New WW Creative Team: Becky Cloonan, Michael Conrad and Travis Moore

[SonOfBaldwin]

I would really like a top-tier, consistent artist on WONDER WOMAN. Like Jorge Jimenez on BATMAN. Why can't WONDER WOMAN have that level of talent and commitment?

[Primal Slayer]

I would really like a top-tier, consistent artist on WONDER WOMAN. Like Jorge Jimenez on BATMAN. Why can't WONDER WOMAN have that level of talent and commitment?

Preach it.

[OBrianTallent]

I would really like a top-tier, consistent artist on WONDER WOMAN. Like Jorge Jimenez on BATMAN. Why can't WONDER WOMAN have that level of talent and commitment?

Part of that reason is that WW doesn't sell like Batman, so the top artists aren't going to be attracted to the book. Plus DC doesn't seem to invest in the book they way they do for Batman or even Superman.
Hopefully, Takara will stick around for a good while.

[PopQuezy]

They called Superman ineffective in Superman: Son of Kal-El, and he’s been active for 20-30 years. Is Wonder Woman not ineffective by extent in that regard?

I've never read that, so would you mind giving some specifics? However, if you choose not to, I don't see how not having a perfect world makes Wonder Woman ineffective. There are billions of people on earth who are each capable of free will. I'm not certain how Wonder Woman can cure the world of racism, homophobia, transphobia, starvation, uneven distribution of wealth, stigma, etc. Especially since WWII is not the birth of hatred or systems founded on oppression.

Again, I'd rather Wonder Woman come to man's world in more recent times, but I simply disagree that the entire state of an imperfect world could be placed at Wonder Woman's feet. She entered an imperfect world with hundreds of years of evil that no single person could ever stop regardless of how powerful he/she/they is.

[Shimbo]

I would really like a top-tier, consistent artist on WONDER WOMAN. Like Jorge Jimenez on BATMAN. Why can't WONDER WOMAN have that level of talent and commitment?

I remember an older post where you said you know of a well-regarded artist that wanted to work on Wonder Woman but was basically not allowed. Wish I knew which artist that was!

I'll take Marcio Takara as main artist but...is he? Or is it a 2 to 3 issue gig?

At least the art team on Nubia is consistent, which is not the same we can say for either the WW or WG books.

[SonOfBaldwin]

Part of that reason is that WW doesn't sell like Batman, so the top artists aren't going to be attracted to the book. Plus DC doesn't seem to invest in the book they way they do for Batman or even Superman.
Hopefully, Takara will stick around for a good while.

I happen to know as a matter of fact that decisions for artists on books--at least at DC--are more political/bureaucratic than that. It's not as simple as an artist saying "I'd like to draw Wonder Woman!" I say this because an artist friend of mine, who is considered one of the best comic book artists in the business, has express their interest of drawing Wonder Woman for a long time with no success.

[I'm a Fish]

I've never read that, so would you mind giving some specifics? However, if you choose not to, I don't see how not having a perfect world makes Wonder Woman ineffective. There are billions of people on earth who are each capable of free will. I'm not certain how Wonder Woman can cure the world of racism, homophobia, transphobia, starvation, uneven distribution of wealth, stigma, etc. Especially since WWII is not the birth of hatred or systems founded on oppression.

Again, I'd rather Wonder Woman come to man's world in more recent times, but I simply disagree that the entire state of an imperfect world could be placed at Wonder Woman's feet. She entered an imperfect world with hundreds of years of evil that no single person could ever stop regardless of how powerful he/she/they is.

The book said Superman chooses the fight the symptoms when he is powerful enough to be the cure. (Which is honestly an ominous choice of phrase when taken out of context ). And that the reason he holds back is because he doesn’t want to make people feel uncomfortable. Which isn’t something that would stop Diana…so what’s her excuse. . (I know the book wasn’t thinking about Diana when writing this, but it does kind of ripple out to all other heroes regardless, so DC really just shined a flashlight on that)

And no, I don’t think Wonder Woman being effective takes the form of World Peace (though I do think that would be her goal). Although, with Star Trek going strong after 55 years, I don’t agree World Peace = boring. I mean, monsters, gods, alternate dimensions, aliens, natural disasters and character drama won’t disappear from fiction because people are more accepting of each other.

Like, just have Diana co-fund a super successful long running charity or other things along those lines.

[John Venus]

In the Golden Age, Diana is shown reaching out to other women, building up their self image and self esteem, empowering and teaching them to embrace their strength. Diana herself was powered by the Gods. The presence of someone like her, especially in the 40's would accelerate feminism and women's rights to the point where the modern day world would be unrecognizable.

[PopQuezy]

The book said Superman chooses the fight the symptoms when he is powerful enough to be the cure. (Which is honestly an ominous choice of phrase when taken out of context ). And that the reason he holds back is because he doesn’t want to make people feel uncomfortable. Which isn’t something that would stop Diana…so what’s her excuse. . (I know the book wasn’t thinking about Diana when writing this, but it does kind of ripple out to all other heroes regardless, so DC really just shined a flashlight on that)

And no, I don’t think Wonder Woman being effective takes the form of World Peace (though I do think that would be her goal). Although, with Star Trek going strong after 55 years, I don’t agree World Peace = boring. I mean, monsters, gods, alternate dimensions, aliens, natural disasters and character drama won’t disappear from fiction because people are more accepting of each other.

Like, just have Diana co-fund a super successful long running charity or other things along those lines.

In the Golden Age, Diana is shown reaching out to other women, building up their self image and self esteem, empowering and teaching them to embrace their strength. Diana herself was powered by the Gods. The presence of someone like her, especially in the 40's would accelerate feminism and women's rights to the point where the modern day world would be unrecognizable.

Thank both of you for your responses. While I agree that Diana would be tremendously important to helping to make a better world, I'm still not certain how she - or Superman - can be the cure to racism, sexism, lack of funding in public education, policies regarding bodily rights, etc. They're powerful, but their powers have limitations regarding governmental policy, how corporations treat and pay employees, establishing and maintaining geographical borders, religious fanaticism, etc.

I don't read Superman, but with Wonder Woman, there are stories about the embassy, fighting for marginalized communities, being a diplomat, etc. I don't see Diana as being ineffective because there is still war, turmoil, and injustice in the world. Those require political maneuverings and bureaucratic negotiations that Diana can definitely play a large role in but ultimately is not her decision.

People have free will, and sadly, sometimes people use that free will to try to steal the choices, opportunities, and even the lives of others. Diana cannot control the heart of man, which ironically is one of the major themes of Wonder Woman 2017.

I've only ever watched Star Trek: The Next Generation when Whoopi Goldberg was in an episode. I didn't realize that show - universe/I.P. - had gained world peace.

[I'm a Fish]

Thank both of you for your responses. While I agree that Diana would be tremendously important to helping to make a better world, I'm still not certain how she - or Superman - can be the cure to racism, sexism, lack of funding in public education, policies regarding bodily rights, etc. They're powerful, but their powers have limitations regarding governmental policy, how corporations treat and pay employees, establishing and maintaining geographical borders, religious fanaticism, etc.

I don't read Superman, but with Wonder Woman, there are stories about the embassy, fighting for marginalized communities, being a diplomat, etc. I don't see Diana as being ineffective because there is still war, turmoil, and injustice in the world. Those require political maneuverings and bureaucratic negotiations that Diana can definitely play a large role in but ultimately is not her decision.

People have free will, and sadly, sometimes people use that free will to try to steal the choices, opportunities, and even the lives of others. Diana cannot control the heart of man, which ironically is one of the major themes of Wonder Woman 2017.

I've only ever watched Star Trek: The Next Generation when Whoopi Goldberg was in an episode. I didn't realize that show - universe/I.P. - had gained world peace.

Yeah, Earth is a peaceful place charged with a mission of discovery and teaching. Basically every human is Diana in terms of striving to use violence as last resort and spreading the message of peace and acceptance to the galaxy.

[Robanker]

Thank both of you for your responses. While I agree that Diana would be tremendously important to helping to make a better world, I'm still not certain how she - or Superman - can be the cure to racism, sexism, lack of funding in public education, policies regarding bodily rights, etc. They're powerful, but their powers have limitations regarding governmental policy, how corporations treat and pay employees, establishing and maintaining geographical borders, religious fanaticism, etc.

I don't read Superman, but with Wonder Woman, there are stories about the embassy, fighting for marginalized communities, being a diplomat, etc. I don't see Diana as being ineffective because there is still war, turmoil, and injustice in the world. Those require political maneuverings and bureaucratic negotiations that Diana can definitely play a large role in but ultimately is not her decision.

People have free will, and sadly, sometimes people use that free will to try to steal the choices, opportunities, and even the lives of others. Diana cannot control the heart of man, which ironically is one of the major themes of Wonder Woman 2017.

I've only ever watched Star Trek: The Next Generation when Whoopi Goldberg was in an episode. I didn't realize that show - universe/I.P. - had gained world peace.

First and foremost, most Superman fans kind of balked at Superman's "well it would ruffle feathers" argument as essentially trying to undercut him to build up Jon-- because that's exactly what it is. It's not Superman to just ride the line if something's wrong, but they have no choice, they need to sell Jon as the 30s Superman repackaged for 2021.

I bring that up because Diana is in a similar boat right now. She's being turned int someone she's not in order to justify an editorial edict. I don't think any fictional character is going to be the panacea for all humanity's faults, but them having been around as long as they are, there would be change. It makes sense that in 20-30 years, change would be marginal. The people who were just getting in charge, raised before the hero made their debut, would still be in charge. If the hero did their job, change would be starting in 20-30 years.

80? The people in charge 80 years from when Diana showed up would have known and idolized her their entire lives. They'd be raised with her example somewhere in their mind. They would know women are absolutely equal to men. This isn't unique to Diana. If Superman was the one who was first in continuity (as he was in history), if people were still leery of others based on where they were from instead of their character, he'd have accomplished nothing-- and that's what would happen, because we're using these characters to talk about issues that influence our own world and we don't have a Superman or Wonder Woman to solve our problems or catch us when we fall-- so the issues will persist anyway.

The 80 year thing basically sets Diana up to fail. It would do the same to anyone because the people crafting the story want to talk about a world where the very things these heroes fight are still a problem-- our own. This is easily circumvented by having the hero's debut still be in recent memory so the world they live in is similar to ours. Part of the reason the JSA works is because the HUAC trials broke them up. They're an example of altruism being shackled by our own cynicism and distrust of others.

Diana retreating to the island or simply being around and not getting jack **** done is the least Wonder Woman thing I can think of. That's almost certainly why Didio et all approved it. They never got the character. She was primary colored Xena to them.



It's more apparent in TOS/TNG, but in Star Trek, Earth got over its petty bullshit and is generally at peace. This got subverted the further into the IP you get (with corrupt human officials in Starfleet and eventually the reboot proving people are bastards still). TOS/TNG propose that we got so enlightened, we go to other stars still dealing with racism and just flat out balk that they're so barbaric. On a couple occasions, someone made a derogatory remark and they just looked at that person confused-- those words are so old fashioned they don't even recognize them at first. It's been done away with. Roddenberry's vision of the future was the most optimistic you'll find in science fiction.

[Gaius]

In the Golden Age, Diana is shown reaching out to other women, building up their self image and self esteem, empowering and teaching them to embrace their strength. Diana herself was powered by the Gods. The presence of someone like her, especially in the 40's would accelerate feminism and women's rights to the point where the modern day world would be unrecognizable.

Yeah, I've also never really come across a convincing argument for why Diana would suddenly go back to the island when the war ends or being in hiding until the recent times (aka when Superman shows up). The show did that purely because it changed networks and making it contemporary was a budget saver and the solo WW movies have had to dance around that fact when it comes to what Snyder setup in BvS.

[Primal Slayer]

Diana cant change a world that doesnt want to be changed. She can inspire people and it help in the long run but I doubt even if she were real that she'd have been able to change womens rights as they'd just come up with an excuse "she's 1 in a million".

She's been around Mans World for a hot minute now and she hasnt influenced any major change. Women still arent treated as complete equals.

Having Diana come for a hot minute, decide to leave after feeling defeated, and coming back not allowing herself to be "defeated" again is probably the most human thing she can do.

[PopQuezy]

Diana cant change a world that doesnt want to be changed. She can inspire people and it help in the long run but I doubt even if she were real that she'd have been able to change womens rights as they'd just come up with an excuse "she's 1 in a million".

She's been around Mans World for a hot minute now and she hasnt influenced any major change. Women still arent treated as complete equals.

Having Diana come for a hot minute, decide to leave after feeling defeated, and coming back not allowing herself to be "defeated" again is probably the most human thing she can do.

I agree.

80? The people in charge 80 years from when Diana showed up would have known and idolized her their entire lives. They'd be raised with her example somewhere in their mind. They would know women are absolutely equal to men. This isn't unique to Diana. If Superman was the one who was first in continuity (as he was in history), if people were still leery of others based on where they were from instead of their character, he'd have accomplished nothing-- and that's what would happen, because we're using these characters to talk about issues that influence our own world and we don't have a Superman or Wonder Woman to solve our problems or catch us when we fall-- so the issues will persist anyway.

The 80 year thing basically sets Diana up to fail. It would do the same to anyone because the people crafting the story want to talk about a world where the very things these heroes fight are still a problem-- our own. This is easily circumvented by having the hero's debut still be in recent memory so the world they live in is similar to ours. Part of the reason the JSA works is because the HUAC trials broke them up. They're an example of altruism being shackled by our own cynicism and distrust of others.

But doesn't this ignore that other people will also influence those children like their parents? Also, what about the media, the distorted his story that children learn in schools. Sadly, even some women may be appalled by Diana's message and form groups to oppose it. Diana is not the sole force that impacts people, nor should she be. No one's life exists within a vacuum. Yes, Diana - a stranger for the vast majority of the world - is an inspirational figure who is impacting them. But the people in those children's lives who they see every day whose views aren't as enlightened or progressive as Diana's views are also impacting them every day. I would argue that we can't ignore that, especially since I would imagine the parents, family members, friends, teachers, etc. would hold equal, if not more, sway with people as Diana.

[Guy_McNichts]

The issue is Wonder Woman is explicitly meant to be someone who wants to improve the world. That's kind of a key part of her character. So if she's been around since the 40s (or earlier) you have to acknowledge what she's been doing or not doing since then.

As I see it, the only options to go with that are...

A) Retcon her into actual history and suggest she was a part of things like the Civil Rights movement, women's rights, Vietnam, the Cold War, 9/11, the Aids crisis, and more. Possibly even suggest whatever changed or was accomplished during those events she was because of her presence.

B) She wasn't actually trying to improve the world in any meaningful way and thought it wasn't her place to do any more than fly around punching villains.

C) At some point she went back to Themyscira for however many years until she returned in modern day for some reason.

So...make her Forrest Gump, a milquetoast defender of the status quo, or a quitter who took her ball and went home to sit on her ass. None of these strike me as appealing.

Option A is real sketchy, in my opinion, and kind of distasteful. The other two options strike me as out of character and a major disservice. Wonder Woman shouldn't be a preserver of the status quo, and I don't like the idea of her just quitting and going home.
Going home also adds a needless complication to her origin. "After Steve Trevor crash landed on Themyscira, Diana left her home to defend the world from evil and improve society.....then she went back for a few decades because I don't know, and now she's back to doing it again for some reason."

DC's not going to put any real thought into this. They just want a quick hand-wave of her being in World War II and jump to modern day without considering anything about it.
It's unnecessary and nothing of value is gained. They should just keep her origin in modern times like everyone else.