Does Wonder Woman hold back?

  • 52 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for wenchoman
#1 Edited by wenchoman (8 posts) - - Show Bio

We hear time and again how Superman is always holding back when he faces off against enemies. Does Wonder Woman hold back? Is their any proof for or against this? Do you guys prefer her to hold back or not?

P.S. I didn't find a post on this. If there is can you link me. Thank you.

Avatar image for highaccuser
#2 Posted by HighAccuser (9696 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes, considerably against opponents she tries to reform or subdue with normal means. For example Cheetah. If she knows an opponent can take it like Ares or another heavy hitter she won't hold back.

Avatar image for csg_cl
#3 Edited by CSG_CL (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@wenchoman: I think all heroes hold back to a certain level. Writers typically don't use this like a crutch as so many Superman writers have done ... Personally I hate the whole device when it's used overtly.

Avatar image for outside_85
#4 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

Heroes generally hold back their full power because they most often don't wish to kill their adversaries. In Diana's case it's easy to see, because we know she is strong enough to lift a mountain, yet most of her mortal enemies dont get their heads punched from their shoulders whenever she lands one on them, in most cases they even go to jail without a smashed skeleton.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#5 Edited by dshipp17 (5802 posts) - - Show Bio

I think holding back was used in those cases where Superman would be fighting a powerful villain like Mongul, Solomon Grundy, Darkseid, etc; so, when Darkseid had gotten a power upgrade, Superman went with the saying "now, this is one of those rare opportunities I do not have to hold back, because you can take it big man, can't you". It was something that came out of left field. In terms of villains who are at a certain power, like the ones at the level mentioned above with Superman, I don't think Wonder Woman could have been holding back; the writers, since Gail Simone, and a brief instance with Greg Rucka, had just put PIS in the Wonder Woman comics, and all writers since Simone, with the possible exceptions of Hester and Azzarello, and Finch, have just gone with the flow and built this PIS in with Wonder Woman, but, currently, Wonder Woman has the crutch of being the god of war, despite the re-arrival of Ares. Where I do think Wonder Woman does hold back is where she's a more skilled fighter than her other opponent which is probably all the time; she could use her training to make sure that no opponent had a change by using a bunch of leverage maneuvers like a martial artist or she could just start chopping up opponents with a sword or related type of weapon (e.g. becoming a super powered version of Red Sonja, where Sonja never loses, because of her fighting skills). But, like any other hero, of course she holds back with a character who is not as powerful as characters like Mongul or Grundy.

In the case of Superman, it's like Majin Buu toying with the Z-Fighters, even after they went Super Saiyan 3, but, when they started to do fusion, at Super Saiyan 3, Majin Buu was than forced to stop holding back and get serious, turning into Kid Buu (and now, Goku is being upgraded to meet someone like Beerus and, possibly, Whis, at some point; except, Goku is really just a Saiyan, but, has undergone a bunch of training; he wasn't really meant that way; hence, instead of just saying Goku, you should clarify something specific like Super Saiyan God Goku or Super Saiyan 3 Goku; but, with Wonder Woman, we should either just say Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman without bracelets, or Wonder Woman as god of war; Superman is just Superman unless you say Sun-dipped Superman, but, there are not 5 or six levels of upgrades similar to Goku fusing with Vegeta in order to fight Kid Buu or, seven levels or more to get Super Saiyan God Goku; another level for Goku could be one more Marvel character, though). Wonder Woman would more be similar to Android 18, when the Z-Fighters first encountered her and immediately underestimated her, because of gender; and, than, while every other character had an excuse to get an upgrade, including Android 17, Android 18 has never gotten a power upgrade. But, this is as it should be with Wonder Woman and the DC heroes, as we always get the false arguments that every character who's supposed to be more powerful than the Superman, Wonder Woman and Carol Danvers character are suddenly compared to Guku after he underwent so many upgrades to fight someone like Kidd Buu, when it was already clear, at the beginning, that an untrained/fresh/virgin, or, whatever equivalent term, Saiyan was intended to be the equivalent to a Kryptonian, or, hence, Superman (e.g. or, when you have a Carol Danvers and the original incarnation of Hulk, but, then Marvel starts bringing in other characters like Colossus, Juggernaut, Gladiator, Silver Surfer, etc, but, even though Carol Danvers was intended to be Marvel's Wonder Woman equivalent, DC fans (and, sometimes, even Marvel fans) want to elevate her and Superman to somewhere barely below Galactus if not Galactus level or maybe even One-Above-All level; it was never meant to be that way, of course, as I've previously argued). It should be left that Wonder Woman only gets one level of a power upgrade by either removing her bracelets or her becoming something like god of war.

Avatar image for agent41
#6 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: Carol was never meant to be WW's equivalent in Marvel because companies don't get a meeting and say "these characters will be at the same level". People don't put Carol on WW and Superman level because her feat catalogue is not on par with theirs. You don't have to be anywhere near Galactus to be above Carol Davners in power level, so your logic that they are overpowered because they are more powerful than Carol(when according to you they shouldn't be)is ridiculous. And who said DC characters shouldn't get power upgrades? and who said that's the way it should be?. You?. What can of logic is that?. There is no such thing as a real limit when it comes to powerhouses in comics. Comic powerhouses in general get power upgrades all the time. If anything WW shouldn't have just one upgrade, because Marston clearly stated that she can get stronger the more that she trains, pretty much like a saiyan. But nobody here talks about dbz. Why would we compare the logic in dbz with its ki stuff and all that when that doesn't exist in comics?. Why does he always do this regarding WW, SM and DC in general?. @outside_85@csg_cl

Avatar image for csg_cl
#7 Posted by CSG_CL (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: Carol was never meant to be WW's equivalent in Marvel because companies don't get a meeting and say "these characters will be at the same level". People don't put Carol on WW and Superman level because her feat catalogue is not on par with theirs. You don't have to be anywhere near Galactus to be above Carol Davners in power level, so your logic that they are overpowered because they are more powerful than Carol(when according to you they shouldn't be)is ridiculous. And who said DC characters shouldn't get power upgrades? and who said that's the way it should be?. You?. What can of logic is that?. There is no such thing as a real limit when it comes to powerhouses in comics. Comic powerhouses in general get power upgrades all the time. If anything WW shouldn't have just one upgrade, because Marston clearly stated that she can get stronger the more that she trains, pretty much like a saiyan. But nobody here talks about dbz. Why would we compare the logic in dbz with its ki stuff and all that when that doesn't exist in comics?. Why does he always do this regarding WW, SM and DC in general?. @outside_85@csg_cl

I think Carol has recently been treated as the "Marvel WW" because they are looking to make a female hero as successful as WW with an important place in the Marvel Universe. I think nearly all female superheroes, on some level, are modeled off of WW (if nothing else simply because she has been so successful). Carol has never seemed all that powerful to me to be honest. Even in Binary mode she didn't strike me as much physically more powerful than she was without it ... Rogue still managed to stand up to her for a while and IIRC Colossus was still stronger than Binary in her early days. I've tried to like Carol, but something about the character has always made me yawn ... personally I think Rogue was a vastly better character when she had the Carol split-personality as it made both characters more interesting. Now Carol is very boring IMO.

Avatar image for archizooom
#8 Edited by Archizooom (2207 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41: Thor is Marvel's Wonder Woman counterpart and they're pushing Captain Marvel as the leading lady because they're hitting the female readership hard, Valiant's pushing Faith. Kelly Sue DeConnick marshaled tons of feminist support for Carol, plus the new cheesecake-proof design was met with praise, that helped consolidate Carol's status as Marvel's flagship Super Heroine. I don't know exactly how strong she is but I read on Mashable she ranks amongst the likes of Thor, and in the new #1 she smashed an asteroid to smithereens. I'm reading the new Captain Marvel run, so far so good, I recommend it! Meanwhile DC's making a mess of Wonder Woman…

Avatar image for linsanel_doctor
#9 Edited by linsanel_Doctor (8707 posts) - - Show Bio

yes

Avatar image for agent41
#10 Edited by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@archizooom: Carol is nowhere near thor based on feats. And what asteroid feat are you talking about?. Do you have the scans?.

Avatar image for highaccuser
#11 Edited by HighAccuser (9696 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:

I think holding back was used in those cases where Superman would be fighting a powerful villain like Mongul, Solomon Grundy, Darkseid, etc; so, when Darkseid had gotten a power upgrade, Superman went with the saying "now, this is one of those rare opportunities I do not have to hold back, because you can take it big man, can't you". It was something that came out of left field. In terms of villains who are at a certain power, like the ones at the level mentioned above with Superman

Supes never holds back against Darkseid and mongul and other heavy hitters in comic form. He knows they can tank the abuse and that they wont hesitate to do the same. That line is from JLU.

Avatar image for archizooom
#12 Edited by Archizooom (2207 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41: The feat was in the preview, here - http://www.comicbookresources.com/comic-previews/captain-marvel-1-marvel-comics-2016

Avatar image for agent41
#13 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@archizooom: So she punched one of the big "rocks" coming her way, it's a good feat.

Avatar image for klaus
#14 Posted by Klaus (2044 posts) - - Show Bio

I see a lot of mixed answers here, so let me clear it up for you. In the New 52, Wonder Woman holds back considerably. In my opinion, she holds back far more than any other hero, even Superman. Let me explain why. As the Demigoddess daughter of Zeus, Wonder Woman is always restraining a large portion of her powers by wearing her bracelets, we know she wears them to protect her enemies. When she removes them and enters god mode, it is often assumed she doesn't hold back anymore, however that just removes her restrictions, it doesn't mean she won't pull a punch.

Also it was actually confirmed in the recent Wonder Woman comic that not only does WW hold back by restraining her power with the bracelets, but she holds back most of her God of War powers. When she can't contain her GoW powers, she directs it at herself. This has side effects on her, such as, her eyes bleeding, her skin becoming dark and decayed etc.

Basically, if Wonder Woman ever decided to not hold back, she would take off her bracelets and enter god-mode, while simultaneously unleashing all of her power as God of War. That kind of power would make the world tremble.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#15 Edited by dshipp17 (5802 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerevarine_11 said:
@dshipp17 said:

I think holding back was used in those cases where Superman would be fighting a powerful villain like Mongul, Solomon Grundy, Darkseid, etc; so, when Darkseid had gotten a power upgrade, Superman went with the saying "now, this is one of those rare opportunities I do not have to hold back, because you can take it big man, can't you". It was something that came out of left field. In terms of villains who are at a certain power, like the ones at the level mentioned above with Superman

Supes never holds back against Darkseid and mongul and other heavy hitters in comic form. He knows they can tank the abuse and that they wont hesitate to do the same. That line is from JLU.

Ok, I'm glad I can agree.

@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: Carol was never meant to be WW's equivalent in Marvel because companies don't get a meeting and say "these characters will be at the same level". People don't put Carol on WW and Superman level because her feat catalogue is not on par with theirs. You don't have to be anywhere near Galactus to be above Carol Davners in power level, so your logic that they are overpowered because they are more powerful than Carol(when according to you they shouldn't be)is ridiculous. And who said DC characters shouldn't get power upgrades? and who said that's the way it should be?. You?. What can of logic is that?. There is no such thing as a real limit when it comes to powerhouses in comics. Comic powerhouses in general get power upgrades all the time. If anything WW shouldn't have just one upgrade, because Marston clearly stated that she can get stronger the more that she trains, pretty much like a saiyan. But nobody here talks about dbz. Why would we compare the logic in dbz with its ki stuff and all that when that doesn't exist in comics?. Why does he always do this regarding WW, SM and DC in general?. @outside_85@csg_cl

You wont be surprised with this, but, I disagree, because, who was the female powerhouse for Marvel (Timely) when Wonder Woman was created (or, months later)? Marvel lacked a female powerhouse until Carol Danvers arrived. As such, clearly, Carol was Marvel's response to Wonder Woman. Again, Wonder Woman and Superman can't be the equivalent of every powerhouse Marvel introduces who they showcase by showing that character best the prior top Marvel powerhouse; I don't see how you keep missing that logic. Sure, if DC managed the Marvel characters, this might be the case, but, I'm thinking if Marvel or some other publisher (e.g. the DBZ universe) managed the DC characters; if you've been paying attention, every time Marvel upgrades a character or introduces a new powerhouse, a DC fan always wants Wonder Woman and Superman to be just that much stronger, faster, and whatever else than that new character (sometimes, even Marvel fans act the same way).

By the way, the next strongest character after Carol might be either Colossus and/or Thor (or, Colossus followed The Thing, followed by Thor; or, Omega Red followed by Carol; or, maybe a tie among Carol, The Thing, Colossus, and Thor, going by how Hulk beat Thor; Thor only did slightly better than The Thing against Hulk), than someone like Power Princess and Sentry, than comes Hulk, than Juggernaut, than Gladiator, than Silver Surfer, than Apocalypse, than other characters like Thanos, than Galactus (maybe by a huge margin; based on my favorite cartoon, the 1998 Silver Surfer, The Living Tribune should actually be the next character, after Galactus, but, the PIS in Marvel comics makes this unlikely in the comics), etc, as far as I'm concerned; below Carol, you might have to jumble Wolverine, Spider-Man and his villains, etc, by rank.

Avatar image for outside_85
#16 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@nerevarine_11 said:
@dshipp17 said:

I think holding back was used in those cases where Superman would be fighting a powerful villain like Mongul, Solomon Grundy, Darkseid, etc; so, when Darkseid had gotten a power upgrade, Superman went with the saying "now, this is one of those rare opportunities I do not have to hold back, because you can take it big man, can't you". It was something that came out of left field. In terms of villains who are at a certain power, like the ones at the level mentioned above with Superman

Supes never holds back against Darkseid and mongul and other heavy hitters in comic form. He knows they can tank the abuse and that they wont hesitate to do the same. That line is from JLU.

Ok, I'm glad I can agree.

@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: Carol was never meant to be WW's equivalent in Marvel because companies don't get a meeting and say "these characters will be at the same level". People don't put Carol on WW and Superman level because her feat catalogue is not on par with theirs. You don't have to be anywhere near Galactus to be above Carol Davners in power level, so your logic that they are overpowered because they are more powerful than Carol(when according to you they shouldn't be)is ridiculous. And who said DC characters shouldn't get power upgrades? and who said that's the way it should be?. You?. What can of logic is that?. There is no such thing as a real limit when it comes to powerhouses in comics. Comic powerhouses in general get power upgrades all the time. If anything WW shouldn't have just one upgrade, because Marston clearly stated that she can get stronger the more that she trains, pretty much like a saiyan. But nobody here talks about dbz. Why would we compare the logic in dbz with its ki stuff and all that when that doesn't exist in comics?. Why does he always do this regarding WW, SM and DC in general?. @outside_85@csg_cl

You wont be surprised with this, but, I disagree, because, who was the female powerhouse for Marvel (Timely) when Wonder Woman was created (or, months later)? Marvel lacked a female powerhouse until Carol Danvers arrived. As such, clearly, Carol was Marvel's response to Wonder Woman. Again, Wonder Woman and Superman can't be the equivalent of every powerhouse Marvel introduces who they showcase by showing that character best the prior top Marvel powerhouse; I don't see how you keep missing that logic. Sure, if DC managed the Marvel characters, this might be the case, but, I'm thinking if Marvel or some other publisher (e.g. the DBZ universe) managed the DC characters; if you've been paying attention, every time Marvel upgrades a character or introduces a new powerhouse, a DC fan always wants Wonder Woman and Superman to be just that much stronger, faster, and whatever else than that new character (sometimes, even Marvel fans act the same way).

By the way, the next strongest character after Carol might be either Colossus and/or Thor (or, Colossus followed The Thing, followed by Thor; or, Omega Red followed by Carol; or, maybe a tie among Carol, The Thing, Colossus, and Thor, going by how Hulk beat Thor; Thor only did slightly better than The Thing against Hulk), than someone like Power Princess and Sentry, than comes Hulk, than Juggernaut, than Gladiator, than Silver Surfer, than Apocalypse, than other characters like Thanos, than Galactus (maybe by a huge margin; based on my favorite cartoon, the 1998 Silver Surfer, The Living Tribune should actually be the next character, after Galactus, but, the PIS in Marvel comics makes this unlikely in the comics), etc, as far as I'm concerned; below Carol, you might have to jumble Wolverine, Spider-Man and his villains, etc, by rank.

Except Carol wasn't created to be Diana's pastice in Marvel, she was created to be the female companion/counterpart to their own Captain Marvel. The parallel with Diana has only arrived this much later, post House of M when Carol dropped the booze and tried to aim to become Ms Popularity as she had been in the alternate universe. It was slow at first, mistake were made, but the comparison really got wind when she finally landed her own book under the Captain Marvel name.

Before that the copy of Diana were the both direct ripoffs in the guises of various versions of Power Princess and Artume, Princess of the Amazons.

Avatar image for csg_cl
#17 Posted by CSG_CL (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@nerevarine_11 said:
@dshipp17 said:

I think holding back was used in those cases where Superman would be fighting a powerful villain like Mongul, Solomon Grundy, Darkseid, etc; so, when Darkseid had gotten a power upgrade, Superman went with the saying "now, this is one of those rare opportunities I do not have to hold back, because you can take it big man, can't you". It was something that came out of left field. In terms of villains who are at a certain power, like the ones at the level mentioned above with Superman

Supes never holds back against Darkseid and mongul and other heavy hitters in comic form. He knows they can tank the abuse and that they wont hesitate to do the same. That line is from JLU.

Ok, I'm glad I can agree.

@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: Carol was never meant to be WW's equivalent in Marvel because companies don't get a meeting and say "these characters will be at the same level". People don't put Carol on WW and Superman level because her feat catalogue is not on par with theirs. You don't have to be anywhere near Galactus to be above Carol Davners in power level, so your logic that they are overpowered because they are more powerful than Carol(when according to you they shouldn't be)is ridiculous. And who said DC characters shouldn't get power upgrades? and who said that's the way it should be?. You?. What can of logic is that?. There is no such thing as a real limit when it comes to powerhouses in comics. Comic powerhouses in general get power upgrades all the time. If anything WW shouldn't have just one upgrade, because Marston clearly stated that she can get stronger the more that she trains, pretty much like a saiyan. But nobody here talks about dbz. Why would we compare the logic in dbz with its ki stuff and all that when that doesn't exist in comics?. Why does he always do this regarding WW, SM and DC in general?. @outside_85@csg_cl

You wont be surprised with this, but, I disagree, because, who was the female powerhouse for Marvel (Timely) when Wonder Woman was created (or, months later)? Marvel lacked a female powerhouse until Carol Danvers arrived. As such, clearly, Carol was Marvel's response to Wonder Woman. Again, Wonder Woman and Superman can't be the equivalent of every powerhouse Marvel introduces who they showcase by showing that character best the prior top Marvel powerhouse; I don't see how you keep missing that logic. Sure, if DC managed the Marvel characters, this might be the case, but, I'm thinking if Marvel or some other publisher (e.g. the DBZ universe) managed the DC characters; if you've been paying attention, every time Marvel upgrades a character or introduces a new powerhouse, a DC fan always wants Wonder Woman and Superman to be just that much stronger, faster, and whatever else than that new character (sometimes, even Marvel fans act the same way).

By the way, the next strongest character after Carol might be either Colossus and/or Thor (or, Colossus followed The Thing, followed by Thor; or, Omega Red followed by Carol; or, maybe a tie among Carol, The Thing, Colossus, and Thor, going by how Hulk beat Thor; Thor only did slightly better than The Thing against Hulk), than someone like Power Princess and Sentry, than comes Hulk, than Juggernaut, than Gladiator, than Silver Surfer, than Apocalypse, than other characters like Thanos, than Galactus (maybe by a huge margin; based on my favorite cartoon, the 1998 Silver Surfer, The Living Tribune should actually be the next character, after Galactus, but, the PIS in Marvel comics makes this unlikely in the comics), etc, as far as I'm concerned; below Carol, you might have to jumble Wolverine, Spider-Man and his villains, etc, by rank.

Except Carol wasn't created to be Diana's pastice in Marvel, she was created to be the female companion/counterpart to their own Captain Marvel. The parallel with Diana has only arrived this much later, post House of M when Carol dropped the booze and tried to aim to become Ms Popularity as she had been in the alternate universe. It was slow at first, mistake were made, but the comparison really got wind when she finally landed her own book under the Captain Marvel name.

Before that the copy of Diana were the both direct ripoffs in the guises of various versions of Power Princess and Artume, Princess of the Amazons.

pretty much this ... Carol came into existence decades after Diana, and in her earliest years was just a regular human. Later when she gained powers it was clear that she was just supposed to be a female companion character more akin to Mary Marvel or Supergirl. Certainly now they are trying to retrofit her into a WW archetype, right down to making her a diplomat and a warrior.

Avatar image for agent41
#18 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#19 Edited by dshipp17 (5802 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

Avatar image for agent41
#20 Edited by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

Avatar image for csg_cl
#21 Posted by CSG_CL (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

Pretty much ... but this discussion is one of the many reasons I get tired of people pointing to feats as the basis of a character. Carol showed nothing in terms of WW characteristics when she was created. She was basically a side-kick and a supporting character (even if she had displayed feats on-par with WW). Today they are clearly trying to make her a "trinity-type" female lead, but she was conceived much more as a SG or Mary Marvel role than a WW role in Marvel's universe.

Avatar image for agent41
#22 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@csg_cl said:
@agent41 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

Pretty much ... but this discussion is one of the many reasons I get tired of people pointing to feats as the basis of a character. Carol showed nothing in terms of WW characteristics when she was created. She was basically a side-kick and a supporting character (even if she had displayed feats on-par with WW). Today they are clearly trying to make her a "trinity-type" female lead, but she was conceived much more as a SG or Mary Marvel role than a WW role in Marvel's universe.

Feats are cool and fun. What i don't understand is how user dshipp17 can try to compare things from different universes that don't exist outside their respective universes. Comic powerhouses have power upgrades all the time. This will never stop, so it's pointless to try to put a limit. And Carol's story is the proof that she wasn't meant to be a Wonder Woman type of character, but all the other Marvel female characters with solo titles never worked in the long run, so they have been trying to push Carol as a Wonder Woman type of character in the past 10 years.

Avatar image for csg_cl
#23 Posted by CSG_CL (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41 said:
@csg_cl said:
@agent41 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

Pretty much ... but this discussion is one of the many reasons I get tired of people pointing to feats as the basis of a character. Carol showed nothing in terms of WW characteristics when she was created. She was basically a side-kick and a supporting character (even if she had displayed feats on-par with WW). Today they are clearly trying to make her a "trinity-type" female lead, but she was conceived much more as a SG or Mary Marvel role than a WW role in Marvel's universe.

Feats are cool and fun. What i don't understand is how user dshipp17 can try to compare things from different universes that don't exist outside their respective universes. Comic powerhouses have power upgrades all the time. This will never stop, so it's pointless to try to put a limit. And Carol's story is the proof that she wasn't meant to be a Wonder Woman type of character, but all the other Marvel female characters with solo titles never worked in the long run, so they have been trying to push Carol as a Wonder Woman type of character in the past 10 years.

I think feats are much more entertaining in animation ... and don't really tells us a whole lot about any character. I've never thought the Marvel universe and the DC universe were particularly comparable either, and Carol certainly wasn't WW-esque until the last few years when they've tried to make her a solo character. Personally I think She-Hulk is a better character than CM, but she's never been able to sustain a solo series for long either.

Avatar image for agent41
#24 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@csg_cl said:
@agent41 said:
@csg_cl said:
@agent41 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

Pretty much ... but this discussion is one of the many reasons I get tired of people pointing to feats as the basis of a character. Carol showed nothing in terms of WW characteristics when she was created. She was basically a side-kick and a supporting character (even if she had displayed feats on-par with WW). Today they are clearly trying to make her a "trinity-type" female lead, but she was conceived much more as a SG or Mary Marvel role than a WW role in Marvel's universe.

Feats are cool and fun. What i don't understand is how user dshipp17 can try to compare things from different universes that don't exist outside their respective universes. Comic powerhouses have power upgrades all the time. This will never stop, so it's pointless to try to put a limit. And Carol's story is the proof that she wasn't meant to be a Wonder Woman type of character, but all the other Marvel female characters with solo titles never worked in the long run, so they have been trying to push Carol as a Wonder Woman type of character in the past 10 years.

I think feats are much more entertaining in animation ... and don't really tells us a whole lot about any character. I've never thought the Marvel universe and the DC universe were particularly comparable either, and Carol certainly wasn't WW-esque until the last few years when they've tried to make her a solo character. Personally I think She-Hulk is a better character than CM, but she's never been able to sustain a solo series for long either.

There is a time and place for everything, i don't mind good feats and epic action at the right time and place. They are expected in comics, and the title of a legendary amazon warrior is no exception. Carol has never been WW's equal, not in power, and not as a main female character. She is not the number one face of Marvel female characters the way Diana is for DC, but they are trying to push Carol in that direction.

Avatar image for agent41
#25 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

And to answer the topic. All heros hold back against weaker opponents, and when they don't want to kill the villans.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#26 Edited by dshipp17 (5802 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

False; the Marvel characters who I know for a shadow of a doubt that were clearly intended to be inferior in strength to Wonder Woman would be basically all other female Marvel characters (e.g. Storm, Spider-Woman, Jean Grey, regular Rogue, etc.). Carol was clearly always intended to be the first Marvel female powerhouse; hence, Marvel just started to show Carol's feats, because, it needed to help counter fan arguments on my side against your side. If Carol was intended to be even a medium powerhouse, the type of character you've continually implied, she'd be on par with someone like Spider-Woman as opposed to Jean Grey or even Psylocke.

To the other points with you and the other poster, sure, because Marvel can't just clone Wonder Woman in all of her splendid glory; by you mentioned standards, Carol would need to be an exact duplicate/copy of Wonder Woman which is unreasonable to expect.

Avatar image for agent41
#27 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

False; the Marvel characters who I now for a shadow of a doubt that were clearly intended to be inferior in strength to Wonder Woman would be basically all other female Marvel characters (e.g. Storm, Spider-Woman, Jean Grey, regular Rogue, etc.). Carol was clearly always intended to be the first Marvel female powerhouse; hence, Marvel just started to show Carol's feats, because, it needed to help counter fan arguments on my side against your side. If Carol was intended to be even a medium powerhouse, the type of character you've continually implied, she's be on par with someone like Spider-Woman as opposed to Jean Grey or even Psylocke.

To the other points with you and the other poster, sure, because Marvel can't just clone Wonder Woman in all of her splendid glory; by you mentioned standards, Carol would need to be an exact duplicate/copy of Wonder Woman which is unreasonable to expect.

That's not true. There is no such thing as your side. Marvel could have made Carol a more powerful character to match WW but they have never done it. Nowdays they are trying to push Carol as Marvel female lady, after decades of being a d-list in the comic world. But she still is way below Diana on the power chart, and nowhere near as iconic and influential as Diana as a character. storm, regular rogue, jean are not even heavy hitters, super strength is not part of their power set, so your comparison doesn't make sense. You are acting like if only the females without super strength aren't on par with Wonder Woman. A lot of female characters have super strength, but that doesn't make them Diana's equals. Carol was never shown to be on her level, Carol is a mid tier based on feats, spiderman is a street leveler. Somebody way stronger than a peak human but below the level of Carol, She-Hulk, etc. What has psylocke ever done to call her a powerhouse?. Marvel has never portrayed Carol as WW's equal in power, and it has nothing to do with lack of feats because Carol doesn't lack feats, she just doesn't have the feats that WW has. From Golden Age to the current version, all versions of Diana have better feats than Carol.

Avatar image for csg_cl
#28 Edited by CSG_CL (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

False; the Marvel characters who I now for a shadow of a doubt that were clearly intended to be inferior in strength to Wonder Woman would be basically all other female Marvel characters (e.g. Storm, Spider-Woman, Jean Grey, regular Rogue, etc.). Carol was clearly always intended to be the first Marvel female powerhouse; hence, Marvel just started to show Carol's feats, because, it needed to help counter fan arguments on my side against your side. If Carol was intended to be even a medium powerhouse, the type of character you've continually implied, she's be on par with someone like Spider-Woman as opposed to Jean Grey or even Psylocke.

To the other points with you and the other poster, sure, because Marvel can't just clone Wonder Woman in all of her splendid glory; by you mentioned standards, Carol would need to be an exact duplicate/copy of Wonder Woman which is unreasonable to expect.

that's because you keep going back to power set ... if this is all it took to be an equivalent character, then Cyclops is Marvel's Superman because he has eye blasts. You have to consider the role the character was invented to fill. Carol in her original characterization was first a Lois Lane type of character, and later when she was empowered, she filled the role of a Supergirl/Mary Marvel. She wasn't a leading lady until around 2005.

Avatar image for agent41
#29 Edited by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@csg_cl said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

False; the Marvel characters who I now for a shadow of a doubt that were clearly intended to be inferior in strength to Wonder Woman would be basically all other female Marvel characters (e.g. Storm, Spider-Woman, Jean Grey, regular Rogue, etc.). Carol was clearly always intended to be the first Marvel female powerhouse; hence, Marvel just started to show Carol's feats, because, it needed to help counter fan arguments on my side against your side. If Carol was intended to be even a medium powerhouse, the type of character you've continually implied, she's be on par with someone like Spider-Woman as opposed to Jean Grey or even Psylocke.

To the other points with you and the other poster, sure, because Marvel can't just clone Wonder Woman in all of her splendid glory; by you mentioned standards, Carol would need to be an exact duplicate/copy of Wonder Woman which is unreasonable to expect.

that's because you keep going back to power set ... if this is all it took to be an equivalent character, then Cyclops is Marvel's Superman because he has eye blasts. You have to consider the role the character was invented to fill. Carol in her original characterization was first a Lois Lane type of character, and later when she was empowered, she filled the role of a Supergirl/Mary Marvel. She wasn't a leading lady until around 2005.

Even if it was about power level, Carol has never been as powerful as Mary Marvel or Supergirl, let alone Diana, whom has proven to be above the other 2 DC female powerhouses mentioned. It's always been like this, Diana>>Supergirl>>>>>>>>Carol, based on feats. And based on iconic status, leading role, impact and influence. It's (nowdays)Diana>>Catwoman>>>>>>Supergirl>>Blackwidow>>>>>>>>>>Carol.

Avatar image for csg_cl
#30 Posted by CSG_CL (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41 said:
@csg_cl said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

False; the Marvel characters who I now for a shadow of a doubt that were clearly intended to be inferior in strength to Wonder Woman would be basically all other female Marvel characters (e.g. Storm, Spider-Woman, Jean Grey, regular Rogue, etc.). Carol was clearly always intended to be the first Marvel female powerhouse; hence, Marvel just started to show Carol's feats, because, it needed to help counter fan arguments on my side against your side. If Carol was intended to be even a medium powerhouse, the type of character you've continually implied, she's be on par with someone like Spider-Woman as opposed to Jean Grey or even Psylocke.

To the other points with you and the other poster, sure, because Marvel can't just clone Wonder Woman in all of her splendid glory; by you mentioned standards, Carol would need to be an exact duplicate/copy of Wonder Woman which is unreasonable to expect.

that's because you keep going back to power set ... if this is all it took to be an equivalent character, then Cyclops is Marvel's Superman because he has eye blasts. You have to consider the role the character was invented to fill. Carol in her original characterization was first a Lois Lane type of character, and later when she was empowered, she filled the role of a Supergirl/Mary Marvel. She wasn't a leading lady until around 2005.

Even if it was about power level, Carol has never been as powerful as Mary Marvel or Supergirl, let alone Diana, whom has proven to be above the other 2 DC female powerhouses mentioned. It's always been like this, Diana>>Supergirl>>>>>>>>Carol, based on feats. And based on iconic status, leading role, impact and influence. It's (nowdays)Diana>>Catwoman>>>>>>Supergirl>>Blackwidow>>>>>>>>>>Carol.

Don't forget Harley ... she's taken a big step forward in leading ladies.

Avatar image for outside_85
#31 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@csg_cl said:
@agent41 said:
@csg_cl said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

False; the Marvel characters who I now for a shadow of a doubt that were clearly intended to be inferior in strength to Wonder Woman would be basically all other female Marvel characters (e.g. Storm, Spider-Woman, Jean Grey, regular Rogue, etc.). Carol was clearly always intended to be the first Marvel female powerhouse; hence, Marvel just started to show Carol's feats, because, it needed to help counter fan arguments on my side against your side. If Carol was intended to be even a medium powerhouse, the type of character you've continually implied, she's be on par with someone like Spider-Woman as opposed to Jean Grey or even Psylocke.

To the other points with you and the other poster, sure, because Marvel can't just clone Wonder Woman in all of her splendid glory; by you mentioned standards, Carol would need to be an exact duplicate/copy of Wonder Woman which is unreasonable to expect.

that's because you keep going back to power set ... if this is all it took to be an equivalent character, then Cyclops is Marvel's Superman because he has eye blasts. You have to consider the role the character was invented to fill. Carol in her original characterization was first a Lois Lane type of character, and later when she was empowered, she filled the role of a Supergirl/Mary Marvel. She wasn't a leading lady until around 2005.

Even if it was about power level, Carol has never been as powerful as Mary Marvel or Supergirl, let alone Diana, whom has proven to be above the other 2 DC female powerhouses mentioned. It's always been like this, Diana>>Supergirl>>>>>>>>Carol, based on feats. And based on iconic status, leading role, impact and influence. It's (nowdays)Diana>>Catwoman>>>>>>Supergirl>>Blackwidow>>>>>>>>>>Carol.

Don't forget Harley ... she's taken a big step forward in leading ladies.

Could you two leave me out of this?

Avatar image for heatblaze
#32 Posted by Heatblaze (10421 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes she holds back, unless it's unnecessary.

Avatar image for csg_cl
#33 Posted by CSG_CL (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@csg_cl said:
@agent41 said:
@csg_cl said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@agent41 said:

@dshipp17: @outside_85: @csg_cl:Outside_85 explained it very well. Carol was at first just the female(and weaker) version of a male hero that existed before her, sexism was present in her creation as you can see, so Marston would hate to hear somebody say that is Marvel's Wonder Woman. Only in the 2000s(more than 3 and half decades after her debut in 1968)they started trying to make her a Wonder Woman type of character, after they had her spend so many years in Limbo. Not all DC fans want SM and WW to be as powerful as the most powerful Marvel character. A lot of powerhoses in Marvel weren't as powerful as they are today. All powerhouses in comics have power upgrades, that is normal.

Well, all this shows is that a prior point that I made was firmly valid: until now, Marvel wasn't as concerned with displaying a character's feats as much as DC. So, now, Marvel is just showing Carol displaying feats, whereas, DC showed Wonder Woman performing feats more often.

False, Marvel displays feats just as much as DC. Carol had a lot of feats during her first run in the late 60s and early 70s(that are nothing next to the things all comic versions of Wonder Woman have shown constantly). Carol didn't have much feats for more than 15 years after her first run, and that's because she lost her powers, then worked for the X-Men for a while, and then she was in limbo as an irrelevant character that most people only remember as the chick that lost her powers to Rogue. Only in the last 10 years Marvel has tried to push her as something more than a part of Rogue's back story.

False; the Marvel characters who I now for a shadow of a doubt that were clearly intended to be inferior in strength to Wonder Woman would be basically all other female Marvel characters (e.g. Storm, Spider-Woman, Jean Grey, regular Rogue, etc.). Carol was clearly always intended to be the first Marvel female powerhouse; hence, Marvel just started to show Carol's feats, because, it needed to help counter fan arguments on my side against your side. If Carol was intended to be even a medium powerhouse, the type of character you've continually implied, she's be on par with someone like Spider-Woman as opposed to Jean Grey or even Psylocke.

To the other points with you and the other poster, sure, because Marvel can't just clone Wonder Woman in all of her splendid glory; by you mentioned standards, Carol would need to be an exact duplicate/copy of Wonder Woman which is unreasonable to expect.

that's because you keep going back to power set ... if this is all it took to be an equivalent character, then Cyclops is Marvel's Superman because he has eye blasts. You have to consider the role the character was invented to fill. Carol in her original characterization was first a Lois Lane type of character, and later when she was empowered, she filled the role of a Supergirl/Mary Marvel. She wasn't a leading lady until around 2005.

Even if it was about power level, Carol has never been as powerful as Mary Marvel or Supergirl, let alone Diana, whom has proven to be above the other 2 DC female powerhouses mentioned. It's always been like this, Diana>>Supergirl>>>>>>>>Carol, based on feats. And based on iconic status, leading role, impact and influence. It's (nowdays)Diana>>Catwoman>>>>>>Supergirl>>Blackwidow>>>>>>>>>>Carol.

Don't forget Harley ... she's taken a big step forward in leading ladies.

Could you two leave me out of this?

didn't know you were even on it ... I didn't add you.

Avatar image for krleavenger
#34 Posted by KrleAvenger (26351 posts) - - Show Bio

She does.Even with strong foes.

Avatar image for deactivated-599b4bc7465db
#35 Edited by deactivated-599b4bc7465db (1759 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd imagine she does depending on the situation esp since many of her foes are humans so I doubt she's really exerting much physical effort

Avatar image for ecstaticgrace
#36 Posted by EcstaticGrace (7394 posts) - - Show Bio

With what's going on in the Thor book currently I'd suggest Jane is closer to Diana with the whole "Woman equality thing". Both Carol and Thor have been getting pushed though with the fact both appear in 2 titles a month and frequent guest appearances.

Avatar image for agent41
#37 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@ecstaticgrace: jenifer is not Diana's equal, not in power, and not in iconic status.

Avatar image for ecstaticgrace
#38 Edited by EcstaticGrace (7394 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41: Who the hell is Jennifer and when did I mention her..

Avatar image for agent41
#39 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@ecstaticgrace: Who the hell is jane then?. Jane usually means jenifer aka she-hulk.

Avatar image for ecstaticgrace
#40 Posted by EcstaticGrace (7394 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41: Jane Foster and I was talking about the Women equality thing thats been going on in the title kind of being similar to the usual theme of Wonder Woman believing Women are strong enough to do things themselvws.

Avatar image for life_without_progress
#41 Posted by Life_Without_Progress (26075 posts) - - Show Bio

Heroes generally hold back their full power because they most often don't wish to kill their adversaries. In Diana's case it's easy to see, because we know she is strong enough to lift a mountain, yet most of her mortal enemies dont get their heads punched from their shoulders whenever she lands one on them, in most cases they even go to jail without a smashed skeleton.

Avatar image for thesaiyanman
#42 Posted by TheSaiyanMan (1745 posts) - - Show Bio

Wonder Woman does hold back but not much .

Holding back is almost always used in superman.

Personally i think superman holds back a lot since in he goes getting his hand broken by ww to punching monsters with planet sized strength and shattering them.

Avatar image for agent41
#43 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@vegetassgss: You are talking about injustice and New 52, 2 different versions of the characters. Also superman easily beating doomsday is ridiculous when he has struggled with him most of the time since doomsday's debut. 2 decades ago And WW is within superman strength class so of course she can hurt him. superman holding back is taken out of proportion by some of his fans, so they can claim that anybody giving him a fight not named Darkseid or doomsday is PIS. Wonder Woman holds back just as much as any other powerhouse that doesn't want to kill opponents weaker than them. It's well stated and shown, that thanks to her training she has great control of her power, so she can hit opponents far below her league like a human or a mid tier without killing them.

Avatar image for racksonracksonracks
#44 Posted by racksonracksonracks (415 posts) - - Show Bio

yes most heroe do

Avatar image for thesaiyanman
#45 Edited by TheSaiyanMan (1745 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided

@agent41:

1) Actually i was having this in mind it is way back in 1995. DONT take it seriously though the creature was magical but he had help from Dr.occult.Sometimes it becomes highly inconsistent as SM can take a beating from avg. strength type characters and then fight them of later easily.

2) Superman beating doomsday easily in nw52 sounds ridiculous but TBH they are making him stronger his speed and strength have been notched up a bit.

3) I said that WW holds back , but i think Superman holds back even more as he does impossible things.

Avatar image for agent41
#46 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@vegetassgss: Superman doesn't do impossible things for a comic character, a lot of heavy hitters have similar feats. WW included. Also all heros hold back, WW is also a warrior that in many ocasions has talked about fair battles, she has held back her speed, even her flight against certain opponents to give them a better chance instead of overpowering them like she could have.

Avatar image for thesaiyanman
#47 Posted by TheSaiyanMan (1745 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41: Sometimes superman is shown to do extremely crazy things although normally i would consider him as good as WonderW in strength and speed . Also i think wonder woman is faster than superman if we talk about combat speed, but superman travels in space at FTL speeds. This is what i find inconsistent when SM claims he can relate to NANOSECONDs and has trouble keeping up with WW in a close combat.

Avatar image for agent41
#48 Edited by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@vegetassgss: Superman getting tagged by WW is not a low feat for him. They are fast enough to tag each other. Also WW has great reflexes, she has reacted to things going faster than light and is by far the best fighter out of the 2.And WW herself has done crazy things like moving the sun during Golden Age.

Avatar image for thesaiyanman
#49 Edited by TheSaiyanMan (1745 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41: btw has she really moved the sun in golden age ? i thought she needed oxygen to survive in space.

Avatar image for agent41
#50 Posted by agent41 (16090 posts) - - Show Bio

@vegetassgss: She can hold her breath for a very long time. And at one point she got the ability to just be underwater and on space without air thanks to her earrings(nother magic tool in her vas catalogue of magic tools).

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.