View Poll Results: What did you think of this issue?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • *****

    3 15.00%
  • ****

    10 50.00%
  • ***

    5 25.00%
  • **

    2 10.00%
  • *

    0 0%
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 99
  1. #46
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VonHammersmark View Post
    If you wanna show Wonder Woman struggling, ramp up the scale of the conflict, bring out the heavy artillery, give Wonder Woman a challenge that's commensurate with her power, it's not that hard…instead of 2 kids, make it 20
    I still don't think that a fully developed Wonder Woman. With the oh so big Godly powers she is supposed to have, should be struggling with humans using regular weapons. There are certain things that any powerhouse should be able to handle easily. You want drama?, struggle?, there are a lot of opponents in WW rogue gallery that can make it happen.

  2. #47
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjn View Post
    In this exact case, it doesn't bother me that much that Diana doesn't use her powers much. She's largely acting defensively and tries to avoid making too many waves. I can easily see various limits on Aphrodite's teleportation abilities hindering her moving them directly to the temple as well, given its possibly mystical nature or that it required the mystical connection between Steve and Diana to get to the target. Or it's not safe flying with a passenger given the hostile environment.

    So I'm sure Wilson could come up with a decent reason for why they needed to walk, but it'd take time to explain and it's funnier to see Aphrodite turning missiles into flowers, Steve running around shirtless, and Diana lassoing missiles going *nyyom*.

    I do agree that Wonder Woman's power (and skill!) set tends to fluctuate a lot. I think one part (but far from the largest part!) is that she has quite a disparate and in part vague/open-ended set of powers. Pérez gave what is probably the most defined set of powers to her, but what does "sisterhood with fire—that it may open mens hearts to her" even mean? And unity with beasts has been most consistently been brought up in the Sensation Comics digital shorts.
    If Wilson has a reason for them to walk when she’s established they can both fly and teleport, then basic narrative structure require it be revealed.

    That’s why they are called plot “holes”, because unless the writer fills them in they are obvious gaps that, when noticed, derail the plot.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  3. #48
    Mighty Member KoriandrJean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaelforce View Post
    Would you say the same thing if it were Superman?

    Or the Flash?



    Diana is up there in speed, and Flash has literally evacuated thousands in seconds.

    This is the sort of thing I was referring to - lowering Diana's speed for the sake of a story.

    In my opinion, if you need Diana to be slower or more vulnerable in order to give a scene impact, then you're not writing the character correctly.

    Diana is a powerhouse and shouldn't be shown to be less than that in order to provide emotional impact. Plenty of other top tier characters have lots of impact and emotion without being written as less than what they should be.
    What book is this from, please?

  4. #49
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaelforce View Post
    Would you say the same thing if it were Superman?

    Or the Flash?





    Diana is up there in speed, and Flash has literally evacuated thousands in seconds.

    This is the sort of thing I was referring to - lowering Diana's speed for the sake of a story.

    In my opinion, if you need Diana to be slower or more vulnerable in order to give a scene impact, then you're not writing the character correctly.

    Diana is a powerhouse and shouldn't be shown to be less than that in order to provide emotional impact. Plenty of other top tier characters have lots of impact and emotion without being written as less than what they should be.
    Absolutely agree.

    The scene isn’t even that important to the overall plot, and it’s impact is that Diana is investing energy in saving lives.

    She says in the previous issue she has the power to stalemate the god of war, but in this issue Wilson writes her more like a Jessica Jones power levels.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  5. #50
    Extraordinary Member kjn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    4,875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    If Wilson has a reason for them to walk when she’s established they can both fly and teleport, then basic narrative structure require it be revealed.

    That’s why they are called plot “holes”, because unless the writer fills them in they are obvious gaps that, when noticed, derail the plot.
    It's only plot holes if you notice them or if you can't suspend disbelief over them. For some examples, take Aquaman and Mera being stuck in the middle of the Sahara, and in the next scene they are back in civilisation. Or how Diana and Steve Trevor got to London, apparently in a single night, with their sailing boat from Themyscira. Or why Diana under Circe's control has to climb Olympos instead of simply flying to the top in The Witching Hour.

    Economy of storytelling means that writers cannot cover everything. Rule of drama is the main method to handle these elisions: as long as you keep the reader entertained and engaged, then the elisions don't turn into plot holes. And sometimes the writer can work on establishing their bona fides, by quickly covering one elision or with a convincing form of technobabble, in order to make the reader trust the writer know their stuff and is telling the relevant parts. (A writer friend of mine writes more than a bit of hard sf, and he often includes one impressive set of realistic technobabble of sensors or image manipulation from his protagonists, since that's what he works with in real life. The the expertise of other characters is assumed.)

    In a way, the more a reader demands that powers be used in order to enjoy a character, the more they condition themselves to not enjoy a fun story, and the harder it is to entertain them.

  6. #51
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjn View Post
    It's only plot holes if you notice them or if you can't suspend disbelief over them.
    Of course. If the story doesn't make sense, it must be the fault of the reader for being to observant or thinking too much.

    For some examples, take Aquaman and Mera being stuck in the middle of the Sahara, and in the next scene they are back in civilisation. Or how Diana and Steve Trevor got to London, apparently in a single night, with their sailing boat from Themyscira. Or why Diana under Circe's control has to climb Olympus instead of simply flying to the top in The Witching Hour.
    The clear difference being that none of these points are significant to the action occurring or make the protagonists seems much less capable. I agree that the boat ride was odd and needed some thought, but it didn't make you think "Wow, Wonder Woman is having trouble with stuff that Spider-Man would sail through."

    Economy of storytelling means that writers cannot cover everything. Rule of drama is the main method to handle these elisions: as long as you keep the reader entertained and engaged, then the elisions don't turn into plot holes. [
    In which regard Wilson failed with me. Also, some people seem to mistake the word economy for famine.

    In a way, the more a reader demands that powers be used in order to enjoy a character, the more they condition themselves to not enjoy a fun story, and the harder it is to entertain them.
    So again, we are back to it being the reader's fault. "You conditioned yourself to expect to much and be too observant, and now you have to suffer for it."

    And I would just like to say, to anyone reading this, do not believe this. Do not buy into this idea that having high expectations for books you pay money for is a bad thing, or that it's wrong to be prepared to think about what you read.
    Last edited by brettc1; 01-04-2019 at 03:47 PM.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  7. #52
    Extraordinary Member kjn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    4,875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    Of course. If the story doesn't make sense, it must be the fault of the reader for being to observant or thinking too much.
    You're using a rather wide definition of "doesn't make sense" here. First, because there are several possible reasons for why Wonder Woman chooses to walk rather than fly in any given scene, or why she chooses to not bust every gun within a mile. We just aren't told. Second, because at least I try to look at a story not making sense if the characters are acting without clear motivations, scenes are just jumbled so it's impossible to follow the narrative, or everything is driven by coincidences or deus ex machinas.

    If someone said Heroes in Crisis doesn't make sense, I wouldn't necessarily agree, but I could certainly see an argument for the proposition. But here Diana acts with clear motivations and strives to help and assist noncombatants as she encounters them, which is entirely in character for her. There are coincidences, but they are used sparingly and to move from one part of the plot to another. There is a clear and relatively simple story progression.

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    The clear difference being that none of these points are significant to the action occurring or make the protagonists seems much less capable. I agree that the boat ride was odd and needed some thought, but it didn't make you think "Wow, Wonder Woman is having trouble with stuff that Spider-Man would sail through."
    So plot holes are good if they imply extra powers? That seems to be sort of a corollary to what you say.

    Importantly, there is also a correlation between character effort and narrative meaning in story. The No Man's Land scene was so powerful in part because Wonder Woman reached the limits of her abilities. But in doing so, it helped to build up her heroism and reader engagement in her character. And Patty Jenkins could use that in the end when the final showdown with Ares deliberately echoes back to No Man's Land, with a Wonder Woman with her powers unlocked and her heroism established. Doing it the other way around wouldn't have worked.

    It's more important for general reader engagement that Wonder Woman is shown to expand effort to save two lost kids than it is for her to simply arrive with them safe and sound somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    So again, we are back to it being the reader's fault. "You conditioned yourself to expect to much and be too observant, and now you have to suffer for it."
    I have spent various periods being hyper-critical about fiction, and it's no fun in the long term. It's a process any advanced reader have gone through. One learns to be observant about narratives and storytelling patterns, and then one has to learn how to turn it off and on at need, and possibly how to enjoy the craftsmanship used in crafting the story. That way one also learns how to enjoy far more types of stories than one otherwise would.

  8. #53
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaelforce View Post
    Would you say the same thing if it were Superman?

    Or the Flash?
    Neither the Flash or Superman have Ares as a major antagonist, and Ares needs a grounded human conflict as a backdrop to work or else he is meaningless. Said grounded human conflict needs to remain grounded/dangerous to discuss it seriously, which is why Wonder Woman zipping around and evacuating everyone from the city and disarming the combatants to keep everyone safe always would be stupid and render the story/Ares as pointless. Blame Marston for giving her Ares as a villain. Maybe we'd be better off without him? And at least in this story, Diana is breaking his weapons and hurling lightning back at him.

    I don't notice a lot of effort (if any) being expended by Diana when rescuing the kids. Her remaining on the ground later is more questionable, but it's also only a couple pages. And doesn't the Flash's speed always get a bit nerfed so his enemies can hit him with boomerangs, ice guns and exploding toys?

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    And I would just like to say, to anyone reading this, do not believe this. Do not buy into this idea that having high expectations for books you pay money for is a bad thing, or that it's wrong to be prepared to think about what you read.
    I don't think kjn is saying not to think about what you read. In fact, they seem to put more thought and are prepared for discussing things than many posters, especially for this run. But this is escapist entertainment about make believe superheroes. There is such a thing as putting too much thought into this material starring characters that were designed for kids in the 1940s especially when it tries to bring in grounded real world elements that are inevitably going to clash with other tropes.

    I also disagree that readers being willing to let things slide or not overthink everything don't have high expectations.
    Last edited by SiegePerilous02; 01-04-2019 at 04:43 PM.

  9. #54
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjn View Post
    You're using a rather wide definition of "doesn't make sense" here. First, because there are several possible reasons for why Wonder Woman chooses to walk rather than fly in any given scene, or why she chooses to not bust every gun within a mile. We just aren't told.
    And why is that? Is it because the writer ran out of space. No, that is not it, because I could point to any of the last seven issues of Domino by Gail Simone and you would see a lot more value for money in terms of what the writer gives the audience to READ.

    It baffles me that people think the writer is going a better job if they give the reader less to work with and makes them do the thinking themselves.

    Even more so if the reader actually DOES think and then decided the writer needed to do more.


    If someone said Heroes in Crisis doesn't make sense, I wouldn't necessarily agree, but I could certainly see an argument for the proposition. But here Diana acts with clear motivations and strives to help and assist noncombatants as she encounters them, which is entirely in character for her. There are coincidences, but they are used sparingly and to move from one part of the plot to another. There is a clear and relatively simple story progression.
    I would agree that in this regard, the story is simple.



    So plot holes are good if they imply extra powers? That seems to be sort of a corollary to what you say.

    Importantly, there is also a correlation between character effort and narrative meaning in story. The No Man's Land scene was so powerful in part because Wonder Woman reached the limits of her abilities. But in doing so, it helped to build up her heroism and reader engagement in her character. And Patty Jenkins could use that in the end when the final showdown with Ares deliberately echoes back to No Man's Land, with a Wonder Woman with her powers unlocked and her heroism established. Doing it the other way around wouldn't have worked.
    The problem is if you are a long term reader of Wonder Woman comics, her reading the limit of her abilities here is ridiculous. It's like saying the Flash has to push himself to the limit to catch a super-sonic missile, and its a reason that other writers then take up those stories and write Wonder Woman in crossovers as Captain America in swimsuit.


    I have spent various periods being hyper-critical about fiction, and it's no fun in the long term. It's a process any advanced reader have gone through. One learns to be observant about narratives and storytelling patterns, and then one has to learn how to turn it off and on at need, and possibly how to enjoy the craftsmanship used in crafting the story. That way one also learns how to enjoy far more types of stories than one otherwise would.
    '

    There is being hyper critical, and then there is simply refusing to turn off one's brain so that you don't feel like you are wasting your money.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  10. #55
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Neither the Flash or Superman have Ares as a major antagonist, and Ares needs a grounded human conflict as a backdrop to work or else he is meaningless. Said grounded human conflict needs to remain grounded/dangerous to discuss it seriously, which is why Wonder Woman zipping around and evacuating everyone from the city and disarming the combatants to keep everyone safe always would be stupid and render the story/Ares as pointless. Blame Marston for giving her Ares as a villain. Maybe we'd be better off without him? And at least in this story, Diana is breaking his weapons and hurling lightning back at him.

    I don't notice a lot of effort (if any) being expended by Diana when rescuing the kids. Her remaining on the ground later is more questionable, but it's also only a couple pages. And doesn't the Flash's speed always get a bit nerfed so his enemies can hit him with boomerangs, ice guns and exploding toys?



    I don't think kjn is saying not to think about what you read. In fact, they seem to put more thought and are prepared for discussing things than many posters, especially for this run. But this is escapist entertainment about make believe superheroes. There is such a thing as putting too much thought into this material starring characters that were designed for kids in the 1940s especially when it tries to bring in grounded real world elements that are inevitably going to clash with other tropes.

    I also disagree that readers being willing to let things slide or not overthink everything don't have high expectations.
    Enemies, yes. Regular guys with guns? Not so much.

    No, Superman doesn't have Ares. He has Lex Luthor, a 'regular' guy who regularly comes up with stuff to really test the Kryptonian.

    So give me something. Show me a tank battalion attacking. Show me a swarm of ex-Soviet HIND helicopters. But don't show me them really pushing Diana to her limits, because if a bunch of well armed soldiers can do that then a god should mop the floor with her.

    Scenes like this is a reason why we get scenes of Harley Quinn kicking Wonder Woman in the face and stealing her lasso.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  11. #56
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    Enemies, yes. Regular guys with guns? Not so much.

    No, Superman doesn't have Ares. He has Lex Luthor, a 'regular' guy who regularly comes up with stuff to really test the Kryptonian.

    So give me something. Show me a tank battalion attacking. Show me a swarm of ex-Soviet HIND helicopters. But don't show me them really pushing Diana to her limits, because if a bunch of well armed soldiers can do that then a god should mop the floor with her.

    Scenes like this is a reason why we get scenes of Harley Quinn kicking Wonder Woman in the face and stealing her lasso.
    Lex is a larger than life mad scientist who has been trying to kill Superman with black holes and lighting since the two of them were children. Calling him a regular guy is hilariously false. If you want a story about human war, you do not fill it with guys like that, because it ceases being a grounded story. You might as well not bother telling a story about war if you are gonna fill it with Lex Luthors.

    Ares requires a grounded human conflict as a backdrop to work, he cannot be defeated outright because he represents a human capacity for violence, which is an abstract idea that can never be overcome with fists. Otherwise he's just a rampaging meta, whom she can clearly fight. He didn't wipe the floor with her in the movie and he didn't wipe the floor with her here. So your saying a God can wipe the floor with her doesn't hold up because we very clearly see that he cannot.

    If you have issues with the No Man's Land scene pushing her limits, that's ignoring the context that the origin film was her still discovering her powers and not even knowing what her limits are, and still growing into them. That scene does not lead to scenes like Harley stealing her lasso. One was a very well received scene in a very well received film, the other is only encountered by comics fans. Comic fans complaining about the No Man's Land scene nerfing her is just a bunch of noise, because it worked for the majority of the audiences and critics and worked in the context of the story and where Diana was at in her life. It wouldn't work later on, but just starting out and only just coming to understand what she's capable of? It works perfectly.

  12. #57
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Lex is a larger than life mad scientist who has been trying to kill Superman with black holes and lighting since the two of them were children. Calling him a regular guy is hilariously false. If you want a story about human war, you do not fill it with guys like that, because it ceases being a grounded story. You might as well not bother telling a story about war if you are gonna fill it with Lex Luthors.

    Ares requires a grounded human conflict as a backdrop to work, he cannot be defeated outright because he represents a human capacity for violence, which is an abstract idea that can never be overcome with fists. Otherwise he's just a rampaging meta, whom she can clearly fight. He didn't wipe the floor with her in the movie and he didn't wipe the floor with her here. So your saying a God can wipe the floor with her doesn't hold up because we very clearly see that he cannot.

    If you have issues with the No Man's Land scene pushing her limits, that's ignoring the context that the origin film was her still discovering her powers and not even knowing what her limits are, and still growing into them. That scene does not lead to scenes like Harley stealing her lasso. One was a very well received scene in a very well received film, the other is only encountered by comics fans. Comic fans complaining about the No Man's Land scene nerfing her is just a bunch of noise, because it worked for the majority of the audiences and critics and worked in the context of the story and where Diana was at in her life. It wouldn't work later on, but just starting out and only just coming to understand what she's capable of? It works perfectly.
    And Ares isn't a larger than life threat? If Gods can't mop the floor with her, then why was WW having trouble saving 2 kids? I guess the Gods themselves are weak then, if a WW that has some difficulty with well armed soldiers can face them. Which is not a surprise. Countless writers treat WW, her villains and supporting cast as a stepping stone for other characters.

    This is not the movie. WW is not discovering her powers here like she was in no man's land. In the comics she has been battleing for many many years, and has powers from other Gods on top of having powers from Zeus. Unlike the movie where she only has powers from his father. So yes, i do expect a WW with so many godly powers to be capable of saving a bunch of kids easily. What are we going to have in the finale of this arc? The battle between Diana and Ares should be a big deal, battle of 2 Gods. But i'm sure it won't be. I bet there is a chance that she won't even fight at all. They will find a different way to end it. And that could be cool, if it wasn't for the fact that we haven't had an epic powerhouse type of battle in Wonder Woman book in almost a freaking decade. gww can take a hike if this is the best she has to offer.

  13. #58
    Extraordinary Member kjn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    4,875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    And why is that? Is it because the writer ran out of space. No, that is not it, because I could point to any of the last seven issues of Domino by Gail Simone and you would see a lot more value for money in terms of what the writer gives the audience to READ.
    One thing I've learned through reading is that it's seldom the amount of words that determine enjoyment. Many of my favourite works are short stories or novellas. I'm still learning to read comics, and so far I'm focusing on learning the visual storytelling used, partly because I find the typographical conventions of comics to be rather unsuited to concentrated reading.

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    The problem is if you are a long term reader of Wonder Woman comics, her reading the limit of her abilities here is ridiculous. It's like saying the Flash has to push himself to the limit to catch a super-sonic missile, and its a reason that other writers then take up those stories and write Wonder Woman in crossovers as Captain America in swimsuit.
    Flash catching a missile should be easier for him than Wonder Woman, no argument. Him stopping it dead in its tracks wholly another, that'd require a lot of effort or ingenuity.

    But this also goes back to the discussion about #60. Wonder Woman acts slightly differently from other superheroes, or actors in this story. Ares (and for that matter Etta Candy) desires peace through security. Their peace is an dead battlefield. Diana desires security through peace, and thinks more like a teacher than a soldier. Her peace is soldiers giving each other hell by playing soccer with each other.

    Seen from that lens, her accompanying two kids is entirely in character. She could destroy everything in sight, but that would escalate the conflict. She wants to teach the kids how to handle a situation like this on their own, when she isn't there. She makes a risk assesment that sneaking over ground was preferably to flying relatively slowly (to keep the kids safe), but changes it once they are actually fired upon.

    I wrote earlier about effort expanded to help the kids, and I might need to nuance that. The actual physical effort is probably negligible. But the emotional effort isn't, and her letting two kids keep pace with her limits her physical options considerably. So it's part emotional investment, part accepting limitations on her actions.

    To take the battalion of soldiers as another example. Diana of this story would have no problem destroying (as in killing a large fraction of) even a well-prepared and experienced infantry battalion. But that's not her nature. Getting past them or subduing when they know she is coming and without causing undue harm to them is the real challenge that she faces.

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    There is being hyper critical, and then there is simply refusing to turn off one's brain so that you don't feel like you are wasting your money.
    No, I'm not saying that you need to turn off your brain. Rather, that increasing one's ability to see patterns in fiction needs to be matched by increasing one's ability to unsee or enjoy those patterns by understanding them. To use the brain more.

    Take fridging. Once one learns to see fridging, i.e. becomes sensitised to it, one can see it everywhere. One reaction to that is to quit enjoying fiction that employs it, but then you run the risk of starting to see (or create) false positives, or becoming so sensitive that nearly any bad thing happening to a female character causes you to lose enjoyment. A more fruitful approach is to study it and one's own reactions to it, to learn where it is justified, or to set it aside to enjoy the rest of the story. Because one fridging by itself is not necessarily a bad thing—the problem is the pattern of systematic use in stories.

    Because I'm afraid that's what has happened to some posters here. Due to the many mistreatments (both in characterisationa and in nerfings) and repeated discussion, one becomes too sensitised to nerfings without learning coping mechanism to handle that sensitivity.

  14. #59
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjn View Post
    One thing I've learned through reading is that it's seldom the amount of words that determine enjoyment. Many of my favourite works are short stories or novellas. I'm still learning to read comics, and so far I'm focusing on learning the visual storytelling used, partly because I find the typographical conventions of comics to be rather unsuited to concentrated reading.



    Flash catching a missile should be easier for him than Wonder Woman, no argument. Him stopping it dead in its tracks wholly another, that'd require a lot of effort or ingenuity.

    But this also goes back to the discussion about #60. Wonder Woman acts slightly differently from other superheroes, or actors in this story. Ares (and for that matter Etta Candy) desires peace through security. Their peace is an dead battlefield. Diana desires security through peace, and thinks more like a teacher than a soldier. Her peace is soldiers giving each other hell by playing soccer with each other.

    Seen from that lens, her accompanying two kids is entirely in character. She could destroy everything in sight, but that would escalate the conflict. She wants to teach the kids how to handle a situation like this on their own, when she isn't there. She makes a risk assesment that sneaking over ground was preferably to flying relatively slowly (to keep the kids safe), but changes it once they are actually fired upon.

    I wrote earlier about effort expanded to help the kids, and I might need to nuance that. The actual physical effort is probably negligible. But the emotional effort isn't, and her letting two kids keep pace with her limits her physical options considerably. So it's part emotional investment, part accepting limitations on her actions.

    To take the battalion of soldiers as another example. Diana of this story would have no problem destroying (as in killing a large fraction of) even a well-prepared and experienced infantry battalion. But that's not her nature. Getting past them or subduing when they know she is coming and without causing undue harm to them is the real challenge that she faces.



    No, I'm not saying that you need to turn off your brain. Rather, that increasing one's ability to see patterns in fiction needs to be matched by increasing one's ability to unsee or enjoy those patterns by understanding them. To use the brain more.

    Take fridging. Once one learns to see fridging, i.e. becomes sensitised to it, one can see it everywhere. One reaction to that is to quit enjoying fiction that employs it, but then you run the risk of starting to see (or create) false positives, or becoming so sensitive that nearly any bad thing happening to a female character causes you to lose enjoyment. A more fruitful approach is to study it and one's own reactions to it, to learn where it is justified, or to set it aside to enjoy the rest of the story. Because one fridging by itself is not necessarily a bad thing—the problem is the pattern of systematic use in stories.

    Because I'm afraid that's what has happened to some posters here. Due to the many mistreatments (both in characterisationa and in nerfings) and repeated discussion, one becomes too sensitised to nerfings without learning coping mechanism to handle that sensitivity.
    So basically other heroes can do things easily. But everything must be a struggle for WW. Otherwise the stories aren't good or "interesting" No thank you. I'm not here for super human xena. I'm here for Wonder Woman. With the powers of Gods. That can easily outspeed a misssile. Swin through lava. Take hits from kryptonians, walk out of a nuclear explosion like it's nothing, etc. That is WW. Not the one we are getting in many comics since 2011. gww so far is sounding like another writer that fakes her respect for the character of WW. She nerfed her like others and she is a woman that loves to talk about female power. She should be ashamed.
    Last edited by starlight25; 01-04-2019 at 06:29 PM.

  15. #60
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,505

    Default

    Anyone who knows the Flash's powers knows if he can get to the missile he can just vibe his hand inside it. And faster than sound is NOT fast for the Flash.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

Posting Permissions

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