Wonder Man: More Man, Less Wonder
- Antal Bokor
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
The latest show out of the MCU has been a critical success. But something about it has been knocking around in my head.
I know most of the praise is definitely deserved. Wonder Man is a very character-driven story, buoyed by the genuinely fantastic interactions of Sir Ben Kingsley as Trevor Slattery and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Simon Williams. Watching these two bounce off of each other is electric. Their chemistry is so potent that it retroactively makes Trevor Slattery a welcome part of the MCU. There was even a "redemption" of sorts for the whole Mandarin thing. Trevor isn’t just a punchline here; he’s integral to the heart of the series.
But again, despite some of the best character work Marvel has produced in Phase 6, something nagging kept knocking inside my skull.
No, it’s not that awful Doorman episode with Josh Gad. Which is proof that Disney just can’t stop meddling in potentially nice things. It was so tonally off that it felt like it came from a completely different show. As bad as that was, it worked as a way to juxtapose the "Bad MCU" (forced whimsy) and the "Good MCU" (actual character work).
But I digress.
As good as the performances are, the series exposes a frustrating insecurity in modern comic adaptations that I feel Wonder Man only amplifies: the belief that a character can’t be "grounded" unless you strip away everything that made them a superhero in the first place.
I never understood this. If you take Superman, for instance, one of the most compelling parts of that character is his anchor to his humanity despite being an alien.
I know comic accuracy is a sticking point for some people. I understand, because it can be for me, too. If you have a character you love adapted to a new medium, it’s exciting to see that character—not an amalgamation or a retelling. For a more obscure character like Wonder Man, it’s almost a guarantee that details will be rearranged. I’m not saying the show would be better if it was strictly comic-accurate, but I am saying that you can tell a grounded, human story even with fantastical elements.
I was a kid when Simon Williams had his solo comic run between 1991 and 1994. In those books, Simon wasn't just a guy figuring things out; he was an ionic powerhouse. He was immortal, invulnerable, and capable of juggling tanks—and he was still a struggling actor. The source material proved decades ago that you don't need to de-power a character to tell a human story.
Instead of embracing that dichotomy, Wonder Man retreats to a trope I hated even as a kid: the hero who spends the entire story unable to use their powers, or just learning how to use them.
It feels like we’ve gone full circle to the pre-MCU era of television. The writers seem terrified of the "Wonder" part of Wonder Man. They ground Simon so aggressively that for long stretches, he feels less like a superhero and more like a generic protagonist in a Hollywood satire. His powers do nothing more than raise the stakes, which is good, but the "Doorman Clause" (which, as far as I know, doesn’t exist in the comics) feels like an artificial barrier more so than a real, organic one. I mean, they had to have an entire episode—starring a very loud Josh Gad—just to sell it to us!
I want fully powered heroes having full stories. I want to see a god-tier character like Simon Williams navigate a world that is too fragile for him. Surely there could have been drama involved with having to compete with other super-powered actors for the same role? But seeing a world full of superheroes and a person who is unwilling to even learn to control their powers feels unrealistic to me.
I think what people liked about Wonder Man is its authenticity. That is where the MCU lost its way post-Endgame. Despite the fantastical elements, something about the early MCU felt authentic in a character sense. Wonder Man exudes this. I just wish it wasn't so afraid to be super while doing it.