John Odum writes for Bleeding Cool:
A wide range of anecdotes and perspectives were naturally on display from a variety of panelists on the LGBT in comics panel, presented by the New York Times and Geeks out Thursday evening. Noelle Stevenson talked about the great reception Lumberjanes has received ("we [thought] we could do whatever we wanted and nobody would care…. (we were) amazingly" wrong… everybody noticed!"), perspectives on "queered" storylines were shared, and plenty more.
The moderator expanded the discussion into familiar, if not LGBT-particular territory in asking a question to Wonder Woman uber-alum Phil Jimenez about the Princess, who he has described in the past as "the ultimate queer character in comics;" why have we still not seen a Wonder Woman movie, or even a new Wonder Woman TV series?
His basic, if not-necessarily-expected response amounted to, why would anyone want to make one?
After explaining that his characterization of WW as "queer" was intended to cast her as the ultimate non-conforming "other" who "embodied everything for me that was queer," Jimenez gave his own non-conformist view of why a new Wonder Woman movie or TV show has been so slow in coming, and why it may not be what we'd all like to see when it does happen..
Noting that "mostly men (including myself) worked on her" over the years, he felt that male writers simply had a hard time figuring her out, and as such the character had devolved into a sort of generic "warrior maiden" archetype that is already well-covered by other characters. Jimenez felt the original "queer" version: "crazy, fun-loving, up to the challenge… not covered head to toe in gladiatorial gear" was uniquely compelling, but that current popular manifestations of the character were simply too mired in this male-driven vision to percolate into an interesting character for film.
Zack Snyder, are you listening?