Who do you think will be the next writer?

[Blacksun]

Marvel-Exclusive basically means 'does not work for DC, not even Vertigo'. It doesn't tend to cover creator-owned work.
Otherwise it'd be just Bendis.

Interesting, they aren't losing too much not working for DC these days. Hickman is writing a JL doppelganger in his avengers run, probably is better write JL in Marvel than in DC...

[Kurt Busiek]

Kurt Busiek would be my ideal pick, but like Jimenez, I think he's soured on the state of the DCU and the character at the moment.

Not so much "soured" as "wanting to concentrate on stuff I create and own myself."

kdb

[Carabas]

What is Jimenez doing anyway these days? It's been ages since I saw his name on anything.

[Pinsir]

I don't think Steve is trying to discredit or bad-mouth Azzarello. I think he is just voicing his frustration about the lack of detail given in some of Azzarello's writing of Wonder Woman. Someone people feel as that some things are left too vague and they have to use their imagination to "fill in the blanks" when they're paying money for what they hope would be a complete story.

Vagueness is fine.

One of the major problems with modern audiences is that they demand to many answers from their medium (mostly movies) and when there is they claim there are plotholes everywhere.

[numberthirty]

I don't think Steve is trying to discredit or bad-mouth Azzarello. I think he is just voicing his frustration about the lack of detail given in some of Azzarello's writing of Wonder Woman. Someone people feel as that some things are left too vague and they have to use their imagination to "fill in the blanks" when they're paying money for what they hope would be a complete story.

While I agree, it seems like it's going to be how you voice that sort of thing on the new CBR Forum. I wouldn't want to see someone get banned because they stepped over a line.

A story being "complete" depends on the reader's point of view.

[Blacksun]

What is Jimenez doing anyway these days? It's been ages since I saw his name on anything.

I think he did some savage wolverine

[SteveGus]

I don't think Steve is trying to discredit or bad-mouth Azzarello. I think he is just voicing his frustration about the lack of detail given in some of Azzarello's writing of Wonder Woman. Someone people feel as that some things are left too vague and they have to use their imagination to "fill in the blanks" when they're paying money for what they hope would be a complete story.

What I really do not understand is this strange prejudice against traditional superhero comic book writing. Like it or not, exposition adds value, enables plot points to be developed efficiently, and explains the abilities and limits of characters with unusual powers. And it's rendered more or less necessary by the demands of a monthly serial title.

Trade volumes need to be dialed way back: at least, there shouldn't be an expectation that every monthly will have all of its issues collected and republished in the format. The universal expectation that they will be encourages lazy and undisciplined writing across the board. We've forgotten that every issue is potentially somebody's first issue, which in turn drives complaints about "convoluted continuity". It seems more convoluted than it is because of lack of exposition. It's gotten so bad that in some series I've seen important characters go unnamed through a whole issue. That's simply a mistake that requires editorial correction.

The books don't seem obscure and hard to follow because there's an Earth-2 or because Power Girl once was from Atlantis or because Donna Troy was variously a younger Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman's sister, and a descendant of the Titans. The books seem obscure and hard to follow because the writers aren't explaining any of these things when they become relevant.

At least, take a page away from that "Channel 52" junk and give us a Marvel-style recap page.

[numberthirty]

What I really do not understand is this strange prejudice against traditional superhero comic book writing. Like it or not, exposition adds value, enables plot points to be developed efficiently, and explains the abilities and limits of characters with unusual powers. And it's rendered more or less necessary by the demands of a monthly serial title.

Well in this particular instance, the creators made it pretty clear they were not setting out to create a traditional superhero tale.

[Dr. Poison]

What I really do not understand is this strange prejudice against traditional superhero comic book writing. Like it or not, exposition adds value, enables plot points to be developed efficiently, and explains the abilities and limits of characters with unusual powers. And it's rendered more or less necessary by the demands of a monthly serial title.

Trade volumes need to be dialed way back: at least, there shouldn't be an expectation that every monthly will have all of its issues collected and republished in the format. The universal expectation that they will be encourages lazy and undisciplined writing across the board. We've forgotten that every issue is potentially somebody's first issue, which in turn drives complaints about "convoluted continuity". It seems more convoluted than it is because of lack of exposition. It's gotten so bad that in some series I've seen important characters go unnamed through a whole issue. That's simply a mistake that requires editorial correction.

The books don't seem obscure and hard to follow because there's an Earth-2 or because Power Girl once was from Atlantis or because Donna Troy was variously a younger Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman's sister, and a descendant of the Titans. The books seem obscure and hard to follow because the writers aren't explaining any of these things when they become relevant.

At least, take a page away from that "Channel 52" junk and give us a Marvel-style recap page.

You make a good point on how some of today's writers seem prejudice against writing traditional superhero stories. Some of them are adding a lot of gore and sexual elements that often times add no real value to the overall story and in some case, just come across as shock value in order to get people talking and make their book seem "edgy". There's certainly nothing wrong with a writer taking a different approach here and there but with some superhero books, they seem like they're trying to be different just for the sake of being different which ends of leaving them coming across as flat and boring to me. Writers should write things because they honestly feel inspired to write about them or because they're very passionate about a subject or story instead of seeing how much shock value they can inject from issue to issue in order to get people talking on Facebook or Twitter. I'm not interested in half-hearted superhero stories. With me, I want all or nothing. Give me big epic battles, colorful costumes, crazy displays of powers, and unique gadgets that get kids interested in science and wanting to help their fellow man.

[SteveGus]

You make a good point on how some of today's writers seem prejudice against writing traditional superhero stories. Some of them are adding a lot of gore and sexual elements that often times add no real value to the overall story and in some case, just come across as shock value in order to get people talking and make their book seem "edgy". There's certainly nothing wrong with a writer taking a different approach here and there but with some superhero books, they seem like they're trying to be different just for the sake of being different which ends of leaving them coming across as flat and boring to me.

For me, it's more fundamental than that. Write an 'edgy' book if you will. Muck up things for shock value. But please don't leave the readers out. They need to know who the characters are. They need to be able to at least pick up a sense of what's gone before.

[Ghostwise]

What is Jimenez doing anyway these days? It's been ages since I saw his name on anything.

His recent work has chiefly been covers for Nova and Transformers stuff, plus some Savage Wolverine, Fairest and Guardians of the Galaxy art.

[Carabas]

His recent work has chiefly been covers for Nova and Transformers stuff, plus some Savage Wolverine, Fairest and Guardians of the Galaxy art.

I do remember him in Fairest now.
That's a bit disappointing though. I was hoping he'd go back to stuff like that Otherworld series he wrote and drew for Vertigo.

[Amazon Swordsman]

Which to me is an automatic disqualification. I don't want anyone who doesn't honor what Azzarello built here. You don't follow up a critically acclaimed run with someone who then wants to tear it down for an idealized version of a past incarnation

But why should a future writer be forced to follow the changes azz made when he himself didn't seem to respect much of what was established for the character pre-52? Apparently he felt the need to deconstruct the character in order to make his own "idealized" version of her, because he said she didn't have a story before he took on her title. That's a pretty arrogant claim to make.

I agree, continuously rebooting the character and throwing out everything when a new writer comes on is exactly why Wonder Woman isn't on the level of Superman and Batman.

But isn't what Azzarello did technically considered a reboot? And in his run, there seems to be things that were deliberately "left out". If that's the case, it seems like while his work is "critically acclaimed", he's still a part of the problem, as opposed to a lasting solution.

Batknight couldn't be more right. Having new writers come in and throw away everything the previous writers did is EXACTLY the thing that has kept Diana from the level of popularity Superman and Batman enjoy

Again, I'm seeing azz as doing this as well. I mean, new origin, new supporting cast, lop-sided direction?

Wonder Woman NEEDS that as well. Constantly uprooting her entire story has only kept her stunted and underdeveloped as a character, and has led to the misconception that she's a deeply contradictory character with an acute case of Multiple Personality Disorder

I think at her core, Diana is intrinsically a walking contradiction. I think when people try to change that, it kinda defeats the purpose of her character. Her dichotomies are what makes her appealing, and how she balances those things can make for interesting plots. I don't know of many characters other than Wonder Woman who benefit from internal, dual-sided conflicts.

[John Venus]

Like it or not, Azzarello contributed to the idea of Wonder Woman being contradictory. Perez modernized her continuity during the 80's. However, authors like JMS and Azzarello completely rebooted the characters and gave her new origins in a non-Elseworld's setting. They added to the murkiness of the character's history. Prior to that, the main problem with WW was not being able to pin down a consistent supporting cast, now the problem is that if there is an adaptation, I don't know who the supporting cast will be or which of the origins the writers will go with.

Bringing back something closer to the Perez origin would not be a bad move. It will actually make the character consistent. Heck, it doesn't even have to scorch earth the existing mythos that Azzarello created. You can soft retcon it by saying that WW being the daughter of Zeus and the Succcubus Amazon's were all lies. There we go, problem solved. Now onwards to new stories!

In fact, going the opposite route of what the previous writer has done is not an inherently bad idea. Look at what Mark Waid on Daredevil has been like. Waid took a complete U-turn and took the opposite route that most writers have done. If handled right, returning WW to her Perez routes, bringing Steve Trevor to the title and bringing back popular Rouges into her title will not be a bad move. It would actually benefit the book.

[Carabas]

But why should a future writer be forced to follow the changes azz made when he himself didn't seem to respect much of what was established for the character pre-52? Apparently he felt the need to deconstruct the character in order to make his own "idealized" version of her, because he said she didn't have a story before he took on her title. That's a pretty arrogant claim to make.

But isn't what Azzarello did technically considered a reboot? And in his run, there seems to be things that were deliberately "left out". If that's the case, it seems like while his work is "critically acclaimed", he's still a part of the problem, as opposed to a lasting solution.

Azzarello's run was absolutely a reboot. There was this thing called "The New 52"? Everything except Batman and Green Lantern got a nice, cold, hard reboot?

And the new writer should follow the newly established new universe, and not reboot it again, unles they can reboot the whole DCU again at the same time.