Page 5 of 36 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 527
  1. #61
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyssane View Post
    It all boils down to the fact that DC continuously hires writers who want to do their own thing on Wonder Woman, including creating their own villains. Devastation, Genocide, The Morrigan, Veronica Cale... these are all villains that have been thrust into the Wonder Woman world by recent creators. But if you take a look at even Batman's (or Superman's, or Flash's, or Spider-Man's) rogues, all of his most famous ones have been around since at the very latest the 70's. Creators should really take a look at the Golden and Silver Age rogues of Wonder Woman (Queen Clea, Doctor Poison, Silver Swan, Doctor Cyber, etc.) before immediately opting to create a new villain in hopes of he or she taking off. Because chances are, he or she won't.

    And that's not to say I don't think new villains should ever arise, I just think more time should be spent fleshing out the ones that actually have a chance of strengthening the rogues gallery, rather than ones that will simply be forgotten by the next writer who comes along.
    This has always been my thinking regarding the issue. Every new writer (including the current one - one of the worst offenders actually) wants to come in and completely ignore previous villains and supporting cast. Batman writers and Superman writers are constantly working with the history of pre-existing villains and supporting characters. Perez did a good job with this for Wonder Woman as did Jimenez. I've always thought we've needed a writer to come in and focus on fleshing out her historic villains by reintroducing or redesigning them.

  2. #62
    They LAUGHED at my theory SteveGus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no1wonderfan View Post
    This has always been my thinking regarding the issue. Every new writer (including the current one - one of the worst offenders actually) wants to come in and completely ignore previous villains and supporting cast. Batman writers and Superman writers are constantly working with the history of pre-existing villains and supporting characters. Perez did a good job with this for Wonder Woman as did Jimenez. I've always thought we've needed a writer to come in and focus on fleshing out her historic villains by reintroducing or redesigning them.
    I was guardedly optimistic when Azzarello came on. I wasn't very familiar with him - the only stuff by him I had read were a couple of Superman issues in which Wonder Woman appeared - but I figured that he was a villains guy who would give her rogues gallery the credibility he needed.

    Of course, he went on to seriously disappoint. Nobody is going to take the Greek gods Apollo or Eros seriously as supervillains. It isn't like he's just going against seventy years of characterization - more like three thousand years.
    Superhero comic books only become art to the extent that their banal, unrealistic fantasy and garish styles go too far and become interesting. Attempts to ground them in reality can only ruin them.

  3. #63
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Right behind you
    Posts
    6,572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveGus View Post
    Of course, he went on to seriously disappoint. Nobody is going to take the Greek gods Apollo or Eros seriously as supervillains. It isn't like he's just going against seventy years of characterization - more like three thousand years.
    Eh?...What Marston and almost everyone up to Azzarello who's featured the Olympians in comics as these always benevolent entities is what's been going against 3000 year old myths.

  4. #64
    Veteran Member AdamYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Latham, NY
    Posts
    7,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveGus View Post
    Of course, he went on to seriously disappoint. Nobody is going to take the Greek gods Apollo or Eros seriously as supervillains. It isn't like he's just going against seventy years of characterization - more like three thousand years.
    Eros? EROS!?

    You mean, like, Cupid? HA HA HA! I'm sorry, but I can't help but think of Cupid, I mean . . . Eros, as that cute little guy with wings and a heart-shaped bow and arrow from all the Valentine's Day displays.

    Cupid's a supervillian! Ha ha.
    Story By Story- Story Circle of the Capital Region.

    My own Youtube account, stories and public library use tips.

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no1wonderfan View Post
    This has always been my thinking regarding the issue. Every new writer (including the current one - one of the worst offenders actually) wants to come in and completely ignore previous villains and supporting cast. Batman writers and Superman writers are constantly working with the history of pre-existing villains and supporting characters. Perez did a good job with this for Wonder Woman as did Jimenez. I've always thought we've needed a writer to come in and focus on fleshing out her historic villains by reintroducing or redesigning them.
    Yes-- I think the idea that WW's villains are lame is based in the fact that they never get to really get fleshed out.... never utilized properly (or flat out ignored) It's the same problem as her supporting cast.... if there are new villains every run and the old ones don't get used, then how can they ever really become "popular"? They don't have the chance to become part of the lexicon of her myths... We all know Lex Luthor, The Joker, etc not only because they're classic characters, but because they've been used and reused and expanded upon and the history betweeen the villain and the hero has grown... DIana's villains never seem to get that chance.

    WHen you look at it, you have:
    Ares-- he's the freaking God of War
    Circe-- mega powerful sorceress (over used, for sure though...lol)
    CHeetah-- lightning fast and savage werecat
    Dr Cyber-- ultra intelligent cybernetic mastermind
    Devestation-- twisted mirror image goddess
    Dr Poison-- insane master or torture and toxins
    As well as any handful of neo Nazi suoervillains (just because WWII isn't in her history anymore doesn't mean the Nazi movement wouldn't be the antithesis of her beliefs)

    ..I mean, just these would be pretty cool in the right hands. But it takes being in the right hands.... and this goes back to every run feeling the need to "fix" Diana and her world, instead of working with what's been established and then moving foreward with great stories.

    M

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Outside_85 View Post
    Eh?...What Marston and almost everyone up to Azzarello who's featured the Olympians in comics as these always benevolent entities is what's been going against 3000 year old myths.
    Well, they weren't "always benevolent"... Hephaestus/Vulcan played the role of baddie in the 70s, and Hercules and Mercury also had small roles as baddies in the 80s. Even back in the 40s you had Mars as a big bad. The benevolent ones tended to be the patrons of the Amazons... so the fact that they were "good" to them made sense... even in myths Athena would have been more benevolent to Odysseus, since she was his patroness, than she would have been to others. ;)

    ...and frankly I always found the use of mythology as a pont of inspiration (re Marston through Flashpoint) more interesting that everything Azz is doing to bastardize Diana's mythos-- which has become incredibly unoriginal, mundane and redundant....and the storytelling long winded....

    M

  7. #67
    Senior Member Seant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Marston's Aphrodite was benevolent so long as the Amazons followed her rules, otherwise they'd be punished. So she was benevolent touched with dangerous, which is how a patron should be.

    Thank god we've gotten rid of those Olympians-- seen so recently in "Odyssey" -- who declare themselves "not worthy" of Diana's worship. I will be thrilled to never again see the full assembly of Olympians in their togas beaming down at Diana.

    As for the rest of her villains, conceptually, they're fine. Dr. Psycho, Cheetah, Giganta, Circe, and Ares all fit into the "dangerous forces threatening society" category. It's just that there haven't been any really good stories told about them. Whereas the Flash-- I mean, come on, they're all gimmicky. A guy with a cold gun. A guy with boomerangs. A guy with a heat gun. A guy with a bag of clown tricks. How are these anything but souped-up common criminals?

  8. #68
    They LAUGHED at my theory SteveGus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamYJ View Post
    Eros? EROS!?

    You mean, like, Cupid? HA HA HA! I'm sorry, but I can't help but think of Cupid, I mean . . . Eros, as that cute little guy with wings and a heart-shaped bow and arrow from all the Valentine's Day displays.

    Cupid's a supervillian! Ha ha.
    Exactly. And when you mention Apollo, most people are going to think: Sun god, god of poetry, plays the lyre, has an oracle. Nothing in this resume says "supervillain" to me.

    And Azzarello's gods are, of course, no more authentic to Greek mythology, and quite a bit less so than the ones of Perez or Jimenez. The gods of Greek mythology once were worshipped; being worshipped is part of the definition of being a god as far as I can tell. I can't imagine anyone worshipping Azzarello's gods. The Greek gods had mortal favorites, cities and people they favored. For Perez and Jiminez, some of them were well disposed towards the Amazons. There was a mutualism to Greek and Roman religion; the Latin formula was do ut des; I give you something, you give to me in return. Azzarello's gods mostly just take from humanity. They're villains, but not much of gods.
    Last edited by SteveGus; 02-18-2013 at 06:55 PM.
    Superhero comic books only become art to the extent that their banal, unrealistic fantasy and garish styles go too far and become interesting. Attempts to ground them in reality can only ruin them.

  9. #69
    Veteran Member AdamYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Latham, NY
    Posts
    7,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seant View Post
    Whereas the Flash-- I mean, come on, they're all gimmicky. A guy with a cold gun. A guy with boomerangs. A guy with a heat gun. A guy with a bag of clown tricks. How are these anything but souped-up common criminals?
    That's kind of the point of the Flash, though. He's a souped-up cop. His enemies are souped-up crooks. Keeping in mind the era in which the characters were created and the audience they were created for, it worked. I know with our grown-up sensibilities, the idea of super-powered cop and super-powered criminals would probably result in some kind of gritty police procedural drama concept. However, the basic '60s Flash with his Rogues and all was basically a playground game of cops and robbers with science fiction amplifier (based around the finest in grade school science, at that). It may seem silly to us now but it works and it's what's built into the concept's DNA. Change it too much from that and it becomes something different.
    Story By Story- Story Circle of the Capital Region.

    My own Youtube account, stories and public library use tips.

  10. #70
    Senior Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,650

    Default

    I find the things that make a rogues gallery "good" is usually writer's skill (obvious), but also circumstance. I am someone who thinks that Batman's rogues gallery is the most overrated in all of comics. I mean, I don't think it's bad, but it's so quirky, if you showed the rogues gallery to someone who had zero familiarity with Batman, that person might think it's bloody stupid. Think back to the movie The Dark Knight. They gave us a Joker that works for mainstream audiences, and I mostly bought the character as believable, except for the part that all these circumstances work out perfectly and we, the audience, aren't supposed to question why there aren't more former inmates who didn't fall in line with the Joker, or how was it he was able to organize all those things like the kidnappings, setting of explosives, etc. So as good as the character was, Nolan's Joker, IMO, works because there was a lot of "cheating" necessary to make the story work. I would say this also strongly applies to the comics and cartoons. Writers ignore certain logistical things and just write Joker into situations that makes for a captivating (enough) story, and BOOM!, he's a "good" character. Perhaps even more importantly, though, Batman is a cool character, and he's begging for an archvillain who can frustrate Batman on dozens of levels, so we accept Joker.

    More to the point, you can't just say, "Hey, she dresses up like a cheetah, and has some cheetah-like traits; ergo she's boring. On the other hand, Poison Ivy has some inexplicable, pseudo-science control of plants, and dresses in all green with accompanying flora; ergo, she's a great villain." You obviously need a writer with the skill and vision to make the character compelling. Plus, if you already made up your mind that the hero(ine) is a character worth paying attention to, you're probably more likely to give all the villains a chance.

    I'm also really conflicted about the Greek gods. They carry so much baggage, and to make WW work (in my mind) in modern society, with futuristic sci-fi here and there, you can't just carry over all the stuff we understand about the Greek gods. You have to alter things here and there, and for some that can take some of the fun out of those mythological characters. I'm sure many love that, but again I feel conflicted regarding the whole thing, and tend not to be overly enthusiastic about seeing them in prominent roles.

  11. #71
    Junior Member Bluewing_A23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DochaDocha View Post
    I find the things that make a rogues gallery "good" is usually writer's skill
    This line just summed it all. Joker is the best example. How can Batman struggle against Joker it a fist fight when he can take down a troop of ninjas? How can other villains fear Joker when they can easily ripped his head off?

  12. #72
    Senior Member Zagreus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mathew101281 View Post
    I hear alot of people say this but is it true?

    Wonderwoman has two villains that are well known outside of comics.
    Cheetah and Giganta.

    She has an additional two villains that are reasonably well known within comic circles.
    Circe and ares.

    That is four solid villains in a market were most superheroes barely have two.
    Sure the rest of her rogues gallery is obsure, but that doesn't mean they are bad concepts.
    Simple answer: The character work hasn't been done with WW's rogues. That's it. Conceptually, there's nothing inherently weaker with rogues like Dr. Cyber, Dr. Poison, and what have you, but they haven't been explored. Batman's and Spiderman's and to a lesser extent, the Flash's rogues, have had issues dedicated to them, have had their motivations explored in depth, have character histories, have fleshed out personalities, etc. If a writer puts the work into WW's rogues, they will be strong; if not, they will be weak. Very simple. People make this far more complicated than it needs to be.

  13. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonder39 View Post
    Yes-- I think the idea that WW's villains are lame is based in the fact that they never get to really get fleshed out.... never utilized properly (or flat out ignored) It's the same problem as her supporting cast.... if there are new villains every run and the old ones don't get used, then how can they ever really become "popular"? They don't have the chance to become part of the lexicon of her myths... We all know Lex Luthor, The Joker, etc not only because they're classic characters, but because they've been used and reused and expanded upon and the history betweeen the villain and the hero has grown... DIana's villains never seem to get that chance.

    WHen you look at it, you have:
    Ares-- he's the freaking God of War
    Circe-- mega powerful sorceress (over used, for sure though...lol)
    CHeetah-- lightning fast and savage werecat
    Dr Cyber-- ultra intelligent cybernetic mastermind
    Devestation-- twisted mirror image goddess
    Dr Poison-- insane master or torture and toxins
    As well as any handful of neo Nazi suoervillains (just because WWII isn't in her history anymore doesn't mean the Nazi movement wouldn't be the antithesis of her beliefs)

    ..I mean, just these would be pretty cool in the right hands. But it takes being in the right hands.... and this goes back to every run feeling the need to "fix" Diana and her world, instead of working with what's been established and then moving foreward with great stories.

    M
    You haven't fixed them. Making them more powerful doesn't fix anything. Joker and Luthor are Batman and Superman's ultimate enemies and neither of them them are really a physical match for their heroes. It's because they are the antithesis of the heroes to some degree that makes them work as villains. The same applies for Ra's, Scarecrow, Zod, Riddler, Two-Face, Darkseid, etc. You can de-power the Cheetah and make her human and she can still be a formidable antagonist if you can find an angle and write her correctly.
    Last edited by Hound of UIster; 02-18-2013 at 06:55 PM.

  14. #74
    They LAUGHED at my theory SteveGus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hound of UIster View Post
    You haven't fixed them. Making them more powerful doesn't fix anything. Joker and Luthor are Batman and Superman's ultimate enemies and neither of them them are really a physical match for their heroes. It's because they are the antithesis of the heroes to some degree that makes them work as villains. The same applies for Ra's, Scarecrow, Zod, Riddler, Two-Face, Darkseid, etc. You can de-power the Cheetah and make her human and she can still be a formidable antagonist if you can find an angle and write her correctly.
    Maybe the way Wonder Woman's villains will be taken seriously is when they start appearing in more popular characters' books, who then need an assist from Wonder Woman. I can imagine that Dr. Psycho vs. Superman might have a chance at being interesting. (Batman vs. Circe? Over by the time Batman casts his first spell. So it goes.)
    Superhero comic books only become art to the extent that their banal, unrealistic fantasy and garish styles go too far and become interesting. Attempts to ground them in reality can only ruin them.

  15. #75

    Default

    Circe was the chief villain in War of the Gods, Allen Heinberg's WW story and Amazons Attack and yet none of it has really cemented her status as Wonder Woman's de facto nemesis. The closest in the old DCU was Ares.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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