Who do you think will be the next writer?

[BlackFeath]

One of my favorite things about Azz's run has been the fact that he leaves certain things open for my interpretation. The story let's me think. I don't just flip through every page, understand everything, and never need to touch the book again.

I do agree with what others have said before: Azz's run probably reads a lot better in trade paperback than it does as a monthly. If one were to buy his entire run and sit down and read it in one sitting, one would probably not have as many complaints about pacing and such. They would also be able to see the progression of the storyline form much more quickly and clearly.

Yeah, Azz doesn't spell everything out for you. If you flip through each issue only once and don't give it much thought, then yeah, you're not going to get as much out of it.

Yep! I like the fact that certain things are open to interpretation too! And also the fact that re-reading the book you notice things you haven't before. There are things (some even little things, not really important but that still enrich the book) in the pages that make me like the book even more.
Some things are not explained, but in them you can find a certain symbolism, which fits well since this story is centered on mithology and the Olympians.

For example, the way Ares and Eros travelled through the different "reigns".

When Ares has to take Diana to the reign of Harvest, he finds the passage by disrooting a plant.

When Eros from Firenze takes Diana and the others to his father's reign, inside Mount Etna, he does so through a door with written "Senza Uscita" (no exit) of a shop called "Bellezza e la bestia", which is the literal translation in Italian of "Beauty and the beast" (in Italian it is usually translated as "La bella e la bestia", though), obvious reference to the fact that "the beast" Hephaestus is married with "the beauty", Aphrodite =)

About the pacing...maybe it is because I'm used to mangas, but I haven't found it too slow, and I don't mind at all the fact that it seems all a long arc, on the contrary this makes me like the story even more, and in my eyes it makes it perfect to be used in a solo movie!

This said, I would like Azzarello to continue to write Wonder Woman. If he can't, then some other writer who will continue from what he has built,
Soule for example. I like his interpration of the title "god of war" in Superman/Wonder Woman, and also the fact he has reintroduced Doom's door and created Hessia.

[wagthedog]

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.

Pre52, Wonder Woman went through many 'soft reboots' with each new writer on board. Sounds to me much of the same can happen here when new writers get on this book.

[Ghostwise]

Pre52, Wonder Woman went through many 'soft reboots' with each new writer on board. Sounds to me much of the same can happen here when new writers get on this book.

Though Gail Simone made a noticeable effort at a smooth transition... which IMO slowed down her run as she tried to deal fairly with the existing plot elements and cast (such as Nemesis). Sometimes, you just can't win.

[Carabas]

Pre52, Wonder Woman went through many 'soft reboots' with each new writer on board. Sounds to me much of the same can happen here when new writers get on this book.

Wonder Woman suffering through sop many soft reboots over the year is generally seen as a major reason she is not even remotely in Batman and Superman's league when it comes to sales and popularity.

[Vanguard-01]

Pre52, Wonder Woman went through many 'soft reboots' with each new writer on board. Sounds to me much of the same can happen here when new writers get on this book.

Yes! And all those soft reboots are EXACTLY what we're talking about.

Why are Superman and Batman more popular than Diana? Because they DON'T go through a soft reboot every six months when the next writer comes along and tries to "fix" them. Superman and Batman have had long, long arcs of characterization and consistent storytelling which makes them a very clear and easy-to-understand personality and set of proclivities.

I get that you don't like a lot of Azz's changes. Well, I'm sorry about that. But you are flat wrong if you think that wiping out his work and starting fresh for the umpteen-thousandth time is going to do ANY good for Diana whatsoever. The next writer NEEDS to come in, play in Azz's sandbox, and try to make the stories his/her own within the parameters that Azz set. Changes can be made, but they need to be made in-story and in a way that makes sense.

Having a new writer come in, re-tell Diana's entire origin story, radically alter her personality, change the entire Amazonian culture without explanation, and completely change Diana's entire supporting cast will do FAR more damage to Diana's chances of ever being on the same level as Bats and Supes than Azz's three years EVER could. The simple truth is that soft-rebooting Diana has been tried half a dozen times. It didn't help her then. It won't help her now.

[Dr. Poison]

So then why is the current "soft reboot" ok?

[Vanguard-01]

So then why is the current "soft reboot" ok?

It WASN'T a soft reboot.

It was a full-blown "This is Wonder Woman's story for this entirely new universe" story. It was a total re-launch of Diana and her origin.

Did you REALLY think DC was going to rebuild their entire universe (minus Batman and GL) from the ground up and have Diana just continue on from where the Odyssey storyline left off?

New universe? New origin story. Azz's job was to lay the groundwork and give future writers a foundation to build on for future Wonder Woman stories. Throwing away that foundation and building and entirely new one keeps Diana in the constant state of flux in which she has been stuck for DECADES. That's not moving forward. It's moving backward. And moving backward hasn't helped Diana gain popularity in decades. Why should it help her now?

[numberthirty]

So then why is the current "soft reboot" ok?

As Vanguard-01 has mentioned, Diana actually has a father now. Plenty of longtime Wonder Woman fans spent quite a bit of time pointing out how much they hated that the character's origin was being totally redefined.

There is also no reason to believe that the same old plan(reboot/refocus) will draw in new readers. Actually, DC lost plenty of readers just by rebooting the overall universe. You would have to pull those fans back in just to get back to even(let alone expand the fanbase).

[Dr. Poison]

It WASN'T a soft reboot.

It was a full-blown "This is Wonder Woman's story for this entirely new universe" story. It was a total re-launch of Diana and her origin.

Did you REALLY think DC was going to rebuild their entire universe (minus Batman and GL) from the ground up and have Diana just continue on from where the Odyssey storyline left off?

New universe? New origin story. Azz's job was to lay the groundwork and give future writers a foundation to build on for future Wonder Woman stories. Throwing away that foundation and building and entirely new one keeps Diana in the constant state of flux in which she has been stuck for DECADES. That's not moving forward. It's moving backward. And moving backward hasn't helped Diana gain popularity in decades. Why should it help her now?

I was using Azzarello's exact words when I mentioned "soft reboot". When DC announced the New 52, I didn't expect them to keep any of their characters the same yet Batman and Green Lantern were kept mostly intact. Azzarello's reboot was a reboot none the less but I still don't see why his is ok but any before(or potentially after) would be wrong. I think some of you are ok with a reboot this time around because you like how the reboot was handled and that's certainly ok but at the same time, if you're going to approve of a reboot in this case, I don't think you should swear off any potential future reboot as that doesn't seem consistent to me.

[numberthirty]

I was using Azzarello's exact words when I mentioned "soft reboot". When DC announced the New 52, I didn't expect them to keep any of their characters the same yet Batman and Green Lantern were kept mostly intact. Azzarello's reboot was a reboot none the less but I still don't see why his is ok but any before(or potentially after) would be wrong. I think some of you are ok with a reboot this time around because you like how the reboot was handled and that's certainly ok but at the same time, if you're going to approve of a reboot in this case, I don't think you should swear off any potential future reboot as that doesn't seem consistent to me.

I think "swearing it off" is different than buying into the idea that the next reboot will accomplish something that reboots in the past have not.

If you look at it logically, running off fans of the current creative team(along with folks who did not like the idea of Nu52) seems like it would put the title in a worse position as far as reaching a wider audience.

[Vanguard-01]

I was using Azzarello's exact words when I mentioned "soft reboot". When DC announced the New 52, I didn't expect them to keep any of their characters the same yet Batman and Green Lantern were kept mostly intact. Azzarello's reboot was a reboot none the less but I still don't see why his is ok but any before(or potentially after) would be wrong. I think some of you are ok with a reboot this time around because you like how the reboot was handled and that's certainly ok but at the same time, if you're going to approve of a reboot in this case, I don't think you should swear off any potential future reboot as that doesn't seem consistent to me.

You couldn't be more wrong with me.

I was ambivalent, at best, when Azz's run got started. Issue #7 disgusted me and I actually stopped buying Wonder Woman for TWO MONTHS after that. I kept reading, and suddenly I was starting to see what Azz was doing, and I eventually came back to buying the whole run, because I began to see that the Wonder Woman I knew and loved was alive an well under Azz's pen.

As far as reboots in general? Azz's reboot is "okay" because it's THE reboot that has re-launched the Wonder Woman franchise. His run is the STARTING POINT for this new universe. He has set down the ground rules and established the character. Any future soft reboots for as long as the New 52 lasts are simply going to push Diana backward rather than forward.

Perez's reboot was also "okay" because he, too, was establishing the new Wonder Woman for a new universe. DC made several mistakes after his run ended by allowing Perez's successors to continuously undo everything that came before and keep Diana in a constant state of flux for the entirety of that previous universe. Perez's run set the rules and built Diana's world. DC should NEVER have allowed people to so cavalierly deviate from it for so long.

I don't want to see them make that mistake again. Whether you like the Azz run or not? It still set the ground rules. He has established Diana's character. He has built her world. NOW it is up to his successors to take the world he built and BUILD ON IT. Not to tear it all down and start over........again.......and again........and again.

You don't like some of what Azz established? Then hope that the next writer finds ways WITHIN the world Azz built to change those things you don't like. Hell, Azz is laying the groundwork for some of those changes right now. You don't like the sex raids? Diana has ALREADY forbidden them. You don't like that the Amazons are man-haters? Diana just ordered them to protect a male baby, in the hopes that they will come to see the good in men through him. You don't like that Diana's a Goddess of War? Diana has been a goddess before and it was the simplest of things to simply remove the whole godhood thing from her.

THAT is what needs to happen. There are things I don't like about Azz's run as well. But NONE of them are things that cannot be changed or fixed by subsequent writers within the story. Having a new writer come in and just sweep away Azz's entire run knocks Diana back to Square One after three years of progress and development.

That doesn't help ANYONE.

[Carabas]

I was using Azzarello's exact words when I mentioned "soft reboot". When DC announced the New 52, I didn't expect them to keep any of their characters the same yet Batman and Green Lantern were kept mostly intact. Azzarello's reboot was a reboot none the less but I still don't see why his is ok but any before(or potentially after) would be wrong. I think some of you are ok with a reboot this time around because you like how the reboot was handled and that's certainly ok but at the same time, if you're going to approve of a reboot in this case, I don't think you should swear off any potential future reboot as that doesn't seem consistent to me.

I just want to point out here that while the Bruce Wayne character was mostly kept the same, the rest of his corner of the DCU got a pretty hard reboot. Characters like Tim Drake, Dick Grayson, Oracle, Huntress... They're not even remotely the same characters now.

[Dr. Poison]

You couldn't be more wrong with me.

I was ambivalent, at best, when Azz's run got started. Issue #7 disgusted me and I actually stopped buying Wonder Woman for TWO MONTHS after that. I kept reading, and suddenly I was starting to see what Azz was doing, and I eventually came back to buying the whole run, because I began to see that the Wonder Woman I knew and loved was alive an well under Azz's pen.

As far as reboots in general? Azz's reboot is "okay" because it's THE reboot that has re-launched the Wonder Woman franchise. His run is the STARTING POINT for this new universe. He has set down the ground rules and established the character. Any future soft reboots for as long as the New 52 lasts are simply going to push Diana backward rather than forward.

Perez's reboot was also "okay" because he, too, was establishing the new Wonder Woman for a new universe. DC made several mistakes after his run ended by allowing Perez's successors to continuously undo everything that came before and keep Diana in a constant state of flux for the entirety of that previous universe. Perez's run set the rules and built Diana's world. DC should NEVER have allowed people to so cavalierly deviate from it for so long.

I don't want to see them make that mistake again. Whether you like the Azz run or not? It still set the ground rules. He has established Diana's character. He has built her world. NOW it is up to his successors to take the world he built and BUILD ON IT. Not to tear it all down and start over........again.......and again........and again.

You don't like some of what Azz established? Then hope that the next writer finds ways WITHIN the world Azz built to change those things you don't like. Hell, Azz is laying the groundwork for some of those changes right now. You don't like the sex raids? Diana has ALREADY forbidden them. You don't like that the Amazons are man-haters? Diana just ordered them to protect a male baby, in the hopes that they will come to see the good in men through him. You don't like that Diana's a Goddess of War? Diana has been a goddess before and it was the simplest of things to simply remove the whole godhood thing from her.

THAT is what needs to happen. There are things I don't like about Azz's run as well. But NONE of them are things that cannot be changed or fixed by subsequent writers within the story. Having a new writer come in and just sweep away Azz's entire run knocks Diana back to Square One after three years of progress and development.

That doesn't help ANYONE.

I understand where you're coming from better but I still don't like this "soft reboot". :P

I'm curious though how you feel by Diana forbidding the raids makes things better? The Amazons still have this smudge on their history. They may not do the raids again but that doesn't wipe their slate clean. I guess it could be seen as being better for the future but still, the Amazons are forever tainted from this.

[Vanguard-01]

I understand where you're coming from better but I still don't like this "soft reboot". :P

I'm curious though how you feel by Diana forbidding the raids makes things better? The Amazons still have this smudge on their history. They may not do the raids again but that doesn't wipe their slate clean. I guess it could be seen as being better for the future but still, the Amazons are forever tainted from this.

EVERY nation has smudges on their history. America was built on slave labor and the near-genocide of largely peaceful indigenous people. Does that mean that America is forever tainted and nothing we do in the world can ever be good? No. It means we have a dark past that we need to acknowledge and resolve to never repeat. We can't bring back all those African slaves who suffered and died for 300 years in our history. We can't "un-murder" all those Native Americans that we slaughtered for their land. We can't change the past. What we CAN DO is learn from the past and try to move forward.

So, the Amazons, like every other nation in history, have a smudge on their history? All this means is that the Amazons are not perfect. It means they've made mistakes. Diana forbidding any further raids doesn't change the past, any more than the Emancipation Proclamation undid the crimes Americans committed against their slaves for three centuries. However, these things DO forbid any further crimes or tragedies from occurring. That's ALWAYS the first step in making up for past mistakes: making sure that those mistakes do not continue.

Also? I remind you that there is still a chance Azz may reveal that the sex raids may have somehow been the result of Strife's influence.

As I said: the Amazons are not perfect people. Pretty much ALL Wonder Woman fans acknowledge that the Amazons should not be portrayed as being perfect. But the past is the past. It can't be changed. The future is what's important. Having Diana show her sisters that they were WRONG to do what they've been doing is the first step in guiding them toward being the kind, compassionate, and tolerant women that we all want to see them as being. Instead of the Amazons starting off with this nigh-perfect, idyllic society, we get to see Diana help to BUILD the Amazons into such a society. That only ENHANCES Diana's awesomeness, as far as I'm concerned.

[Dr. Poison]

EVERY nation has smudges on their history. America was built on slave labor and the near-genocide of largely peaceful indigenous people. Does that mean that America is forever tainted and nothing we do in the world can ever be good? No. It means we have a dark past that we need to acknowledge and resolve to never repeat. We can't bring back all those African slaves who suffered and died for 300 years in our history. We can't "un-murder" all those Native Americans that we slaughtered for their land. We can't change the past. What we CAN DO is learn from the past and try to move forward.

So, the Amazons, like every other nation in history, have a smudge on their history? All this means is that the Amazons are not perfect. It means they've made mistakes. Diana forbidding any further raids doesn't change the past, any more than the Emancipation Proclamation undid the crimes Americans committed against their slaves for three centuries. However, these things DO forbid any further crimes or tragedies from occurring. That's ALWAYS the first step in making up for past mistakes: making sure that those mistakes do not continue.

Also? I remind you that there is still a chance Azz may reveal that the sex raids may have somehow been the result of Strife's influence.

As I said: the Amazons are not perfect people. Pretty much ALL Wonder Woman fans acknowledge that the Amazons should not be portrayed as being perfect. But the past is the past. It can't be changed. The future is what's important. Having Diana show her sisters that they were WRONG to do what they've been doing is the first step in guiding them toward being the kind, compassionate, and tolerant women that we all want to see them as being. Instead of the Amazons starting off with this nigh-perfect, idyllic society, we get to see Diana help to BUILD the Amazons into such a society. That only ENHANCES Diana's awesomeness, as far as I'm concerned.

I think the different to me about the examples you've given is that all of the Americans who practiced slavery and killed Native Americans for their land are now dead. Most(if not all) of the Amazons(being an immortal race) who participated in the raids are still alive. If they were to face an American judge and jury, they would most likely be sentenced to life in prison without any chance of parole. I just don't think they should be walking around freely without having paid a significant debt to the society of those that they killed.

I do hope that you're right about Strife influencing the raids or perhaps Hephaestus was just lying about the raids to get Diana to take a particular action.