New Wonder Woman Costume Revealed

@frozen: Yeap, after having time to really look at the new costume and think about it, J Scott Campbell nails it. Plus his own redesign is perfect.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/03/16/j-scott-campbell-redesigns-wonder-woman-his-way/10616010_10152811588615835_7695654997266477739_n/

@frozen: Exactly, I can't help but feel this is just a knee jerk reaction to the amount of flak people give over women in comics showing too much skin. As always, things will eventually go back to status quo.

@outside_85 said:

@saint_sophie said:

Yep. Don't forget about Bruce as well. He's their brother that they don't like to mention is and as a matter of fact, the SM/WW is more or less a cover up for "incest".

Started calling that image: 'Superboy and Donna Troy.' Because they really look like those two (Johns era TT and Darkstar):

Maybe they were going at that root to make them look more.. younger?

How does lots of red make it patriotic? She isn't an American and that is made clear many times. Unless she is Chinese now?

Hate it! Looking at it actually hurts! It's so tacky and . . . red . . Why is it so "patriotic"? Fabok's design is cool. I get that she doesn't need to be wearing a bikini, but she may as well be wearing a snow suit; it's ridiculous.

well this is shit, prepare to have a new legion of pirates

@frozen: Yeah because a unitard with a corset and metal shoulder pads and bracers is all the rage for women in Saudi Arabia.

I don't have an issue. It's about time the women were as fully dressed as the men. Think about it, then men are fully clothed yet all the female are running around half naked. I know this was originally for fan-service and get the young boys interested in comics.

Even if that were the case, why would you want comics to lose the interest of fans? Why is it okay for women to be half dressed on the covers of Elle, Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, Cosmopolitan, etc. but it's wrong for comic books? Why is it that women get to look a pictures of beautiful women, but not men? Annually the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue sells millions of copies, why aren't you protesting them? Why do they get to have their cheesecake but comic book fans have to have women fully covered from head to toe? It's all so arbitrary, it doesn't make any f#@%*ng sense.

All you're doing is giving birth to heinous full coverage costumes like this one and terminally boring costumes like Spiderwoman's. (Why would a Spiderwoman wear cat glasses?)

It would seem like you'd learn your lesson from the New 52 Power Girl debacle. Or the fact that She-Hulk's book was cancelled due to the fugly art no one could stand to look at, but nope. Here you are applauding a costume that's ugly as all hell, and doesn't at all fit the character, simply because it doesn't show any of the skin her ICONIC costume is known for. It's asinine.

The people that campaigned against the bathing suit were not necessarily asking for a neck-to-toe bodysuit Scorpio, you're blame shifting. The outfit looks as though it was deliberately designed to set off a controversy though, I'll give you that. I feel bad for David because I can tell he took a step out of his comfort zone but unfortunately he just overcompensated.

How am I blame shifting? @sbyrstall specifically said, "It's about time the women were as fully dressed as the men. Think about it, then men are fully clothed yet all the female are running around half naked. I know this was originally for fan-service and get the young boys interested in comics."

But yes, I do blame people that think that way for Wonder Woman's new ugly a$$ costume.

It's not even a true statement. There are far more super-heroines in full head to toe suits, than there are in swimsuit costumes like Wonder Woman's. They're perpetuating a lie in order to make comics more plain, boring and utilitarian and they're taking all of the fun out of the medium.

Lose the shoulder armor, Thigh-high boots, and the wrist blades and it would be decent. I still prefer her old costume, though.

Fu*k the wrist blades, It doesn't even suit her.

@dccomicsrule2011 said:

Wow, didn't expect to start a little firestorm. I agree to a point. The Amazon's are a warfaring culture so I expect her to have a uniform reflecting that AND also the wrist bands that were suppose to represent the Amazon's past of being dominated by males. The wrist blades and thigh high boots, yeah, they need to go. They don't fit her. The sword, shield and lasso are more fitting of her and the Amazon's history. Her boots could be similar in style to what Superman wore.

What Power Girl debacle? DC, IMO, has been in a debacle since the Infinite Crisis. I haven't really read anything since that time.

Then why are you weighing in on a product that you don't buy anyway? Is it just to ruin the book for those that do?

Ask yourself why would a princess from a tropical island climate wear that much material?

She's worn basically a swimsuit all of her life. She's waged successful wars in said swimsuit. She's been to hell and back and to outer space in said swimsuit. She likes her arms and legs free, whether for comfort or mobility, we know that because of all the other armor she's worn previously.

Why would she all of a sudden take it upon herself to have battle armor made that covers her from head to toe? That's something she wouldn't do. There's no way someone perfectly at home in the above looks, would instantly feel the desire to wear this...

There's no shield and she doesn't even have protection for her head, it doesn't make any sense.

I agree that the outfit's ugly but not necessarily because of the length and actually I believe the length's never truly been the issue in the first place, the design Fabok came up with was very well received despite not covering a lot of skin. What people are demanding, and rightly so, is that female characters be depicted more as humans as opposed to sexed-up embodiments of male-gaze. You can't blame women for not being taken with female characters that look like the cast of "bummed by the boss xxx".

What I think it's intellectually dishonest and ignorant is when that gets conflated with pathological modesty and slut-shaming by the likes of @frozen, whose mind's sadly been irreversibly poisoned by Sargon of Akkad and now goes around spreading sophistries on the internet like a loyal disciple of his.

What sucks all the fun out of comic books for me is the fact that all characters are cast in the same mold irrespective of their personalities.

You are completely missing the point if you say something like that first sentence. Sex positivity and sex negativity come in when talking about actual people controlling what clothing is on their own body and how they want to express their own sexuality. Every individual has a complete right to show as much or as little skin as they want and shouldn't be shamed. Wonder Woman isn't a woman, she's a creation of men. She doesn't have her own agency. She has no say in what she wears. The men who created her decide what she wears. And you demand that in her design they include a sexual purpose for others to look at.

The Taliban decide what women wear because of their own beliefs about how women's bodies and what they show affect men. The men are controlling women's clothing because of their view as women as tools of sex and reproduction.

In both of those cases the sexualities of the women in question are more about the men choosing what they wear and the men viewing them than what the woman herself chooses. The women are just extensions of others sexualities and not their own.

So don't act like anybody cares if Wonder Woman herself wants to show skin or not, it's more about her creators dictating that she must show skin because if she's a woman she must also have a sexually titillating for comic viewers.

I hate when people conflate an individuals sexuality\sex positivity and other person objectifying a fictional character for sexual purposes... As if anybody is ever trying to shame the character.

Also, it's like a unitard is an uncommon superhero costume. And most don't even include a corset.

@galacticfork:

You are completely missing the point if you say something like that first sentence. Sex positivity and sex negativity come in when talking about actual people controlling what clothing is on their own body and how they want to express their own sexuality. Every individual has a complete right to show as much or as little skin as they want and shouldn't be shamed. Wonder Woman isn't a woman, she's a creation of men. She doesn't have her own agency. She has no say in what she wears. The men who created her decide what she wears. And you demand that in her design they include a sexual purpose for others to look at.

The Taliban decide what women wear because of their own beliefs about how women's bodies and what they show affect men. The men are controlling women's clothing because of their view as women as tools of sex and reproduction.

In both of those cases the sexualities of the women in question are more about the men choosing what they wear and the men viewing them than what the woman herself chooses. The women are just extensions of others sexualities and not their own.

So don't act like anybody cares if Wonder Woman herself wants to show skin or not, it's more about her creators dictating that she must show skin because if she's a woman she must also have a sexually titillating for comic viewers.

I hate when people conflate an individuals sexuality\sex positivity and other person objectifying a fictional character for sexual purposes... As if anybody is ever trying to shame the character.

Also, it's like a unitard is an uncommon superhero costume. And most don't even include a corset.

The topic of what a female super-heroine wears is not associated with shaming the character, it's associated at shaming the men who like that character for the way she looks. This is exactly what happened with the Spider-Woman issue; with that depiction, came the connotation that her sex appeal was ''sexist'' and that men must be shamed for wanting a female character that is attractive and appealing. I don't demand that she be designed in a sexual way, seriously, when did I say that? I will not accept you trying to put me into straw-man's by shoving words into my mouth. I said, and agreed with the notion that Wonder Woman has always been depicted as a beautiful character --- and stripping that femininity away from her does a disservice to what for decades, has helped mould her character. She's based on Greek mythology, with the intent of displaying the beauty of a Goddess. That right there, has been a male fantasy for decades; nothing can really change that, but what's wrong with being a beautiful, feminine goddess and being a bad-ass? This idea that she needs to cover up by layering herself with clunky, ugly and robust armor to ''de-sexualize'' her is based on intellectually dishonest arguments; I wouldn't even say it's based on arguments, just feelings and how entertainment mediums ''affect'' people. The feminine Greek goddesses would embody their beauty while being powerful.

Your Taliban comment is rather contradictory; you say the men who control what those women wear yet also acknowledge that Wonder Woman, a fictional character has no agency or control in what she wears? You've made that part of your argument redundant. Especially considering the artist for this new armor, is a man himself. A man has helped depict Wonder Woman as covered up.

If you don't like the Taliban comment, or the Catholic Nun comment, then take a Viking comparison; she's not supposed to be a Viking warrior either.

That's a damn lie. It's simply not true. Batwoman in no way dresses like Wonder Woman, neither does Batgirl, Mera, Huntress or even Catwoman. Stop making up lies to support your pointless point.

The ONLY reason this is an issue is because a certain vocal group of fans make it one. All it's doing is making comics ugly and boring and sucking all the fun out of them for the sake of a few uptight, sexless, prudes.

It's not even about cheesecake, it's about fairness. Why does Wonder Woman have to have a costume with significantly more fabric, but Superman gets to go casual and wear significantly less?

Why is it when men dress sexy it's completely ignored? Is Superman's bicep peeking out from under his super-tight t-shirt for the female gaze? Why is nobody protesting that?

@scorpio_cassadine:

Stop making up lies to support your pointless point.

What else do you expect from her?

@muffin_sangria said:

@madflavor: This one is still my favorite.

This is one of the best depictions I've ever seen.

The weirdest thing about this for me is that Finch himself did a better Wonder Woman design at the end of JLA #1 --- granted, it was for one of Ivo's androids but still:

@saren: That's because Finch didn't design the new costume, editorial did. You can tell it had input from several sources, which contributes to the design's overall lack of cohesion.

What I'm angry about is that you see how controversial the costume is, so you made it the boards avatar, just out of spite, and to sow the seeds of discourse. You could have at least waited until it debuted in the book, but no. You want us to have to look at it as much as possible...early. >:(

@scorpio_cassadine: I didn't make that the default image. Someone probably asked for it on the Editing and Tools board so pika changed it. I've never edited or contributed anything to the Wonder Woman wiki. I don't even think it should be the default image, nor should the Superman page's default be that low-quality, small-scale image of Clark in his new/old look.

I might take the piss out of the Wonder Woman board, but I wouldn't subject people to Finch art. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules

What am I lying about Scorpio? Catwoman sports a catsuit sometimes unzipped all the way down to the navel, Mera shows a good amount of cleavage, Huntress used to fight crime half-naked but more importantly, they all usually look like serialized mannequins with the same height, same body type, same bust size, same body language...

Also you can't compare situation a) removing the shirt for one scene in a movie with situation b) treading the battlefields in a bathing suit 24/7. I hope that you can spot the difference.

Wonder Woman leveled up.

That's rude isn't it, the one peddling lies here is you as far as I can tell, the lie that this is somehow connected to religious fundamentalism.

I'm pointing out that the Leftists that are demanding comics be altered because of 'sexism' and what-not, with the end goal of covering females up, are ironically really not that different from what the religious right want (albeit for different reasons). The difference is that one group actually get their way; hiding behind ''progressiveness''.

? The end-goal is to end the exploitation of women in comic books, I presume, not to cover women up just for the sake of it. For the company, it's to woo more women that are not drawn to dehumanized characters that look like red light district prostitutes. Fabok's design doesn't cover a lot of skin yet no scheming leftists pounced on it, go and ask Sargon of Akkad why he thinks this is...

Exploitation of fictional characters? Ah yes, the patriarchy strikes fiction, how could I forget? What was 'exploiting' of the way Wonder Woman already looked? She embodied the feminine beauty of a Greek goddess --- this is true to the roots of her character, and comes in addition to being a bad-ass. What is seen in the new design is clunky looking and strips Wonder Woman of her feminine grace; instead she looks something more of a Viking rather than from Greek myth --- in your post, you've essentially acknowledged that the end goal is 'covering' women up (hence my religious analogies) --- but as predicted, the reasons are 'different'. I've seen it all before, just the same old argument re-branded for different ideologies, in your case I'll presume Feminism, despite that covering women up could be re-branded as a reactionary Conservative stance --- something you'd expect in a Catholic school.

There's nothing wrong with how Wonder Woman looks below. Not only does she look swift, graceful and mobile for a combatant but she is adequately equipped.

This statement you made is a lie "all characters are cast in the same mold irrespective of their personalities". That's just not true.

Over ten years ago there was an Avengers storyline where Firestar was worried about her microwave powers effecting her health. Stark or somebody made her a new costume that protected her from this, but it showed an amount of skin that she was personally uncomfortable with. The costume was redesigned to be more modest, but she eventually got cancer anyway.

I can remember when Fire got a new sexier costume in JLA that she was thrilled with. She then tried to coax Ice into wearing something similar, but Ice said no, because she didn't have the personality to pull it off.

As far back as Wonder Woman #1 in 1942 Diana commented on the vast amount of fabric contained in American women's attire and how silly it seemed to her. During the Perez reboot in the 80's she would often pray to her gods in the nude, there was nothing sexual or salacious about it, it was simply a part of her culture. Now they're trying to force feed us the erroneous belief that she'd wear a head to toe armored costume, with wrist blades like Wolverine, when she's always been a warrior that championed peace as the first resort. Despite looking stupid, it doesn't at all fit with what we've come to know about her.

Just like all women don't want to be sexy, all women don't want to dress like they're from Saudi Arabia. This new costume seems ham-fisted, oppressive and totally out of character.

As for your assertion about the heroines I mentioned earlier, that's not true either. If any sex in comics comes across as serialized mannequins, with the same weight, height and body type, it's the men. Regardless of powers or abilities, everyone has bulging biceps, barrel chests and are six feet tall. They all have the same aggressive body language too, but you don't see fat, male comic book geeks complaining about it. Why are women so insecure?

If a cartoon character makes you feel ugly and inadequate, what about the real sexy women you see on your walk to the comic book store? Do you scrape your boney fingers at them and tell them to put on more clothes?

I like it, nowhere near as sexy as the other, but it is still ay cooler loking and the blades on the forearms are awesome

Nice, she is Venezuelan now :P

Gah, ComicVine's quoting is so weird and makes it hard to break up quotes into parts... I wish you could just to tags like <blockquote> or the like. I've tried breaking up quotes to tedious and disterous results. Anyhoo:

1) yet you say:

The demand for women to cover up their skin is built on the assumption of sex-negativity. Wonder Woman's a Greek godddess, not an Afghani Taliban --- this new wave of sex-shaming, with the argument of 'sexism' is ironically so far left-wing that it becomes right-wing.

So how exactly does "the demand for women to cover up their skin" at all reference to shaming men? If it was truly what you said, it would have been "The demand for men to..." So yeah... No. That wasn't what said. You were equating calls for less sexualized women characters to demands that women cover up by the taliban. What you wrote up there, wasn't the argument you were making in the post I quoted, but since you say it now, I'll respond to that.

It's not about shaming men for "liking" the way a character looks, it's trying to get men to stop expecting the character designs to be about their sexual desires first.

2) I'm sorry, you're right, you're not demanding she be designed in a sexual way. You want her old costume back, or that one suggested by J Scott Campbell. And those who pushed for this new design are akin to a terrorist orginazation oppressing women.

3) Greek Mythology. I'm sorry. Can you explain to me how star spangled underwear (originally culottes), a bodice with an eagle motiff, and a lasso scream "Greek mythology"? I know her backstory, but please, the historical legends of amazons weren't about femininity and beauty, they were about war. Some legends had them removing a breast to make archery easier, and others had them having no contact with men unless it was to raid villages and capture some men as slaves and to give them daughters (I'm sure those Amazons were all about being male fantasies). Hyppolyta, the Queen of the Amazons was also the daughter of Ares, the God of war in the actual myths. And they didn't really wear armor all that different from what men wore. The Greek Mythology angle actually points more towards her current armor since it's more like her male counterparts and more about combat than looking good for men.

4) But it's almost always this way. The women characters don't get to just be bad-asses. They have to be male fantasies first, then they can sometimes be badasses, too. Why can't all male characters satisfy people into sub bondage fantasies? Superman can totally fight crime while sporting a ball gag. HAWT!

5) No it's about making her design based on her role first rather than attractiveness. It's not as if she's unattractive now. She's still an attractive woman, but the purpose of her design isn't to be attractive to men, it's umm that thing she does... what is it? It's something involving something like... Oh! Fighting evil!

6) No. It's really not contradictory at all. My whole point was that in both cases, it's men dictating what women want based on their own sexuality. Neither have the ability to choose. The women subjugated by the Taliban because well... they're subjugated by the Taliban, and Wonder woman because she's fictional and control by the designers. In the case of the new design it's based not on sexuality but on the fact she's a warrior. And you compare her to nuns as well? She's wearing a skin tight unitard and a bodice! How the heck is that the same as a burqa or any other full body robe?

Just an observation:

Notice how Marvel is doing everything in their power to make their cinematic and comic universes seem as alike as possible, including bending over backwards to do so (like with Nick Fury).

While DC seems (again) to be doing everyhting in their power to make everything look different. You had the New 52 costume at launch, then came the Gal Gadot uniform that looks quite alot like it, then followed by Fabook's version. And now they put this circus-outfit out that only has the barest resemblance with anything Diana has worn before.

Tell you what, I am looking forwards to seeing why Diana decided on a change of attire. In fact I am just as much looking forwards to that, as I am to see it burning in a wastebin :)

Fabook's version -> her main costume,

new costume -> one of her battle armor

Win-win

LOVED IT!

Sure, she no longer has her awesome legs and cleavage showing, but Damn she still looks hot and badass with this new look.

Here's your blind person's starter kit...

She's looking like a Greek version of Azrael and god knows we don't need another Azrael looking character in DC again.

@scorpio_cassadine said:

@heavenlydarkdragon said:

LOVED IT!

Sure, she no longer has her awesome legs and cleavage showing, but Damn she still looks hot and badass with this new look.

Here's your blind person's starter kit...

A little too harsh as always. Granted I agree with you on the costume (which shows how bad this change is if we somewhat agree) but whilst the tastes of those who like it might be questionable, they have as much a right to like it as we do to dislike it. It's how the world works.

@scorpio_cassadine:

If you think you're funny, just give it up.

I'd rather be a blind man that sees quality, than a punk that thinks he knows everything, when you don't know sh**.

And the burning you're felling inside, its my cane up your a**.

@lvenger: Azrael looks badass. Nothing with her new outfit is anything similar to that of Azrael's except for the wrist blades.

I'm not very fond of the excessive costumes of the 90s so agree to disagree there. Still, at least we agree that this costume doesn't look good on Diana and that Fabok's design would have been much better.

@lvenger: Yeah, I really like Fabok's design. He has drawn Wonder Woman best throughout her history (in my opinion). He made her seem like a real Amazonian warrior, who fights for truth and justice, rather than looking like some random bimbo.

Just to make it clear, I'm not defending this look. If you remember, I didn't put Wonder Woman in a hijab in my design so why are you lumping me with them, whoever they are. I said many times that Chiang sold me on the bathing suit, I'm fine with it provided that she's got a strong powerful body to pull it off otherwise it does have a tendency to look trashy. I love her look in Justice league, however, if they come up with a cool-looking head-to-toe suit I'm not gonna start foaming at the mouth.

But you make it sound like this was a crime perpetrated against beautiful women by a bunch of ugly, envious bytches colluding to spoil your fun and that Wonder Woman is not beautiful and graceful unless they expose her bosom which is a bit facked up in a way. What we demand is that female characters are treated well, that means looking like a warrior on the battlefield and wearing a bathing suit at the beach; having a strong powerful frame if you're Wonder Woman and a lean hot bikini body if you're Emma Frost..

If you feel as though men are not represented well in comic books then feel free to take up the cudgels and rest on the knowledge that I won't stand in your way.