Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 76
  1. #1
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    518

    Default John Byrne’s WW

    I know this is not a popular run with a lotta folks but I really enjoyed Byrne’s work on the title.

    I know he tweeted a lot and added her mom as the WWII Wonder Woman, but I enjoyed it.

    I worked in a comic shop at the time and he monthly orders increases by 30 - 40 per month just based on his attachment to the series.

    Others thoughts??

  2. #2
    Astonishing Member Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,376

    Default

    Can’t say I’m a fan of it. Seems Byrne is where ground zero of the cycles of new writers coming on to WW largely disregarding what came before them starts. Don’t know what the point of Hippolyta Wonder Woman was. I don’t really think Diana lost anything moving her origin to the modern times or not being a founding member of the JSA/JLA so came off as trying to fix a problem that didn’t exist.

    Between Byrne, Final Crisis, and Robinson think I’d also be happy if WW and the New Gods stopped interacting with one another.

  3. #3
    Astonishing Member Riv86672's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    3,432

    Default

    For some reason I never read Byrne’s WW.

  4. #4
    Spectacular Member rayray1127's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Byrne's run started shortly after I seriously started collecting Wonder Woman comics (my first having been Vol. 2 #75) and so it has influenced alot about how I see Diana. I thought she was written pretty well, though even as a 13 year old, I thought all the Kirby stuff thrown in felt pretty shoehorned. I definitely remember loving the virtual clone arc, though, and his art is where I first found I prefered the costume with less white stars on the briefs.

    Recently re-read the whole run and I can't say it holds up great (all those decimated amazons...) and there were some questionable art choices, but all in all it's enjoyable Wonder Woman fluff.

    ***** out of 10.

    Ray
    =w=

  5. #5
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,898

    Default

    Never read it and don't have a strong urge to. IMO, the only good thing Byrne as ever done is his X-Men run and Claremont certainly helped to elevate it as his partner.

    Time traveling Wonder Hippolyta is one of the more annoying and pointless additions to post-Crisis lore. It makes Diana a legacy character when she shouldn't be, and doesn't actually restore her Golden Age history because it's not even her doing it.

    Did he resurrect Artemis or bring her back to the book? That's one good thing I guess.

  6. #6
    Incredible Member Psy-lock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    661

    Default

    Byrne's run is far from my favorite, but he did a lot of good stuff. He introduced Cassie, brought Artemis back into the book, restored Donna's connection with Diana (in a very convoluted way but beggars can't be choosers), reintroduced some Golden Age elements like the Invisible Jet and a WW in the JSA. And while he clearly had more interest in the guest stars he actually used quite a few Wonder Rogues (some of which made their first post-COIE appearance in his run): Cheetah, Dr. Psycho, Giganta, Decay, Paula, Egg-Fu. His run also had good art and Diana came off very powerful in it.

  7. #7
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    228

    Default

    I agree that his art is pretty good, and I definitely think his run was an improvement over what came before during the William Messner-Loebs era... but I still question the choice of replacing Vanessa and Julia with Cassie and Helena. I'm glad that Vanessa never became an official Wonder Girl because she just was more interesting as a real person, but virtually cloning her and her mother was weird.

    I don't mind the idea of Hippolyta being Wonder Woman in World War II as a way to sort of acknowledge Diana's place in that original era, because let's face it the post-crisis continuity was never supposed to line-up with what came before. But that being said, I just think that the logic of how Hippolyta ended up in World War II didn't make much sense. She was trying to atone for getting Artemis killed and lying to everybody, so she gets the freedom of leaving her Queenly duties behind? I don't get that.

    (Full disclosure - I've never read the whole run).

  8. #8
    Mighty Member Koriand'r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    1,934

    Default

    I've read the whole run and it got a lot better as it went along. Slaughtering half the Amazons to prop up the Fourth World was the wrong way to start. So was introducing boring everyman Mike Schorr who was basically a male Zola (a new powerless supporting cast member that asks pointed questions as a stand-in for readers). However by the time Donna's story unfolds, Cassie comes along and Hippolyta becomes Wonder Woman, it gets pretty good.

    Once Byrne stops doing his own inking the art improves dramatically. There are still elements I hate like the giant tiara that's visible from the back of her head, the lazy two star briefs and the extra pointy belt that connects to her breastplate, but the pencils are smoothed out, the lines are more refined and Diana becomes prettier.

    There were far too many pointless guest stars, but all in all it's a nice bridge between Messner-Loebs and Jimenez that emphasized superheroics and the importance of the Wonder Woman Family.

  9. #9
    Spectacular Member Natamaxxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Byrne’s run is pretty much what took me off buying the book at the time. Aside from the art, there were many story elements I didn’t care for. Ditching Boston & the Kapatelis family for Gateway and the Sandsmarks did not sit well with me & Cassie is a character that I hate to this day. I was pretty disinterested in the book by the time Hippolyta became Wonder Woman, though I would occasionally flip through an issue at a stand. The art was pretty atrocious at that point, so I would just roll my eyes and walk away.

  10. #10
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Koriand'r View Post
    I've read the whole run and it got a lot better as it went along. Slaughtering half the Amazons to prop up the Fourth World was the wrong way to start. So was introducing boring everyman Mike Schorr who was basically a male Zola (a new powerless supporting cast member that asks pointed questions as a stand-in for readers). However by the time Donna's story unfolds, Cassie comes along and Hippolyta becomes Wonder Woman, it gets pretty good.

    Once Byrne stops doing his own inking the art improves dramatically. There are still elements I hate like the giant tiara that's visible from the back of her head, the lazy two star briefs and the extra pointy belt that connects to her breastplate, but the pencils are smoothed out, the lines are more refined and Diana becomes prettier.

    There were far too many pointless guest stars, but all in all it's a nice bridge between Messner-Loebs and Jimenez that emphasized superheroics and the importance of the Wonder Woman Family.
    Also John Byrne's Wonder Woman was too muscular.

  11. #11
    The Comixeur Mel Dyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,505

    Default

    John Byrne's WW run ultimately fails, because he tried to do too much.

    What does he successfully do that most writers completely fail to accomplish? He gives the WW comic, a functional, regular supporting cast, ..which helps humanize her. He establishes her in an iconic city that, for a time, feels like her own. s Wonder Woman and creates dialogue for her, that sounds like a normal person speaking, ..instead of an alien or a badly written soap opera character

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    25,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mel Dyer View Post
    John Byrne's WW run ultimately fails, because he tried to do too much.

    What does he successfully do that most writers completely fail to accomplish? He gives the WW comic, a functional, regular supporting cast, ..which helps humanize her.
    Not the first and already done before. Also, Cassie was actually disliked early on and only got a fan base because of Peter David.


    He establishes her in an iconic city that, for a time, feels like her own.
    Calling Gateway City iconic is, at best, a very liberal use of the word.

    s Wonder Woman and creates dialogue for her, that sounds like a normal person speaking, ..instead of an alien or a badly written soap opera character
    Just what qualifies as a normal person talking in your view?

  13. #13
    Chad Jar Jar Pinsir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Naboo
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    I would say its the baseline for a good Wonder Woman run; the art is consistent, the narrative insular and tightly written for the most part, its the only Wonder Woman run that develops her supporting cast; Donna Troy, Cassie and Artemis (that's kind of pathetic, eh?). There are some interesting ideas for sure, but like a lot of post-Crisis WW runs, I don't think it added much to Wonder Woman's lore, there are a lot of 'foreign' elements to it (like the main bad guy being the devil). His run features the death of a major DC character, but if you compare it to the other 90's 'downfall' stories (Doomsday, Knightfall, that Parallax story) it's completely forgettable.
    Want to read Wonder Woman stories, but don't know where to start? Check out my top 10 lists for Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age and Modern Age Wonder Woman tales!

    "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few necks." - Wonder Woman, probably

  14. #14
    Astonishing Member Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinsir View Post
    I would say its the baseline for a good Wonder Woman run; the art is consistent, the narrative insular and tightly written for the most part, its the only Wonder Woman run that develops her supporting cast; Donna Troy, Cassie and Artemis (that's kind of pathetic, eh?). There are some interesting ideas for sure, but like a lot of post-Crisis WW runs, I don't think it added much to Wonder Woman's lore, there are a lot of 'foreign' elements to it (like the main bad guy being the devil). His run features the death of a major DC character, but if you compare it to the other 90's 'downfall' stories (Doomsday, Knightfall, that Parallax story) it's completely forgettable.
    I think The Contest from Loeb's run is a better fit in for the "Downfall of Established Hero/New Replacement" storyline than the stuff from Byrne.

  15. #15
    Mighty Member Koriand'r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    1,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    I think The Contest from Loeb's run is a better fit in for the "Downfall of Established Hero/New Replacement" storyline than the stuff from Byrne.
    I agree Diana was only dead for like half an issue before she became Goddess of Truth and that didn't last long either.

    Byrne's run does go to show that if a writer is given enough time they can turn a bad run around and find their footing. It makes me wonder what could have happened if other more short-lived writers were given 30 issues with limited interference to tell their stories and evolve their point of view.

Posting Permissions

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