Wonder Woman - General Discussion

[SonOfBaldwin]

C2E2 ’22: The legacy and importance of Wonder Woman

While DC did not have an official presence at this weekend’s C2E2, one of the publisher’s most iconic characters was still in the spotlight as Saturday saw a panel dedicated to The Legacy and Importance of Wonder Woman. Among the panelists were a number of creators who have worked on the amazing Amazon and her world, including artist Gene Ha (Wonder Woman: Historia – The Amazons, Book Two), writer/artist Sanya Anwar (Sensational Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman: Black & Gold), artist Ashley Woods (Wonder Woman: Black & Gold), and writer/artist Daniel Warren Johnson (Wonder Woman: Dead Earth).

https://www.comicsbeat.com/c2e2-22-t...-wonder-woman/

[PopQuezy]

C2E2 ’22: The legacy and importance of Wonder Woman





https://www.comicsbeat.com/c2e2-22-t...-wonder-woman/

" The moderator praised characters like Ares and Circe, and Johnson sighed and said that, when he was working on Dead Earth, he was really bored by Diana’s villains, so he changed them for his story."

Maybe it was just the way it was written, but there was something about the entire write-up that irked me. Unlike Cloonrad who seem to legitimately love the Wonder Woman character and her world, this write-up seemed like people getting paid to be there. In particular, the part about her villains irked me the most. I put a little quote above, but at a a panel about the "legacy" and "importance" or Wonder Woman, why on earth are you calling her villains boring?

Besides that, some of the article just made me wonder how much time they'd truly spend in Diana's world. While one person mentions reading her comics from the 40s, there was just something very shallow and surface level to the interview. While I liked some of it, mostly these felt like the wrong presenters to be discussing the "legacy" and "importance" of Wonder Woman when they were getting some basic story elements incorrect.

[Gaius]

" The moderator praised characters like Ares and Circe, and Johnson sighed and said that, when he was working on Dead Earth, he was really bored by Diana’s villains, so he changed them for his story."

Maybe it was just the way it was written, but there was something about the entire write-up that irked me. Unlike Cloonrad who seem to legitimately love the Wonder Woman character and her world, this write-up seemed like people getting paid to be there. In particular, the part about her villains irked me the most. I put a little quote above, but at a a panel about the "legacy" and "importance" or Wonder Woman, why on earth are you calling her villains boring?

Besides that, some of the article just made me wonder how much time they'd truly spend in Diana's world. While one person mentions reading her comics from the 40s, there was just something very shallow and surface level to the interview. While I liked some of it, mostly these felt like the wrong presenters to be discussing the "legacy" and "importance" of Wonder Woman when they were getting some basic story elements incorrect.

Yeah, some off the stuff that panel annoyed me.

Ironically, Johnson did the villain pinup for the 80th special and only featured Ares (who looked like a rorschach test) and Cheetah from Dead Earth.

[WonderLight789]

" The moderator praised characters like Ares and Circe, and Johnson sighed and said that, when he was working on Dead Earth, he was really bored by Diana’s villains, so he changed them for his story."

Maybe it was just the way it was written, but there was something about the entire write-up that irked me. Unlike Cloonrad who seem to legitimately love the Wonder Woman character and her world, this write-up seemed like people getting paid to be there. In particular, the part about her villains irked me the most. I put a little quote above, but at a a panel about the "legacy" and "importance" or Wonder Woman, why on earth are you calling her villains boring?

Besides that, some of the article just made me wonder how much time they'd truly spend in Diana's world. While one person mentions reading her comics from the 40s, there was just something very shallow and surface level to the interview. While I liked some of it, mostly these felt like the wrong presenters to be discussing the "legacy" and "importance" of Wonder Woman when they were getting some basic story elements incorrect.

Another example of lipservice. They just throw empty words. But clearly they have no clue.

[bardkeep]

Maybe it’s just the way the article is written but it doesn’t sound like half the people there even like Wonder Woman. I don’t want Ashley Woods anywhere near the character (making her more gritty and violent and styling her after God of War? Ick…). I actually liked Dead Earth but it doesn’t sound like DWJ is particularly interested in her or her world either.

And I’m a little tired of the belief that she needs some low point or central trauma to be “relatable” - surely the poor woman has been abused enough in her stories even if her origin isn’t defined by a personal tragedy, plus sacrificing paradise even under the pretense that she can never return is a pretty huge cost. Superman, Wally West Flash, at least half of the Green Lanterns, Thor…there are countless huge superheroes who don’t have one personal trauma in their origin that defines them, idk what’s with the frequent insistence that Diana suffer more.

That said, I need Gene Ha’s League of Extraordinary Gentlewomen and Sanya Anwar’s Amazon A-Team books, like, yesterday.

[Gaius]

Honestly, sounds like the moderator was the biggest fan.

[Agent Z]

If they’re smart they’ll just adapt Wonder Woman: Guts by everyone’s favourite WW writer Brian Azzarello lol but seriously, say what you will about the new 52, that story’s hard to beat

And I can easily see how they could use it in WW3 in a way that doesn’t involve Steve, if say Diana’s only way back to Paradise Island is through the Underworld

Wonder Woman had over a decade of stories where Steve was either absent or had little involvement before the New 52.

[VonHammersmark]

Wonder Woman had over a decade of stories where Steve was either absent or had little involvement before the New 52.

Wonder Woman: Guts is that new 52 story where Diana journeys to the Underworld to bring Zola back. What I’m saying is I’d love to see that story adapted in a way that doesn’t involve her going down there to bring Steve back. Instead, Diana crosses the Underworld in order to go home (through Doom’s Doorway) because, lets say Paradise Island is under assault and they need her help

[Walter Simonson]

Sorry. Meant to post a response to a message above but didn't manage to get that to work. Lemme try again.

[Walter Simonson]

But only for 6 issues. He crammed a lot of ideas celebrating WWs and the Amazons' deal but it was so dense a lot was overlooked. I think the bizarre wedding/compulsory union stuff dominated my attention. I want a full 36 months so he could really dig into the concepts. Whereas Morrison choked and did not deliver excellence Simonson did well overall by the characters' design and trappings

I was hired by DC to write only those six issues. Phil was getting off the book and Greg was to take over as the writer, but there was going to be six months between the time Phil left and the time Greg could begin writing it. So I was hired to fill that window. Greg had let DC know that he was not going to be using Trevor so I tried writing a story that would, among other things, cover his absence when Greg's issues began and still do it in a dramatic fashion. Whatever I did with Trevor, he wouldn't have been around after my last issue. I enjoyed writing Wonder Woman. I think it would have been fun to write and draw her at some point.

[Vordan]

" The moderator praised characters like Ares and Circe, and Johnson sighed and said that, when he was working on Dead Earth, he was really bored by Diana’s villains, so he changed them for his story."

Maybe it was just the way it was written, but there was something about the entire write-up that irked me. Unlike Cloonrad who seem to legitimately love the Wonder Woman character and her world, this write-up seemed like people getting paid to be there. In particular, the part about her villains irked me the most. I put a little quote above, but at a a panel about the "legacy" and "importance" or Wonder Woman, why on earth are you calling her villains boring?

Besides that, some of the article just made me wonder how much time they'd truly spend in Diana's world. While one person mentions reading her comics from the 40s, there was just something very shallow and surface level to the interview. While I liked some of it, mostly these felt like the wrong presenters to be discussing the "legacy" and "importance" of Wonder Woman when they were getting some basic story elements incorrect.

Ok then revamp them Johnson, I don’t get why so many writers miss this obvious solution. Dini and Timm didn’t like the original Mr. Freeze so they completely changed him up for the DCAU. You could’ve taken a similar approach for some of WW’s Rogues instead of going for the incredibly boring route of making the Amazons the bad guys again.

[Gaius]

Ok then revamp them Johnson, I don’t get why so many writers miss this obvious solution. Dini and Timm didn’t like the original Mr. Freeze so they completely changed him up for the DCAU. You could’ve taken a similar approach for some of WW’s Rogues instead of going for the incredibly boring route of making the Amazons the bad guys again.

[Stanlos]

I was hired by DC to write only those six issues. Phil was getting off the book and Greg was to take over as the writer, but there was going to be six months between the time Phil left and the time Greg could begin writing it. So I was hired to fill that window. Greg had let DC know that he was not going to be using Trevor so I tried writing a story that would, among other things, cover his absence when Greg's issues began and still do it in a dramatic fashion. Whatever I did with Trevor, he wouldn't have been around after my last issue. I enjoyed writing Wonder Woman. I think it would have been fun to write and draw her at some point.

Thanks so much, Walt! I really enjoyed your work on WW and the unapologetic way in which you celebrated the prowess of the Amazons and the Wonder Woman's abilities. Hopefully one day you will get to do a long form run with the classical trappings! And thanks so much for the delightful Becca. I hope we see her again

[WonderScott]

If your POV is that Diana’s villains are “boring,” then my POV is you may not be thinking very creatively about them.

[BiteTheBullet]

I was hired by DC to write only those six issues. Phil was getting off the book and Greg was to take over as the writer, but there was going to be six months between the time Phil left and the time Greg could begin writing it. So I was hired to fill that window. Greg had let DC know that he was not going to be using Trevor so I tried writing a story that would, among other things, cover his absence when Greg's issues began and still do it in a dramatic fashion. Whatever I did with Trevor, he wouldn't have been around after my last issue. I enjoyed writing Wonder Woman. I think it would have been fun to write and draw her at some point.

My memory of your run might be off, but wasn't your arc one in which you have Diana depowered through most of it? Since you are a writer and this is a honest question, isn't it a cop-out of sorts to take away or depower a very strong hero like Diana because otherwise she would solve the plot that the author is devising too easily?

Sorry if the question offends, but it does seem that this is a common trope among many of the writers that have written arcs for Wonder Woman. Even her latest movie showing had her depowered through most of it.