Makes You Wonder
So, everyone and their sister is reporting that Adrianne Palicki, of Friday Night Lights fame, is the new Wonder Woman in David E. Kelley's remake:
Frankly, I know nothing about her, although I think she can certainly look the part with little effort, and is evidently quite athletic, which bodes well, and people who know seem to regard her acting highly. So that's OK. I still, however, have issues with Kelley's vision of the show, where she's evidently "a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance all of the elements of her extraordinary life."
Which ... OK. Sure, the "female lead who needs to find balance while doing it all" is a fine TV trope. But is it Wonder Woman? Back when I started blogging about heroes, I said, "I think there's one major element of storytelling -- and the nature of contemporary stories -- that needs to be considered: controlling canon."
The Wonder Woman that appears in Kelley's new TV show doesn't have to be the Wonder Woman we see in the comics. But there does need to be a through line. Wonder Woman's story, at its core, is that a representative of a hidden island of Amazon warriors is sent to man's world to battle a great evil. That evil, in the comics canon of the '40s, was the Nazis. With the passing of the Nazi threat, Wonder Woman has grown increasingly problematic, eventually leading her to become a sort of ambassador warrior pacifist priestess. Which? Yeah, OK. Self-contradictory all over the place, but for the most part, it works. For the most part, the comics have never really bothered replacing the Nazis with some other threat. (I used to have the great George Perez reboot in the '80s, but can't recall off hand why she's sent to "Man's World," although I do remember Steve Trevor washing up on Paradise Island's shores. But the "leaving Paradise to face a great evil" has always struck me as the most compelling aspect of Wonder Woman as a character, perhaps even more than the feminist iconography she represents. (And indeed, it's the main reason she is a feminist icon.)
In all the talk about the reboot, I've not heard word one about Amazons or Paradise Island. Indeed, everything I've heard makes me think the show is going to be a less neurotic Ally McBeal as an action hero. Which? Not so interested. Now, those elements may be in play somewhere along the way - hell, the current comic continuity has her not remembering her origins or something. I can't keep it straight -- but still, the growing concern is valid: There's something about the scenario as presented that makes one suspect that she's not an Amazon warrior sent to combat great evil or bring peace to the world. (And if she is, then why is she a corporate executive? It seems an odd sideline.)
As I've said before, stories grow and change over time, but stray too far from the controlling canon, and the story becomes something else. Take away the main elements, and it's no longer a story about Wonder Woman. And that's OK, to a degree. As I've said before, Wonder Woman can be problematic, and like a lot of the great heroes of the 20th century, there comes a time where you have to ponder that it might be better creating new heroes, rather than simply using the name of an old one and discarding what made her interesting in the first place. Certainly, that was the idea that kicked off this whole exploration of heroes in the 21st century, and the Wonder Woman reboot seems an even more egregious sin than the looming Buffy the Vampire Slayer fiasco.
Because Wonder Woman means something, especially to a lot of people for whom she was the only female superhero, and certainly the only one who wasn't a female version of a pre-existing male character. There are a lot of reasons why people get their hackles raised over her, still, including the likes of Gloria Steinem. And maybe there are still ways to make her relevant to a contemporary audience. It's not inconceivable. But in the end, she still has to be Wonder Woman. Otherwise, you're just using her name, and she deserves better than that.
Frankly, I know nothing about her, although I think she can certainly look the part with little effort, and is evidently quite athletic, which bodes well, and people who know seem to regard her acting highly. So that's OK. I still, however, have issues with Kelley's vision of the show, where she's evidently "a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance all of the elements of her extraordinary life."
Which ... OK. Sure, the "female lead who needs to find balance while doing it all" is a fine TV trope. But is it Wonder Woman? Back when I started blogging about heroes, I said, "I think there's one major element of storytelling -- and the nature of contemporary stories -- that needs to be considered: controlling canon."
The Wonder Woman that appears in Kelley's new TV show doesn't have to be the Wonder Woman we see in the comics. But there does need to be a through line. Wonder Woman's story, at its core, is that a representative of a hidden island of Amazon warriors is sent to man's world to battle a great evil. That evil, in the comics canon of the '40s, was the Nazis. With the passing of the Nazi threat, Wonder Woman has grown increasingly problematic, eventually leading her to become a sort of ambassador warrior pacifist priestess. Which? Yeah, OK. Self-contradictory all over the place, but for the most part, it works. For the most part, the comics have never really bothered replacing the Nazis with some other threat. (I used to have the great George Perez reboot in the '80s, but can't recall off hand why she's sent to "Man's World," although I do remember Steve Trevor washing up on Paradise Island's shores. But the "leaving Paradise to face a great evil" has always struck me as the most compelling aspect of Wonder Woman as a character, perhaps even more than the feminist iconography she represents. (And indeed, it's the main reason she is a feminist icon.)
In all the talk about the reboot, I've not heard word one about Amazons or Paradise Island. Indeed, everything I've heard makes me think the show is going to be a less neurotic Ally McBeal as an action hero. Which? Not so interested. Now, those elements may be in play somewhere along the way - hell, the current comic continuity has her not remembering her origins or something. I can't keep it straight -- but still, the growing concern is valid: There's something about the scenario as presented that makes one suspect that she's not an Amazon warrior sent to combat great evil or bring peace to the world. (And if she is, then why is she a corporate executive? It seems an odd sideline.)
As I've said before, stories grow and change over time, but stray too far from the controlling canon, and the story becomes something else. Take away the main elements, and it's no longer a story about Wonder Woman. And that's OK, to a degree. As I've said before, Wonder Woman can be problematic, and like a lot of the great heroes of the 20th century, there comes a time where you have to ponder that it might be better creating new heroes, rather than simply using the name of an old one and discarding what made her interesting in the first place. Certainly, that was the idea that kicked off this whole exploration of heroes in the 21st century, and the Wonder Woman reboot seems an even more egregious sin than the looming Buffy the Vampire Slayer fiasco.
Because Wonder Woman means something, especially to a lot of people for whom she was the only female superhero, and certainly the only one who wasn't a female version of a pre-existing male character. There are a lot of reasons why people get their hackles raised over her, still, including the likes of Gloria Steinem. And maybe there are still ways to make her relevant to a contemporary audience. It's not inconceivable. But in the end, she still has to be Wonder Woman. Otherwise, you're just using her name, and she deserves better than that.
No comments have been added yet.
