Wonder Woman – Parodies and Travesties

Here are two pictures of live action versions of Wonder Woman. One is from the recent TV pilot, one is from a new pornographic parody:

Wonder Woman

ww

 

The top one is the official version, the one below it is the porn parody.

Dear DC: if the porn parody version looks classier, more true to the original and better-made, just generally less like a low budget porno than your official version, there’s a good chance you’re doing something wrong.

I’ve explained why I think Wonder Woman is a great character here. Yes, it’s problematic to have a powerful feminist icon who runs around in a swimsuit. So … say something interesting about that problem. The current Wonder Woman comic is, after ten years of failed relaunches, actually really rather good, one of the best comics DC are currently putting out. The version of the character in DC’s flagship Justice League title, read by five or six times as many people, is …

wonderwomanicecream

… yeah. So which version do the IP farmers run with? Guess.

There’s much talk that both Marvel and DC are ‘IP farms’ these days. The analogy is a good one: farms these days tend to be corporate-owned, massively subsidised, poorly-managed and run with no consideration for long term planning or the quality of the finished product. They want to get a lot of highly-processed product into supermarkets.

But the other thing to note: the makers of the porn version managed to get their product out there. The Wonder Woman pilot did not go to series. The IP farm just has a run of failed harvests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

3 responses to “Wonder Woman – Parodies and Travesties

  1. I hate the current version of Wonder Woman. I think making it a horror book situated in myth was a bad choice. I don’t like the revisionism which is almost excessive late ’80s Moore-ian in scope. I don’t like the rewrite of the amazons or the abandoning of Wonder Woman’s roots in favour of rape and, well, more rape. The problem with Wonder Woman is that the IP farms favour fluffy and the comics want Xena. And both are wrong.

    • Some of it is that it’s just nice to read a WW revamp that’s not laughably bad, I suspect. I don’t think the current comic has the head of steam it did when it started. But I think it’s got quite a nice line to it, makes the gods a little weirder and seedier, it deals – in a mainstream comics way – with male violence and objectification. I think the main problem with the character is that DC seem determined to make it a comic that’s not actually about anything at all, just some adventures, and that in itself is a political position. This is, of course, a company that managed to adapt The Girl With a Dragon Tattoo and take out the sex.

  2. I’ve read wonder woman since the perez golden era when I was a kid, after issue 16 it started to slooooowly go adrift and after issue 90 (in plain messner loebs taco bell hell and zero hour shenanigans) I stopped reading and buying. I did give a shot to the gimenez take back in the early 00’s (or was it late 90’s?) but it kinda turned blurrier by the hour, it is almost impossible for an artist like that to keep such standards with dc’s deadlines.
    Anyhow, I’ve been thinking about wonder woman the other day, and how she’s supposed to be the babalon of dc’s trinity. How many adaptations, far fetched revamps and forgettable spin offs have been made out of superman and batman? why both characters are still rebooted after reboot with the policy of “let’s sell merchandise, cause nobody cares about the movie”? (your IP farmer analogy hits the nail for me).
    I guess an alien who gets superpowers from the sun and is raised to embody the american way and a millionaire who at a certain extent lives only for revenge are better spoonfeeding material for global audiences than a woman who embodies the olympian gods and lives to teach equality, understanding, love and all those things that makes us big not by chance but by choice of consciousness and hard work.

    And reading above, in the ever downspiraling inversion of the all, content is stuff you pay for, therefore, it must not have or represent any content in itself, but something that you just want to buy… entertainment at the level of rich ostentious people being douchebags on tv and the such.

    Oh, by the way, she’s a chick… so, who cares?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s