LOL - Megan Fox: Wonder Woman a lame superhero

[mr friendly guy]

Barbara Kesel. She was one of the head writers for Crossgen, although arguable Crossgen was less super hero orientated, and more fantasy/ sci fi/ horror type genre. However before that she worked for Marvel, and IIRC did a nice little mini series introducing "Ultra Girl".

[Jim Raynor]

Biiiiiiiiiitch shut the fuck up Lynda Carter was hot.

Wow, way to be the nerd-raging fanboy people were making fun of in this thread. If you like a character that's fine, if someone else doesn't then whatever.

I'm a fan of the superhero genre (though I don't really read the comics, most of them are crap) and know the character from the Justice League show. I don't have a problem with her, but I'll admit she's ridiculous. All superheroes are ridiculous. WW's costume doesn't make much sense for a person from an ancient Greek civilization, but Superman's doesn't make sense either for someone who grew up in 20th century America. The genre will always have bright, goofy and campy elements. That's part of the fun.

The way to make it work in a movie is to be selective about the traits you want to portray. Play down the camp, acknowledging it briefly with light humor (I agree the recent WW animated movie handled this well). Play up the cooler and smarter ideas that have come up in recent decades from better writers. The same character can look completely different depending on the writing and directing. Batman was a complete joke in his 60s series (a portrayal that was revived in the Schumacher films), but is cool and popular now thanks to things like the 90s animated series and the Nolan films.

[Vendetta]

I thought that was kinda the original concept, on both fronts. Look at all the old covers where she's tied up-it's obviously closeted bondage fetish.

Nothing closeted about Willaim Moulton Marston's bondage fetish. Nothing at all. Bondage, and the willingness to take both roles therein, was as far as he was concerned the basis of any stable relationship (between, in his case, him, his wife and his mistress, who all lived amicably together in one house, with two children by each woman).

[Oskuro]

Nothing closeted about Willaim Moulton Marston's bondage fetish. Nothing at all. Bondage, and the willingness to take both roles therein, was as far as he was concerned the basis of any stable relationship (between, in his case, him, his wife and his mistress, who all lived amicably together in one house, with two children by each woman).

Wich is interesting. Although I'm getting an "anathema!" vibe both from the previous comments and the Linkara video. What's worng with these things if they are consensual and the participants are happy?

[Darth Wong]

Nothing closeted about Willaim Moulton Marston's bondage fetish. Nothing at all. Bondage, and the willingness to take both roles therein, was as far as he was concerned the basis of any stable relationship (between, in his case, him, his wife and his mistress, who all lived amicably together in one house, with two children by each woman).

Wich is interesting. Although I'm getting an "anathema!" vibe both from the previous comments and the Linkara video. What's worng with these things if they are consensual and the participants are happy?

I suppose it depends on whether you believe that the participants are mentally disturbed. Certainly, in the case of people who are so masochistic that they desire activities which inflict actual physical injury, that seems like a likely condition.

[JME2]

Character wise (not powers-wise), Diana is definitely the weakest of the Big 7, even more-so than Aquaman. Fox's observations are accurate, if amusing. The recent animated film would probably be the ideal route to take in trying to adapt her to live-action media and keep it moderately believable.

Really? more-so than Aquaman? I have a hard time seeing that.

Well, I always liked Diana more-so for the Greek mythology elements present in her own mythos; I never gave much though to her actual character until Toonzone did an interesting analysis a while back:

...in a way, Wonder Woman is DC Comics’ equivalent of the Barbie doll; as Diana’s appearance, values, and adventures have changed according to the eras in which she was published. Her persona constantly in a state of flux—from the submissive, lady-like heroine of the 1940s; to the feminist, “New Woman” character of the 1960s; to the aggressive, girl power champion of the 1990s; and to the politically-charged Ambassador and activist of today—Wonder Woman reflects the public’s attitudes towards women in society, feminism, and gender equality.

By contrast, Aquaman suffers from the Superfriends stigma, but I like the backstory and the mythos has been interesting at times, especially with the post-Obsidian Age relaunch and Busiek's infusion of sword and sorcery during his brief run.

[Themightytom]

Biiiiiiiiiitch shut the fuck up Lynda Carter was hot.

Wow, way to be the nerd-raging fanboy people were making fun of in this thread. If you like a character that's fine, if someone else doesn't then whatever.

I will brave more crimes against proofreading to respond, but be forewarned: being flamed by Mike has me using Word now, and whenever I use Word I cannot be concise.

Obviously the comment was tongue in cheek. What qualification does Megan Fox have to assess the character's viability? Her references were to the TV show in the 70's not to all the comic book depictions of Wonder Woman. She's making the same mistake you are, ignoring that the vast majority of material on Wonder Woman is in the form of comic books. As one of the three longest running comic book series (Superman batman Wonder Woman) the character DOES have depth, and is the missing member off the tri-fecta in the movie world.

There is plenty of room for exploration. Fox ignores this which is fine; she has every right to evaluate what roles she wants to play. My objection is to anyone giving her opinion extra credibility because she's attractive. The same people who were making fun of nerd raging fan boy people are also saying Megan Fox is hot.

Thanks to the recent incarnation of the Justice League cartoon, in which Wonder Woman plays a prominent role, ( JLA and JLA) unlimited, you probably won’t ever see a JLA movie without a wonder woman movie. They will want to balance the “boys club” with a strong female character, like they did in the comic. That’s what Wonder Woman was originally created for, she is the logical choice now, As a fan of Justice League I would think you could appreciate that.

The rough material is there, they just need to find an actress of sufficient depth to make it work. Megan Fox is not our girl. An effective Wonder Woman movie is no more ridiculous than an effective Batman after George Clooney played the role, or Superman after…. Somebody decided Superman could rebuild the great wall of China with his eyes. Your next few points about periodic campiness are spot on and Megan’s objection to the role includes those campy elements.

Incidentally there are some animated movies featuring Wonder Woman that are somewhat recent. I haven’t seen the one featuring her exclusively, but there was a period movie featuring batman Superman and Wonder Woman in the lat forties/early fifties that was entertaining enough. What I liked most about it
Spoiler

was Superman Did NOT save the day. He took a dive right before the final battle and Aquaman rescued him later.

[Jim Raynor]

She's making the same mistake you are, ignoring that the vast majority of material on Wonder Woman is in the form of comic books.

How was I making a "mistake?" I said I didn't have a problem with the character. I even like the character. I watched the JL show as well as the new movie. All I said was that the character was ridiculous, because ALL superhero characters are ridiculous. Doesn't mean someone can't still enjoy them.

The problem I had with your post was the apparent overreaction and poor grammar, directed at someone who won't even be reading it. Yeah, we all bitch about stupid fictional matters on this board. I know I have. But if you were trying to defend the character you weren't doing a very good job of that. Try to actually make your point without looking like a crazy guy who can't spell.

[Ghost Rider]

In the end, she's more right then not.

If we define heroes by their opponents? She's lower then many D listers. She has no villain worth of note, even when they did Superfriends. I mean for christ sakes, her two top entries are a cat-lady and a sorceress that turns men into pigs.

If we define heroes by their goals? She's dumber then most villains who have world changing powers wanting to rob banks. She wants to beat the bad people in the world into accepting peace and justice.

If we define heroes by what they represent? She's pretty much T&A.

Wonder Woman as a character has only been kept alive because DC/WB do not want to lose the liscence to something they may be able to cash in on. She got shoehorned into their so called trinity, and as a character no one really knows what to do given her origins are pretty much BSDM queen/submissive.

[Majin Gojira]

In the end, she's more right then not.

If we define heroes by their opponents? She's lower then many D listers. She has no villain worth of note, even when they did Superfriends. I mean for christ sakes, her two top entries are a cat-lady and a sorceress that turns men into pigs.

Her top 2 foes are actually: Ares, God Of War and Dr. Psycho (who at his best can become near rape incarnate).

Beyond that, and the two you mentioned, her villains get the shaft mostly because every new writer on the series wants to create their own new awesome villain--completely discarding every villain that's been created for her in the past.

WTF people?

This kind of gets to a question I'd like to ask:

Has anyone bitching in this thread actually read a good run of the comic in question?

[avatarxprime]

You are right to point out that Diana does face-off with Ares as proof of her top tier villains, but most people think of Cheetah or Circe when they think of Wonder Woman baddies. I also happen to think of Artemis, but that was short lived and she's really not a top tier character either. Up until you brought it up I completely forgot about Dr. Psycho. I will admit though that the last time I read Wonder Woman with any consistency was when she was a space pirate and didn't have the traditional costume and haven't read any of the Gail Simone stuff.

[Ghost Rider]

In the end, she's more right then not.

If we define heroes by their opponents? She's lower then many D listers. She has no villain worth of note, even when they did Superfriends. I mean for christ sakes, her two top entries are a cat-lady and a sorceress that turns men into pigs.

Her top 2 foes are actually: Ares, God Of War and Dr. Psycho (who at his best can become near rape incarnate).

LOL, you're going to use Ares?! The loser idiot who basically had one shot and is now a neutered bitch who wants acceptance from his family. He's lower then fucking Cat Lady. And Dr. Psycho. A villain that even Gail Simone basically equated to loser midget with power fantasies?

Fuck, at least Ares had a bit of air time, and Xena did the villain more justice. And you're seriously pulling from the depths of your ass if you're using them given they were more shoehorned then having me say for Batman villains of Killer Croc and Dr Hugo Strange as examples. Both I've mentioned are the same level as villains. Hell, even same usage. KC was once a smart powerful villain who got dumped to retard level, and Strange is even more fucked then anyone except Joker, and is considered one of the largest jokes there is.

Beyond that, and the two you mentioned, her villains get the shaft mostly because every new writer on the series wants to create their own new awesome villain--completely discarding every villain that's been created for her in the past.

WTF people?

This kind of gets to a question I'd like to ask:

Has anyone bitching in this thread actually read a good run of the comic in question?

I have a friend who has pretty much every Wonder Woman comic since mid Silver age to current. Her best screen time is in a book that wasn't using her as the main character. That was New Frontier. It at least showed that she wasn't tits and ass.

And given the sheer amount of top writers that have taken a stab at her have failed, I say it's the character. She has absolutely nothing, she's a tall brunette in a one piece bathing suit, with giant eagle as her symbol. Hell, Kingdom Come had her at her most brutal and readers considered to be somewhere around Superman's bitch or angry white bitch. Gail Simone couldn't do shit, and she made Black Canray, Oracle, Catwoman, Scandal, and a whole host of female characters anything but T&A.

[rhoenix]

I never followed comics much, but everything I'm reading here makes Wonder Woman appear to be more a "yeah, that'll work" character than a real one. I mean, shit, it would be easy to recreate her mythos and background to not suck and end up with a superheroine that, you know, has more than a magic invisible jet and a truth-telling lasso.

In fact, why not - I'll give a rewrite a try since I've a few minutes at work.

[Majin Gojira]

LOL, you're going to use Ares?! The loser idiot who basically had one shot and is now a neutered bitch who wants acceptance from his family. He's lower then fucking Cat Lady. And Dr. Psycho. A villain that even Gail Simone basically equated to loser midget with power fantasies?

Ares was set up as Wonder Woman's archfoe at the start of the reboot post Crisis, hence the mention. His repeated antagonistic and after appeanances cement him as a rogue. Power wise, he's hard to top. Hence the mention.

I mentioned Dr. Psycho simply because he's the embodinment of the original cracky fetishes teh creator put in, encapsulated in one disturbing package.

Just because Cheetah is more engrained in the public consciousness doesn't make her the top villain. Hell, since she became cat full time, Barbara Minerva hasn't had consisten characterization between any two fucking writers!

Wonder Woman Villains get shafted with more regularity than I've seen than in any other supposedly high profile character.

But my familiarity is similarly second hand, so I am not arguing at strength.

And given the sheer amount of top writers that have taken a stab at her have failed, I say it's the character.

So, you say that the writers continual need to create new villains and not expand on the previous' ones is a failing of the character they antagonize? Understandable, but without that lense it looks as though you're talking out of your ass/jumped a point or two.

She has absolutely nothing, she's a tall brunette in a one piece bathing suit, with giant eagle as her symbol.

I recall a post (or maybe it was the linked video above, I dunno--he was likely picked it up from the same board we all hung out at) made on another board (Scans_daily I believe) that managed to sum up Wonder Woman's mission, personality and entire reason for existing into a single fucking word: Truth.

Not many people really get that. I believe her "League of One" Justice League storyline shows it pretty well.

Hell, Kingdom Come had her at her most brutal and readers considered to be somewhere around Superman's bitch or angry white bitch. Gail Simone couldn't do shit, and she made Black Canray, Oracle, Catwoman, Scandal, and a whole host of female characters anything but T&A.

I take it you do not approve of her run with the character so far? Given the editorial handicaps she's been saddled with, I say she's been doing pretty damn good.

[Majin Gojira]

I never followed comics much, but everything I'm reading here makes Wonder Woman appear to be more a "yeah, that'll work" character than a real one. I mean, shit, it would be easy to recreate her mythos and background to not suck and end up with a superheroine that, you know, has more than a magic invisible jet and a truth-telling lasso.

In fact, why not - I'll give a rewrite a try since I've a few minutes at work.

There's a thread for that already.

[Eleas]

Which female superhero can hold up her own film? The majority of them are really poorly realized and generally shitty characters, and most of the good ones are part of ensemble casts or larger narratives (e.g. Kitty Pride or the new Question). Not that I think that's a huge problem. The lack of good superhero comics intended for female audiences is probably due to the lack of such an audience as much as sexism in the industry. Comics are still overwhelmingly consumed by nerdy guys, though in some ways the fiction genre of shitty romantic novels (Danielle Steele, Stephanie Meyer, et al.) can be viewed as the ladies' answer to it.

They used to say that about TV series about superheroes, too. Then Joss Whedon came along and showed that even an mediocre female superhero was good enough for vast hordes of supposedly nonexistent fans.

Before you point out that the medium of TV series is fundamentally different: that may well be. But the school libraries when I was a kid were full with young girls reading Prince Valiant and Linda & Valentin and Spirou, and similarly, most of those that I've seen to read comics is girls and women reading syndicated strips and comedies. Then, of course, there is Sandman, not to mention the towering stack of Anime books choking the aisles of every SF bookstore. But those are not superhero books of the common sort, because after all, the thing about superheroes is that we identify with them. Buffy (and particularly Willow) showed that identification with superheroes isn't a male-only response.

...in fact, the only type of comics I've seen that would fit with your description is the type that are about and for men, and feature women only as ambulatory cheesecake. Shit, if Watchmen with its all-but-perfunctory female characters is considered a litmus test amongst women comic readers, what would happen if you gave them - on their own terms - a heroine on the level of Batman?

[Themightytom]

She's making the same mistake you are, ignoring that the vast majority of material on Wonder Woman is in the form of comic books.

How was I making a "mistake?" I said I didn't have a problem with the character. I even like the character. I watched the JL show as well as the new movie. All I said was that the character was ridiculous, because ALL superhero characters are ridiculous. Doesn't mean someone can't still enjoy them.

The problem I had with your post was the apparent overreaction and poor grammar, directed at someone who won't even be reading it. Yeah, we all bitch about stupid fictional matters on this board. I know I have. But if you were trying to defend the character you weren't doing a very good job of that. Try to actually make your point without looking like a crazy guy who can't spell.

Fair enough, my intention was to clarify my post as it was obviously a failure the first time around. I just object to the term "rediculous" as applied to superheroes because it implies a superlative of some sort, as though superheroes were "more" rediclous than, a midget with a ring that makes him invisible carrying it to the one volcano it can be destroyed in, or a man with an energy sword blocking blaster fire. Superheroes don't require "more" suspension of disbilief in my mind than much else in sci fi or fantasy.

[Ghost Rider]

LOL, you're going to use Ares?! The loser idiot who basically had one shot and is now a neutered bitch who wants acceptance from his family. He's lower then fucking Cat Lady. And Dr. Psycho. A villain that even Gail Simone basically equated to loser midget with power fantasies?

Ares was set up as Wonder Woman's archfoe at the start of the reboot post Crisis, hence the mention. His repeated antagonistic and after appeanances cement him as a rogue. Power wise, he's hard to top. Hence the mention.

I mentioned Dr. Psycho simply because he's the embodinment of the original cracky fetishes teh creator put in, encapsulated in one disturbing package.

Just because Cheetah is more engrained in the public consciousness doesn't make her the top villain. Hell, since she became cat full time, Barbara Minerva hasn't had consisten characterization between any two fucking writers!

Wonder Woman Villains get shafted with more regularity than I've seen than in any other supposedly high profile character.

But my familiarity is similarly second hand, so I am not arguing at strength.

Let's break down your little yabberings.

Public perception is everything when concering which is her top villain. That's what influences other writers and what makes them try to do something. Or do you think they keep using Two Face, Joker, Penguin, Riddler, and Catwoman because these are the most worthy foes written?

Ares? Only comic book fans of her current series would even vaguely remember, and hell JLU fans would be hard pressed to remember and that was the popular show after Superfriends of seeing anything DC related other then most Batman related material. And Dr. Psycho is no different then pulling out Dr Hugo Strange as a villain. He's not well remembered by fans let alone anyone with a passing interest. Hell, shafting villains, what villains? They are one note card board of evil men/women who have some goal of either genocide or mustache twirling. There has to be something to SHAFT for them to get shafted.

And that is my entire point, you yabbering fanboy. Her public perception is that her nemesis is a chick who is a fucking cat girl, because it's the only one that most can remember. Fuck Paul Dini who brought Batman back into the spotlight and tried his damndest with the DCU could only come up with Circe as a reoccuring villainess for WW, with Ares being less then fucking Hades. Batman has Joker, Superman has Lex Luthor, no one recognizes a nemesis except her most used villain.

And given the sheer amount of top writers that have taken a stab at her have failed, I say it's the character.

So, you say that the writers continual need to create new villains and not expand on the previous' ones is a failing of the character they antagonize? Understandable, but without that lense it looks as though you're talking out of your ass/jumped a point or two.

No, you dipshit fanboy. Her character means nothing. She's a woman of peace who beats the fuck out of her evil villains because...she has to?

She has had fucking 60 years, and you're telling me that one day someone somewhere in the depths will find what no one has seen at all? Please, bitch, you're literally hoping for a silver lining that better minds have not found, continue to not find and cannot find because when confronted with her, all they can see is a woman who cannot maintain an identity beyond she's a chick. Hell, the article JME2 pointed out was fucking perfect...she's a Barbie doll. She changes with the times because she has nothing else. She goes from sexual identity to strong chick to confused outsider with diplomatic issues.

But hey one day someone will give her an identity to something that never had it in the beginning other then S&M fantasy outlet.

She has absolutely nothing, she's a tall brunette in a one piece bathing suit, with giant eagle as her symbol.

I recall a post (or maybe it was the linked video above, I dunno--he was likely picked it up from the same board we all hung out at) made on another board (Scans_daily I believe) that managed to sum up Wonder Woman's mission, personality and entire reason for existing into a single fucking word: Truth.

Not many people really get that. I believe her "League of One" Justice League storyline shows it pretty well.

LMAO..Truth?

Right next to her Amazonia ideals that are contradictory, and her self made other ideas. Just because she spews it a lot and uses a lasso for it does not mean that's what she's about. Hell her entire Infinite Crisis was her justifying her warlike behavior to losing her supposed humanity to finally end up with her continual failure ofr her supposed mission. If it's being true to failing, then maybe there's something. Other then that, it's pure fanboy rose colored wish fulfillment.

Hell, the average person can comment Superman is aspects of protection and Batman is vengence. Wonder Woman is the chick with invisible plane. Even in her best showings, the only reason they are notable is because she's not in the kitchen making dinner for Superman but being independent. Doesn't give her an identity but it's a start. Seriously that's fanboys wanting to see something again they are glorifying because they don't want a part of the trinity to count for Tits. Hell, Superman represents Truth then she does.

Hell, Kingdom Come had her at her most brutal and readers considered to be somewhere around Superman's bitch or angry white bitch. Gail Simone couldn't do shit, and she made Black Canray, Oracle, Catwoman, Scandal, and a whole host of female characters anything but T&A.

I take it you do not approve of her run with the character so far? Given the editorial handicaps she's been saddled with, I say she's been doing pretty damn good.

Pfft, you need to read more. Gail Simone's writing on Wonder Woman is among her far lesser writing given her Birds of Prey or Secret Six work. It gets acclaimed because it's not as shitty as the last 20 years of the character.

[rhoenix]

There's a thread for that already.

Indeed there is.

[Steve]

Jeez, GR, a little antagonistic tonight aren't you?

I do agree that Diana lacks any real mainstream villains. Hell, I didn't even know Cheetah was a member of her rogue's gallery until I watched DCAU and started posting here. I didn't know Ares was one of her big bads until I heard it mentioned in conjunction with DCAU Talkback. And there's the established remark that she's basically what the editors and writers want her to be in any timeframe (though to varying extents other heroes can go through similar changes. Batman's been portrayed as nearly psychotic as his archfoes or as a man driven by his desire for vengeance by some writers while others emphasize him as the noble defender of the innocent who wants to keep others from suffering the same pain he did as a child. I think such things are a given when you're considering the time spans of these characters and how many writers and editors will be overseeing them).

Wonder Woman gets considered part of the "Trinity" because of her age and prominence as a character, not any inherent iconic traits. A good writer-editor team could change this, but apparently Gail Simone is under some editorial constraints (anything on this online?) and I admit I've found her WW work to not be nearly as good as her peak with Secret Six or BoP.

[Ghost Rider]

Jeez, GR, a little antagonistic tonight aren't you?

I do agree that Diana lacks any real mainstream villains. Hell, I didn't even know Cheetah was a member of her rogue's gallery until I watched DCAU and started posting here. I didn't know Ares was one of her big bads until I heard it mentioned in conjunction with DCAU Talkback. And there's the established remark that she's basically what the editors and writers want her to be in any timeframe (though to varying extents other heroes can go through similar changes. Batman's been portrayed as nearly psychotic as his archfoes or as a man driven by his desire for vengeance by some writers while others emphasize him as the noble defender of the innocent who wants to keep others from suffering the same pain he did as a child. I think such things are a given when you're considering the time spans of these characters and how many writers and editors will be overseeing them).

Perhaps a bit, but this particular character I agree with most of the public statements because the creators had pretty much the same idea. DC only kept pumping her book out until recently because they didn't want the Marston estate to have the character back. A part of that contract was to always publish Wonder Woman, and given all that time they did nothing.

Batman as you said does change, but he remains in all writers basically a boy who has lost his parents and strikes back at the criminal element. Various writers attempt to either make him monstrous or humane by said experiences, but the core character of the wounded boy remains. Wonder Woman has no core. She's a chick from some ancient greek hold out...that comes here because...something makes her come here. She stays because ...it changes on era.

Wonder Woman gets considered part of the "Trinity" because of her age and prominence as a character, not any inherent iconic traits. A good writer-editor team could change this, but apparently Gail Simone is under some editorial constraints (anything on this online?) and I admit I've found her WW work to not be nearly as good as her peak with Secret Six or BoP.

It's not even the whole DC universe Trinity that's the problem. It's she is forced into it because DC wants her elevated and when that translates to an in universe explaination, the best they come up with is that she's nearly as badass as Superman in combat or she's just herself and just that good or something. Too many writers flounder on this that one wonders how the fuck is she even amongst their legends when there's fifth tier characters with a more solid core prupose to go out each night and jump in front of bullets.

[Havok]

Fuck Wonder Woman. Captain Marvel should be the third in the Trinity.

[Ghost Rider]

Fuck Wonder Woman. Captain Marvel should be the third in the Trinity.

He works better in a variety of ways. Alex Ross has a view of the DC having a quintet versus the trinity with Plastic Man and Captain Marvel as cores. While unusual because of the fact those two are transplants and that he uses Plastic Man's core as....humor, Captain Marvel has more merit. The character is about growth, and that is something as pure as Superman's pursuit of protecting and elevation, and Batman's vengeful yet protective nature of the innocent.

[Steve]

Hrm, that's an interesting viewpoint.

[Majin Gojira]

Public perception is everything when concering which is her top villain. That's what influences other writers and what makes them try to do something. Or do you think they keep using Two Face, Joker, Penguin, Riddler, and Catwoman because these are the most worthy foes written?

I disagree. Public perception and what actually exists are two vastly different things in my experience. There's no denying its impact, I must admit. However, the public conscious is just a libel to not know dick and make shit up as it is to be spot on. Urban Legends; "Play it Again, Sam" type film attributes and the like are all prime examples of this. Comics being one of the more maligned and misunderstood media forms just makes the exagerations of public perception that much worse.

According to public consciousness, there's only been one Robin--Dick Grayson. Factually for comics that is incorrect. And Batman has one of the most celebrated mythos of all comic book characters, so appealing to the public consciousness is utter bullshit in terms of determining actual fact.

No, you dipshit fanboy. Her character means nothing. She's a woman of peace who beats the fuck out of her evil villains because...she has to?

So because you refuse to understand the character, it must be the way you percieve it? And you were simply just jumping to attack her instead of crafting a legitimate target for narrative analysis of a body of work? You actually we're going somewhere if you attacked her lack of recurrent villains. That was actually a decent defensible point that I agreed with you on. Instead, you decided to skip about 2-3 steps in your argument process and reach your conclusions prematurely.

She has had fucking 60 years, and you're telling me that one day someone somewhere in the depths will find what no one has seen at all?

Why bother, it's already happened. Multiple times. Under a dozen different pens.

Your personal opinion of the quality of a work is nice and all (hell, so's mine), but trying to argue the quality of a work is mostly a subjective process.

Hell, the article JME2 pointed out was fucking perfect...she's a Barbie doll. She changes with the times because she has nothing else. She goes from sexual identity to strong chick to confused outsider with diplomatic issues.

And Batman goes from campy featherweight to brooding sociopath. All characters have bad days writing wise.

Right next to her Amazonia ideals that are contradictory, and her self made other ideas. Just because she spews it a lot and uses a lasso for it does not mean that's what she's about. Hell her entire Infinite Crisis was her justifying her warlike behavior to losing her supposed humanity to finally end up with her continual failure ofr her supposed mission. If it's being true to failing, then maybe there's something. Other then that, it's pure fanboy rose colored wish fulfillment.

That's because Jeoff Johns doesn't get the character, believe she needs to be 'brought down' for readers to sympathatize with her.

God, with what Johns set up, it's like you're judging Wonder Woman by Amazon's Attack.

Gail Simone's writing on Wonder Woman is among her far lesser writing given her Birds of Prey or Secret Six work. It gets acclaimed because it's not as shitty as the last 20 years of the character.

Try just the last two writers. Before Gail, there was Allan Heinberg and Jodi Picoult--who both just plain sucked on their runs. Before the Infinite Crissis mess, we had a damn good run by Greg Rucka.