Why can't Wonder Woman wear pants?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Digi

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'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;

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.

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

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?