Comments on: You’re Not a Wonder, Wonder Woman – DC Comics’ Official Position

By: I'm me

I'm me — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:08:53 +0000

If you read the history of the character, I really doubt her creator, or the two ladies she was based on (his wife and their lover) would mind. In fact I think they'd be quite honored considering the iconic status Playboy has within America. Wonder Woman was always meant to be a sensual character.

Besides, I think if DC minded nudity 1) female comic characters would be drawn differently and 2) Megan Gale would not have been cast for the Justice League Movie that is now in production hell.

The reason there's no tiara is that it would likely end up trademark infringement if there were. With the slight difference, Playboy is in the clear and DC doesn't have to react.

For Shakespeare, you forgot King Leer. =P

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:03:42 +0000

I haven’t read a playboy mag in 10 years or so. I think the cover is awesome, however. I am a straight man I’m afraid. Yes, feminists (old line feminists?) are outraged. Camille Paglia type feminists, probably not. Anyway, Wonder Woman will never be unsexed in the human mind. She has been portrayed in halter top/panties since day one. Showing that much skin will always bring sex into the mix. Its just the way we are wired. If you want to unsex Wonder Woman, please suggest that the illustrators portray her fighting crime in an Afghan burkha.

By: Andre

Andre — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:51:36 +0000

The playboy cover was fine imho. I think people just like fealing morally outraged.

I mean WW as a sex object! :gasp: Say it's not true!

Next we are going to see Supergirl all sexed up or something.

The line from comic to porn can be a very small one and I think playboy is well within its right to cross that just for fun of it.

Hell my wife is a bigger comic fan then me and her only comment was "This is new?".

By: mike n

mike n — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:23:37 +0000

hum… so maybe they did approve the use of the paint on the NAKED GIRL

By: Alpha-Girl

Alpha-Girl — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:28:18 +0000

Since we’re randomly throwing around the titles of Shakespeare’s plays. . . .

The Tempest
Measure for Measure
As You Like It

And before anyone else chimes in with it:
The Taming of The Shrew

That was fun! Let’s go again!

By: Space Cowboy

Space Cowboy — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:34:02 +0000

John -

And yet, you felt the need to comment…

By: John

John — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:17:15 +0000

much ado about nothing

By: Cassandra

Cassandra — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:21:48 +0000

DC really need to grow some damn balls.

By: James Meeley

James Meeley — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:53:50 +0000

Well, we’ll probably never get DC’s position on this, but Playboy sure has no problem spelling out where they stand on things: http://www.playboy.com/blog/2008/01/comic-book-sex-symbols.html#more

By: Darren Jones

Darren Jones — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:46:35 +0000

We all know that DC just reads the articles.

By: Rhea Dee

Rhea Dee — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:54:12 +0000

Maybe DC doesn’t mind being associated with Playboy, but they just don’t want anybody to know?

By: Teresa

Teresa — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:05:49 +0000

I’m surprised, though, that they’d decline to say anything about it…why not chime in with DC’s two cents? Are they that worried about being associated with something like Playboy?

By: Alpha-Girl

Alpha-Girl — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:26:41 +0000

Every girl needs a tiara. They make you feel pretty.

By: Darren Jones

Darren Jones — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:11:13 +0000

There’s no such thing as bad publicity after all, and with the Wonder Woman movie in development hell I’m sure DC will take any attention it can. Girl needed the tiara though.

By: James Meeley

James Meeley — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:03:49 +0000

I read something in some comments here ( http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/01/13/offered-without-comment/ ) that pretty much sums up what I figured about DC’s position on this (it’s stated in comments #50 and 51). Here’s an excerpt:

“Since no trademarks are used in an infringing way, there’s no trademark infringement. Since both Warner and Playboy know that the other has a really strong and healthy legal department, they each know that a lawsuit will be ridiculously expensive and pointless. And since Playboy most likely isn’t planning to pull this on a regular basis, and the worst DC can do is send a “Cease & Desist” letter, the whole thing is moot.”

I think that would pretty much sum up why we’ve not heard anything from AOL/Time/Warner and DC on this. And probably won’t.