Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 106
  1. #61
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    15,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    That's why I said him and Crisis in general. He wanted to set it in the past so stuff like her losing her founding JL status and Donna getting screwed up are not his fault, but what about ditching the Amazonian technology, changing Steve and Etta to be unrecognizable, moving her from D.C to Boston, changing the identities and origins of the Cheetah and Silver Swan, etc? All of which contributed to her mythos being inconsistent. He could have kept Priscilla Rich and Helen Alexandros in the history and just upgraded them.
    If people complained about Steve and Etta being unrecognisable, I’d imagine they’d have made the same complaints about Priscilla and Helen being upgraded (don’t even get me started on how offensive those characters are from a modern lense). I can take or leave the Amazon tech and was there any particular reason for her to be in D.C over Boston?
    Her mythos (and the wider DC mythos) didn’t become inconsistent until writers who were fans of the old continuity started retconning in the old stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    The mythos can move forward without erasing or altering the past, because that just makes a mess. Maybe the future writers shouldn't have referenced or used older continuity that contradicted Perez's foundation, but honestly DC shouldn't have created a mess that made it impossible to do to begin with. If a common criticism of the New 52 is that reboots don't solve anything, we need to apply it even earlier on as well.
    Again, why not put the blame on writers who don’t want to stick with what they’re given? The post crisis status quo at least wasn't as toxic as the post flashpoint status quo so the walk backs just felt more like certain writers wanting to bring back stuff they liked.
    I’d say the New 52’s problem was doing a reboot without planning and claiming it wasn’t a reboot. At least the post crisis continuity was stable early on. The New 52 tried to walk back almost immediately. Post crisis, at least early on, is an idea of how to do a reboot right for the most part.

    EDIT: basically what kjn said.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 06-09-2018 at 12:13 PM.

  2. #62
    Fantastic Member Joao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjn View Post
    Having read up a little more, it seems that the New 52 Wonder Woman was a mess, with Geoff Johns and Azzarello more or less splitting up the character's world in two in different titles, never the twain to meet. (Source. No idea about its veracity, though.)

    That still doesn't excuse what Azzarello did to the Amazons; that has to be all on him.

    Personally, I hope that with Justice League Dark the main title will go back to focusing on adventures in Man's World with Steve and Etta as sidekicks, while the mythological and supernatural aspects are left to JLD. Have her fight some of her old rogue's gallery, give her some slice-of-life stuff, present her as an inspirational leader, play up her connection to nature and animals. I'd also try to get the writers to do lots more short stuff, for one to four issues.
    Yup. The demigod status is on Azzarello too since he thought she wasn't relatable because of her clay origin.

  3. #63
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjn View Post
    Having read up a little more, it seems that the New 52 Wonder Woman was a mess, with Geoff Johns and Azzarello more or less splitting up the character's world in two in different titles, never the twain to meet. (Source. No idea about its veracity, though.)
    I definitely think better editing needed to be involved. Johns shouldn't have been firing off random details about vital WW characters in unrelated titles with inconsistent planning. In an ideal world, Azzarello would have told his story and Rucka would have been brought on board immediately afterward to at least further develop the Amazons and provide more context (like is Hephaestus telling the whole truth, did only one faction of Amazons kill during the raids instead of it being a cultural norm, did Hippolyta know and did she put a stop to it, etc). And the first issue of said hypothetical run should have been our introduction to the Cheetah in New 52, and our re-introductions to Steve and Etta in the present.

    Quote Originally Posted by kjn View Post
    That still doesn't excuse what Azzarello did to the Amazons; that has to be all on him.
    Yeah, there is no excuse for that. Her overreached with the controversy to spark discussion with that one. I feel like Hippolyta sleeping with Zeus was scandelous enough, the Amazons should have largely been left alone.

    Even so, we cannot blame him for what Meredith Finch went on to do. He left things vague enough that a more competent writer could have come on board and salvaged things, whereas she went even further by killing off whatever potential the male Amazons may have had and threw Donna under the bus while doing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    If people complained about Steve and Etta being unrecognisable, I’d imagine they’d have made the same complaints about Priscilla and Helen being upgraded
    The key difference being that if it was a continuation of Wonder Woman history, Priscilla and Helen would have their histories intact and would just be going through a new stage of development. Steve and Etta, on the other hand, got wiped from existence and were replaced by two even more boring strangers with their names who nobody had any interest in using.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    (don’t even get me started on how offensive those characters are from a modern lense).
    What is offensive about them? They're antagonists. They are not meant to be role models.
    Helen in particular is a stronger character than her successors because she was tied to Ares and mythology, and she had a relateable human flaw (jealousy/vanity/greed) that didn't make her unsympathetic but also not a victim either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I can take or leave the Amazon tech and was there any particular reason for her to be in D.C over Boston?
    Because a lot of her pre-Crisis stories took place in Washington D.C, and Marston's run set her up there. What reason is there to change that to Boston and create an inconsistency in setting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Her mythos (and the wider DC mythos) didn’t become inconsistent until writers who were fans of the old continuity started retconning in the old stuff.
    Again, why not put the blame on writers who don’t want to stick with what they’re given?
    Because what good reason is there to put that specific limitation on creators? It's not honoring the character to get rid of her history, and not everyone who is a fan of the character and wants to work on her would want to work with Perez's setup. It's not fair at all to take everything off the table in a way that makes it difficult to even reference, let alone use. That's just crappy storytelling. Marvel fans make fun of DC because we keep getting rebooted and that's not a problem they typically have to deal with.

    Diana doesn't have to stay in a romance with Steve, Etta doesn't have to still be with the Holliday Girls, she doesn't have to still use Diana Prince as an ID, she doesn't have to still use the Invisible Plane after gaining flight, but having all of that in her history makes it seem more layered and eventful and creates a better sense that things change over time. Getting rid of all that from the get go just cuts stuff out. Why have less when you can have everything accessible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I’d say the New 52’s problem was doing a reboot without planning and claiming it wasn’t a reboot. At least the post crisis continuity was stable early on. The New 52 tried to walk back almost immediately. Post crisis, at least early on, is an idea of how to do a reboot right for the most part.
    It really, really was not. It was the exact same problem as the New 52, they tried to have their cake and eat it too by rebooting some stuff and leaving other stuff alone, and then saying it was the same universe even though it couldn't be. All for a sales boost that was a short term solution and created a long term problem. Less drastic overhauls could have been made while keeping the history intact and not resulting the in the constant continuity fixes we get now. It's called DC's Original Sin for a reason.

    The New 52 was even less well planned, but if we're going to condemn one we need to condemn the other. Personally, as I vastly prefer Morrison's reboot of Superman to Byrne's crap, along with Johns on Aquaman and Shazam and the GL and Batman runs and the occassional experimental book like Dial H or Demon Knights, I'm inclined to slightly prefer the New 52 to Crisis.

  4. #64
    Fantastic Member Joao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    I'd lay the blame for her being a mess at the feet of Perez and Crisis before I would Azzarello. She wasn't in good shape before the New 52 because writers wanted to reference prior continuity that couldn't exist in post-Crisis canon, but did so anyway. Rebooting her history established the precedent that it's ok to hit the big red reboot button whenever things get tough and to radically alter the roles and identities of supporting characters and/or ditch them and create new ones, and DC in general lacked the foresight to see that editorial enforcement to prevent referencing the prior versions could not be sustained forever and the problem would just be compounded. Without the precedent set by Perez, Azzarello's reboot (and the New 52 in general) may not have come into existence. Or at least the revelation of her being Zeus's daughter could have been done in a more natural way that didn't throw out the past and give us bronze age Amazons.

    Rucka's vision is being honored by other titles that I can see. He didn't firmly establish that her clay origin was intact, just that the demigod origin can be used without being the focus of everything. Bringing the men back into too much focus in Robinson's run is bad, but also not something that contradicts anything in Rucka's run, and is something that is easily fixable. Orlando seems set to do that by putting the focus on other women like Mayfly, Artemis, Aztek and whoever the lost Amazon is. Other media uses the daughter of Zeus angle, but the movie also borrows from other eras and invents its own stuff.
    That's fair, but before Pérez she had gone through a "reboot" of sorts in the 70s, when she lost her powers and all that. At least Pérez kept a lot of what made Wonder Woman Wonder Woman in the first place (Themyscira, the clay origin, the matriarchal education, the mission, the feminism/equality, in a lot of ways the powers etc.).

    All Azzarello did was forget all those same elements and create his own version of the character.

    Maybe that's why I like Rucka's Rebirth that much. He brought back the gods and amazons and Barbara Ann from Pérez's, the Aphrodite/Ares contradiction and Steve and amazonian tech from Marston, and a lot of other nods to Simone, Jimenez etc. He was asked by DC to bring the old Wonder Woman back, and highlighted the importance of honoring the material that came before you (which Azz didn't do, so he doesn't count). And he brought all that in a subtle way and satying true to the character, but putting his own twists to it (Etta; Circe; Cale) and leaving blank spaces for others to explore.

  5. #65
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joao View Post
    That's fair, but before Pérez she had gone through a "reboot" of sorts in the 70s, when she lost her powers and all that.
    I don't really consider that a reboot in the same sense Perez and Azzarello's were. It was stupid as hell and worse than either of their runs, but the history remained the same and it was easier to put things right again by just restoring her powers and bringing the Amazons back.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joao View Post
    At least Pérez kept a lot of what made Wonder Woman Wonder Woman in the first place (Themyscira, the clay origin, the matriarchal education, the mission, the feminism/equality, in a lot of ways the powers etc.).
    Yeah, but he also ditched the entire supporting cast aside from Hippolyta, Steve and Etta, and the latter two were In Name Only. Which contributed to her not having the consistent inner circle that Superman and Batman have, and those two suffer less as a result. He added some great individual Amazons and wrote some nuance in their interactions, but their society as a whole lost it's advancements (the Amazons went from being among the top scientific minds in the DCU to not having any tech at all) and their quirky, sexually charged pagan rituals. They were just kind of boring, and Diana became a naive goody little two shoes as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joao View Post
    All Azzarello did was forget all those same elements and create his own version of the character.
    He did ditch even the bare minimum of having some positive female role models to raise Diana (he vaguely hinted at it in the origin issues, but not enough), but his ditching the classic supporting cast for his own isn't really any worse than Perez. Him starting his story in media res also allowed for her prior history to be filled in and allowed for classic stuff to be re-worked in if desired. He left Steve alone in the origin even if he didn't have a use for him in the present story, he didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's more on the other books like JL for botching that up.

    And I think his depiction of Diana is actually a pretty faithful modernization of Marston's in terms of personality. I liked her quite a lot. It was some of the stuff surrounding her I didn't care for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joao View Post
    Maybe that's why I like Rucka's Rebirth that much. He brought back the gods and amazons and Barbara Ann from Pérez's, the Aphrodite/Ares contradiction and Steve and amazonian tech from Marston, and a lot of other nods to Simone, Jimenez etc. He was asked by DC to bring the old Wonder Woman back, and highlighted the importance of honoring the material that came before you (which Azz didn't do, so he doesn't count). And he brought all that in a subtle way and satying true to the character, but putting his own twists to it (Etta; Circe; Cale) and leaving blank spaces for others to explore.
    Of the three "reboots" (Perez, Azzarello and Rucka), yeah I have to agree I like Rucka's the best overall. I straight up think Year One is better than Gods and Mortals, his character work on the villains was phenomenal, and he kept Steve in the origin without making him her sole motivation for leaving (it's not that hard). It just sucks that it got the point where we even needed Rebirth, and I wish he had done things like have Mala and Donna be present, have her rely on the Swan Plane for a few years before gaining flight, used Phil Darnell instead of Michaelis and made Etta a Holliday Girl to create somewhat of an illusion that her full history going back to the Golden Age could be intact.

  6. #66
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    15,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    What is offensive about them? They're antagonists. They are not meant to be role models.
    Priscilla is yet another example of how poorly superhero media treats mental illness and the second has a motivation that was considered outdated when Disney did it with Snow White. I’m not asking for role models, I’m asking for better written characters. Perez’s changes would have made them completely different characters entirely so might as well use two new people.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Because what good reason is there to put that specific limitation on creators? It's not honoring the character to get rid of her history, and not everyone who is a fan of the character and wants to work on her would want to work with Perez's setup. It's not fair at all to take everything off the table in a way that makes it difficult to even reference, let alone use. That's just crappy storytelling.
    Limitations on writers are not inherently a bad thing. They’re what keep writers from spiralling down the drain. Limiting what the writers can do also means limiting bad stories or referring bad stuff (see the aforementioned issues for Priscilla and Helen).

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Marvel fans make fun of DC because we keep getting rebooted and that's not a problem they typically have to deal with.
    Marvel fans would make fun of DC fans for anything not just reboots.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Diana doesn't have to stay in a romance with Steve, Etta doesn't have to still be with the Holliday Girls, she doesn't have to still use Diana Prince as an ID, she doesn't have to still use the Invisible Plane after gaining flight, but having all of that in her history makes it seem more layered and eventful and creates a better sense that things change over time. Getting rid of all that from the get go just cuts stuff out. Why have less when you can have everything accessible?
    The argument could be made that none of these things are all that vital. Diana and Steve don’t need to fall in love at first. Hell in most continuities they don’t end up together for whatever reason. Compare with Lois/Clark or even Bruce/Selina. The Diana Prince i.d adds nothing to Diana. It just exists because everyone has a secret i.d regardless of if it makes sense.



    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    It really, really was not. It was the exact same problem as the New 52, they tried to have their cake and eat it too by rebooting some stuff and leaving other stuff alone, and then saying it was the same universe even though it couldn't be. All for a sales boost that was a short term solution and created a long term problem. Less drastic overhauls could have been made while keeping the history intact and not resulting the in the constant continuity fixes we get now. It's called DC's Original Sin for a reason.
    The continuity was straightforward early on and they didn’t have rage-inducing stuff like Red Hood and the Outlaws initially.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    The New 52 was even less well planned, but if we're going to condemn one we need to condemn the other.
    I don’t see why. That depends on whether you think one is deserving of it and to me, post crisis has less screw ups, especially in its infant stage.



    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Personally, as I vastly prefer Morrison's reboot of Superman to Byrne's crap, along with Johns on Aquaman and Shazam and the GL and Batman runs and the occassional experimental book like Dial H or Demon Knights, I'm inclined to slightly prefer the New 52 to Crisis.
    Fair enough. I prefer Perez and Wolfman's Titans over Lobdell's and Perez's WW over Azzarello's so I can understand this to an extent.

  7. #67
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Priscilla is yet another example of how poorly superhero media treats mental illness and the second has a motivation that was considered outdated when Disney did it with Snow White. I’m not asking for role models, I’m asking for better written characters. Perez’s changes would have made them completely different characters entirely so might as well use two new people.
    So add more nuance to the depiction of her mental illness instead of ditching her altogether. Maybe have Diana successfully reform her and create an accurate as possible depiction of her living with her mental illness and managing it. Diana's entire history with Priscilla is based around trying to help treat her. Maybe give the revamp to Deborah Domaine to keep the Cheetah around, or reform/kill Debbie off to and introduce Barbara Minerva or whoever. And no, Perez's changes would not necessarily have resulted in a completely different character, there are degrees to these things. Not everything ends up on one extreme or the other.

    Snow White's depiction couldn't have been that negative or outdated when the film came out considering how successful it was, and how the Queen is hailed as one of the best cinematic villains of all time even today. It's a petty motivation, but it's supposed to be. Petty, villainous characters can still be well written characters. At least with Priscilla, we knew what her deal was whereas Barbara Ann didn't have a clear motivation until Rebirth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Limitations on writers are not inherently a bad thing. They’re what keep writers from spiralling down the drain. Limiting what the writers can do also means limiting bad stories or referring bad stuff (see the aforementioned issues for Priscilla and Helen).
    This isn't just putting limitations on a writer putting forth a questionable idea or iffy characterization, this was cutting off access to entire segments of the DC mythos regardless of who was writing. And not everyone considers Priscilla or Helen bad ideas that are unsalvageable. They can be left in the past, but removing even the possibility of a new take that could work is short sighted, limiting and, frankly, kind of dumb.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Marvel fans would make fun of DC fans for anything not just reboots.
    So maybe give them one less thing to make fun of? At the very least, it would make for a more coherent and enjoyable reading experience with a through line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    The argument could be made that none of these things are all that vital. Diana and Steve don’t need to fall in love at first. Hell in most continuities they don’t end up together for whatever reason. Compare with Lois/Clark or even Bruce/Selina. The Diana Prince i.d adds nothing to Diana. It just exists because everyone has a secret i.d regardless of if it makes sense.
    Well the main reason Diana/Steve doesn't compare to Lois/Clark and Bruce/Selina was because Steve didn't get the chance and was taken off the table for a few decades. But he still was made to appeal to a far bigger audience than the comics reading crowd thanks to Patty Jenkins and Chris Pine, so it's never too late. The movie and Year One also established that even though they are naturally going to be intrigued by each other, they don't have to fall full blown in love at first sight, and it's certainly not Diana's primary motivation. Aging him up and making him pointless was what's unnecessary, not the romance itself.

    Neither of these things required a reboot to get rid of either. Just have her decide not to live a double life anymore, and either write Diana/Steve differently and have their relationship evolve or break them up/kill him off again or whatever.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    The continuity was straightforward early on and they didn’t have rage-inducing stuff like Red Hood and the Outlaws initially.
    No, but it is the direct cause of Donna Troy being ruined forevermore, and eventually lead to the Hawkman situation. Getting rid of Supergirl and Clark's time as Superboy also had a domino effect on the Legion's continuity.

    Pre-Crisis was hardly void of problems, but how was post-Crisis straightforward? What about changing history leads to straightforward story telling? It doesn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I don’t see why. That depends on whether you think one is deserving of it and to me, post crisis has less screw ups, especially in its infant stage.
    The early stage didn't last forever, and the problems came about due to reactions to Crisis. Had Crisis never happened, said reactions wouldn't have happened. We might not have had the New 52 if Crisis hadn't set the precedent for it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Fair enough. I prefer Perez and Wolfman's Titans over Lobdell's and Perez's WW over Azzarello's so I can understand this to an extent.
    Well, most people do. But I don't like having to do mental gymnastics after Donna's wedding to remove Diana and Hippolyta from her life in the middle of a run. It's not my idea of an enjoyable reading experience. It takes me right out of the story and I can see editorial's fingerprints all over it, all in the name of "simplifying" things and having the exact opposite effect.

  8. #68
    Lv 67 Pinsir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Route 12
    Posts
    3,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    Well my argument is nothing so strong as to suggest history is being demeaned. I am somewhat uncomfortable watching a superhero helping a push across no-man’s land to kill German soldiers. The complex history that surrounds the Great War is not possible to simplify by looking at who invaded who or even deciding who was right or wrong. There are huge arguments about whether many of the countries that got involved should have, and whether there was any side that was definable as the right one. Then there is a major question of strategic incompetence on all sides given that Europeans refused to take any strategic lessons from the recent conflicts in America leading to an unprecedented carnage.

    Now, as WW is clearly not a pro-war film, it has a fine line to walk. It does some things well, such as suggesting a natural place for the villain to be hiding (ie we were not necessarily good guys), and it tries to suggest finishing the war is far more important than fighting it. However the standout fighting moment would suggest there is a side which it is OK to fight alongside, and that is historically problematic, and not really reflected upon.

    You will note I have taken great pains not to suggest anyone was on the wrong side, or shouldn’t have been there, and avoided most of the controversial elements of said Great War. WW didn’t quite manage to do this, and left me feeling a little conflicted.
    Germany's decision though to strike France through Belgium and Luxembourg elevated them to the status of international pariahs and the British were entirely justified in declaring war against Germany for violating Belgium's neutrality. The trench battle in the film took place on either French or Belgium territory that was occupied by the Germans, which is why her fellowship were treated as liberators. Regardless of the other activities that provoked the conflict, just by focusing on the parties shown in the Wonder Woman film, I don't a problem in labeling Germans as the bad guys because, by the standards of international law they were.
    Also visit my blog where I expose Wonder Woman for the criminal she is!

    How come these anonymous sources failed to report Zack Snyder had left post-production on Justice League? They seem to know everything now...

  9. #69
    Lv 67 Pinsir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Route 12
    Posts
    3,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjn View Post
    But Azzarello also removed Wonder Woman from her origins and her ideals. The Zeus origin opened up the door to Jason and making Wonder Woman all about the men around her. She is not Hippolyta's daughter anymore; she is Zeus's daughter. She is mentored not by Philippus or Antiope or Menalippe, but by Ares.

    And then we have what he did to the Amazons, which was arguably even worse. I can understand not depecting Themyscira as a super-science utopia. I can see it with lots of magitech, or like in the movie. But it should always be depicted as a peaceful and benevolent society.

    And once the movement away from her core concepts started, every move to fix it has been moving her further away from that core.
    I don't really see how her origins and ideals are linked, I mean, does Wonder Woman stand for truth and justice because she is made from clay?

    I get that people dislike how the Amazons are depicted in Azzarello's run and that's fine, but people unfairly use this objection and a few others (Zeus origin) too dismiss everything in the run, which isn't fair because the actual characterization of Wonder Woman is spot on. She spends the entire series converting enemies into allies, a notion clearly drawn from Marston's original work.
    Also visit my blog where I expose Wonder Woman for the criminal she is!

    How come these anonymous sources failed to report Zack Snyder had left post-production on Justice League? They seem to know everything now...

  10. #70
    Spectacular Member kjn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinsir View Post
    I don't really see how her origins and ideals are linked, I mean, does Wonder Woman stand for truth and justice because she is made from clay?

    I get that people dislike how the Amazons are depicted in Azzarello's run and that's fine, but people unfairly use this objection and a few others (Zeus origin) too dismiss everything in the run, which isn't fair because the actual characterization of Wonder Woman is spot on. She spends the entire series converting enemies into allies, a notion clearly drawn from Marston's original work.
    One of the ideals that Wonder Woman embodies is that women were and are capable of building their own healthy and fair society. Every single writer but Azzarello has managed to keep that: he destroyed that.

    In a way, a huge part of the problem is that Azzarello, from what I have understood, told a good story (and I have nothing but admiration for Chiang's art, except that it might have become a little stale to read after 20+ issues, and was a tad too stylized for my taste). But the story also undermined Diana's background, and opened the floodgates for making Diana a bystander in stories about men around her.

    The most problematic stories aren't the bad ones, it is the good ones that carry crap messages or open the door to other bad story elements.

  11. #71
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinsir View Post
    I don't really see how her origins and ideals are linked, I mean, does Wonder Woman stand for truth and justice because she is made from clay?

    I get that people dislike how the Amazons are depicted in Azzarello's run and that's fine, but people unfairly use this objection and a few others (Zeus origin) too dismiss everything in the run, which isn't fair because the actual characterization of Wonder Woman is spot on. She spends the entire series converting enemies into allies, a notion clearly drawn from Marston's original work.
    This stuff, when it popped up, was great. It's why I have the run in trade and can't hate it completely.

    The whole run is frustrating. It'd be easier if it was just outright bad, but it isn't. Other stuff like Zola and Hera becoming friends was also fantastic (including the few bits where they put the blame where it belongs, on Zeus), as was Diana not having much regard for her father beyond him being the reason she gets to meet a sister she never knew she had (Siracca). But it all gets undermined a bit by Zeus/Zeke kind of getting exactly what he wanted in the end, and he sent the whole plot into motion to begin with. "Daddy Knows Best" is not a message I look forward to seeing in Wonder Woman, especially a Daddy of Zeus's character.

    It honestly would have been better if Zola and Zeke were not Athena and Zeus, and just a normal mortal woman and her demigod son who inherits the throne and has a chance to be a better person than his father. But still, the run has Strife, and she makes up for a lot.

  12. #72
    Fantastic Member Slim Shady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Gotham City
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Azz's run is one of the strangest I've gone through with a writer. I hated the origin thing and what he did with the Amazons. I mean hated. And it also bothered me that a lot of times it felt like WW was just a co-star in her own book. But at the same time, it was a really good story. In fact, if he had left the origin alone and not turned the Amazons into what he did, I might say it was one of the best WW runs I've ever read. I enjoyed it that much. It was consistently good issue after issue. I even think he got the voice of WW down pretty good. Between her characterization and the story, it was good enough that I overcame the drastic origin change and treatment of some characters.

    I guess I'm saying, I think Azz wrote Wonder Woman really well. I can't say great because of a few things he did, those hold it back. If not for those issues, and they are pretty big issues, I'd be willing to say he kind of got Wonder Woman right.

  13. #73
    Fantastic Member RepHope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    470

    Default

    Azz’s WW is a pretty perfect Elseworld story. I loved it, but I understand why others didn’t, and I enjoyed Rucka’s Rebirth run just as much. But ironically neither of the follow ups to Azz or Rucka have done a good job. Finches were terrible and why they needed Rucka in the first place. Fontana/Robinson have just been horribly boring. WW feels directionless and has for a while now. I don’t think she’s that hard a character to write for, no more so than Thor is, even if she’s not the same as he is. All she needs is a writer who wants to move forward instead of retelling her origin story again.

  14. #74
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,894

    Default

    I've grown to appreciate the Azz run more after experiencing Finch and Robinson, and it's no longer canon so I can enjoy it in an Elseworld capacity. It would actually be cool if it were set in the TDKR universe or something.

  15. #75
    Fantastic Member Joao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    This stuff, when it popped up, was great. It's why I have the run in trade and can't hate it completely.

    The whole run is frustrating. It'd be easier if it was just outright bad, but it isn't. Other stuff like Zola and Hera becoming friends was also fantastic (including the few bits where they put the blame where it belongs, on Zeus), as was Diana not having much regard for her father beyond him being the reason she gets to meet a sister she never knew she had (Siracca). But it all gets undermined a bit by Zeus/Zeke kind of getting exactly what he wanted in the end, and he sent the whole plot into motion to begin with. "Daddy Knows Best" is not a message I look forward to seeing in Wonder Woman, especially a Daddy of Zeus's character.

    It honestly would have been better if Zola and Zeke were not Athena and Zeus, and just a normal mortal woman and her demigod son who inherits the throne and has a chance to be a better person than his father. But still, the run has Strife, and she makes up for a lot.
    Hera's development is probably my favorite Greek mythology related thing on Wonder Woman ever. SO GREAAAAAT. I also love his Dionisius. Gosh, his version of the gods had me from the beginning.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •