Okay let's get over the whole Gal Gadot and how she looks thing. She probably will bulk up a bit, enough to satisfy people? Who knows. Let's face it, the two major things working against her is her inexperience and Zack Snyder.

As compared to other unknowns that have put on tights, she really doesn't have the acting background to back her up. Chris Hemsworth had been on several seasons of an Australian TV series, comes from an acting family (both of his brothers are actors) and Whedon vouched for him. Christian Bale had been in several movies and even before the Machinist and the Terminator Salvation blow up, he already had the reputation of being incredibly intense when it came to his craft. Henry Cavill also had several movies and seasons of The Tudors to back him up. You can about throw up any name that has been a superhero in the past couple of years, and find more experience than Gadot. Her most significant roles are in three Fast & Furious movies and seven episodes of an Israeli TV show. Otherwise, mostly bit roles in other things such Knight and Day, Date Night and Entourage.

Then there's Snyder. I defended him at one point because I really liked his Dawn of the Dead remake and 300. Watchmen was okay, but I felt that was more due to the fact that he was too faithful to the source material and things that work in a graphic novel format, don't transition so well to film. However, when I let my guard down, I got Sucker Punch'd. Great directors have done bad movies before, most of the time due to studio interference or they just want to make a quick buck. Sucker Punch, however, was Zack Snyder's passion project with little to no studio oversight. Sucker Punch is Zack Snyder unchained (see what I did there). The movie was also where his reputation about filming women was cemented.

These two points lead to my conspiracy theory. Remember Faora from Man of Steel. Everyone loved her, thought she was fantastic, absolutely amazing. Just a few things though, the actress had very few lines and the role primarily consisted of action scenes. Oh, and she had a mean scowl. That's not exactly a stretch of acting prowess. A role that can be perfectly filled by a novice like Gal Gadot. If people remember, the other two finalists for the role were also actresses in which English was not their first language. People can argue about accent, but a language coach can get that job done easy. An inexperienced actress whose first language isn't English, it definitely sounds like the WW she'll be is one with few lines and big action scenes, a perfect fit for a director like Zack Snyder. Then what about that three movie deal with a WW movie reportedly being one of them. Well, maybe WB had another actress in mind, but due to schedule and/or contracts was not yet available for BvS or JL. I think Gadot is most definitely locked in for BvS and JL. Assuming that there is already an outline for Justice League, WB probably knew Snyder's vision and realized that can get away with an inexperienced unknown that they can pay on the cheap, raising WW's profile. If they luck out and Gal Gadot ends up being amazing and surprising people with her acting talents, then they get a WW solo movie with her on the cheap. If on the other hand, she underperforms, then they can easily recast her for the solo. The odd thing that has been brought up about the three picture deal if one of them is indeed the solo, is that they would need to renegotiate her contract right after. Why wasn't it for more movies just in case? In the event they don't want her back, maybe it would have cost them more to drop her if she was signed on for more movies. Who knows? It is strange though. All this makes me believe that Gadot is effectively a stand-in for another actress that WB has in mind, but the studio is hoping she can be a breakout star and be good enough to headline her own movie.

Conspiracy theory...

No.

Hemsworth is an awful actor. Nothing more to contribute :)

Doubt it. Gal Gadot auditioned for the role and got it. This means that they liked her performance and saw fit that she should play the role of WW. Simple as that. The people who are complaining without giving her a chance are just pissed off fanboys/girls.

1. Gal Gadot is fine size wise. Wonder Woman isn't a f**king body builder.

2. Your comparisons of Gal Gadot to Hemsworth, Cavill and Bale are all invalid. Hemsworth has been an actor his entire life and was waiting to break out. Cavill was considered to be Superman in 2006 and has been on shows before. And Christian Bale had an ACADEMY AWARD before Batman Begins was even a thought at Warner Brothers. Gadot's acting experience is a legitimate concern for people because she hasn't been acting very long.

3. I liked all his movies. Sucker Punch had a bad story but was awesome visually. Besides, every almost ever director has a bad day, Whedon included (regardless what the Whedonites will tell you)

4. No she isn't a stand in.

5. There is no conspiracy and I can't wait to hear about this for 2+ more years

Honestly I don't think Gal Gadot has to bulk up too much. Wonder Woman isn't known for being ripped. She is a pretty tall woman though, and they probably won't find a good six foot actor to play Wonder Woman.

Who gives a damn about breast size, she is still sexy as f#ck.

actress* maybe she'll get her boobs done before they start filming

@modernww2fare: I don't know were I heard this from but shes getting implants

she'd better, WW's not just any woman after all. lol

@archizoom: Jennifer Garner had her chance to play a super hero. She failed tremendously.

@jonez120: No, the screenwriting failed miserably, the CGI were mediocre all because producers are reluctant to put tidy sums on money into a female led super hero movie. You can't blame Jennifer for any of it. She was awesome in Alias.

This.

@archizoom: No, it was partially her fault. It can't all be the screen writing. Actors have to deliver as well. She did not deliver.

@jonez120: deliver what, the screen writers created a piece of garbage, there was nothing in it to be delivered.

This

You don't read very well do you?

@fallschirmjager said:

@awesam: Yes, so far as that performance fits in with Zack Snyder's vision of WW. The question is how much faith do you have in Snyder? I think she'll be fine in so much as she will say very little and punch someone through a building (my bet's on Hal Jordan). That's what Faora did, and everyone loved her, right? In Zack Snyder, do you believe?

Hemsworth is a decent actor with the right material --- see Rush. His superhero character doesn't require much more than verbatim dialogue delivery.

Just do what they did with the hobbit

use her 'audition winning' face

and use CGI for someone else's 'comic type' body a la 'Hobbit/Captain America'

Well except she was chosen for the role and has been stated as such. But if that doesn't disprove you I guess nothing will.

@saren: is he nice in Rush. Might have to check it out. Thanks :)

To be honest, if WW ends up getting screwed up, I am pretty sure it would be because of how Goyer wrote the character rather than Gal Gadot. David Goyer hasn't had a history of writing good female characters.

It is true that Chris Hemsworth and Henry Cavill had experience before landing their superhero roles but after watching those two, they're not great actors, but can be decent if they are playing a well written character. I'll probably put Gadot in that same class.

Reading through this post and the previous ones about Ben Affleck makes me wonder if its possible for any actor to satisfy the Comic vine massive!

That's what it's like with almost every comic-book character casting, fans went crazy when Hugh Jackman was announced as Wolverine, Christian Bale as Batman (before him Michael Keaton), infamously Heath Ledger as Joker, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Chris Hemsworth as Thor etc.

Many comic-book readers put too much stock into who is casted for a character rather than how that character will be written.

Lynda Carter was an inexperienced unknown when she landed the role. A part from being a beauty pageant contestant her main experience was with singing and stage performing. Incidentally Lynda is still into singing and has had well received jazz vocal albums released.

The difference is Lynda Carter was the physical embodiment of Wonder Woman, Gail Gadot is not. Lynda Carter herself credits her success with Wonder Woman in large part because she looked so much like the character. She also took the role seriously and played it that way, regardless of what improbable circumstances occurred on the tv show. I'm not sure Gal Gadot will, judging from her interview made shortly after the announcement that she had won the role and the ensuing backlash that followed it.

I read this on tumblr and found it interesting, take note of the fact it never mentions Gal Gadot's size or her looks in relation to Wonder Woman...

"When I first started writing for AfterEllen a hundred million years ago, I immediately added my voice to the disgruntled group of lady-nerd writers who couldn’t believe that — in a culture saturated with big-budget superhero flicks — we still didn’t have a Wonder Woman movie. At one point, even legendary feminist comic book superstar Gail Simone, who was writing Wonder Woman at the time, commented on one of my articles to express her frustration about the lack of a film, specifically that Warner Brothers had passed on Joss Whedon‘s now legendary pitch. (‘Cause, yeah, what could Joss Whedon do with a blockbuster comic book franchise?) Well, yesterday, Variety broke the news that Gal Gadot, who has been cast as Wonder Woman in Zack Snyder‘s upcoming Batman/Superman film, signed a three-picture deal with Warner Brothers, which almost certainly means we’re finally getting getting a Wonder Woman standalone movie

So why am I not more excited?

Well, for starters, Warner Bros. announced last week that they’re pushing Snyder’s Superman: Man of Steel sequel back almost a full calendar year to allow “the filmmakers time to realize fully their vision, given the complex visual nature of the story,” which seems like an innocuous statement, but in studio language, it’s a pretty scathing indictment of Snyder’s vision for the film. In fact, fanboys and fangirls started shoveling a grave for the movie as soon as they heard the announcement.

Even if Snyder’s movie does get made, I don’t have very much confidence that he’ll do Wonder Woman justice in it. Telling a Superman story requires infinitely less finesse and narrative know-how than telling a Wonder Woman story — in large part because Superman’s origins and heroic escapades are a part of our collective pop culture conscience already; we’ve known him our whole lives — and Snyder bungled that task as badly as any filmmaker ever has done. Plus, Snyder is notorious for mishandling female action heroes. Feminist Frequency called his turn on Sucker Punch “a steaming pile of sexist crap.” (I agree.) And Slash Film took him to task for not understanding the difference between female empowerment and exploitation. (I agree some more.) All the same arguments can be made for his Watchmen adaptation.

According to Variety, Gadot’s Wonder Woman contract with Warner Bros. means she “will play the role in not only the upcoming Batman-Superman pic, but in a Justice League movie and a Wonder Woman standalone film.”

But here’s where that announcement get dicey: “Limiting the deal to three pictures makes sense for Warners, since the studio still doesn’t know how auds will react to Wonder Woman in the untitled Batman-Superman movie. Since its taken so long to find the right parts to make a Wonder Woman movie work, WB and DC don’t want to rush into a large commitment if fans are still not drawn to a standalone movie featuring the character.”

To sum that up: If fans aren’t drawn to a character who, by all accounts, will play a bit-part in a movie written and directed by a guy who botched up a film about the easiest superhero in the world to write about, and is infamously terrible at writing complicated female characters, and has forced Warner Bros. to push back his Man of Steel sequel a full year, then they won’t make a Wonder Woman movie at all.

And you can bet your golden lasso if Snyder makes a Wonder Woman movie that flops we won’t see another female-fronted comic book movie for a decade. See: Catwoman (2004) and Elektra (2005). Because when a male superhero movie tanks, it happens for a variety of reasons (screenplay, marketing, visuals, directing, acting, costuming, casting, and on and on) but if a female superhero movie tanks it’s because people don’t want to watch movies about women. Yes, in a world where The Hunger Games was the top-grossing film of 2013, edging out even Iron Man 3, that’s still the prevailing attitude in Hollywood.

The odds: not so much in our favor."

AfterEllen tumblr

I'm not understanding this post; this is the opinion and perception of a certain group of Superman fans and fans of how a female character should be portrayed; I believe that the Superman movie surpassed $500 million at the box office; obviously, other groups like his portrayal of female characters, as evidenced by the box office results of the films that this person mentions; this is pretty much the same thing that I've been saying about my taste in runs like Messner-Loebs and Marston versus Perez, Rucka, and Simone; although it's some peoples' opinion, I would not go as far as saying that Perez and Rucka made the best portrayal of Wonder Woman of all time, while Messner-Loebs produced a substandard run that's barely worth mentioning; the classic different strokes for different folks motif applies in these circumstances; and the writer referenced no remarks made by Gal Gadot, nor anything that one could use to question her commitment to the role as compared to Lynda Carter; the only thing Gadot needs to do is bulk up and she's said she's committed to doing that, so, by the time of the movie, she'll at least have the body structure; again, Carter could look the part for Marston's Wonder Woman, while the physical characteristics of the post-crisis Wonder Woman has had fluctuating physical characteristics, so it's a little harder to say what her physical characteristics should be, outside of body frame; but, perhaps they could have gone with an actress who would have looked a whole lot like Marston's Wonder Woman (e.g. Jaimie Alexander), but for her commitment to Marvel, I'm guessing.

Instead of getting paralyzed over what a certain audience would think about Wonder Woman's portrayal (e.g. the feminists and the elusive strong female type), DC/Warner Brothers should just go ahead and produce Wonder Woman big screen and tv material for the group of people that are proven to be loyal to stuff like Messner-Loebs' run and sexy portrayal of female comic book characters; the group that DC/Warner Brothers are trying to please have proven to be finicky, hard to please, and prone to complaining, yet DC keeps trying to please that audience; this suggestion would do especially well for Wonder Woman's comic book; maybe DC is focused on the results of the Power Girl comics, but that is not an indication that the approach should have been abandoned, just evidence that the approach needs the same fixing and adjustments required to make a more standard approach work after declining sales; escaping your paralysis is a message for those new to starting a business not a big business like DC/Warner Brothers. If done this way, a whole lot of successful Wonder Woman big screen and tv material could have been produced by now; hence, DC/Warner Brothers already knows that Dr. Psycho is key to Wonder Woman's success, so why not just go ahead and pull the trigger? Erica Cerra is good for a tv series or even Flo, the Progressive Girl, if Cerra is not an option for some reason.

Hmmm... there seems to be so few intelligent responses... so allow me to argue with myself for Gal Gadot.

*****

Gal Pal: Interesting theory, possible but highly unlikely. Yes, Gal Gadot is inexperienced but that doesn't necessarily mean she's a bad actress. Her film background also doesn't say much as the roles were small. She never had the chance to show her range and ability.

Conspirator: Or her lack of ability led to her in smaller roles.

Gal Pal: Possible, but we don't know that. Hollywood is a tricky beast, she could have been passed over on bigger roles because she's not a name. At the end of the day it's about making money, and everyday there are good actors and actresses that get passed over because of it. It's been lampooned dozen of times in TV shows. This time someone believed in her.

Conspirator: Yeah, Snyder, the same guy that created Sucker Punch. Are you seriously telling me you trust this guy's judgment on what a good actress is?

Gal Pal: No, and I'm pretty sure that WB doesn't fully trust him either.

Conspirator: Wait, what?

Gal Pal: Just think about this for a second. Man of Steel is a box office hit, but it has mixed reviews and a mixed fan reaction. Some people loved it, some people hated it. Who cares, that's the Transformers franchise and it's still raking in the dough. Now fast forward a couple months from its release and look at Thor's box office returns. They're not far behind Man of Steel's.

Conspirator: And your point being...?

Gal Pal: I bet there's a WB executive swearing that a some guy with a hammer and stupid winged helmet managed to come close to Superman. He's freaking Superman, an American icon that everyone knows. Even in a post-Avengers world, there should have been a bigger gap between the two. Not my personal thoughts, but what a WB exec must be thinking. Let's not also forget that Thor had a smaller budget of $170 million versus Man of Steel's $225 million. All of that is not factoring in marketing budgets, which if rumors are true, MOS had the larger marketing.

Conspirator: So you're saying that WB doesn't have full confidence in Snyder either. Doesn't that fuel my argu-

Gal Pal: Objection. You're stating that WB and Snyder had two different choices for WW. That could still be the case, but there's no way they would have signed off on Gal Gadot unless they also saw something with her. I do not think they trust Snyder's judgment as much as people believe they do. I actually wouldn't be surprised if Ben Affleck is given a producer credit and some oversight over the production.

Conspirator: But they still signed her for only a three picture deal. They can't have that much confidence in her. That fact undermines it all. If they did have confidence, wouldn't a 5 picture deal make more sense. That's about the average for Marvel contracts with headliners.

Gal Pal: I think you're mistaking where WB's lack of confidence is. It's not in the actors, but in the DC properties. Henry Cavill's contract is also for only three pictures, which means after BvS, he's down to only one more movie on his contract. WB has been severely burned by their DC properties in the past. For the success of Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, the first Richard Donner's Superman and Tim Burton's Batman, there is also Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, Catwoman, Superman Returns and more. Those movies were critically panned and financial flops. It's all about $, so yeah, they are a little skittish with DC properties.

Conspirator: Hmm... nothing you say refutes the fact that there could be another actress on deck to recast her with if audiences don't take to her.

Gal Pal: Why wouldn't they? There's been a number of cases in which there are other picks in the wings waiting to replace. Sometimes it's do to the actor or actress dropping out for one reason or they just don't work. If I'm not mistaken, didn't Back to Future famously recast their lead because it just wasn't working. It's about making money and they most definitely have a back up in mind in case the audience isn't receptive to her.

Conspirator: So you're agreeing with me?

Gal Pal: Not for your reasons. You're under the impression that the WB has little to no confidence in her and are hoping she takes off but are more than willing to replace her. I'm saying that the WB does believe in her, but as an insurance policy, does have a shortlist in the event it doesn't work out.

Conspirator: Semantics.

Gal Pal: Take what you will.

Conspirator: But Snyder still sucks.

Gal Pal: On that we agree. I think the actors that have done well in his movies do so in spite of Snyder rather than because of him.

Conspirator: Like Gerard Butler in 300 or Jackie Earle Haley in Watchmen.

Gal Pal: Let's not forget Sarah Polley in Dawn of the Dead, the one female actress to come out unscathed. For all of you out there, it's okay for you to like Sucker Punch, one of the worst movies of all time. It's all subjective. I'm just going to silently judge you...

**********

Yes, I'm not quite sane. Oh what fun!

In a nutshell, WB and DC should go ahead and objectify women and screw up their customers' favorite female superheroes without worrying about us, the squeamish difficult to please people who don't agree with this. You made the complaints seem legit.

That depends on your point of view, I guess; what are you defining as objectifying? To come back at you, they screwed up the customer based that liked Messner-Loebs' run and Marston's run, even though that block of customers proved to be far more loyal, in terms of consistency of sales, and did little to no complaining; the customer based that DC is currently trying to appease has not proven as loyal and more prone to complaining with every little maneuver a writer tries to perform; wouldn't you try to ring back in the former customer base, from a both a business and entertainment perspective? From my view Messner-Loebs did nothing even approaching objectification and the term is so subjective. What your block needs to learn is charactor loyalty, the ability to stick with your professed favorite character, the ability to ride through the waves, and to appreciate that Wonder Woman is just a sexy character who traditionally was not afraid to show her sex appeal.

You don't understand my post? That's fine, because I found yours to be rambling and all over the place. What do your disparaging comments about Messner-Loebs' run, or your apparent love of Flo the Progressive Girl have to do with anything?

Well, all of my posts to reference the Messner-Loebs run have been supportive of it, not disparaging; so, I guess that's why you see ramblings where no such thing is there; my post is very clear about suggesting that Flo, the Progressive Girl, could make a good fit for a Wonder Woman tv series, as Wonder Woman; two and two together could allow one to see that, since Gal is being referenced for her potential role as Wonder Woman; since you couldn't see or understand that, I'd suggest that you read the whole post; if you actually read the whole post, than I'm not sure if I can really explain it in such a way that a mind like yours could understand; the material that you extracted your source material from is what's opinionated ramblings, from someone who read most of that whole post; I was referencing your source material, not your post, silly, cool boy; that's what you want to be thought of as, right? All your posts indicated that's probably what you want people to perceive you as, a silly, cool boy; but to me, you're just someone who needs to learn when joking is more appropriate.

@dshipp17 said:

Where are those loyal fans of Messner-Loebs now. DC's disloyal to us actually for botching up the character of Wonder Woman which we care about. Otherwise i wouldn't be here telling you this right now. This notion that the we're all coincidentally whingy and difficult to please is sophistical to say the least. You should think that perhaps the reason we've complained of late, in brief, is because they feed us rubbish. Writers don't treat Wonder Woman as they would a man and for a character who's falsely charged with misandry, machismo has certainly taken its toll on her. Obviously Zack Snyder and his team didn't go through the nine circles of hell to find Gal Gadot. Unless they have the IQ of a jelly fish they should've seen this coming. They were reckless.

I guess the loyal Messner-Loebs fans are where you would be 5+ years after DC has aliginated you for doing something that you would consider objectifying Wonder Woman; that's kind of the thing, the themes that the Messner-Loebs' fans liked were avoided long enough for them to decide to move alone; same with the loyal Marston fans; since it's clear that DC is avoiding the plot devices that they'd be interested in, or that they're being snubbed, they see no reason to stick around and support an entity that has decided to snub them; same as you'd be doing, but for the fact that DC is currently trying to actively appease your group, but making some mistakes along the way.

Why should a writer treat a woman like a man? She's a woman and he's a man; and nature dictates that men look for different things in women than they would men; same with women. There's nothing false about the perception of misandry, considering the Amazon environment; it's just the real background of the Amazon tribe being introduced and substitute with the previous fantasy Amazons in the Wonder Woman comics, even though the same reasons for their self removal from the general society were still there; people simply researched the term Amazon than begin to develop assumptions based upon what they read; if you've read that lemons are sour, why would you expect lemons to be sweet? Essentially, the Wonder Woman comics had taught you that lemons were sweet and you got mad when you were finally told that lemons are sour, to use an analogy regarding the Amazons; the only fans that have a right to be frustrated with Wonder Woman are the Mssner-Loebs fans, as they've been snubbed for more than 20 years, and the Marson fans, as they've been snubbed for more than 65 years, while your group might get snubbed once every 5 or 10 issues. As far as my group (e.g. Marston, for one), well, only issues 1 and 27 of Azz's run, is a possibility, and nothing of Messner-Loebs' run just yet, so, that's hardly an appeasement yet; has Wonder Woman's bracelets been bound, rendering her with the strength of a normal woman yet? No, and it hasn't been revisited for several decades now, so, we're hardly being appeased, for all of the waiting we've had to do.

The world changed since the 40's, the role of women in society changed and Wonder Woman has to keep up with it. Renovation is indispensable however since the reboot she's just changing for the worse in my opinion. I welcome change but obviously not mindless, destructive change. Change is best done slow and steady and always with a view to improving things. I think writers, by and large, don't care about Wonder Woman very much so they botch her up a little bit. It's not necessarily intentional but perhaps DC should cherry pick more then. They're not taking care of this character well enough contrarily to what you're saying, hence the complaints. Wonder Woman is not a conventional female so she shouldn't be portrayed as such. This is why she's wonder-ful and special, she flies in the face of gender clichés.

People should go and learn the story of the Amazons before passing judgment. In the DCU save Azzarello's cute little story, they are the reincarnation of women who have been unjustly murdered by a man and they live peacefully in Paradise Island. I'll concede that Amazons hold a prejudice against Men, however Diana doesn't and she actually helps change their views on the men's world.

There is no conspiracy, Gal got the part whether you like or not. And her role must be bigger than we first thought. Now get over it. If Wonder Woman was real, she would be kicking your asses now for talking about Gal like that.

The environment for women in the 1940s is off topic and is not something that this discussion is about; the discussion was about Wonder Woman as portrayed in the vision of Marston; the plot device that Marston framed Wonder Woman within is more alive than ever in now days and times and Wonder Woman would still have been keeping up with the times in that plot device; DC could very well put Wonder Woman back into her intended environment and show what would happen if a man bound her bracelets together as one of her weaknesses. The changes with the reboot is consistent with DC's attempt to appease your group, though, perhaps, not 100%; you're getting hooked up on a few points of differences in vision for Wonder Woman's portrayal, but not looking at a broader aspect of the accommodative changes that DC has done for your group; the artwork is as bland as ever, by comparison to the artwork in Messner-Loebs run, Wonder Woman keeps her boots on now, and DC is trying to redefine her in the mode of Greek Mythology, just to name a few.

As I've said, a major problem with the Wonder Woman character is that she's different from the other Amazons despite growing up with the Amazons; natural osmosis dictates that Wonder Woman should have a similar perspective as the other Amazons; a major problem is that DC has devoted no time to Wonder Woman's grooming to assimilate in the world outside Paradise Island; along with the other members of the Justice League, Dr. Psycho could be very therapeutic in Wonder Woman's grooming away from Paradise Island; and, even still, after all of the grooming, I still could not picture Wonder Woman being this much different from the other Amazons.

All of the Amazon's troubles with their romantic partners did not involve murder; these are examples of women that chose a partner that did not produce the happily ever after ending; however, for the most part, none of these women were forced into their romantic relations; and as an alternative, I'd ask, have you ever watched Family Matters? Despite every desperate effort by Steve, Laura Winslow was just determined not to enter into a romantic relationship with Steve; notice, I said, no one forced them into the relationships; that's something separate and completely different from what happens once the woman has chosen to enter into the romantic relationship; we have the dynamics between Steve and Laura, with Steve being consistently rebuffed by Laura from entering into a romantic relationship with him; hence, sometimes people are going to make mistakes; all of these women had their Steves in their past and all of these women were or would have behaved like Laura, provided their Steves persisted like Steve did in Family Matters. However, a lot of Lauras are able to reject their Steves and come out for the good with their Prince Charmings, but karma needs a day sometimes. I raise this point, because, the Amazons are painting all men with a broad brush; provided the Amazons were more humbled by their mistakes, I, and others with a similar persuasion as mine, would not be so hard on them. But, the dynamics between Steve and Laura is the more up to date example of how some men would plead for women to be as mature as media make them out to be, in trying to contrast them from men, in choosing a romantic partner.

This weakness where amazons forfeit their power once they allow a man to chain their bracelets of submission, might've seemed legit in the 40's but like i mentioned before feminism took a big leap forward and this bit of Wonder Woman's ethos was purged for her own betterment and nobody mourns it's disappearance. And personally i find Chiang's art absolutely sublime and that's something i'm actually very grateful for. At least DC gave Wonder Woman possibly the best art in the new 52, in my opinion. I dread the day when Chiang will no longer work on wonder woman because i truly admire his work.

If DC's really trying then obviously they've failed, miserably.

Hyppolita, Queen of Amazons, is actually the reincarnation of the first woman unjustly murdered by a man and Diana is the reincarnation of that woman's baby. She was pregnant when her violent husband killed her. So unlike the other Amazons, Diana had never seen a man before, she'd never been to the Patriarch's world so although surely she was inculcated with some prejudice (not misandry), I guess she kept an open mind. She was endowed with Athena's wisdom after all. Perhaps Artemis is misandrous but from what I've seen the Amazons, at large are merely prejudiced. Misandry is an extreme.

I agree

What kind of conspiracy theory doesn't involve a government coverup?

pfff!

I don't but lets watch her try and fail then. You know they made a bad choice when it's easier to pick holes in Gal Gadot than point out the resemblances between her and WW. I don't need "to give Robert Pattinson a chance" to know he'd make a miserable Superman. I need a good pair of eyes. I think at least his personality is compatible with superman's, charmingly shy and awkward yet Superman fans would never consent.

Actually, what you say about the bracelets of submission is not true; it's completely, as I said, an issue that DC has merely refused to revisit the issue of a man typing Diana's bracelets together, since the pre-crisis era; the weakness has not been purged, or, at worse, it's an open issue; and you see evidence that this weakness might still be present, because, Diana's strength is increased when she removes her bracelets; this weakness should not be purged and DC needs to focus its stories back on this issue, as intended by Marston. You might have that opinion of Chiang's art, but I don't, in the context of a superhero story, where said stories are generally targeted towards a male audience, similar to the way that the WWE is targeted towards a male audience; the WWE has a women's division, but, any interested women will need to adapt or understand that the WWE is target towards a male audience; DC should come back to this realization, when thinking of producing Wonder Woman comics and material; Messner-Loebs' art is more appropriate in the specific context of a superhero comic; Chiang's art is good, but it's probably more appropriate in another context.

What does Hippolyta's being reincarnated as an unjustly murdered woman have to do with her having passed up on her Steve, in referencing Family Matters, and than experiencing karma, as she reaps the consequences of her decision, her decision to choose every man but her Steve? Sure, you can raise that point, but than stay in the context of this particular point of the discussion and hold the discussion in the context where she passed up on her Steve and this man was one of those anybodies but her Steve; discuss her reaping the benefits of her choices. Additionally, this is what Perez introduced and that origin has been retconned; Perez's origin story is inconsistent with Marston's, and the current DC appears to have returned to an origin story somewhat more similar to Marston's origin story; additionally, the previous crisis events had retconned Perez's origin story. Right now, the Amazons are women who've isolated themselves to their island after having bad romantic experiences with their chosen men and are painting the male gender with a broad brush based upon what they experienced after following their choices in men. Again, view the dynamics between Steve and Laura than respond after you've become a little more enlightened about the specific dynamics that I'm discussing.

What you say about Diana does not matter and does not justify her seemingly having a perspective so much different than the other Amazons, as natural osmosis will still come into play; naturally, children raised in a KKK environment is likely to view African Americans in a certain way by the age of 23 until that individual has undergo some grooming to purge those thoughts from his/her head; not saying that the Amazons are comparable to the KKK just making an analogy; even after extensive grooming, that individual will still have tainted views about African Americans, but will have to learn to constantly check his mind when those thoughts instinctively come pouring back into his psyche at the sight of an African American. In the context of the Amazons, there is no real difference between "some prejudice" and "Misandry", and it's a point that should not be trivialized in the interest of seeming justified in criticizing issue 7 of Azz's run or similar works, such as Frank Miller's portrayal of Wonder Woman and Amazons Attack. In the context of men, in proceeding to paint them with a broad brush, Hippolyta's group is just as bad as Artemis and her group; the only difference is that Artemis' group is more militant, or, on the other hand, it was just simply a bad maneuver to craft that separate tribe along the issue of men; in terms of painting men with a broad brush, Amazons are Amazons, despite the tribe. What's important is to look at the Steve and Laura dynamics and than look to question the Amazon's choices in men, taking into account their mistakes; but, similar to God asking questions in the Garden of Eden, the questions are more rhetorical than anything else.

? when she removes her bracelets her powers are multiplied. This is what her bracelets do. Frankly I don't see the connection between this and what the bracelets did before. No one in their right mind will resuscitate the notion that a powerful woman must relinquish her power and submit to a man. I hope you can see how horribly sexist this is.

I haven't seen Family Matters but you seem to have a very reductive view on domestic violence but to tell you the truth I don't understand half of what you said about Laura and Steve so don't take it personally. What to me sounds like you're saying is that women choose bad boys over "Steve" so they must shoulder the consequences of their choice. I frequently hear this. It's the unjust world fallacy and one of the constituent principles of rape culture where people shift the blame from the the man who inflicts sexual, physical and psychological abuse on women to the woman who chose him. For all i know, the Amazons were unjustly killed by men in a previous life, they lived in a misogynist era so I don't blame them for developing some form of prejudice against men and neither should you. After all, if the Amazons are a misandrist society, the Patriarch's world is intrinsically misogynist, a little less so in "developed" countries today but it's not very easy being a woman. I don't condone it but I'd be lying if said i didn't take pleasure in seeing men taste their own medicine.

And i understand how children absorb cultural values from whatever cultural system they are exposed to but this is not a decisive, impregnable phenomenon. Regardless, Diana is a fictional character whom Athena blessed with great wisdom and Aphrodite with a loving heart.

How can you not see the connection but proscribe to the notion that her powers are multiplied when the bracelets are removed? Basically, you should be thinking removing the bracelets should be no different than removing her shoes in terms of her strength levels. According to the law I'm referring to, the bracelets restrain her powers and having someone (e.g. a man) bind the bracelets than reduces her power levels even further; you should be able to tell that DC has cherry picked and refused to carry the good with the bad from that persuasion, but I liked that law and it was instrumental in Marston's ability to craft good and unique story devices that separated a Wonder Woman comic from just any other comic. Basically, I'm right and it's still there, but so far has not been revisited.

I'd strongly recommend that watch some episodes of Family Matters featuring Steve and Laura; otherwise, your conclusions about what I'm saying are wrong and you're simply talking off on a tangent; you're clearly off on a tangent if you see it as a reductive view of the domestic violence issue; there are other things that can lead to an unhealthy domestic situation for a woman than physical violence; I'm talking about a range of issues that can include domestic violence; everyone is responsible for their own decisions and actions and you cannot just completely divorce someone's decisions from the consequences of their actions. The domestic violence issue is not synonymous with the rape issue, so lets just clear that up right now; so the rape issue is not synonymous with the issue of a woman's choice in a mate; it's very inappropriate to try to group those together when you can find no other way out; if you haven't seen Family Matters and haven't simply looked it up on YouTube than you're simply surmising to such a point that your debate point is so divorced that it makes no sense and lacks credence. Why is it that when someone makes a healthy debate point regarding the consequences of one's choices in these matters, than all of a sudden, you have to try to associate my good rebuttal point and discussion, making it synonymous with blaming the victim in a rape case? There is just simply no connection of a woman facing the consequences associated with her choices in a mate with someone's completely separate choice to go and commit the crime of rape. Look at Family Matters than try to come back with a counterpoint.

Frankly you can't be the judge of that. Your opinions on everything may seem legitimate to you but from where i stand they don't compute and obviously i'm not gonna watch a whole sitcom just to earn to privilege to debate this with you. I didn't compare "the issue of a woman's choice" to rape, i mentioned the bias behind the way people see these issues. Also this "choice" is not always a choice to begin with (arranged marriage) and no Woman chooses to espouse the devil, they find out about it after marrying them. While divorce is legal now in some countries, it wasn't always like that so a lot of women in the history of humanity were stuck with their "choice" of man, often a blind or heavily conditioned choice without the possibility of undoing it.

The fact that you don't like Chiang's art doesn't make it bad for this genre, it makes it bad for you. I never hear anyone complain about it though we're apparently the "whingiest fans" in the world.

I'd disagree with you 100% on that one. When I see Gal I see Wonder Woman. She just has this undeniable energy about her that makes her perfect for the role. And as far as looks go she might need a little bulking up but she has that mediterranean look to her that is exactly what Wonder Woman should look like.

And to those who said that she needs implants.. No. NO!!!That being said they probably will use a little movie magic to bring her a couple cup sizes up. I don't think they have to but they proabbly will.

@archizoom: Cliff Chiang draws her head too small, it's the same size as her kneecaps man!