What’s Happening With Wonder Woman In June?

[bardkeep]

The opposite: he’s been in the wrong so many times lately that we’ve grown tired of it. In the DCAU he was an idiot and an ******* who was the most at risk for ending up like the Justice Lords. In the DCEU his fall to evil was the entire crux of the overarching plot. In Injustice he’s the bad guy. At one point in the 2010s there were four evil Supermen comics running at the same time. We simply got sick of it and aren’t interested in reading another story where he’s used to prop up another hero anymore than you guys are.

Also I thought the plot for that JL story was boring and unimaginative. It’s Spurrier’s work with The Dreaming that makes me want to see what he would do with WW.

I wasn't really thinking of evil Superman here - I was thinking about how many "Superman is the best guy ever" stories have come out, which at this point honestly bore me almost as much as "Batman is the coolest" stories. But it's true that the evil Superman trope is far worse and more played out.

(FWIW I'd also be sick of "Wonder Woman is the coolest" stories if we got them as often as we get Batman/Superman fanboy jerks, it's just never been an issue because, well...I'll just say it's very telling that All-Star Superman was an ode to Superman while Earth One was an ode to Marston.)

Re: Spurrier, yeah, I did like his JLA arc but it definitely wouldn't have convinced me alone. Agree that The Dreaming, Hellblazer, and Step By Bloody Step are where he's really shined.

[HestiasHearth]

For real? That would be a huge disservice to the Wonder Woman book if a writer is mostly passionate about the public domain characters instead of Diana and other original DC creations from her world. That's the reason I passed on Historia after reading issue #1. It had phenomenal art but it's mostly just about Greek myth characters and very little actual Wonder Woman.

Same here.
I just could not go past that first issue (and even the art was not my cup of tea; I love me some Phil Jimenez, but his usual gorgeously detailed art was just too much of a messy clutter in Historia, imo).

[Gaius]

That was the story with the alien faction that went down two different paths and the other JL members were trying to basically lead them and create a new government with out actually knowing anything about them or attempting to, right?

Yeah, WW treated the League how the League usually treats WW. So unsurprising it upset the apple cart for the JL status quo.

[Agent Z]

Same here.
I just could not go past that first issue (and even the art was not my cup of tea; I love me some Phil Jimenez, but his usual gorgeously detailed art was just too much of a messy clutter in Historia, imo).

Someone on the last page already pointed out that is a mischaracterization of how DeConnick feels about Diana.

This is a mischaracterization. Kelly Sue DeConnick loves Wonder Woman/Diana--who is the character that got her into reading comic books in the first place. She just doesn't think that the way Wonder Woman's been written over the years services the character or her ideals. If we get the rest of Historia, we will get to see much more of just how much DeConnick loves Diana.

But that's neither here nor there. DeConnick isn't going to write the Wonder Woman monthly title because she's simply too busy with other projects and commitments. I'm not confused about anything. But thank you for your concern.

[Agent Z]

Edited post.

[HestiasHearth]

"If we get the rest of Historia, we will get to see much more of just how much DeConnick loves Diana."

In other words, she is doing a Snyder on Wonder Woman fans: "Yes, these three DCEU films were crap, but I promise you...my plan needed all the planned movies that I had in my head to be made in order for people to see how much I love these characters and how brilliant I am. I swear to God, it's true"

No thanks. At least not for me.
I am a fan of Wonder Woman, and I am not interested in a book that uses her name and her legacy as a hook just to engage in an author's love for her cast of characters. I totally want them to be that, her cast of supporting characters that support her. I don't want their stories to take over a book called "Wonder Woman" anything. Just an opinion.

[Agent Z]

I... really don't know how you got that out of what was said.

[Sebastianne]

[Gaius]

"If we get the rest of Historia, we will get to see much more of just how much DeConnick loves Diana."

In other words, she is doing a Snyder on Wonder Woman fans: "Yes, these three DCEU films were crap, but I promise you...my plan needed all the planned movies that I had in my head to be made in order for people to see how much I love these characters and how brilliant I am. I swear to God, it's true"

No thanks. At least not for me.
I am a fan of Wonder Woman, and I am not interested in a book that uses her name and her legacy as a hook just to engage in an author's love for her cast of characters. I totally want them to be that, her cast of supporting characters that support her. I don't want their stories to take over a book called "Wonder Woman" anything. Just an opinion.

DeConnick has been fairly upfront it's a Hippolyta story, so not really sure where you're getting that it's taking over a Wonder Woman book since it's not the main WW book or that the story was ever envisioned to be Diana-centric.

If you're upset about the title, that was a decision by BL's marketing team.

Not sure what Snyder has to do with this.

[HotBoy]

I didn't mean for my wishlist to inspire a "I don't want Kelly Sue DeConnick on Wonder Woman!" tirade--especially since she's actually NOT going to be writing the main Wonder Woman book and so the adamant, defensive posture for something that isn't actually happening is unnecessary. Can we hereby get back to the topic at hand then?

[Alpha]

This is a mischaracterization. Kelly Sue DeConnick loves Wonder Woman/Diana--who is the character that got her into reading comic books in the first place. She just doesn't think that the way Wonder Woman's been written over the years services the character or her ideals. If we get the rest of Historia, we will get to see much more of just how much DeConnick loves Diana.

But that's neither here nor there. DeConnick isn't going to write the Wonder Woman monthly title because she's simply too busy with other projects and commitments. I'm not confused about anything. But thank you for your concern.

It's not a mischaracterization at all.

Kelly Sue Deconnick has said that when she starts to write a character she first has to understand what their "wound" is.

This isn't just in reference to tragedy (although it often is that too). What she means is, what's the part of their personal history that weights them down and makes them fiercely and furiously want something.

This is why she loves Hippolyta, whose wounds are very vocal.

It's the process Kelly also used to understand Mera, Aquaman, Carol Danvers.

Diana is a person whose life afforded her much love and care. She felt wonderful about herself and the people around her through all the formative years of her life. She has no reason to be insecure.

But the thing I would call her "wound" is when she would look upon the eyes of her mother and sisters and see that their trauma still remained hidden deep down, even in paradise. If Kelly was able to see this aspect I think she would certainly write a lovely Diana, but she stated in an interview with World Balloon that she didn't know what Diana's wound was.

She can write Diana as a side character, but not as a protagonist.

[HestiasHearth]

It's not a mischaracterization at all.

Kelly Sue Deconnick has said that when she starts to write a character she first has to understand what their "wound" is.

This isn't just in reference to tragedy (although it often is that too). What she means is, what's the part of their personal history that weights them down and makes them fiercely and furiously want something.

This is why she loves Hippolyta, whose wounds are very vocal.

It's the process Kelly also used to understand Mera, Aquaman, Carol Danvers.

Diana is a person whose life afforded her much love and care. She felt wonderful about herself and the people around her through all the formative years of her life. She has no reason to be insecure.

But the thing I would call her "wound" is when she would look upon the eyes of her mother and sisters and see that their trauma still remained hidden deep down, even in paradise. If Kelly was able to see this aspect I think she would certainly write a lovely Diana, but she stated in an interview with World Balloon that she didn't know what Diana's wound was.

She can write Diana as a side character, but not as a protagonist.

Nailed it.

[Agent Z]

It's not a mischaracterization at all.

Kelly Sue Deconnick has said that when she starts to write a character she first has to understand what their "wound" is.

This isn't just in reference to tragedy (although it often is that too). What she means is, what's the part of their personal history that weights them down and makes them fiercely and furiously want something.

This is why she loves Hippolyta, whose wounds are very vocal.

It's the process Kelly also used to understand Mera, Aquaman, Carol Danvers.

Diana is a person whose life afforded her much love and care. She felt wonderful about herself and the people around her through all the formative years of her life. She has no reason to be insecure.

But the thing I would call her "wound" is when she would look upon the eyes of her mother and sisters and see that their trauma still remained hidden deep down, even in paradise. If Kelly was able to see this aspect I think she would certainly write a lovely Diana, but she stated in an interview with World Balloon that she didn't know what Diana's wound was.

She can write Diana as a side character, but not as a protagonist.

None of this mean DeConnick wouldn't be interested in writing Diana as a main protagonist.

[Alpha]

None of this mean DeConnick wouldn't be interested in writing Diana as a main protagonist.

Diana is antithetical to her process in every hero she writes. Would you expect Tarantino to wanna write a Wes Anderson movie?

[Agent Z]

Diana is antithetical to her process in every hero she writes. Would you expect Tarantino to wanna write a Wes Anderson movie?

Greg Rucka doesn't write Diana the same way he writes Forever Carlyle, Renee Montoya or Kate Kane. Gail Simone doesn't write Diana the same way she writes the Secret Six or the Birds of Prey.