Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It wasn't until very recently that I saw that WW had been upgraded to pants for DC's relaunch, but apparently they changed that to pantlessness again because fans were complaining. Complaining about what? Why?

Do we not want the Wonder Woman character to be as accessible as possible? Guy's have Superman and Batman and a whole slew of other heroes to look up to as kids - Are girls not allowed as single hero that wears pants? She's Wonder WOMAN, not Wonder HOOKER for Zod's sake!

If Superman can drop his skivvies, Wonder Woman can pull on a pair of pants and maybe look a bit more like a hero. So why would anybody be against her wearing pants?

1. It turns her into a more positive role model for girls and boys
2. Comic books are slightly less ridiculous - I love comics but let's be frank.
3. She's essentially wearing the American flag masquerading as a uniform - What self-respecting US Marine have you ever seen wear his dress blues with a bikini bottom instead of pants?

Because sex sells.

Yeah, the point of mainstream comics isn't all that principled nonsense. It's making money.

More specifically, I think they tried something like this once and the overwhelming fan reaction (which is probably 90% male) was "wtf, why you change classic panties?!?!"

The pants was the part of the Odyssey outfit I saw the *least* complaints about, ironically, and a lot of praise for. Plenty of people said "It's about time!".

It was mainly "that jacked is horrible" or "it doesn't look very iconic," or such. But they kept the non-icon colors and ditched the sensible pants.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Because sex sells.

Surprisingly, studies show it doesn't actually sell that well (second one down).


People think it sells, that's the problem.

Originally posted by Q99
The pants was the part of the Odyssey outfit I saw the *least* complaints about, ironically, and a lot of praise for. Plenty of people said "It's about time!".

It was mainly "that jacked is horrible" or "it doesn't look very iconic," or such. But they kept the non-icon colors and ditched the sensible pants.



Surprisingly, studies show it doesn't actually sell that well (second one down).


People think it sells, that's the problem.

I loved Cracked to death, but their example isn't completely analogous. They're talking there about television commercials almost exclusively. Those are often gone before the product can register in a person's mind. But to a pre-teen or early-teen male, the exact demographic comics market the hardest to, they're starting to be horny but don't have the outlets and freedoms adults do. Reading Black Cat tease Spider-Man, for example, is the closest thing to porn many of them will have for years. And they have the opportunity to slowly peruse the comics, and to read them over a period of months and years, to figure that out. Much, much different than trying to sell used cars on TV by flashing some boobs, or trying to get people to a movie by promising nudity.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the article isn't sufficient evidence because we're talking about two very different things.

...

However, you also make a good point that, whether or not sex sells, it's perceived as selling. So "sex" can influence decisions even if it doesn't influence sales in a completely correlative way.

The study they checked was based on movies, many of which are aimed at just that audience.

Really, teens can *easily* get sexy stuff, especially nowadays. And really, what doesn't have sexy on the level of 'cut outfits'?


Oh yea, and comics are most assuredly *not* aimed at a pre-teen to early teen audience. Not for decades. Mid/late Teen to 20s is the one they tend to aim for, but the audience tends to skew a bit above that even.

Originally posted by AmbientFire
It wasn't until very recently that I saw that WW had been upgraded to pants for DC's relaunch, but apparently they changed that to pantlessness again because fans were complaining. Complaining about what? Why?

Do we not want the Wonder Woman character to be as accessible as possible? Guy's have Superman and Batman and a whole slew of other heroes to look up to as kids - Are girls not allowed as single hero that wears pants? She's Wonder WOMAN, not Wonder HOOKER for Zod's sake!

If Superman can drop his skivvies, Wonder Woman can pull on a pair of pants and maybe look a bit more like a hero. So why would anybody be against her wearing pants?

1. It turns her into a more positive role model for girls and boys
2. Comic books are slightly less ridiculous - I love comics but let's be frank.
3. She's essentially wearing the American flag masquerading as a uniform - What self-respecting US Marine have you ever seen wear his dress blues with a bikini bottom instead of pants? Because this is your average comicbook buyer and he doesnt want Wonder Woman to wear pants.

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3630/tumblrlfkg2hbez91qayqil.jpg

Also, you really believe that Batman makes for a better role model for kids? Do you remember what he used to dress Robin into? Girls can look up to Susan Richards or Storm etc. They're usually more modest.

Because DC can't make up their goddamn mind about what Wonder Woman should wear.

Nonetheless, Miss Marvel still takes the cake for the most non-functioning, purposeless costume.

The funny thing is they wonder why they have trouble attracting female readers.

Someone should tell them that guys will still buy attractive female characters if they wear pants. Heck, a lot even like it when a female character is allowed to shine. I don't think they'd really lose anyone if they made it more accessible to a wider audience.

Originally posted by Q99
The study they checked was based on movies, many of which are aimed at just that audience.

Really, teens can *easily* get sexy stuff, especially nowadays. And really, what doesn't have sexy on the level of 'cut outfits'?


Oh yea, and comics are most assuredly *not* aimed at a pre-teen to early teen audience. Not for decades. Mid/late Teen to 20s is the one they tend to aim for, but the audience tends to skew a bit above that even.

That's where they get their new buyers, which sustains the industry. Pre-teen wasn't the right word to use, but I'll get to that in a bit. Anyway, the "hardcore" fans are too fickle to cater to constantly. But think about it: More people age 30-40 read comics than 20-30, for example, but the industry also isn't going to grow at ALL in those demographics. The companies "have" them. As long as they're not completely disgusted at a company, the nature of the fandom means that few in those older groups will drop off (they're "lifers" essentially).

For another extremely relevant example, non-profits, they "manage" their older and entrenched donors, which is where a HUGE percentage of their donations come from. But if someone isn't donating at 40, the statistics say he's unlikely to at 50. They target college kids who are just getting into the idea of donating to causes. That's where growth happens, and sustainment of the cause/brand/etc. So the Gaiman's and Ellis's of the world are the yearly personalized thank you and reminder (to keep it with the non-profit donor analogy) to older fans, while Loeb, Bendis, Johns, etc. are the big-budget marketing campaign to attract new customers.

At best, I can see them marketing to 20- to 25-year-olds. Anything higher than that, they're wasting their money. If I'm wrong, and they do market to 40-year-olds, then I'm wrong. But I maintain it would be an utter waste of money. I'm a 28-year-old with an English degree...90% of Avengers comics are not intellectually stimulating in the way something specifically geared toward adults would be. If I read them, I read them (I do). The stories are written for people 10 years younger than me, though....the ones who just saw the movie and will become comic readers until they're 28 and beyond. They already have me.

So, "pre-teen" was too low. Just a lexical error on my part. Pre-teens don't have disposable income. 16-22 do, however. So there's the audience. If I were a marketing exec at Marvel, I'd target almost no one else.

I also accounted for movies in my edit. You may have quoted me before I got to it. I still think you're talking about apples and oranges. The way movies entice people and market is wildly different than comics. I appreciate statistical evidence, but I also think we need to be careful of widescale application of a niche study.

Originally posted by Digi
That's where they get their new buyers, which sustains the industry. Pre-teen wasn't the right word to use, but I'll get to that in a bit. Anyway, the "hardcore" fans are too fickle to cater to constantly. But think about it: More people age 30-40 read comics than 20-30, for example, but the industry also isn't going to grow at ALL in those demographics. The companies "have" them. As long as they're not completely disgusted at a company, the nature of the fandom means that few in those older groups will drop off (they're "lifers" essentially).

For another extremely relevant example, non-profits, they "manage" their older and entrenched donors, which is where a HUGE percentage of their donations come from. But if someone isn't donating at 40, the statistics say he's unlikely to at 50. They target college kids who are just getting into the idea of donating to causes. That's where growth happens, and sustainment of the cause/brand/etc. So the Gaiman's and Ellis's of the world are the yearly personalized thank you and reminder (to keep it with the non-profit donor analogy) to older fans, while Loeb, Bendis, Johns, etc. are the big-budget marketing campaign to attract new customers.

At best, I can see them marketing to 20- to 25-year-olds. Anything higher than that, they're wasting their money. If I'm wrong, and they do market to 40-year-olds, then I'm wrong. But I maintain it would be an utter waste of money. I'm a 28-year-old with an English degree...90% of Avengers comics are not intellectually stimulating in the way something specifically geared toward adults would be. If I read them, I read them (I do). The stories are written for people 10 years younger than me, though....the ones who just saw the movie and will become comic readers until they're 28 and beyond. They already have me.

So, "pre-teen" was too low. Just a lexical error on my part. Pre-teens don't have disposable income. 16-22 do, however. So there's the audience. If I were a marketing exec at Marvel, I'd target almost no one else.

I also accounted for movies in my edit. You may have quoted me before I got to it. I still think you're talking about apples and oranges. The way movies entice people and market is wildly different than comics. I appreciate statistical evidence, but I also think we need to be careful of widescale application of a niche study.

I agree.

You should note that you can probably get a lifer to spend even more of his money as years go on by marketing to them because they are already loyal. Loyal customers who get attention tend to increase their spending year after year. They will most likely be the 20% of buyers that make up the biggest foundation of your profits.

If you are looking for increased growth, then yes marketing to the 20-25 year olds makes sense.

And that is, like you said, exactly what they are doing. With the movies coming out, the demographic they are most interested in would be the 18-25 year old guys who want to learn more about the characters.

I'll also point out that the bikini look for Wonder Woman really *doesn't* attract that many sales. She has it when she does poorly, she has it when she does well. When she gets a different outfit, she becomes accessible to other groups but I really don't think she becomes less appealing to the young male demographic.


It's pandering, but it's pandering that I've seen no signs actually helps sales, and can sometimes clash with what the writers are trying to do with the book. Both Rucka and Simone wished to change it, which is in part why their had their artists do variant-costumes when possible. I don't think there were the first to do so, and I also think the current writer's run (which also made some missteps in the editors oking putting mysognist strawman amazons in her backstory) would fit better with pants as was, indeed, the initial plan.

I dont have any problem with her classic look(panties) mostly cuz it's just how she's always looked. I never had a problem with the underwear on the outside for bats and supes because, ditto.(IMO the new suits look off to me without them). The look with the pants wasn't bad, but looked atrocious with that jacket. I've seen original designs on deviantart for wonder woman costumes that blow both these ones out of the water though. For example, I really really like the idea of this one:

http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=wonder+woman+redesign#/d15r4m8

Throw on the tiara and boom.

I personally like the pants. If she has to wear panties and a suit that looks like the american flag, I'd rather it be done like this;

http://i50.tinypic.com/1z5pufm.jpg

That is actually done by an artist at Pixar who decided to do a few Justice League art shots in their typical style. I think her hair being disheveled and her being more of a warrior makes sense for her character rather than being a perfect model.

I think the real question is why should she? lol

I think her new look is pretty awesome actually.

Also, Amazon's don't wear pants anyway, they wear togas. So imo, she should be more inclined to wear something like that, only probably a bit more practical in a fight.

I don't have a problem with the star-spangled panties because like somebody said, that's how she's looked for the majority of her career. It's an iconic costume. I honestly didn't like the JMS costume at first, but now that I look back at it, it wasn't that bad.

That said, I'm not so sure giving her jeans makes her that much more accessible; she's still Wonder Woman, and defining her by what she wears is a bad idea imo.

I get that there's a sexism issue here, and fair enough. I guess her costume just never means that much to me.

Though I will say that I liked the outfit with the skirt she wore in For Tomorrow.

I say keep the colors, change the cut.



Yea! The skirt one shows up occasionally and I love it.

Originally posted by Q99
I say keep the colors, change the cut.



Yea! The skirt one shows up occasionally and I love it.

For me, that outfit was very much that of a warrior, and I really thought it accentuated her femininity without being gratuitous.

What do you guys think of this toned down version?


http://i48.tinypic.com/2nvz3nc.jpg

Originally posted by Blair Wind
What do you guys think of this toned down version?


http://i48.tinypic.com/2nvz3nc.jpg

It looks pretty good. I wouldn't complain if they went for something like that for a movie.

Originally posted by Blair Wind
What do you guys think of this toned down version?


http://i48.tinypic.com/2nvz3nc.jpg

Not bad.

Cool. Diana The Warrior Princess

I'd make the skirt longer, but yea, good outfit.


Originally posted by -Pr-
For me, that outfit was very much that of a warrior, and I really thought it accentuated her femininity without being gratuitous.

Exactly.

Looks like a good movie outfit.

Can someone for the love of God edit the title

Looks like a guys manhood between her chest and is that supposed to be Robyn from How I met your mother?

Originally posted by -K-M-
Looks like a guys manhood between her chest and is that supposed to be Robyn from How I met your mother?

She was originally going to be WW in Josh Whedon's film adaption.
But DC didn't think he was good enough. lolz.

So when he made Avengers he cast her as Maria Hill to somewhat make up for it from what I heard.

Originally posted by -K-M-
Looks like a guys manhood between her chest and is that supposed to be Robyn from How I met your mother?

Yes other than that phallic looking symbol on her chest (is it just an amazon war trophy or some sort of subconscious envy thing?) it's quite a good costume for a movie.

Then again, Lady Gaga doesn't wear pants and teenage girls and homosexuals seem to respect and idolize her, so WW could probably just continue without pants after all.

Hell, Subby walked around in a damn pair of green speedos for years and nobody complained. WW has always been overdressed compared to that.

No problem with her panties really, but I do prefer a skirt for her.

Teehee, Woner.

Originally posted by the ninjak
She was originally going to be WW in Josh Whedon's film adaption.
But DC didn't think he was good enough. lolz.

So when he made Avengers he cast her as Maria Hill to somewhat make up for it from what I heard. Robyn would make an awesome Wonder Woman.

Originally posted by AmbientFire
Are girls not allowed as single hero that wears pants?

Squirrel Girl wears pants

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Can someone for the love of God edit the title

Done.

Jean Grey
Hope Summers
Rachael Summers
Sue Storm
Black Widow

For the love of ****ing God, I don't understand why this is so difficult for DC.

MODEL HER AFTER ****ING XENA WARRIOR PRINCESS.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RN0L9nuZOyQ/ThbtzdvAq6I/AAAAAAAAAwM/UT-LbQC4WRI/s1600/old_xena.jpg

There's your Wonder Woman. Okay done. Move on to the next character.

Jesus. Is that so hard? facepalm

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
For the love of ****ing God, I don't understand why this is so difficult for DC.

MODEL HER AFTER ****ING XENA WARRIOR PRINCESS.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RN0L9nuZOyQ/ThbtzdvAq6I/AAAAAAAAAwM/UT-LbQC4WRI/s1600/old_xena.jpg

There's your Wonder Woman. Okay done. Move on to the next character.

Jesus. Is that so hard? facepalm

Honestly, I disagree. As good in a fight as Xena was she was a bit butch, and she wasn't exactly a classic beauty which is part of Wonder Woman's character.

Not saying I wouldn't hit that, but still.

I was referring to the outfit, not the character.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I was referring to the outfit, not the character.

oh.



Yeah, I could see it.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Honestly, I disagree. As good in a fight as Xena was she was a bit butch, and she wasn't exactly a classic beauty which is part of Wonder Woman's character.

Not saying I wouldn't hit that, but still.

Have you seen her naked in Spartacus? She's still got it going on. She would have been a perfect WW, imo. In some cases WW has been portrayed as a bit butch anyways.

But yeah, the outfight is good.

Lucy Lawless was (and still is) beautiful, and she looked... I don't know... dangerous. Like she could believably kick some ass and throw down with men, something essential to the character that almost none of the actress people pitch for the role have. Ten - fifteen years ago Lawless would have been the perfect Wonder Woman, certainly much better than Bridget Regan - who for some reason a lot of people think would make a good WW.

Originally posted by Digi
Done.

I hate you more than Bendis hates Thor

Originally posted by Blair Wind
What do you guys think of this toned down version?


http://i48.tinypic.com/2nvz3nc.jpg

Is this photoshop fun with Cobie Smulders, or is this really her doing the modelling?

I think if Wonder Woman was being produced by Christopher Nolan, this is what the outfit would look like; more real world based.

Originally posted by Digi
Done.


I didn't even notice until Bran said something.

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
I hate you more than Bendis hates Thor

It's ok. I love myself enough for the both of us.

fdog

The thread title was starting to bug me so I fixed it

Originally posted by roughrider
Is this photoshop fun with Cobie Smulders, or is this really her doing the modelling?

I think if Wonder Woman was being produced by Christopher Nolan, this is what the outfit would look like; more real world based.

There are tons of photoshopped pictures of the real Cobie in a wonder woman suit. I think this one is purely drawn but based on Cobie.

I think a cross between this and Xena's outfit from before would be perfection.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Lucy Lawless was (and still is) beautiful, and she looked... I don't know... dangerous. Like she could believably kick some ass and throw down with men, something essential to the character that almost none of the actress people pitch for the role have. Ten - fifteen years ago Lawless would have been the perfect Wonder Woman, certainly much better than Bridget Regan - who for some reason a lot of people think would make a good WW.

Lucy Lawless got offered the opportunity to be Wonder Woman, when Xena was at it's Xenith - she turned it down.

Originally posted by roughrider
Lucy Lawless got offered the opportunity to be Wonder Woman, when Xena was at it's Xenith - she turned it down.

Not surprised, knowing mid 90s superhero movies, the script was probably terrible and it's always good to avoid being typecast.

Originally posted by Blair Wind
Have you seen her naked in Spartacus? She's still got it going on. She would have been a perfect WW, imo. In some cases WW has been portrayed as a bit butch anyways.

But yeah, the outfight is good.

I'm not saying she's not a good looking woman. Like I said, I'd definitely hit that.

I just don't think she was a "classic" beauty, like Wonder Woman is supposed to be.

I think wonder woman may be another one of those cases where they should cast an unknown actress.

Seems like they did a lot of photoshop versions of her

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/8500000/Cobie-as-Wonder-Woman-cobie-smulders-8562883-751-1134.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b3QLkXJ8Qjw/TYfFksM6Z9I/AAAAAAAAAus/VWgvlJdCItk/s1600/wonder_woman_new.jpg

Lois Lane kind of steals the costume
http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2010/01/wonder-woman-finally-comes-to.html

Anyone see the Wonder Woman pilot? Comic-Con's make better versions then this

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pQDSBckHUDk/TYfCC0n_YgI/AAAAAAAAAuk/MSeJD7ReFPs/s1600/New%2BWonder%2BWoman.jpg

How about Megan Gale as Wonder Woman what do people think of her from that Justice League movie from George Miller that got canned.

So apparently from the canned JL movie this was going to be a young Maxwell Lord.....

http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/jaybaru.jpg

bwahaha

Originally posted by Kazenji
How about Megan Gale as Wonder Woman what do people think of her from that Justice League movie from George Miller that got canned.

Never saw her in a costume text, but I thought she looked great for the role. I also had an idea about British actress Jaime Murray (Dexter) doing the role.


droolio

Originally posted by -K-M-
Lois Lane kind of steals the costume
http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2010/01/wonder-woman-finally-comes-to.html Not bad. And I mean that as in I would like to put it in her butt.

That reminds me though, if they're so hurting for a Superman (if the new one doesn't turn out), why don't they have the guy who's played him for years step up and play him in a movie?

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Not bad. And I mean that as in I would like to put it in her butt.

That reminds me though, if they're so hurting for a Superman (if the new one doesn't turn out), why don't they have the guy who's played him for years step up and play him in a movie?

Because TV quality is just TV quality.

It's not like he's ever really played Superman - only Clark Kent.

Originally posted by roughrider
Because TV quality is just TV quality.

It's not like he's ever really played Superman - only Clark Kent. Clark Kent who beats the shit out of people

Originally posted by AmbientFire
It wasn't until very recently that I saw that WW had been upgraded to pants for DC's relaunch, but apparently they changed that to pantlessness again because fans were complaining. Complaining about what? Why?


http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net/image_cache/1339103096875850_animate.gif

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7n5j4EfRC1qa72rio2_500.png

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Not bad. And I mean that as in I would like to put it in her butt.

That reminds me though, if they're so hurting for a Superman (if the new one doesn't turn out), why don't they have the guy who's played him for years step up and play him in a movie?

If Tom Welling plays Superman in a movie, I'm holding you personally responsible.

I found these designs on tencentticker.com/projectrooftop/

I go there to see new artists takes on characters. I'd be comfortable seeing versions of this in a comic - or if the material was a toned down type like in the Colbie photos - in a movie/tv show.


http://i47.tinypic.com/mwyuqa.jpghttp://i47.tinypic.com/2mm69ts.jpg

Originally posted by -Pr-
If Tom Welling plays Superman in a movie, I'm holding you personally responsible. Didn't you used to pretty keen on the 'Ville?

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Didn't you used to pretty keen on the 'Ville?

I thought it was okay up until the whole witches thing. Then I stopped watching it until Geoff Johns started writing it.

Originally posted by Blair Wind
I found these designs on tencentticker.com/projectrooftop/

I go there to see new artists takes on characters. I'd be comfortable seeing versions of this in a comic - or if the material was a toned down type like in the Colbie photos - in a movie/tv show.


http://i47.tinypic.com/mwyuqa.jpghttp://i47.tinypic.com/2mm69ts.jpg Not bad

Originally posted by Blair Wind
I found these designs on tencentticker.com/projectrooftop/

I go there to see new artists takes on characters. I'd be comfortable seeing versions of this in a comic - or if the material was a toned down type like in the Colbie photos - in a movie/tv show.


http://i47.tinypic.com/mwyuqa.jpghttp://i47.tinypic.com/2mm69ts.jpg

It would be great to see it go that far. Just be careful about too far, because then it's Big Barda we're looking at, not Wonder Woman. If Diana looks like a fitness model, Barda would look like a bodybuilder.