Why was Aegeus so badly updated when his original version was pretty prophetic?

[LordTrump]

He was a Greek terrorist, which would really have been topical at the time of his reintroduction with the banking crisis causing civil unrest on the streets among factions. Hell, I saw someone commenting as to why the WW movie was shot in Italy, and how DC/WB could have created jobs in Greece. This also would have made the use of Greek myth more topical and arguably organic, especially after following the Greek myth heavy Azzarello run. Either I'm the greatest writer ever (ha!), or his reintroduction was not given a lick of thought.

[OBrianTallent]

Part of the problem with his re-introduction was that the writer had no knowledge of the character and seemed to have no concern for him. In an interview she commented on her lack of knowledge and interest in wonder woman's rogues and said she told her husband to pick one out he liked.

[Slaughter]

What previous run? There was no previous run.

[LordTrump]

What previous run? There was no previous run.

What the heck are you talking about?

[Dr. Poison]

Part of the problem with his re-introduction was that the writer had no knowledge of the character and seemed to have no concern for him. In an interview she commented on her lack of knowledge and interest in wonder woman's rogues and said she told her husband to pick one out he liked.

While she said that she let her husband pick the villain for the story, she didn't say wasn't interested. In fact, I saw several comments from her on Twitter stating she thought that Diana had a very interesting rogues gallery. That being said, her version of Aegeus was a let down on basically all fronts. They shouldn't have revamped Aegeus much at all. Hopefully Rucka brings back the original and the Finch version is part of "The Lies".

[SiegePerilous02]

Because Finch.

[Outside_85]

Because Finch.

'Nuff said.

[LordTrump]

Part of the problem with his re-introduction was that the writer had no knowledge of the character and seemed to have no concern for him. In an interview she commented on her lack of knowledge and interest in wonder woman's rogues and said she told her husband to pick one out he liked.

What the frick? She said this crap in public, and still kept the job?

[Dr. Poison]

What the frick? She said this crap in public, and still kept the job?

She didn't say exactly that but Azzarello said none of Diana's rogues were relevant(except Egg Fu) and still kept his job on the title for almost 3 years after that. DC doesn't seem to do anything when their creators speak negatively or even write negatively about Diana's rogues(i.e. see several of Cheetah's stories in Batman, Catwoman, & Green Arrow).

[Outside_85]

She didn't say exactly that but Azzarello said none of Diana's rogues were relevant(except Egg Fu) and still kept his job on the title for almost 3 years after that.

I think we can all agree there is a difference between a writer saying:

"Her villains are so boring I am going to let the artist decided on how a huge chunk of story is going to pan out."

And

"Her villains are so boring I am going to make a new one that fits into this story I am doing."

In either case, calling out fictional characters for their problems as characters is not a basis to fire someone. In fact, it should be a wake up call to the publisher by pointing out that there actually is a problem... Like: "Hey, maybe because Diana has a weak rogues gallery is the reason we've not been able to make her a top seller for over a decade despite her massive pop-culture presence and is still as relevant as ever?!"

[Dr. Poison]

I think we can all agree there is a difference between a writer saying:

"Her villains are so boring I am going to let the artist decided on how a huge chunk of story is going to pan out."

And

"Her villains are so boring I am going to make a new one that fits into this story I am doing."

In either case, calling out fictional characters for their problems as characters is not a basis to fire someone. In fact, it should be a wake up call to the publisher by pointing out that there actually is a problem... Like: "Hey, maybe because Diana has a weak rogues gallery is the reason we've not been able to make her a top seller for over a decade despite her massive pop-culture presence and is still as relevant as ever?!"

Then they should hire a writer who wants to strengthen & elevate said rogues gallery rather than just letting ideasless writers make negative comments about them.

[Nyssane]

Then they should hire a writer who wants to strengthen & elevate said rogues gallery rather than just letting ideasless writers make negative comments about them.

Which is kinda what they did, right? Rucka has been doing wonders for Cheetah, will be using Ares, and seems likely to have plans for other rogues.

[LordTrump]

Which is kinda what they did, right? Rucka has been doing wonders for Cheetah, will be using Ares, and seems likely to have plans for other rogues.

Yeah, and how long did it take to get Rucka on her, and keep in mind that he's an old writer if hers

So did finch really seem that "don't give a damn" about writing her

[Outside_85]

Then they should hire a writer who wants to strengthen & elevate said rogues gallery rather than just letting ideasless writers make negative comments about them.

Well, they kinda do already because it happens to be the same writers who say these things who then go on to change some of them and quite often the remark falls under their explanation for why they've changed something.

Like Rucka made a zinger at Dr. Cyber recently: "Her name is Cybil Cyber... what am I supposed to do with that?" and here we are, on the crusp of the good(bad) doctor getting a rebirth of her very own that may make her more than something that just looks cool.

By contrast, just not caring enough not to actually pick a villain is a far worse offense as a writer, because then we are talking about writer apathy.

[Dr. Poison]

Well, they kinda do already because it happens to be the same writers who say these things who then go on to change some of them and quite often the remark falls under their explanation for why they've changed something.

Like Rucka made a zinger at Dr. Cyber recently: "Her name is Cybil Cyber... what am I supposed to do with that?" and here we are, on the crusp of the good(bad) doctor getting a rebirth of her very own that may make her more than something that just looks cool.

By contrast, just not caring enough not to actually pick a villain is a far worse offense as a writer, because then we are talking about writer apathy.

I meant that DC should have found a writer like Rucka for the title a few years earlier. I can handle Rucka slamming one or two Wonder-rogues as the writer doesn't have to like every WW villain. There's quite a few I don't like(i.e. First Born, Cassandra, Genocide, Mayfly, Hypnota, etc.). As long as the writer appreciates at least half of Diana's rogues, I'm cool with that.