Wonder Woman gets new threads, DC Comics hopes for a franchise revival

When you think of Wonder Woman, do you have visions of Linda Carter in tight spandex and accessorized with gold arms guards? If so, time to get that image out of your head, at least for the short-term. Yesterday, DC Comics, the creator of Wonder Woman (as well as the much more popular Batman and Superman), announced via a blog post that arguably the most well-known female comic book character is getting a new outfit (and a backstory).

Gone are the shorts with the American flag stars. Gone is the bodice that was perhaps most amazing for having been able to contain her ample Amazonian upper body. In its place? Some skintight leggings, a form-fitting top that looks like it came from Spiderman's wardrobe, and a cropped jacket with shoulder pads that looks like something from the 80s (think Working Girl). Yes, she's still got the arm guards and headband, as well as a nice gold belt to hang her lasso on. Whether you like the new outfit or not, you have to admit she is looking great for a 69-year-old.

Show me the money

Predictably, the story 1) generated a ton of traffic to the DC site and any media or blog covering it, and 2) the fan reaction has been nearly all negative. Is that a bad thing? Well, only if you don't buy into the old saw of "any publicity is good publicity."

DC knew the brand was flagging, and it has hoped for years to generate a Wonder Woman movie franchise like those of Spiderman, Batman, and now Iron Man -- franchises that have generated hundreds of millions for their creators. But to do so, the logical belief is that the Amazon princess needs to look and act much more modern and inline with the expectations of today's girls/women (Twilight notwithstanding). Back in 2007, DC hired a woman to write the comics (see this New York Times article). Now, they have gone further to make the character appeal to the modern female by finally getting rid of an outfit that looks like what a teenage boy in 1941 would want to see a woman crime fighter wearing.

The questions to ask are not was the change needed. Rather:

1. Can DC translate the wave of free media coverage into sales? Specifically, can the Web chatter and page hits form the marketing foundation for a series of Wonder Woman movies? Certainly, the comic book readers (in paper form, or the digital versions on products like the iPad) gained or lost won't mean much to DC. The big money will come from the silver screen and the home (DVDs, Blu-ray, and increasing digital downloads and streams). 
2. Will the outfit stay, or will fan reaction force DC to go back to the vintage uniform? Will the jacket and tights end up being the New Coke of the comic world (see this Wikipedia article if you are too young to have lived through that experience)? Maybe DC has always planned to rollback the look, but given that part of the change was to de-Americanize her outfit so she would appeal to foreign audiences, it's unlikely the company would return to the original suit even if the change proves a disaster (see this New York Times article).

Will it succeed? Was it even meant to, or was the change approved just to provoke reaction and thus gain free PR? The real test of its success will be if we hear about a movie deal for Wonder Woman in the next few months to a year. If that happens, let the casting call flame wars begin. Megan Fox? Angelina Jolie? Young versus older? Dumb versus a bit weird (but a social crusader)? Let's just hope it's not Kristen Stewart.

Note: If you are out of touch with modern celebrities, Fox is known for her roles in the Transformer series of films. Jolie is considered an A-list star these days, but made a name for herself as an action star in the first Lara Croft movie. Stewart is the lead actress in the Twilight movies (she might be able to act, but it's hard to tell given those films).

Afghanistan saved by the (mineral) bell?

An article in the New York Times today offered up the possibility that life in Afghanistan could be fundamentally altered due to the discovery of massive deposits -- "nearly $1 trillion" worth -- of important minerals, such as iron, copper, and lithium (used in, for example, the high-tech batteries of all your favorite portable consumer electronics gadgets, including the iPod nano, Nintendo DSi, and HTC EVO).

How big is the find? The article notes that Afghanistan could go from a country that is most well-known for growing opium poppies used in making heroin to "one of the most important mining centers in the world." That's pretty important for a country that has, according to the CIA Factbook, 35% unemployment and the 113th largest GDP in the world.

Prosperity or more carnage?

The result of the find could be that the new wealth will fundamentally change the country in ways that mirror what happened to countries in the Middle East when oil was discovered in that region. But it could also mean that the fighting intensifies once the enormity of the prize is understood by all.

In terms of possible peace disruptors driven by greed, it's not just the Taliban the US has to worry about. The warlords and regional power brokers all undermine the extremely weak Afghan central government. Even worse, some of the deposits are near the boarder with Pakistan. That border is already porous, and Taliban and other extremists, such as al Queda, move about relatively freely despite ever-present US drones.

With trillions at stake, fighters have even more to gain with victory.

Other impacts?
Besides the possibility of an escalation in fighting, the article notes other likely problems. For example, increased involvement by China in the country, which would be extremely interested in the valuable deposits, is a concern for the US government and military. Another issue noted was the possible environmental consequence by the required mining. In a country as war-torn, divided, and weakly led as Afghanistan, it is unlikely that a rapidly emerging mining industry would pay much attention to the environmental impact of its operations.

Outcome in doubt
With so many hurdles to overcome, from the lack of mining experience and infrastructure to a weak central government to a multi-faceted conflict, the belief that these new deposits magically will transform this part of the world and its people and enable US forces to largely withdraw seems naive. Still, having some potentially positive news out of the region is better than nothing these days.

Dog food study: You knew you were paying too much

A recent article in the New York Times detailed a study conducted by two professors at New York University and Cornell on the nutritional value of various dog foods. For anyone with a pet pooch, sticker shock from buying fancy dog food is a common experience. Despite our love for our domesticated wolves, it sometimes seems hard to believe the claims on the packaging -- many of the descriptions make Fido's meal sound better than what we are planning for the night.

The article notes several intersesting facts about the "$18-billion-a-year pet food industry," including:

• Your dog probably eats too much: "Veterinary groups have estimated that 20 to 60 percent of American dogs and cats are overweight or obese and at risk of developing heart disease, high blood pressure and Type 2 diabetes." On the positive side, most Americans are overweight, so at least the dog won't feel like the odd-family member out. 
• Sticker shock is real: We all know the non-store brands cost a lot, but how much more? According to the professors, "... premium pet foods cost three to four times more than supermarket brands ..." The price jump is bad enough for the small bag you pick up at Store24 to hold you over for the night, but when you lug that 40-pound monster up to the register, your shopping trip total skyrockets.
• Many listed ingredients don't matter: According to the professors, most food has the same top-5 ingredients, and all the extras added are usually present in such small quantities that they are almost irrelevant. That means don't fall for all the fancy ingredients listed on the call-out label -- most likely there's just a pinch of them within. They're to make you feel good, not to make Fido more healthy.
• The Fox News label is key: Apparently, all of the food you buy is made from the same source -- what food producers can't sell to our dog's (alleged) masters. That said, the professors point out that finding "complete and balanced" on the label of a bag of non-premium food will most likely deliver a meal perfectly healthy for your dog and much less impactful on your wallet.

So, does that mean you should never buy the high-end product? Not necessarily. The professors advice is that if your dog has a certain problem or condition (e.g., scratching or trouble digesting certain brands) then finding a food that addresses these symptoms may be worth the extra cost.

And a final thought: Should you broil that chicken for Fido or save some steak tips from your BBQ for him? The professors would say you don't need to -- your "complete and balanced" bag of food should provide everything your dog needs to stay healthy.