What Do You Think of the Finchs' Run So Far?

[Silvanus]

Here me out. One of the things that has turned folks off is hearing Diana complain about all the things going wrong in her world - for example, killing Ares, her mentor. Instinctively we think of this as being whiny because hey, that was over a year ago! Move on, D!

Except, because of the glacial speed of Azzarello's run, it was not over a year ago for Diana. In fact it is likely only weeks since she stabbed him to death and watched him bleed out in front of her. So maybe Meredith is simply trying to give a realistic perspective on what are for Diana not only traumatic but very recent events.

Just a thought.

For me, that's not part of the problem, because if the timeframe had been more concise, that wouldn't make Finch's dialogue beter.

Let's say Wonder Woman had sacrificed Ares in issue 32 (instead of 23), she'd asserted that she'd had no choice in 33 (instead of 24), she cited Ares teachings about "winning by losing" in 34 (instead of, I think, 27), she'd had her vision of Ares (and heard him acknowledge that he'd lost the will to go on) in 35 (instead of 34), and she asserted in 35 (as she did, in fact) that though she was god of war she was still Diana. Or, since you'd probably still call that decompressed , let's say it all happened in one issue. If anything, that greater concentration of the healing process would just make the halt or reversal of that process, in issue 36, even more glaring. And even that could be OK--people do have reversals when they're dealing with trauma--if she said something interesting (i.e., well-written) about how and why she was going backwards.

For me, it's not whining, per se, that's the main problem. Gushing about her good fortune, if she'd had good fortune, or neutrally describing her mixed feelings, would be just about as annoying if it was written just as tritely and undistinctively.

ETA: In other words, what Darius said (more clearly and more concisely than I):

Still disagree since he's not the reason her writing is unpolished. I like the plot she's setting up, putting Diana in an impossible situation of conflicting responsibilities and during an emotionally difficult time. It's the dialogue choices she's making that make this poorly written ... "Vegetative Injustice" ... Seriously?

[Outside_85]

These organizations are far from being impartial. If that was the case, the millions of dollars that studios spend in trying to get their movies nominated wouldn't happen. But it does and the intense lobbying they do of the actual voters on the academy award. There have been great performances that the academy never gave a thought to because it wasn't lobbied directly for a nomination.

While the money spent will never be like what the movies do, I am thinking the process for these Eisner awards or whatever would be similar. I still don't know and don't care who has won an Eisner.

I think you mistake the Oscar committee for Capitol Hill. Because as far as I can remember, the movies that normally go home with plenty of Oscars are rarely the huge special effect-laden epics that cost hundreds of millions of dollars but more often the Slum-Dog Millionare variety and stuff like the Hurt Locker incident isn't normal practice.

Whenever you know or care doesn't really matter in this case, the Eisner is the industry consensus that a winner is a great pieces of work. The industry is composed of hundreds of people who's cast their votes on this, if you dont like it, thats fine, but that doesn't make you more right.

[7-Love]

I gave it a two. Second issue was better than the first, but it's still far from great. I'm hoping we get a new team post-Convergence.

I haven't consistently enjoyed a WW run since the early parts of Simone, and I've been craving a WW run to love in the worst way. Between the latter parts her her run, then Odyssey, then Azzarello and now the Finches, I have the worst case of comic book induced blue balls ever.

Help us Grant Morrison and Michelle Maclaren, you are our only hopes.

Around which specific issue # would you say that Simone's run gets bad? I'm curious.

[SteveGus]

My point was that organizations like these are supposed to be impartial, but still have a set of rules they grade the performance on.
It's people who can look past whenever they personally like whats going on and recognize the achievements the work actually does. Hence why LotR actually got awards from an crowd thats snubbed it's nose at every other fantasy movie.

And this is why I don't take academy award type prizes all that seriously. There's stuff that Oscar likes and dislikes: they like unwatchable po'-faced stuff like 12 Years a Slave. Two of the best movies of 2014 were The Lego Movie and Guardians of the Galaxy. Do I expect to see either of these delightful films as candidates for Best Picture? I don't even think Oscar will have time for Cap 2: Winter Soldier. Oscar simply has bad taste in films, and takes himself very seriously.

It's even worse with stuff like the Booker Prize. How many novels about adulterous academics are there? Winning something like that pretty much is the exclusive province of unreadable novels. "Literary fiction" is the boring genre about dull characters who don't have extraordinary adventures. And I suspect it's the same at the Eisners, which I expect to see dominated by Serious Business and indie books. And I don't see what they like in Quitely's art, either.

It wouldn't surprise me if Azzarello's Wonder Woman won an Eisner, despite its poor pacing and its destructive attitude to Wonder Woman's history. It took itself much more seriously than a Wonder Woman book ought to, and that's what academies like. I don't see Finch's work winning anything, but I'm willing to give credit for effort: she's trying to make the book entertaining, at least.

[Silvanus]

I don't know, dude - I've seen you find the bright side of some pretty weird stuff. You're like Snow White on steroids

I'll take that as a compliment (thereby proving your point), though I can't say I find "Snow White on steroids" to be be a particuarly appealing image.

Weird is good. Or at least, it can be. Wonder Woman comics have a long, proud, tradition of "weird," from Diana's Day and kangas all the way to a friendly minotaur and talking gorillas. If Kanigher's run, with its many sins, had a saving grace, that saving grace was weirdness. I liked the beginning of the ARGUS mini because of the weirdness, though I thought it unraveled a bit as it went; you were the optimist in that particular instance, if I remember right.

Un-weird can be very bad: ordinary, pedestrian, run-of-the-mill, tedious, dull. Dull is bad. And I find a lot of Finch's dialogue dull-undistinctive, uninsightful, inarticulate, unoriginal, unimaginative, unimpressive. Dull.

(I'm thinking that using a lot of negative adjectives could be the key to not being seen as a cock-eyed optimist around here.)

But she could get better.

[wagthedog]

I think you mistake the Oscar committee for Capitol Hill. Because as far as I can remember, the movies that normally go home with plenty of Oscars are rarely the huge special effect-laden epics that cost hundreds of millions of dollars but more often the Slum-Dog Millionare variety and stuff like the Hurt Locker incident isn't normal practice.

Whenever you know or care doesn't really matter in this case, the Eisner is the industry consensus that a winner is a great pieces of work. The industry is composed of hundreds of people who's cast their votes on this, if you dont like it, thats fine, but that doesn't make you more right.

I realize the big blockbusters do not get nominated (rarely) for the academy award, but the movie studios still lobby and spend big bucks to get the movies they think can get nominated. It is a big piece of PR for the movie studio as well as a buzz for a movie that would not ordinarily get on its own merits. And as such, they do influence the impartial judges.

As far as the Eisner and not making me more right, as you say it, the flipside is that it doesn't make you more right either. To use an example, there are many movies that the academy awards nominated or gave best picture to that have literally bored me to tears. What many of these so called professional critics use for their criteria in assessing movies is far different than what most movie goers see. Otherwise all these highly nominated and acclaimed movies would be making blockbuster dollars. Same goes, in this case, with Azz's highly praised and acclaimed Wonder Woman run. Yet his numbers don't suggest that his Eisner's gave Wonder Woman a huge boost in sales. If anything, the numbers fell to pretty much the same numbers they have been for a long time. I shudder to think if Azz had started his run in midstream, perhaps issue 36 like the Finches did, and see what his numbers are.

[Outside_85]

And this is why I don't take academy award type prizes all that seriously. There's stuff that Oscar likes and dislikes: they like unwatchable po'-faced stuff like 12 Years a Slave. Two of the best movies of 2014 were The Lego Movie and Guardians of the Galaxy. Do I expect to see either of these delightful films as candidates for Best Picture? I don't even think Oscar will have time for Cap 2: Winter Soldier. Oscar simply has bad taste in films, and takes himself very seriously.

Ok, I really have to take off my Comicbook Reader Hat off here. Because, very much like Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy is not that good of a movie, it's astounding thats it actually exists, it looks great and it's fun to watch. But if you try and look at it as a piece of work and you have; A bad guy who act's like he's in another movie most of the time, only the barest of background for all the non-human characters from the poster, quite a lot of faffing about thats present just for the humor and a resolution that's worthy of a Saturday morning cartoon.
I cant say all that much about the Lego movie because I haven't watched it, but considering it's aimed squarely at the 6-12 year olds (the people who Lego actually targets with their bricks) I assume it's like GotG only even more so... and more Chris Pratt.
As for the Winter Soldier, the surprise there lies in how well it goes from period piece to political thriller, which still isn't a winner at the Oscars.

It's even worse with stuff like the Booker Prize. How many novels about adulterous academics are there? Winning something like that pretty much is the exclusive province of unreadable novels. "Literary fiction" is the boring genre about dull characters who don't have extraordinary adventures. And I suspect it's the same at the Eisners, which I expect to see dominated by Serious Business and indie books. And I don't see what they like in Quitely's art, either.

I would assume something like the Booker Prize is a forum where people look past all the tinsel and glamour and are far more interested in the actual meat of any given book.

In regards to the Eisners, yes that is probably true, and for a good reason.

It wouldn't surprise me if Azzarello's Wonder Woman won an Eisner, despite its poor pacing and its destructive attitude to Wonder Woman's history. It took itself much more seriously than a Wonder Woman book ought to, and that's what academies like. I don't see Finch's work winning anything, but I'm willing to give credit for effort: she's trying to make the book entertaining, at least.

For one, I dont think the industry will actually give Azzarello's an Eisner, since they haven't yet. Secondly, I dont think they give a hoot about nostalgia, they care about 'is this a good story on it's own merits' period.
In regards to Finch, well we agree on her not getting a nomination... but we wont agree on its entertainment value.

I realize the big blockbusters do not get nominated (rarely) for the academy award, but the movie studios still lobby and spend big bucks to get the movies they think can get nominated. It is a big piece of PR for the movie studio as well as a buzz for a movie that would not ordinarily get on its own merits. And as such, they do influence the impartial judges.

I have to question why they would do so, when most movies at the Oscars are out of the theaters by the time they roll up, which is where the studios pour out the PR money and where they make their money back. No one gives a hoot about the home cinema market, which is why we are unlikely to get a sequel to Dredd.

As far as the Eisner and not making me more right, as you say it, the flipside is that it doesn't make you more right either. To use an example, there are many movies that the academy awards nominated or gave best picture to that have literally bored me to tears. What many of these so called professional critics use for their criteria in assessing movies is far different than what most movie goers see.

When I say professionals, I mean people like Geoff Johns, Jim Lee, BMB, Azzarello, Gaiman, Frank/Mark Miller, Diane Nelson, Axel Alonso, Kirkman ect. And I'd like to think that people like them actually know what makes a great comicbook.
What you are effectly doing is arguing against a professional carpenter or mechanic over how to grade their job.

Otherwise all these highly nominated and acclaimed movies would be making blockbuster dollars.

That is because most blockbuster movies happen to be 'popcorn', mostly empty movies that teaches you nothing and is mostly forgotten the morning after.

Same goes, in this case, with Azz's highly praised and acclaimed Wonder Woman run. Yet his numbers don't suggest that his Eisner's gave Wonder Woman a huge boost in sales. If anything, the numbers fell to pretty much the same numbers they have been for a long time. I shudder to think if Azz had started his run in midstream, perhaps issue 36 like the Finches did, and see what his numbers are.

Then perhaps it's just a cold hard fact that we Wonder Woman readers have to wake up and face: She is not a very popular superhero, most people aren't all that interested in following her on new adventures, and unless something really drastic happens; she will never sell as much as Batman will.

[Marvel/DC Fan]

I gave it 4 stars. Enjoying it much more then Azzarello's run.

[Darius]

Ok, I really have to take off my Comicbook Reader Hat off here. Because, very much like Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy is not that good of a movie, it's astounding thats it actually exists, it looks great and it's fun to watch. But if you try and look at it as a piece of work and you have; A bad guy who act's like he's in another movie most of the time, only the barest of background for all the non-human characters from the poster, quite a lot of faffing about thats present just for the humor and a resolution that's worthy of a Saturday morning cartoon.
I cant say all that much about the Lego movie because I haven't watched it, but considering it's aimed squarely at the 6-12 year olds (the people who Lego actually targets with their bricks) I assume it's like GotG only even more so... and more Chris Pratt.
As for the Winter Soldier, the surprise there lies in how well it goes from period piece to political thriller, which still isn't a winner at the Oscars.



I would assume something like the Booker Prize is a forum where people look past all the tinsel and glamour and are far more interested in the actual meat of any given book.

In regards to the Eisners, yes that is probably true, and for a good reason.



For one, I dont think the industry will actually give Azzarello's an Eisner, since they haven't yet. Secondly, I dont think they give a hoot about nostalgia, they care about 'is this a good story on it's own merits' period.
In regards to Finch, well we agree on her not getting a nomination... but we wont agree on its entertainment value.



I have to question why they would do so, when most movies at the Oscars are out of the theaters by the time they roll up, which is where the studios pour out the PR money and where they make their money back. No one gives a hoot about the home cinema market, which is why we are unlikely to get a sequel to Dredd.



When I say professionals, I mean people like Geoff Johns, Jim Lee, BMB, Azzarello, Gaiman, Frank/Mark Miller, Diane Nelson, Axel Alonso, Kirkman ect. And I'd like to think that people like them actually know what makes a great comicbook.
What you are effectly doing is arguing against a professional carpenter or mechanic over how to grade their job.



That is because most blockbuster movies happen to be 'popcorn', mostly empty movies that teaches you nothing and is mostly forgotten the morning after.



Then perhaps it's just a cold hard fact that we Wonder Woman readers have to wake up and face: She is not a very popular superhero, most people aren't all that interested in following her on new adventures, and unless something really drastic happens; she will never sell as much as Batman will.

That's not entirely the case though. WW is a fairly popular character. She's anconsistent top 70 or so solo comic from print only numbers and has pretty active community boards both here and on CV, she outclasses most solo characters out there in terms of popularity (how many non-comic fans have even heard of Harley Quinn?). I'll grant you that she isn't competing with the likes of BM, but he's had 7 major motion pictures and at least 3 or 4 animated series on TV in the last 25 years. Who is to say what her sales would do if she had that kind of major media exposure.

[Outside_85]

That's not entirely the case though. WW is a fairly popular character.

She would sell better if that was true.

She's anconsistent top 70 or so solo comic from print only numbers and has pretty active community boards both here and on CV,

Top 70 is not exactly impressive when she is produced by the 2nd largest company in the game and has such a huge back story behind her.

And the problem with invoking the community here is that you have to compare them to those belonging to other solo book characters. From what I gather from other forum boards, people there are talking about how great the current stories are and where they could go, on WW boards however it's mostly about how 'this current run isn't the way' or 'things were better 30 year ago'. Plus you have to factor in that despite how active the boards are, the regular posters are relatively limited.

she outclasses most solo characters out there in terms of popularity (how many non-comic fans have even heard of Harley Quinn?).

I'd wager quite a lot more non-readers know of Harley Quinn than any support member or villain that belongs to Wonder Woman. Because unlike them, Quinn appears in video games and cartoons.

I'll grant you that she isn't competing with the likes of BM, but he's had 7 major motion pictures and at least 3 or 4 animated series on TV in the last 25 years. Who is to say what her sales would do if she had that kind of major media exposure.

Good luck getting WB to shell out the money needed for a property they aren't sure of. Because if they were sure, they'd have done it ages ago.

[SkyMason21]

I'd say Finch's run is a 2.5 stars so far. Dialogue flows from poor to ok. Art is good for me, I'd probably say I liked Chang's more but I do like both. The overall story is what is keeping me reading (and that Meredith could get better or be dropped after the Convergence break).

I don't know how I'd rate Azzarello's run, I loved the first 18 issues and they are what got me into American comics (I've been reading manga for 11-12 years). But the last half of the run fell short for me. The conflict with first born dragged on for too long, and many issues (especially the last 6 or 7) were just ok.

Only Wonder Woman comic I've really enjoy the past few months has been Sensation Comics.

[Dr. Poison]

She would sell better if that was true.



Top 70 is not exactly impressive when she is produced by the 2nd largest company in the game and has such a huge back story behind her.

And the problem with invoking the community here is that you have to compare them to those belonging to other solo book characters. From what I gather from other forum boards, people there are talking about how great the current stories are and where they could go, on WW boards however it's mostly about how 'this current run isn't the way' or 'things were better 30 year ago'. Plus you have to factor in that despite how active the boards are, the regular posters are relatively limited.



I'd wager quite a lot more non-readers know of Harley Quinn than any support member or villain that belongs to Wonder Woman. Because unlike them, Quinn appears in video games and cartoons.



Good luck getting WB to shell out the money needed for a property they aren't sure of. Because if they were sure, they'd have done it ages ago.

Steve Trevor, Cheetah, and Giganta have all appeared in several media offerings beyond comics.

[Outside_85]

Steve Trevor, Cheetah, and Giganta have all appeared in several media offerings beyond comics.

As cameo's, simply as completely unrelated to Diana or in stuff that pretty swiftly fell off the radar after release. Which is not the same as being considered the breakout character from arguably the best animated series ever made or playing significant parts in 2 games that both got elected as the best superhero offering committed to a gaming platform.

[SiegePerilous02]

And the problem with invoking the community here is that you have to compare them to those belonging to other solo book characters. From what I gather from other forum boards, people there are talking about how great the current stories are and where they could go, on WW boards however it's mostly about how 'this current run isn't the way' or 'things were better 30 year ago'. Plus you have to factor in that despite how active the boards are, the regular posters are relatively limited.



Good luck getting WB to shell out the money needed for a property they aren't sure of. Because if they were sure, they'd have done it ages ago.

Idk, people spend a lot of time complaining about Snyder (and, until recently, Simone on Batgirl) over on the Batman boards. And nobody seems to like the current GL run either, so the WW boards aren't unique in that regard.

And WB is already shelling out money on her. She's getting a solo film, and is going to play a role in three of the other announced films. If they are all successful, it will lead to more films and possibly video games and animated projects.

[Outside_85]

Idk, people spend a lot of time complaining about Snyder (and, until recently, Simone on Batgirl) over on the Batman boards. And nobody seems to like the current GL run either, so the WW boards aren't unique in that regard.

And WB is already shelling out money on her. She's getting a solo film, and is going to play a role in three of the other announced films. If they are all successful, it will lead to more films and possibly video games and animated projects.

The current GL crowd is still pretty upset Geoff Johns left them and now the Lanterns are getting their heads kicked in in a big way. I can get them since Johns has been plowing that particular field for 9 years and for a lot of that time has been hugely influential on the rest of the DCU meaning their corner was pretty safe and stable. Dunno about Snyder honestly, his books seem to be getting tons of praise from everyone, unless when he pulls weird stuff like the Batman vs. League fight.

The solo movie is not actually green-lit yet, so sadly it could still fall to pieces. And even then, we have to avoid getting another Green Lantern.