House of Eratosthenes

Okay, so we’ve got James Bond becoming Jason Bourne; Superman’s a deadbeat dad; Indiana Jones is communicating with extraterrestrials; John Connor becomes a wimpy little she-male so he can make his bride look all big and tough; now the Champion of Themiscyra is being re-made into a Private Vasquez knock-off.

This is a bigger issue than skimpy star-spangled panties. The overall trend is that iconic, individualist characters are losing their identities. They’re being neutralized and reincarnated as stock characters.

It’s an abandonment of history. And that brings many perils. It’s a manifestation of a younger generation that is disinterested in what came before — they want all the things that will consume their attention, to be positioned for that consumption behind a narrow selection of avenues. They want comfort as they supposedly broaden their horizons; more comfort than can be realized while one is truly broadening one’s horizons.

It is also an abandonment of individuality. There have been some awkward moments through the years as James Bond is presented to a newer generation, but up until now Bond has held his ground. Quitting smoking has been about the only significant nod to the changing times. He was who he was; you could take him or leave him. But no more. And perhaps as a direct result of that, Bond’s having trouble finding money to make his next film. Of course he is. What point is there to having him around?

A similar fate awaits Wonder Woman, I think. She has amnesia about her past, wears long pants, and is a street fighter. Gee. Like that’s never been done before. What’s next? I know! We can go La Femme Nikita, she can get busted and hired by a super secret Government agency under an assumed identity, and she has to complete the missions they give her or they’ll throw her in jail.

I wouldn’t have been opposed to a partial re-tooling and re-vamping. The invisible jet has been a joke for about as long as it’s been around. But making her into something she’s not, is just too much. It’s a suicide pact.

Update 7/2/10: James Hudnall at Big Hollywood is giving a very thoughtful treatment to the makeover, although by “thoughtful” what I really mean is “scathing.” Some of his points have a lot of merit. The owners/creators of this particular character, in the decades and generations past, have been caught paying an excess of fealty to the feminists. And it’s easy to see why.

From the very first time a pencil met paper to sketch out this character, the purpose has been to show that women possess potential superior to men. I suppose when a young artist picks up the tradition it’s only natural to listen to the militant feminists when they tell him “Yer doin’ it wrong.” But that’s no excuse for ignorance. If Wonder Woman is a symbol of the idea that a woman’s way is the right way, and she always has been that from the very beginning, then her costume is a feminist banner and so was the costume it replaced, and the costume that replaced, and so on. There is no victory over the patriarchy here.

Kind of reminds me of when the guy used the word “niggardly” in a city council staff meeting and ended up getting canned, even when he opened the dictionary and proved the word had no racist connotations. Perception-over-reality and all that. Facts don’t matter because “we all” see things a certain way.

So Diana Prince is in pants. Take that, chauvinist scum!

Thanks to blogger friend Joan of Argghh! for calling us out over there.

Hey, break down the Bond problem for me if you could. I’m not arguing at all, just curious about what you are seeing. I am not a hard core Bond guy, though I certainly do like the character and the movies, and I like the new one well enough. The last villain was crap, though. Would like to hear your take, and I’ll make it a challenge for you: Do it in a million words or less.
- Andy | 07/02/2010 @ 09:16
Just before Quantum came out, there was some angsty chatter that they were going to turn him into something like Jason Bourne. Once the movie came out, it emerged this was no exaggeration, in fact it was an understatement.

Item #11 on my list of Things I Do Not Want To See In Movies Ever Again clearly states:

Once you’ve defined that a character is brave, or intelligent, or charming, or angst-ridden, or a badass — I don’t ever again want to see time spent defining that the character is brave, intelligent, charming, angst-ridden or badass.

Bond needs to engage in a lot of finesse in order to be granted an exception from this. Let’s face it, the 20 “classic” films are pretty much just an endless scroll that defines and re-defines Bond’s character: Intelligent, versatile, cunning, suave. Why does it not become tedious under Rule #11? What makes it work?

What makes it work is that Bond’s extraordinary personal attributes are sidelined. They are garnish for the main course, which is an exceptionally strong story. QoS did not have a strong story. The director & scriptwriter made the dreadful mistake of compensating for this by putting Bond’s character, or rather the assets that made that character special, into the limelight. To re-introduce him to a new generation, as the cliche goes.

And then they re-built that character so the new generation was left going “So what’s the big deal?”

Bond himself did make some of this problem. “Bond Goes Rogue” has been done in…what now…License To Kill, Die Another Day, a few minutes in The World Is Not Enough and Casino Royale. That is not much, but it’s enough to make it tiring. So the character is boring now, and the story is boring…what am I doing in this movie theater?

It is a misdemeanor to strip Bond of his signature; to re-make him into a spy that could be interchanged with any other spy. To actually borrow from another, and impose the different profile onto Bond, is a gross misdemeanor that demands an extended sentence. Worse yet, it has a terminal effect on the character itself. These are icons that continue to exist only so long as they have reason to. Bond’s continuing survival now has been called into real question, and I see a connection.

Wonder Woman is marked. She will cease to exist, very soon, or else they’re going to change the outfit back again. Think “Blue Superman” from the mid 1990’s. You’ll have to do some research on that, DC is less than forthcoming about the fact that it ever happened.
- mkfreeberg | 07/02/2010 @ 09:59
It’s never a good omen when a female begins to wear pant suits, her tits are swingin’ lower, and she accessorizes with a low-slung, lipstick lesbian, “here is my vagina” belt.
Where is Wonder Woman FROM again…?
- CaptDMO | 07/03/2010 @ 06:55
Wonder Woman, like any other superhero, is a radio signal; the feminism is noisy static. And it’s taken its toll. She is not a failed superhero by any means, I would rate her as among the most successful and iconic. But among the Big Five she is certainly the most messed-up in terms of consistency.

Quick pop quiz: What happens if she tries to deflect a bullet with her bracelets and she misses. If you think she’s on par with Sueprman, and many do, then the consequences should be insignificant. Obviously, that is not established. And can she fly?

Say ANYTHING about Wonder Woman’s abilities or inabilities, and you’ve got a fight on your hands. From over here or over there. But there will be a fight.

I would add that this is why there hasn’t been a live-action WW movie. It’s so politically dicey to define her in any way, shape, matter, form or regard. Oh so hot pants are too girly-girl now huh? When she started wearing them it was supposed to be liberating. As in, not modest and not a skirt. Now it’s oppression.
- mkfreeberg | 07/03/2010 @ 15:53
I read this story over on FoxNews, and I noticed the “before and after” contrast. The “old” WW was simply a cast photo of Lynda Carter in-costume from the 70s live-action TV show. The “new” WW was the illustration you embedded above. When I looked at the “new” one, my first thought was, “What’s she doing? Checking for dirt under her fingernails?”

I don’t get it. I have never been a hardcore comic book fan, and therefore have never closely followed the development of the key characters from either DC or Marvel. However, I always guessed that Superman, arguably the most beloved and successful comic-book character of all time, got someone thinking, “Hmm. How about a female equivalent? Now, she can’t just look like Superman’s sister, but she should still stay true to the Truth, Justice, and the American Way’ bit, so we’ll start by giving her a patriotic outfit….”

…and Wonder Woman was born. Am I wrong?

The latest Superman movie had the title character saying, “Truth, Justice, and all that stuff,” instead of, “Truth, Justice, and the American Way.” Now, we’ve got a WW whose outfit is not only PC, but seems to have been purged of its American-ness as well.

I see the transformation of the Wonder Woman character as part-and-parcel of the loss of American national identity and the fading of our national pride. Am I mistaken?
- cylarz | 07/03/2010 @ 23:46
[…] Freeberg nails it. Yeah, that there is pretty much my textbook definition of a bad idea. […]
- DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » “Wonder Woman to Finally Start Wearing Pants” | 07/25/2010 @ 18:14

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Wonder Woman to Finally Start Wearing Pants”Thursday, July 1st, 2010

“Wonder Woman to Finally Start Wearing Pants”
Thursday, July 1st, 2010