When we asked WONDER WOMAN artist Cliff Chiang if we could interview him late last week, he agreed and requested we ask him some thought provoking questions. Not a difficult task when you are asking the artist of one of comics' biggest icons what it is like working on her ongoing series.

Chiang was kind enough to discuss with us what he loves about Wonder Woman, what it was like coming up with the character designs of her supporting cast and why he won't be co-plotting WONDER WOMAN, contrary to a previous announcement by DC Comics. Check out the full interview below. Have you been reading WONDER WOMAN? Are you enjoying the series?

Comic Vine: In our humble opinion, you have been doing an incredible job on Wonder Woman as the series' artist. Were you a fan of her character prior to signing on? What kind of research did you do for the role?

Cliff Chiang: Thank you, that's very kind of you to say. I'm certainly a fan of what Wonder Woman represents. I'm somewhat familiar with past runs, and of course I'm a fan of artists like Phil Jimenez, Adam Hughes, Mike Sekowsky and Dick Giordano, to name just a few, but the beauty of the relaunch is that research is beside the point. You do want to be aware of what's come before, but not in a way that will keep you from trying different things. This is very much a reinterpretation of Wonder Woman, and I'm glad we have the freedom to do that.

CV: There is no question about it; Diana is an iconic character. Yet, some see her being an "icon" as a double edged sword. Many creators have struggled to understand her identity, humanize her. Some would even say that she is weighed down by all that she is supposed to represent. Do you think you have brought a new identity to Wonder Woman? In your opinion, who is she? What does she mean to you? Is she different than she used to be?

CC: I think there have been many different and amazing interpretations of the character over the years, but it's hard to call any of them more valid than another. In a way, the character from the comics is quite separate from the cultural phenomenon of Wonder Woman. People see her as the ultimate embodiment of feminine qualities, but individually we all have different ideas of what a great woman is. To me, the image of Wonder Woman primarily evokes strength and independence, while for others she is all about love and compassion. You can't please everyone, so I try my best to present the character as honestly as I can.

CV: What is it like working with Brian Azzarello? What is the creative process like?

CC: It's easy, and it's open. I check in with Brian and ask some questions about where things are going, and occasionally make suggestions. Then I get a script and he gives me enough (golden) rope to hang myself. The script is usually pretty open, and Brian trusts me enough to visualize things and change elements if I see things differently. If it's a big change, I'll check with him to make sure it doesn't affect something larger, but that's about it. There's a lot of mutual respect for each other's ideas and a belief that the book is better if we're both allowed to do what comes naturally.

CV: An artist's vision for the characterization of a comic book character is equally as important as that of the writer. Now that you are being given the chance to co-write Wonder Woman, what qualities of her character do you want to see come into fruition? In what ways do you hope to influence her character?

CC: Actually, it looks like we won't be co-plotting after all. We were worried about the schedule, and I proposed it as an alternative if we were running late on scripts. But Brian's doing fine, so there's been no need for it. I'm still interested in trying it on a creative level, and I'm sure I'll be writing my own material in the future. As for Wonder Woman, I'll continue to try and bring out the personality and character we've established: a heroic woman who, in spite of her abilities and divine parentage, is as human as the rest of us.

CV: How (if any) has your experience as an Editor at Vertigo influenced the creative process on this series?

CC: I don't know that I'd call it experience so much as a mindset. Everything should serve the story, and cut out the rest. I try to make my art and storytelling as clear as possible, to make it easy for the reader to follow. The details are selective and, hopefully, nuanced.

CV: Which WONDER WOMAN character is your favorite?

CC: I had a lot fun drawing Strife. Her ultra-bitchy dialogue made it so easy to come up with great body language.

CV: In issue #7 you will be introducing Hephaestus and Eros. Where did the inspiration for the character designs come from?

CC: Hephaestus is kind of an old-school Kirby monster, with a dash of Hellboy, The Thing, and a monkey. We just wanted to have fun with him. Early designs for him were too human, but once I embraced the weirdness, it came much easier. Eros is a great, flamboyant character - a really good-looking scumbag Euro-hipster. My favorite moment was describing my ideas and Brian asked "What's his hair like, long or short?" "...Uh, both!" Brian was pretty skeptical, but he loved the design as soon as he saw it, and I hope he laughed.

CV: Okay, pants or no pants?

CC: Yes, I am wearing pants, thanks for asking!

CV: What do you think is Wonder Woman's biggest weakness?

CC: Haha, I feel like I'm answering questions for Wonder Woman's job interview. Her greatest weakness should also be her greatest asset, right? Well, I'd say her greatest weakness is that SHE CARES TOO MUCH. You'll find out what exactly that means in issue 7.

CV: As an artist, what is your favorite medium? What is the process when drawing Wonder Woman?

CC: I love pen and ink, though I'd love to dabble with more color work. Luckily, the covers have been a great outlet for that. Typically I draw 4-inch thumbnails drawing of the page right on the script, for easy reference. I just need to figure out the mechanics of the visual storytelling, so they don't need to be very detailed. I use those thumbnails as a guideline when I pencil, adjusting the relative size of panels for impact and pacing. Lately, I've been experimenting with pencilling digitally, which I then print out onto bristol board and ink traditionally. It's hard for me not to think in terms of black and white when I'm drawing, but I try to anticipate what works best in line art or in color. Matt Wilson has been doing a phenomenal job on colors, and we've developed a great rapport. Some pages it feels like he read my mind, while others are a revelation and make me rethink my approach.

The sixth issue of WONDER WOMAN hit shelves last Wednesday. Be on the look out for the series' seventh issue in stores on March 21st, 2012.

Disappointed that he was wearing pants. Other than that, great interview!

Nice artwork!

Wonder-Woman with guns is just dumb. Azzarello needs to stop with that. First Batman (in First Wave), now Wonder-Woman. Guns are not cool and iconic super-heroes really do not need guns to be cool.

Wait, she's actually going to use Guns? That's fcking awesome, its awesome beyond words. I was dropping this, but daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn. I'm back in, lol.

Cool. Want to have Azz as the main writer.
BB

@DarthShap: It depends how the guns really come into play. I'm not a fan either (though her expression is PRICELESS) but the series has been handled well so far, so I'll wait and see

@ReVamp said:

Wait, she's actually going to use Guns? That's fcking awesome, its awesome beyond words. I was dropping this, but daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn. I'm back in, lol.

Why wouldn't she? Azz loves guns and from what I've seen those covers are accurate.
BB

@Billy Batson said:

@ReVamp said:

Wait, she's actually going to use Guns? That's fcking awesome, its awesome beyond words. I was dropping this, but daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn. I'm back in, lol.

Why wouldn't she? Azz loves guns and from what I've seen those covers are accurate.
BB

But that doesn't make it a rule.

@DIOMJKsaid:

@DarthShap: It depends how the guns really come into play. I'm not a fan either (though her expression is PRICELESS) but the series has been handled well so far, so I'll wait and see

Well, the series is full of great moments and is probably one of the best out there but again, Azzarello has a problem with respecting a preexisting universe. He only does what he feels like doing, whether or not it fits the character. He is a good writer but he just could not care less about anything he did not write himself and it can be very annoying at times (his Joker is nothing like the Joker, his Batman sounds like Rorschach/Miller's Goddamn Batman when he is not using guns or plotting against Superman with Lex Luthor -and Luthor was a great book but this part was really bad- and now his Wonder-Woman is one of the many illegitimate children of Zeus and apparently will soon be using guns).

Again, this is a good comic book and I just love that he would focus so much on the greek pantheon but all these changes are just so unnecessary and proof that he does not care about what came before him.

@DarthShap:In fairness, it kinda fit in First Wave. Here, we'll have to wait and see.

What's your opinion of the that Green Arrow cover in the last set of solicits released? Ollie is dual-wielding 'arrow guns'...

They are Eros's love guns! They make perfect sense!

And I too love her expression.

Good job!

There is one thing I wished you had asked him; Why did he make Ares/War look like Brian? :)

And I really like those covers...there's something akin to an old war poster over them (esp #7).

@Outside_85 said:

There is one thing I wished you had asked him; Why did he make Ares/War look like Brian? :)

ROFL

Haha, he wears pants. Well that was a fun interview! :)

@Adnan said:

@DarthShap:In fairness, it kinda fit in First Wave. Here, we'll have to wait and see.

What's your opinion of the that Green Arrow cover in the last set of solicits released? Ollie is dual-wielding 'arrow guns'...

That is another debate but I do not think he should have done it. To me, he was just trying to be provocative and the Batman he depicts in First Wave is not the original Batman (with purple gloves), it is just the current Batman with guns.

And my opinion about the Green Arrow solicits is pretty much the same. This looks a lot like the early Image-inspired 90's when everything had to be extreme because "comics weren't for kids anymore".

They are Eros's love guns! They make perfect sense!

And I too love her expression.

i'm so glad he'll be back next issue.

@Outside_85 said:

There is one thing I wished you had asked him; Why did he make Ares/War look like Brian? :)

And I really like those covers...there's something akin to an old war poster over them (esp #7).

Ha! I haven't read this series yet (but I'm going to) but he sure does look like Brian. Good catch. Makes me like Chiang even more.
BB

A great artist. Can't wait to see his next issue.

LOL, @ the Pants joke!

@DarthShap said:

Wonder-Woman with guns is just dumb. Azzarello needs to stop with that. First Batman (in First Wave), now Wonder-Woman. Guns are not cool and iconic super-heroes really do not need guns to be cool.

for some characters, they make more sense than for others. For example, Batman and Green Arrow are kind of built around the idea that guns arent necessary, so seeing them use a gun or anything gun like is kinda off. But then you have characters like Wonder Woman and Marvel's Ares who who are designed to be warriors regardless. We have seen WW use spears, arrows, shields and swords of all shapes and sizes... so why are guns so far out of the question? she has always been more lax on the no killing rule than others, and shes obviously down for a variety of weapons.

i think it works for her to pick some up and use them, as long as they arent a regular thing. If we never saw her use other weapons (like how Thor only ever uses his hammer and his bare hands) then it would be weird. But shes a warrior and a fighter, and just like in action films when Jackie Chan uses everything from spears to buckets, she uses whatever she can to get the job done. She has never had any reason NOT to use guns.

As for batman in first wave, FW was based off of the original Batman, who carried a gun and shot people regularly. Many of those stories ended with the villains dead. First Wave was harkening back to that time. Thats why Batman had a gun. It wasnt meant to be the batman in comics now. It was like an else world.

@Adnan: I swear that guy is NOT Ollie.... I just can't seem to accept his ''new style''. His teaming with Hal Jordan and Black Canary was and always will be the True Green Arrow for me. This ''new'' version just doesn't fit my taste.

@maxicere said:

Nice artwork!

@Grim said:

for some characters, they make more sense than for others. For example, Batman and Green Arrow are kind of built around the idea that guns arent necessary, so seeing them use a gun or anything gun like is kinda off. But then you have characters like Wonder Woman and Marvel's Ares who who are designed to be warriors regardless. We have seen WW use spears, arrows, shields and swords of all shapes and sizes... so why are guns so far out of the question? she has always been more lax on the no killing rule than others, and shes obviously down for a variety of weapons.

i think it works for her to pick some up and use them, as long as they arent a regular thing. If we never saw her use other weapons (like how Thor only ever uses his hammer and his bare hands) then it would be weird. But shes a warrior and a fighter, and just like in action films when Jackie Chan uses everything from spears to buckets, she uses whatever she can to get the job done. She has never had any reason NOT to use guns.

As for batman in first wave, FW was based off of the original Batman, who carried a gun and shot people regularly. Many of those stories ended with the villains dead. First Wave was harkening back to that time. Thats why Batman had a gun. It wasnt meant to be the batman in comics now. It was like an else world.

I understand the argument you make about First Wave. I just do not think it is relevant because for one thing, Batman did not use guns that regularly (he only shot something like one guy, one vampire and one monster) and really, the Batman from First Wave is just the current character, the one reinvented by Dennis O'Neil in the 70's and Azzarello just wanted him to use guns. It is not like Azzarello actually reused the original character with his purple gloves. Just take a look at Alfred.

Again, Azzarello does not give a damn. He just wanted Batman to use guns.

About Wonder-Woman, she is indeed a warrior and as such, more prone to killing than most superheroes. That being said, she is way too compassionate to kill someone unless there is absolutely no other way to deal with him. Her last two important kills, Max Lord and Ares were not exactly written as to show that she had no problem with killing, quite the contrary actually. Also, guns do no work with the idea that she is a fighter of great honor. It is not nearly as noble a weapon as a sword. I love me some Jackie Chan but let us be honest, it would not be as great and cool if he was using guns to fight off his enemies. Finally, because both her and Jackie Chan usually show great respect for life, using guns just would not work since you do not disarm or knock down an enemy with guns.

Great interview. Love this book.

I'm not supporting the use of guns, but I feel I must point out that the pistols aren't ordinary mortal weapons, they are Eros' magical love pistols, they are divine weapons. Another thing, if you read the solicitation, she's only using those guns to fight Hades, who is said to be extremely powerful. Yes, the kid with the candles on his head.

LOVE CHIANG. His art seriously makes this book ♥

@The Dark Huntress said:

LOVE CHIANG. His art seriously makes this book ♥

No! It's the writing!
BB

I'm totally into this series. Great art, great writing. Awesome.

I was a bit disappointed that Chaing didn't do the art for the last 2 issues. Akins was still good, I guess I just got used to seeing Chaing's style thru the first 4 issues. Oh well.

@Batcrow said:

I'm not supporting the use of guns, but I feel I must point out that the pistols aren't ordinary mortal weapons, they are Eros' magical love pistols, they are divine weapons. Another thing, if you read the solicitation, she's only using those guns to fight Hades, who is said to be extremely powerful. Yes, the kid with the candles on his head.

It really does not make any sort of difference. To me, Azzarello just wanted her to use guns (because guns are coooooool and bad ass and stuff) and he made something up around it so it would not seem too gratuitous. Now, I could be wrong and anyway, we will see in due time but it could definitely be this simple considering his past work (and again, I like his work but he just does not seem to care all that much most of the time).

@Billy Batson said:

@The Dark Huntress said:

LOVE CHIANG. His art seriously makes this book ♥

No! It's the writing!
BB

Errrr...Didn't you just say that you had not read the series?

@DarthShap said:

@Grim said:

for some characters, they make more sense than for others. For example, Batman and Green Arrow are kind of built around the idea that guns arent necessary, so seeing them use a gun or anything gun like is kinda off. But then you have characters like Wonder Woman and Marvel's Ares who who are designed to be warriors regardless. We have seen WW use spears, arrows, shields and swords of all shapes and sizes... so why are guns so far out of the question? she has always been more lax on the no killing rule than others, and shes obviously down for a variety of weapons.

i think it works for her to pick some up and use them, as long as they arent a regular thing. If we never saw her use other weapons (like how Thor only ever uses his hammer and his bare hands) then it would be weird. But shes a warrior and a fighter, and just like in action films when Jackie Chan uses everything from spears to buckets, she uses whatever she can to get the job done. She has never had any reason NOT to use guns.

As for batman in first wave, FW was based off of the original Batman, who carried a gun and shot people regularly. Many of those stories ended with the villains dead. First Wave was harkening back to that time. Thats why Batman had a gun. It wasnt meant to be the batman in comics now. It was like an else world.

I understand the argument you make about First Wave. I just do not think it is relevant because for one thing, Batman did not use guns that regularly (he only shot something like one guy, one vampire and one monster) and really, the Batman from First Wave is just the current character, the one reinvented by Dennis O'Neil in the 70's and Azzarello just wanted him to use guns. It is not like Azzarello actually reused the original character with his purple gloves. Just take a look at Alfred.

Again, Azzarello does not give a damn. He just wanted Batman to use guns.

About Wonder-Woman, she is indeed a warrior and as such, more prone to killing than most superheroes. That being said, she is way too compassionate to kill someone unless there is absolutely no other way to deal with him. Her last two important kills, Max Lord and Ares were not exactly written as to show that she had no problem with killing, quite the contrary actually. Also, guns do no work with the idea that she is a fighter of great honor. It is not nearly as noble a weapon as a sword. I love me some Jackie Chan but let us be honest, it would not be as great and cool if he was using guns to fight off his enemies. Finally, because both her and Jackie Chan usually show great respect for life, using guns just would not work since you do not disarm or knock down an enemy with guns.

Just like in current continuity, back then one would assume there are adventures in between teh stories that we never saw. If Batman was going out nightly with a gun, he shot some punks. many things arent quite relevant in comics, but if it makes sense it makes sense. And batman using a gun in first wave makes sense. Also, its not like Azzarello just did it himself. DC had to have said "we want you to write further stories of that old timey Batman, and yeah, give him his gun back". This is something DC wanted. maybe thats why they asked him to do it. Maybe that's the only reason he did guns. You dont now, but its not like he wrote Batman in WW2 fighting hitler or something. That would not have made any sense. This makes sense, you just dont like it. And i trust your not alone, as FW didnt break any sales records, but it was still a decent idea that was relatively true to its source materials.

WW: In the interview, he directly mentions how some people are too tied up over her compassion, while others are two tied up on her warrior fury. And every last person interviewed about the new 52 has stated that this isnt about copying the old characters over, but re-inventing them. This WW has so far shown that in a fight shes a full warrior, and during the off time shes considerate and compassionate. it still stands that in actuality WW has no reason not to use guns. Its a weapon that requires skill and accuracy, which is why almost every hero and villain who is supposed to be expertly trained uses one. there is nothing un-noble about using a gun, and especially not in a superhero fight. Like many other heroes, her lack of gun use simply comes from the idea that somebody had halfway thru comic history that heroes shouldnt use guns. But once again, Cap and Batman BOTH started out with guns as part of their every day arsenal. WW is only using them in one issue, and as of right now only on the cover. For all we know she picks them up in a single panel to shoot an exploding barrel.

I understand your concers, but you should undertsand that they are coming from a point of view that seems tainted by previous gut reactions you had. WW has probably used every weapon BUT a gun. But unlike other heroes, she has never expressed a moral reason not to. She just hasnt. But now that i think about it she may have used one durring her time as a secret agent or whatever she was (i didnt read her during that time). Either way, unless she starts wearing guns on a regular basis, Just chill and let it fly. :)

@Grim said:

Just like in current continuity, back then one would assume there are adventures in between teh stories that we never saw. If Batman was going out nightly with a gun, he shot some punks. many things arent quite relevant in comics, but if it makes sense it makes sense. And batman using a gun in first wave makes sense. Also, its not like Azzarello just did it himself. DC had to have said "we want you to write further stories of that old timey Batman, and yeah, give him his gun back". This is something DC wanted. maybe thats why they asked him to do it. Maybe that's the only reason he did guns. You dont now, but its not like he wrote Batman in WW2 fighting hitler or something. That would not have made any sense. This makes sense, you just dont like it. And i trust your not alone, as FW didnt break any sales records, but it was still a decent idea that was relatively true to its source materials.

It could indeed have been editorially mandated but the guy has a record of not giving a damn about continuity. And again, what does not make sense is that the character in FW is not the original anyway, just the current one with guns. A lot of elements here would appear years after Batman got himself a Robin and ditched the gun completely.

@Grim said:

WW: In the interview, he directly mentions how some people are too tied up over her compassion, while others are two tied up on her warrior fury. And every last person interviewed about the new 52 has stated that this isnt about copying the old characters over, but re-inventing them. This WW has so far shown that in a fight shes a full warrior, and during the off time shes considerate and compassionate. it still stands that in actuality WW has no reason not to use guns. Its a weapon that requires skill and accuracy, which is why almost every hero and villain who is supposed to be expertly trained uses one. there is nothing un-noble about using a gun, and especially not in a superhero fight. Like many other heroes, her lack of gun use simply comes from the idea that somebody had halfway thru comic history that heroes shouldnt use guns. But once again, Cap and Batman BOTH started out with guns as part of their every day arsenal. WW is only using them in one issue, and as of right now only on the cover. For all we know she picks them up in a single panel to shoot an exploding barrels.

I understand your concers, but you should undertsand that they are coming from a point of view that seems tainted by previous gut reactions you had. WW has probably used every weapon BUT a gun. But unlike other heroes, she has never expressed a moral reason not to. She just hasnt. But now that i think about it she may have used one durring her time as a secret agent or whatever she was (i didnt read her during that time). Either way, unless she starts wearing guns on a regular basis, Just chill and let it fly. :)

Cap and Batman used guns back when what a superhero was supposed to be like was not that established. This is not like it was deconstruction, they were testing what worked and what did not back then. It turned out superheroes do not kill and therefore do not use guns.

And I am not saying it does not require skill, I am saying it is definitely not as noble as a sword (An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age as some Ben K would say), especially for an Amazon cut out from society for most of her life.

Yes, she did use guns back when she lost her powers in the late 60's, early 70's but continuity is not as simple, continuity is always selective, through Retcons and choices to pick one version over the other. When writing a character as iconic as one of the big three, it makes sense to write her as she has been written for the enormous majority of her publication history, when she was not using a gun. And yes, she has a moral reason not to, because she does not kill, unless forced to and even then, she comes to regret it in the end. In recent years, this was made very clear by the whole Sacrifice-Infinite Crisis-Who is Wonder-Woman? arc.

Azzarello does not pick one version of the character (especially not the secret agent version that had absolutely nothing to do with her), he mostly does whatever he wants to do and everything else might just as well be mocked, and the change in her origin is very symptomatic of that.

@Grim said:

@DarthShap said:

@Grim said:

for some characters, they make more sense than for others. For example, Batman and Green Arrow are kind of built around the idea that guns arent necessary, so seeing them use a gun or anything gun like is kinda off. But then you have characters like Wonder Woman and Marvel's Ares who who are designed to be warriors regardless. We have seen WW use spears, arrows, shields and swords of all shapes and sizes... so why are guns so far out of the question? she has always been more lax on the no killing rule than others, and shes obviously down for a variety of weapons.

i think it works for her to pick some up and use them, as long as they arent a regular thing. If we never saw her use other weapons (like how Thor only ever uses his hammer and his bare hands) then it would be weird. But shes a warrior and a fighter, and just like in action films when Jackie Chan uses everything from spears to buckets, she uses whatever she can to get the job done. She has never had any reason NOT to use guns.

As for batman in first wave, FW was based off of the original Batman, who carried a gun and shot people regularly. Many of those stories ended with the villains dead. First Wave was harkening back to that time. Thats why Batman had a gun. It wasnt meant to be the batman in comics now. It was like an else world.

I understand the argument you make about First Wave. I just do not think it is relevant because for one thing, Batman did not use guns that regularly (he only shot something like one guy, one vampire and one monster) and really, the Batman from First Wave is just the current character, the one reinvented by Dennis O'Neil in the 70's and Azzarello just wanted him to use guns. It is not like Azzarello actually reused the original character with his purple gloves. Just take a look at Alfred.

Again, Azzarello does not give a damn. He just wanted Batman to use guns.

About Wonder-Woman, she is indeed a warrior and as such, more prone to killing than most superheroes. That being said, she is way too compassionate to kill someone unless there is absolutely no other way to deal with him. Her last two important kills, Max Lord and Ares were not exactly written as to show that she had no problem with killing, quite the contrary actually. Also, guns do no work with the idea that she is a fighter of great honor. It is not nearly as noble a weapon as a sword. I love me some Jackie Chan but let us be honest, it would not be as great and cool if he was using guns to fight off his enemies. Finally, because both her and Jackie Chan usually show great respect for life, using guns just would not work since you do not disarm or knock down an enemy with guns.

Just like in current continuity, back then one would assume there are adventures in between teh stories that we never saw. If Batman was going out nightly with a gun, he shot some punks. many things arent quite relevant in comics, but if it makes sense it makes sense. And batman using a gun in first wave makes sense. Also, its not like Azzarello just did it himself. DC had to have said "we want you to write further stories of that old timey Batman, and yeah, give him his gun back". This is something DC wanted. maybe thats why they asked him to do it. Maybe that's the only reason he did guns. You dont now, but its not like he wrote Batman in WW2 fighting hitler or something. That would not have made any sense. This makes sense, you just dont like it. And i trust your not alone, as FW didnt break any sales records, but it was still a decent idea that was relatively true to its source materials.

WW: In the interview, he directly mentions how some people are too tied up over her compassion, while others are two tied up on her warrior fury. And every last person interviewed about the new 52 has stated that this isnt about copying the old characters over, but re-inventing them. This WW has so far shown that in a fight shes a full warrior, and during the off time shes considerate and compassionate. it still stands that in actuality WW has no reason not to use guns. Its a weapon that requires skill and accuracy, which is why almost every hero and villain who is supposed to be expertly trained uses one. there is nothing un-noble about using a gun, and especially not in a superhero fight. Like many other heroes, her lack of gun use simply comes from the idea that somebody had halfway thru comic history that heroes shouldnt use guns. But once again, Cap and Batman BOTH started out with guns as part of their every day arsenal. WW is only using them in one issue, and as of right now only on the cover. For all we know she picks them up in a single panel to shoot an exploding barrel.

I understand your concers, but you should undertsand that they are coming from a point of view that seems tainted by previous gut reactions you had. WW has probably used every weapon BUT a gun. But unlike other heroes, she has never expressed a moral reason not to. She just hasnt. But now that i think about it she may have used one durring her time as a secret agent or whatever she was (i didnt read her during that time). Either way, unless she starts wearing guns on a regular basis, Just chill and let it fly. :)

I agree with this 100%

I like the new WW, I had never picked up WW before the reboot but I am not new to comics so I did know the gist of her but when it comes to specific history I got nothing.

My only complaint is I don't like the way most of the Gods look, but it has in no real way diminished my enjoyment of the book so far.

@DarthShap said:

@DIOMJKsaid:

@DarthShap: It depends how the guns really come into play. I'm not a fan either (though her expression is PRICELESS) but the series has been handled well so far, so I'll wait and see

Well, the series is full of great moments and is probably one of the best out there but again, Azzarello has a problem with respecting a preexisting universe. He only does what he feels like doing, whether or not it fits the character. He is a good writer but he just could not care less about anything he did not write himself and it can be very annoying at times (his Joker is nothing like the Joker, his Batman sounds like Rorschach/Miller's Goddamn Batman when he is not using guns or plotting against Superman with Lex Luthor -and Luthor was a great book but this part was really bad- and now his Wonder-Woman is one of the many illegitimate children of Zeus and apparently will soon be using guns).

Again, this is a good comic book and I just love that he would focus so much on the greek pantheon but all these changes are just so unnecessary and proof that he does not care about what came before him.

It's a reboot some characters got hit harder than others.

@BloodTalon: The thing is, even if it is a reboot, that does not mean you should completely start anew, ignoring or even mocking what came before.

Superman was also rebooted but what Morrison did was go back to his first appearances and then slowly transforming him into the icon everybody knows, thus linking publication history with character development. To Morrison, everything can be in continuity, it just needs to be rearranged so that it works, an interesting idea that makes for great stories and the complete opposite of how Azzarello (also a great writer, with a great take on the politics of the greek Pantheon) works.

What I mean is, there are two ways to reboot a series and to me, one is way better than the other.

@DarthShap: Well I hate Grant's writing and don't care about Superman so I have not been reading that book, but like I said it's a reboot I am sorry that you don't like what has been done with WW but I have been enjoying the book so far and have had no problem with the way WW has been portrayed to this point I like that Zeus is her dad I like her killing and if she wants to use some magic God guns well I am willing to see how that pans out.

@DarthShap said:

Cap and Batman used guns back when what a superhero was supposed to be like was not that established. This is not like it was deconstruction, they were testing what worked and what did not back then. It turned out superheroes do not kill and therefore do not use guns.

And I am not saying it does not require skill, I am saying it is definitely not as noble as a sword (An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age as some Ben K would say), especially for an Amazon cut out from society for most of her life.

Yes, she did use guns back when she lost her powers in the late 60's, early 70's but continuity is not as simple, continuity is always selective, through Retcons and choices to pick one version over the other. When writing a character as iconic as one of the big three, it makes sense to write her as she has been written for the enormous majority of her publication history, when she was not using a gun. And yes, she has a moral reason not to, because she does not kill, unless forced to and even then, she comes to regret it in the end. In recent years, this was made very clear by the whole Sacrifice-Infinite Crisis-Who is Wonder-Woman? arc.

Azzarello does not pick one version of the character (especially not the secret agent version that had absolutely nothing to do with her), he mostly does whatever he wants to do and everything else might just as well be mocked, and the change in her origin is very symptomatic of that.

They stopped using guns because the times began to disapprove of them. Now, the times dont give a crap anymore. If the wide range of successful comics has shown us anything, its that people want a variety now. Back in the day, only one style of comic dominated the market at a time. But now, we have superhero and suspense and scifi and various mature comics all selling well. Do your research. At some point in comics history, everyone was publishing horrific violence because thats what everyone was into. So now, in this time, it turns out super heroes do use guns (Jonah Hex and the Green lanterns), as well as dismember their enemies (invincible), and betray their teammates if they think what they are doing is right (Avengers). Batman used a gun in FC. Superman used a gun when he came back from the dead.

Nobility is a point of view. Samuri shot shrapnel out of a hand made handheld tube. you know... like a gun. Their whole issue with the nobility of a weapon was based around the intimacy it went into making it. Guns were pushed out in bulk. A sword was tempered for hours, and it was hard and hot and uncomfortable work. If the Samuri had thrived long enough, they probably would have devised some "noble" long ranged shooting weapon, and some rules on the "noble" way to use one in combat. Nobility is not the same with the greeks as it was with the Romans as it was with the Feudal Knights.... and so on to the present ways of war and the current ways to die an honorable and "noble" death. Now, factor the way the Amazons have always fought men in DC comics. they have never been what we would call "noble" about it. They are ruthless. They usually enact a sort of guerrilla warefare. They kill unarmed men. Obviously, nobility is different to them than it is to the samuri. i could keep going on with this, but it would turn into a term paper...

Lol Superman is COMPLETELY different from his older interpretations. He's angrier and more violent. Batman is overly sexual and less intuitive. The best, most acclaimed comics writers all acknowledge that when writing an iconic character, you have to let go of the past and just write what feels right. And WW feels right. so Iconic Shmonic. If DC was interested in keeping to an iconic view then we would still be in the old 52.

if he wasnt writing what DC wanted him to write, or if he was writing poorly, DC would not be using him. Maybe he does like to use guns, but as long as hes only limiting it to characters like WW who have no reason not to use a gun, or reincarnations of characters who did use guns (even if he doesnt have the purple gloves -_-) ... well i think were good.

@BloodTalon: It is great that you like it and to a point, so do I. The thing is, as you admitted, you do not know what you are talking about.

@Grim said:

They stopped using guns because the times began to disapprove of them. Now, the times dont give a crap anymore. If the wide range of successful comics has shown us anything, its that people want a variety now. Back in the day, only one style of comic dominated the market at a time. But now, we have superhero and suspense and scifi and various mature comics all selling well. Do your research. At some point in comics history, everyone was publishing horrific violence because thats what everyone was into. So now, in this time, it turns out super heroes do use guns (Jonah Hex and the Green lanterns), as well as dismember their enemies (invincible), and betray their teammates if they think what they are doing is right (Avengers). Batman used a gun in FC. Superman used a gun when he came back from the dead.

The use of the gun in FC is completely different from the rest, it had purpose and meaning within the context. For the rest, I am aware of it all. I do not see how it is relevant. The fact that people want variety and that some idiot gave Superman a gun, a black costume and a mullet in the 90's does not mean anything.

@Grimsaid:

Nobility is a point of view. Samuri shot shrapnel out of a hand made handheld tube. you know... like a gun. Their whole issue with the nobility of a weapon was based around the intimacy it went into making it. Guns were pushed out in bulk. A sword was tempered for hours, and it was hard and hot and uncomfortable work. If the Samuri had thrived long enough, they probably would have devised some "noble" long ranged shooting weapon, and some rules on the "noble" way to use one in combat. Nobility is not the same with the greeks as it was with the Romans as it was with the Feudal Knights.... and so on to the present ways of war and the current ways to die an honorable and "noble" death. Now, factor the way the Amazons have always fought men in DC comics. they have never been what we would call "noble" about it. They are ruthless. They usually enact a sort of guerrilla warefare. They kill unarmed men. Obviously, nobility is different to them than it is to the samuri. i could keep going on with this, but it would turn into a term paper...

Nobility is a point of view indeed. But no, Amazons have not always fought men in the DCU. They stopped in Ancient Greece, Athena gave them Paradise Island so they would be protected from the world on man and live in peace. You are just making things up here. When it comes to them being this ruthless barbaric people, you are referring Amazons Attack, probably one of the worst event ever where every character, and the entire Amazon people was written out of character, ignoring everything that had been done for the last sixty years. And even then, in their worst characterization ever, in particular for Hippolyta, they were not using guns.

@Grimsaid:

Lol Superman is COMPLETELY different from his older interpretations. He's angrier and more violent.

Go read Action Comics #1.

@Grimsaid:

The best, most acclaimed comics writers all acknowledge that when writing an iconic character, you have to let go of the past and just write what feels right. And WW feels right. so Iconic Shmonic. If DC was interested in keeping to an iconic view then we would still be in the old 52.

Which writer has ever said that? Really, I want to know because it is the exact opposite. Grant Morrison and Alan Moore are probably the two most acclaimed writers and their method is exactly the opposite. When writing something, they use continuity as their greatest ally.

@DarthShap:

Didn't get your reply.
Well Azz is one of my favorite writers so I'm pretty much going with that.
BB

@DarthShap said:

@BloodTalon: It is great that you like it and to a point, so do I. The thing is, as you admitted, you do not know what you are talking about.

what is your problem? like I said I am not new to comics or DC I have read many stories with WW in them I just never bought her solo comic. There was no need to be rude you don't like it boo hoo for you. like I have said twice now it is a reboot move on rudey

Alan Moore using continuity? Pfff not when it came to Swamp Thing.
BB

@BloodTalon said:

@DarthShap said:

@BloodTalon: It is great that you like it and to a point, so do I. The thing is, as you admitted, you do not know what you are talking about.

what is your problem? like I said I am not new to comics or DC I have read many stories with WW in them I just never bought her solo comic. There was no need to be rude you don't like it boo hoo for you. like I have said twice now it is a reboot move on rudey

I have no problem and I am not being rude. I am just stating the obvious. One of the reason why you do not see a problem with those changes might be because you had never read a Wonder-Woman comic book before and therefore cannot compare. How is that rude?

@Billy Batsonsaid:

Alan Moore using continuity? Pfff not when it came to Swamp Thing.
BB

Using continuity does not mean not inventing anything new. He reused a lot of elements in his Swamp Thing run, among which the whole Arcane thing, even weird stuff such as what was done to his brother and Abby's father. He did not even alter Swamp Thing's personality although he could easily have considering what he "revealed" about his nature.

@DarthShap: no what was rude is the condescending way you insinuated that just because I have not read much of her solo stuff my opinion dose not matter about the new stuff. It is a shame that you are so rapped up in your own opinion of WW that you need to act in such a manner to those of us that do not share it.

@BloodTalon said:

@DarthShap: no what was rude is the condescending way you insinuated that just because I have not read much of her solo stuff my opinion dose not matter about the new stuff. It is a shame that you are so rapped up in your own opinion of WW that you need to act in such a manner to those of us that do not share it.

None of our opinions "matter". I am just saying that if my opinion is "it is out of character and an unnecessary change", well it is weird that you would respond "Well, I like it.", not knowing what I was talking about. Is it not?

@DarthShap said:

@Grim said:

They stopped using guns because the times began to disapprove of them. Now, the times dont give a crap anymore. If the wide range of successful comics has shown us anything, its that people want a variety now. Back in the day, only one style of comic dominated the market at a time. But now, we have superhero and suspense and scifi and various mature comics all selling well. Do your research. At some point in comics history, everyone was publishing horrific violence because thats what everyone was into. So now, in this time, it turns out super heroes do use guns (Jonah Hex and the Green lanterns), as well as dismember their enemies (invincible), and betray their teammates if they think what they are doing is right (Avengers). Batman used a gun in FC. Superman used a gun when he came back from the dead.

The use of the gun in FC is completely different from the rest, it had purpose and meaning within the context. For the rest, I am aware of it all. I do not see how it is relevant. The fact that people want variety and that some idiot gave Superman a gun, a black costume and a mullet in the 90's does not mean anything.

@Grimsaid:

Nobility is a point of view. Samuri shot shrapnel out of a hand made handheld tube. you know... like a gun. Their whole issue with the nobility of a weapon was based around the intimacy it went into making it. Guns were pushed out in bulk. A sword was tempered for hours, and it was hard and hot and uncomfortable work. If the Samuri had thrived long enough, they probably would have devised some "noble" long ranged shooting weapon, and some rules on the "noble" way to use one in combat. Nobility is not the same with the greeks as it was with the Romans as it was with the Feudal Knights.... and so on to the present ways of war and the current ways to die an honorable and "noble" death. Now, factor the way the Amazons have always fought men in DC comics. they have never been what we would call "noble" about it. They are ruthless. They usually enact a sort of guerrilla warefare. They kill unarmed men. Obviously, nobility is different to them than it is to the samuri. i could keep going on with this, but it would turn into a term paper...

Nobility is a point of view indeed. But no, Amazons have not always fought men in the DCU. They stopped in Ancient Greece, Athena gave them Paradise Island so they would be protected from the world on man and live in peace. You are just making things up here. When it comes to them being this ruthless barbaric people, you are referring Amazons Attack, probably one of the worst event ever where every character, and the entire Amazon people was written out of character, ignoring everything that had been done for the last sixty years. And even then, in their worst characterization ever, in particular for Hippolyta, they were not using guns.

@Grimsaid:

Lol Superman is COMPLETELY different from his older interpretations. He's angrier and more violent.

Go read Action Comics #1.

@Grimsaid:

The best, most acclaimed comics writers all acknowledge that when writing an iconic character, you have to let go of the past and just write what feels right. And WW feels right. so Iconic Shmonic. If DC was interested in keeping to an iconic view then we would still be in the old 52.

Which writer has ever said that? Really, I want to know because it is the exact opposite. Grant Morrison and Alan Moore are probably the two most acclaimed writers and their method is exactly the opposite. When writing something, they use continuity as their greatest ally.

YOu dont see how the changing of whats popular in comics history is relevant to current changes in popular comics? right. history never repeats itself.

Lol i said look at HOW THEY HAVE fought men. Not that they fight men all the time, but how they do it when they have. Every time men have shown up on the island, the Amazons have attacked from the shadows and the bushes. They utilized traps and stealth. And usually, they are perfectly willing to slaughter the men... except Hypolita or Wonder Woman say dont. Not making it up. The only time i can think of them being forward in a fight was when the Doomsday clones attacked, and that only worked so well. When Amazons run into men, they are always more likely to say something like "gut the swine" than "lets fight them honorably". that should tell you something about their "nobility". And please, stop being selective about continuity. It happened. That means DC wanted it to happen as it happened. You dont dictate what is in their character, ESPECIALLY when it has never happend before. What happened in Amazons attack is now officially what would happen if amazons attacked, until DC writes otherwise. get over it.

he was rude and sarcastic for a while, but never as angry as he is now. I dont recall him ever having a "screw the police" mentality, which he did i the N52 action comics. And he never ripped apart parademons, which is something many others gawked at when it happened because he usually thought of anything that had a conscious to be living.

lol let me rephrase. They accept the past, but they try not to get wrapped up in the old when writing something new. Every great story i the past decade or so come from a writer knowing the history, but deciding to have a character make an action that others NEVER would have done. WW breaking Ted's neck. Superboy Prime punching peoples heads off. Dr. Light rape. Batman mind wipe. Hal going Rouge. Killing Flashes. Killing batman. And on and on.