Reviews of Wonder Woman #37 Pour In...

[C-IN2]

Adventures in Poor Taste:

http://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com...man-37-review/


"It seems as though Meredith has bit off a little more than she can chew."


FINAL SCORE: 5.5/10

IGN

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/12/...cember-17-2014

"It's always depressing to see a beloved ongoing series decline this hard and this quickly. Wonder Woman retains little of the charm, freshness, and excitement it had for the first three years of the New 52. It's not even as if the general direction of the series is bad. Meredith and David Finch move forward from Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang's run in a sensible fashion. It's more a case of the execution being faulty."

FINAL SCORE: 5.4/10

Newsarama

"I think this is a clear-cut case of the wrong talent on the wrong book, and when people inevitably begin to leave the book due to its strange handling of a symbol for women everywhere"

FINAL SCORE: 3/10

Comicosity

http://www.comicosity.com/review-wonder-woman-37/

"Wonder Woman herself barely has it, spending another issue simply barking how she has no idea how she’ll handle everything that’s happening to her, as if she’s a 1950’s housewife worrying about getting the roast in the oven AND getting the kids their baths before her husband gets home and demands his martini. It’s a terrible presentation of the autonomy and strength of twenty-first century women. And an enormous problem for a book about our preeminent female super-hero.[/SIZE]

FINAL SCORE: 2.0/10

OVERALL AVERAGE OF CRITIC REVIEWS: 4 out of 10

Things don't look good for the Finch team.

At least our very own resident CBR member, Dr. Poison gives a good user review with a 9.0/10 being the sole and only good review to be found on the internet.

http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-bo...-%282011%29/37

[Dr. Poison]

A 5 out of 10 is average, not bad and anything above a 5 is above average so I'm not sure why such reviews are being classified as "bad".

I really struggle to understand why reviews mean so much to some people. They're simply one person's opinion just like everyone else's. I think too much emphasis is put on the media's reviews and awards. Read the book and decide for yourself, I say.

[Outside_85]

A 5 out of 10 is average, not bad and anything above a 5 is above average so I'm not sure why such reviews are being classified as "bad".

I really struggle to understand why reviews mean so much to some people. They're simply one person's opinion just like everyone else's. I think too much emphasis is put on the media's reviews and awards. Read the book and decide for yourself, I say.

Quite a few people decide if a book is worth trying by judging it by what professional/semi-professional reviewers think of it along with what existing readers think.

Overall though the score isn't good, of the 5 listed at time of writing, the average is at 4,18, which isn't really something to cheer over.

[C-IN2]

A 5 out of 10 is average, not bad and anything above a 5 is above average so I'm not sure why such reviews are being classified as "bad".

A 4.2/10 is bad. A 6 or 7 is average. An 8 or 9 out of 10 is good/very good.

If you get at 5 out of 10 on a test, that means you likelys fail the test.

I really struggle to understand why reviews mean so much to some people. They're simply one person's opinion just like everyone else's. I think too much emphasis is put on the media's reviews and awards. Read the book and decide for yourself, I say.

Professional critic reviews influence sales and notoriety of any media product whether it's a video game or a comic book.

If you like the Finch run, you want good reviews.

Good reviews paired with good sales means they stay on the book.

Bad review with bad sales means they'll get kicked off the book.

Business Management 101

And the critics aren't the only ones lambasting the issue; almost all users have denounced the issue with similar complaints.

Except your 9/10 review of course...

[Silvanus]

A 5 out of 10 is average, not bad and anything above a 5 is above average ....

This is a fallacy, as far as I can see. Five is the midpoint of the scale, but if most scores fall above the midpoint, then the average falls above that midpoint. And that is definitely the case for comic book reviews, which, if anything, tend to be inflated; on that comic book review accumulator site to which you have linked, about 9 out of 10 books reviewed for the week, when I checked the other day, were at 6 or above. So 5 would have been way below average.

When you were in school, was a 50 out of 100 considered an "average" grade, or was it considered a dismal failure?

Read the book and decide for yourself, I say.

I agree with you about this. So there's really no reason to make below average reviews sound average. You could just say that yes, the book got bad reviews, but you disagree, and give your reasons.

[Dr. Poison]

A 4.2/10 is bad. A 6 or 7 is average. An 8 or 9 out of 10 is good/very good.

If you get at 5 out of 10 on a test, that means you likelys fail the test.



Professional critic reviews influence sales and notoriety of any media product whether it's a video game or a comic book.

If you like the Finch run, you want good reviews.

Good reviews paired with good sales means they stay on the book.

Bad review with bad sales means they'll get kicked off the book.

Business Management 101

And the critics aren't the only ones lambasting the issue; almost all users have denounced the issue with similar complaints.

Except your 9/10 review of course...

This isn't school and a comic book isn't a test. A comic is a source of entertainment that is judged on opinion alone, not factual information that can be graded as "right" or "wrong". A "1" would be poor while a "10" would be exceptional. Half-way between them is average, not terrible, and not great. Bad reviews alone will NOT get the Finchs kicked off this book. I'm sure DC is aware that a good chunk of these same reviewers read the previous run and made comments like "I never read any/much Wonder Woman before" and with the Finchs' dramatic shift in tone from Azzarello's run, there's likely to be some folks who just don't care for that kind of shift. A lot of those reviewers never cared for Wonder Woman except when her book was all edgy, dark, and deviant and its likely they won't love it again unless Azzarello comes back or someone with a similar style to his takes over the book. From what I've seen here and on other social media avenues, the actual reader fan-base is much more optimistic about this run and the first issue sold quite well so as of now, I don't forsee Meredith getting her pink-slip anytime soon.

[C-IN2]

This isn't school and a comic book isn't a test. A comic is a source of entertainment that is judged on opinion alone, not factual information that can be graded as "right" or "wrong". A "1" would be poor while a "10" would be exceptional. Half-way between them is average, not terrible, and not great. Bad reviews alone will NOT get the Finchs kicked off this book. I'm sure DC is aware that a good chunk of these same reviewers read the previous run and made comments like "I never read any/much Wonder Woman before" and with the Finchs' dramatic shift in tone from Azzarello's run, there's likely to be some folks who just don't care for that kind of shift. They never cared for Wonder Woman except when her book was all edgy, dark, and deviant and its likely they won't love it again unless Azzarello comes back or someone with a similar style to his takes over the book. From what I've seen here and on other social media avenues, the actual reader fan-base is much more optimistic about this run and the first issue sold quite well so as of now, I don't forsee Meredith getting her pink-slip anytime soon.

If the Finches continue to get bad reviews (and they likely will barring some miracle) sales will continue to drop. Many people have already dropped the book after giving them a chance.

Bad Reviews + Bad Sales = Finch's pink slip.

You know who else got the same treatment? Judi Picoult.

Her run had terrible reviews paired with even worse sales.

She got promptly kicked off and replaced with Simone.

You're clearly a rare fan of this run so far but it's in YOUR best interest for the book to improve in positive reviews and better sales.

Or else she'll get fired and hopefully be replaced with a more accomplished writer like Snyder or Morrison.

And please don't pigeon-hole the entirety of WW fan base as "optimistic" of this run.

Most opinions of this run is largely negative as shown in the other review thread with your "9/10" perception being a very small minority.

[Dr. Poison]

If the Finches continue to get bad reviews (and they likely will barring some miracle) sales will continue to drop. Many people have already dropped the book after giving them a chance.

Bad Reviews + Bad Sales = Finch's pink slip.

You know who else got the same treatment? Judi Picoult.

Her run had terrible reviews paired with even worse sales.

She got promptly kicked off and replaced with Simone.

You're clearly a rare fan of this run so far but it's in YOUR best interest for the book to improve in positive reviews and better sales.

Or else she'll get fired and hopefully be replaced with a more accomplished writer like Snyder or Morrison.

And please don't pigeon-hole the entirety of WW fan base as "optimistic" of this run.

Most opinions of this run is largely negative as shown in the other review thread with your "9/10" perception being a very small minority.

Do you really think that anyone would read a negative review of a comic and say "Oh well, Comic Reviewer X doesn't like this book so I'm dropping it!"?

Granted it's been several years and I may be remembering this incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure that Picoult(as lousy as her run was) was only scheduled to be a fill-in until DC found a new permanent writer for Wonder Woman being that Heinberg fell way behind in terms of scheduling and DC had to plug the hole until someone with a long-term vision for Diana could be found.

I'm not covering my eyes and ears to the bad reviews. I know they're out there. I just simply could care less about them, as most comic readers should. There are plenty of books that get terrible reviews that don't get creative overhauls. Look at how long Lobdell was on Teen Titans.

You can keep your insults about my supposed lack of business acumen out of this thread as we're supposed to discuss the book, not each other.

[Silvanus]

A "1" would be poor while a "10" would be exceptional. Half-way between them is average, not terrible, and not great.

If 6 means "above average," then about 90% of comics published last week, going by the site that compiles reviews, were above average. And if that's the case, then the word "average" loses all meaning. Is this Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, "where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average"?

In reality, the numbers have the meaning that the reviewers give them. And if you look at most reviews that give a score of 5 out of 10, the comments that go with that score are not average or middle-of-the-road but predominately negative.

[Dr. Poison]

They might be, if reviewers actually used the scale that way. But in fact, if you look at most reviews that give a score of 5, the comments that go with that score are predominately negative. And if 6 means "above average," then about 90% of comics last published last week, going by the site that compiles reviews, were above average. Is this Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegon, where Lake Wobegon, "where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average"?

Well, I'm not going to take responsibility for a reviewer not using the scale properly. Simple mathematics will tell anyone that the average between 1 and 10 is 5.

[Vanguard-01]

*Gasp!*

A bunch of snooty, self-anointed comic book "experts" don't like this run because it isn't written by Brian Azzarello!

Why then surely I must be wrong to enjoy this run! I must burn my copies of the first two issues and refuse to touch anything with Wonder Woman in it that isn't written by Brian Azzarello from this day forward!

I must repent my wicked ways! Remorse! Remorse!

*Runs off to find a sack cloth and ashes.*

[brettc1]

This is a fallacy, as far as I can see. Five is the midpoint of the scale, but if most scores fall above the midpoint, then the average falls above that midpoint. And that is definitely the case for comic book reviews, which, if anything, tend to be inflated; on that comic book review accumulator site to which you have linked, about 9 out of 10 books reviewed for the week, when I checked the other day, were at 6 or above. So 5 would have been way below average.

When you were in school, was a 50 out of 100 considered an "average" grade, or was it considered a dismal failure?

I agree with you about this. So there's really no reason to make below average reviews sound average. You could just say that yes, the book got bad reviews, but you disagree, and give your reasons.

Depends on where you get your marks these days - how hard the questions were that you answered.

In movie terms, if I give a movie a 5 it means maybe worth seeing once at the cinema if you are really interested but otherwise you can wait for it on DVD. But your would not buy it the day it came out - you'd wait a few months and pay $12 for it.

[Silvanus]

Depends on where you get your marks these days - how hard the questions were that you answered.

Exactly--it depends on context and that standards and definitions applied by the raters; it don't just depend on the midpoint of the scale.

Well, I'm not going to take responsibility for a reviewer not using the scale properly. Simple mathematics will tell anyone that the average between 1 and 10 is 5.

Those mathematics are "simple," alright--in fact, simplistic to the point of being wrong.

I'm no mathematician and statistics was not my favorite course, but I know that, to mathematicians, "average" doesn't necessarily mean "the midpoint of the scale." It can mean the mean (all the actual scores--like, ratings listed for a given week--added together and divided by the number of scores), the median (the midpoint not of the scale, but of the actual scores), or the mode (most common score). By any of those definitions, the average of the ratings listed on the site that compiles reviews is well above 5.

Maybe the reviewers figure 1-5 would be sub-professional work not usually seen in published comics, whereas 5-7 is bad-to-mediocre professional work. I assume something like that kind of thinking operates in sports like figure skating at the Olympic level, where I don't think you often see judges using the whole scale and you do normally see a statistically "average" score falling somewhere above the midpoint of the scale.

A bunch of snooty, self-anointed comic book "experts" don't like this run because it isn't written by Brian Azzarello!

Why then surely I must be wrong to enjoy this run!

If you like it, there's nothing wrong with that; you should keep liking it--good for you! I still hope to be able to join you in liking it by the end of the run. But if you feel the need to call people who don't like it "a bunch of snooty, self-annointed [blah blah blah]," then aren't you being "snooty" in your own way? Can't you like it without calling other people names?

[Dr. Poison]

Exactly--it depends on context and that standards and definitions applied by the raters; it don't just depend on the midpoint of the scale.



Those mathematics are "simple," alright--in fact, simplistic to the point of being wrong.

I'm no mathematician and statistics was not my favorite course, but I know that, to mathematicians, "average" doesn't necessarily mean "the midpoint of the scale." It can mean the mean (all the actual scores--like, ratings listed for a given week--added together and divided by the number of scores), the median (the midpoint not of the scale, but of the actual scores), or the mode (most common score). By any of those definitions, the average of the ratings listed on the site that compiles reviews is well above 5.

Maybe the reviewers figure 1-5 would be sub-professional work not usually seen in published comics, whereas 5-7 is bad-to-mediocre professional work. I assume something like that kind of thinking operates in sports like figure skating at the Olympic level, where I don't think you often see judges using the whole scale and you do normally see a statistically "average" score falling somewhere above the midpoint of the scale.



If you like it, there's nothing wrong with that; you should keep liking it--good for you! I still hope to be able to join you in liking it by the end of the run. But if you feel the need to call people who don't like it "a bunch of snooty, self-annointed [blah blah blah]," then aren't you being "snooty" in your own way? Can't you like it without calling other people names?

So if you're suggesting that the average be taken from the scored submitted, then being that the highest score issue #37 received was a 5.5 from professional reviewers on Comic Book Roundup and all of the reviews were within 3.5 points of the highest score, does that mean that none of the reviews are poor?

Also - I see you calling Vanguard out about his comments about the reviewers. I wonder, where were you when the readers who started reading WW with Azz's run were calling folks like me "too nostalgic" and "resistant to change" simply because we didn't care for his run?

[wagthedog]

If you like it, there's nothing wrong with that; you should keep liking it--good for you! I still hope to be able to join you in liking it by the end of the run. But if you feel the need to call people who don't like it "a bunch of snooty, self-annointed [blah blah blah]," then aren't you being "snooty" in your own way? Can't you like it without calling other people names?

I think the problem is that whenever a poster uses reviewers as an example or to support their point of view, it usually comes across as snooty, snobbish. To my point of view, how are these reviewers any better than the people who read the comics and why would we have to automatically respect their views as superior to ours? At least that is how it comes off to me when I hear posters say a review is good or bad based on reviewers critiques.