|
|
|
      
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments: |
For this landmark anniversary issue, Gail Simone provides her swan song together with several back up features by guest writers and artists - in a celebration of all things Wonder Woman. As already announced, the book also received a renumbering and returned once more to its original volume one numbering order, making what would have been issue 45 of volume three become issue 600.
And with this landmark issue new writer JM Straczynski commenced his new story run with a prologue...and with it shocked fans and non fans alike by introducing his version of Diana in a brand new costume designed by Jim Lee. In this first twelve month story arc ste in an alternate reality, Paradise Island has been destroyed and most of the Amazons, including Hippolyta, have been killed when Diana was only a small child. As a result she has grown up in Man's World a very different woman to the one we know and love.
DC had done a very good job of keeping this costume change a secret to achieve maximum shock value, even releasing covers of future issues in Previews that still showed her in her iconic, classic costume. So, when #600 hit the newsstands and DC, in a clearly marketing motivated but none-the-less effective ploy, released this revelation about the new costume and direction to the news media at large, what followed was an unprecedented media storm.
Once again, Diana's status as a worldwide recognised icon was further affirmed as furious public debate erupted across the spectrum on the merits of this new look and the new direction. Understandably, opinions were forceful and polarised. Some loved the new look, which they considered a long overdue modernisation of what they described as the "American flag bathing suit", even though Gail Simone had provided an entirely different origin for the costume in issue 43, in which she explained that the costume was in fact a representation of the blood red moon and star consolation in the night sky under which Diana was created by Hippolyta. More traditional fans on the other hand decried how such an instantly recognisable and iconic costume had been watered down to a generic, bland, department store get up mixing elements of Black Canary and Superboy's outfits - and which bore no resemblance to the Wonder Woman they knew and loved - appearing in some eyes to be more like "a Nintendo fighting game character from the 90s"!!!!
And what is more, conspiracy theories also ran amok that this was actually all just a cynical move by Warner Brothers to introduce a new, more "Hollywood" friendly costume (i.e. dumbed down) in anticipation of a new movie, stoking fears in some quarters of another "Cathy Lee Crosby" debacle in the making.
Whatever the truth, it cannot be denied that the amount of publicity this costume change caused (surprisingly, even more so than the new origin story itself) meant that the mainstream man and woman in the street, who had probably never read the comic book in their life - but remembered and more importantly still instantly recognised this classic character with affection - were talking about Wonder Woman again with affection.
As to whether the costume will remain at the end of the year long story arc remains to be seen.
|
Opinion: |
Now,
as a rule I usually don't let my opinions creep into this website and try my
level best to keep Amazon Archives as factual and rational as I can - though
I admit I don't always succeed as much as I'd like!!!! However, with this being
such an emotive topic, I thought I would break with tradition and give you an
insight into my own particular opinion on the changes that have occurred - and
how a life long fan views this new look and direction.
So here goes. Hold on tight. It ain't gonna be pretty!
First off, I have no issues with this alternate reality based "Diana finds herself" story arc. It's a nice idea and a clever way in which Straczynski can explore who Diana is, what makes her tick and what she stands for. However, when it comes to the new costume - well...that is another matter entirely.
Let's be blunt. I detest the new costume and what it represents. A little strong perhaps? Maybe. But let me explain my rationale...
Firstly, many people have accused us "fan boys" of over reacting. They argue (and I would agree with this part) that the new costume makes sense in this alternate reality that Diana exists in, merely serving the purposes of the current narrative. "She'll obviously be back in her classic costume by the end of the story arc's resolution", they state. And again, I'd be fine with this if I thought that this was indeed going to be the case. But I don't.
I fear this costume is here to stay. For good. Straczynski says as much in the article he writes, in which he explains the rationale for the new look and direction. Nowhere does he say " ..and we thought it a great idea to introduce the new costume because it fits perfectly with this particularly story I'm telling." On the contrary, he goes out of his way to state, and I quote, "The result will, we hope, be a redesign that is as current with the zeitgeist of the 21st century as the original was with 1941". And the alternate cover by Don Kramer with it's title "The All New Wonder Woman" again makes it very clear this is not seen as a temporary alternate costume for one particular story line. It's now THE costume.
Sure, at the end of this twelve month storyline I've no doubt Diana will restore the timeline and return herself to the correct reality - but what I foresee will happen is she will turn to a stunned Hippolyta and like a spoilt teenager declare "Hey mother, I know about our Amazon traditions etc but I've kinda got used to this outfit now and I'd like to keep wearing it if it's all the same to you, 'cos it reminds me of that other life I lead and the sacrifices I made over the past year." In other words, this alternate reality story arc is merely a plot device to ease the change over to the new costume.
Now,
Straczynski implies (in so many words) that the costume is no longer relevant,
is out dated and sexist. I'd have more respect for this statement if, as part
of their 75th anniversary, DC had undertaken a costume revamp for every
single one of it's golden age heroes - whose costume were all created "of
their time". But I don't see Green Lantern or Superman in new costumes,
do you? I mean, if someone were creating the Superman character from scratch
today, nobody would ever consciously create a costume whereby the hero wears
his underpants outside of his tights and sports a cape!!! And yet this "ludicrous"
costume remains unchanged. Why? Because it's iconic.
But it seems Wonder Woman on the other hand is less sacred to DC and is after all, 'only a female character'. The hypocrisy stinks doesn't it? In fact, Straczynski makes a rather baffling statement in his article that left me bemused by its blatant inaccuracy.
I quote; "While other characters from Batman to Superman and others throughout the DC Universe, have undergone substantial changes over the years, Wonder Woman has remained pretty much the same in appearance." Excuse me? Substantial changes?
When I look at the Superman costume of today, versus the one of the 40's, they're ostensibly exactly the same costume - same colours, same design elements. Even Batman, who I admit has seen a more evolutionary change to his outfit over the years, still nevertheless has all the recognisable core elements of the original costume from the 40's i.e. cape, cowl, boots, belt etc. For Straczynski to state that somehow these two iconic characters have seen major changes to their original costumes, whereas Wonder Woman's has supposedly "stood still in time" smacks of almost Mao-like revisionism.
The
new costume has nothing in it that shouts Wonder Woman. All the core
elements have been either removed completely or toned down to such a level that
they barely register. In my eyes, this could be just another 'Bad Girl' character
from one of the independents - there's nothing in this new look that states
"I'm a classic DC icon - look at me!". It's THAT bland. They may as
well have renamed the character "Walmart Woman" -as this seems to
be where she sourced her outfit from...
As visitors to this site will know, I commissioned an artwork piece from the very talented Al Rio, depicting Diana through the ages. Now, I've seen this artwork crop up all over the web and in the news media in general recently (annoyingly, never crediting either this site nor Al Rio - but that's another subject!!). Anyway, the art is usually used to show that Diana's costume in fact has changed and evolved over the years - it's not the exact same outfit she wore in 1942 - but the core elements are all still there - in just the same way that Batman's and Superman's costumes are still essentially the same core costumes. So I ask again. Why is it OK to rip Wonder Woman's very identity from her - but leave the "guys" untouched? Because she's an easy target perhaps? I can hear them now at DC...
"Oh poor old Diana. She's an old Grandma who's lost touch with the 'kids' and needs a makeover. A woman has to be fashionable nowadays you know - but Supes and Bats however are timeless icons. They're endearing classics and we wouldn't want to mess with their costumes, heaven forbid. Think of the outrage it would cause!!!"
Exactly. You don't mess with an icon. Fact. Wonder Woman is the costume and the costume is Wonder Woman. They're not mutually exclusive. They're one and the same thing. By changing the costume, Diana is now "Wonder Woman" in name only. Let me use an analogy to demonstrate what I mean. I know it's a little silly but bear with me here…
Let's
say tomorrow the U.S. Government suddenly asked America to throw away the Stars
and Stripes because of it's supposed negative connotations around the world,
and instead introduce a new, more "friendly" American flag design
with a "modern and relevant motif to appeal to the current generation".
They come up with a new trendy design -a yellow, smiley face emoticon on a green
background!! And thus the national flag suddenly becomes the "American"
flag in name only - would Americans still feel "American"
flying this new flag outside their homes? I'd hazard a guess no. The Stars and
Stripes have meaning and significance. They're more than just patterns on material.
You can't just cast them aside without consequences. And the same principle
applies to Diana's costume.
Is "Wonder Woman" supposed to be a comic book about a fictional and fantastical character, or is it a fashion magazine trying to keep up with modern sensibilities?!!! The simple fact is she's not supposed to reflect modern sensibilities. She's supposed to represent her own Amazon culture and heritage.
The beauty of her classic costume is that it is no longer of any age. We get the fact that it doesn't conform with current fashion trends. But as a result - it also can never fall out of fashion either. It has become unique and timeless. How long will this supposed "zeitgeist" look stay "current"? A year? Six months? And unless someone had told you - would you really...truly ...honestly have recognised that the woman dressed in this outfit was Wonder Woman?
It seems that the introduction of pants is supposed to be liberating and more practical, according to the new creative team. How so? Diana comes from a Greek influenced culture. The Greeks, Trojans, Spartans et al all went into battle bare legged. No pants. It didn't seem to bother them or strike them as impractical. So why should Diana cover up? Oh I get it. Because she's a woman, right? Shame on you DC.
I
might be able to understand the reasoning for the introduction of pants if they
provided any form of additional protection to Diana. But, as with the rest of
this generic, ill thought out get-up, it is merely a shallow fashion statement
and nothing more. How can pants be more practical in a battle than bare legs?
I can imagine it now. During the first major fight Diana gets into, her new
pants will get torn and shredded - until she ends up wearing tattered rags around
her thighs as she curses to herself "Hades! What the hell was I thinking
putting these damn things on!" Seriously, how can that possibly
be a practical improvement?
Some still argue that the classic costume is impractical to fight in. "How does she keep her rack tucked in?" Cue the sniggers. In reply, I would ask why these people are even reading comic books in the first place? I personally read them for escapism and to absorb myself in a world that cannot possibly exist in reality. If we want our super heroes to be "real world", then literally every single one should be dressed in camouflaged, Kevlar body armour and helmet. But who wants that?
If someone has refused to pick up a Wonder Woman comic thus far simply because they cannot get past what she is wearing, then I'm not sure Wonder Woman is the right book for them in the first place. I find it amusing and frustrating in equal measures that a character who is famous for bringing her message of peace, love and understanding to Man's World - and who champions the notion that people should be respected regardless of race, colour, creed or religion - is herself a victim of rampant prejudice time and time again - as she is judged by her looks alone.
To me, that's even more reason for her to keep wearing the classic costume - because nothing demonstrates better that you should never judge a book by its cover - or a person by their outfit. The costume almost reinforces Diana's message- "Look at me. Think you know who and what I am? Think again."
Phew! See? This is why I don't let myself get on my soap box! I did warn you!
Clearly, everyone has their own views and are entitled to their own opinions. Some people really love the new costume and I totally respect that. The above musing simply represents my current state of mind -and you can either agree or disagree with me - the choice is yours. But right now - I fear for the future of the Wonder Woman I know and love. Straczynski is a talented writer (I loved 'Babylon 5') and he has a year to win me over with his 'Odyssey' storyline. Who knows? Perhaps he'll surprise us all and take us on a journey that neither the supporters nor detractors of the new look are expecting.
But I sincerely hope that in twelve months time I don't look back to this day and think to myself that this is the moment DC destroyed an icon...and turned Wonder Woman into nothing but a shadow of her former glory.
And if they do, I would need to give long hard thought as to whether this website should continue to chronicle the adventures of a character I simply no longer recognise or consider to be the REAL Wonder Woman.
|
Stories and articles featured in this Issue: |
|
|