Wonder Woman Controversial Opinions Part 2

[SiegePerilous02]

I don't know if the Marston model really can be done in the modern context. I also feel the post Marston works are being rather downplayed. Just because DC is quick to roll back on developments that deviated from the original doesn't mean they aren't worth keeping around.While there is a lot of bad stuff post Marston how much of that is DC not letting it properly develop vs it being bad because it wasn't by Marston or following his model? We've heard plenty of stories about editors screwing things up when it comes to this books.

Perhaps the issue was always going full tilt when it comes to Marston. There are some, a lot I'd admit, of good ideas in his work that can be used but I don't know if all of it at a time can be done if you understand what I mean.

I definitely agree that we can never go back to doing things exactly as Marston did, nor should we. But in fairness I don't think anyone here wants the book to be transplanted back to the 1940s, just that we want to see concepts, characters and locations from that era utilized more.

I also don't think DC rolls back on developments in favor of Marston all that much, if at all. Azzarello for example ditched the post-Crisis canon, but what it replaced it with kind of flew in the fact of Marston in a lot of ways as well. Rebirth rolled things back to a more Perez-like set up, albeit with some Bronze Age flavor mixed in. But ultimately, I don;t think the post-Marston works are being downplayed that much. Her Silver and Bronze age eras are not regarded by many as being well written overall. And aside from Perez, Rucka and perhaps Jimenez as a third, the rest of her post-Crisis runs aren't regarded as being anything to write home about. Pretty good at best, but nothing memorable and the while Artemis and Cassie came about in those other runs, that's still only two important supporting characters netted over a not brief period of time. Editorial interference plays a part, but then Perez, Rucka and Jimenez has issues with editorial and were still able to produce overall great runs. So their ideas may just be inherently stronger than the others.

[Ascended]

Preach on all of this.

Though with Batman, I think he was distilled to near perfection in the 70s. Not too dark, and not too light like the 50s and 60s, but could slide into either tone and back pretty easily.

With both Clark and Diana, when readers are reminded of the old stuff they react negatively, and I definitely think that's bad for Clark. Diana is a little more of a mixed bag because it could be done so badly, but still. A lot of the resistance comes from just not wanting the later developments to go away regardless of how effective the throwbacks are of even if it's good for the characters or not.

Agreed on 70's Batman. Still not quite dark enough for my personal tastes, but I think there was a lot more narrative room then.

And Diana and Clark....even when a throwback is done well, people complain. Look at the heat Morrison got when he did his opening Action run. And with Diana, because so much of her early mythos is wrapped up in gender philosophies (century old ones now), it seems nearly impossible to do anything with those early concepts that people won't flip out about now, even if it's updated properly and handled well.

I disagree. In particular, I find it very fundamental to modern Bruce Wayne that he is very screwed up emotionally. Original Bruce wasn't. Sure, he wore a costume and fought crime, but that was never depicted as the psychological issue it would be in the real world.

You're not wrong but no one had that level of character development in the Golden Age. The dichotomy between Clark and Superman didn't really exist then either, as we recognize and understand it today.

[SiegePerilous02]

Agreed on 70's Batman. Still not quite dark enough for my personal tastes, but I think there was a lot more narrative room then.

And Diana and Clark....even when a throwback is done well, people complain. Look at the heat Morrison got when he did his opening Action run. And with Diana, because so much of her early mythos is wrapped up in gender philosophies (century old ones now), it seems nearly impossible to do anything with those early concepts that people won't flip out about now, even if it's updated properly and handled well.

I tend to be tolerable of really dark Batman in Elsewords or continuity light tales.

Agreed on Morrison's Action. A lot of the heat came from the reboot though, I wonder if it would have done better via flashback scenes/stories integrated in a run that used the whole history (like his Batman run) or as an Ultimate-style book. But the accusations that it is not Superman were maddening, especially as when they come from fans of "classic" Superman who ignore that it pulls so much from the Golden and Silver ages. It's basically traditionalists vs. traditionalists at that point and nobody can agree on what is classic or not lol.

To bring it back to Diana, there is also the issue of fandom debates between those who feel like Marston's concepts were already successfully updated by Perez vs. those who don't see it.

[kjn]

And Diana and Clark....even when a throwback is done well, people complain.

Superman Smashes the Klan got a rave reception, and that was pure Golden Age Superman with some added sensibilities.

Now, Diana is in a slightly more tricky situation, since Diana is a radical figure that at least carries an implicit critique of our society. Most comics readers are not used to that type of stuff.

[SiegePerilous02]

Superman Smashes the Klan got a rave reception, and that was pure Golden Age Superman with some added sensibilities.

Now, Diana is in a slightly more tricky situation, since Diana is a radical figure that at least carries an implicit critique of our society. Most comics readers are not used to that type of stuff.

I think it's more canon stories for Superman that try to bring back more of the original flavor that get a kneejerk reaction against them. Klan is it's own thing, but the New 52 Action was meant to be the new main version. A lot of the complaints didn't have much to do with the work itself, just complaints that he wasn't married anymore and that he was OOC, despite the fact that he was only OOC compared to Byrne's version and other post-Crisis ones. It could be jarring, but fits right in with the golden age material. And Clark was interesting and awesome again for the first time in ages.

[Ascended]

Superman Smashes the Klan got a rave reception, and that was pure Golden Age Superman with some added sensibilities.

Now, Diana is in a slightly more tricky situation, since Diana is a radical figure that at least carries an implicit critique of our society. Most comics readers are not used to that type of stuff.

Smash was indeed incredible. And sold approximately six copies across all three issues. Very disappointing, but I hope the trade makes up for it. That thing should be required reading.

But generally I agree with SP on this; Smash was an Elseworlds with a "old school" approach set in the 40's, as far from main continuity as it could be. It wasn't a "threat" to anyone. Even Diana's Earth-1 generally only gets some grumbling here, but if that had been main continuity I expect the reaction would've been far more.....exuberant.

And she is definitely trickier. Which just complicates any attempts to bring back some classic, long-missing elements even more.

But then, nearly everything about Diana is trickier than most of her peers. She's by far the most complex and nuanced character in DC's A-list lineup.

[SiegePerilous02]

But generally I agree with SP on this; Smash was an Elseworlds with a "old school" approach set in the 40's, as far from main continuity as it could be. It wasn't a "threat" to anyone. Even Diana's Earth-1 generally only gets some grumbling here, but if that had been main continuity I expect the reaction would've been far more.....exuberant.

I feel like Azzarello took most of the heat Morrison could have gotten. Partially because it was the canon take (for a time) but mostly because for any flaws Morrison's has, Azz's are way worse. The former's Amazons at least don't kill men and babies. Plus Earth One 1 and 2 came out during Finch and Wilson respectively, so while they fall far short of Morrison's other works and the best WW runs, they are amazing in comparison to canon at the time

[AmiMizuno]

At the beginning of rebirth, Diana was around the same age as Clarke and Bruce. However, 5G reveals she is much older. What do you guys think? Should she be around the same age or older? I don't mind either

[kjn]

Smash was indeed incredible. And sold approximately six copies across all three issues. Very disappointing, but I hope the trade makes up for it. That thing should be required reading.

*goes check*

That's disappointing…

But generally I agree with SP on this; Smash was an Elseworlds with a "old school" approach set in the 40's, as far from main continuity as it could be. It wasn't a "threat" to anyone. Even Diana's Earth-1 generally only gets some grumbling here, but if that had been main continuity I expect the reaction would've been far more.....exuberant.

As an old sf reader, when I'm thinking of going back to the roots I'm not necessarily thinking of redoing the stuff from yesterday. I'm more thinking being in conversation with the stuff from yesterday, or revisiting the themes of old with today's sensibilities.

Which is partly why I found Morrison's take so disappointing. It was in dialogue with Marston, but all it said was "U sux".

[Ascended]

*goes check*

That's disappointing…

IKR?

As an old sf reader, when I'm thinking of going back to the roots I'm not necessarily thinking of redoing the stuff from yesterday. I'm more thinking being in conversation with the stuff from yesterday, or revisiting the themes of old with today's sensibilities.

Which is partly why I found Morrison's take so disappointing. It was in dialogue with Marston, but all it said was "U sux".

You definitely have to update the concepts and themes for the modern day, but with Clark and Diana they rarely, if ever, even do that much.

Like, I give Morrison credit for at least engaging in those Marston conversations, damn few other writers have, but what he came out with was.....pretty underwhelming, especially given the huge amount of time and research he put into it. I didn't read volume 2, so maybe that gets better, I dunno.

[kjn]

Like, I give Morrison credit for at least engaging in those Marston conversations, damn few other writers have, but what he came out with was.....pretty underwhelming, especially given the huge amount of time and research he put into it. I didn't read volume 2, so maybe that gets better, I dunno.

The best thing with Earth One volume 2 was Doctor Psycho. Morrison really managed to create a Doctor Psycho who was creepy, realistic, and worked.

Otherwise, if you didn't like volume 1, you won't find much improvement with volume 2. In many ways I think it doubled down on the flaws of the first volume, in turning the Amazons both stupid and incompetent (despite having super-science) and in robbing Diana of whatever agency she had in the first volume. But there are lots of people here who appreciate it too.

[Ascended]

I didn't *dislike* volume 1, and I thought there were some interesting bits thrown into the mix. I enjoyed his Etta quite a bit. It just didn't impress me enough to get volume 2. I'm rather lukewarm to volume 1. I don't hate it, but I'm not really a fan either.

[Pinsir]

I don't really get why so many of you hyper-focus on the treatment of the Amazons in these works. The way I often hear Azzarello's work described its as if 90% of the work was Amazons 'raping' and killing sailors. Morrison's work does resolve around the Amazons, but I think the critic that these Amazons aren't perfect kind of misses the point of the work. They are basically a Star Trek civilization, hyper advanced, but their achievements have made them arrogant prideful and disdainful of 'barbarian' foreigners.

[Tzigone]

but I think the critic that these Amazons aren't perfect kind of misses the point of the work. They are basically a Star Trek civilization, hyper advanced, but their achievements have made them arrogant prideful and disdainful of 'barbarian' foreigners.

Or maybe we think the point of the work is misguided and counter to the type of civilizations the Amazons were meant to be/historically were within the DC mythos. Not to mention changing the entire dynamic of Diana's relationship to her family and birthplace.

You'll find many complaining about the treatment of Krypton when it became the cold, unfeeling place, too. It's just it was a long time ago and has much less consequence, in and of itself, on Clark, since he was not raised in it and with those values.

I particularly don't like the Amazons made bad, but frankly I have a huge issue with how so many fictional civilizations that were once mostly good (or at least neutral, with similar good and bad ratios to our own) have been made evil in the decades since the bronze age came around. It's like every single civilization is inferior to the modern western world. Overtly inferior. Tyrannical, oftentimes. Xenophobic, war-happy, etc. Atlantis, Thanagar, Themyscira, Krypton, even Rann. For the sexism of the Amazons to be addressed is one thing, but to make them what they have been made in some works is entirely another.

And that's before we get to how making the societies so bad sometimes ends up vilifying previously good/heroic supporting characters. I hate seeing good characters go bad.

[WonderScott]

Marston’s vision and version of the character and her world was sublimely radical for its time, so I always carry that as integral part of Wonder Woman’s DNA for any worthy version of her... and I think that complexity gets lost a great deal of the time in not delivering nuanced portrayals of her out of the imaginary “need” to simplify her.

The best of the spirit of the character that Marston portrayed should be captured and reflected through the lens of what we know now versus were unable (for whatever reasons or excuses) to understand (or understood, but weren’t bravely able to confront in a meaningful way) then.

I’ve been doing some reading about feminism lately and learning about and listening to Tarana Burke’s work in the Me Too movement and see some absolute ways in which Wonder Woman can reflect the spirit of Marston’s “radical” or “revolutionary” character based on the sociology, psychology, and social justice implications of our recent history and current culture.

I love that Diana fights supervillains, but in a way, she’s also supposed to fight the worst of “us” and be a transformative character in-story and in reality.

“Make a hawk a dove, stop a war with love.”