Saturday, October 2, 2010

RE: The In-Development Wonder Woman TV Show: please don't shy away from her glorious bondage past


Deadline is reporting that Time Warner and David E Kelley are getting together to create a new television reboot of that most misunderstood and damaged superhero, Wonder Woman:
One of TV's best-known creators, The Practice's David E. Kelley, has come on board to write and produce a new series project about the female superhero. The project, from Warner Bros. Television where Kelley is based, and Warner Bros.' DC Entertainment, will be taken out to the networks shortly. Kelley, who has created several female-centered shows, most notably Ally McBeal, had been interested in tackling a contemporary take on the World War II-era Amazon. He recently met with the DC team who also have been looking for ways to launch a new Wonder Woman TV franchise. Details on the reboot are being kept under wraps, and it is not clear if the new Wonder Woman aka Diana Prince will keep her signature powers and weapons, including her Lasso of Truth, her indestructible bracelets, her tiara and her invisible airplane. In the comic books, the Wonder Woman character has evolved significantly since she first appeared in a 1941 issue of All Star Comics and recently underwent a controversial makeover.
Yeah, I wrote about that ridiculous makeover here. That "bold new look" is proof that the people who are currently charged with maintaining the character have no respect for her roots, and are determined to drain any of the fun and distinction out of the character. Also, her sexuality.

There's an old cliche that fanboys and comics creators are just scared of girls. That's why they draw them with big bosoms and in silly, tiny little outfits, and write them all as ditzes.

The confused modern portrayals of Wonder Woman, the frigid ice queen, the funless bitch, the sexless, scowling hag prove that the owners of the property still don't get that women can be sexual and empowered. They can be fun and and clever and strong and downright silly all at the same time.

She was conceived as a symbol of loving femininity that would dominate the more base male instincts toward war and destruction. She did this through female empowerment. And bondage.

Oh, yeah, the comics from the 1940s had lots of rah-rah patriotism and Axis-bashing, but there was also lots of tying people up. Don't believe me? I've already written about that, too. You can read it here.

Or, you can check out some more scans from the third Wonder Woman DC Archive edition:






Yes, that last panel actually features bound women eating from bowls placed on the ground.

Can you imagine a show about a hot, empowered female superhero, a woman with perfect "modern venus" measurements! Amazing!, who gets tied up and ties up her foes, all in the name of controlling the masculine urge toward destruction and war?

And don't tell me they couldn't do it today. Have you seen what they air on Showtime (this new bondage-embracing Wonder Woman would be a perfect companion to "Californication") and Starz (are you telling me that people wouldn't be interested in this show, after the success of "Spartacus")?

You are talking a cult hit. 5 million viewers a week.

And no, the sanitized, dull, "modern" version that DC has been pushing since about 1965 has never caught on, and it isn't going to. They might be able to get it on a network, but Wonder Woman is never going to get mainstream numbers high enough to justify its presence on a network.

And since you're going to do better on cable anyway, why not make it interesting and fun, with an epic Amazon-size scope, and plenty of action, suspense, and, yes, bondage?

And if Sasha Grey can go mainstream (even appearing on some episodes of HBO's series "Entourage" -- and why not pitch this new Wonder Woman to that cable channel, while you're at it?), then why not cast her as Wonder Woman's primary foe/female love interest The Cheetah?

And cast bondage specialist Velicity Von as Wonder Woman?


 
 As these pictures illustrate, Velicity Von just needs to exchange clothes with Lynda Carter, and she's ready to star in a new tv version of Wonder Woman.


And doesn't Sasha Grey already kind of look like a villain in this shot? She could just put on a Cheetah costume and she's ready to start tying up Velicity Von.

I think I know what you're thinking, at this point. "Ricky, you're taking this whole sex-in-Wonder-Woman-comics thing too far. Sure, there was a lot of tying people up and what have you, but the creators didn't mean anything sexual by it. I mean, it's not like the creator of Wonder Woman lived in a polyamorous relationship with two women or anything."

First of all, yes he did live in a polyamorous relationship. Second of all, what has that got to do with the comics, anyway?

Third of all, I leave you with another scan from those original 1940s Wonder Woman comics:


"When a man's unreasonable, feed him candy!" she says. And the name of the character making that statement?

Etta Candy. Wonder Woman's sidekick and the leader of the Beeta Lambda sorority. Ladies and gentlemen, a mainstream superhero comic book from 1943 did in fact have an oral sex pun. Would the marketing and editorial people in charge of the character allow such a thing to happen today?

Should the modern incarnation of Wonder Woman make it to the tv screen --  or should we go back and celebrate the humor, fun, and sexuality of the original character?

No comments: