I recently heard a debate about whether or not Wonder Woman is really an iconic character despite her 70+ year history, and it somehow intrigued me that the issue was even in question. I mean, I've never doubted her place in the DC pantheon but it is true that she somehow fails to "connect" with many readers, and I wonder why. Which extends to some other characters, also. Namor, for example, has been around since WWII but he doesn't seem to have the pull to support a title of his own, yet newcomers like Deadpool are all over the place.
so, what characters do you think deserve more attention than they are currently given? And how to fix that?

(By the way, the conclusion to the Wonder Woman debate was that male fanboys have trouble to picture themselves banging her, while other female characters are more ..."accesible" and therefore more popular. Are we really that sleazy?)

Historically it's been hard for superhero books to do well when they have female leads. Wonder Woman is only published as frequently and consistently as it is because DC will lose the rights should they not do "x" number of issues a year.

And, well, look at some of the other female characters. Spider-Girl made it to 100+ issues, but the sales were never great and the threat of cancellation was ever looming. The same goes for She-Hulk and Catwoman. And yeah, those are the best case scenarios.

It is true that the comic book redaership is mostly male. And yes, these readers want a character they can identify with. Some want a character who they can see themselves as in a ideal situation. Aside from transgender males, they aren't going to get that from a female superhero.

I think the main reason Namor never took off as a solo hero is because he's usually written to be an arrogant, unlikable ass. The reader won't want to identify with him and therefore he doesn't work as a title protagonist. Namor works best as a supporting character in somebody elses' book.

And yes, characters like Deadpool aren't exactly saints. Deadpool does kill for money. But, he usually kills people who deserve it. And, he's also usually written to be funny and loopy and entertaining. The reader is made to like him. That's very important.

Air Raid Robertson
Historically it's been hard for superhero books to do well when they have female leads. Wonder Woman is only published as frequently and consistently as it is because DC will lose the rights should they not do "x" number of issues a year.

That could be one of the reasons why Wonder Woman is handed to writers that don't care much for the character (except for Gail Simone). I think that the lack of conection with the WW character is pretty much blame of the writers.

I will admit that Wonder Woman is not my favorite character overall. She's not even my favorite comic female character...but is hard to picture the Justice League without her...And her spot in the Trinity is undeniable. She's an icon!!!

Look, as far as I know Wonder Woman was a bondage fantasy for guys. Being a dom and a sub depending on the circumstance. That was what she was for, that was the formula and it worked well enough.
Then just because she happened to be female and an established franchise they thought they should use her to capture the female market.

So she has limited appeal... there's only so much you can do with a reinvented bondage fantasy. I mean, you don't start out with much do you?

It's the same problem all that hero genre has- legacy issues from juvenile origins. It's a shaky foundation. Obviously newer stuff is easier to customise to modern tastes, and besides, stuff from even 30 or 20 years ago hasn't got the same niave broad brush issues as the older stuff because that was written for a more mature market than the really early work.

I'd say one of the reasons some old stuff does a lot better is because it was better designed originally, it was more open to change and interpretation (because of its simplicity), or it just tapped simple eternally appealing characteristics that always work.

Bondage fantasy characters are always appealing, but unfortunately Wonder Woman just couldn't really go back to that could she? It'd be wrong. So very wrong... And not in a good way -_-

I think female leads don't do well on the stands because they're written so poorly/hard to believe, i believe a guy would put aside his need to self-insert himself upon the main lead and read about her, but her stories are usually too lopsided and 'unreal' anyways. It's hard to target girls when your lead is wearing a one-piece leotard and her breasts are spilling out while she fights some robbers, and then it's hard to target comic book loving guys when the series is about the lead trying to balance her life as a fashion designer and pick between two guys vying for her, one of which is also her super rich nemesis and the other is good-guy scruffy jogger(...n-not that i'd want to read that. cause i dont...*shuffles feet*)

I can't see wonder woman not being iconic, people know who she is if they see her even if they don't read comics. I don't see deadpool as iconic because people outside the comic world don't know who the hell he is if they see him.

I dont think wonder woman is less popular because she is a woman (at least not directly).
I think it is because she is just not that interesting of a character and her back story is pretty silly (lost land of amazons? Come on...)
Now she is written to be bland and have a silly back story because she is a woman, which has the knock on effect of making people not want to read about her much.
So it is her creators rather then her readers that are sexist.

Also she lacks a really cool villain of her own.
Who is wonder womans ultimate arch enemy? Damned if I know!
Gorilla Grood maybe?
Considering the amount of bondage on her comic covers, possibly she fights an evil gimp?

She is just a bit lame, sad but true (because blocking bullets with your wrists is awesome!)

Air Raid Robertson
Wonder Woman is only published as frequently and consistently as it is because DC will lose the rights should they not do "x" number of issues a year.

I think you'll find that's no longer the case. It was true for decades, you're right, but I'm sure DC recently acquired the full rights from the Marston estate.

To my mind, Wonder Woman is an icon. With the possible exception of Supergirl (another character people seem to have trouble writing for), she is perhaps the only universally known superheroine from either DC or Marvel. She is known both within and outside the comics community and is the model upon which all subsequent superheroines have been based.

Another fact in support of her claim to iconic status would be her place in popular culture outside of comics. Although often dismissed as nothing more than a bondage festishist's fantasy figure (her creator, William Moulton Marston was indeed into that kind of thing!) his principal intention was to create a strong superheroine that girls could identify with in the way that boys identified with Superman and Batman. To that extent he succeeded and, whatever her appeal to male fans, as a "strong, independent woman" the feminist movement has often chosen to adopt her as its mascot.

My own theory is that people have trouble writing for her because they refuse to confront the real problems with her backstory. She comes from an island of prejudiced, narrow-minded women whose very society is structured around a hatred and fear of men. They have been given a divine mission to promote harmony between the sexes and to be a civilising influence on the world and yet their own society is a feudalistic monarchy, with barbaric, misandristic laws and which trains its citizens to be xenophobic warriors. Writers occasionally allow a little dig at those aspects but seldom have the courage to treat them as the one fundamental flaw in Wonder Woman's character - the one factor which has shaped her and which she must struggle to overcome.

Instead of dealing with this huge issue in the way that Frank Miller grasped the contradictions and absurdities in the Batman mythos, male and female writers alike have wittered on about irrelevant details such as whether her costume is too revealing or whether she should wear heels.

The first serious attempt at confronting the real issue head-on (or at least the first that I've seen) is in the recent Wonder Woman animated DVD. If the comics follow suit, we might finally have a Wonder Woman that's credible in the 21st Century. Well, you know ... as credible as any superhero can be!

The only thing I used to kike about Wonder Woman on TV was seeing her get tied up :)
I was very young then...

My problem is that it seems that the big companies don't realize that there are girls who read comics. Thus, most of the girls in comics are written to appeal to guys (or they're written out completely). In other words, skimpy clothes and sex (coughsilkspectrecough).

Then you have series like batgirl or spidergirl or supergirl or she-hulk, which makes me think that maybe they realized that there are girls who read comics, but the company isn't going to start with something fresh and new; instead, just make female counterparts for all of the superheros we already have and hope it works. But, though it might have worked, the series gets shafted with bad writing.

I kindof like wonderwoman because - if for nothing else - she's "wonderwoman" and not "superwoman."

Initially, Wonder Woman was indeed involved in involuntary bondage quite a lot. There is a particular issue, back when the original creators were still doing her book, where she is tied up seven times and even she realizes that it is ridiculous. And she did have a seat in the Justice League, but it was a seat to the side of the meetings table, taking notes. She was the Justice League's secretary. I believe that the first outlet where she was shown the respect she deserves was in Superfriends. There she is just another member of the team, every bit as strong, smart and tough as any of the other heroes, and the fact of her being a woman was never even an issue. I think that the problem is that she hasn't found the writer that finally finds out what she is about, like Frank Miller did with Daredevil, Walter Simonson with Thor and John Byrne with Superman. And of course, the initial thought that comes to mind is that being a female lead in a primarily male-dominated medium places her at a disadvantage, fighting an upside battle for recognition. BUT then I think, what about Buffy? People, both tv viewers and comic readers, have reacted really well to Buffy, Xena, Lara Croft, Witchblade and the original Gen 13. I don't see male readers having problem accepting a female lead anymore, yet Wondie kinda always seems to get the short end of people's respect. And I wonder, is it because of the lasso? The costume? The invisible plane? Or is it because a female lead has to be even more brutal and murderous than the males to be appreciated? Perhaps the fact is that, being a female, her moral standards are more easily percieved as a weakness, so it doesn't help her to share the ethics of her teammates Batman and Superman. It is generally accepted that one of the best portrayals of the character is her warmongering persona in Kingdom Come. Is this the truth? Does she have to shrug off her reluctance to kill to gain some recognition? Is someone's life the price for Wonder Woman's popularity?

The problem with Wonder Woman I think, is the same as Superman. By that I mean they are both borderline godlike with their powers.

At least with Superman they tried to give him some aspect of humanity by having him be raised by human parents. With Wonder Woman, there is no real aspect of humanity for the reader to connect with.

Supergirl is the same way. This is more DC's fault, in that they make most of their characters so powerful that it's hard to relate to any of them. Aside from Batman of course. (It's a stretch, but at least he has dealt with things people can relate to a bit more.)

I would like for someone to write the definitive Wonder Woman tale, but I'm not sure if we ever will.

Dont know how many of you check the That Guy With the Glasses site (I divide my time between it and DD), but one of the reviewers, Linkara, did a pretty cool review of the Wonder Woman's history...

I do recomend to check it out.

zaymac
The problem with Wonder Woman I think, is the same as Superman. By that I mean they are both borderline godlike with their powers.

I think there's a lot of truth in that. One of the ways in which it's addressed in Superman is by having him care for Lois Lane. Despite being a super-powered alien, this gives him very human concerns. In Wonder Woman's case, she used to have a "male Lois" in Steve Trevor but he was dropped (presumably because it wasn't seen as very manly to have to be rescued by a woman!) I think that was a mistake. As the Wonder Woman DVD shows, he may not be able to match Wonder Woman for physical strength etc but he can still be a strong character in his own right, just as Lois is seen as a strong individual.

timethief
It is generally accepted that one of the best portrayals of the character is her warmongering persona in Kingdom Come.

Really? I think Kingdom Come is a very average book. The portrayal of Wonder Woman in particular is very one-dimensional and without subtlety. It completely misses the point of what she's about. But that's just me. I find most books by Alex Ross (with or without collaborators on the writing!) are like that.

zaymac
I would like for someone to write the definitive Wonder Woman tale, but I'm not sure if we ever will.

I'm going to plug the Wonder Woman animated DVD again here. It's not perfect, but it's very, very close!

Wonder Woman is indeed iconic. You know whose to blame? Lynda Carter and the people who developed that TV show that ran during the 70s.

My wife is not a huge comic fan, but she, like many girls during that time have attempted to "spin around" think they would change into a superhero. Though campy, there was a representation of female empowerment. Hollywood begs to differ because it seems the motion to get a Wonder Woman movie going is sitting in development hell (Remember when they were talking Sandra Bullock as WW). And much like the comic world, its male-dominated.

Then there was the Superfriends - she was the lone female in a "boys club". This continued to push her through the mainstream as the ONLY real female superhero that mattered...even when there were others out there.

That said, I like how both George Perez and John Byrne ran with the franchise for a hot second. Re-inventing her relevance as a strong, female figure who could rival the big boys like Batman and Superman. Even re-exploring her origin and giving us an education on Greek mythology

She STILL remains the gold standard. There isn't a female superhero in the Marvel series that holds a candle to her goddess-meets-patriotism - She's not just a piece of eye candy.

However...

Wonder Woman has always been a potentially interesting character but I agree, writer incompetence (and mainly inability to respect or apparently even care to read previous storylines or a good wikipedia page on WW) coupled with continuity schizophrenia and not settling on a consistent personality, have all prevented Wonder Woman from maintaining reader interest and likeability.

As dinky as the 70s tv show was, it was consistent to its own version of the mythology and her personality...guys liked Lynda Carter and girls liked a semi-feministic Wonder Woman.

Now, I wouldn't know where to begin if you asked me "Who is Wonder Woman?" (I don't know -- do you mean in the present, in the past -- 5 years ago, 25 years ago -- it changes, ya know!) and "Why should I read Wonder Woman?" I'd probably say "Don't!" lol!

I think a lot of Wonder Woman's problems came from DC being forced to assign artists and writers to her book regardless of their interest or compatability with the character. (Or lack of it, to be more exact)

William Moulton Marston's tenure on the book was odd, and the bondage scenes were eerie. Still, his stories were interesting. Most of the Batman and Superman comics of that period couldn't say the same thing. Also, Harry Peter was an amazingly talented artist. I was weirded out by reading 1940's Wonder Woman almost solely because I was looking at good cartooning in a Golden Age superhero book.

A lot of poor choices were made after Marston died though. Robert Kanigher's resume didn't exactly scream Wonder Woman writer. And, of course, there was that bizarre period when Wonder Woman was depowered and wearing go-go dancing outfits while learning kung-fu from a guru named I Ching. I looked at that stuff and thought "Dennis O'Neil wrote this? Really?"

Mike Deodato Jr. shouldn't have been allowed within 100 yards of Wonder Woman. His female proportions were laughable even by 90's standards. (Although his drawing skill has improved significantly in recent years)

The title, however, has had a few bright spots in its long and tortured history. George Perez's run as writer/artist was very good. This might've had something to do with Perez actually volunteering to draw Wonder Woman. I didn't think John Byrne's stint was all that bad either, but I can understand if people don't like him on it.

I haven't read it myself, but I heard that Gail Simone is doing a decent job on Wonder Woman right now.

In many respects Daredevil is one of those characters who deserve more recognition as well. He is one of Marvel's original flagship characters but he is kinda "out of the loop". They keep him fighting the mobsters and assassins and what-not, practically taking him out of the mainstream Marvel Universe. For such an interesting gritty character who has had some great writers write his exploits (well, other than the DD armor stuff in the early/mid 90s) he really isn't a character most people think of when you think of the Marvel originals.

It's funny because he's been my favorite character since I was a kid.

I think the reason for Daredevelil's lack of popularity is that he has the lamest super power ever concieved. He is a blind man who can see. I know that's a gross siplification he isn't terribly exotic or exciting.

Phillby
I think the reason for Daredevelil's lack of popularity is that he has the lamest super power ever concieved. He is a blind man who can see. I know that's a gross siplification he isn't terribly exotic or exciting.

That is what adds the intrigue. He has sonar for the most part, and it isn't even foolproof sonar. Too much noise or over-stimulation of one of his senses leaves him as a blind man who is completely blind. And he combats cold-blooded killers, mobsters, thugs, and rapists with these limitations. I find the fact that he has the "cajones" to face real criminals head on with such limitations to be very intriguing.

I'm probably in the minority with my intrigue, though.

I'm a dyed in the wool Daredevil fan. I could give a crap over whether or not Daredevil has "cool powers". I read comics for sharp writing and great art. And yeah, Daredevil has had some of the best. Stan Lee, Wally Wood, Gene Colan, Frank Miller, Klaus Janson, John Romita Sr., John Romita Jr., David Mack, Lee Weeks, Alex Maleev, Brian Michael Bendis, and so on. I reread my Daredevil back issues more often than I do with any Marvel superguy.

Maybe the character is sort of marginalized because he's mostly a street fighter who doesn't fight big name villains with the rest of the Avengers. I wouldn't really want him that way anyways. Daredevil works best when he's depicted as a pulp hero kind of figure. Maybe once in a while you can throw in a superpowered goon like Mr. Hyde or Boomerang, but for the most part the character shines best when he's playing like The Shadow or Green Hornet.

Air Raid Robertson
I'm a dyed in the wool Daredevil fan. I could give a crap over whether or not Daredevil has "cool powers". I read comics for sharp writing and great art. And yeah, Daredevil has had some of the best. Stan Lee, Wally Wood, Gene Colan, Frank Miller, Klaus Janson, John Romita Sr., John Romita Jr., David Mack, Lee Weeks, Alex Maleev, Brian Michael Bendis, and so on. I reread my Daredevil back issues more often than I do with any Marvel superguy.

Maybe the character is sort of marginalized because he's mostly a street fighter who doesn't fight big name villains with the rest of the Avengers. I wouldn't really want him that way anyways. Daredevil works best when he's depicted as a pulp hero kind of figure. Maybe once in a while you can throw in a superpowered goon like Mr. Hyde or Boomerang, but for the most part the character shines best when he's playing like The Shadow or Green Hornet.

I could not agree with you more. The calibur of writers and artists that have worked on this character over the years have added to his intrigue. Heck, Wally Wood and Frank Miller are two of my biggest inspirations!

female characters are so hard to get right. Men AND women seem to equally fail at creating realistic, likable female characters. They either make the women just background eye-candy, a plot device ( "save me!" ) or worse, one of those super-empowered, I-can-do-everything-right kind of ladies. The last one I find most offensive, perhaps irrationally.

I wish more comics/books/movies/anything would have flawed, realistic, lovable, compelling female characters.

Kristen Gudsnuk
or worse, one of those super-empowered, I-can-do-everything-right kind of ladies. The last one I find most offensive, perhaps irrationally.

I agree. Maybe we're both irrational.

Actually, the most offensive is when any of those types (esp. the last one) is some kind of man-hating feminist who refuses help from anyone because it's a sign of weakness. God, I hate that. It's even worse if that character has some sudden change of heart, proving she really is just a weak woman and then falls for a chauvinist ass of a hero who "rescues" her.

It has been a LONG time since I've read or watched anything with decent female characters -- except maybe some kid movies where the characters are all pretty much kids with no regard for gender. Then again, many of the real life women I know are so nauseatingly fake, that maybe it IS realistic for so many of them to act that way in fiction. -_-

usedbooks
It has been a LONG time since I've read or watched anything with decent female characters -- except maybe some kid movies where the characters are all pretty much kids with no regard for gender.

That's why I love Miyazaki!

Then again, many of the real life women I know are so nauseatingly fake, that maybe it IS realistic for so many of them to act that way in fiction. -_-

Well, if you ask anyone if they think that they're boring and fake, most people would say "of course not!" There's something within all of us that makes us interesting to at least some subculture of the population, but some writers are too lazy to find that 'something' and use it to develop their side characters (read: female). But that possible point of interest or empathy is absolutely nowhere to be found in many books/comics/movies. When I think of my favorite female characters from books/movies, the list is sparse (while the male one goes on and on). Unfortunately, most iconic roles are given to male characters. Can you imagine Rorschach from Watchmen as a female? I kind of can, and that would rock. Why can't I think of any badass-but-tortured female characters in popular culture?

Kristen Gudsnuk
That's why I love Miyazaki!

Me too. I believe Nausicaa is my all-time favorite character. And she could have just as easily been a male character. Nothing about her made her *have* to be female. That's just the way Miyazaki rolls.

Most of my favorite characters (men and women) could have the opposite gender with no effect on the character or story. Most of the "genderless" types like that are written as males, but there's no reason they couldn't be females. It's just convention.

Here are my thoughts.

Look at the Huntress whom I'll hold up a prime example of female failure in the super hero world. I used to be a HUGE Huntress fan! She was one of the FEW major female heroes who wasn't just a carbon copy of a more popular hero. More of she was complex, independent and her own person as opposed the typical "LETS FOLLOW SUPERMAN AND BATMAN" flag wavers. Unfortunately the very moment she go promoted from a B string character to an a string character by adding her into the Bird of Prey series she stripped off her combat gear in favor a hot pants, thigh boots, and a shirt that was just barely painted onto her nipples, she had her personality washed until she was on the same moral cotton candy@22 train as every other super hero, and became a huge slut sleeping with the very dregs of the DCU and later lamenting "Oh I don't even know why I did that".

The success of a female character often leads to her being watered down to A. Make her more "acceptable" to readers, B. Make sure she doesn't threaten to steal the spotlight from the top billing characters like Wonder Woman, C. doesn't generate angry letters.

Another aspect of the problem is that women, like homosexuals are shoved into refrigerators so often in comics that when you try to make a character outside the norm you typically get accused of showing females in a negative light because it happens so often.

When Honor Blackman joined the British TV series as Ms. Gale she stepped into a role that had actually been written for a male which was then tempered with her portrail of the character. In comics when they try this they lack the tempering and just end up with dime a dozen females or guys with breasts. I think perhaps the solution is to actually get male and female creative teams to actually get bot perspectives in the characterizations.

Comics, like animation are heavily structure by a very ridged set of preconceived ideas in the west. Female characters are just one victim of this.

Evil Emperor Nick
Here are my thoughts.

I agree with a lot of that except towards the end there. I don't think there's an overall problem with female characters in general. In comics and everything else there's a place fall all types of character style. Slutty, stupid, brainless bimbos, "guys in a female body" girls, realistic females, ingenue, whatever. Guy characters are just as varied and or limited.