Wonder Woman Goes Urban: DC's Biggest Mistake Ever?

“Diana is far too undervalued by this world. This must change.”

So states an unnamed character within the pages of “Wonder Woman” No. 600, reflecting the new direction that DC’s artists are hoping to take the third member (along with fellow Justice Leaguers Superman and Batman) of DC Comics’ so-called “Holy Trinity”, named so for the three characters’ enduring popularity amongst comic fans and the general public. The problem is that, despite her regular association with characters like the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel, Wonder Woman- aka Princess Diana of Themyscira- just doesn’t earn nearly as much at the comic book stand as her muscle-bound brethren.

Considering the character’s lack of development outside the realms of comics and animation, the fact that Wonder Woman has proven less profitable than her Trinity counterparts shouldn’t come as a big surprise. Unlike Batman and Superman, who have both added multiple film franchises to their names over the decades (with sequels and reboots aplenty forthcoming), Wonder Woman has never been afforded the opportunity to try her luck on the silver screen. Besides the famous role of Lynda Carter in the live-action TV show of the 1970s, the Amazon Princess has thus far been unable to procure the runway, a la cinema, on which she might strut her stuff- and kick some serious supervillain tail, of course. With Batman as popular as he’s ever been, and a revival of Superman just around the corner (thank you very much, Christopher Nolan), who wouldn’t want to see that golden lasso in live action and, who knows, maybe some gimmicky “eye-popping 3D”?

The trouble is, DC Comics has made a creative decision that may well spell doom- at least in the short term- for the unheralded Amazon beauty. Stripping her of her iconic armored one-piece and red heels, artists have redressed her thusly:

At first glance, the costume looks great. The character looks beautiful, stylish, and tough, especially with those nifty whatchamacallits armoring her knuckles. Most of her skin is covered, so it’s clearly an advantage if she’s trying to maintain a low(er) profile, and in general, it seems a heck of a lot more practical.

But there’s just one problem: This is NOT Wonder Woman’s outfit.

"What woman only wears one outfit for 70 years?" Asks DC artist J. Michael Straczynski. "What woman doesn't accessorize? And more to the point, as many women have lamented over the years . . . how does she fight in that thing?"

If comic fans were that concerned with the tactical maneuverability of superhero costumes, they’d just watch The Incredibles (which, by the way, is one of the best movies of the last decade). Hasn’t this “artist” ever heard the phrase “Don’t tug on Superman’s cape”? If women have such issues with Wonder Woman’s costume, why has it gone unchanged for the past 70 years (which is about the same amount of time that both Superman and Batman have gone almost totally unchanged)?

For an answer, let’s briefly examine the definition of the word “iconic”: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of an icon; Art executed according to a convention or tradition. The new costume is not at all characteristic of Wonder Woman, nor has it been designed in accordance with her traditional image, and therefore the artist has reduced an iconic character to a pop-culture fashion statement. Once again, while we all surely respect the sensibilities of Edna Mode, this development is nothing less than tragic. Does DC not understand that sacrificing Wonder Woman on the altar of ever-changing fashion trends could irrevocably hasten the demise of what ought to be the universally recognizable symbol of fiction’s greatest female warrior?

But there’s one more factor at play here that no one is talking about: The classic Wonder Woman costume is, if nothing else, one of the most patriotic superhero outfits ever designed. While progressives have often tried to use her as a symbol of radical feminism and advance the culture of death yet further, it’s hard to deny the overwhelming appeal of a supermodel armored by the stars and stripes beating the tar out of Stalin-esque villains to readers of a conservative, death-to-all-evil disposition (For more on how feminism tends to ruin Wonder Woman, check out this superb analysis by BigHollywood’s James Hudnall: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2010/07/02/wonder-woman-reboot-strident-feminism-is-the-problem-not-the-costume/). The new costume exhibits no such patriotism. As others have observed, the new Wonder Woman fails to stand out much at all, let alone in a manner indicative of her American origins as a character.

This new “global” mindset is one force that has done more damage to the superhero genre than any other. Superheroes are a uniquely American invention, and for good reason: Here we believe(d) in individual exceptionalism. Here we believe(d) in fighting against tyranny for the sake of individual liberty. Here we raise(d) our flags with pride when confronted by the forces of evil.

Raise the flag. Keep on believing.

Get Your Progressive Hands OFF My X-Men!

Dear Bryan Singer:

Thank you for possibly ruining the X-Men forever.

Since the not-so-recent adaptation of the X-Men comics by director Bryan Singer, better known, perhaps, for giving us ‘Superman Returns’- aka ‘Superman: The Chick Flick’- everyone’s favorite mutants have been caught in something of a cinematic purgatory from which there seems to be no escape. Hugh Jackman’s wonderful performance as Wolverine notwithstanding, the X-Men films thus far, while costly and at least somewhat well-directed, have become something of a pariah amongst comic fans. There are plenty of culprits at which we can point fingers and blame for this progression of disappointments, but there is one aspect I’d like to address that has particular relevance to us and to our nation in general.

Of late, it has become increasingly popular to view the X-Men through a narrow-minded lens of “social justice.” From this perspective, the adventures of Xavier’s mutants are symbols of progress in the fight against racism, homophobia, xenophobia… you name it. The fictitious politicians advocating programs like “mutant registration” express their logic in terms of national security interests- a realistic enough argument- but also campaign on platforms of exposing mutants simply because “they are different” or, as in the case of the comics’ Reverend William Stryker, because they represent the work of Satan on Earth. Angry mobs that gather to express their discontent with mutants frequently shout semi-racist slogans like “No more muties!” or “Send mutants to the moon!”

And in ‘X2: X-Men United’, in one of the most logically backwards scenes out of ANY recent superhero films, Bobby Drake/ Ice Man “comes out” as a mutant in a sequence of boring melodrama more befitting of the Lifetime Channel than a serious superhero flick, during which his parents ask him “Have you ever tried not being a mutant?”, a clear jab by the filmmakers at advocates of gay therapy programs, and a poorly-conceived one at that.

It was only one step up from the scene in Richard Donner’s otherwise entertaining film ‘Assassins’ in which two armed men in a gunfight pass by a bus with an anti-NRA banner.

A more entertaining and, arguably, more intellectually sound reading of the X-Men is this:

1. The X-Men stand for equal rights (as opposed to equal THINGS) under the law

2. Socialism’s leveling of the playing field is MORALLY WRONG

3. A person should expect to have the integrity of their body and their privacy both respected.

That’s it in a nutshell, anyway. The X-Men, if you follow their story’s implications to their logical conclusions, represent a reasonably conservative, pro-American message of individual liberty.

The mutants have a right to their powers not as their race or sexual preference, but as their God-given TALENTS. Neither the government nor the majority of voters in a constitutional republic like the United States possess the capacity to strip a human being of that talent without also trespassing on the sacred boundary of a person’s mind and body.

The government has no right to arbitrarily seize mutants and use them for a particular end against their will, as is the case with the notorious Weapon X program. Additionally, neither do other mutants have the right to force one another into indentured servitude, as is often the methodology of the Mutant terrorist Magneto (who may also be taken as a mutant version of Osama Bin Laden, but that’s a conversation for another day).

The fictitious crowds who gather to protest mutants do not fit the character of racists or homophobes, because they’re not protesting people whose skin color offends them or whose sexuality they find revolting. Race, for example, is a superficial difference- it is literally only skin-deep and does not affect a man's character unless he allows it to.

TALENT, on the other hand, is very tangible. The anti-mutant activists attack mutants so relentlessly because they see their power as an unfair advantage in a competitive society. Since they do not share the mutants’ capacity for super powers, they would like to see the government level the playing field for them. Yes, the anti-mutant crowds actually bear similarity to the socialist disciples of Saul Alinsky, forever incapable of accepting that talented and hardworking men and women possess the right to benefit from the fruits of their individual gifts.

All of these are intriguing arguments by my measure, but the truth becomes most clear when reflecting on just what X-Men fans actually talk about when watching the movies or reading the comics. The single most common discussion- and it never gets old- revolves around a single question: “Whose power would you want?” The conversation that follows is usually something along these lines:

“I’d want Magneto’s power. There’s just so many things you can do with the power to control metal.” “I’d rather have Wolverine’s than Sabretooth’s, but I’d take either one. I want to heal fast and have animal senses.” “What about Beast? He’s pretty tough, and he has great acrobatic abilities.” “No, definitely Shadowcat. Can you imagine walking through walls!”

Now ask yourself this: Would an X-fan EVER watch X-Men and then proceed to ask his friends “Dudes, would you rather be black and oppressed or gay and oppressed?”

… My point exactly.

Please, Hollywood, STOP politicizing our favorite characters and let’s just get back to the good stuff.