Azzarello and Chiang at Chicago Con-- Spoilers--?

[Reginleif]

2. Hyperbole such as this is what 'ungrounds' threads, so please refrain in the future.

The first two are sentiments I have seen on this board, the third is actually a song based sung by Star Wars fanatics, and Azz being the anti-christ is based on right wing fears on Obama. I dont think anyone here thinks Azz is the anti-christ... I was just trying to point out how irrationality can quickly go out of control.

4. I have said repeatedly that there are things I love about the run and things I hate about the run, so kindly do not characterize me as completely hating the run or Azzarello. Neither is true.

I wasnt

5. The Star Wars prequels were terrible, but did not (and will not ever) taint or ruin my love of the original trilogy ;)

I like the first three better than the originals...

[Maximum Impact]

I gotta say "Revenge of the Sith" is my favorite of the six.

[slvn]

The thing with her mother wasn't arrogance it was jealousy. It was (paraphrasing), "how dare you want to have a life outside of Themyscira and take my mantle and join the JSA, so you can strut around Wildcat in your new bodices while your subjects suffer in your absence. You're supposed to be a Queen not a superhero, and you were only given my codename as punishment, but you seem to be enjoying it. Now get back on your throne, and stop playing with my toys!" This led to Diana's massive feelings of guilt when Hippolyta died avenging her and saving the world a few issues later.

The arrogance came from her decision to kill Maxwell Lord without seeing the consequences of her actions or the fallout that would ensue. It fractured her relationship with Superman and Batman, it all but destroyed her mission, and sullied the Amazon's reputations. It eventually led to Amazons Attack and the annihilation of Themyscira, along with the deaths of several of her sisters.

These weren't "job interview flaws" that were really attributes in disguise.

You're right, Max, and you have given me a new perspective. Clearly, before the New 52, Diana was so imperfect, she was intolerable. Thank Azz she has finally been purged of her jealousy and arrogance!

[hunter_peterson]

Even if you take Azzarello's statement about Diana having been previously portrayed as "perfect" as a truism, it does not make his statement that you cannot tell compelling stories with perfect characters true.

Why? Because these "perfect" character's stories are being told in an imperfect world. The idea that in order to make WW "work" he had to mess with her backstory is just wrong on the face of it. There is no reason that ANY writer needs to ever show us a single Amazon or explain their motivations.

One of the most "perfect" characters ever created was Lancelot. His very perfection is one of the things that makes the story of Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot compelling and tragic. Would it be more compelling if we discovered that he had been abused by the Lady of the Lake as a child? No.

The thing is, if Azzarello has given even one, just one, interview where he said something positive about the WW character (let alone any of her previous creative teams), many of her fans would probably cut him a little more slack.

To that end, I would propose this. Would Mr. Azzarello's supporters please be so kind as to post the top 3 statements that the writer has made about the character herself? Not the Amazons. Not his reinterpretation of the Greek pantheon. But Diana herself.

Thanks in advance.

Hmm. The Lancelot example is interesting, but that's because his perfection in-story is actually an imperfection. Even in supposedly-perfect Camelot, his perfection is a failing because the world is inherently imperfect. Arguably, this is exactly how Azzarello is presenting Diana. Her only faults are positive attributes that others take advantage of, such as trust and caring.

And Azzarello has said that he's grown to really like Diana, as she's a better person than pretty much every character he's ever written and also has a dry sense of humor that borders on twisted. That's from his first CBR interview, by the way. And after seeing the gods more, it appears that humor is inherited, which is nice. He just is explicitly throwing her against an imperfect world to highlight her being a paragon of morality. He's even said that this new family she gained is meant to challenge her due to her being a better person than most of them (being a human in a family that isn't).

The tragedy of his take on the character isn't that her society has darkness to it or that her mother was turned to stone; the tragedy is that the world she comes from doesn't deserve her. (Though I think she will be shown to have a transformative effect, like how Batman and Superman under Morrison have been shown to make people want to better themselves simply by interacting with such goodness, which will apply particularly to the Amazons.)

But the important thing is that the character herself is, at her core, the same character and symbol, representing the same things. We can all appreciate that, right?

[Fate's Faith]

The thing with her mother wasn't arrogance it was jealousy. It was (paraphrasing), "how dare you want to have a life outside of Themyscira and take my mantle and join the JSA, so you can strut around Wildcat in your new bodices while your subjects suffer in your absence. You're supposed to be a Queen not a superhero, and you were only given my codename as punishment, but you seem to be enjoying it. Now get back on your throne, and stop playing with my toys!" This led to Diana's massive feelings of guilt when Hippolyta died avenging her and saving the world a few issues later.

Haven't read the issues of course but when I heard Hippolyte was Wonder Woman during WWII I did have to tell myself I did the right thing dropping the title. Yes, I would say that's a flaw. And not just in character but story

The arrogance came from her decision to kill Maxwell Lord without seeing the consequences of her actions or the fallout that would ensue. It fractured her relationship with Superman and Batman, it all but destroyed her mission, and sullied the Amazon's reputations. It eventually led to Amazons Attack and the annihilation of Themyscira, along with the deaths of several of her sisters.

Now that story I did read. I don't see arrogance there. If anything, its sacrifice. I've always thought she knew there was going to be a price and she was willing to pay it. And you know, I just put two and two together. The name of that arc... Sacrifice. I'm sure she was sadden to what followed but Superman and Batman's reaction is on them. If you want to blame anyone, its Superman for ever allowing it to happen to force Diana to sacrifice everything to save him and the world. Now that might be arrogance.

[slvn]

1. No one has said any such thing, least of all the mods here on the WW forums.

Certainly the mods haven't, and I don't think anyone on this board has. Maybe what has been said on other boards isn't that relevant, but, since you said "no one," it seems only fair to out point that the "raped my childhood" characterization is pretty accurate of some of the more extreme statements that have been made about Azzarello and Chiang's run.

Tn the comments at http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2011...-woman-reboot/, someone says (in response to a Wodner Woman-specific discussion) "I feel like DC has raped my childhood with their reboot..."

There was someone at DC Message Board who said something close to the "raped my childhood" line --maybe more like the DC execs raped Wonder Woman, but she also made clear that she felt something precious in her childhood had been violated. (Now that the DCMB is gone, it's hard to link to evidence, but you can glimpse what I'm talking about if you Google "now that you have literally raped and murdered the largest feminist icon."

[Reginleif]

wth is with these spammers? its the day and Im seeing there threads and posts!

[garion]

Even if you take Azzarello's statement about Diana having been previously portrayed as "perfect" as a truism, it does not make his statement that you cannot tell compelling stories with perfect characters true.

Why? Because these "perfect" character's stories are being told in an imperfect world. The idea that in order to make WW "work" he had to mess with her backstory is just wrong on the face of it. There is no reason that ANY writer needs to ever show us a single Amazon or explain their motivations.

One of the most "perfect" characters ever created was Lancelot. His very perfection is one of the things that makes the story of Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot compelling and tragic. Would it be more compelling if we discovered that he had been abused by the Lady of the Lake as a child? No.

The thing is, if Azzarello has given even one, just one, interview where he said something positive about the WW character (let alone any of her previous creative teams), many of her fans would probably cut him a little more slack.

To that end, I would propose this. Would Mr. Azzarello's supporters please be so kind as to post the top 3 statements that the writer has made about the character herself? Not the Amazons. Not his reinterpretation of the Greek pantheon. But Diana herself.

Thanks in advance.

This! And relatedly, it bears repeating how WW becomes a 2ndary character. This current run is all about everyone else and not WW. It's all about tearing down her world, etc. And thus the world is the focus.

[americanwonder]

This! And relatedly, it bears repeating how WW becomes a 2ndary character. This current run is all about everyone else and not WW. It's all about tearing down her world, etc. And thus the world is the focus.

I agree that the lion's share of the focus is on the world and (sadly) tearing it apart. But, I wouldn't say Diana is a secondary character. She's front and center, even though it does almost feel like a team book at times.

[Dr. Hurt]

Probably because she wasn't perfect.

I don't agree with all your opinions here, but this was a fun, well thoughtout post to read, Dr. Hurt. I also really liked your Disney Hercules/Tangled post.

Thanks for your kind words. No feedback? Thanks for taking the time to read my long posts anyway, you're probably the only one who bothered.

Violence is violence. When Hera cut the heads off the horses that was violence. I don't want to see that in real life, so I don't want to see it depicted in a comic. Even if all Diana did was crush a cockroach, if it is graphically depicted, I don't want to see it.
When Diana cut the arm off the centaur that was violence. I don't watch Dawn of the Dead because I don't like violence.
The Amazons having war games on PI was violence.
When the Amazons started killing each other because of Strife, that is violence.
When Diana cut Strife's hand with a glass that is violence.
When the Amazons threw the men over board, that is violence.
I don't like WW with a sword in her hand, because a sword is a violent weapon.
If the only "action" a writer can write is attached to fighting, that is not the kind of action that interests me. I want to see WW keep a dam from bursting. Not hack through demons.
Do I need to go on or are you getting the picture? :)

I started reading comics in the Silver Age. You could go an entire year without a single person being killed in the entire DCU. A few years back there was a wonderful compilation called Bizarro Comics. Nobody died in it And if I am not mistaken, there was not one punch thrown. You can tell stories that don't rely on 2 characters pummeling each other for interest.

I am not making a value judgement on whether Azzarello's storytelling style has any merit. What I AM saying is that one of the reasons I personally don't enjoy it because I perceive it as violent.

That is all.

But this is a superhero comic book. Superheroes fight all the time. That's violence too.

[Javier Velasco]

But this is a superhero comic book. Superheroes fight all the time. That's violence too.

I disagree. Superheroes only fight all the time now, because today's writers only seem to be able to equate action with violence. And quite frankly, I think it is because many of them can't tell a compelling story. Instead they just write set ups-for fights.

Look at the following clips...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9QQDLkIuc8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAtds...feature=fvwrel

Do they portray a superhero?
Does he even hit one person?
Is it fun? exciting? colorful? super? heroic?
In the first (and best) Superman movie, who does he physically fight?

I don't claim that superheroes shouldn't ever engage is physical combat. Just that it shouldn't become the defining characteristic of the genre. It certainly isn't one for me.

[Reginleif]

I disagree. Superheroes only fight all the time now, because today's writers only seem to be able to equate action with violence. And quite frankly, I think it is because many of them can't tell a compelling story. Instead they just write set ups-for fights.

Look at the following clips...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9QQDLkIuc8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAtds...feature=fvwrel

Do they portray a superhero?
Does he even hit one person?
Is it fun? exciting? colorful? super? heroic?
In the first (and best) Superman movie, who does he physically fight?

I don't claim that superheroes shouldn't ever engage is physical combat. Just that it shouldn't become the defining characteristic of the genre. It certainly isn't one for me.

Have you ever watched My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic?

[Dr. Hurt]

I disagree. Superheroes only fight all the time now, because today's writers only seem to be able to equate action with violence. And quite frankly, I think it is because many of them can't tell a compelling story. Instead they just write set ups-for fights.

Look at the following clips...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9QQDLkIuc8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAtds...feature=fvwrel

Do they portray a superhero?
Does he even hit one person?
Is it fun? exciting? colorful? super? heroic?
In the first (and best) Superman movie, who does he physically fight?

I don't claim that superheroes shouldn't ever engage is physical combat. Just that it shouldn't become the defining characteristic of the genre. It certainly isn't one for me.

So you want superheroes to be dealing with natural disasters? What's wrong with punching some bad guys?

[Javier Velasco]

Have you ever watched My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic?

Yes, it is very smartly done and cute.

[Javier Velasco]

So you want superheroes to be dealing with natural disasters? What's wrong with punching some bad guys?

That first clip wasn't a natural disaster. It was an earthquake created by an "evil genius." What I want superheroes to do is act heroically. Actually save innocent people.

In life, there are a variety of ways to solve problems. We use all of the tools we have to solve them in the way that seems best. If a superhero is given a varied skill set, and they only ever use one of them, to me it is either lazy or one dimensional writing. If Diana were to punch bad guys in every 5th encounter, but sometimes she would also use her lasso to subdue opponents first, or use her superspeed in a novel way to disable them, or use her flight inventively, or rip out a wall to shield her self in other encounters, then that would be fine.

But as it stands now, in this book, the only thing that is certain month after month seems to be that somebody is either going to get bloodied or killed. And that doesn't interest or excite me.

I would also suggest that if heroes engaged in less actual fighting, that when they actually did come to blows with someone it would be more effective. Does anyone really feel any kind of resonance with the hype surrounding the Avengers vs. X-Men event matchups beyond feeling like you are watching a video game?