Greg Rucka back on Wonder Woman

[brettc1]

But the Wonder Woman demigod origin is something that originated in the comics. Its not an example of the movies coming up with a concept and then that change being implemented in the comics. This is something that first showed up in the Wonder Woman comic. So, it obviously doesn't make any sense for them to now deviate from that just when the movie is about to use that same origin.

Maybe. But if you follow that logic then it doesn't make any sense for Lois Lane to not be Superman's girl friend, because that is deviating from what was done in the movies when Man of Steel came out. As soon as MoS hit the screens Clark and Lois should have hooked up in the book, but that didn't happen.

Ultimately the movies and comics are as alike as the writers want but if the comics want to go with the clay origin so be it.

[brettc1]

Where did we learn that?
In the story itself it was just the Watchtower defenses and Wonder Woman holding him back.

Might need help from the Super-fans on this one. But if Superman hits a normal guy once full strength, he should be dead.

He's never been under the complete control by somebody who wants him to murder some countries though.

Not true. He's been under the control of Darkseid and been responsible for helping orchestrate the deaths of thousands of Hunger Dogs. It happened during the Legends mini-series.

Yes and no.
She does indeed feel like she made the correct decision, but she still didn't like that she had to kill him.

Dredd doesn't enjoy killing either. He's not a sadist.

Bad analogies.
Neither Dredd nor the Punisher make decisions when they kill.
Dredd just follows the Law, and if the Law says you die, then you die. Mind you, he's gotten a lot milder in his old age.
And the Punisher never makes the decision to kill either. Killing is simply the only tool in his toolbox, it's the way he solves every problem, and he never feels bad about it.

You're right that Dredd is a bad analogy, because Dredd DOES follow the law, and Wonder Woman didn't. Legally she had no more right to kill Max than a police officer would have the right to shoot a surrendering prisoner based on him worrying that a jury would not find him guilty.

Which fits the Punisher's profile. He sees the system as broken and its his job to fix it by killing criminals who would not get properly punished otherwise and would then reoffend. Which is exactly what we see with Max.

What Rucka had WW do was act as judge, jury and executioner. But she doesn't have that right. Nor should she.

[brettc1]

Also I don't think you are considering that Diana also did it to save Superman from this, like you saw how Superman reacted when Max had him beat up Batman, whats he going to be like if he wakes up and is wearing Jimmy as a hat? And Lois and Perry as shoes? ... ah yes, we actually do know, because Max made him see it and act it.

Actually, the destruction of Superman would have come at the trial, had WW been found innocent. We saw exactly the same thing happen in the Kingdom Come storyline where Magog is found not guilty of murdering The Joker when he blasted him point blank with his energy weapon after had was captured.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Old article from a major news outlet based on old info

Which was the last major news about the issue. So until they affirmatively announce different, the demigod origin is in. Regardless of how you feel about it, those are the facts. It doesn't make sense for you to hope that they've changed their minds when we have already received an affirmative answer AND there is no concrete evidence to even suggest a reversal of that direction. So, sorry, what you're doing is called denial.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Maybe. But if you follow that logic then it doesn't make any sense for Lois Lane to not be Superman's girl friend, because that is deviating from what was done in the movies when Man of Steel came out. As soon as MoS hit the screens Clark and Lois should have hooked up in the book, but that didn't happen.

Ultimately the movies and comics are as alike as the writers want but if the comics want to go with the clay origin so be it.

1. Actually that's not too analogous because Lois and Clark had already been a part for some time by the time the movie came out. On the other hand, the demigod origin for Diana has already been on the books for five years. In one scenario, you're asking for the movie to change the status quo in the comics. In the other, the movie is simply reflecting the already existing status quo in the comics.

2. Have you been paying attention to the recent solicits? The old school married Lois and Clark are coming back.

[Lex Luthor]

Which was the last major news about the issue. So until they affirmatively announce different, the demigod origin is in. Regardless of how you feel about it, those are the facts. It doesn't make sense for you to hope that they've changed their minds when we have already received an affirmative answer AND there is no concrete evidence to even suggest a reversal of that direction. So, sorry, what you're doing is called denial.

The major changes and developments since 2014 in the dceu is more than enough proof that a clip from one person talking about an idea from two years ago isnt exactly indictive of the current state of the movie,esp if it was plan off the cuff comment made in passing, and the final decision is still up in the air. nothing is concrete esp since they have absolutely no problem cutting out and changing things even in the process of making a film

But I thought you might have some new information about this so oh well

[brettc1]

1. Actually that's not too analogous because Lois and Clark had already been a part for some time by the time the movie came out. On the other hand, the demigod origin for Diana has already been on the books for five years. In one scenario, you're asking for the movie to change the status quo in the comics. In the other, the movie is simply reflecting the already existing status quo in the comics.

2. Have you been paying attention to the recent solicits? The old school married Lois and Clark are coming back.

2. I never pay attention to solicits, because they have too many spoilers in them.

1. If Clark and Lois had been apart for some time in the comics by the time the movie came out, and that was not the case in the movie, then clearly this demonstrates that is possible to two very different lines of story running between movies and books.

Ergo, it is possible to have the demigod story in the movies but go back to the clay origin in the books.

After all, movie Batman often bears an only superficial resemblance to his super-intelligent literary counterpart.

[Outside_85]

As far a mass murderer being captured straight away - that doesn't apply to Max because his body count at that point stands at one; Blue Beetle.

So according to you a terrorist is totally innocent right up to the moment he kills a hundred people with a bomb?

Further, we learned later that Superman was indeed holding back with Batman, which is actually the ONLY possible explanation for why Batman survived the attack.

Actually, the League reviewed the entire incident and concluded that it was a mix of Batman's training, gear and sheer luck that saw him through. Because Superman was thinking he was seeing one of either, Ruin, Brainiac or Darkseid all of which had just killed Lois.

And as for saving Superman, he's been tortured by villains before both physically and psychically. I am pretty sure he never asked anybody to kill them for him.

Not by making him actually kill people, which is a major difference with most heroes and even villains... like there is a pretty good reason why the Purple Man over at Marvel is so much more reviled than thriller killers like Bullseye.

No, that is not what Rucka wrote at all. He wrote a story where Wonder Woman felt completely justified in her choice and actions.

Feeling justified in her actions (which she was in every conceivable way) does not exclude her from knowing it was against the law to kill the head of one of the biggest spy agencies on the planet.

This comes down to one basic point - Wonder Woman makes a unilateral decision that Max must die. He isn't give a trial, there is no judicial process. This is Wonder Woman acting as Judge Dredd or the Punisher.

I dont think you know the methods of either of those characters if thats what you think.
Punisher- Kills his enemies because thats the only thing that works in his mind, as a disillusioned policeman who now has zero faith in the system. And he enforces his way on everyone that gets in front of him, if it's some lowlife thung that might have held up a 7/11 once or stolen a packet of fags, or the drug kingpin with dozens of lives on his hands; everyone dies.

Dredd- He is the law, in his world, he is able to define what law is and what he is entitled to do.

Now Dredd and Castle are interesting characters who I enjoy reading, but they don't stand for hope. They don't embody the belief in human beings improving. They are not, in short, Wonder Woman.

That you compare Diana's killing of Lord to those two's usual methods seems to say you either haven't read Sacrifice in a very long time or not read the books with the other two.

Getting back to that point about hope, this story was a fail for Superman as well. He never reveals the truth of what happened to the public, because he is written thinking, as you said, that they would lose all belief in him.

And why would he talk about it? It's not like there is a tradition for the capes to tell the public about what's going on unless it actually concerns them or their aid is needed.

Where is the hope there? There is none - there is no belief in the better angels of human nature, only a cynical commentary on how humans are so mired in pettiness that their society can only survive by being lied to and deceived. This is Superman and Wonder Woman ready to sign on with Amanda Waller. Think about that for a moment. Amanda Waller looking Clark and Diana in the eye and telling them they made the right decision to deceive the public because people are basically incapable of making good decision.

I am going to quote a line from the first Men in Black, because you seem to have forgotten this isn't a black and white world:

Kay: We do not discharge our weapons in view of the public!

Jay: Man, we ain't got time for this cover-up bullshit! I don't know whether or not you've forgotten, but there's an Arquillian Battle Cruiser that's about to...

Kay: There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT!

Kind of dilutes the whole point of Superman having that house of El symbol on his chest.

No, it enforces it. Superman stands for hope, Diana killed Max to preserve it.

It laid the ground work. It is even posted on the covers.

Really? So Sacrifice is the cause of Amazons Attack then?

Actually, the destruction of Superman would have come at the trial, had WW been found innocent. We saw exactly the same thing happen in the Kingdom Come storyline where Magog is found not guilty of murdering The Joker when he blasted him point blank with his energy weapon after had was captured.

Not the same Superman and not the same situation, so whats your point? (Also it was written by the very cynical Mark Waid who specifically didn't like how comics were at that time)

[brettc1]

So according to you a terrorist is totally innocent right up to the moment he kills a hundred people with a bomb?

Innocent of murder, yes. This isn't Minority Report - you can only be charged with the crime you actually commit. Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, but it is not the SAME crime.

Actually, the League reviewed the entire incident and concluded that it was a mix of Batman's training, gear and sheer luck that saw him through. Because Superman was thinking he was seeing one of either, Ruin, Brainiac or Darkseid all of which had just killed Lois.

I'll keep searching

Not by making him actually kill people, which is a major difference with most heroes and even villains... like there is a pretty good reason why the Purple Man over at Marvel is so much more reviled than thriller killers like Bullseye.

Again, see Legends miniseries. Superman helps Darkseid set up the Hunger Dogs for mass slaughter.

Plus, he didn't actually kill anyone.

Feeling justified in her actions (which she was in every conceivable way) does not exclude her from knowing it was against the law to kill the head of one of the biggest spy agencies on the planet.

Rucka as written by Superman reflects that he saw no remorse in Diana's eyes. She also tells Batman she did the right thing.

I dont think you know the methods of either of those characters if thats what you think.
Punisher- Kills his enemies because thats the only thing that works in his mind, as a disillusioned policeman who now has zero faith in the system. And he enforces his way on everyone that gets in front of him, if it's some lowlife thung that might have held up a 7/11 once or stolen a packet of fags, or the drug kingpin with dozens of lives on his hands; everyone dies.

Dredd- He is the law, in his world, he is able to define what law is and what he is entitled to do.

That you compare Diana's killing of Lord to those two's usual methods seems to say you either haven't read Sacrifice in a very long time or not read the books with the other two.

Or that I have a better grasp of all three than yourself

And why would he talk about it? It's not like there is a tradition for the capes to tell the public about what's going on unless it actually concerns them or their aid is needed.

Primarily because Wonder Woman presented herself for trial and Superman had information pertaining to that case. Why would he NOT come forward?

No, it enforces it. Superman stands for hope, Diana killed Max to preserve it.

Killing Max does not preserve hope, it preserves the absence of it. Superman did not agree with killing Max, but he is wrong apparently because even though he embodies hope he does not really understand it. Sorry Superman, you are merely a puppet figurehead designed to make people believe in a naive concept that does not reflect the actual world.

Really? So Sacrifice is the cause of Amazons Attack then?

No idea where you are going with this.

Not the same Superman and not the same situation, so whats your point? (Also it was written by the very cynical Mark Waid who specifically didn't like how comics were at that time)

EXACTLY the same situation.

Edit - regarding Superman restraining himself in the Batman attack, this from the Superman boards...

It was towards the end of the arc when the scene is replayed and we see things (sort of) how Superman saw them - although he thought he was fighting Ruin, Brainiac, Darkseid etc a part of him told him it was Batman and he saw Batman's head and restrained himself.

Still left his fingerprints 'engraved' on Bruce's neck, though...

It was around AoS 643, I think.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

The major changes and developments since 2014 in the dceu is more than enough proof that a clip from one person talking about an idea from two years ago isnt exactly indictive of the current state of the movie,esp if it was plan off the cuff comment made in passing, and the final decision is still up in the air. nothing is concrete esp since they have absolutely no problem cutting out and changing things even in the process of making a film

But I thought you might have some new information about this so oh well

Spell it with me: D. E. N. I. A. L. Denial.

Please, tell me an example of something substantive in the DCEU movies that has been changed last minute. Something that has to do with the story, not who's directing it or whatever. That's pretty much the only change we've had. Just a change in the director.

If you think that confirmation from a producer isn't enough to verify, then I have to say you very much in denial. It would be one thing if they hadn't said anything, but the HAVE. They've clearly indicated she is a demigoddess. Also, one really important that you don't seem to realize. The statement was NOT made in passing. Charles Roven said this in a FORMAL INTERVIEW. That's why its official. He CONFIRMED it in an interview. They wouldn't have allowed anyone to answer that question UNLESS the decision was final.

So, yes, you are IN DENIAL. She will be a demigod in the movie. End of story.

https://vine.co/v/Oqa57Dehg3B

For your hopes to work out, you are banking on a LOT to happen, which has no guarantee of happening. Firstly, you need for them to change their mind from an already established course of action, which they have officially confirmed. Secondly, you are banking on Rucka changing Diana's origin back to the clay origin in the comics, even though there hasn't been ANY indication of that. The title of the story being "Lies" does not in any way mean that they are going back on her demigod origin, especially when the solicits have only mentioned that the story centers around the lasso of truth. Its a big leap to say the least.

So, the fact is that you are banking on the major assumption that they will deviate from decisions that have already been made and confirmed. So, yes. You. Are. In. Denial.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

2. I never pay attention to solicits, because they have too many spoilers in them.

1. If Clark and Lois had been apart for some time in the comics by the time the movie came out, and that was not the case in the movie, then clearly this demonstrates that is possible to two very different lines of story running between movies and books.

Ergo, it is possible to have the demigod story in the movies but go back to the clay origin in the books.

After all, movie Batman often bears an only superficial resemblance to his super-intelligent literary counterpart.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, guy. But don't be surprised when the movie comes out and she's a demigoddess.

[Tayswift]

Whatever you need to tell yourself, guy. But don't be surprised when the movie comes out and she's a demigoddess.

for sure this wouldn't be a surprise.

Spell it with me: D. E. N. I. A. L. Denial.

Please, tell me an example of something substantive in the DCEU movies that has been changed last minute. Something that has to do with the story, not who's directing it or whatever. That's pretty much the only change we've had. Just a change in the director.

If you think that confirmation from a producer isn't enough to verify, then I have to say you very much in denial. It would be one thing if they hadn't said anything, but the HAVE. They've clearly indicated she is a demigoddess. Also, one really important that you don't seem to realize. The statement was NOT made in passing. Charles Roven said this in a FORMAL INTERVIEW. That's why its official. He CONFIRMED it in an interview. They wouldn't have allowed anyone to answer that question UNLESS the decision was final.

So, yes, you are IN DENIAL. She will be a demigod in the movie. End of story.

https://vine.co/v/Oqa57Dehg3B

For your hopes to work out, you are banking on a LOT to happen, which has no guarantee of happening. Firstly, you need for them to change their mind from an already established course of action, which they have officially confirmed. Secondly, you are banking on Rucka changing Diana's origin back to the clay origin in the comics, even though there hasn't been ANY indication of that. The title of the story being "Lies" does not in any way mean that they are going back on her demigod origin, especially when the solicits have only mentioned that the story centers around the lasso of truth. Its a big leap to say the least.

So, the fact is that you are banking on the major assumption that they will deviate from decisions that have already been made and confirmed. So, yes. You. Are. In. Denial.

th eonly thing officially confirmed are the close family to WW antiope, mennalipe and then steve trevor/etta candy. nothing else was confirmed.

[Gaelforce]

Here's the thing about the 'demi-goddess' issue.

1. It didn't come up in Batman v Superman.

2. The current director of the movie which will detail her origin hasn't said one way or another.

3. Although it was stated a few years ago (and carried over into subsequent articles and interviews), there is nothing stopping Patty Jenkins from changing that story since nothing has appeared anywhere in the existing film with her appearance that states it one way or another.

So yes, someone stated early on in the BvS process that she was a demi-god, but no, that hasn't actually appeared in a film and is therefore subject to change. There has been nothing said by anyone involved in the making of the WW movie one way or the other.

Think of this as Shroedinger's Diana Nobody has opened the box yet.

Having stated both sides of the discussion, I think that's enough of it. You both have said your peace, and it's time to move on.

[ssupes]

Hey quick question about the whole sacrifice issue, how come the New 52 Diana didn't snap circe's neck when she was controlling superman int eh SM/WW book? Just curious.

[vasir12]

The plot didn't demand it.