We already know that DC is working on a Wonder Woman movie, but how popular would the Amazonian princess be if she was running around saving the day in a glorified swimsuit?  Lynda Carter was able to pull it off in the ’70s, but in this day and age of everyone getting bent out of shape over nothing, DC and Warner Bros. certainly need to take Diana’s costume into consideration as the company moves forward.

Is this the reason why we’re getting a new Wonder Woman costume now?  Are we being prepped for Wonder Woman’s debut on the big screen?  Would movie audiences embrace the new look?  Would they even know there was a different costume?  X-Men did it in their movie. So did/will Captain America.  For better or worse both Superman and Batman had major changes to their costumes when they arrived in theaters, and nobody balked then.  While the Wonder Woman costume may be short lived in the comics (there is another major company wide DC event coming soon), the new look isn’t as bad as it could have been.  And for studios concerned about putting asses in seats, the reason for the change becomes more clear. For the rest of us, give it a year, and everything you know will never be the same – AGAIN!

The Author

Stephen Schleicher

Stephen Schleicher

Stephen Schleicher began his career writing for the Digital Media Online community of sites, including Digital Producer and Creative Mac covering all aspects of the digital content creation industry. He then moved on to consumer technology, and began the Coolness Roundup podcast. A writing fool, Stephen has freelanced for Sci-Fi Channel's Technology Blog, and Gizmodo. Still longing for the good ol' days, Stephen launched Major Spoilers in July 2006, because he is a glutton for punishment.

You can follow him on Twitter @MajorSpoilers and tell him your darkest secrets...

Previous post

Rango trailer arrives

Next post

Arthur Adams covers New Mutants #15


  1. Jeff
    June 30, 2010 at 9:20 am — Reply

    Hate it, hate it, hate it.

    I think the Greco-Roman armor look from “The New Frontier” would have made more sense without sacrificing the essence of the character. After all, breast plate, greaves, bracers, and kilt aren’t that far off from her original bustiere/skirt look.

    Why do people have to screw with the costumes, anyway? Spider-Man’s costume looked great and they never even addressed the plausibility of Peter having sewn it together because at the end of the day we’re TALKING ABOUT MEN AND WOMEN IN TIGHTS WITH SUPERPOWERS!

    There comes a point where the insistence of Baby Boomers and Gen X-ers dragging their childhoods kicking and screaming into middle age is going to destroy what we love best about our childhood heroes in the first place!


    • TVsBryanD
      June 30, 2010 at 8:14 pm — Reply

      I agree that The New Frontier look would be better.

  2. Lamond
    June 30, 2010 at 9:29 am — Reply


  3. TaZ
    June 30, 2010 at 9:42 am — Reply

    She looks like a pro wrestler instead of a super-hero.

  4. Greg A
    June 30, 2010 at 9:42 am — Reply

    I don’t think an upcoming movie played much of a part in this decision to make this change to Wonder Woman’s costume.

    Whether or not her costume would look good on the big screen, her costume is iconic. There are probably more merchandising potential in her original costume than this new version. Yes, the X-Men strayed from using their costumes in the theatrical version; however, none of those uniforms have the same impact as the Wonde Woman costume. Even the test version of the Captain America costume for the upcoming film didn’t seem to stray too far from the original version of Captain America’s costume.

    This is probably more of an example of JMS wanting to put his stamp on the character.

  5. Astro Dinosaurus
    June 30, 2010 at 9:54 am — Reply

    My thoughts exactly regarding the movie, I call it now new Flash costume within the year.

    • brenton8090
      June 30, 2010 at 10:09 am — Reply

      We already got one, Wally’s wearing it. But Barry’s will not be changed. Geoff Johns is in love with him, and he calls the shots.

      • Astro Dinosaurus
        June 30, 2010 at 10:12 am — Reply

        I meant one they might use in a movie.

  6. Ricco
    June 30, 2010 at 9:56 am — Reply

    The fact she doesn’t look like a stripper will allow for it to be more kid friendly, might hurt sells for 18+ males thou ;-)

  7. usagi
    June 30, 2010 at 9:57 am — Reply

    I could live with the pants, but I would have preferred to keep the upper half of the costume closer to the original, with the larger ‘WW’ motif. Also the leather jacket looks dated and makes no sense at all for a ‘street fighter’, as JMS now describes WW.

    • aerspyder
      June 30, 2010 at 10:24 am — Reply

      Thank you. Putting some pants are her is fine but the jacket is dated. Is she getting an invisible motor cycle now?

      • Damascus
        July 1, 2010 at 4:25 am — Reply

        I actually don’t think it’s all that dated, I see quite a few younger females wearing the half-jackets these days. I haven’t seen too many made of leather, but why not? I’m not saying it’s fantastic, just saying that her old outfit was horribly dated and I’d say hard to take seriously in a more realistic setting. It’s great as an iconic look, but honestly (in only my opinion) Wonder Woman hasn’t been very interesting as a character for years. I can’t tell you a single villain from her Rogues Gallery and I don’t know another side character from her book. They needed to do something with her, and if that means taking it to the most superficial and outright changing the way she looks then yeah, I’ll actually probably notice the book on the wall as I’m walking past in in my LCS.

  8. brenton8090
    June 30, 2010 at 10:10 am — Reply

    The jacket has to go, bu otherwise I’m cool. I like it better in this image than the one from the other post.

  9. Bryan Stevens
    June 30, 2010 at 10:13 am — Reply

    From what I understand the creator actually has it in an iron clad contract that the costume can only undergo minor changes to it’s appearance. This is pretty major change so expect it to go back after a time.

    • June 30, 2010 at 10:35 am — Reply

      Untrue. Kurk Busiek cleared it up in an interview a while ago.
      They are no longer true, but they were true for a long time — as I understand it, the terms were that DC had to publish at least four issues with “Wonder Woman” as the banner lead feature or rights would revert. That’s why DC did the LEGEND OF WONDER WOMAN mini-series that I wrote and Trina Robbins drew — the Perez revamp was in development, but coming along slowly, and they had to publish something to fulfil the contract terms.

      They specifically didn’t want something that would be attention-getting, because they didn’t want to undercut the revamp. So they wanted something gentle and nostalgic, and we had fun doing it.

      In the intervening years, though, I’m given to understand that at some point DC bought the character outright, and thus those contract terms are no longer in force.

  10. Brian
    June 30, 2010 at 10:16 am — Reply

    Wait a second, are they going for the Power Girl motif and increasing her ‘most common superpower’ in each image?

    • TaZ
      June 30, 2010 at 10:28 am — Reply

      And is that an eagle on her belt or is it an upside-down marijuchie leaf?

      • Brian
        June 30, 2010 at 11:25 am — Reply

        Nice, Lion King and Alladin sell sex, Little Mermaid sex toys, and looking at Wonder Woman’s ‘belt’ is going to make me want to get stoned. Woohoo!

  11. eric
    June 30, 2010 at 10:33 am — Reply

    It is awfull. This just guarantees i will not buy any thing Wonder Woman now. DC does not know what to do with this character. Then they are putting a new origin in it too. There goes more continuity in Dc.

    • June 30, 2010 at 9:43 pm — Reply

      Could you clear up your statement a bit? Were you buying Wonder Woman before this announcement was made, and now you won’t be buying it, or were you not buying Wonder Woman before, and now you for sure won’t be buying it?

  12. shinrigaku
    June 30, 2010 at 10:44 am — Reply

    I’m not a huge comic book fan and ,if I were any type of fan, I would probably be a Marvel fan. However, I don’t mind this incarnation of Wonder Woman. Granted, it certainly is not nearly as iconic as WW looked a while ago. I do think that it looks a bit too muted. I think that perhaps a more Greco-Roman top with the current mid-torso / bottom would look a bit better, though.

  13. Jeff
    June 30, 2010 at 10:50 am — Reply

    I also have to say I am disappointed with JMS. For all the legitimate bitching and back-biting he did about the bastardization of Spider-Man over at Mavel, I am shocked (SHOCKED!) with what’s he’s trying to pull here.

    Shame, JMS! Shame, goddamn you!

  14. June 30, 2010 at 10:51 am — Reply

    Meh… I could be worse. She had the Deodato revamp stripper suit in the 90’s, and Wonder Woman spent some time in white catsuits back in the day.

    I suspect that Wonder Woman #725 will have the return of the old uniform to much applause.

    • Jeff
      June 30, 2010 at 10:54 am — Reply

      @Matt – exactly. I mean, we all know how well “White Cat Suit Wondy” worked out, right?

      WTF is DC thinking? This isn’t how you treat an iconic character; this is bullshit.

      I think there’s a fair case that Thor got a new look because of his movie, but if anything the new outfit makes more sense for a comic book thunder god than his old one did (I mean, really – if you’re a comic book thunder god from Norse mythology, a little chain mail and long sleeves makes a lot more sense than Spandex with a Latin letter “T” on your belt, right?).

      I have no idea WTF “street fightin’ Diana” is supposed to “say” about Wonder Woman.

      Why is she so freakin’ wonderful in this incarnation, anyhow? Because she leaves a “W” in your puss when she wallops on you? The lasso is kinky enough, but now she’s *branding” her foes…

      JMS has just JTS, IMO!

      • websnap
        June 30, 2010 at 11:47 am — Reply

        “I mean, we all know how well “White Cat Suit Wondy” worked out, right?”

        Wasn’t that just when she became an agent at the Department of Metahuman Affairs as Diana Prince after she killed Max Lord? She wasn’t actually Wonder Woman at the time so it wasn’t a costume change.

        I think a change was needed. The old costume, while iconic and recognizable, wasn’t so for the right reasons. It’s flat out ridiculous in the modern era, even in comic book standards. It doesn’t translate well in live action while taking it somewhat seriously – and that is the REAL reason for this change. To apply her to multiple media streams and be acceptable.

        Like it or not, the old costume doesn’t work anymore outside fan boys/girls opinions and comic-con show floors.

        • Jeff
          June 30, 2010 at 12:39 pm — Reply

          That was an homage to the late 1970s revamp of Diana, when she was de-powered, made into a Kung Fu bad-ass (read: street fighter) and was “totally mod.”

          Of course, the problem then was that the comics were nearly a decade out-of-step with the look they were going for. If star-spangled Wonder Woman seems like a relic from a by-gone age, it’s even worse when you’re shooting for the latest trend and fall short 5-10 years.

          Wonder Woman is from a culture that glorifies combat and the human body. The red-white-and-blue motif isn’t that hard to rationalize – the Romans dyed their armor and wore capes and used animals – including eagles – on their breastplates.

          DC has explained Wonder Woman’s all-American look a lot of different ways, ranging from sheer coincidence to an homage to Steve Trevor’s mother to a simply cultural gesture of goodwill (in the direct-to-DVD Wonder Woman movie; personally I liked this explanation best of all).

          While not a perfect analogy, I just don’t get why so many people have a hard time with the classic WW outfit. It’s not *that* different from what Lucy Lawless wore as Xena in the 1990s, and while there are A LOT of legitimate criticisms of the show, I don’t think anyone ever claimed that all the skin and cleavage trivialized the character.

          Superheroes are *inherently* ridiculous in a real-world context; JMS, the editorial staff, and the people who think watering down the character is “good for movies” need to get over themselves and realize that a woman “fighting for her rights in her satin tights” for 60+ years is what got Wonder Woman where she is today; not this travesty!

          • websnap
            June 30, 2010 at 2:27 pm — Reply

            Well, in honesty, Xena was set as a fantasy/period piece and didn’t interact in the modern world. Regardless of when the show aired, it wasn’t indicative of 90’s era fashion (though it may have indirectly influenced it). While I do see the striking parallels between them, as soon as you place them in the modern world and specifically, interacting with in the DCU and it’s characters the parallels break down.

            I guess you would have to ask yourself, as a woman in the modern era who has all sorts of technology, materials and designs at her disposal would you still have the original outfit if you didn’t NEED to. I would like to hear from women about this, since men are going to be extremely biased. Keeping the fact that she is a tactical warrior and that feeling “sexy” is lower on her “in fight mode” priority list than an honourable fight, why would she keep the old costume? It seems like more often than not, it would put her at a disadvantage.

            Keep in mind I don’t love the new costume and i’m asking not to validate THIS change, but A change.

  15. Bryan Stevens
    June 30, 2010 at 11:24 am — Reply

    In the end “New Coke/Old Coke” all over again.

  16. Dr. Bolty
    June 30, 2010 at 12:00 pm — Reply

    Well, less skin showing is in some ways a good thing, and it gets Wonder Woman’s costume away from the jingoistic overtones of the original. Let’s face it, her costume is in many ways a relic of the 1940’s – the USA patriotism aspect is a little awkward (if often ignored).

    That said, I don’t think it’s a good costume.

  17. steviecool
    June 30, 2010 at 12:41 pm — Reply

    Well, there are two issues:

    1. The costume. Bland. If the issue came out, no OMD, just a new costume, it would still be bland.

    2. The story pitch. Really? Ripping off OMD? One More Diana? Revamping the history so much is a bad way to go. Byrne’s “Man of Steel” was a great revamp. “Batman Year One” was a great revamp. Why change so much?

    This total re-imagining of the history is bad. Real bad. Michael Jackson bad. Making the fans mad. Real mad. Joe Jackson mad. Plus the fact that it’s alternative-time-altrering-so-we-can-revert-issues-700-to-725-later-and-make-these-issues-irrelevant.

    Now the actual story may be awesome. Real awesome. But it’s still an alternate timeline issue. I think alternate timeline issues are just wastes of money – except for Booster Gold. I had to get the recent JSA one because I collect it. I avoided the entire run of “Trinity” because of it.

  18. Brian G.
    June 30, 2010 at 1:20 pm — Reply

    Ya know … the longer I look at this outfit, the more I’m starting to like it. I’ll say this though, Adam Hughes can’t even make a sexy statue of this.

    • June 30, 2010 at 3:24 pm — Reply

      Do not underestimate the power of Adam Hughes, the man can make Ethel Muggs attractive.

  19. chillidawg72
    June 30, 2010 at 2:32 pm — Reply

    Transferred from the other post on this subject:

    Wonder Woman is intended to be a mythical figure of Greek origin. Now she looks like she’s going out clubbing. Why do superheros need to only have one costume anyway. Wouldn’t they get dirty after a while? I say we put her in a traditional period based toga. IE: One boob hanging out :P

    • chillidawg72
      June 30, 2010 at 2:37 pm — Reply

      That being said, this is the same thing as Superman Red/Blue.

    • brainypirate
      June 30, 2010 at 2:54 pm — Reply

      Interestingly, JMS says that part of this new storyline and costume comes the fact that people didn’t like his depiction of Diana going clubbing with Zatanna and Barbara Gordon in B&B. So maybe he really DOES want her to look like she’s going clubbing?

      At the same time, I was bothered by JMS’s comment about women accessorizing — is it really that women just love to change their looks and to accessorize, or that our culture tells them that’s what women should do? As much as I understand JMS’s comment, it smelled a little bit derogatory towards women in general….

  20. Mark
    June 30, 2010 at 2:42 pm — Reply

    I’ll bite. How many people who are weighing in one way or the other actually buy the book or try to get people to buy Wonder Woman? Its like me saying that Camaros are ugly and that I don’t like the design – who cares what I think, I am not their audience.

    So buy the book and drop it when the change occurs or shut your mouths.


    • Jeff
      June 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm — Reply

      Here’s another way to think about it, Mark.

      I *don’t* buy comics. I did, for a brief period, between 1985 and 1992-ish. I bought what I knew from Saturday morning cartoons – Spider-Woman, Spider-Man (but, alas, no amazing friends), the Justice League (although I was looking for the Super Friends I got JLI – much to my ever-lasting joy), and – especially – anything and everything with Captain Marvel in it because one of my first memories is of the 70s TV show.

      Why does this matter? Because now I’m nearly 40, I am technically upper middle class, and I have a niece and a nephew who I am hellbent on spoiling rotten.

      I bought Alex Ross’ commemorative Captain Marvel statue and plate about 10 years back; I own all three seasons of Wonder Woman on DVD; I will be acquiring the entire run of Shazam!, along with everything ever put out in animated format that deals with DC.

      I have already bought my nephew My First Batmobile and the entire action figure run of the Superfriends (the little Fisher-Price-like interpretation of the JLU characters). He has a Captain Marvel plush toy, and I have four others plus the entire Marvel Family – in triplicate – in my basement for when he’s old enough to want one to play with and one to sell on eBay someday (the other one is for me!).

      All that having been said, it will be a cold, dark, icy day in hell before I ever expose him or his sister to a “modern” comic book, and have urged his parents not to let him experience any “modern” takes on comic book characters. I won’t be buying any toys, plushies, or clothes for either of them with any “modern” take on the characters on it (“Yellow-Oval Batman” yes; “Nolan Batman” no). And I sure as hell won’t be buying this take on Wonder Woman in any format.

      Call me old fashioned, but I think kids want heroes inspiring enough to loom large in their lives well into adulthood. I pay good money for that little feeling of reassurance I get from characters who stand for heady ideals, and I love being able to share that with the next generation coming up.

      Street-fightin’ skank Diana here, who busts your nose *and* brands your face with her braces of pain is *not* that kind of character, and as long as the suits at Time-Warned think she is, I’ll be voting with my dollars to show them just how wrong they are.

      • websnap
        June 30, 2010 at 4:49 pm — Reply

        If she looks like a “skank” while wearing pants… what was she when she was running around in her underwear.

        • Jeff
          June 30, 2010 at 5:02 pm — Reply

          She looked an awful lot like any other female superhero to me. Which is appropriate since she pretty much set the standard.

          Let’s recap: when Wonder Woman debuted, she wore a bustiere, ballet slippers, and a skirt. Flash-forward a few years and the skirt gave way to shorts (shorts – not a bikini bottom) and the slippes to knee-high boots.

          You won’t see me defending the ass-floss that some artists like to put her in these days, but I’ll take a woman’s swim suit and boots over leather pants with stirrups and “bracers of pain” any day.

        • Russell
          June 30, 2010 at 5:13 pm — Reply

          I second that and also would like to point out that, in a way, the yellow oval bat-symbol is a modernized version. So you’ll only buy things for your niece and nephew that are identical to the ones you bought as a kid? And because this was in response to “were you buying Wonder Woman before the costume change,” were you buying Wonder Woman comics and items for your niece and nephew before the change?

          • Russell
            June 30, 2010 at 5:20 pm — Reply

            I meant I second the “if she looks like a skank now, what about before” comment.

          • Jeff
            June 30, 2010 at 5:43 pm — Reply

            The yellow oval was made famous with the Batman TV show, but actually dates back to 1964’s Detective Comics #327 (May 1964) which took the character to his roots as “the Dark Knight Detective.” This was meant to break Batman away from adventures involving aliens from space, Bat-Mite, etc. The oval itself is about half as old as the character is, but was a stylistic way of breaking with the “silly” Batman of the 1950s, despite the fact that many people erroneously associate it with Adam West’s take on the character.

            To answer your question about what I buy, the answer is a qualified “yes.” I will only buy things that remind me of the heroes of my youth, not because I think that they’re inherently better, but because from my point of view they *are* better.

            I grew up with a Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman that didn’t have to kill someone to uphold the ideals of truth, justice, and the American way (TM). Now, there were heroic characters who did, in fact, do these things and you could see them in Westerns and WWII movies and you could read about them in reprints of the Pulps, but they *were not* comic book heroes and heroines.

            Stories of vigilantes who kill and maim “the bad guys” are perfectly legitimate and have their place; I am a HUGE fan of The Shadow. Moral ambiguity has its place in these kinds of stories, too, and that’s what Gor and Conan and the like are for. You can read about fetishism and sex and violence and debauchery to your heart’s content there, and I’m all for it.

            That having been said, I just don’t see the need or the appropriateness of taking “the envoy to Man’s world” whose job it is to “spread the ideals of peace, justice, and universal sisterhood” and turning her into a leather-and-lace wearing street fighter whose super power is, apparently, to break you skull and leave a stylized “W” stamped into your head.

            I feel the same way about “your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man” selling his marriage (and, by extension, his soul I should think) to the devil to save a loved one.

            Likewise, I was not a big fan of “mullet-gun” Superman. Or “Latex fetish” Mary Marvel.

            It’s one think to bake human failings into a character early enough to make that a defining part of who and what they are (Tony Stark’s alcoholism, Hank Pym’s mental and emotional frailty, and Batman’s OCD issues all come to mind); it’s another to mistake deconstructing and ultimately destroying a character for developing him or her.

            Since almost everyone seems to agree that Wonder Woman will eventually be “reset” to the status quo eventually anyway, what can possibly be gained by an alternate timeline story about her being out for vengeance in leather pants, stirrups, and “branding braces of pain?” Other than a very cynical attempt to repackage the character for a movie?

            If I want to see “Pain Bitch” swing into action at the theaters, I’ll go see it. If I want to see Wonder Woman, it looks like I’ll have to turn to the 1970s TV series.

            Or Superfriends.

            Or JLU.

            Or, God help me, Xena – which looks to be a more faithful interpretation of “the warrior princess” concept at this point than “out for justice de-powered Amazon vigilante woman” at this point.

            As for your other question – no, I didn’t buy the comics, but yes, I did buy DC-based superhero stuff (Superfriends, mostly, but some other things) for my nephew and niece. And I’ll continue to do so, so long as “classic” Wonder Woman is still available for purchase; I have no interest in “leather and stirrups” Diana, however.

  21. June 30, 2010 at 4:09 pm — Reply

    On one hand, it’s better looking than the “bra & bike shorts” outfit Mike Deodato gave her in the 90s. On the other hand, Wondy in a housecoat, curlers, & Crocs would look better than either costume. It looks like a standard-issue movie superhero costume, but that’s the problem. Most non-fans already know what Wonder Woman’s costume should be – they’ve seen the TV shows & assorted bric-a-brac (tree ornaments, notebooks at Target, toys, etc.) They KNOW what Wonder Woman should be wearing. Putting a gold ‘W’ collar on off-the-peg semi-armor will just disappoint everyone.

    • Jeff
      June 30, 2010 at 4:17 pm — Reply

      Well said; consider me disappointed.

      The more I think about this, the more I realize it’s been done to death with Wonder Woman – and I’m not just talking about the 70s era white jumper and “mod” Kung Fu B.S.

      Anyone else remember the Cathy Lee Crosby incarnation of Wonder Woman?

      Everyone unanimous about wanting to forget it?

      Yeah, that’s what I thought.

  22. Ray
    June 30, 2010 at 4:25 pm — Reply

    everyone was wearing fingerless gloves.

  23. Astro Dinosaurus
    June 30, 2010 at 4:54 pm — Reply

    Haters gonna hate to the hateth degree.

  24. arcee
    June 30, 2010 at 5:40 pm — Reply

    Let’s play cynical about the whole WW change, shall we?

    Imagine you’re the publisher of a character that’s no less an icon for close to seven decades and despite putting one of the BEST female writers on her monthly comic – sales still aren’t where you’d like ‘em to be – so what do (what can) you do?

    Take the metaphorical stick and poke the bear of faux fanboy rage by agreeing to a pitched idea (which thanks to her long history isn’t even NEW) where she’s changing her costume, powers and storyline.

    Finally, leak out the news to the press and internet medium outlets ONE day before said issue goes on sale.

    Now all you have to do is sit back and watch how the very people who would’ve helped avoid all this (had they been reading the book in droves) – get all sanctimonious and outraged while posting their righteous anger over the desecration the publisher had done to ‘their’ character. The very same one that they weren’t reading in droves.

    We fanboys are a fickle and easily manipulated lot.

    To be clear: NOT stating this is what EXACTLY happened just playing a ‘cynical’ game

    • Jeff
      June 30, 2010 at 5:56 pm — Reply

      You might be right, acree, but I’m betting that most of the revenue that DC generates is not from books but from other media (DVDs, movies, toys, etc.).

      As I’ve said above, I’ll buy all sorts of “traditional” superhero stuff, but I’d do that with or without what’s going on in the comics. At least in my case, I’m so turned-off by what they’re doing here that I won’t buy anything at all – at least not for a while.

      I think there are a lot of other ways to make Wonder Woman more “today.” Here are a few off the top of my head:

      1) Given the West’s sudden interest/conflict with the Middle East, Wonder Woman as feminist icon/symbol could be re-explored (this was perhaps even more true in the lead-up to the 2008 election, when you had women within reach of both major U.S. political party’s tickets). Alex Ross touched on this brilliantly with his over-sized one-shot on WW several years back.

      2) With environmentalism being front-and-center in the media between the Gulf Oil Spill, Global Warming/Climate Change, etc., the fact that Diana comes from an island-based society that worships – among other things – an Earth-goddess – could make a compelling, long-term basis for a re-evaluation of the character.

      3) In our post-modern world, where paganism and non-traditional religious worship does not carry the stigma that it used to, the pagan theme of Wonder Woman’s religious and cultural heritage generally could also be used as the basis for re-interpreting the character without actually *changing* her.

      4) Here’s a bizarre thought: why not let the Amazon *be* a lesbian?

      5) Or, why not explore married life between a super WOMAN and her mortal husband? Am I the only one who wants to see the Steve Trevor/Diana Prince dynamic in play?

      It seems like the character has been most successful/noteworthy when she stood for something. In the 1970s, Lynda Carter’s Wonder Woman was a woman’s libber (and this is actually where the WW breast plate came from pre-Crisis); the most successful post-Crisis interpretation of the character seems to be Perez exploration of her as a Greek mythological figure in contemporary society.

      If you’re going to revitalize the character, then revitalize the character. We already have enough street-fighting avengers, thank you very much – and in DC books they’re most interesting when they have the word “Bat” in their titles.

      • arcee
        June 30, 2010 at 8:03 pm — Reply

        True but I don’t think it’s easy to imagine anybody NOT wanting to be the editor in charge when WW’s comic got cancelled during his or her’s watch. May not be the main source of revenue but still IS one and people in the biz tend to frown – just a tad – when losing them.

      • arcee
        June 30, 2010 at 8:04 pm — Reply

        Corrected version.

        True, but I don’t think it’s HARD to imagine anybody NOT wanting to be the editor in charge when WW’s comic got cancelled during his or her’s watch. May not be the main source of revenue but still IS one and people in the biz tend to frown – just a tad – when losing them.

  25. Russell
    June 30, 2010 at 5:44 pm — Reply

    I like the new look better than the old one. I can see reading this in front of my wife without her teasing me. Also, is this story taking place in an alternate continuity? If so, they’ll probably still have either Diana or another character showing up around the DCU with a more traditional costume.
    If you’re like me and don’t currently buy the comic, and your only interest is in fridge magnets and what not, I think it’s a safe bet that Warner Bros will continue to make merchandise with the more classic look.
    I think it’s premature to say the change was made for movie purposes. Only 25,000 issues of the April issue of Wonder Woman were printed. Obviously, Warner Bros. is in trouble if they need those (probably) sub 25,000 ticket sales so badly they have to prep the readers before casting begins. The movie probably won’t be out for three or four years.

  26. Russell
    June 30, 2010 at 5:57 pm — Reply

    I think you are reading all the fetish stuff into it. I don’t understand the moralizing over “leather” pants within the DC universe where characters usually wear either spandex-like pants or pants without legs.
    Could you please link to something or cite where you find that the yellow oval was meant as a break from the goofy Batman? According to John Bryne, the yellow oval was created for copyright and branding purposes, and it had absolutely no story purpose. Bryne might might be unpopular on the web, but he did work at DC.

    • Jeff
      June 30, 2010 at 6:10 pm — Reply

      The yellow oval:

      Wikipedia article on Batman’s “New Look” and Camp elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman#.22New_Look.22_Batman_and_camp)

      Also this quote from Carmine Infantio (http://www.paleycenter.org/batman-1943-65/):

      By the midsixties, endless cute gimmicks and general silliness had gutted the character, and there were discussions at DC Comics about canceling the title. Legendary editor Julius Schwartz, who had successfully rehabilitated golden age heroes like the Flash and Green Lantern for contemporary audiences, was given the assignment to update Batman. Schwartz assigned artist Carmine Infantino to design a “New Look” for the hero; Infantino drew a more realistic figure, shortened the ears on the cowl, and, most famously, added a yellow oval to the bat symbol on Batman’s chest, creating an iconic logo recognized around the world to this day. Schwartz’s story lines jettisoned the goofy theatrics and refocused on hard-boiled detective stories. Batman was back.

      Alex Segura quoting JMS on the “bracelets of hurt” or whatever the hell they’re calling them (http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2010/06/30/j-michael-straczynski-on-wonder-woman%E2%80%99s-new-costume/):

      ““Rather than have the W symbol all over the place on her wardrobe, I wanted to highlight it in one area and make that our statement, letting everything else feel more youthful and street-wise. The exception would be the bracelets, which would be solid on the outer side, with a stylized, almost handwritten W symbol there so that when she crosses her arms you get the full effect. And if she hits you with it, it leaves a W mark. She signs her work.”

  27. johnny
    June 30, 2010 at 6:20 pm — Reply

    I always thought of WW’s costume as a symbol, setting her apart as an icon and larger-than-life, as opposed to, say, Black Canary. Much like Superman.

    I also think the “not practical in a fight” argument is invalid due to the degree of the character’s invulnerability. I believe there was a near-pornographic comic a few years ago that explored these ideas by having its invulnerable characters, already powerful enough to be above the law, stop wearing clothes all together.

  28. SpiderLover
    June 30, 2010 at 6:57 pm — Reply

    So long as she acts the same what difference does it make if she is putting on MORE clothes? It is really a wishy-washy argument. This is how I knew it back in the day, now she looks like a skank! NOW she looks like a skank? You mean before she was wholesome?! That is pretty funny. So long as she does her business in a Wonder Woman way, I don’t see the harm. Now if your argument is because you want to see more skin, then fine. If the argument is you do not like the design. Then fine, but the in my day she was wholesome argument is bullocks.

    • Jeff
      June 30, 2010 at 7:21 pm — Reply

      The reason superheroes have always been drawn in spandex (before there was such a thing) or in very little clothing is because it was cheaper to draw nudes than draw clothes! It wasn’t about titillation or sex, it was about getting books out on-time as cheaply as possible.

      I am really not getting the complaints about Wonder Woman’s classic look. Minus the ass-floss that modern artists seem to put *all* female characters in these days, her outfit is essentially a one-piece bathing suit with knee-high boots and a tiara, or a bustier with a skirt and ballet slippers (if you go way back).

      Let’s not forget what the character is: a warrior-princess (TM) from a culture that 1) lives in a tropical setting, 2) glorifies the human body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_in_ancient_Greece#Archaic), 3) is very immodest and has few sexual hang-ups by contemporary standards (http://books.google.com/books?id=vHzLgcqHzQcC&lpg=PA274&ots=hU51Ji6gul&dq=amazons%2C%20sexual%20mores&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q=sex&f=false), and 4) exercised and trained in the all-together (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_%28ancient_Greece%29)- though probably would have fought in the same hoplite armor that male Greek warriors did (http://history.missouristate.edu/jchuchiak/HST%20101–Lecture%204–Greek%20Warfare%20and%20Army.htm).

      Again – without apologizing for what some artists have done with her classic look, there’s nothing inherently slutty about it in context. Alex Ross has done wonders turning the bustier into a breastplate, and he and Perez both have outfitted Diana with full-on combat gear on numerous occasions. Given that she’s one of the most powerful individuals in all of the DCU, I’m seeing no “logical” reason for Wonder Woman the comic book character to ever have to say to herself “Gee, is this outfit maybe inappropriate?”

      I am *not* convinced the same can be said of this new outfit. I mean, c’mon – look at the footwear. Those are STIRRUPS. If (big IF) she were to zip-up her jacket, it would leave her midriff exposed. And, per JMS himself, when she hits you with her new bracers, she *BRANDS YOU.* In this new DCU timeline – where Diana is *native to our culture,* I have to think something along the lines of “these tight pants, fetish footwear, and skimpy-assed jacket make ME SO HOT” has had to have crossed her mind.

      Ew. Ew. And Ick.

      No thanks.

      • June 30, 2010 at 9:33 pm — Reply

        Interesting, and yet you didn’t point out that William Moulton Marston embraced the fetish nature of Wonder Woman we he originally created her.

        “The only hope for peace is to teach people who are full of pep and unbound force to enjoy being bound … Only when the control of self by others is more pleasant than the unbound assertion of self in human relationships can we hope for a stable, peaceful human society. … Giving to others, being controlled by them, submitting to other people cannot possibly be enjoyable without a strong erotic element”.

  29. George
    June 30, 2010 at 7:15 pm — Reply

    Ok, I saw this and I felt inclined to add my two cents to the pot. Now, I have really enjoyed JMS ‘s work in the past, especially Spider-Man and Thor, so I am confident that he does have some good stories on the table for Wonder Woman. BUT the new costume design is an EYESORE, I gotta say I feel it is terrible looking for WONDER WOMAN. Honestly I dont even see WOnder WOman, I just see a new Donna Troy outfit which could work for her but again, IT IS NOT FOR WONDER WOMAN. For me the costume alone changes everything about the character and the book, I dont even see Wonder WOman just Donna Troy or even Black Canary with black hair dye. I feel that the costume is terribly dull even when it’s rendered by such a talented artist such as Jim Lee. Most importantly it is not iconic, say what you want about Wonder Woman’s classic look, but it was iconic this is not. JMS states that he wanted her to have a modern feel, but this looks like something out of the 90’s specifically like Superboy’s outfit from the Reign of Superman storyline. He also stated that he wanted her to look more like a warrior, but with the new design the only thing he actually accomplishes is to TAKE AWAY Diana’s warrior look in favor of a HOT TOPIC posterchild. If I saw this new costume design out on the new WOnderWoman books I probably would not buy it just because the costume bothers me that much. And the only other time I’ve ever boycotted a book was with Rick Remender’s Franken-Castle, which I felt destroyed the Punisher character. Although JMS at the helm seems like a good thing, this new costume design is not and if this is an indication of Diana’s future I can quickly see JMS turning into the new Jeph Loeb when it comes the ire of fans everywhere. The “new” DC already has a big strike against it with the horrible horrible horrible Jonah Hex film and this seems like they’re ready to add to the list of flops with this new design. Hopefully it won’t last.

  30. George
    June 30, 2010 at 7:59 pm — Reply

    On the topic of this article in particular, I feel that the writer of this article is being very optimistic in his reception of the new costume design. I DO NOT feel the same, if this outfit were to hit the big screen, it would essentially be DC’s first steps in making another DC flop like Jonah Hex. Wonder Woman deserves better than that. Yes there have been changes to costumes for the sake of the movies, but after X-Men(which the costumes looked terrible), all costumes seemed geared toward the originals. Besides, if we change something up for the sake of not ruffling someone’s feathers wouldnt that be a huge step back. Linda Carter pulled it off, even the terrible Supergirl movie had the same look as the original revealing costume, and can anyone forget Slave Leia, if I didnt know better, that costume was ahead of its time when it comes to how revealing it was. And whats strange is how can this costume that is revealing be acceptable in the 30’s and beyond up until now become controversial in this day and age? How backward is that? There are children wearing more exploitave and sexually revealing outfits and yet we are worried about this iconic character who has been around for so long? So, what if some people are offended, the costume has been a part of the character for as long as she has been around, it has been the same revealing look since the begining. Also, there are a lot of comic films that stayed true to the original iconic costumes with MINOR changes at best, such as the Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Superman,Batman, and even the upcoming THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA (uses the ULTIMATE LOOK) films. SO, my point is, 99 times out of 100, any drastic changes to the core of the character, such as the changing of an iconic costume will most likely be terrible, and this new costume is terrible. So I hope DC does not make this their standard when it comes to how they treat their icons, because if it is, well I for one will not stick around.

    • June 30, 2010 at 9:27 pm — Reply

      You are obviously passionate about your opinion, which is great, but I think you may have shot your argument up a few times in your statements. Wonder Woman didn’t appear until 1941 (not the ’30s). Also, when you claim that the Batman costume had minor changes you might want to go back and re-read a few comics. Prior to the Burton film, Batman wore a gray and blue costume with a yellow symbol. Burton changed it to all black. Even the most recent Batman film had major changes to the costume (detaching the cowl making it more armor oriented instead of cloth, and so on). While you are correct the Captain America film is using the Ultimate Look, that look is drastically different from anything people had seen in Captain America until then.

      I’m not saying this is the best costume, but I don’t think anyone has given it much of a chance. And as it is pointed out in the article, Wonder Woman has gone through costume changes before, and they’ve eventually reverted back. So before all is said and done, look for a return to the costume soon.

      One final thing to make note of: Wonder Woman came in at #82 in the Top 300 comics sold in the direct market in May 2010. Today is a slow news day, with everyone picking up on this story. Many have already stated they purchased the comic after this news. DC may not be as stupid as everyone claims they are

      As always, your mileage may vary.

  31. RedbutnotBlue
    June 30, 2010 at 8:20 pm — Reply

    I think the Justice Lords WonderWoman costume(Justice League Unlimited)is a whole lot better than this monstrosity. Am all up on changing her costume but by God at least make an effort on doing so,a choker,a jacket,shoulder pads,and that yellow thing on her boots, it isn’t exactly embracing the modern feel of this superhero. Jim Lee is a great artist but his design is stuck in the 90’s.

  32. Young
    June 30, 2010 at 8:45 pm — Reply

    I’m ok with the top. The tiara is weird. The pants are just too bland and generic to be worthy of an opinion. The new bracers, I don’t like. The jacket, I really don’t like. But I specially don’t like the look in Diana’s face. I don’t know if it was intentional or accidental, but it almost looks like she is sneering in that picture. Diana pre-reboot was a kind soul, a warrior born, and willing to shed blood and even kill? Yes. But she would to so only after careful consideration and deliberation. She would hurt others, but almost never in anger.

    Ok, I get that we’re going all “urban” and “grim-and-gritty” here, but this seems like the antithesis of Wonder Woman as a character. She was been on the run for the last couple of decades, being raised on by a small cadre of surviving warriors, and as such, she holds the fate of Amazon-kind in her hands. It is almost as if they re-imagined her as John Connor or something. Not the same character.

  33. eric
    June 30, 2010 at 10:13 pm — Reply

    Come on it is just the fact that this is Wonder Woman. Who the hell recognizes her with this new costume? The heroes and the villians know this is Wonder Woman with the original costume? What is she suddenly going to be joining the Birds of Prey? It is like Robin not wearing the green shorts and proclaiming they are Robin. Like Superman wearing those god awfull blue and red things and saying I am Superman. What is this mess? I never had a problem with the outfit. I had problems with the way artists drew her. That should be the topic of discussion with female characters. They can wear shorts but when it starts looking like a thong where is the comfort. I am sure there has been plenty of ass picking off panel with female characters. How does Zatana run around in three inch heels without breaking one? Its not about the costume it is how the costume is drawn. I dont hear the same out cry about Mrs. Marvel over at the other company. What about all the female characters in Witchblade? I bet a lot of double sided tape is used by them.

    I also applaud Jeff above for showing how Wonder Woman can be relevant. This whole thing, in my opinion, is a lack of creativity from DC and a lot of apathy for a character that DC does not know what to do with. For a male writer to suddenly come on and say well “Lets do something different. Let’s change her costume.” How stereotypical of him. If that was the case of making Wonder Woman more relevant and getting more readers then Gail would have done that before.

    Wonder Woman was great when the mythology was there and stories were there. I thought at one point that it kinda went overboard when the deities of all different cultures and lands got involved but I did not revile it like I do this costumer change.

    DC just does not know what to do with their female characters. I dont know why this is? I do think that because the industry is such a male oriented business that it is very difficult to get a female perspective in the stories and words and flow unless one happens to be an artist or inker.

    I can fault the male perspective because I think there is too much of that because they do not know how to make a stand alone female oriented book unless the female is in a group. There are plenty that are going to say well look at Supergirl and Power Girl. Power Girl is more of a joke and writters love seeing how big her breasts get between issues. I cant say anything about Supergirl because I dont read it, but look and count how many stand alone female characters are out there. Three female characters that DC does not know what to do with: Wonder Woman, Star Fire, and Donna Troy.

    I applaud George Perez and Marv Wolfman for when they were on Wonder Woman. No one has come close to that before and no one has touched this holy grail of Wonder Woman lore.

    I applaud Gail Simone for her attempt at Wonder Woman. I did not read her stories there because I stopped reading the new series much earlier because I could not just get it. I applaude Gail for showing female perspectives.

    If DC cant get it then maybe they need to hire more females.

    • June 30, 2010 at 10:27 pm — Reply

      Power Girl is more of a joke and writters love seeing how big her breasts get between issues.

      Did you even read the Palmiotti, Gray, and Conner’s run on Power Girl? So well done, wonderfully crafted, and superb art by a female artist. Go back and pick up the 12 issues they did and see how well everything worked.

      • hectorbustnuts
        June 30, 2010 at 11:08 pm — Reply

        And then along comes Winick.

        *blows raspberry and points thumbs down*

        • June 30, 2010 at 11:14 pm — Reply

          Somebody listened to my disappointment over issue #13 on the Major Spoilers Podcast :D

          • hectorbustnuts
            June 30, 2010 at 11:18 pm — Reply

            After he killed my interest in Green Arrow, I *knew* he’d screw up PG and that you’d drop it like a napalm hot-pocket.

  34. July 1, 2010 at 4:37 am — Reply

    The costume switch actually made the local news, and my mother (allergic to comics) HATED it. She hated it almost as much as the Cathy Lee Crosby movie (which I’m surprised she remembered), and she sent her first text message ever to vote as such. Of course, I’d argue putting a well-done-but-rough Jim Lee sketch next to a beautiful George Perez finished illustration is stacking the deck. Still, it gives you some idea how the public’s responding outside of comic circles.

  35. July 1, 2010 at 5:33 am — Reply

    I’m not overly overjoyed by the new look, that said after reading interviews with JMS on various corners of the interwebz I feel that it could be perfectly justified by the story being told. Scanning through most (not all, there are over 60 comments some of them long) of the comments a few times the Ancient Greek background has been brought up as the origins of the character which is why her atire has rarely been particularly modern. My understanding that JMS is having the gods muck around with the timelines a bit and this is Diana has been raised in the modern world in exile since she was a child and only now is having to save her people, the world and the true course of time having experienced a different course growing up. Thus we have an out in which when she inevitably gets things fixed she should go back to what she was wearing before, that said I’d not be surprised if some changes stay.

    So long as the change is justified by the story, and serves the story and the story is good I’m ok with it. Changing it just for rebranding always seems a bit of a shame (like when the X-men went all black leather, then all superheroic. The new vibes with the leather jackets brought in by Morrisson just seemed unnecessary). JMS writes good stories on the whole, I have faith that this will work and I’m willing to suck it and see.

    • Damascus
      July 1, 2010 at 8:14 am — Reply

      This is my total juvenile humor, and I’m a little giddy after some exceptional episodes of Trailer Park Boys but you said you were willing to “suck it and see.” I was laughing way longer than it warranted. One word left out changes all the meaning.

      • July 1, 2010 at 4:33 pm — Reply

        I only used the phrase because it was turned on a recent episode of “I’m Sorry I haven’t a clue” not that anyone here would know what that show is.

  36. GEORGE
    July 1, 2010 at 6:46 am — Reply

    Hey Stephen thanks for the corrections, for some reason I thought WOnder WOman had appeared in the late 30’s but her 1st appearance was in dec 1941 with All Star Comics. As for the costumes, every single Batman in each film has taken a variation of the costume, while I’m sure a lot of people were up in arms about it, contrary to the posting I made I am not a stick in the mud when it comes to costume adjustments. BUT in this instance with such a negative and drastic Wonder Woman design I truly feel that she got the short end of the stick on this one and I am very disapointed with the choice to let this become the primary look for Wonder Woman when it makes her nearly unreconizable. I would think a funny joke that could run through the comics is that when she confronts her rogues that they dont even recongnize her, or just assume it is Donna Troy. But I do believe that with JMS writing, the book has a strong chance to not only become something different than what we’re used to but most importantly something great which I really want for Wonder Woman because she is one of the big three icons and deserves stories that treat her as such. I just feel that this costume is a huge step in the wrong direction for DC just like the new Jonah Hex film was such a terrible flop, and I hope it is not an indication of what’s to come for DC.

    • July 1, 2010 at 12:32 pm — Reply

      Hey Stephen thanks for the corrections, for some reason I thought WOnder WOman had appeared in the late 30’s but her 1st appearance was in dec 1941 with All Star Comics.

      Sensation Comics #1 and All-Star Comics #8 came out the same month, actually…

  37. GEORGE
    July 1, 2010 at 7:31 am — Reply

    Some of the other posts I’ve read have attributed Wonder Woman’s lack of success to poor storytelling and a mistreatment of the character as well as a complete lack of understanding on the writers part for the material and character. And although I am not a regular reader because I do not usually enjoy the story or characterization, I do have a tremendous reverence for the character. But honestly how can it be so hard to understand and write compelling stories for her. The odds are stacked in your favor. She is a warrior born, able to go one on one with Superman and the rest of the DC Universe! She has mythological roots… SO? How is that a detriment to her? If anything it enriches her because of each of the big 3 Diana is the soldier and the warrior she understands war and combat. Superman chose his path as a protector, Batman was thrown into his by trajedy, but Diana is a Warrior born and from childhood on she has been trained to be a warrior and a leader. She has been shown to make the hard choices and to stand by her decisions, this is no different than any strong leader in any combat situation. When she killed Maxwell Lord, I thought finally someone who was faced with a no win situation and did what needed to be done. If it were Superman or Batman, well lets face it they are never faced with a no win situation, and both have shown that they will not kill for whatever the reason or whoever may suffer because of it. WHats so hard to understand about that? If anything I can see Diana leading the Justice League just as well as Superman or Batman. I say this because Superman is a reluctant leader, and Batman is a loner at heart, but Diana is a born leader and was raised to embrace her role as a leader. And as for her costume is it so wrong to be different, she comes from a different culture, 1 she lives on an island and 2 she is constantly training, when not in uniform she would probably feel most comfortable in a toga or a gown of some sort because that is what her culture wears. Does everyone have to conform to our norms? If so Superman would not be on our side because he would realize that we are a cancer to our planet and that we would not be content until we use up all of our natural resources and make as many shopping malls and celebrities as we possibly can. My point is Diana’s core is a warrior, the story practically writes itself, what do warriors who champion good do? Um they fight evil! Duh, just like any other hero. She is as dedicated as Superman or Batman, and can and will fight for what she believes in. So give her some new villians and make her usual rogues relevant because if Diana received the treatment she deserved, she would easily be as popular as Superman, SPiderman, BAtman, or Wolverine (yes, even Deadpool.)

  38. Sayomara
    July 1, 2010 at 8:31 am — Reply

    I really don’t mind the change I have always thought the USA bloomers were silly at best and thought the Stars skirt looked better. At least from a image point of view.

    Honestly to me if it wasn’t for the “W” the outfit it would be hard to tell its Wonder Woman. The outfit looks like a spider-girl meets, a cowboy, meets a princes. Just a lot of elements to don’t works super well together. Kinda like Iron-spider-man during Civil War.

    The costume will change back given enough time.

  39. brainypirate
    July 1, 2010 at 11:17 am — Reply

    A couple folks have mentioned ass-floss, which is rampant in comics these days. But look at #600: a couple of the pin-ups of her in her old costume really do make you wonder how often she gets her bikini-wax! EEEK!!!!

  40. Brent
    July 1, 2010 at 12:36 pm — Reply

    I DO read and buy Wonder Woman, but as with other characters, I only buy the arcs that I can stomach. Nothing about Wonder Woman has grabbed me since around the time of the the “Agent Diana Prince” era right after “52”. I was intrigued a bit with Cassie getting alternative powers from Ares, and when Donna took up the mantle for a very short bit. But as the status quo was reasserted, I wandered away from Wonder Woman. I am not one of those people who insist on characters remaining frozen as they were during my childhood. Clearly, I don’t think the current Silver Age worship is a good look for DC.

    That said, I “wonder” how anyone can look at the Nicola Scott drawing from a few posts back, and then look at this new costume as an improvement? As others have pointed out, Wondy in “bikini bottoms” or “ass floss”, makes no sense…nice to look at, but impractical in battle. Yes there should be a change. But this is not it.

    Longer tights or boy shorts like this: http://www.majorspoilers.com/archives/44018.htm, along with an overlay of Greco-Roman skirting like she had in Justice League: New Frontier would add relevance and plausibility without disregarding the iconic aspects of her continuity.

    Speaking of icons, reducing a member of “the Trinity” from Ambassador/Warrior/Princess to yet another gritty “street fighter” a bad move. Diana is invulnerable and in the top five of DC’s strength class, so …does she really need a bike jacket with shoulder pads and fingerless gloves and a CHOKER. Ok, we now know that she likes to accessorize. Uhm…patronizingly sexist much?

    And what’s with all the black and no blue from the original scheme? Many amateurs have created FAR better Wonder Woman costume updates than this lazy attempt. DC is defining an iconic woman by her clothes instead of doing the work to evolve the character from the inside out.

    Joan Jett called and she wants her clothes back, Diana. But the Bangles have an opening…

    • Damascus
      July 1, 2010 at 5:25 pm — Reply

      The only problem with only developing the character on the inside is that new readers won’t have a clue that anything’s going on. The only time I read Wonder Woman is if she happens to show up in something else I get, for someone like me or anyone who reads even less, there needs to be something to draw you to the book. If they’re smart they’ll change her outfit, try to do something new to develop the character to make her more relateable now, then once people actually want to read her again just change her outfit back. Sometimes the most superficial changes can actually get people talking about the character again, just like it’s currently doing. Ta DAAAA! Smart move DC. This post has more comments that any other I’ve seen in some time. If nobody cared at all and people just didn’t pick it up then they’d probably change back faster. I’m glad everybody’s up in arms right now cause that means she’ll probably stay this way for a while.

  41. Mike Keller
    July 2, 2010 at 10:57 am — Reply

    Wow…. such fervor. I’ve only ever known one woman who just had ONE outfit. She was a nun.

You know you have something to say, say it in the comment section