Wonder Woman 16

wonder woman 16

Today, Shelby and guest writer James D’Amato are discussing Wonder Woman 16, originally released January 23rd, 2012.

Shelby: Gods, gods everywhere. Brian Azzarello does not take a “less is more” approach when it comes to the pantheon; we’ve got old gods, older gods, demigods, new gods, and non-gods. Not to mention ice giants and cyborg women. If it all sounds a little confusing, well, it is; Azzarello is juggling a lot of chainsaws with Wonder Woman. On top of it all, we’ve still got the $64,000 question that everyone seems to have forgotten about: where is Zeus?

We’ve got three story-lines running through this book. Milan has covered Diana, Orion, and Lennox in flies, to keep them from fighting. After some talking and kind words, as is her style, Diana convinces him to look for Zola’s baby. Apparently, Milan’s godly power is the ability to see through the eyes of flies, which means he can basically see everything; he finds Hermes and the starry-eyed babe with Demeter. Meanwhile, in Antartica, the First Born defeats Hades’ ice giants in a tremendously gory fashion. Finally, Zola and Hera are out for drinks when Ares shows up. While he chats with his mother, Zola has a weirdly familar conversation Dionysus. After the flirting (?) he tells her what Ares plans to do to Diana. It’s so horrible Zola literally loses her lunch, and Strife shows up, presumably to make things worse, as is her style.

This issue didn’t wow me as much as past issues have. I think I’m beginning to feel a little fatigued from Azzarello’s slow build-up of this arc and ever-expanding cast of characters. Of all the major deities, we’re pretty much only missing Athena, which makes sense as Diana  and Athena are very similar. As much as I love the design and personification of all the gods, we’ve got a lot of players on the field. I also feel like the story is straying off course; not being able to see Azzarello’s end goal (or knowing how long he plans to take to get there), means this book is starting to wander a little aimlessly. Consider this: we first saw the First Born emerge from the snow back in issue 12, and we still aren’t totally sure who he is. Instead of solving mysteries and answering questions, Azz is just shellacking on more layers of intrigue. The payout is going to be huge, I’m sure, but we’ve got to get there first.

That being said, there’s still a lot to like in this issue. For example, everything Cliff Chiang touches. It’s not enough for us to know that Milan controls flies and through them can see everything; nope, Chiang has to show us the maggot-filled eye sockets.

milan wonder woman

I love how Chiang put all those glimpses of the world in hexagonal panels, like the multiple lenses on the eye of a housefly. I did a little Wikipedia research; the compound eye works by gathering a number of images, each one containing a point of information, from each eye, and assembling the images into a whole in the brain. That is exactly what Milan does, except he’s got to gather a point of information from every fly in the world. That is an unspeakably cool and terribly clever concept. There are also some interesting things happening with Dionysus. Thanks to Walt Disney’s Fantasia, I’ve always pictured Dionysus as that jolly drunk everyone likes to have at the party. But the god of winemaking and sexy parties is also the god of madness and bringer of chaos, and that is the Dionysus Azzarello and Chiang prefer.

zola and dionysus

Their Dionysus is lean and menacing, incredibly appealing and completely terrible. This Dionysus represents everything dangerous about drinking, everything that scares you about losing control. Another fun little detail: in a different panel, we see he’s got a fox tail hanging from his belt. I assumed it was just some twee hipster accessory, like Eros’ scarf and skinny jeans, but Wikipedia tells me Dionysus was often depicted draped in a fox hide, representing new life. It’s that smart attention to detail that leads me to trust the creative team behind this story; things may be slowing down, but I know we’ll get back on track and I’m going to love every minute of it.

So, onto the speculation. Orion has everyone convinced he’s here to fight Zola’s baby, the last of the blood line and a new god destined to end time. I’m not totally convinced. At the exact time the baby was born, the First Born burst from the ice; he certainly seems more threatening. I’m thinking the difference might lie in the “new god” and the “New Gods” of Jack Kirby fame, which I don’t understand in the least. And why exactly is Ares in town to do terrible things to Wonder Woman? Is he still bitter over their falling out in the zero issue? Or is he afraid of her? At Apollo’s little pool party, he seemed shocked that Diana had inflicted the damage she had on Artemis; is he simply afraid of what she can do? Or are there more secret machinations at play? Finally, the question I ask every time I write about this title: Where is Zeus? It seems more and more likely that he has somehow been reborn as Zola’s baby. That would put a fun little twist on Apollo’s prophecy that a child of Zeus would slay one of them and take the throne: Zeus-as-son-of-Zeus taking his own throne back. With that complicated bit of logic, I’m going to turn it over to my friend James. James, this is your first time writing on Wonder Woman, what do you think of Azzarello’s deity-packed interpretation? Do you feel the story is getting a little bogged down as well?

James: I will admit that I have a prejudice against Brian Azzarello’s Wonder Woman. It is not that I think the series is bad. Far from it actually, I know that it happens to be quite good. It is in fact one of the best stories involving Wonder Woman that has been told in quite some time, a story about myths, family and intrigue. Of the core themes I just named, only one is really central to Diana’s character. Family has never really been Wondy’s thing. We know she has a mother, she calls all of her lady bros “sister” but family is not central to who she is in the same way that it would be for Batman or the Secret Six. Intrigue is kind of Wonder Womany because she tends to get tied up (tee hee) in international politics being a diplomat/badass. Greek myths are central to Wonder Woman, but even that is more flavor than outright identity.

My problem with Azzarello’s Wonder Woman is that he doesn’t really care about her. I guess he doesn’t have to, seeing as how DC comics doesn’t give a damn about her, but if you are going to man the ship that relaunches Wonder Woman you should be telling a story that represents Wonder Woman. This isn’t really a problem for your Batmans, Supermans, or even your Spider-Mans because people already know what they are all about. I don’t like Azzarello’s run because he takes Wondy’s most important theme, FEMINISM and basically ignores it. Sure Azzarello’s Wonder Woman is strong, but she doesn’t teach us anything about the place of women in our messed-up patriarchy, or even show us different approaches to our world view. For a Wonder Woman story that could reshape how we look at the character that is a pretty massive oversight. When you change the themes of a character, you change who they are. Away from feminism is a bad direction for Wonder Woman.

Now that I have wasted all of my allotted space, let’s talk about the issue. If you, like me, are coming in not fully caught up it is not spectacular. Again this is not me saying it isn’t good. We just happen to be in the middle of some heavy exposition, something that Azzarello, a noir man by reputation, can be very very good at. I’m sure if I was actively reading this series I would have been excited by this issue.

The one thing that has been totally flawless throughout the run of Nu 52 Wondy is Cliff Chiang’s exquisite art. The dude knows how to draw ladies. His Diana is brimming with all of the themes that Azzarello is so keen to ignore. She is powerful and beautiful. She radiates strength without sacrificing her femininity, unlike the man-faced Amazon princesses of some artists I cold mention (coughAlex Rosscough). Chiang’s Dianna is an elegant balance of grace and aggression. Also I cannot praise the Chang/Azzarello designs for the gods and demi-kids enough. They inspire wonder, fear, and reverence, and look so damn compelling. And of course they are all human shaped with something just a little off, to remind us they are unnatural. They are everything gods should be.

hermes and demeter

Chiang and Azzarello are amazingly talented and work well together. While this story might not do much for those who are not following it month to month I imagine it is a smooth ride for those who are. To give everyone some idea of what I am talking about I want to discuss this page:

wonder woman and milan

It’s not flashy, but I think that is part of what makes it great. Chiang and Azzarello are showing us one of the coolest things about Diana, her dual nature. She is royalty raised in a warrior society and burdened with the responsibility of looking after her people and the world. In addition to that she is incredibly empathetic and exhibits all that best qualities of humanity. She starts off towering over both Milan and the reader; she is authoritative and prepared for anything. Then we reach the final panel. Now we the readers, and our friend Milan, are on her level. She is looking us right in the face and reaching out. This is the other aspect of Diana. Despite being an immortal demi-god princess who could beat up all of our dads, she is still compassionate. Wonder Woman can actually connect with you. It doesn’t matter if you think of her as a mother, sister, or friend, you want to talk to her and you know she can keep you safe. Her face is radiating real concern and empathy. That’s amazing. Not flashy, but amazing. Now for flashy we have Milan’s fly vision. I know Shelby already talked about this but this page is so COOL! Azzarello and Chiang have a real sense of story economy and character design. I have to hand it to Azzarello, the gods and demi-gods in Wonder Woman definitely make you think twice about wanting superpowers.

In the end, this book is not the book that will make you want to read Wonder Woman. Azzarello is telling a good story but I’m not sure it works chopped up into monthly issues. I’m excited by the mythology folding in with Kirby’s New Gods. However, I can’t shake the feeling that this could have been more. Cliff Chiang and Brian Azzarello are a real dream team. They could have really breathed new life into the character. Instead they use her to tell a fun story, which I guess is not the worst thing in the world.

James D’Amato is an angry feminist comedian living in Chicago. You can her more of his humorless droning against the patriarchy on his podcast The Overshare and listen to him trying to be the Joker.

For a complete list of what we’re reading, head on over to our Pull List page.  Whenever possible, buy your comics from your local mom and pop comic bookstore.  If you want to rock digital copies, head on over to DC’s website and download issues there.  There’s no need to pirate, right?

42 comments on “Wonder Woman 16

  1. James, I actually completely disagree with your take on Wonder Woman and Azzarello’s version of her. Historically, I don’t believe she’s been the shining beacon of feminism you see her as. It’s true, Wonder Woman was originally created to be a role model for girls, and it was definitely a progressive step forward. It doesn’t change the facts that a) she was created by a man as his idea of an ideal woman for girls to look up to, b) her only weakness is being bound by a man with her own lasso, and c) she first joined the JSA as their secretary.

    Jumping to now, I think this Wonder Woman a great example of feminism. Sure, she’s not shouting feminist tenants and raging against the partriarchy, but she’s strong, independent, caring, and kind. She loves everyone, regardless of gender, and she doesn’t take shit from anyone, regardless of gender. If that’s not living the feminist ideal, I don’t know what is.

    • I agree with Shelby here–while there is no blatant or explicit feminist message in Azzarello’s Wonder Woman, it is implicit (whether it is Azzarello or just through Chiang’s art, as James points out). I do think Azzarello and Chiang are mindful of these issues in the story, and while we are not given voice-overs (like in Batwoman–how awesome is that team-up, by the way!) or speeches, feminist ideals are apparent in Wonder Woman’s actions (her choices, even her acting, as James pointed out so nicely). I actually think it is stronger for this–presented as example rather than lecture.

      I do agree with the reviewers that this results in a slow build-up in the plotting and revealing Wonder Woman’s personality–she is harder to get to know here. But for the patient reader (that would be me, I suppose), I think the payoff is there.

      • Yeah, James makes a great point about Wonder Woman’s character design; she’s super tall and strong, pretty without being over-sexualized.

        • Can’t they put her in pants? She was in pants for about half a second and it looked good! Ms. Marvel got pants. Even Orion calls her “legs” in this issue….

          Not that I’m really complaining. I’d be happy to see a woman who looked like Wonder Woman wearing that outfit on the street–but I’d immediately wonder if there was a porn or comic convention going on (and happily tag along to either…). But still, does Wonder Woman need to have her booty hangin’ out whenever she goes into action?

        • I kind of want to see her in a leather strip skirt and have her top reworked into armor.

          Like this but better:

          She has this great Greek influence to her character, since they are going to put her in something skin tight or revealing anyway I’d rather she look like a member of the warrior culture she is supposed to be a part of. It would be better that the weird bathing suit she has been sporting for the past couple decades.

          If they were to put her in pants I’d want a more full reworking of her costume. I don’t know why but her top does not work with pants for me. I just haven’t seen a pants look for her that looks iconic.

        • Yeah–they need to pick up some of these for costume designs–There is some good stuff there.

          And nothing against the good old U.S. of A., but does she have to wear a bathing suit made out of the the U.S. flag? Seems she is more of a world hero now’a days. What about a Greek flag? And she might look spiffy wearing a bathing suit made out of a colorful South African flag. Maybe she could switch her outfits based on where she is currently thumping baddies?

          But I’d totally get behind Wonder Woman in Greek battle armor with a leather skirt!

      • I don’t really want her to preach. I agree with you on that front. I do want her challenges to be a little more on theme. Batman’s whole thing is fighting crime. and pretty much no matter what he is fighting the most extreme crime there is. His theme-story association is so strong it shows up in every story he is in and it makes his narratives better. Wondy can still be subtle and let her actions speak for themselves but if her challenges are relevant to her core theme then the story is stronger. One of the reasons Wondy has so few memorable villains is there are not many who directly challenge her message. Aries works because the god is all about war and rage- two negative things commonly associated with masculinity. Wondy’s most referenced villain is Cheetah, I can only assume she is iconic because of her look. Even being a big Wonder Woman fan the only thing I know about Cheetah is that she dresses like a cat and likes to steal stuff.

    • I can’t think of a less appealing character-trait than to have someone spout their ideology explicitly. Diana takes actions that empower and protect Women, I don’t know why she’d have to also yell about it to be considered a powerful or effective feminist.

    • I understand where you are coming from but I am sticking to my guns.

      Being the first female superhero kind of binds your identity to feminism regardless of creative intent. Sort of like Barack Obama is going to be part of America’s race discussion forever despite race relations not really being a focus of his presidency. Their place in history is pretty secure. I understand that she is supposed to be someone for women and girls to look up to. when I say I think Wonder Woman should be a feminist I am saying that I feel that women and girls should look up to those ideas.

      Feminism has kind of a bad-girl rep. Which is pretty silly. Its core feminism is the ideal that all people should be treated equally regardless of gender. There is a lot of association with second wave radicalism in the pop-culture idea of feminism, which stinks. Feminism is for everyone, everybody benefits when people are treated fairly. Heck that’s why the UN includes gender equality in its millennium development goals. We have sociological proof that liberated ladies make for productive societies. I believe that Diana could do a lot to re-educate everyone on what feminism means.

      I want Wonder Woman’s most prominent theme to be feminism because it is her most important and challenging theme. There are almost no superheros that discuss women’s issues- and certainly no others with Wondy’s brand recognition. She is the third most recognizable name in the DCU (maybe four behind Robin.) I like to think of comics as a medium where meaningful discussions can happen, and having a major character with a major theme that is relevant to literally every society in the world is one way to make that happen.

      I’m aware that Wondy has had some questionably anti-feminist patches in her history, but every major character (except maybe Spider-Man) took a couple decades to sort out who they are and find their niche. We all know Batman used guns, Batgirl was an air-headed fan girl, and Iron Man spent the better part of his career fighting a Fu Manchu stand in. Sure these things did HAPPEN to these characters but if anybody tried to tell me that Babs-Motherfucking-Gordon was anything but a brilliant tactician who forged her own path in life I would call them nuts.

      I think the theme of feminism is pretty clearly woven into Diana’s character. Yes she is the first super lady, but looking at her back story and powers she has some aspects to her character that are pretty transparently feminist. You said yourself she loses her powers when bound with her lasso (although I thought is was when bound in general, the lasso being a major problem because it is unbreakable.) The ideal woman losing what makes her ideal when she has limitations placed on her sounds like a pretty clear critique to me. Also let’s not forget that she has a lasso of truth. Wonder Woman is a fantasy, she is what we want women to be, but when she is bound by truth we see a woman without power. Take away the fantasy and you see a depressing reality. She is physically weak but never helpless. Through wit and will she always breaks her bonds and seeks justice. Even though she is restricted, through intelligence and determination she always claims the power that is rightfully hers. If that call to arms is not intentional than it is a very happy accident.

      Wondy’s origin also opens our society up to pretty poignant satire. She comes from another world, one not ruled by men. The first thing that we are told about her world is that it is a paradise. So without men calling the shots all the time women get along just fine. Then she comes to our world and she is a fish out of water. She sees all of the fucked up things about our world and is in a position to notice they are fucked up. One of my favorite Wonder Woman anythings is Gail Simone’s animated feature. In addition to being super fun and featuring Nathan Fillion, it allows Wondy to take a look at some very subtle aspects of our patriarchy and call them out. She doesn’t preach but she does question. The film is still fun but it has a little food for thought as well.

      Loving everyone is cool. Doing the right thing all the time is cool. But we kind of already have Superman for that. Not that those themes can’t be shared, but it would be nice if Wonder Woman and Superman didn’t share a general moral focus. It makes both of them less distinct.

      I don’t think Azzarello’s Wonder Woman is anti-feminist. She is still strong, wise, and compassionate but only in the way that all female superheros are. I just think it would mean more if it drew on a theme she has every right to champion.

      • I would actually argue that the indifference this series has to Diana’s gender is more feminist than any other Wonder Woman stories I’ve ever read. Essentially, we’re defining her as a person (or a demigod, or a superhero, but the pint remains the same), rather than as a woman. I don’t mean to suggest ignoring gender inequalities is the right thing to do in reality, but if we’re talking about inspiring people to an ideal, isn’t forgetting her gender and just being inspired by her accomplishments better than saying “this is important for women because she’s a woman”?

        In fact, I would say that the “feminine” aspects inherent to Wonder Woman are kind of inherently sexist themselves. Take the items we most associate with her character: the lasso of truth and her bracelets. I often hear people talk about the lasso as vaginal (something that can entwine someone) — an interesting corollary to the phallic (but more traditional) guns or swords — but I’m actually more interested in the bracelets.

        On the one hand, the very notion of them as “bracelets” implies a kind of vanity we don’t think of when talking about, say, a “utility belt.” The bracelets may have just as much utility as anything, but the name calls to mind trivial accessorizing — a very negative female stereotype. Moreover, the actual utility of the bracelets is completely defensive. I can understand why people would read that as a positive, but it also sets up the icky notion that women always need to be defending themselves from the likes of those phallic symbols I mentioned before. The result is less empowering of women as it is accusing of men — the very attitude James was decrying.

        Azzarello has very recently mitigated that in this series by making Diana’s bracelets capable of producing swords. I don’t know if this is intended to advocate for women being more aggressive, or just acting more like men in general, but the important scene comes in this issue when Diana puts her swords away. Aggression can be the right choice, but it isn’t always the right choice.

        That’s how I’d want any of my heroes, male or female, to handle that situation. I don’t want Diana to be more feminist any more than I want Batman to be more feminist — as long as they are being treated like people, I’m pretty happy. In the end, being upset that she either did or did not act like a woman or a feminist or a tall person is an inherently limiting notion — she just acted like Diana.

        • Interesting! One of the most difficult aspects of feminism, especially in art, is deciding whether to utilize or totally subvert traditional gender roles. This really comes down to what your definition of equality is. Most liberal kids like the (crowd here) equality is not seeing the difference between men and woman at all. It stands to reason that if man and women act the same then they should be equal. This is the idea of the androgyn- the elimination of gender inequality through reducing gender difference. I like the idea to some extent. For many characters it’s what I want to see. I however don’t like if for wonder woman specifically.

          The other way to discuss gender issues is to emphasize and address the differences between genders to create a dislodge. This is something Wonder woman is really good at. You pointed out that Wonder Woman has a good deal of vaginal imagery in her weapons as opposed to phallic. I like that because it is different than 90% of what we see in comics and other action oriented media (it’s also one of the reasons I dig Portal.) I also like as I have said, that she has an outsider perspective on our society. She can call into question many ideas we see as given facts. There are so many women’s issues in our society and around the world that people just don’t know exist. That’s why for my wonder woman dollar I’d rather see a character who actively calls out and challenges our ideas about the place of women in our world. I just think it accomplishes more.

          Ultimately it is a matter of taste. I just feel that when you reduce the femininity of your female heroes and don’t change the masculinity of your male heroes you are actually just sending the message that only traditionally masculine ideas are acceptable. I think it cripples the effectiveness of female characters. Why have them at all if they are just men with breasts?

          For people like you guys it doen’t matter as much. Your adults and you believe in women’s rights. If I was going to give comics to my daughter I wouldn’t start her with Azz’s Wondy. I’d give her Batgirl Year One.

          I will admit I find Nu52 WW great in other ways. The most pressing issue for comics is the male gaze. This is something I believe Chiang has dealt with superbly so It’s not really an issue in this run.

        • But what does it mean for a character to act femininely? Or, more importantly, at what point does it veer into stereotyping? How feminine should she be? And whose version of femininity? I doubt many of us would be happier if she was wearing pink and baking pies all the time.

          More than anything, I think if Diana were so singularly defined by her gender, it would result in tokenism — she’d just be “the woman,” which I think is the way she’s often treated. Here, we’ve seen her defined as so many other things: warrior, devoted daughter, loyal friend, clever deceiver, etc.

          I guess I’m not totally sure what you’d be happier with. To me, this Diana is a strong, determined character with a surprising amount of compassion. I’ll accept that Batgirl Year One is more empowering, but I don’t think that means this story is failing to present a positive female role model.

  2. Ah-ha! The question of what a character is! In our Deadpool 1-3 write-up we were talking about whether the fourth-wall breakin’ humor is inherently part of the character, and if it cheapens him to solely embrace the humorous aspects of the character. James is bringing up a similar objection here – this new Wonder Woman doesn’t channel the platonic Wonder Woman he remembers.

    I’m firmly on the side of “the character IS as presented in the material you’re reading” but I mostly wanted to apply that to the assertion that Azzarello doesn’t care about Wonder Woman. It’s always dangerous to assume what writers feel about their characters, but I have a hard time believing that Azz would build so rich and nuanced a world around a character he didn’t care about. In fiction, revisionist history is not the same as dismissive history. Diana’s a smart, loving, capable and competent character throughout (a unique set of features in this series, I might add). How’s Azz not LOVE that?

    • I think your read on my coplaint is pretty dead on Pat. Whenever someone changes a major aspect of a character I always ask why. In the case of Azz’s Wonder Woman it was to sever the story. This is generally the best reason. However in the case of a reboot for a character with an illdefined personality I feel that any change should be made to serve the character first and the story second.

      My assertion there is perhaps a little overboard. Azz has said that in writing this run he was not interested in preserving the character’s history. There are aspects of the character he was willing to change and changing a character’s history changes who they are. I feel that some of the changes he made took away strength from her core themes.

      • I gotta just push back on that a little bit because we’ve seen a lot of really great examples of character’s central themes changing in the New 52 – Swamp Thing and Animal Man are great examples of character that already had strong thematic groundwork in their earlier incarnations that managed to weave in new emotional territory. Animal Man now has a family, and the question of what it means to risk your life when you have a family has been introduced into his world, and Swamp Thing deals in questions of destiny and responsibility (and how to deal with those things not lining up with your desires).

        But on the flip side of that, I do get flustered any time Batman is a lousy detective, so let’s call it a draw.

        • Patrick, this is maybe the second or third time I’ve heard you remark on how cool it is that Buddy has a family in the New 52, but that’s actually been a key part of his character ever since Grant Morrison revived him in the 80s. I think it’s actually a key component of his character.

        • I know absolutely nothing about Animal Man except that Morrison’s run apparantly gets very metaphysical, so you’ve bot got one up on me

        • Ultimately I think the entire point of rebooting the characters is to alter them, so I can’t complain about the basic concept of changing the characters, their history, powers, or personality (or even combining multiple incarnations of such). The ultimate question is whether the new version *works* or not, which I believe Wonder Woman does. It’s my favorite Wonder Woman since Perez’s reboot

        • To me, it’s about updating them. James makes a good point that we would all be much more upset if they had changed Bruce’s story so that his parents weren’t killed or something. That feels like a fundemental — and timeless — aspect of the character. James believes that feminism is one such aspect of the character, but I think that’s something that changes with the times (with or without a reboot). What it means to be a woman or a feminist is in flux, and I think it’s okay to update characters regarding such things.

        • Well, actually, Batman: Earth One took the bold direction of “Uncle Ben”ing Bruce and kind of making him responsible a little for his parents’ murder. That’s a bold, new, psychologically different direction for the character and I quite enjoyed it. And I don’t know that I would be throwing a fit if that version of Batman *was* the main DCnU version except that he wouldn’t fit into larger universe stories or teams at that point

        • Let me clarify, when I say “at that point” I don’t mean because of the origin change, I mean because of how absolutely street-level they make him. I have always had a hard to reconciling the Year One, Prey, Shaman, early Legends Of The Dark Knight Batman with the Grant Morrison/Justice League Batgod version anyway, though

        • I feel like that is what alternate universes are for. I love Ultimate Spider-Man for taking the mythology in new directions with Miles. I am less in love with Superior Spider-Man and Dr. Spider-puss.

        • See I consider Superior something more along the lines of Clone Saga or Death Of Superman; I see these types of stories as being unnecessarily controversial, inherently finite, and the reaction to them problematic in that it’s difficult to tell worthwhile stories to a fanbase who lives in fear of any kind of change to the status quo (even temporary)

        • I’m with James on this one. I loves me some elseworlds Batman stories, but I’ll always come back to Bruce as we know and love him.

        • I guess I’m in the rare camp that felt that the reboot didn’t go far enough, and felt that it should have been a “hard” reboot. If I were in charge I would have given Morrison’s Batman and Johns’ Green Lantern titles something like Claremont’s X-Men Forever where they could continue their run but completely outside of the shared universe. Like, I’m glad that the old JSA stories exist and I wouldn’t trade them for decades of stories with the new, younger JSA characters but I’m completely satisfied that they completely de-aged and revamped the characters for the new context. If the golden age and silver age of comics are no longer in continuity then there is no reason not to reboot the legacy characters into something totally different. I absolutely love that the current Earth-2 is a continuity where the Trinity has been killed off – this is the exciting kind of opportunity that wasn’t seized in the reboot. To me, it seems, the reboot basically did the job of just making sure you didn’t have to read the older issues by removing those experiences (mostly) but it didn’t do a whole lot to change the characters. It seemed a mistake to me to remove stuff from your complex universe without justifying it with sweeping change

        • No to mention that, pre-reboot, I could have easily taken years and years more worth of stories of Dick as Batman; I see the need to always revert to the status quo as something that was extremely detrimental to Dick Grayson as a character in that instance

  3. I don’t know about you guys, but I’d pay $3 per month to read about the adventures of Zola & Hera out on the town. I love the chemistry between them in this issue.

  4. I loved getting more into Milan for this issue, but what I really want is some really epic Orion action. We’ve got friggin’ Orion in play now! Chiang’s Orion redesign has to be my outright fave redesign of the New 52. Still kind of cranky about Jim Lee being in charge of all the costumes for that

    • I’m with you there. He looks great! He and Diana are going to make pretty great buddy cops. Since the New gods are getting into the mix I’m hoping we’ll see a return of Barda and Scott.

      • I’d love to see more New Gods, too, though I read in an interview months ago with Azz that for right now only Orion was planned. I would love to see him get a full-blown New Gods book for New 52 Wave 4 or whatever the crap is next

What you got?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s