Why are Brian Azzerello and Geoff Johns WW so Differnt

[SteveGus]

I think Azzarello makes a decent attempt to write WW as per her previous nature most of the time, where Johns wants a barbarian princess to contrast the rest of his ensemble so he writes that whether it fits the character or not.

A generic barbarian princess is exactly what Azzarello has turned Wonder Woman into. He can't prevent the character from appearing in JL or elsewhere in the DCU forever. But when you write a barbaric, murderous, and ugly Paradise Island, it's hardly unreasonable to show Diana as a character coming from just such a place. The real puzzle is why Diana doesn't act like one of her own people in "her" title.

[Darrell D.]

I don't have a problem with a story references some other story written in another book. I don't feel it should be EXPECTED for the writer to do so, though.
Azzarello is telling his own story, and if other writers want to pull from it, cool. If not, that's cool.
I certainly don't think Azz needs to pull from the regular DCU (which I am wonderfully completely not reading), and sure as hell shouldn't be expected to do that.
Let the writers tell their stories.

[Darrell D.]

A generic barbarian princess is exactly what Azzarello has turned Wonder Woman into. He can't prevent the character from appearing in JL or elsewhere in the DCU forever. But when you write a barbaric, murderous, and ugly Paradise Island, it's hardly unreasonable to show Diana as a character coming from just such a place. The real puzzle is why Diana doesn't act like one of her own people in "her" title.

Nah, he's writing a version of Wonder Woman, nothing 'generic barbarian princess' about the character.
It may not be a version you like, but it's Wonder Woman nonetheless.

[carabas]

A generic barbarian princess is exactly what Azzarello has turned Wonder Woman into.

You're in error. That's how Geoff Johns is writing her. Azzarelllo is largely writing the same Diana from before the reboot.

[Blacksun]

You're in error. That's how Geoff Johns is writing her. Azzarelllo is largely writing the same Diana from before the reboot.

Diana from before reboot... hum which?

I think Johns doesn't get Dianna at all, he can't go deeper. I think Azzarello characterization more complete

[carabas]

Diana from before reboot... hum which?

The regular one?

I think Johns doesn't get Dianna at all, he can't go deeper.

That's putting it mildly...

[SteveGus]

You're in error. That's how Geoff Johns is writing her. Azzarelllo is largely writing the same Diana from before the reboot.

Well, that's just it. Azzarello locates her in a primitive society and writes her, more or less, as if she is the pre-Flashpoint Diana, only somewhat less articulate or dynamic. Johns puts her in contemporary civilization and writes her like a barbarian ingenue.

[Castel]

Better to have two version of her than just one and be stuck with John's.

[carabas]

Well, that's just it. Azzarello locates her in a primitive society and writes her, more or less, as if she is the pre-Flashpoint Diana, only somewhat less articulate or dynamic. Johns puts her in contemporary civilization and writes her like a barbarian ingenue.

So... Either you are now conceding that Azzarello does not actually write her like a generic barbarian after all, or you're stating she's always been a generic barbarian. Or you're admitting your earlier statement was a falsehood.

[brettc1]

As I have said before, the evidence for me is that Azzarello is writing Diana pretty well - its the other stuff in the book that I find awful and leaves me unable to enjoy it.

Meanwhile Johns has adopted these elements I find unsavoury and then mauled the character as well.

[RandomFalls]

Having flicked through JL #14 here's something else that Johns and Azzarello differ on, and that also annoys me. Um, spoilers for JL #14 below for those few of you who haven't read it.

In JL a primary character point for Diana has been her not wanting people to get involved with what she does in case they gut hurt, taking the whole "it's my fault you got injured" to ridiculous new levels. She pushes Steve away because of this, blames herself for the Cheetah and insists through #13 that the League shouldn't help her with Cheetah (but they're bored so they do anyways), and in #14 she's still insisting that they shouldn't be helping her despite the fact they're already in the Congo and have been helping her for a while now (she sounds like a moron at this point) and her sending them away would get in the way of the plan.

While in the WW book she will happily go seek out help when she needs it, and accept it when it is offered. She has no problem with keeping people close to her, even if her presence might put them in more danger, reasoning that her presence is also the best protection they have (see WW #5 where Hermes questions whether Zola would be safer away from Diana. And I just realised that he was planning on nicking Zola there if he could have. Good job that centaur crippled him).

So in JL you have a WW who pushes away human contact, and arguably League contact as well since they know nothing about her, who struggles to make these connections with people. While in WW you have her warmly accepting Zola with open arms and having no problems connecting with her and calling her friend. Same with Lennox. She just happily accepts him, and Siracca, as family.

There are two Dianas' running around in the DCnUiniverse and no one can convince me otherwise.

[killercroc]

WW problem to me is she felt always too preachy. The JL WW is a breath of fresh air as a young character who supposedly spent her years growing up where entertainment was martial skills after feasting and being schooled by War himself. I hope Azz don't get her too preachy again.

[Outside_85]

Just started to wonder, looking back and all that; has Johns ever written a female character consistently really well?

I suppose people are going to say Mera as one and obviously Stargirl (but I consider her an oddity).

[carabas]

Just started to wonder, looking back and all that; has Johns ever written a female character consistently really well?

I suppose people are going to say Mera as one and obviously Stargirl (but I consider her an oddity).

You're asking if he's written a female character well, except for the two female characters he writes really well?

Really?

How about the Kendra Saunders Hawkgirl?

[Outside_85]

You're asking if he's written a female character well, except for the two female characters he writes really well?

How about the Kendra Saunders Hawkgirl?

A) I don't consider writing Mera to be terribly difficult since her entire personality appears to be summed up as; ticked off.
B) I would imagine he can figure out how to rewrite his own sister into a comicbook setting.

I am asking this because it just seems some women under Johns' pen quickly degenerate into The Girlfriend, where they are usually less than awesome.