disappointed because she was placed in realistic story telling as opposed to being incapable of losing and overpowered; and, these are the features that works just the opposite of for me, they turn me away from a writer and a character. Case in point, I liked the Hulk; but, eventually, because he won so often, I started to root against the Hulk and longed for a time to see him lose; this doesn't mean that I started to dislike the Hulk, I was just turned away, gradually, because he could never lose or be overpowered in a genre where characters are often overpowered to create a new and interesting story line. Conversely, I liked the 90s X-Men (animate series) because they never really got a clear cut victory but were always interesting.

"He meant WW to be just as powerful as the biggest male powerhouse. So you can't come here with "men are supposed to be stronger", Marston would not support your vision. Marston never let anybody writes his character whie he was alive."

I sure can say that, and, again, you jumped off on a tangent trying to tie things to your perspective no matter how clear and objective things were explained to you. I very clearly separated reality from fiction (and, my vision isn't that she not fight along side the JL members; that's your perception, exclusively). Sure, he might have created a fictional character to be just as strong as any man, but, he couldn't have or shouldn't have done such, believing that a woman is as strong as any man. And, sure, he could have supported a writer like Messner-Loebs or opposed a writer, like say, Perez, because Wonder Woman could never lose in his run, because she was immune to any type of weakness, specifically the weaknesses that Marston himself implanted; I'm quite sure, and, I'd wager, that Marston would have been much more disappointed in the way Perez depicted his character, in portraying her without any weaknesses, where those were the weaknesses that he'd designed for the character, and unable to ever lose, than he would be with anything Messner-Loebs might have done; Perez effectively striped away all of Marston's unique ideas and mellowed Wonder Woman down to basically any old generic superpower character with a unique backstory, where the unique was removed from the character and placed in the backstory, a place where people don't really care about, because, well, it's a backstory

He showed her winning more than enough (e.g. 3 or 4 time minor loses out of about 64 issues, where something like all of the last 30 or 40 issues were easy wins); and that gets very tiresome for a reader like me. Sure, a street level could, if you read the context; and, in Marston's run, it was mostly street level characters that put Wonder Woman in venerable positions; they were not out-worldly and out of reality strong, which you imply can only fit the position. Again, you're still not listening, you're talking about the fan base that's left; from my perspective and others of my persuasion, sure, we can agree that Perez is a big part of the Wonder Woman character, but for reasons other than what I'd call essential; again, that's your perspective of what's essential for Wonder Woman; and, as I said before, Perez was a reservoir of creativity, but, his creativity was misdirected or not in a position to my taste for the character; actually, his creativity was a fit for the character, just not along the lines of what I would have liked; while, I can meet you halfway and say that whether I liked Perez run is a bit selfish, I wont take that further and say that what he did was essential for the character; that's way too strong and a lot more selfish than my position; the character just has too much history and time in existence to say that; however, Perez seems to be essential with the direction DC has taken over the last 30+ years, but, as can be seen, whether that that chosen direction has been healthy and proper for the character is another matter altogether and highly contested, especially if you have one or more groups of fans who were simply driven away from the character, because of your selfish push and vision for the character, as opposed to the fans' desire for the character (e.g. mostly, just imagining, like say, when Byrne ended his run, where would the fan base have wanted the character versus in 2012?).

dceu's history

"loebs didn't use the weaknesses that Marston created either."

He did slightly touch upon it, although, with two women trying to chain her bracelets together, it didn't work; and, he didn't explore it further; in the case of post-crisis, it's just an open question, because the issue of whether chaining her bracelets together by men still works is left an open question, because no writer touches upon it, for some odd reason. But, Loebs is somewhat excused, because Perez was the precedent setting writer, in being the first post-crisis writer.

"You just don't like it because his WW was not oversexualized like loebs."

Wonder Woman is supposed to be portrayed as sexy; that's the standard that Marston set for her; being over sexualized is relative between us, as I don't consider her oversexualized in Loebs' run in the least; and, trust me, I know over sexualized, in viewing adult comics; they usually exaggerate the breast or hips and behind till you can't help but be aware of those body parts; it's far worse than the boob window on Powergirl, and that would be the closet. Tarot Witch of Black Rose comes the closet and Wonder Woman wasn't anywhere near that in the Messner-Loebs run; even Charmed, the tv series, beat the stuff in the Messner-Loebs run. Thus, you're being overly prudish, and that's the current problem stifling writers ability to express creativity on Wonder Woman; again, if you're concerned with that, they have Batwoman and the new Ms Marvel for you.

"Marston meant her to be just as strong as the strongest male powerhouse. And since we are talking about power fantasy characters. Logic has no place here. It's fiction. Marston had a far more creative way to deal with humans taking on WW."

Wow, you still wont separate reality from fiction, even after I clarified this with you in the two prior post (and pointed out the clarification in explicit detail); when I compared the strength between women and men, it was in real life, not the comics and any reader of my posts can get what I was saying.

"t usually included the villains being smart. Like Cheetah attacking her in her sleep. Or using magic objects to boost herself to the leve of WW. Or using WW love ones to lead her into traps. loebs had no real imagination. He simply depowered her without explanation."

That's just not true of Mesner-Loebs run, at all; instead of going by word of mouth, apparently from people like you, a reader should explore the Messner-Loebs run and judge for themselves. There was a very good story plot behind why Chasire defeated Wonder Woman and it was making out a good, creative story plot, much more complicated than just giving Wonder Woman an easy victory; that's what Marston did too, he just went about it differently from Messner-Loebs.

great animated films not live action.

Exactly! I guess the pantheon's inclusion might offend Christians, Muslims, or other religious people which could negatively impact $$$/profit so they may have decided to get rid of them to avoid those issues.

"loebs didn't use Marston's weaknesses. He basically showed in the arc you mentioned. In that arc, the woman that hired charise, pison ivy and Cheetah. Made her men tie WW up. And what was shown later?. That being tied by men didn't make her lose her powers."

That's a patently false statement; Messner-Loebs didn't depict men tying Wonder Woman up, as properly defined by Marston, and it not working; Messner-Loebs, as I said, depicted women typing her up and it not working, because it wasn't supposed to work; and, when I was going through his and Perez's run (and subsequent runs to the present run), I was specifically and deliberately looking for something like that to pass into the post-crisis era (or to see if it would be removed altogether); Wonder Woman was tied in the Ares Buchanan arc, but she wasn't tied properly (e.g. specifically having her bracelets chained together by a man or men; but, Messner-Loebs did have the women do it properly, but, it was just a matter that they were women; this told me that Messner-Loebs was aware of it and probably wanted to bring it into the post-crisis era, but was stopped in his tracks; but, some force prevented DC from doing away with it altogether, or, they would have actually shown a man tying her bracelets together and it not working; and, I'm sure of the two writers, Perez was more likely to get rid of it but was stopped; and, I believe that force was and is the Marston estate to which I'm grateful; I hope they fight for as long as they can to have the Wonder Woman envisioned by Marston preserved and returned).

"I don't remember any creative way involved in charise defeating WW. loebs lacks imagination for female characters after all. I Re-read my Post Crisis collection again recently. And that includes loebs. So why you assumed i didn't know his run is beyond me. His only good points imo were the space adventure and Artemis."

Now, you're just deliberately telling a false statement that anyone can just go and debunk; Messner-Loebs clearly didn't depict Charise as beating Wonder Woman outright with no strings attached. And, the plot was the creativity of Messner-Loebs, whether you refuse to admit it or not; you might want it to take another flavor of creativity, but, the fact remains, creativity was still involved, just not one you want to agree with. And, actually, I thought the Space Pirate adventure would probably have been the one you liked the least, as it's the one at the top for me, at least the first 3 issues.

"WW is sexy and writers do show that. So what are you even trying to say?. You say Perez is bad. Only reason i can think of, is that he didn't go over the top with the focus on her body and physical appearance. Like loebs did. He made certain parts of her costume so small. At times it looked we were about to see her you know what. If this is not your reason to dislike Perez then what is it?. "

Right, Perez didn't try to make her sexy; Marston intended for Wonder Woman to be sexy; so, it went against one of the defining characteristics of the character that he was tasked to write; and, you don't subject your objects to remove a defining characteristic of the character; you either accept, and go along with your best towards that end, or just move away and never involve yourself with the character in an official capacity. Messner-Loebs properly meant the sexy defining characteristic of the character and that's the proper way to go about it; if you don't like Wonder Woman being sexy to overly sexy in some peoples' eyes, than she's probably not the character for you; but, to interject yourself to remove a defining characteristic of the character is over the top and actually beyond repel; the Marston estate should be fuming and probably have been since the late-40s, with a brief reprieve with the Messner-Loebs run.

"The woman from the mob made her men tie WW up. Sayng that if men tie up an amazon she loses her powers. Then Diana broke free saying. Don't believe everything you read. So yes loebs actually showed in his run that it was no longer a weakness for WW."

Again, completely false; only women tried to tie Wonder Woman and I remember the phrase you reference is what she said to those women who had tied her up; if you're right, just refer us to the issue (and, better still, post the scans from that issue); I know for a fact that what you say never happened and I remember vividly the issue you're referencing, except the involved characters were women.

Gallery

@agent41: There's no creativity or context. They took on her in a fist fight.

WW was beaten up by Cheshire and Poison Ivy, threatened by a nobody with a gun and was implied ineffective against a random daxamite. Loebs had some good stories (Artemis and the space one) but his portrayal of Diana was pathetic. I still cringe at the thought of WW as a waitress. There's nothing wrong with being a waitress, but surely a princess with godly powers could have done more? Perez was the best thing to happen to WW. Simone's characterization was better, but Perez's stories are more iconic. He redefined WW for the modern age.

There was no context in the story. They took her on and hurt her with their punches and kicks. As simple as that.

Lol what? WW was badly stomped by Ares in 'Gods and Mortals' and stopped him by lassoing sense into him (and almost died from injuries), she lost to Cheetah in their first meet, beat her after a tough fight in Bana-Mighdall, and was killed by Circe in 'War of the Gods'. Perez never showed her as always winning. As agent41 said, Perez revitalised the character after the godawful bronze age, so please don't criticize him. The fanbase WW enjoys today is a lot due to Perez

Loebs' WW was the least realistic run. WW working at a restaurant, getting beaten up by street levelers, when she took on far more powerful foes earlier etc. Loebs wanted her to be street level so watered her to a level that Batman could have beaten.

I agree with you 100% on Hulk and the X-Men (I like the comics too,though, not just the cartoon).

@dshipp17:

Gallery

She was bound by men.

P.S. - I hate the BDSM aspects of the character and love Loebs for the above showing.

@agent41: No problem. The order's same for me too. Just curious, what are your thoughts on Grant Morrison?

I been reading Wonder Woman all my life she been my number one favorite Super hero since I was a kid, there never been a comic of hers or with being part of that I didn't enjoy, and to finally being able to see her on big screen is so exciting for me it breath taking.

@wallywest042 said:

@dshipp17:

Gallery

She was bound by men.

P.S. - I hate the BDSM aspects of the character and love Loebs for the above showing.

Ok, good catch, but, I have to think the catch was that something wasn't done properly; that looks like toward the end of Messner-Loebs run, while I remember it being done at the beginning by women; and, as I said, include the issue number for inspection, as that could be fan art or photoshop; as a matter of fact, I shouldn't even be writing this until I'd verified it; I'm going to specifically look and pick the issue that I was thinking about; and the BDSM aspect of the character is one of the best, defining characteristics of Wonder Woman; perhaps you should consider that you don't like Wonder Woman, than, as envisioned by Marston; but, if Messner-Loebs did that, and the bracelets were actually chained together properly, than Messner-Loebs was wrong and I was mistaken about Perez, than, of the two writers. And, for your information, you shouldn't like the power upgrade she got during Azz's run, when the bracelets were removed; because of that, the feature is likely still there and something wasn't done properly.

@klaus: actually a lot of the articles say Ares killed Zeus along with the other gods

@klaus: she isn't the most brutal of JL. Batman is

@dshipp17 said:

@wallywest042 said:

@dshipp17:

Gallery

She was bound by men.

P.S. - I hate the BDSM aspects of the character and love Loebs for the above showing.

Ok, good catch, but, I have to think the catch was that something wasn't done properly; that looks like toward the end of Messner-Loebs run, while I remember it being done at the beginning by women; and, as I said, include the issue number for inspection, as that could be fan art or photoshop; as a matter of fact, I shouldn't even be writing this until I'd verified it; I'm going to specifically look and pick the issue that I was thinking about; and the BDSM aspect of the character is one of the best, defining characteristics of Wonder Woman; perhaps you should consider that you don't like Wonder Woman, than, as envisioned by Marston; but, if Messner-Loebs did that, and the bracelets were actually chained together properly, than Messner-Loebs was wrong and I was mistaken about Perez, than, of the two writers. And, for your information, you shouldn't like the power upgrade she got during Azz's run, when the bracelets were removed; because of that, the feature is likely still there and something wasn't done properly.

Wonder woman vol. 2 issue 95.

Defining? Perhaps. Best? Hell no! Marston's idea of feminism was different from today's. It was decades ago. Frankly I don't care. I read WW for the stories, not feminism.

I didn't get your last sentence.

Heard today that Anne Wolfe will be the DCEU Artemis ... personally I LOVE this choice. Thoughts?

@captainmarvel4ever: I freaking love Gal Gadot

She is a great actress and very sexy

Being from Israel is always a bonus:)

We have the most gorgeous women in the world in this small country