Wonder Woman -Joss Whedon Take

[Princess Ivy]

just one more point, for feminine empowerment, i'd love to see diana get away from her affair with steve trevor. yes i know it was all about turning the old 'damsel in this dress' (looks to title, see's it's still there) stereotypes on their head, but i'd love to see other issues tacled. justbecause it is a female superhero doesn't mean we have to have a 'soft' theme to the film.

[Princess Ivy]

Originally Posted by BookStop

Is Jennifer Garner tall? She's athletic and young looking.

and electra.

[Trey Greyjoy]

Is Jennifer Garner tall? She's athletic and young looking.

Originally Posted by Princess Ivy

and electra.

***shiver***

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Princess Ivy

actually the costume has changed. the original costume had an eagle in gold on the chest, wonder woman was awarded the new suite with the WW logo by a womens organisation (can't remember when). the very original costume did in fact have a cape, also there was a swimming wet suit. as for the costume not looking good on film, i think linda carter would be argument for the original! i always thought she looked great.
i'm very much looking forward to the new film. i want to see if they continue the 'breaking free' graphic metaphors from the series. Also to see how they do on continuity, in costume that would include the bracelets, more than bullet repelents, in the original series, if an amazon lost her bracelets, she went mad. Which wonder woman will they use? the squeeky cleen dina prince? or the more gritty feminist from post crisis universe? also will they give her a decent villian? the original tv series was plagued with woefully underpowered 'bad guys'. i'd love to see someone like circlel, powerful female, for the job.

No, actually, the costume has stayed remarkably the same since 1942. Sure, there has been slight variations here and there, but nothing that has added up to an actual visual difference. Of course, one must note that in the realm of main stream comics, there has been some gimmick storylines that have altered the suit to sell a few more issues that month, but it has always reverted back to the original. Below are two images. The first one: an issue cover from 1942. The second: an image from 2006. There is an amazing difference in artistic style, but, for all intents and purposes, the costume is the same.

What Joss is suggesting to do is completely redesign the costume...not tweek symbols and leggings length within the same inlay.

[Princess Ivy]

Originally Posted by McMurphy

No, actually, the costume has stayed remarkably the same since 1942. Sure, there has been slight variations here and there, but nothing that has added up to an actual visual difference. Of course, one must note that in the realm of main stream comics, there has been some gimmick storylines that have altered the suit to sell a few more issues that month, but it has always reverted back to the original. Below are two images. The first one: an issue cover from 1942. The second: an image from 2006. There is an amazing difference in artistic style, but, for all intents and purposes, the costume is the same.

What Joss is suggesting to do is completely redesign the costume...not tweek symbols and leggings length within the same inlay.

may seem like hair splitting, but it is a change to the costume. quite frankly, if batman gets slightly bigger ears there is a world wide outcry over the desicration of the costume, don't minimilise the change to wonder womans costume it was well thought out and really meant something. especially if you remember that her costume was designed by the gods! i've been dedicated to wonderwoman for years (no not the 'greatest fan' but i've always thought she was great), in fact i still have the issue where she is given the new breast plate somewhere safe. it is very special to me.
in the traditional books her costume was made up of : the boots of hermes, girdle of geaia, breastplate of hipolita, magic lasso (part of the girdle) and the tiara (which i can't remember offhand) which also doubled as a symbol of her princessness. the bracelets as i've already mentioned, were a remnant of the amazonian slavery to men.
wow, in checking that up, i hope joss has a good explanation for her new cossie

[Princess Ivy]

wonder woman's battle armour

[Princess Ivy]

and the original tv costume incorporating a cloak (as proof that with the appropriate stature, it looks great.)

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Princess Ivy

may seem like hair splitting, but it is a change to the costume. quite frankly, if batman gets slightly bigger ears there is a world wide outcry over the desicration of the costume, don't minimilise the change to wonder womans costume it was well thought out and really meant something. especially if you remember that her costume was designed by the gods! i've been dedicated to wonderwoman for years (no not the 'greatest fan' but i've always thought she was great), in fact i still have the issue where she is given the new breast plate somewhere safe. it is very special to me.
in the traditional books her costume was made up of : the boots of hermes, girdle of geaia, breastplate of hipolita, magic lasso (part of the girdle) and the tiara (which i can't remember offhand) which also doubled as a symbol of her princessness. the bracelets as i've already mentioned, were a remnant of the amazonian slavery to men.
wow, in checking that up, i hope joss has a good explanation for her new cossie

Sorry, I am still not convinced. Iron Man had significant and long lasting changes. Wonder Woman had, at the very most, small tweeks here and there that reflect changes in women's swimming fashions over the years, or mini series style changes to up sales or humor a new artist and/or writer, but it has always returned back to the staple costume.

I would also like to note that I don't think that the eagle on the chest was morphed into a "w" like form (note how the "w" resembles the eagle's wing span) due to pressure by an unspecified women's group. It was Roy Thomas and Gene Colan that did the tweeking for merchandising reasons. Apparently Thomas and Colan felt that it was easier to copyright a symbol instead of an eagle. So, I suppose from a salesman point of view, it is a well thought out alteration.

The cape addition that appeared in association with the television series was more for promotional reasons. She didn't run around wearing the cape in the show.

The braclet reasoning is an intriguing one, but I don't think that was meant as its original meaning. The bracelets were meant to re-enforce her empowered image because they were made from Zeus's shield (in some mythologies, it was a breastplate) called Aegis; hence, why she used it to deflect bullets....like a shield or piece of armour.

I will agree with the last part, though. Joss best have good reasons to completely alter a very iconic image.

[Princess Ivy]

we'll have to differ then, to me it is a new costume. also the gift of the new breastplate was made by a womens organisation as a justification to change such a godly gift, i don't know what pressures the writers may or may not have been put under.
yes, ww's specific bracelets were supposedly forged from Aegis, but according to the series (pre-crisis) all amazons wore them for the reasons stated before. In one storyline, the amazons were re-captured by 'men' and the ones who lost their bracelets went mad. as another point, if an amazon, including WW were chained by her bracelets, by a man, they were not able to escape, hence they lived under a whip of potential enslavement but were unable to rid themselves of that threat because of the terrible consequences which would follow.

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Princess Ivy

we'll have to differ then, to me it is a new costume. also the gift of the new breastplate was made by a womens organisation as a justification to change such a godly gift, i don't know what pressures the writers may or may not have been put under.
yes, ww's specific bracelets were supposedly forged from Aegis, but according to the series (pre-crisis) all amazons wore them for the reasons stated before. In one storyline, the amazons were re-captured by 'men' and the ones who lost their bracelets went mad. as another point, if an amazon, including WW were chained by her bracelets, by a man, they were not able to escape, hence they lived under a whip of potential enslavement but were unable to rid themselves of that threat because of the terrible consequences which would follow.

With the women's organization relation and the bracelet intention, do you have some citation? I can't find those connections anywhere and I am no stranger to the comic world, so I wouldn't mind learning something new.

Edit it Add: I just reread your post, and I may be misreading it. I first thought you meant that a women's organization in real life swade DC to make the change, not a plotline within the comic series. The latter, I will buy; the former I don't.

[Brown Rat]

Princess Ivy's comment about the bracelets being connected to Amazonian slavery to men rings a bell for me, McMurphy. But my memory is full of holes, and I haven't any citations--nor am I sure exactly how that connection works. But I dimly (dim dim dimly) recall that negative consequences followed removing the bracelets.

Ivy, I'd love to know the issue number(s) so I could reread the stories you're referring to.

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Brown Rat

Princess Ivy's comment about the bracelets being connected to Amazonian slavery to men rings a bell for me, McMurphy. But my memory is full of holes, and I haven't any citations--nor am I sure exactly how that connection works. But I dimly (dim dim dimly) recall that negative consequences followed removing the bracelets.

Ivy, I'd love to know the issue number(s) so I could reread the stories you're referring to.

Yeah, it does sound familiar, and I am a little surprised I have yet to be able to find more verfication online in relation to the bracelet-enslavement tie-in. What I did find finally, was that the bracelets later (a few years after her creation) were incorporated as a symbol for the Amazon's defeat by Hercules during the time Marston's personal life fetish with bondage became more and more present in his comic book writing.

In regards to the eagle to symbol switch, it was first presented in the January 1982 issue (#41) of "DC Comics Presents." If Ivy meant that it was a women's organization within the storyline, then she is correct. The name of the organization was "Wonder Woman Foundation." You can read a synopsis of the issue here. The reasons behind why the eagle was morphed more into a symbol, in relation to the writer's reasons, were for copyright and marketability concerns.

[Brown Rat]

On the Amazon Archives, the synopsis for issue #308 contains the following:

"She then says that she submits herself to the rule of Love and dons the shackles of the Amazons' former subjugation."

"Aphrodite then commands Diana to rise to her feet, wearing bracelets freely chosen in submission to the ancient code of love and honour. She tells Diana to remember always the past and the Amazons' slavery, binding herself henceforth to Aphrodite's canons and freedom."

That casual reference sounds like it might partially corroborate Princess Ivy's post about the bracelets' intent. Here's a direct link: http://www.amazonarchives.com/ww308.htm

The site has a useful search engine, so I bet that someone more dedicated to WW could use "bracelet" as a key word and read through the resulting synopses and find a definitive citation.

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Brown Rat

On the Amazon Archives, the synopsis for issue #308 contains the following:

"She then says that she submits herself to the rule of Love and dons the shackles of the Amazons' former subjugation."

"Aphrodite then commands Diana to rise to her feet, wearing bracelets freely chosen in submission to the ancient code of love and honour. She tells Diana to remember always the past and the Amazons' slavery, binding herself henceforth to Aphrodite's canons and freedom."

That casual reference sounds like it might partially corroborate Princess Ivy's post about the bracelets' intent. Here's a direct link: http://www.amazonarchives.com/ww308.htm

The site has a useful search engine, so I bet that someone more dedicated to WW could use "bracelet" as a key word and read through the resulting synopses and find a definitive citation.

There is a whole lot of years between 1941 and 1983. It is a bit like when Superman could later fly instead of simply jumping over tall buildings....rewrites are wonderful, aren't they? In fact, after Crisis on Infinite Earths in the '80s Superman's "S" symbol is now supposed to be derived from more than just "Super" via Bryne's revision of the character, yet it was never its original intent.

Anyway, while I am excited to throw around a good old fashion comic book discussion (jeez, when was the last thread on this comic board this active?) , my original intent before the hair splitting is that Joss Whedon has vowed to utterly change a very iconic image. It is a bad idea. I mean, should someone write a film starring an animated pirate's hook hopping around voiced by Robin Williams and claim it is Buffy the Vampire Slayer? A very extreme example, I know, but where is the line between altering a long lasting franchise and spinning out one's own ideas while using a pre-existing franchise to pimp it under?

[Brown Rat]

Originally Posted by McMurphy

I mean, should someone write a film starring an animated pirate's hook hopping around voiced by Robin Williams and claim it is Buffy the Vampire Slayer? A very extreme example, I know, but where is the line between altering a long lasting franchise and spinning out one's own ideas while using a pre-existing franchise to pimp it under?

Heavens, no! I get your point.

I guess we'll have to wait to see how many changes Joss makes and whether those changes suit (ha ha! "suit"!) the character.