Will Wonder Woman become Diana Prince in Justice League #15? PREVIEW!

[tunneler]

In the Wonder Woman title Wonder Woman speaks with a very weird and odd manner and she uses very few words and all her words are not straightforward, instead they are very twisted and it makes me conclude that the reason Wonder Woman speaks in riddles is because of some mental deficiency that she had from birth itself. Since Wonder Woman has mental deficiencies and Superman has no problems it is only proper for Superman to teach Wonder Woman about secret identities and about how to behave in the modern world which is very different from the world of the Amazons. Steve Trevor cannot teach Wonder Woman because she doesn't love him anymore and now Superman is her lover so it is his responsibility to be her teacher.

[Outside_85]

In the Wonder Woman title Wonder Woman speaks with a very weird and odd manner and she uses very few words and all her words are not straightforward, instead they are very twisted and it makes me conclude that the reason Wonder Woman speaks in riddles is because of some mental deficiency that she had from birth itself. Since Wonder Woman has mental deficiencies and Superman has no problems it is only proper for Superman to teach Wonder Woman about secret identities and about how to behave in the modern world which is very different from the world of the Amazons. Steve Trevor cannot teach Wonder Woman because she doesn't love him anymore and now Superman is her lover so it is his responsibility to be her teacher.

Just curious, but do you ever have something positive to say?

[tunneler]

I am just giving some of my impressions on the Wondeer Woman title. I always have many positive things to say about the new 52 like Earth 2, Batman etc. If there is a massive change in the personality of Wonder Woman it is okay, because this is a reboot and it is meant to be different from the previous continuities.
I find the art of the Wonder Woman title by Cliff Chiang to be very chibi-like which may or may not be detrimental to the success of the horror story that Mr. Azzarello is doing. I prefer if someone who draws Wonder Woman sexier like Terry Dodson or Greg Land draws the title. However I acknowledge Cliff Chiang is a very good artist.

[swatkat]

I am just giving some of my impressions on the Wondeer Woman title. I always have many positive things to say about the new 52 like Earth 2, Batman etc. If there is a massive change in the personality of Wonder Woman it is okay, because this is a reboot and it is meant to be different from the previous continuities.
I find the art of the Wonder Woman title by Cliff Chiang to be very chibi-like which may or may not be detrimental to the success of the horror story that Mr. Azzarello is doing. I prefer if someone who draws Wonder Woman sexier like Terry Dodson or Greg Land draws the title. However I acknowledge Cliff Chiang is a very good artist.

Yes to Dodson, no no no to Land, ugh.

[CaptMagellan]

I'm not sure how great "no prizes" and the cultivation of continuity cops were for comics. I think that training people to nit-pick, and to think that nitpicking about trivia is true critical thinking, doesn't encourage them to enjoy imaginative works.

"Damn straight," "QFT," and "I'll drink to that."

[Mecegirl]

I'd be fine with treating the events of the Wonder Woman book and the Justice League book separate if they hadn't shown that image of Diana's mother and Amazon sisters during the graves arc. If they don't want the events of the books to coincide, fine, but don't reference events from other books. Just don't, not unless you want folks to try and make a connection. What is the point otherwise? That is part of the reason why I think Azz isn't including Superman (just for an example). He is doing his own thing, he wants the book to be its own thing. Awesome for him.

The superhero comicbook fanbase is a stickler for small details. That's just how "we" work, it's tradition by now. It has gotten worse with the internet because someone will have the panels scanned. And while some take it to extremes, for the most part it is harmless. Folks just want to have enough non conflicting information to create a time line. Why any writer in this genre would tempt fate by giving "us" dots to connect, when they don't want the dots to connect, boggles my mind. They probably want folks to try and figure it all out, just so that they are talking about the books.

[americanwonder]

... I'm not sure how great "no prizes" and the cultivation of continuity cops were for comics. I think that training people to nit-pick, and to think that nitpicking about trivia is true critical thinking, doesn't encourage them to enjoy imaginative works.

Ok, first, I want to say that I think you make a valid point here (to a degree), but I find it funny, because ...

... I also don't think we can assume that the severity of a loss is what determines whether its useful for Graves' purposes. Not being a "human" loss doesn't necessarily mean the loss of Hippolyta is less severe or traumatic; it might just mean that it didn't furnish a departed soul. It could have easily been explained that Graves needed actual departed souls to work with to bring his plans to completion, or that he needed Wonder Woman to believe that she was interacting with an actual departed soul and that she would not have believed this in the case of Hippolyta. As I said somewhere above, though, I DO agree that it would have been good to be clearer about why the loss of Hippolyta didn't serve Graves' purposes...

You are the No-Prize Poster Boy - no matter the criticism nor complaint, you ALWAYS come up with some explanation.

Personally, I don't really care where Zola and Lennox are while Diana is adventuring with the JL - it's a level of detail across books that I don't find necessary to know. However, I think Mecegirl makes a valid point as well - if an author is going to reference another story from another book, it should connect those dots well. At best, Johns is rather clumsy, imo, in how he goes about it here (but, I'm sure Slvn has an explanation for that, too ).

[slvn]

You are the No-Prize Poster Boy - no matter the criticism nor complaint, you ALWAYS come up with some explanation.

You won't be surprised that the np prizes given for "creative explanation" no prizes weren't so problematic for me; it's primarily the older kind, given for just pointing out continuity problems, that I think encouraged unimaginative nitpicking. Of course, they were probably intended to parody such nitpicking--that's why they were "NO prizes," as opposed tot he actual prizes some other publishers apparently gave way back--but I think fans who craved no prizes ignored the parodic aspect.

But sometimes the "explanation" is just "someone goofed" or "it wasn't very good." In the very paragraph you quoted, "I DO agree that it would have been good to be clearer about why the loss of Hippolyta didn't serve Graves' purposes." So, that's a criticism, and I'm making it, not explaining it away. It could have been a very easy explanation, though--just have Grave say, when he says that Diana has never suffered a human loss, add that the leaguers need to be confronted by the soul of a dead loved ones. Then we should have been able to infer that Diana's losses didn't qualify not because they weren't severe enough, but simply because they didn't take a should that could return to haunt her. Grave comes close to saying this when he says that his plan wouldn't work if Steve isn't dead--and honestly, it's not a big deal to me--but it could have been clearer.

[Gaelforce]

Ok, first, I want to say that I think you make a valid point here (to a degree), but I find it funny, because ...



You are the No-Prize Poster Boy - no matter the criticism nor complaint, you ALWAYS come up with some explanation.

Personally, I don't really care where Zola and Lennox are while Diana is adventuring with the JL - it's a level of detail across books that I don't find necessary to know. However, I think Mecegirl makes a valid point as well - if an author is going to reference another story from another book, it should connect those dots well. At best, Johns is rather clumsy, imo, in how he goes about it here (but, I'm sure Slvn has an explanation for that, too ).

To me, there's a difference between continuity and consistency.

I'm not a continuity freak, but consistency will drive me nuts if it's handled badly i.e. Diana is flying in book A but can't fly in book B. Unless I'm given a darned good reason for such a glaring error, it just bugs the heck out of me. Amazons Attack is the worst offender as we went from dead Hippolyta and Phillipus/Artemis in charge of a peaceful Themyscira to a nut-job Hippolyta suddenly back in charge of a bloodthirsty pack of child murderers working for their enemy Circe with absolutely no explanation as to how/why they changed the structure of their government or their very nature.

I don't care if a costume is different or a hairstyle changes or minor details, but things like power sets and the entire nature and structure of a major race of supporting characters really should be consistent across the board. Sure, sometimes there's a change in a book and another lags behind, but on the scale that DC is not paying attention, it's a real turn off for me :/

[Rob_Olivera]

To me, there's a difference between continuity and consistency.

I'm not a continuity freak, but consistency will drive me nuts if it's handled badly i.e. Diana is flying in book A but can't fly in book B. Unless I'm given a darned good reason for such a glaring error, it just bugs the heck out of me. Amazons Attack is the worst offender as we went from dead Hippolyta and Phillipus/Artemis in charge of a peaceful Themyscira to a nut-job Hippolyta suddenly back in charge of a bloodthirsty pack of child murderers working for their enemy Circe with absolutely no explanation as to how/why they changed the structure of their government or their very nature.

I don't care if a costume is different or a hairstyle changes or minor details, but things like power sets and the entire nature and structure of a major race of supporting characters really should be consistent across the board. Sure, sometimes there's a change in a book and another lags behind, but on the scale that DC is not paying attention, it's a real turn off for me :/

I think the idea of nu52 is a really nifty idea gone WRONG on many levels. To me, one of the most glaring issues is this. The lack of consistency. I followed a couple of handfuls of titles when it was first launched. I dropped many of them once I got a feel of what they were doing. Like Supergirl and Superman.. Once it settled into mundane issues after the initial re-introduction I dropped it, with the exception of the recent Perez issue in Sgirl because I like his art.

To me, one of the biggest successes that I witnessed out of 52 is "Earth 2", and to a lesser extent i also like "World's Finest" (but as soon as Perez is off, so am I. I like it less than E2). I'm not sure if the Superman titles are having the same lack of consistency as Wonder Woman Azz, and Wonder Woman Johns, but if they are... this is all a mess in EarthNU52.

[dupersuper]

The problem is, we just came off of a timeline where it was Batman setting up her secret identity, getting her a job and handing her an invisible plane.

I thought she got the plane from Lansinar...

[Outside_85]

I thought she got the plane from Lansinar...

That version was destroyed as far as I remember, think it was containing a tidalwave or something.

[brettc1]

I'm not sure how great "no prizes" and the cultivation of continuity cops were for comics. I think that training people to nit-pick, and to think that nitpicking about trivia is true critical thinking, doesn't encourage them to enjoy imaginative works.

I think that teaching people to use their powers of observation and to notice when something is at odds with other evidence would mean for a great many less visits to emergency rooms in hospital, speaking from my personal experience in the areas where I have worked as an educator. Mistakes and contradictions happen, it is not wrong to notice them.

To me, there's a difference between continuity and consistency.

I'm not a continuity freak, but consistency will drive me nuts if it's handled badly i.e. Diana is flying in book A but can't fly in book B. Unless I'm given a darned good reason for such a glaring error, it just bugs the heck out of me. Amazons Attack is the worst offender as we went from dead Hippolyta and Phillipus/Artemis in charge of a peaceful Themyscira to a nut-job Hippolyta suddenly back in charge of a bloodthirsty pack of child murderers working for their enemy Circe with absolutely no explanation as to how/why they changed the structure of their government or their very nature.

I don't care if a costume is different or a hairstyle changes or minor details, but things like power sets and the entire nature and structure of a major race of supporting characters really should be consistent across the board. Sure, sometimes there's a change in a book and another lags behind, but on the scale that DC is not paying attention, it's a real turn off for me :/

Agreed. Azzarello can talk about creativity and what not but its called the DC UNIVERSE for a reason. Unless he really IS writing an esleworld story.

[brettc1]

In the Wonder Woman title Wonder Woman speaks with a very weird and odd manner and she uses very few words and all her words are not straightforward, instead they are very twisted and it makes me conclude that the reason Wonder Woman speaks in riddles is because of some mental deficiency that she had from birth itself. Since Wonder Woman has mental deficiencies and Superman has no problems it is only proper for Superman to teach Wonder Woman about secret identities and about how to behave in the modern world which is very different from the world of the Amazons. Steve Trevor cannot teach Wonder Woman because she doesn't love him anymore and now Superman is her lover so it is his responsibility to be her teacher.

For all my criticisms of the title, I cant say that being able to understand what Diana is saying is one of them. Is the rest of this supposed to be as offensive as it sounds? It could be sarcasm but I am not sure.

[slvn]

I think that teaching people to use their powers of observation and to notice when something is at odds with other evidence would mean for a great many less visits to emergency rooms in hospital, speaking from my personal experience in the areas where I have worked as an educator.

Accident prevention as a rationale for literature courses? OK, what ever gets kids reading, I guess. I'll point out, though, that no one in the real world ever got a bump on the head from a tree branch that fell in a comic book--not even if the tree branch was a metal pipe in the previous panel (MASSIVE CONTINUITY ERROR ALERT!)

There is of course nothing wrong with noticing errors and contradictions. I just think that in comics fandom, nitpicking (rather, than say, interpretation or ideological critique or aesthetic appreciation) has sometimes become the main focus of reading. Maybe Marvel should have given no prizes for spotting allusions and explicating metaphors.