Let's Say Only 7 Rogues ...

[WonderScott]

I guess I've just given up on potentially GREAT villains, like Inversion, Kung and Bushmaster, getting a chance at shining in this comic. Maybe, if the list was top 10...

I’m still hopeful. I think it’s going to take a run from someone like Orlando who I could see redeeming some from his seemingly understanding of Diana’s deep bench of unused foes.

Other than that, I can only hope Johns would do a years-long run like he did with Flash and developed the Rogues fantastically and in a meaningful way... which I tend to think takes a little time thinking about and immersing oneself in and rejoicing in the Amazing Amazon’s adversaries.

[Vordan]

I’m still hopeful. I think it’s going to take a run from someone like Orlando who I could see redeeming some from his seemingly understanding of Diana’s deep bench of unused foes.

Other than that, I can only hope Johns would do a years-long run like he did with Flash and developed the Rogues fantastically and in a meaningful way... which I tend to think takes a little time thinking about and immersing oneself in and rejoicing in the Amazing Amazon’s adversaries.

Don’t know about Johns by Snyder has said he wants to do a run on WW.

[WonderScott]

Don’t know about Johns by Snyder has said he wants to do a run on WW.

I'd read it, but he hasn't wowed me lately. And my guess is he'd focus on a lot of his own creations than dig into her mythology.

King on the other hand might breathe some life back into some of her marginalized/forgotten foes.

[kjn]

I'd rather that DC focused on fixing the art situation right now than trying to replace Wilson. I know a lot of people here are unhappy with her run, but (a) I think a lot of the complaints are due to the art, (b) would come nearly no matter which stories are told. Wilson's storytelling style might not be everyone's cup of tea, but she clearly has ideas on how to develop Diana in ways that feels true to her character and a long-running storyline planned that should end with Themyscira (or at least Amazon society) back in play in Diana's world for the first time since the New 52.

Given Tom King's way of writing Wonder Woman in Heroes in Crisis, I don't trust him with Diana at all. He clearly has no idea on how to use her character outside of clearly limited circumstances.

If DC wants to do another game of musical chairs, I'd much rather they picked up a writer who has shown a strong understanding of Diana already. Amanda Conner or James Tynion IV comes to mind.

[SiegePerilous02]

Wilson is willingly doing a Giganta arc, we haven't had a writer do that in...ever (Simone just had her as a one issue cameo). And her writing is similar enough to Rucka's that I'm fine with her staying. Like Kjn said, the art is the major drawback. And she's obviously not picking the artists herself. I'd rather swap the art out first and see how it goes before her. If she had Scott, Sharp or Evely this run would be considerably better.

I'd like Seeley to come on board eventually. His only misstep was Diana and Hippolyta butting heads in his Walmart issue, which (considering he's such a Morrison fanboy) may have been inspired by Earth One. And it was certainly less extreme and not necessarily how he'd write the Rebirth dynamic, plus it had an awesome Echidna. And my dude brought Eviless and Crimson Centipede back just because he felt like it. I'd trust him more than King, Snyder or Johns. The former is iffy with Diana, the latter two are as well and have had underwhelming Cheetah's.

[Vordan]

I'd read it, but he hasn't wowed me lately. And my guess is he'd focus on a lot of his own creations than dig into her mythology.

King on the other hand might breathe some life back into some of her marginalized/forgotten foes.

You’re probably right. From what I recall of his WW pitch he wants to write about a magical apocalypse. Now that sounds like the type of thing that would be perfect for Circe, and if he used her I’d be all over it. If instead he created some OC I’d be a little more skeptical.

Wilson is willingly doing a Giganta arc, we haven't had a writer do that in...ever (Simone just had her as a one issue cameo). And her writing is similar enough to Rucka's that I'm fine with her staying. Like Kjn said, the art is the major drawback. And she's obviously not picking the artists herself. I'd rather swap the art out first and see how it goes before her. If she had Scott, Sharp or Evely this run would be considerably better.

I'd like Seeley to come on board eventually. His only misstep was Diana and Hippolyta butting heads in his Walmart issue, which (considering he's such a Morrison fanboy) may have been inspired by Earth One. And it was certainly less extreme and not necessarily how he'd write the Rebirth dynamic, plus it had an awesome Echidna. And my dude brought Eviless and Crimson Centipede back just because he felt like it. I'd trust him more than King, Snyder or Johns. The former is iffy with Diana, the latter two are as well and have had underwhelming Cheetah's.

Seeley would be an interesting pick. He managed to use Nightwing’s old Rogues in interesting ways even though Seeley isn’t a fan of Nightwing’s Rogues Gallery and Bludhaven status quo.

[WonderScott]

I'd rather that DC focused on fixing the art situation right now than trying to replace Wilson. I know a lot of people here are unhappy with her run, but (a) I think a lot of the complaints are due to the art, (b) would come nearly no matter which stories are told. Wilson's storytelling style might not be everyone's cup of tea, but she clearly has ideas on how to develop Diana in ways that feels true to her character and a long-running storyline planned that should end with Themyscira (or at least Amazon society) back in play in Diana's world for the first time since the New 52.

Given Tom King's way of writing Wonder Woman in Heroes in Crisis, I don't trust him with Diana at all. He clearly has no idea on how to use her character outside of clearly limited circumstances.

If DC wants to do another game of musical chairs, I'd much rather they picked up a writer who has shown a strong understanding of Diana already. Amanda Conner or James Tynion IV comes to mind.

IDK, judging King's abilities based on Heroes in Crisis seems like a raw deal considering his work on Batman and Mr. Miracle. I'm assuming that editor and publisher interference is what doomed HiC right out of the gate, considering what his original, thoughtful creative pitch was.

::shrugs shoulders::

I do agree about Nord's art though. Something about GWW's storytelling and Nord's art isn't gelling.

[WonderScott]

Wilson is willingly doing a Giganta arc, we haven't had a writer do that in...ever (Simone just had her as a one issue cameo). And her writing is similar enough to Rucka's that I'm fine with her staying. Like Kjn said, the art is the major drawback. And she's obviously not picking the artists herself. I'd rather swap the art out first and see how it goes before her. If she had Scott, Sharp or Evely this run would be considerably better.

I'd like Seeley to come on board eventually. His only misstep was Diana and Hippolyta butting heads in his Walmart issue, which (considering he's such a Morrison fanboy) may have been inspired by Earth One. And it was certainly less extreme and not necessarily how he'd write the Rebirth dynamic, plus it had an awesome Echidna. And my dude brought Eviless and Crimson Centipede back just because he felt like it. I'd trust him more than King, Snyder or Johns. The former is iffy with Diana, the latter two are as well and have had underwhelming Cheetah's.

I'm feeling a Seeley run... and I'd pair him with, and have them work together on, a second Wonder Woman book by Tynion, considering how well JLD is going.

[kjn]

I might be looking for something else in writers for Wonder Woman, but I wasn't that impressed with Orlando's run. His first issue was great, but the second two were basically action without plot or real character work, and his last two were poorly plotted with some rather racist tropes thrown in. He can write a decent enough Diana for one-shots, but I'm not sure I'd trust him longterm with her world and character.

Seeley has shown too little. I haven't read the story he wrote for Giant, but I wasn't impressed with the Steve Trevor special at all. I'm not sure it was his idea to bring in Sameer, Chief, and Charlie, but they lost all the things that made them interesting and relatable in the movie in the process.

As for King, I haven't seen his original pitch for Heroes in Crisis, but the more I look at it, the more it feels like he can only write women as emotional support props for the men around. He is sincerely interested in questions of mental health, but his take on Diana in the booth session in HiC #2 felt way out from the left field. I have no idea what his original pitch for HiC was, but I don't think editorial decisions impacted the way he writes Diana in HiC in any way.

[Mel Dyer]

I don't think demanding writers to re-litigate the merit of WW's more obscure rogues, by using them in stories, is necessarily better, than creating...newer, better rogues? I'm all for seeing development of worthy, new additions to WW's rogues gallery, like Grail, if their development yields long-term successes for the title.

[kjn]

I don't think demanding writers to re-litigate the merit of WW's more obscure rogues, by using them in stories, is necessarily better, than creating...newer, better rogues? I'm all for seeing development of worthy, new additions to WW's rogues gallery, like Grail, if their development yields long-term successes for the title.

I don't think there is any contradiction between wanting to bring back old villains with creating new ones. You need both.

That said, I do think that many of the modern villains are fundamentally hollow as characters. They are created to be powerful first instead of starting with a strong personality or motivation. The reason why the Joker, the Penguin, Lex Luthor, or the Riddler are memorable characters is not because they are powerful, but because they are interesting as characters and that is used to forge strong relations to the protagonist.

[SiegePerilous02]

Seeley has shown too little. I haven't read the story he wrote for Giant, but I wasn't impressed with the Steve Trevor special at all. I'm not sure it was his idea to bring in Sameer, Chief, and Charlie, but they lost all the things that made them interesting and relatable in the movie in the process.

He had two stories in the Giants. The first one with Diana and Ares was more well received than the story with Hippolyta, but the latter still had Hippolyta resolve the situation without violence. Which is what the Amazons should be doing.

As for the one-shot...eh, I'm sure the order to bring in the Oddfellows came from on high as it was around the time of the film. And there's not a realistic way he could transplant them as-is, considering it takes place in a different time period and has a limited amount of time compared to a film. I liked them a lot in the movie, but they're still very low on my priority list compared to the comic characters. He has a good enough grasp on Diana, Steve and a villainous Ares (not hard to do, admittedly), could probably write a killer Etta, loves her old villains, and I'd be willing to give him another chance on Hippolyta, that I'd love him on the title.

[Mel Dyer]

I don't think there is any contradiction between wanting to bring back old villains with creating new ones. You need both.

That said, I do think that many of the modern villains are fundamentally hollow as characters. They are created to be powerful first instead of starting with a strong personality or motivation. The reason why the Joker, the Penguin, Lex Luthor, or the Riddler are memorable characters is not because they are powerful, but because they are interesting as characters and that is used to forge strong relations to the protagonist.

A good villain devotes his/her very existence to doing something that the hero feels compelled to stop them from doing. Sometimes the villain is like a force of nature or an animal, whose base nature - his design - marries him to a villainous purpose, ..such that he literally can't help it. The villain's work or vocation is an antithesis to that, which the hero holds most dear, like the fascist Nazi fighting freedom-loving Amazon. Comparatively, comic book superheroes are typically reactionary heroes, who answer a call to stop the villain from doing that, which violates what is sacred to him.

When the hero's purpose or mission is as mutable or unintelligible, as Wonder Woman's has been, you have a problem. Whether considering the importance of one villain or seven doesn't matter, because, since the 1940s, no writer has established what is most important to Wonder Woman or what her mission is.

It's very hard to create an arch-villain for this hero.

[kjn]

When the hero's purpose or mission is as mutable or unintelligible, as Wonder Woman's has been, you have a problem. Whether considering the importance of one villain or seven doesn't matter, because, since the 1940s, no writer has established what is most important to Wonder Woman or what her mission is.

It's very hard to create an arch-villain for this hero.

I'd say that Wonder Woman already has two excellent arch-villains for different purposes. One is Ares, as the one pulled out for origin tales and one-shots. He functions well in that role already. The other is Doctor Psycho. I mean, you can't get more antithetical to Wonder Woman than a villain who is centered on misogyny and mind control. Drop the dwarfism, and you're good to go.

For what it's worth, I consider Wonder Woman to be an activist hero: she wants to change Man's World. I think that's part of why so many creators have such trouble with her, because they subconsciously shy away from how radical Wonder Woman should be as a character.