Wonder Woman's new costume

In Junes issue #41 of WW, Diana gets a new armored costume. Gone are the bare legs and bare arms. The new gauntlets even have blades.

lfan wrote: Looks more like WonderWomanvarine! Between that and Superman's "t-shirt costume"......man, DC is really mailing it in these days.......

i've been very underwhelmed by the current wonder woman comic. For the first time and considering removing wonder woman from my comic book pull.

This costume is just yet another reason why I should've dropped wonder woman already.

Both looks seem really, really weird to me. Specially Superman's. I haven't been reading Action Comics, but it just doesn't make sense. So now every time he stops bullets he's gonna have to change costumes?

Wonder Woman's new costume is... I dunno. The blades are definitive "no" for me, but I guess they aren't permanent. Her skirty-ish thing is really bugging me. Other than that, the costume is fine. Didn't "wow" me, but it isn't bad

And yeah, Wonder Woman is not that good lately. I miss Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang

It's a mix of good and really bad, like everything DC does these days.

I like the high boots over leggings and the tactical turtleneck (somewhere, Sterling Archer is pissed). The skirty thing is "meh." I hate the spikes. Wonder Woman was once a princess of peace, now she's the goddess of war and she can't even shake hands without impaling someone.

Still, from what I hear the costume is a minor issue compared to the creative team. I'll stick with the hit or miss Sensation Comics for now. At least if I don't like an issue, it only cost 99 cents, and there will be a new writer along in a sec.

geekseven wrote: It's a mix of good and really bad, like everything DC does these days.

I like the high boots over leggings and the tactical turtleneck (somewhere, Sterling Archer is pissed). The skirty thing is "meh" I hate the spikes. Wonder Woman was once a princess of peace, now she's the goddess of war and she can't even shak hands without impaling someone.

Still, from what I hear the costume is a minor issue compared to the creative team. I'll stick with the hit or miss Sensation Comics for now. At least if I don't like an issue, it only cost 99 cents, and there will be a new writer along in a sec.

+1 for Sensation. OVerall a much better place to get your Wonder Woman fix. Even when I don't like the story/art/etc I know a new one is coming soon. Overall it's doing fairly well (the good outweighs the bad).

A friend who is sharper than I am pointed this out to me

I think part of the reason they do this is---

Warner Brothers when ever They get around to making a movie version of Wonder Woman ,doesn't want her to wear a bathing Suit. They don't think its marketable, or risk flack for showing skin-i am not sure how much flack they would get but....

This is a kind of costume that i think would look perfectly fine as suit in a movie. And thats why it exist.

That siad they have tried it before a couple of times-it never seems to stick in the comics

castor wrote: I think part of the reason they do this is---

Warner Brothers when ever They get around to making a movie version of Wonder Woman ,doesn't want her to wear a bathing Suit. They don't think its marketable, or risk flack for showing skin-i am not sure how much flack they would get but....

This is a kind of costume that i think would look perfectly fine as suit in a movie. And thats why it exist.

That siad they have tried it before a couple of times-it never seems to stick in the comics

This is what I've been expecting for the movies... costumes that don't show any skin. Supergirl wears tights under a skirt with thigh-height boots. Wonder Woman is covered from her jawbone to her toes, almost Captain America style.

All of the early comic book heroines showed a lot of skin, with bare legs, very slender and remarkably fit. WW, Supergirl, Ms. Marvel. Nothing jiggled, sagged or wrinkled. No body fat. That was more acceptable in the 60's through 1990's, and easy to draw for the comics, and it lasted up to the bare-midriff Supergirl. Less was better than more for most fans as most of them were young and male.

But with TV and movies in the offing, they had to put some clothes on them. They need to be acceptable to men and women of all ages, one to avoid anything that could be labeled as exploitive.

Paradoxically, this appears to be the price we going to pay for getting these characters into Prime live-action shows. Per 21st century norms, a woman wearing tight leather-like outfits from head to toe are far more acceptable than a micro-miniskirt or just a bare-legged leotard.

I also think its a practical matter. If they had to limit themselves to actresses who are fit enough to look believable as SG, WW, etc. in their bare skin, they wouldn't have much of a casting pool to draw from. Yet Gal Gadot in brightly colored leather from head to toe is probably believable as WW, especially if they layer in armored shoulders, sword, etc.. But put her in Linda Carter's costume and she isn't believable (as most of us commented on when she was announced).

So, casting and production problems solved. Now we have to get used to the new costumes. Hopefully the movies and TV shows will be worth it. I'm expecting they will be.

Shadar

I understand the point, and possibly the need, of putting WW in pants in this day and age. However, that costume is just ugly. Hopefully it is just a temporary thing and won't last that long.

I don't think the costume is horrible. But it's very bland and forgettable and the wrist blades don't fit Wonder Woman at all.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't understand why they have to try and "update" the costumes all the darn time -.-

Lord Ingvard's designs as with most designs in the Modern day are.....
BORING!!!!!

Dull colors, no imagination.
No skin.
Go to the mall and look at what women wear these days.
Dull and practical are not the order of the day.

These are FANTASY characters that do not exist in the real world.

Why must a female character, in order to be "empowered and taken seriously" be covered head to toe in a bland body suit?
Why does an invulnerable character need armor?

Lets cover them all in burqas and let the stunning writing carry the book.

I don't have a problem with the concept of Wondy's new duds, but I don't care for the execution. I'm with Woodclaw in that I liked the Odyssey costume (minus the jacket - she's going to save the world, not to a nightclub), and if the artist is right I even like her costume from Injustice, but the current redesign, like most of the new 52 redesigns is too fiddly. It feels like they just kept adding things - spikes, shoulder-pads, tactle-neck, thigh-boots, pointy pelmet skirt thing. Two of those - at most!

I do like the tactle-neck - as seen in Justice League: War - I think it gives a nice sleek look, but with everything else in this cstume, it feels forced.

The colors are dulled as well - I like that the gold is back in place of the silver, but the red and blue feel muddy.

I would lose the pads and spikes and (maybe) the tactleneck - give her a classic bustier and bracelets. Lower the boots to below the knee. Either go with leggings all the way, or a battle skirt with no leggings. Brighten the colors a little. And oh god lose the little collar for crying out loud.

The Jason Fabok costume is great. I'm a big fan of Wondy in her battle skirt.

Markiehoe wrote: Why does an invulnerable character need armor?

That´s it.

Batman NEEDS a tactical suit/armor in order to survive the fact that he´s only human. Wonder Woman doesn´t. Her Uniform is what she wants it to be. So even if she doesn´t want to go all the way and use something like Power Woman or Catwoman "sexy" costumes, she can dress like a regular, you know, Woman, that show some skin.