Superman Wonder Woman #22 Spoilers and Discussion

[Tayswift]

Speaking only for myself: it's not that it's one problem, it's that it's one really dumb problem. She did not betray him. Clark is just being dumb because the writing is dumb. There are also other problems, specifically that this is too much of a Superman book and not enough of a SM/WW book. Mileage, obviously, varies.

yep too much superman

You're comparing Ghandi's non-violence to Diana's violence? How does that make sense?

I like the idea that Diana can put personal matters aside and still want to be Superman's teammate. Good idea. Bad execution. As a JL teammate, what good reason does she have to assist Superman in attacking a government helicopter? She doesn't. It's just over-the-top, extreme spectacle but it doesn't make sense. So, I think Tayswift has a valid point that it makes Diana look blindly devoted.

true story. it's not like wonder owman say "we are done, but I will help you the right way. like no assaulting military men risking their lifes".
seems more she is doign this because sh loves superman and has hopes to get back together, a very sick puppy

Speaking of evidence, where has Tayswift called all those people sexists? You sure you're not making inferences and/or twisting what is actually said?

I didn't called anyone sexist. if people feel guilty is their own problems

It's also common to laught at something. I laugh along with a comedy; I'm laughing at Superman's stupidity, because it's just so stupid. Big difference.

yep

Except, she doesn't really have him anymore, right? First, I don't really have a problem with WW showing interest in Batman in JLU. And, Bruce did have some interest, too, he just didn't handle it well. Sure, it all could have been handled better on the show, but then, relationships often could have been handled better.

Here, the SM/WW kinda-sorta breakup is similar in that the relationship is imbalanced, with Clark now having one foot out, and it all could have been handled better. In both cases, Diana is left showing more interest in the relationship than Bruce or Clark (at the moment). So, I think it's a fair comparison.

writers and producers couldn't do bmww on JLU, he was already all alone on batman beyond. I think that batww was much better handled than smww, wonder owman had agency and even the feminist who don't like smww liked it.
Bruce had same interest than wonder woman, maybe even more. problem was, he couldn't do nothing about it. he was a dude that wonder woman had to conquest, we usually only see men on this role.

It's a good point that Clark has been very good to her up until now, so they have more of an investment worth trying to save. I don't blame Diana for not wanting to give up right away.

I also agree that this "romantic hurdle" has been set up terribly. It's not a bad idea, but the execution of it is really lacking - which is a big reason I have very little faith they can do a good job of the reconciliation. It's times like this that I can't help but think most comic writers should avoid romance as they just don't do it well (imo). Maybe when Clark pulls himself together to win Diana back he can win me back, too. But, I want lots of groveling.

it's a lame point and sexist one. Just because someone was nice one time doesn't mean people owe them love. it's the same case that smww is.
it's not like ww couldn't get a better boyfriend than clark, that on new 52 is easier than find mcdonalds restaurants. ww is being stupid like bella on twilight

well clark already lost it. ww should love herself and move on, for much little than that she ended with Trevor. now superman deserves a chance? ww would be so hipocrite

[Sacred Knight]

I didn't called anyone sexist.

it's a lame point and sexist one.

You can't make this stuff up. For the past three years you've accused everyone whose ever laid a finger on writing or drawing this relationship to be producing sexist work. And if you think someone is writing sexist stuff, then that's tantamount to calling them sexist themselves.

[friendly-fire-press]

You can't make this stuff up. For the past three years you've accused everyone whose ever laid a finger on writing or drawing this relationship to be producing sexist work. And if you think someone is writing sexist stuff, then that's tantamount to calling them sexist themselves.

Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[brettc1]

You can't make this stuff up. For the past three years you've accused everyone whose ever laid a finger on writing or drawing this relationship to be producing sexist work. And if you think someone is writing sexist stuff, then that's tantamount to calling them sexist themselves.

In terms of the forum rules there is a difference.

Saying that a piece of work reflects sexist attitudes is not the same as calling that artist or writer sexist. The first is allowed. The second is a personal comment about the one producing it, and not allowed under the same rules that prevent posters from calling each other sexist.

Did I get that right, Mods?

[Tayswift]

In terms of the forum rules there is a difference.

Saying that a piece of work reflects sexist attitudes is not the same as calling that artist or writer sexist. The first is allowed. The second is a personal comment about the one producing it, and not allowed under the same rules that prevent posters from calling each other sexist.

Did I get that right, Mods?

not always the work of someone will reflect who they are, even Gail made mistakes on her past work. But she admitted she was wrong and never did the same mistaken again

my point is saying someone is good for them or a good person, is a justificative used to make woman stay on abusive relationships or guilting them just for ending a relationship. or making pression for women date boys they doesn't want.

[Lax]

You're not saying anything new here. It has been a point of contention since the relationship began.

Not in relation to issue #22 and if my argument has been heard previously it clearly bears repeating now because some are blaming the concept(relationship) itself for the poor writing.

Yes, pre-Flaspoint their characters were very similar. I won't say compatible, because in dramatic fiction opposites attract.

Which is to say that in fiction compatibility does not exist.

Unless you're saying the greater the difference in characters the greater the compatibility which is... not a sustainable position to have in terms of debate. It opens the door to statements like "Batman/Joker would be the most compatible couple in the DC Universe." which comes off as odd.

I'll google the definition of the word just to be safe.

Dictionary.com Compatible -

1. Capable of existing or living together in harmony: "The most compatible married couple I know."

2. Able to exist together with something else: "Prejudice is not compatible with true religion."

3. Consistent; congruous (often followed by with): "His claims are not compatible with the facts."

Google Compatible

1. A state in which two things are able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict. "he argues for the compatibility of science and religion"

2. A feeling of sympathy and friendship; like-mindedness. "they felt the bond of true compatibility"

Based on third party definitions of the word I reaffirm my position that compatibility exists even within fiction and that Superman & Wonder Woman are highly compatible characters.

Writhing two characters who are so similar in a relationship is dead boring.

Only if you conflate a lack of conflict within the relationship with a lack of conflict within the story.

You need contrasts - Maddie Hayes + David Addison, Bones + Boothe, Mal + Inara, Castle + Beckett, Ollie + Felicity. It's the occasional friction between two different characters that produces heat. Using the example from ARROW, the Felicity + Ray Palmer thing works as a brief dalliance but ultimately, apart from any other consideration, they are just to much the same to make it interesting long term.

No, what is needed is conflict and that can come from either inside or outside of any relationship. Romeo and Juliet for example were two highly compatible individuals with families that hated each other's guts. The conflict within the story came from forces outside the relationship which in turn made their love seem all the stronger. It's considered by many to be one of the greatest love stories in fiction.

With the New 52 they got to rewrite WW from Warrior for a Peace into just flat out warrior, and then God Of War. Most of the time in JL or SMWW she has been written as more violent, they differing views on capital punishment being a good example.(Reformation Island? What's that?) the change to her character provided the necessary friction for storytelling.

How do you know this harder edge to the character has anything to do with the SM/WW relationship? She was at her most violent in the beginning of the reboot when she was with Steve. Superman also came out with a harder edge than before the reboot.

Besides, if the Maxwell Lord situation is anything to go by those two have had different opinions on capital punishment before the Nu52.

It's ironic that the folks who've been shipping the characters as "perfectly matched" got their wish by DC making radical changes to one of the perfectly matched characters.

Not just one, both, keep in mind the problem with this issue and overall arc is that Superman is the crazy one. That's literally been the meat of my point, if a writer were to write them both in character at the same time they are highly compatible with each other. That compatibility is this pairings "strength", not their "weakness".

Unfortunately a lot of writers believe as you believe, that compatibility is boring within a story by default when in truth that's not the case. Compatibility is compatibility, it's a quality within the character's relationships and interactions that is part of the story. Right now it's a tool that Tomasi is going out of his way to avoid because of this false belief.

I know this because I've seen glimpses of it working in this book, namely issue #6.

Unless of course you meant perfectly matched in the superficial high school sense of being physically attractive.

I have zero doubt that's what opponents of the pairing will try to reduce it as, which is why it's so appropriate for proponents of the pairing to say otherwise.

Earlier you claimed "You're not saying anything new here. It has been a point of contention since the relationship began.", if so, that would logically apply to your position as well yet you are reaffirming it regardless. Especially considering the post you quoted was originally addressed to Sacred Knight.

Now it's Supermans turn. Once again the friction comes from contrasts, and since we have seen Supermans influence mellowing Diana for the last two years ( yes we have ) the writers now spin Superman way out of control, acting wildly against his typical character profile.

Yes it sucks. But on the other hand, turnabout is fair play, guys.

Which is a flaw within the writer's work that is worth criticizing.

The main difference is that in addition to criticism I'm also proposing solutions to improve the quality of the work while others would rather just have the entire concept shut down.

[brettc1]

I'm not saying anything new here either. There's a reason stories are written this way and have been for centuries. I'm a writer (yes, for money) and yes, lots of us do believe this, because of all the evidence.

Even in the most reason season of Castle, they have contrived a way for the two leads to be in love and yet not be together.

The sum total of the point is that what was identified as a factor three years ago still is.

And of course they are going to twist the relationship around and take it thought the ringer. What would be the point of it if they didn't. If all they wanted was the happily ever after, they had that.

DC decided folks wanted something different. Fair enough. Something different includes Wonder Woman cutting open Hal Jordan and Superman behaving like an idiot and pushing away Wonder Woman. Be careful what you wish for, I guess.

[Javier Velasco]

Hi everyone,

Here is the deal. It is clear that labeling a poster or artist as sexist or racist is off limits. When it comes to describing content, the use of those terms like that have a bit more leeway.

But please remember, that the purpose of the boards is for dynamic discussion. Very often when those terms are thrown around, they stifle discussion. Why? Because if Poster A believes that there is a racist element to the work and Poster B disagrees, it becomes very easy for Poster A to suddenly paint Poster B as an "apologist for racism." Likewise, the thread can suddenly go off track and become a long general discussion on what racism exactly means.

When a poster posts, he/she should take into consideration how their posts will ENCOURAGE others to post on the subject. Not how to shut down conversation.

The content in question may indeed be sexist (it may not be), but simply declaring it so does not make for conversation. Additionally, repeatedly posting the same accusations about a writer or an artist, becomes trolling.

In posting, please remember that while there are certain things that are certainly off limits (profanity, off-topic posts, negativity towards fellow posters), that the moderators here are also charged with making sure that the discussion on the threads is moving forward in a positive way. And sometimes that may mean deleting posts that may fit within the general guidelines, but still disrupt discussion.

Here on the WW Board, we tend to have an energetic, positive, thoughtful group. Thank you for that. And if there are a few posters with a more "confrontational" style, we can deal with that. But please remember that to constantly post in a manner where you are lobbing grenades that do not add to the discussion, that you may find those posts removed. even if they ARE within the general usage guidelines.

Thank you and I hope you all had a lovely Halloween weekend.

Javier

[friendly-fire-press]

Hi everyone,

Here is the deal. It is clear that labeling a poster or artist as sexist or racist is off limits. When it comes to describing content, the use of those terms like that have a bit more leeway.

But please remember, that the purpose of the boards is for dynamic discussion. Very often when those terms are thrown around, they stifle discussion. Why? Because if Poster A believes that there is a racist element to the work and Poster B disagrees, it becomes very easy for Poster A to suddenly paint Poster B as an "apologist for racism." Likewise, the thread can suddenly go off track and become a long general discussion on what racism exactly means.

When a poster posts, he/she should take into consideration how their posts will ENCOURAGE others to post on the subject. Not how to shut down conversation.

The content in question may indeed be sexist (it may not be), but simply declaring it so does not make for conversation. Additionally, repeatedly posting the same accusations about a writer or an artist, becomes trolling.

In posting, please remember that while there are certain things that are certainly off limits (profanity, off-topic posts, negativity towards fellow posters), that the moderators here are also charged with making sure that the discussion on the threads is moving forward in a positive way. And sometimes that may mean deleting posts that may fit within the general guidelines, but still disrupt discussion.

Here on the WW Board, we tend to have an energetic, positive, thoughtful group. Thank you for that. And if there are a few posters with a more "confrontational" style, we can deal with that. But please remember that to constantly post in a manner where you are lobbing grenades that do not add to the discussion, that you may find those posts removed. even if they ARE within the general usage guidelines.

Thank you and I hope you all had a lovely Halloween weekend.

Javier

No. Thank you for your fair judgement and impartiality.

[brettc1]

I'll google the definition of the word just to be safe.

Dictionary.com Compatible -

1. Capable of existing or living together in harmony: "The most compatible married couple I know."

2. Able to exist together with something else: "Prejudice is not compatible with true religion."

3. Consistent; congruous (often followed by with): "His claims are not compatible with the facts."

Google Compatible

1. A state in which two things are able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict. "he argues for the compatibility of science and religion"

2. A feeling of sympathy and friendship; like-mindedness. "they felt the bond of true compatibility"

Based on third party definitions of the word I reaffirm my position that compatibility exists even within fiction and that Superman & Wonder Woman are highly compatible characters.

You can certainly write any characters as being compatible - I've seen fiction where Captain America and Thor are written that way, some of it quite good

But while a dictionary might give you an excellent text book definition of compatibility, drama does not usually come from a dictionary. Drama..being an exciting, emotional or unexpected series of events...needs a level of conflict. It's not a coincidence that many tv shows that have couples as their central protagonists don't begin with them happily together and then continue on like that for every single minute of screen time.

How do you know this harder edge to the character has anything to do with the SM/WW relationship? She was at her most violent in the beginning of the reboot when she was with Steve. Superman also came out with a harder edge than before the reboot.

Besides, if the Maxwell Lord situation is anything to go by those two have had different opinions on capital punishment before the Nu52.

Sure, and yet beyond that singular situation Wonder Woman disavowed killing and stepped back from that hard line approach. Lots of folks seem to overlook that.

And yes again, she was more violent pre-Superman. Look at how he has mellowed her.

Superman, in comparison, was a bit edgier but still not stepping up and saying "I'm going to deal with my enemies permanently."

Not just one, both, keep in mind the problem with this issue and overall arc is that Superman is the crazy one. That's literally been the meat of my point, if a writer were to write them both in character at the same time they are highly compatible with each other. That compatibility is this pairings "strength", not their "weakness".

Unfortunately a lot of writers believe as you believe, that compatibility is boring within a story by default when in truth that's not the case. Compatibility is compatibility, it's a quality within the character's relationships and interactions that is part of the story. Right now it's a tool that Tomasi is going out of his way to avoid because of this false belief.

I know this because I've seen glimpses of it working in this book, namely issue #6.

I agree you can't have 100% drama all the time - you need contrasts. Occasional calm moments before yet another storm of emotion rolls in. Part of characters being compatible in FICTION is their ability to spark off each other. They also need contrasts. Would Star Trek have been as interesting to watch if Spock and McCoy always agreed. I don't think so.

As evidenced above this is not a truth only for romance - Riggs and Murtagh, Sherlock and John Holmes, Rizzoli and Isles...pretty much every great pairing has this quality.

I have zero doubt that's what opponents of the pairing will try to reduce it as, which is why it's so appropriate for proponents of the pairing to say otherwise.

Earlier you claimed "You're not saying anything new here. It has been a point of contention since the relationship began.", if so, that would logically apply to your position as well yet you are reaffirming it regardless. Especially considering the post you quoted was originally addressed to Sacred Knight.

Naturally. It's not like my and SK's differing opinions on this are a secret.

Which is a flaw within the writer's work that is worth criticizing.

The main difference is that in addition to criticism I'm also proposing solutions to improve the quality of the work while others would rather just have the entire concept shut down.

Not shut down...just move forward to the next stage (where Diana starts to realize her own true feelings about a certain Air Force officer ]

[Lax]

You can certainly write any characters as being compatible - I've seen fiction where Captain America and Thor are written that way, some of it quite good

I used Batman and Joker as an example for a reason. Captain America and Thor are both good people, Batman and Joker are not, if the idea that the greater the difference the greater the compatibility is true then Batman/Joker would easily work as a couple without writing either as wildly out of character. This is not the case.

But while a dictionary might give you an excellent text book definition of compatibility, drama does not usually come from a dictionary. Drama..being an exciting, emotional or unexpected series of events...needs a level of conflict. It's not a coincidence that many tv shows that have couples as their central protagonists don't begin with them happily together and then continue on like that for every single minute of screen time.

Which we seem to agree on. Where we differ is in the idea that conflict must come from within the relationship itself or the story is boring. These two being characters who are quite easily capable of holding down an entire book as a bachelor/bachelorette if DC were so inclined. Wonder Woman has mostly done so in her own book and Superman has a book with Batman that is without romance all together yet the "level of conflict" is not an issue.

Thus, the argument would logically follow that a compatible relationship is an inherently boring concept to such an overwhelming degree that a professional writer can't make the book entertaining even though that exact same model has been used successfully with zero romance whatsoever. Indeed, my argument has been almost entirely avoided by writers for 20+ issues while your argument has been the trend yet the quality of the book was at it's highest when Soule finally started highlighting elements of their compatibility.

To reject my argument on the basis that the "quality of work" will suffer when the both of us are already complaining about the "quality of work" that is currently based on your argument is tantamount to fear mongering so that the "quality of work" stays lower. Which would make perfect sense as you are an opponent of the pairing while I am a proponent of it.

Sure, and yet beyond that singular situation Wonder Woman disavowed killing and stepped back from that hard line approach. Lots of folks seem to overlook that.

And yes again, she was more violent pre-Superman. Look at how he has mellowed her.

Superman, in comparison, was a bit edgier but still not stepping up and saying "I'm going to deal with my enemies permanently."

Implying that she was somehow wrong to kill Maxwell Lord which isn't true. Contrary to popular belief her stance on killing is one worth having because it's a valuable option in saving innocent lives. Yet another topic writers have issues with.

Besides, my point is that it's in no way definitive that these changes came about because of the relationship. If she was more violent with Steve then you can't blame her violence on Superman. That Superman was edgier as well supports the idea that it's a trait DC wanted for a good number of it's heroes in general. Captain Marvel/Shazam/Billy was a brat in the beginning as well.

I agree you can't have 100% drama all the time - you need contrasts. Occasional calm moments before yet another storm of emotion rolls in. Part of characters being compatible in FICTION is their ability to spark off each other. They also need contrasts. Would Star Trek have been as interesting to watch if Spock and McCoy always agreed. I don't think so.

As evidenced above this is not a truth only for romance - Riggs and Murtagh, Sherlock and John Holmes, Rizzoli and Isles...pretty much every great pairing has this quality.

I'm talking about conflict in the context that Superman & Wonder Woman have been written in out of character ways in order to make it happen, that's my overarching criticism of this book.

I would love to see them have a reasonable debate on capital punishment where both characters are presented as having valuable and worthwhile arguments because they're both reasonable people. Instead we get bizarre implications that Wonder Woman somehow doesn't care about innocent people even though her argument makes the most sense and the only reason she's a heroine in the first place is because she cares about innocent people.

I would love to see a reasonable debate on the ethics of using the Lasso where both characters are presented as having valuable and worthwhile arguments because they're both reasonable people. Instead we get crazy hypocrite Superman who's okay with the use of the Lasso one moment then suddenly against it the next for poor and/or unexplained reasons and then blames Wondy for not being able to read his broken mind.

I would love to see a reasonable debate on how claiming "I don't know if I love you" has any relevance to any of the events actually going wrong in Superman's life where both characters are presented as having valuable and worthwhile arguments because they're both reasonable people. Instead we get Superman dropping that bomb and walking away with Wonder Woman allowing him to do so because if she actually bothered to challenge his argument Superman's position would be exposed as the complete madness that it is.

There is so much potential in this pairing that has been squandered due to a combination of crossovers and the writer's inability or unwillingness to recognize the "strength" of this pairing. All characters are not the same, therefore all pairings are not the same, therefore all pairings should not be written with the same strategy as if they were all the same.

Naturally. It's not like my and SK's differing opinions on this are a secret.

You're missing my point.

You said "You're not saying anything new here. It has been a point of contention since the relationship began." as if there's no point in a proponent of the pairing talking to an opponent of the pairing. But Sacred Knight is not an opponent of the pairing therefore any "contention" toward my argument from him is not expected provided my argument is reasonable and indeed so far he has yet to do so.

Meanwhile you offered me a counter-argument that by your own premise is pointless to bring up because I am a proponent of the pairing while you are an opponent of it. In other words, you offered me advice that does not apply while at the same time ignoring it yourself.

Not shut down...just move forward to the next stage (where Diana starts to realize her own true feelings about a certain Air Force officer ]

Presumably the Superman and Wonder Woman relationship would be ended beforehand which would mean that DC had "shut down" the concept of the pairing which was... what I said.

Unless you're saying she'll have both Superman and Steve as lovers at the same time which comes off as no less out of character than anything else I've been complaining about.

[brettc1]

I used Batman and Joker as an example for a reason. Captain America and Thor are both good people, Batman and Joker are not, if the idea that the greater the difference the greater the compatibility is true then Batman/Joker would easily work as a couple without writing either as wildly out of character. This is not the case.

correct. The characters basic motivation has to be the same, but within that context the characters themselves must have differences so they can effectively play off each other.

Which we seem to agree on. Where we differ is in the idea that conflict must come from within the relationship itself or the story is boring. These two being characters who are quite easily capable of holding down an entire book as a bachelor/bachelorette if DC were so inclined. Wonder Woman has mostly done so in her own book and Superman has a book with Batman that is without romance all together yet the "level of conflict" is not an issue.

Some people would argue about the level of bromance in Superman Batman. but again, these two are sometimes shown at odds over how to deal with situations. But certainly romance always ups the emotional stakes.

Thus, the argument would logically follow that a compatible relationship is an inherently boring concept to such an overwhelming degree that a professional writer can't make the book entertaining even though that exact same model has been used successfully with zero romance whatsoever. Indeed, my argument has been almost entirely avoided by writers for 20+ issues while your argument has been the trend yet the quality of the book was at it's highest when Soule finally started highlighting elements of their compatibility.

Buddy movies and romantic drama are not the same and have different dynamics. That's just the way it is.

Implying that she was somehow wrong to kill Maxwell Lord which isn't true. Contrary to popular belief her stance on killing is one worth having because it's a valuable option in saving innocent lives. Yet another topic writers have issues with.

Our disagreement on this is a subject for an entirely different thread.

Besides, my point is that it's in no way definitive that these changes came about because of the relationship. If she was more violent with Steve then you can't blame her violence on Superman. That Superman was edgier as well supports the idea that it's a trait DC wanted for a good number of it's heroes in general. Captain Marvel/Shazam/Billy was a brat in the beginning as well.

I don't blame Superman. He's a fie tonal character. The writers are responsible for being more violent than ever in the early stages of New 52. Whether that was to make her a more interesting match with Superman or that idea came from her more starkly contrasting disposition is a matter of debate, but the concept was even used as a story point in the Circe arc.

I'm talking about conflict in the context that Superman & Wonder Woman have been written in out of character ways in order to make it happen, that's my overarching criticism of this book.

I would love to see them have a reasonable debate on capital punishment where both characters are presented as having valuable and worthwhile arguments because they're both reasonable people. Instead we get bizarre implications that Wonder Woman somehow doesn't care about innocent people even though her argument makes the most sense and the only reason she's a heroine in the first place is because she cares about innocent people.

it sounds like you'd be happy for them to have a reasonable debate if Superman lost the argument

I would love to see a reasonable debate on how claiming "I don't know if I love you" has any relevance to any of the events actually going wrong in Superman's life where both characters are presented as having valuable and worthwhile arguments because they're both reasonable people. Instead we get Superman dropping that bomb and walking away with Wonder Woman allowing him to do so because if she actually bothered to challenge his argument Superman's position would be exposed as the complete madness that it is.

Then maybe she is wise, because there is usually little point in trying to have a reasonable debate with somebody acting like a lunatic.

There is so much potential in this pairing that has been squandered due to a combination of crossovers and the writer's inability or unwillingness to recognize the "strength" of this pairing. All characters are not the same, therefore all pairings are not the same, therefore all pairings should not be written with the same strategy as if they were all the same.

Not all battles are the same, so not all tactics are the same. But basic strategies are fairly consistent. In fiction, combinations of types of characters follow certain basic rules.

You're missing my point.

You said "You're not saying anything new here. It has been a point of contention since the relationship began." as if there's no point in a proponent of the pairing talking to an opponent of the pairing. But Sacred Knight is not an opponent of the pairing therefore any "contention" toward my argument from him is not expected provided my argument is reasonable and indeed so far he has yet to do so.

Meanwhile you offered me a counter-argument that by your own premise is pointless to bring up because I am a proponent of the pairing while you are an opponent of it. In other words, you offered me advice that does not apply while at the same time ignoring it yourself.

Yeah... You lost me here. Sorry.

Presumably the Superman and Wonder Woman relationship would be ended beforehand which would mean that DC had "shut down" the concept of the pairing which was... what I said.

Unless you're saying she'll have both Superman and Steve as lovers at the same time which comes off as no less out of character than anything else I've been complaining about.

Oooooo... love triangle! How exciting