Wonder Woman character is TRIBBLE

valoreah · September 2016

The writer of the reborn "Wonder Woman" comics has revealed that the character is TRIBBLE.

Greg Rucka tells Comicosity that since Wonder Woman comes from the fictional all-female island nation of Themyscira, she "has been in love and had relationships with other women."

Source 1 and 2

Not sure I can ever understand the necessity of being historical revisionists when it comes to characters with a 70+ year history. Doesn't that stifle creativity?

jonsills · September 2016

Historically, her creator, William Marston, modeled Diana on his wife and her (female) lover. And there was more than a little bondage in the old comics.

In-universe, as another comics writer pointed out on Twitter, "They're a society of all-female immortals. What do you think they were doing on that island? A 500-year book club?"

Unknown · September 2016

This content has been removed.

rattler2 · September 2016

No evidence in universe for that valoreah.

artan42 · September 2016

Oh...

shevet · September 2016

Now I'm speculating on how a certain traditional Jewish custom regarding male infants could be performed on Superman. (I can't go into more detail, or it would get snipped.)

Unknown · September 2016

This content has been removed.

legendarylycan · September 2016

*muzzlepaw* terrible pun is utterly terrible....

starswordc · September 2016

jonsills wrote: »

Historically, her creator, William Marston, modeled Diana on his wife and her (female) lover. And there was more than a little bondage in the old comics.

In-universe, as another comics writer pointed out on Twitter, "They're a society of all-female immortals. What do you think they were doing on that island? A 500-year book club?"

There is a reason for all those "g*y sailor" jokes besides just interservice rivalries. And I bet you my entire book collection that historical and literary reenactments are not the most common use to which people in Star Trek put holodecks.

shevet wrote: »

Now I'm speculating on how a certain traditional Jewish custom regarding male infants could be performed on Superman. (I can't go into more detail, or it would get snipped.)

dalolorn · September 2016

starswordc wrote: »

shevet wrote: »

Now I'm speculating on how a certain traditional Jewish custom regarding male infants could be performed on Superman. (I can't go into more detail, or it would get snipped.)

You disappoint me. Did you expect worse from him?

Unknown · October 2016

This content has been removed.

legendarylycan · October 2016

oh, don't you even THINK about making that face, lizard...if he hadn't said it, you WOULD have

qjunior · October 2016

As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.

jorantomalak · October 2016

does anyone research mythology? guess not

amazons were warriors first and foremost , only time they would be with a man was to well get pregnant, then due to traditions and what not if the child was male it would be given to the father, if female raised as an amazon warrior.

Also amazons did not get into romantic relationships, as it was a burden to them on the battlefield , but then again amazons were supposed to be like 10 feet tall and have a single breast as the other would be cut off during puberty to show revrence for thier patron deity.

though ancient thebes had "The sacred band of thebes" they were peerless and one of the most feared warrior clans of ther day, also they were openly homosexual , it was acutally not frowned upon and made them ferocious as they always fought in pairs , and being romantically invololved made them fight even harder for their loved on who fought by thier side.

thunderfoot · October 2016

I. Do. Not. Care.

The media deluge about ficitional characters' choice of sexual partners has made me numb to this topic. The information has the sole purpose of making those who created or are using the character appear edgy, hip, or smart. All they are really trying to do is garner more attention in an effort to squeeze every last penny out of whatever project they are presenting to us.

I'm very likely to see this film when it comes out. Due to the fact my wife is a lifelong comics collector and Wonder Woman is one of her favorite characters. Unless it is going to be a porno, she will not care either.

angrytarg · October 2016

I don't know what's more entertaining. The "news" itself or the angst and rage that goes with it.

jorantomalak · October 2016

personally i wish they would quit calling wonder woman an amazon when clearly she is not, shes a warrior princess from some hidden island of woman, but no she isnt an amazon by definition.

oh and amazons are androginous (ik spelling is bad) , in mythology they didnt view themselves as men or women only as warriors period, they would only ake a sexual partner as a means of procreation not romance.

They also were forbidden to get romantically involved with anyone , as it was a burden to them when going into battle having a loved one somewhere would take their mind from the battle and that lapse could cost their lives and the lives of their comrades, and thier deity also forbid it any amazon found in a romance would herself be killed aswell as her partner.

anyways thought id share a few things on this subject

daveyny · October 2016

What's new about this.
They live on an Island...

Everything they eat, tastes like fish.

artan42 · October 2016

jorantomalak wrote: »

personally i wish they would quit calling wonder woman an amazon when clearly she is not, shes a warrior princess from some hidden island of woman, but no she isnt an amazon by definition.

oh and amazons are androginous (ik spelling is bad) , in mythology they didnt view themselves as men or women only as warriors period, they would only ake a sexual partner as a means of procreation not romance.

They also were forbidden to get romantically involved with anyone , as it was a burden to them when going into battle having a loved one somewhere would take their mind from the battle and that lapse could cost their lives and the lives of their comrades, and thier deity also forbid it any amazon found in a romance would herself be killed aswell as her partner.

anyways thought id share a few things on this subject

Comicbook Amazons are not mythological Amazons. Both have the right to use the name as one is based on the other. In the old Norse religion, Loki is Odin's brother, not Thor's. Should Marvel give them different names? Should any adaptation of any media be required to change something because it is an adaptation an not the original?

angrytarg · October 2016

@jorantomalak virtually everything we know about "amazons" is myth and romantisized pictures derived from art. There aren't any historical sources whatsoever to even pinpoint where the myths come from. Every single society in history that considered men and women equal (which were rather few) could and per definition has brought fore "amazons". We don't even know what "amazon" is supposed to mean. Every theory about things like sexual ethics and romance about "amazons" is pure and wild speculation.

legendarylycan · October 2016

angrytarg wrote: »

@jorantomalak virtually everything we know about "amazons" is myth and romantisized pictures derived from art. There aren't any historical sources whatsoever to even pinpoint where the myths come from. Every single society in history that considered men and women equal (which were rather few) could and per definition has brought fore "amazons". We don't even know what "amazon" is supposed to mean. Every theory about things like sexual ethics and romance about "amazons" is pure and wild speculation.

so what you're saying is...everything is true, especially the lies?

jonsills · October 2016

angrytarg wrote: »

I don't know what's more entertaining. The "news" itself or the angst and rage that goes with it.

The angst and rage. Easily.

Unknown · October 2016

This content has been removed.

gradii · October 2016

shevet wrote: »

Now I'm speculating on how a certain traditional Jewish custom regarding male infants could be performed on Superman. (I can't go into more detail, or it would get snipped.)

Would likely be difficult.

daveyny · October 2016

gradii wrote: »

shevet wrote: »

Now I'm speculating on how a certain traditional Jewish custom regarding male infants could be performed on Superman. (I can't go into more detail, or it would get snipped.)

Would likely be difficult.

Kryptonite Blade...

Cut and Done.

Unknown · October 2016

This content has been removed.

daviesdavies · October 2016

I dare you all say "Wunderbar" to Wonderwoman

jonsills · October 2016

valoreah wrote: »

qjunior wrote: »

As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.

Alternatively, the writers can use some of that talent they supposedly have and create new characters. I don't believe times changing is an excuse to be revisionist.

And then they get accused of creating token characters to cater to the "SJW" crowd. Oh, and of letting the existing characters "stagnate". You just can't win on this front - some folks scream about how they want to read something new, then when you give them something new they complain about it.

Unknown · October 2016

This content has been removed.

marcusdkane · October 2016

jonsills wrote: »

valoreah wrote: »

qjunior wrote: »

As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.

Alternatively, the writers can use some of that talent they supposedly have and create new characters. I don't believe times changing is an excuse to be revisionist.

And then they get accused of creating token characters to cater to the "SJW" crowd. Oh, and of letting the existing characters "stagnate". You just can't win on this front - some folks scream about how they want to read something new, then when you give them something new they complain about it.

On a personal level, I'd rather see a token character, than retcon an existing one to cater to SJWs...

Example: Captain Jack Harkness.
In Empty Child, he was shown as flirting with men and women. In (I forget the episode name) he flirted with robots. In another episode (when he was reunited with the Doctor (as the 10th Doctor)) he flirted with a humanoid/insectoid alien... In short, he flirted with everyone and anything. In Miracle Day, he was strictly depicted as being g.ay...

Barrowman once said in interview that a difference between him and Jack was "I'm [Barrowman] g.ay, he[Jack]'s not..."

A massively popular and much-loved character, was retconned away from one of the very qualities which made him lovable!

Same with making KT Sulu g.ay (against George Takei's request) If they had to incoude a reference to homosexuality because it was plot-relevant, rather than just a tired attempt 'to be hip', I'd much rather they had created a new character than pull that trick on an established one.

IMHO, there's a difference between 'revealing new information about a character', such as Worf having accidentally killed another boy when playing soccer, than 'revealing 'new' information about a character' such as making KT Sulu g.ay and in a relationship no one had ever heard of before.

There's a certain level of respect and obligation when working with someone else's characters, which frankly, they failed to do with KT Sulu...

And to bring it back on topic, yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense that Wonder Woman has had same-sex encounters... The point, or rather non-point the writers should be making, should be "And?? So what??" and down-playing it, not being "We made Wonder Woman G.ay!" to draw attention to another DC future-flop which has 'trying too hard' written all over it (like every other POS movie they've put out since Man of Steel...) All the time hacks can't use g.ay characters without needlessly drawing attention to that as an advertising point, there never will be mainstream acceptance of g.ay people or g.ay rights, because it will atill be being treated as different, and needing differential status, than simply being a 'so what?' notion...

ryan218 · October 2016

marcusdkane wrote: »

jonsills wrote: »

valoreah wrote: »

qjunior wrote: »

As for revising established characters that way....70 years ago it was hardly possible to have non-straight people in comics...or elsewhere. You could simply say they can finally be open about it.

Alternatively, the writers can use some of that talent they supposedly have and create new characters. I don't believe times changing is an excuse to be revisionist.

And then they get accused of creating token characters to cater to the "SJW" crowd. Oh, and of letting the existing characters "stagnate". You just can't win on this front - some folks scream about how they want to read something new, then when you give them something new they complain about it.

On a personal level, I'd rather see a token character, than retcon an existing one to cater to SJWs...

Example: Captain Jack Harkness.
In Empty Child, he was shown as flirting with men and women. In (I forget the episode name) he flirted with robots. In another episode (when he was reunited with the Doctor (as the 10th Doctor)) he flirted with a humanoid/insectoid alien... In short, he flirted with everyone and anything. In Miracle Day, he was strictly depicted as being g.ay...

Barrowman once said in interview that a difference between him and Jack was "I'm [Barrowman] g.ay, he[Jack]'s not..."

A massively popular and much-loved character, was retconned away from one of the very qualities which made him lovable!

Same with making KT Sulu g.ay (against George Takei's request) If they had to incoude a reference to homosexuality because it was plot-relevant, rather than just a tired attempt 'to be hip', I'd much rather they had created a new character than pull that trick on an established one.

IMHO, there's a difference between 'revealing new information about a character', such as Worf having accidentally killed another boy when playing soccer, than 'revealing 'new' information about a character' such as making KT Sulu g.ay and in a relationship no one had ever heard of before.

There's a certain level of respect and obligation when working with someone else's characters, which frankly, they failed to do with KT Sulu...

And to bring it back on topic, yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense that Wonder Woman has had same-sex encounters... The point, or rather non-point the writers should be making, should be "And?? So what??" and down-playing it, not being "We made Wonder Woman G.ay!" to draw attention to another DC future-flop which has 'trying too hard' written all over it (like every other POS movie they've put out since Man of Steel...) All the time hacks can't use g.ay characters without needlessly drawing attention to that as an advertising point, there never will be mainstream acceptance of g.ay people or g.ay rights, because it will atill be being treated as different, and needing differential status, than simply being a 'so what?' notion...

Why does everyone go nuts about KT Sulu? It was barely noticeable! If you happened to blink once during that scene, you'd have missed it! It's not like it was right in our faces! I thought they handled it in a very respectful way by making it a very simple scene without making a big deal out of it. The only reason people are making a big deal out of it is because Paramount made a big deal out of it before the film launched.

Wonder Woman character is TRIBBLE

Comments