Man I do wonder what make DC SHG not so big. Its air time does got screwed with CN seems only airing TTG xd, heck the season 2 isn't yet ended. Does the show failed to attract other audience than its intended? Looks like many people miss it because the show seems to be only for little girls. I really enjoying Diana and the other girls in that show
[QUOTE=OopsIdiditagain;6138441]While we're on sexism (even though ironically the thread explicitly said everything but sexism). I feel like DC's hesitation to cater to younger female audiences is what stopped WW from being as big as Batman and Superman. Even though Batman is loved by all genders he always had all ages media(mainly animated shows) that helped him stay relevant to young generations.
I don't think WW is only aimed at women (imo she's just as a male aimed action adventure hero as Batman or Superman). I think some people behind the scenes thinking differently is what stopped DC from making a show like DC Super Hero Girls and launching the young diana special decades earlier. Otherwise DC would've had a wonder woman show around the time Kim Possible, Powerpuff girls, Totally spies, w.i.t.c.h. and all the other female lead action animations were popular.[/QUOTE]
Well, you're not wrong.
I remember both Paul Levitz and Len Wein at one point or the other saying that superhero comics were primarily for boys. It took several decades of pushback and an influx of female readers for DC/Marvel to change their tune.
I also distinctly remember writers Byran Q Miller and David S Goyer saying at one point or the other than adapting WW is 'hard' because she doesn't have a simple defining back story like Batman or Superman's. Which I disagree with btw.
For WW to flourish the culture itself has to change.
No not at all.
First off BM & SM are much physically larger than WW.
2nd WW has nothing to prove. She is a princess, an amazon, and made by the gods. She is the apex of human and female advancement.
3rd amazon feels they are naturally superior to others. Especially men. So she feels she got nothing to prove. She shows how good she is through her actions.
[QUOTE=gwhh;6242470]No not at all.
First off BM & SM are much physically larger than WW.
2nd WW has nothing to prove. She is a princess, an amazon, and made by the gods. She is the apex of human and female advancement.
3rd amazon feels they are naturally superior to others. Especially men. So she feels she got nothing to prove. She shows how good she is through her actions.[/QUOTE]
Amazons don't feel they are superior to men or anybody. When they are writen properly and not portrayed in a cliche way.
I feel the culprit has little to do with the world or lore, and more to do with "Editorial Bipolar Disorder;" she has a more severe case of the Superman franchise's tendency to reboot or make massive changes without transition periods or "soft reboots" instead like the ones the Batman books have, with the Wonder Woman books suffering more than Superman because of a mix of sexism in some cases and (justified) reactions against that as well.
Of the Trinity, Batman has always had the more flexible but constantly growing lore and continuity - he managed to evade an outright hard reboot in both COIE and the New 52, and even though both messed with his "family," neither one erased them entirely, and there was always a connection to the previous era. Superman has had about two hard reboots more severe than anything Batman went through thanks to both COIE and the New 52... but that's still a limited number compared to Wonder Woman.
Wonder Woman is, in comparison, constantly having editors and writers want to start over on her, interrupting whatever momentum she still has and exacerbating the debates about what the best version of the character is. Before COIE was even close to a thing, you had stuff like the depowering and Kung Fu era, then between COIE and the New 52, she managed to have another hard reboot with the JMS era, then was immediately being fiddled with in the New 52 after her first Post-Flashpoint team left.
Her franchise is far more a lesson in why hard reboots are a bad idea in the long run than anything specific about her property being alienating.
[QUOTE=godisawesome;6242972]Of the Trinity, Batman has always had the more flexible but constantly growing lore and continuity - he managed to evade an outright hard reboot in both COIE and the New 52, and even though both messed with his "family," neither one erased them entirely, and there was always a connection to the previous era.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=godisawesome;6242972]Wonder Woman is, in comparison, constantly having editors and writers want to start over on her, interrupting whatever momentum she still has and exacerbating the debates about what the best version of the character is. Before COIE was even close to a thing, you had stuff like the depowering and Kung Fu era, then between COIE and the New 52, she managed to have another hard reboot with the JMS era, then was immediately being fiddled with in the New 52 after her first Post-Flashpoint team left.
Her franchise is far more a lesson in why hard reboots are a bad idea in the long run than anything specific about her property being alienating.[/QUOTE]
I gotta say, I agree. I've always thought that out of the Big 3, Batman was the one who benefitted most post-Crisis. Both Superman and WW's reboots threw too much away. It took awhile, but Superman's finally course corrected to an extent by embracing the character's history in it's entirety (although there is still a bit of a division on aging up Jon Kent), but it almost seems like every new creative team wants to start something entirely new with WW, throwing out whatever good came before.
[QUOTE=phonogram12;6244415]I gotta say, I agree. I've always thought that out of the Big 3, Batman was the one who benefitted most post-Crisis. Both Superman and WW's reboots threw too much away. It took awhile, but Superman's finally course corrected to an extent by embracing the character's history in it's entirety (although there is still a bit of a division on aging up Jon Kent), but it almost seems like every new creative team wants to start something entirely new with WW, throwing out whatever good came before.[/QUOTE]
You know, people usually blame George Perez/COIE for this, but IMO the only things he did that I think were big mistakes were militarizing Etta, scrapping the Holliday Girls, and erasing Amazon tech. And those weren't dealbreakers - Etta and the Holliday Girls had already been gone since the Silver Age so it was a missed opportunity rather than a change, and the lack of Amazon tech was a fixable problem with an explanation (Man's World tech didn't work on the island, which Jimenez remedied). I think the 2 people fundamentally responsible for the lack of a stable status quo are WML and especially John Byrne.
In WML's case it was kind of similar to the switch from Marston to Kanigher, though WML definitely wasn't as hacky or misogynistic as Kanigher was. Marston and Perez both took really unusual approaches that defied traditional comic book storytelling and really focused on fleshing out her lore and politics, but Kanigher and WML both pivoted to traditional superheroics. And frankly, trying to fit a character like Diana into a standard superhero mold is trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
As for John Byrne, he always had a habit of completely retooling any character he touched and he stated outright that he knew next to nothing about WW when he took her on and didn't care to do any research, so naturally it was going to end in disaster. With Superman it was salvageable because he was starting from zero and laying the roots, but with WW he just threw everything out - her supporting cast, her city, her role as ambassador, poor Donna Troy - and failed to replace them with anything compelling. To this day I'm baffled by his decision to replace the Kapatelises with cheap replicas in the Sandsmarks.
If Perez had included GA-inspired Holliday Girls and Phil Jimenez's run had come straight after his without some of the frustrating editorial mandates (i.e. killing off Hippolyta), with the Themyscira at the end of his run serving as the foundational status quo, the character would be in an absolutely amazing place.
Can't say I'd pinpoint Perez for when WW started having stuff from the previous team forgotten given pre-Crisis WW had a far more drastic departure with the Mod era and even the swing back to WW2 when the Carter show was on the air.
Pre-Crisis WW after Marston just isn't held as in much high regard like the Silver Age is Superman or the Bronze Age is for Batman.
I've always said that Diana is better served not as a traditional hero but as a Greek legend with syfy elements. Though to be fair to writers, we as a community have a fragmented view of what Diana and her world should be. I would say for example what I would want and what like... Alpha would want are two drastically different interpretations. Call it believing you can make the wheel better or just a lack of editorial strength, but Diana has had so many different takes it's hard to narrow down a true definitive version of the character without something being missing or poorly adapted or etc...
[QUOTE=bardkeep;6244544]You know, people usually blame George Perez/COIE for this, but IMO the only things he did that I think were big mistakes were militarizing Etta, scrapping the Holliday Girls, and erasing Amazon tech. And those weren't dealbreakers - Etta and the Holliday Girls had already been gone since the Silver Age so it was a missed opportunity rather than a change, and the lack of Amazon tech was a fixable problem with an explanation (Man's World tech didn't work on the island, which Jimenez remedied). I think the 2 people fundamentally responsible for the lack of a stable status quo are WML and especially John Byrne.
In WML's case it was kind of similar to the switch from Marston to Kanigher, though WML definitely wasn't as hacky or misogynistic as Kanigher was. Marston and Perez both took really unusual approaches that defied traditional comic book storytelling and really focused on fleshing out her lore and politics, but Kanigher and WML both pivoted to traditional superheroics. And frankly, trying to fit a character like Diana into a standard superhero mold is trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
As for John Byrne, he always had a habit of completely retooling any character he touched and he stated outright that he knew next to nothing about WW when he took her on and didn't care to do any research, so naturally it was going to end in disaster. With Superman it was salvageable because he was starting from zero and laying the roots, but with WW he just threw everything out - her supporting cast, her city, her role as ambassador, poor Donna Troy - and failed to replace them with anything compelling. To this day I'm baffled by his decision to replace the Kapatelises with cheap replicas in the Sandsmarks.
If Perez had included GA-inspired Holliday Girls and Phil Jimenez's run had come straight after his without some of the frustrating editorial mandates (i.e. killing off Hippolyta), with the Themyscira at the end of his run serving as the foundational status quo, the character would be in an absolutely amazing place.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Gaius;6244732]Can't say I'd pinpoint Perez for when WW started having stuff from the previous team forgotten given pre-Crisis WW had a far more drastic departure with the Mod era and even the swing back to WW2 when the Carter show was on the air.
Pre-Crisis WW after Marston just isn't held as in much high regard like the Silver Age is Superman or the Bronze Age is for Batman.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's always weird to me when people accuse Perez of removing too much yet give the Silver Age, Byrne, Messner-Loebs and Azzarello a pass despite them discarding much, much more.
[QUOTE=masterwitcher88;6244909]Though to be fair to writers, we as a community have a fragmented view of what Diana and her world should be. I would say for example what I would want and what like... Alpha would want are two drastically different interpretations. Call it believing you can make the wheel better or just a lack of editorial strength, but Diana has had so many different takes it's hard to narrow down a true definitive version of the character without something being missing or poorly adapted or etc...[/QUOTE]
Although I've noticed we agree on very few things on these boards, this is a sentiment I've echoed for a long, long time.
[QUOTE=phonogram12;6245521]Although I've noticed we agree on very few things on these boards, this is a sentiment I've echoed for a long, long time.[/QUOTE]
I mean, pure honesty, this is just a fact, right? Like some people want camp and whimsical and softness and like a sort of joyful absurdity, not taking things too seriously and constant laughs. Others want action and adventure and fun rides with a five-man band. Others still want stakes and tension and real consequences, like death, pain, trauma. And this is just narrative structure/plot. We could go into powers and side characters and villains and etc... Its vast and it can be annoying but a lot of that is the fault of just ALL the different takes she's gotten. I'd argue that people don't really know what they like until they see it done on page, and even then, with Diana it has to be near expert level.
I think Perez is singled out because his reboot came with COIE, which played havoc on the entire DCU all at once instead of stuff being adjusted/retconned on a smaller scale here and there. Plus it's associated with her timeline issues (particularly the havoc it played with Donna). Not his fault as he didn't make the call for the reboot and when it would be placed.
Quality wise, it's still vastly superior to the majority of stuff between it and Marston. But I think it would have been preferable to Perez to come onboard and overhaul things without a continuity reboot. Just keep the key characters and concepts from the Golden Age with some updates, give her a power boost to include flight, ditch the Diana Prince ID, and quietly ignore everything else except a few things (Donna, Nubia, Circe, Silver Swan).
The reason why Batman has so many good stories to him is because his universe has a proven track record of producing good stories. This is essentially a feedback loop; the more good stories Batman produces = the more good artists that will want to work on the project. Wonder Woman just doesn't have this catalogue with exception to Marston's work, which continues to see reprints more than 80 years later, Perez's stuff, Brian Azzerello's stuff, Greg Rucka's revival...what are the other major tent poles of Wonder Woman?
[QUOTE=Pinsir;6246085]The reason why Batman has so many good stories to him is because his universe has a proven track record of producing good stories. This is essentially a feedback loop; the more good stories Batman produces = the more good artists that will want to work on the project. Wonder Woman just doesn't have this catalogue with exception to Marston's work, which continues to see reprints more than 80 years later, Perez's stuff, Brian Azzerello's stuff, Greg Rucka's revival...what are the other major tent poles of Wonder Woman?[/QUOTE]
Pretty much.
Batman having (extremely loose) brushstrokes connected history that dates back to the GA has little to nothing do with his success. It's stuff like you can go to any regular book store or online retailer and buy multiple good Batman runs or standalone stories.