#151 Edited by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

...

@jphulk26 said:

@entropy_aegis said:

@scorpio_cassadine said:
@entropy_aegis said:

This is hilarious,"Sinestro sucks,Zoom sucks,Zod sucks,Adam sucks" but Cheetah,is awesome,Circe is awesome,Psycho is awesome LOL LOL LOL.

See what I mean about Azzarello fans and their jokes? If he didn't create it, it's not good enough for them.

Yeah except Sinestro,Adam,Zod etc were not created by Azz.

Here I'll make it simple for WW fans,First Born is a lousy villain in a rogues gallery of lousy villains. Saying First Born sucks while Psycho/Circe rocks is plain stupid.

You tell me what is so good about the concept of Sinestro. Not something that he´s done, because I could write a chapter of Wonder Woman where Ares kills Superman. You can write a character to do anything. What is good about the actual concept.

Also I like professor zoom and Black Adam. What I don´t like is when archvillains just literally have the exact same powers and look as the character they are facing. It is boring. I don´t mean that you can´t write them to make them really good, but rather that when you get villains like Superman vs Lex Luthor or Braniac, or Batman Vs Joker, Spawn Vs Clown, Captain America Vs Red Skull, Professor X Vs Magneto and yes Wonder Woman Vs Ares, its more interesting for me. Because what makes them archvillian isn´t just the are a character who is just some inverted version of the superhero, it is because psychologically, philosophically and in there very iconography they are something so opposed to the hero, so challenging to everything the hero believes in that they seem connected. They make eachother pure archetypes.

Now I haven´t said Sinestro hasn´t had good stories; its true he´s had better stories than Ares, but as an archvillain he is of the garden variety anyone can think of that kind. Oh our hero is a human chosen by advanced aliens to wield a weapon powered by will, which allows him to think of anything he wishes and is only limited by imagination. Sinestro, oh lets see, he´s another green lantern just yellow and powered by fear, (yellow being Green Lanterns weakness). Um, sorry an invisible or stealth jet is dumb, but a superhero whose weakness is yellow thats awesome. If Geoff Johns, who practically the head of writing staff now hadn´t totally revamped all the characters and written a great arch for Green Lantern, nobody would care about Sinestro. He literally got made in the early 2000s in terms of being seen as a great villain. If you went back to the 90s and told anyone Sinestro was a great villian, they would have laughed there ass off. Just like before "52" the comic no one really thought Black Adam was that great. It was their revamped origin that was great.

So again the question stands how in the hell is Sinestro essentially a good character, like The Joker is? How, not things he´s done but the basic concept.

And calling Ares AND CIRCE as a concept bad is pure stupidity, so I suppose Ancient Greek literature that has captured the imagination of people for around 3000 years and the character Ares God Of War which has been used in countless different mediums to great affect sucks, but a yellow man named Sinestro is more awesome as a concept. Lets see maybe Zues sucks as well, how about Hera, Circe whose villainy goes way beyond comics and is beloved in the Odysessy, hey even Medusa and all ancient Greek Literature is boring and the characters are no way as good as Sinestro. Sinestro most badass concept ever. THATS RIGHT GREEN LANTERN WHOSE FILM AND ANIMATED SERIES WERE CRITICALLY PANNED HIS GREATEST VILLIAN CONCEPTUALLY IS BETTER THAN PROBABLY TWO OF THE MOST ENDURING CHARACTERS IN MYTHOLOGY, SARCASM.

The GL animated series wasn't panned and atleast GL got his own series that's a start.The movie was bombed and even then Sinestro was widely regarded as the best to come out of it,dont worry though Wondy isn't getting a movie anytime soon and on the off chance she does it'll most likely be as Superman's new girlfriend,likewise your script isn't worth a damn to me,same goes for your homoerotic fantasy world where Ares is DC's greatest villain.Sinestro has been part of a decade long run that transformed the GL comic franchise completely. Right now there are 5 GL family books,soon to be 6(Sinestro corps for that matter) as opposed to just one WW book and another with her as Superman's mistress.

Sinestro is widely regarded as one of the greatest comic villains ever Ares isn't period.Mythology Ares and comic Ares are not the same.

OOOOOH, Looks like I touched a nerve, along with personal insults. Good to see. Only thing is I´ve already pitched my idea for wonder woman to a professional screenwriter who loves it and we´re working on it together along with an original screenplay. As for Sinestro and Green Lantern, correction comic nerds and Geoff johns Fanboys love him. General Audiences don´t care at all truth hurts but this is proved by his failed cartoon, failed movie and his own animated movies that were pushed far more than wonder woman and actually sold less than the WW animated film. Thats what general audiences think of Green Lantern, easily the lamest, most overrated superhero of our time. Sorry to break it to you, doesn´t hold a candle to WW who is still more well known and who has much more support for a movie than Green Lantern does for a sequel. He has b-list, sorry thats C minus list written all over him. Sinestro one of the greatest villians GTFOH. In Green lantern fanboys wet dreams. You think Green Lanterns mythology is anywhere near Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash or Shazams. Even Martian Manhunter has a more compelling story. Green Lanterns a superhero for little kids. The rest of the Justice League are characters for adults, with more mature nuanced themes, more interesting origin stories, mythologies, and characters. Infact Sinestro basically sucks and he´s still the best thing going for Green Lantern Hal Jordon. You wanna know how bad it is, there was recently a vote on who should be GL in the JL movie and Jon Stewart won by miles. Hal Jordan is just a generic, smart ass, mavrick who has no real depth or originality to his character. Plus he had to have a complete personalit transplant before his comic began succeding, the only way Geoff Johns could make him a success is make him a generic, loud, arrogant, prick, that can serve as prepubetic little white boys hero image fantasy. Its a cheap way to give someone appeal, instead of to actually think about who a Green Lantern should be. if they scrapped Hal and put Jon in his place, I think the whole book and Justice League comic would be better for it. Seriously just sucks as a character. I like him being in JL, but for the sake of him being a founding member and I´m loyal to that, but every other character in JL is so much more interesting than Hal Jordan. I´m sorry to say. Even if you don´t agree ww is more interesting, are trying to tell me you think GL is Batmans league or Superman not in the month of sundays son, you´ll need to keep smoking that Oan high grade if you think that. Sinestro, please. DC´s version of Dick Dastardly.

#152 Posted by Saren (25081 posts) - - Show Bio

We can all stop hurling abuses at each other right now. I would advise it most firmly. Otherwise things might be said and buttons might be pressed.

We can also stop saying silly things like "Sinestro sucks", but that's optional, I suppose

Moderator
#153 Posted by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

@citizenbane:

We can all stop hurling abuses at each other right now. I would advise it most firmly. Otherwise things might be said and buttons might be pressed.

We can also stop saying silly things like "Sinestro sucks", but that's optional, I suppose

I´m just trolling him like he was me. I didn´t insult him, i insulted a character, however he called a screenplay I´m writing which he knows nothing about garbage because I don´t like Green Lantern. How is that cool? Anyway I´ll squash it, I don´t even hate Green Lantern or Sinestro that much, I just think they´r overrated, which is my opinion and I should be allowed to share it, just like u´ve frequently dissed wonder woman villains like Cheetah in a wonder woman forum, I have no problem with that as long as it doesn´t get personal.

#154 Edited by Saren (25081 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26: I don't have a problem with you dissing villains that I like (that line about Sinestro in my comment above was a joke, in case that wasn't clear) because that's ultimately just a matter of opinion. If you think Sinestro sucks, go ahead and say it. I have a problem with the unnecessary hostility in your posts. Also, it might seem harmless to you, but the staff have a strict policy against insinuations of drug use, so don't say things like that last sentence of yours.

@entropy_aegis Same as above. The hostility is entirely unnecessary. Both of you, please calm down before this gets out of hand.

Moderator
#155 Posted by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26: I don't have a problem with you dissing villains that I like (that line about Sinestro in my comment above was a joke, in case that wasn't clear) because that's ultimately just a matter of opinion. If you think Sinestro sucks, go ahead and say it. I have a problem with the unnecessary hostility in your posts. Also, it might seem harmless to you, but the staff have a strict policy against insinuations of drug use, so don't say things like that last sentence of yours.

@entropy_aegis Same as above. The hostility is entirely unnecessary. Both of you, please calm down before this gets out of hand.

cool. by the way I realize you often say me using bad language. why is that such a problem? I don´t get it. Plus the drug ref was a complete joke. don´t you have to be like over 16 to be on this site. Sorry I can´t remember your reg process, but I was sure that you had to be over 16.

#156 Posted by Saren (25081 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26: I don't think you have to be over 16. The rule about cursing and drug references is something the staff want to uphold to keep the site as family-friendly as possible.

Moderator
#157 Posted by Netshyster (270 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior: "i care about how azzarello has depowered her so much and i don't like it."

I think you have to try to understand that 'power' doesn't always have to be presented in such a blatant and excessive manner. That it can be subtle and implied without automatically meaning it's absence entirely. Wonder Woman fighting Gods is an impressive feat, but as CitizenBane points out your "battle-forum" mentality doesn't allow you to recognize it as such because the feat itself can't be measured, assessed or calculated in the mechanical fashion you would in a battle-forum debate. Gods are culturally portrayed and believed to be immortal, omniscient and omnipotent; great strength, speed, wisdom and all the other trappings of God-hood are automatically expected of them without the need for literal confirmation (until stated otherwise by the author). Their physical prowess, and those considered their equals doesn't need to be crudely overstated in a succession of over-the-top and exaggerated displays of power. Great Power is already implied- they're Gods.

You should always keep in mind that First Born held open a Boom tube in issue #21 if you're really dying for a more extravagant, overt and telling show of strength. After which you should then ask yourself why it's necessary to see the characters lift and pull heavy objects and destroy half of the scenery all the time when a feat like that clearly establishes the scope of power we're dealing with in the series, in a manner that isn't in excess. To have Wonder Woman lift a tank/ship or crumble a mountain would be redundant, what would it prove, that she's strong? We already know that surely?

Azz has not "de-powered" Wonder Woman. He simply has a more restrained and subdued approach to portraying power, especially in comparison to other mainstream super-hero books. His storytelling style and framework isn't focused on the fight, power-levels and ostentatious displays of might and it's this that seems to be frustrating you more than anything else.

#158 Posted by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26: I don't think you have to be over 16. The rule about cursing and drug references is something the staff want to uphold to keep the site as family-friendly as possible.

what does that mean? parents shouldn´t let their kids on sites. i´m sorry so you talking about kid friendly.

#159 Posted by Netshyster (270 posts) - - Show Bio

@powerwoman: "He's "too" care about is because waiting over two years New 52 wonder woman isnt have any good feats,if she has one,i belive he will stop it"

I honestly think you people are crazy.

#160 Edited by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio
#161 Posted by Netshyster (270 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26: Sure, but some seem to be more crazy than others.

#162 Edited by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

@netshyster:

@jphulk26: Sure, but some seem to be more crazy than others.

Show me a sane man and I´ll cure him.

Karl Jung.

#163 Posted by Netshyster (270 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26: I don't think Karl ever met any truly insane people. He wouldn't be so sure that we're all insane.

#164 Posted by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

I have decided something, I want to apologize for dissing Green Lantern. We DC and comic fans should stick together and celebrate the medium we love. Although Cit Bane I should say that I think the wonder woman forum should be split between 52 fans and pre new 52. It´s just silly we just end up trolling and insulting eachother, because one doesn´t understand the others views. fact is the two characters are two different characters entirely and I came here to discuss ww and enjoy celebrating a character I love and find endlessly intriguing. I didn´t come here to get in squables with people with a valid point of view that they have a right to but just happen to disagree with me. Its kind of annoying because I can´t help defending something I love. Can we not just split the forum wonder woman 1 and wonder woman 2 since Azzerrelo take is widely considered not to be wonder woman and all the arguing has made many of your loyal subscribers leave the wonder woman forum. everyother post is about this. Its getting kind of annoying.

#165 Posted by Jake Fury (19203 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26: They're not going to split the forums.

#166 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@citizenbane:right because the first born isn't stereotyped,"i was abandoned,i was rejected so i hate everything and i want revenge",please that's the typical emo,so i don't know what makes him so different from 90% of the villans,and to be honest,no villan has so much depth when it comes to the motivations,we are talking about comics not macbeth.

the reason why cheetah is a great villan for her is because she is the antithesis of wonder woman,wonder woman represents the truth,the hearth and soul,love,kindess,understanding,no prejudice,cheetah is insane and hates society while wonder woman wants to help it,cheetah wants to destroy it because she has no hope in humanity while wonder woman has hope in it,cheetah thinks that the world is just for the powerful ones,wonder woman stands for equality and wants a world for everybody,cheetah searched for godly power as a respond to her greed and desire to be superior to that human world that she thinks is fake and doesn't want to belong to that world,wonder woman in the other hand is almost a god and acts like a human and her powers are just a tool to help others never something to put herself above people,it may sound stereotypical to you but it does make sense because all these about cheetah is all the opposite from wonder woman,and it's the same with every villan,they are destined to represent the opposite to the hero they fight,so it makes sense.

#167 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@entropy_aegis:glad that you enjou GL success,it took him forever to get to that point so don't act so defencive just because you know deep inside that the day wonder woman got a movie and more exposure,she has a much bigger chance to surpass GL's success,if you don't like the character and her villans,just don't come to her forum and you can go and throw shades against her in other place.

#168 Posted by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26: They're not going to split the forums.

I know but they should. Because people are just trolling eachother rather than being able to enjoy and discuss their favorite character. I mean I wouldn´t go to Green Lantern Forum and diss him you know. But here, I´m gonna just leave cause its fans of two different characters one forum. Its not wonder woman fans fault and its not new 52 wonder woman fans fault either, so we shouldn´t be punished for it.

#169 Edited by Jake Fury (19203 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26: Sadly, that is the nature of fans of anything. If you created two separate forums they'd just flood each one to argue over what they think is better and then the flaming starts.

#170 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26:i agree,how this became a GL thread i don't know.

#171 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

as far as being steryotipical goes,the first born is stereotypical too,so.

#172 Posted by Netshyster (270 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior: C'mon gokuwarrior give First Born his props dammit! Stop closing your eyes and ears and pretending you don't hear all the good stuff being laid down by users about the character and what he has to offer.

WhineHaus on page 2 beautifully explores his connection to Greek myth and the moral ambiguity behind the character and his motives. Is the First Born truly evil? Is his malice and hate not completely justified? and what does his treatment say about the Gods and their worth as 'people', as family even? It's something Hephaestus has acknowledged and shown resigned disappointment in. Issue #10

Hephaestus: "We... disappoint me."

Hades: "How so?"

Hephaestus: "Because we are capable of so much better. We fight and it's not because we love each other. But it should be."

The 'great' Gods of Olympus, all powerful and glorious but poisoned from the inside through moral bankruptcy, pettiness, greed and lack of love. In CitizenBanes great analysis of First Born's inner turmoil of recognition, he speaks of First Borns tragedy and how it is that his turning into a "monster" could have been avoided had he been shown any kindness by the Gods, but I would argue that the First Born instead, would have simply become a more refined monster if this had happened and that is the real tragedy. The Gods are themselves monsters, capable of the most callous actions and evils without a scant trace of compassion, regret or love. The First Born would have ended up cruel, ambitious and bitter all the same, how could he not surrounded by family like this?

Had he been capable of choosing the first "prong" of CitizenBanes two-pronged extension of the acknowledgement principle and lived for himself, taking heart of the love extended to him and his jungle family perhaps he would have been different but he couldn't escape the Gods corrupting influence, even in exile; couldn't suffer their arrogance and conceit, couldn't swallow their pride enough to even acknowledge the black seep of the flock they left for dead.

The First Born is a representation of the Gods unending hate. A beast born of their own folly and failures come to destroy them and their house of excess, infidelity, hypocrisy, cruelty and lies. The First Born is Karma collecting his dues. (I say more power to the First Born!)

And to Diana her greatest challenge. Not just physically but ideologically. Here is hate personified. Lived with only hate, known only hate and wishes to inflict only pain. Hate was his friend, his teacher and his lover. Hate is his fuel and his weapon and his very life; how much more anti-thesis can you get to Diana if that's your thing? How can she redeem this 'monster'? Make him see the light? Infect his black heart with love and fill that void? To make things even juicer they're related! they're brother and sister man, does the conflict get any juicer than that?

Psssh, you're seriously trippin' bro. True story.

#173 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@netshyster:i won't give the first born any prop,if citizenbane and others think cheetah and circe aren't great villans because they think they are steretypical,then first born isn't great either becaue he is stereotypical too.

#174 Posted by divingfalcon713 (285 posts) - - Show Bio

@whinehaus said:

LOL at everyone trying to draw fandom lines. "You're not a true Wonder Woman fan, because you don't like the same stories/authors/runs I do!" Extremely presumptuous and foolish. I have yet to see one naysayer of Azzarello's run and the First Born (in this thread) try to engage in a productive, engaging conversation without being outright disrespectful, redundant, and childish.

@citizenbane: Kudos to you and your counterpoints. I couldn't agree more.

Exactly my thoughts.

#175 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@whinehaus said:

LOL at everyone trying to draw fandom lines. "You're not a true Wonder Woman fan, because you don't like the same stories/authors/runs I do!" Extremely presumptuous and foolish. I have yet to see one naysayer of Azzarello's run and the First Born (in this thread) try to engage in a productive, engaging conversation without being outright disrespectful, redundant, and childish.

@citizenbane: Kudos to you and your counterpoints. I couldn't agree more.

Exactly my thoughts.

i have to say LOL at everybody sayng that wonder woman's villans suck because they find them stereotypical,LOL,first born is stereotypical as hell and you want to use stereotypical as a reason to dislike her other villans?,please give me a break.

#176 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

THE FIRST BORN IS STEREOTYPICAL TOO.

#177 Posted by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

@whinehaus said:

LOL at everyone trying to draw fandom lines. "You're not a true Wonder Woman fan, because you don't like the same stories/authors/runs I do!" Extremely presumptuous and foolish. I have yet to see one naysayer of Azzarello's run and the First Born (in this thread) try to engage in a productive, engaging conversation without being outright disrespectful, redundant, and childish.

@citizenbane: Kudos to you and your counterpoints. I couldn't agree more.

Exactly my thoughts.

If people actually think that is a logical statement I have to leave this forum. Lets make Superman vulcan then bash the readers who complain and stop buying his comic and who say fans of vulcan superman arent´t true fans. Oh just get over them changing your favorite character because as long as they use the name its the same thing. I really think you´re either just trolling us because you know what your saying is idiotic. when they make Iron Man 3´s badguy Manderin into Trevor, the world gets pissed, but I´m supposed to be ok with making Diana daughter of Zeus. I´m leaving this dumb ass forum for good.

#178 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26:no need to leave the forum,but there is no point in keep debating this topic either.

#179 Posted by PowerWoman (3576 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26: Don't need leave,I agree with you,I'll stop reading New 52 ww comics and As far as I can influence my friends and everyone not to read at it or stop buy it

#180 Posted by Saren (25081 posts) - - Show Bio

@citizenbane:right because the first born isn't stereotyped,"i was abandoned,i was rejected so i hate everything and i want revenge",please that's the typical emo,so i don't know what makes him so different from 90% of the villans

I summarily reject this generalization. I really don't have anything more to say on the topic anyway.

,and to be honest,no villan has so much depth when it comes to the motivations,we are talking about comics not macbeth.

Plenty of villains have a great deal of depth to them. Take Hunter Zolomon, for instance. When Geoff Johns was writing him, he had more depth than every single Wonder Woman villain put together. Villains can and should have depth; perhaps people who have only read Wonder Woman comics aren't used to the concept, but such villains do exist.

the reason why cheetah is a great villan for her is because she is the antithesis of wonder woman,wonder woman represents the truth,the hearth and soul,love,kindess,understanding,no prejudice,cheetah is insane and hates society while wonder woman wants to help it,cheetah wants to destroy it because she has no hope in humanity while wonder woman has hope in it,cheetah thinks that the world is just for the powerful ones,wonder woman stands for equality and wants a world for everybody,cheetah searched for godly power as a respond to her greed and desire to be superior to that human world that she thinks is fake and doesn't want to belong to that world,wonder woman in the other hand is almost a god and acts like a human and her powers are just a tool to help others never something to put herself above people,it may sound stereotypical to you but it does make sense because all these about cheetah is all the opposite from wonder woman,and it's the same with every villan,they are destined to represent the opposite to the hero they fight,so it makes sense.

Mm.

Moderator
#181 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@citizenbane it's the truth,the first born is just as stereotypical as many other villans,so don't think you can call cheetah lame amd try to put the first born on a pedestal because he has no depth,and his origin and motivations are just the same as most emo characters.

#182 Posted by SCORPIO_CASSADINE (803 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior said:

@citizenbane:right because the first born isn't stereotyped,"i was abandoned,i was rejected so i hate everything and i want revenge",please that's the typical emo,so i don't know what makes him so different from 90% of the villans

I summarily reject this generalization. I really don't have anything more to say on the topic anyway.

,and to be honest,no villan has so much depth when it comes to the motivations,we are talking about comics not macbeth.

Plenty of villains have a great deal of depth to them. Take Hunter Zolomon, for instance. When Geoff Johns was writing him, he had more depth than every single Wonder Woman villain put together. Villains can and should have depth; perhaps people who have only read Wonder Woman comics aren't used to the concept, but such villains do exist.

the reason why cheetah is a great villan for her is because she is the antithesis of wonder woman,wonder woman represents the truth,the hearth and soul,love,kindess,understanding,no prejudice,cheetah is insane and hates society while wonder woman wants to help it,cheetah wants to destroy it because she has no hope in humanity while wonder woman has hope in it,cheetah thinks that the world is just for the powerful ones,wonder woman stands for equality and wants a world for everybody,cheetah searched for godly power as a respond to her greed and desire to be superior to that human world that she thinks is fake and doesn't want to belong to that world,wonder woman in the other hand is almost a god and acts like a human and her powers are just a tool to help others never something to put herself above people,it may sound stereotypical to you but it does make sense because all these about cheetah is all the opposite from wonder woman,and it's the same with every villan,they are destined to represent the opposite to the hero they fight,so it makes sense.

Mm.

How are you going to be a moderator of the Wonder Woman Forum while simultaneously hating on her villains? I understand everyone has an opinion, but when you're in a position of power you don't have to express it.

#183 Edited by Saren (25081 posts) - - Show Bio

@scorpio_cassadine: Expressing my opinion doesn't come at anyone else's expense. I'm not saying my opinion is right and anyone else's is wrong. Coming from a position of ostensible power doesn't make any of my opinions authoritative, definitive or any less subjective. I'm not a moderator of the Wonder Woman forum anyway; character boards aren't assigned specific mods. I've just been caught up in this discussion for the last couple of days.

@gokuwarrior: I'm not putting the First Born on a pedestal; I'm not saying he's the greatest villain ever, or even that he's the greatest DC or Wonder Woman villain ever. I'm saying it's silly to clamor for Diana's traditional rogues on the justification that the First Born is allegedly bland, when the rest of that lot are virtually mockeries of DC's rich tradition of great villains. I neglected to address that generalization mainly because I'm losing interest in this discussion, but I have some time now. When you say the First Born is "just like every other emo character", which characters are you talking about, exactly? And how are they comparable to the First Born's situation except in the (undoubtedly, judging from what you've said so far) most bare-bones manner imaginable? "Emo" is such a tired, pointless descriptor. I don't know why people still use it in 2013. The truth is that I could write a justification for any villain as a great character if I felt like it. I could write a couple of paragraphs illustrating why Cheetah is the greatest thing since Don Corleone if I felt like it. I wouldn't believe a word of it, but I could do it. Drumming characters up is easy. Drumming them down to a bare description that's pretty much just the most basic representation of the character, ignoring everything else about them? That's much, much easier. I could describe the Joker as an emo loser who runs around killing things because the world was mean to him. I could describe Lex Luthor as a racist farm boy. I could describe Cyborg Superman as the most emo character in the history of characters. None of those descriptions would do justice to the villains in question.

Moderator
#184 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@scorpio_cassadine: Expressing my opinion doesn't come at anyone else's expense. I'm not saying my opinion is right and anyone else's is wrong. Coming from a position of ostensible power doesn't make any of my opinions authoritative, definitive or any less subjective. I'm not a moderator of the Wonder Woman forum anyway; character boards aren't assigned specific mods. I've just been caught up in this discussion for the last couple of days.

@gokuwarrior: I'm not putting the First Born on a pedestal; I'm not saying he's the greatest villain ever, or even that he's the greatest DC or Wonder Woman villain ever. I'm saying it's silly to clamor for Diana's traditional rogues on the justification that the First Born is allegedly bland, when the rest of that lot are virtually mockeries of DC's rich tradition of great villains. I neglected to address that generalization mainly because I'm losing interest in this discussion, but I have some time now. When you say the First Born is "just like every other emo character", which characters are you talking about, exactly? And how are they comparable to the First Born's situation except in the (undoubtedly, judging from what you've said so far) most bare-bones manner imaginable? "Emo" is such a tired, pointless descriptor. I don't know why people still use it in 2013. The truth is that I could write a justification for any villain as a great character if I felt like it. I could write a couple of paragraphs illustrating why Cheetah is the greatest thing since Don Corleone if I felt like it. I wouldn't believe a word of it, but I could do it. Drumming characters up is easy. Drumming them down to a bare description that's pretty much just the most basic representation of the character, ignoring everything else about them? That's much, much easier. I could describe the Joker as an emo loser who runs around killing things because the world was mean to him. I could describe Lex Luthor as a racist farm boy. I could describe Cyborg Superman as the most emo character in the history of characters. None of those descriptions would do justice to the villains in question.

and that's what you do with cheetah,you just drumm her down,that is what you do,ignoring everything about her is what you do,if you think cheetah's origin and motovations aren't enough to be a good character that is just your oppinion and not the ultimate truth,cheetah serves her purpose as wonder woman's villan very well,because villans work as the antithesis of the heros they fight,i told you the backround behind cheetah and that makes her a good villan for wonder woman because is exactly her opposite,the thing wonder woman could become if she lost hope in humanity and let hate consume her,i find that to be interesting and something that depth,because cheetah is what remainds wonder woman consistently what she could become if she didn't believe in love and truth,it's a constant reminder of why is important for her to never lose hope,to never give up,never let the bad thoughts get the best of her,that's why i think cheetah is a good villan for wonder woman.

#185 Posted by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

@scorpio_cassadine: @gokuwarrior:

@scorpio_cassadine: Expressing my opinion doesn't come at anyone else's expense. I'm not saying my opinion is right and anyone else's is wrong. Coming from a position of ostensible power doesn't make any of my opinions authoritative, definitive or any less subjective. I'm not a moderator of the Wonder Woman forum anyway; character boards aren't assigned specific mods. I've just been caught up in this discussion for the last couple of days.

@gokuwarrior: I'm not putting the First Born on a pedestal; I'm not saying he's the greatest villain ever, or even that he's the greatest DC or Wonder Woman villain ever. I'm saying it's silly to clamor for Diana's traditional rogues on the justification that the First Born is allegedly bland, when the rest of that lot are virtually mockeries of DC's rich tradition of great villains. I neglected to address that generalization mainly because I'm losing interest in this discussion, but I have some time now. When you say the First Born is "just like every other emo character", which characters are you talking about, exactly? And how are they comparable to the First Born's situation except in the (undoubtedly, judging from what you've said so far) most bare-bones manner imaginable? "Emo" is such a tired, pointless descriptor. I don't know why people still use it in 2013. The truth is that I could write a justification for any villain as a great character if I felt like it. I could write a couple of paragraphs illustrating why Cheetah is the greatest thing since Don Corleone if I felt like it. I wouldn't believe a word of it, but I could do it. Drumming characters up is easy. Drumming them down to a bare description that's pretty much just the most basic representation of the character, ignoring everything else about them? That's much, much easier. I could describe the Joker as an emo loser who runs around killing things because the world was mean to him. I could describe Lex Luthor as a racist farm boy. I could describe Cyborg Superman as the most emo character in the history of characters. None of those descriptions would do justice to the villains in question.

CIT Bane to be quite fair you are not just commenting you´re inciting people to say stupid things by insulting characters they love. It is quite a blatant misuse of your power. Because if I come on and say something you perceive as insulting you then start trying to tell me that i need to check my behavior. You are trolling wonder woman fans clearly, as I said I do not go to Green Lantern forums and start insulting the character. I especially wouldn´t if I was a moderator on the site.

As for this statement about Cheetah being bland and Wonder Woman villains being bland if you wish to have an intelligent conversation about have an intelligent conversation rather than a heated one, you need to first accept the premise tha your opponent is right and then break down their argument using reason rather than insults.

I will admit for the last two days I have been guilty of the same crime. So lets get into it properly.

I have said that Cheetah, Circe, Veronica Cale, ARES, ALKYONE, Genocide, The Crow Children, The Gorgan Sisters, Dr. Psycho, Dr. Poison, and even The Baroness Von Gunther and Max Lord all have potential to be great villains. I have said they have shown glimmers of greatness that need to be developed and that their is nothing inherently awful or irredemeble about the characters in themselves.

You seem to be suggesting that all these characters should be just scrapped and no attempt should be made to give them a revamp. That´s your position right?

I put it to you that a general rule of superheroes is that we modernize their origin, while not changing it. Generally when writers approach a superhero, their orgin is kept intact but modernized so as to relate to new generations. Most superheroes including Green Lantern, Flash, Superman and Batman have all had this done.

However with great supervillains there´s a difference writers are able to re-imagine them depending on the story they are telling about the superhero. That for me is the fun in supervillains. We don´t have to stick to one origin it is just their motivation and general the general essence of the characters mythology that needs to stay intact.

Thats why their have been multiple origins of The Joker, Lex Luthor, Reverse Flash and the list goes on.

As I´ve stated many times I think the first mistake of WW rogues is having the wrong villiains as her poster child.

Cheetah is a one way ticket to her villians being dismissed, so is Baroness Von Gunther. This does not make them bad villians just misused.

Cheetah is akin to The Lizard or Killer Crock in Wonder Womans Rogues. Now I´m sure you wouldn´t say Killer Croc is an inherently bad villian. In fact even though his iconography is quite silly, he´s generally seen as a fan favorite. Same with The Man Bat. Animal based villains are not a good idea to front your rogues. But again what has made Killer Croc enduring is how you can shift around his origin sometimes making him suffer from skin condition, other times going more into the idea of him being part Croc. Again like most Batman villains he mirrors Batman by being a child of tragedy, who has let that Tragedy send into dark streets of criminality.

Cheetah mirrors Wonder Woman in that she is a child of myth. African mythology in this case and her ultimate tragedy is that she has let her search for power and immortality make her into a slave and avatar of the gods. Now she hungers for flesh and death and she hates herself for being a slave to her power as opposed to wonder woman who is emancipated, admired and beautiful because of her gifts from the Gods. That is a very natural relationship to the hero and one that could be played with in various ways.

It is not just a simple story of her being a Warecheetah, there´s depth and layers to that story that reflects the heroes journey. That is what a good villian does.

Now I haven´t began to write Cheetah, but I already came up with some notes on how I might introduce her. This is just to give you an example of how her mythology could be improved and she could be made a more symapthetic figure.

Barbera Mounerva is sick, she´s very sick in the last stages of cancer. A brilliant Archeologist only in her early 30s, her illness is tragic indeed. When the island of The Amazons is revealed to the world and she realizes they are immortal, she takes one last trip to Themyscira in hope to find a key to their immortality. On the grapevine she´s heard of some special purple potion the amazons use that she thinks may be behind their eternal youth. However, when she arrives on the Island, Hippolyta and the throne is under seige by Alkyone, the greatest Amazon warrior who has taken over over Themyscira turning it into a police state in hope that she can lure Diana back by threatening to execute the Queen and her most beloved Amazons. Alkyone, with the aid of Circe has managed to precure an ancient mystical blade, from west africa. it is said to hold a great curse with in it that will grant who ever stabs themselves with it immortality and great power, but will also make that person a slave and avatar to the African God Of Blood (or whatever) hungering for flesh as an offering to the God. Alkyone tricks Barbera in to using the knife on herself, by only telling her about the immortality and fabulous power she will gain, but not that she will be a slave to the Gods who cursed the knife. She does it and becomes the spirit of the Cheetah transforming into a hideos Warebeast. In the second film Circe would use her magic to further trick Cheetah into believing that Diana was somehow responsible for what she´s become.

Now this has not been majorly thought out. It was just some broad strokes ideas and I don´t consider myself the best writer, but the point is this goes to show how maluable Cheetah´s mythology is. As said before she could only be introduced into a film after a very successful first installment and may best be left to animated series, but she can work well as a secondary villain.

Supervillians are as good as their story is maluable and can fit into and mirror the heroes journey. All of the villians I mentioned and the ones I´ve left out is specifically because these Wonder Woman villains fulfill that need. Therefore are great villians.

In so far as The FIRST BORN as you´ve explained fits that need for New 52 Wonder Woman, maybe he will turn out to be a valuable member of WW rogues that ought to be updated. However that does not mean her previous villians ought to be ignored.

Also a big problem with First Born is that he´s clearly a gimick based villian, like The Top or The Prancster or The Cheetah, as opposed to Lex Luthor or Alkyone, but he his name gives nothing away about his Gimick. A good gimick based villain should tell you everything in a name. As bad as you might say Cheetah is, much like the Joker she does what she says on the tin. That already makes her a very good gimick based villian.

I also wrote this on wonder womans villains if any of you are interested:

I think any great rogues gallery need to have a theme, and, WW rogues have great and very psychological theme which makes them potentially very mature villains. In what you can do with them.

Is there a theme To Wonder Womans Villians?

So, I was on another discussion board and someone was saying that WW has an issue because her villains don´t thematically connect to her. For instance they were saying if you think about it, Batmans villains are connected by being twisted psychological versions of himself. They are usually born out of tragedy, but for whatever reason choose to go the other way from Bruce, and are therefore reflections of what he must fight against becoming. Totally agreed, and Batman certainly has some of the greatest villains ever written.

Now on to Superman, apparently his theme was Brains Vs Brawn. Now I didn´t even understand this one as a theme. How is that a theme even? I mean most of Supermans greatest villains are more brute strength. I mean his major 3, Darkseid, Lex Luthor and Braniac are all brain vs brawn to some degree, but what about Doomsday or Bizzarro. So I wasn´t sure what was meant by that. My answer to that are Supermans villians are defined by be corrupted by something that makes them far superior to average humans. It could be intellect, strength, god like abilities, etc. They are Gods like superman, but instead of being champions for good are corrupted by their seperation to humanity and corrupted absolutely. Again a great theme.

So now on to Wonder Woman, Whats the theme? I have to say at first I scratched my head. I´m a defender of everything pre new 52 Wonder Woman, especially her villains. In fact I would go as far as to say she had potentially one of the greatest villains set for powerhouses in the DC universe. This is because coming up for villians for human or less powerful protaganists is easier. I mean compare trying to make a villain for man with God like powers, as opposed to a human with a really cool car. I assure you one will stomp you and the other is quite easy. Her villains for me are more interesting and diverse than Green Lantern or Flash, and they aren´t anywhere near as corny as people think they are. I even think they´re to some extent cooler than Supermans. I mean I love Lex and Braniac, but for me I get much more excited by the prospect of writing Dr. Psycho, Dr. Poison, Ares, Alkyone, Veronica Cale or The Crow Children. All have this great twisted quality to them. Its also a real challenge trying to work out how they can mess with Diana. I´ve also always said these characters are under written, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept. Infact I thought the only mistake is that Cheetah is seen as her archenemy; now I love Cheetah, she has really grown on me since I first got into Wonder Woman; I have to admit I thought she was pretty weak at first, but then it clicked and I think she´s fantastic. The only problem is she´s not a good face for WW rogues, if you´re trying to have her taken seriously. You need a character that more connects with WW and can be a foil for her emotionally, psychologically as well as physically. One that anyone can look at and think, OK they´re totally mirror who the hero is and they´re badass. My candidates for the future of WW, who should be the posterboys and girls of her villains, Dr. Psycho, Alkyone, Ares.

But I digress, as I was saying this question really stomped me. I mean what is theme connecting Dr. Psycho and Ares, and if there isn´t one is that the problem with Wonder Woman? I am so fed up of all the excuses with Wonder Woman, I could literally get really mad at the next person who says something about her bathing suit costume, or invisible jet. Its just all idiotic. But I had to say wow, for a question by a detractor this was a good one.

So I got to thinking, as I´m writing a Wonder Woman script, what connects the Wonder Woman villains I want to use in my 3 part story. There must be something unique about this set that appeals to me. A single thread that I see woven through her story. Just like Spider-Man fights mutant hybrids of animal and man, science experiments gone wrong or Daredevil fights corruption and fear, what is it about Wonder Woman and her colorful rogues that does it for me. Then it dawned on me and I figured it out. There is a thread and please tell me if I´m wrong. Two things connect most of WW best villains: it´s the classic story of Ancient Warrior vs Mystics and Magicians, but set in the modern world. Think Ares, Cheetah, Alkyone, The Gorgans, Dr Psycho, even Venessa Cale mainly uses mystic forces against WW, by being the brains and resources behind the demons who go after WW. But there is another theme and I think an even stronger one. WW represents Peace, her villains, nearly all revel in war, discord and destruction. These aren´t villains whose motives are to take over the world or even necessarily kill WW. These are villains who for one reason or another just enjoy the very notion of inflicting pain and suffering on humanity, exciting panic, or just plunging the world backwards into all out war. Ares of course is the ultimate expression of that, but everyone from Cheetah to Alkyone to Dr. Psycho on a smaller scale all enjoy the same devastation. Now for me that is a pretty badass and a unique theme, I think born out of her introduction during the 1940s and her origins connection to fighting Nazism. They were seen as chaotic nihilists, so this came to be a theme amongst her most enduring villiains. I always like these kind of villians more psychopaths, deranged and evil, they don´t want the throne, they just want death and to watch the world crumble. I love that not one of her villains has the obvious motive of taking over the world or money. The last theme and this is where I out did myself, cause I really searched. The last thing is Diana´s love of self and inner confidence being the object of obsession. Yes Obsession is a major theme amongst Diana´s villains. Due to lack of self-love for one reason or another, Diana´s almost natural and instinctive love of self and compassion for others, which they see gives her such great freedom, sends the dark monsters of her world into a jealous and obsessive frenzy. If you read the DSM V5 (statistical and diagnostic manual for mental disorders) Eachone of Diana´s villains correspond to some perversion of the love instinct)

Some Background

Cheetah - Suffers clearly from Manic Depression on a deadly scale. Her highs and lows of self hate, and, self agrandizement, due to the curse that both gives her power but also enslaves her manifests in an unhealthy fixation on her protagonists.

Alkyone - Erotomania - This is the obsessive mental illness suffered by stalkers. Alkyone is really a masterpiece of a villain. People don´t realize quite how sick this puppy is. Basically Alkyone is a stalker, her love object is Hippolyta who she clearly believes should be with her. When Hippolyta gave her the duty to guard her, Alkyone translated that in her head as "she loves me too." these poor sick creatures are not mad though. Absolutely not, rather they are incredibly cunning and can logically work out ways to possess the object of their love. This relationship always ends in one way death of the love object or death of of the obsessor, usually by suicided. Alkyone saw Diana as a threat to the love connection between herself and Hippolyta and therefore concocted a fantasy she convinced the amazons of, of Diana being a demon. So snake like and powerfully deceptive that she even convinced her fellow Amazons to help her commit infanticide. Alkyone is basically a superpowered version of the villian in misery. Great villian and if you done a single class in psychopathology you´d realize just how twisted she is and how twisted she could become.

Ares - Psychopath. Sadist. No empathy. No concsience, Manipulative, liar, shallowness of affect, glib charm, sees everything outside him as an object of manipulation. Yet he admires Wonder Woman, she is the only one he does not see as an object. It is the tail of beauty and the beast in another modern and terrifying guise. Does Ares maybe actually love Diana?

Dr. Psycho - Yet another erotomaniac in the list. A stalker of the most dangerous variety. Fixated with a public figure who is far out of their station in life. Usually failed, unattractive, lonely narcissists with, little or no social skills. The only way to have their "love object" notice them is by hurting, intimidating or violently attacking those around them. The more their love object rejects them the more lethal their attention becomes toward them. That is Dr. Psycho and Wonder Woman in a nutshell. Again for me if you accept that, then you have a fascinating relationship, completely unique in comics. Which is why I think Dr. Psycho actually works.

Dr. Poison - Psychopath, sexual sadist - Torture is the game here, plain and simple. Like Ares no empathy or feeling for their victims. They are mere objects and playthings in the world of their violator. No emotion, no humor, mid to high IQ, poor social skills, unable to properly exist in a group. Dr. Poison serial killer and sexual sadist, poison is the weapon.

I could go on, but hopefully you´ve got the point. What I love here about these collection of characters is that they suffer from real dangerous psychological and obsessive pathologies, but they are caught in this mythic world. Writers need to start thinking of wonder womans villians less as mythic creatures and more as people. Then they will be able to do much more with them.

Simple Breakdown

Dr Psycho, is in love with Diana, because he hates himself; his warped love for her, and hatred of everything else drives his acts of madness. Cheetah, again, obsessed with Dianas freedom as she is a slave to the curse that has made her the Cheetah, where as Diana´s gifts make her free. Veronica Cale, obsessed with Wonder Woman, because she thinks she hasn´t worked to become WW, its just been given to her. Dr. Cyber, literally so obsessed with Diana´s beauty she wants her face, so she can plaster it to hers. Ares obsessed with the contradictions in Diana´s philosophy, and showing her those contradictions. Alkyone, some weird almost psychopathic obsession with Diana´s mother, and her wish Diana was her child. The list goes on. Again I think this maybe a theme unique to Diana´s rogues. I mean there is alot of obsession in Batman, but its a different type of obsession. Most Batman villains obsession comes from hate of the Batman or wanting to one up him. Diana´s rogues seem to have admiration, jealousy and ultimately different shades of perverted love for the character, resulting in obsession.

So what do you think, have I cracked it?

Are the themes I´ve mentioned wrong?

Maybe theres something I´m missing?

Let me know.

#186 Edited by SCORPIO_CASSADINE (803 posts) - - Show Bio

@citizenbane said:

@scorpio_cassadine: Expressing my opinion doesn't come at anyone else's expense. I'm not saying my opinion is right and anyone else's is wrong. Coming from a position of ostensible power doesn't make any of my opinions authoritative, definitive or any less subjective. I'm not a moderator of the Wonder Woman forum anyway; character boards aren't assigned specific mods. I've just been caught up in this discussion for the last couple of days.

Yes it does, because you keep baiting people who are passionate about the subject with incendiary language, and then you back up and play your mod card once they get heated. That's not playing fair. How would you like it if a mod came to the Green Lantern board and crapped all over Sinestro and issued warnings to people trying to defend him? It's just not right. A proper moderator should be above the fray.

#187 Edited by Saren (25081 posts) - - Show Bio

@scorpio_cassadine:Being frank about my opinion on the matter is baiting? Am I supposed to say something I don't believe is true just because this is the Wonder Woman forum? What is the point of organized discussion on any forum if everyone is expected to have the same opinion? What "incendiary language" did I use, and how was anything I said more incendiary or rude than that line about how people who like Azzarello's run "aren't real Wonder Woman fans"? I've read every Post-Crisis Wonder Woman run. I like Azzarello's run. Seems that makes me inferior to the "real" fans that hate it.

I'm not admonishing people for defending Wonder Woman's villains. I'm admonishing people who are getting hot under the collar and directing personal attacks against each other. I had no involvement in the argument between entropy and jphulk, and the things they were insulting each other about were completely unrelated to anything I said about Cheetah. I didn't make any mention of jphulk's script for instance, that just came out of nowhere. If a mod went to the Green Lantern forum and made a big thread detailing everything they hated about Sinestro and declared that he was the worst villain of all time, I'd chalk it up to their opinion. If the same mod started warning people who tried to defend Sinestro, that would be an abuse of power. I am not warning people who are defending Cheetah. I am warning people who are attacking each other. Does being a proper moderator entail butting out of the discussion and altering all my opinions into the views that are most palatable to the largest number of people? Would have been nice if someone had told me this before I took the job.

@jphulk26 Re: above.

I haven't insulted anyone. I haven't called anyone a fanboy or belittled their WW knowledge or implied that they were second-rate, "false fans" for liking a run that I disliked. All of those things have happened in this thread and I haven't given anyone a warning for any of that. The only thing I gave anyone a warning for was using ad hominems in place of civility.

I have never said the characters shouldn't or couldn't be revamped. My position has always been that leaving them as they were before Flashpoint, they're not a particularly great bunch.

I disagree with the very premise of trying to find themes and categories and neat little boxes to generalize an entire rogues' gallery with. Superman's villains can all be generalized as beings who use their gifts, whether superpowers or intellect, for the wrong reasons as opposed to Clark who uses his powers only for good. Sure. Possible. But if you paint them all with that brush, you risk glossing over their individual traits, and those are the traits that give them real depth and differentiation.

You know what the best defense on CV of a villain I've ever seen was, specifically a villain I disliked? It was from a user named Switchdoctor a while back; he was explaining the appeal of Maxima. I've always dismissed Maxima on a superficial level. I saw her as an embarrassing addition to Superman's gallery, since prima facie all there is to the character is "Superman, I want your babies!". Switchdoctor's explanation (as far as I understood it, I might not be doing it the full justice here) was that Maxima is a reflection and an appeal to a dark corner of Superman's psyche that he tucks away from the world; the corner that knows that as much as he loves Lois, they can never have a child together, no matter how much they both want to. He's the last of his kind, his wife can't help with that, let's not even get into his cousins. On the other hand, he can have a child with Maxima. So when Superman is fighting Maxima, he's not just fighting some brazen temptress who misuses godlike powers. He's fighting a little piece of himself that he can never let see the light of day.

That explanation changed my whole view of the character. A good villain isn't just a regular old antithesis of the hero, a good villain is a commentary on the hero. Maxima would fall into your characterization of a villain who abuses godly powers. But your characterization would gloss over the things that make her unique. Likewise for the idea that Batman's villains are all the products of childhood trauma or that Wonder Woman's villains are all clinical psychopaths and sexual sadists. Villains are not and should not be that easily identified. Look at the Flash's rogues. They're an extremely diverse bunch. You have the Rogues, who are blue-collar crooks with a strict code of honor; their own personal omerta. You have Thawne, who's a sociopath primarily driven by his ego and his jealousy of the man he could never be. You have Grodd, who's the usual conquering warlord, driven by a lust for power. And then you have Zolomon, who's what you get when you take a vat of anger, mix in some grief, a little resentment, and a genuine, if twisted, respect for the heroes he tortures. See what I mean? Can you actually find a way to paint all these characters with the same brush in a way that wouldn't ultimately cheapen who they are individually? Zolomon is not the same as Grodd is not the same as Heatwave is not the same as Thawne.

I read through the entirety of your post but I don't want to linger her any longer since I'm apparently not wanted, so the only thing I wanted to add after all that is that the relationship you're proposing in the Doctor Psycho writeup really isn't as unique as you think. Green Arrow and Cupid, for example.

Alright, then this is my last post on this thread.

Moderator
#189 Edited by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

@scorpio_cassadine:

@citizenbane said:

@scorpio_cassadine:Being frank about my opinion on the matter is baiting? Am I supposed to say something I don't believe is true just because this is the Wonder Woman forum? What is the point of organized discussion on any forum if everyone is expected to have the same opinion? What "incendiary language" did I use, and how was anything I said more incendiary or rude than that line about how people who like Azzarello's run "aren't real Wonder Woman fans"? I've read every Post-Crisis Wonder Woman run. I like Azzarello's run. Seems that makes me inferior to the "real" fans that hate it.

I'm not admonishing people for defending Wonder Woman's villains. I'm admonishing people who are getting hot under the collar and directing personal attacks against each other. I had no involvement in the argument between entropy and jphulk, and the things they were insulting each other about were completely unrelated to anything I said about Cheetah. I didn't make any mention of jphulk's script for instance, that just came out of nowhere. If a mod went to the Green Lantern forum and made a big thread detailing everything they hated about Sinestro and declared that he was the worst villain of all time, I'd chalk it up to their opinion. If the same mod started warning people who tried to defend Sinestro, that would be an abuse of power. I am not warning people who are defending Cheetah. I am warning people who are attacking each other. Does being a proper moderator entail butting out of the discussion and altering all my opinions into the views that are most palatable to the largest number of people? Would have been nice if someone had told me this before I took the job.

@jphulk26 Re: above.

I haven't insulted anyone. I haven't called anyone a fanboy or belittled their WW knowledge or implied that they were second-rate, "false fans" for liking a run that I disliked. All of those things have happened in this thread and I haven't given anyone a warning for any of that. The only thing I gave anyone a warning for was using ad hominems in place of civility.

I have never said the characters shouldn't or couldn't be revamped. My position has always been that leaving them as they were before Flashpoint, they're not a particularly great bunch.

I disagree with the very premise of trying to find themes and categories and neat little boxes to generalize an entire rogues' gallery with. Superman's villains can all be generalized as beings who use their gifts, whether superpowers or intellect, for the wrong reasons as opposed to Clark who uses his powers only for good. Sure. Possible. But if you paint them all with that brush, you risk glossing over their individual traits, and those are the traits that give them real depth and differentiation.

You know what the best defense on CV of a villain I've ever seen was, specifically a villain I disliked? It was from a user named Switchdoctor a while back; he was explaining the appeal of Maxima. I've always dismissed Maxima on a superficial level. I saw her as an embarrassing addition to Superman's gallery, since prima facie all there is to the character is "Superman, I want your babies!". Switchdoctor's explanation (as far as I understood it, I might not be doing it the full justice here) was that Maxima is a reflection and an appeal to a dark corner of Superman's psyche that he tucks away from the world; the corner that knows that as much as he loves Lois, they can never have a child together, no matter how much they both want to. He's the last of his kind, his wife can't help with that, let's not even get into his cousins. On the other hand, he can have a child with Maxima. So when Superman is fighting Maxima, he's not just fighting some brazen temptress who misuses godlike powers. He's fighting a little piece of himself that he can never let see the light of day.

That explanation changed my whole view of the character. A good villain isn't just a regular old antithesis of the hero, a good villain is a commentary on the hero. Maxima would fall into your characterization of a villain who abuses godly powers. But your characterization would gloss over the things that make her unique. Likewise for the idea that Batman's villains are all the products of childhood trauma or that Wonder Woman's villains are all clinical psychopaths and sexual sadists. Villains are not and should not be that easily identified. Look at the Flash's rogues. They're an extremely diverse bunch. You have the Rogues, who are blue-collar crooks with a strict code of honor; their own personal omerta. You have Thawne, who's a sociopath primarily driven by his ego and his jealousy of the man he could never be. You have Grodd, who's the usual conquering warlord, driven by a lust for power. And then you have Zolomon, who's what you get when you take a vat of anger, mix in some grief, a little resentment, and a genuine, if twisted, respect for the heroes he tortures. See what I mean? Can you actually find a way to paint all these characters with the same brush in a way that wouldn't ultimately cheapen who they are individually? Zolomon is not the same as Grodd is not the same as Heatwave is not the same as Thawne.

I read through the entirety of your post but I don't want to linger her any longer since I'm apparently not wanted, so the only thing I wanted to add after all that is that the relationship you're proposing in the Doctor Psycho writeup really isn't as unique as you think. Green Arrow and Cupid, for example.

Alright, then this is my last post on this thread.

I admitted that you were not the only one acting uncivilly and I tried to start an intelligent conversation and I think the points you´ve made above are great.

I don´t wish you to leave the debate, what I was trying to do is squash the hostile undertones and start speaking about things maturely. As I said much like a prosecutor tries to break down a defense, the best way to break down someones argument is to assume what they are saying is based on evidence and then take each block of their evidence away. This then proves that you are right or wrong on a subject. Or at least since this is subjective ultimately, it is a more civil way to hold a discussion.

As for the points you made, I think they are very true. I wasn´t saying that one should brush all villains in rogues gallery with the same brush, but rather ones key villains and foes, ones real archenemies tend to reflect something in the hero, and are usually connected by a theme. They reflect a particular heroes journey. Also, I wasn´t suggesting what connects WW rogues is that they are sexual sadists. I said what connects WW and her key rogues is her pure love vs. them being driven by some perversion of the love instinct. This perversion often manifests itself in clinical psychological disorders, which further adds depth to the characters. My point being if we want to deepen WW rogues gallery, we ought to stop just thinking of the characters as gimicks, but rather as people. I like WW rogues because much like Batmans, there is a real psychological component to them. With Batman that obsession with the hero is often what transforms them into his villians, but usually based of them hating him, wanting to one-up him and often wipe him out completely. WW´s is similar, but the key difference is the obsession with WW is based of love and/or admiration, making them very different. They don´t wish to kill her; if anything they wish to pervert her, take away her love, what she believes in, or even her beauty in some cases (Dr.Cyber wishing to take ww face so she can plaster it on her own), and thats why they cause chaos around her. Her villians tend not to be too interested in power, revenge or conquer; her best villains are connected by a psychological impulse to cause chaos and destroy what she loves so as to get her attention. This does not apply to all of them of course Some of her villians are more traditional, but I´m talking about the ones that tend to stand out most and connect to WW fans. This theme could be made really interesting and is a relationship that ought to be explored.

One more thing, about being a true WW fan. I again don´t say this as an insult, but if you condone changing her whole character, you admit you think her villians suck, and you seem ok with Azzerrelo´s attempt to wipe out 75 years of her history, then I´m at a loss to how you can claim to be a pre new 52 ww fan. We tend to think of the real thing as the original, if as I contend New 52 ww is a completely different character, your endorsement of the changes would relay to most that you were not to fond of the original. I think it´s that simple. You could have read every issue of WW ever, but saying these changes are fine with you and that they should last into WW future legacy is basically admitting that to some extent you weren´t a big fan of what came before.

Is that a fair assessment? It doesn´t make you a bad person. It is not an insult as I understand the word, I just do not get your beef with someone saying that. Would it be better to say you are not a fan of the original Wonder Woman, which is what is meant by the statement.

As I said before, my post was not simply blaming you, I admitted the error of my way. I was fuelled by my love of the character and I responded to certain things in away that I shouldn´t.

" I didn't make any mention of jphulk's script for instance, that just came out of nowhere. If a mod went to the Green Lantern forum and made a big thread detailing everything they hated about Sinestro and declared that he was the worst villain of all time, I'd chalk it up to their opinion. If the same mod started warning people who tried to defend Sinestro, that would be an abuse of power."

Yes you should be free to say what you want, but then I never insulted anyone in my post, and you pulled the moderator card on me. Fact remains, sure I should be free to go on a Superman Forum and say the character sucks, but what would be the point unless I was trying to bait people. You coming on a WW forum and saying her rogues suck in no uncertain terms, can you explain to me the point? I really wish to know? Not once have I ever said anything bad about a character in their own forum, especially something that was utterly dismissive of the whole character. Whether moderator or not, surely you must see how that will play on a fans emotions and lead them to start speaking in the way you claim to find intolerable.

There are other ways to frame the discussion, surely, even if you want to complain about Cheetah or Dr. Psycho.

I hope we can move on from this and have more enlightened debates, but I understand if your wish to bow out,

I´m getting quite fed-up myself.

#190 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@citizenbane:you can't have great villans without a theme,they need a theme that explains why they are the way they are,why they are against a certain hero,something that connects them with a certain hero,for cheetah is her vision of the world that connects her as a wonder woman's villan,cheetah as the avatar of a god has a chaotic and hopeless vision of the world and humanity and can't conceal her frustration and hate towards wonder woman for wanting to act as a human,for leaving her godly statu behind to live as a normal person and put her powers to serve humanity,cheetah thinks there is no point in the world,humanity is doomed by its own nature,wonder woman works for a better work,she thinks that you can always make a different,we got a conflict of ideas between them and we also has cheetah working as a reminder of what diana could become,what she would be without her hope and love,and cheetah always living to see diana lose faith in her goals and be corrupted,a psychotic desire to say to her,"i told you","i want to be there when you realize you have been playing a loosing game",i find all these about cheetah to be very interesting.

#191 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26:very well said,but barbara becoming cheetah in her attempt to cure her cancer wouldn't be the best way to writte her,because she'd be a victim that was fooled by alkyone,what would happen when she realizes that diana had nothing to do with that?,for me cheetah is better as the dark version of wonder woman,cheetah as the avatar of a god has a chaotic and hopeless vision of the world and humanity and can't conceal her frustration and hate towards wonder woman for wanting to act as a human,for leaving her godly statu behind to live as a normal person and put her powers to serve humanity,cheetah thinks there is no point in the world,humanity is doomed by its own nature,wonder woman works for a better work,she thinks that you can always make a different,we got a conflict of ideas between them and we also has cheetah working as a reminder of what diana could become,what she would be without her hope and love,and cheetah always living to see diana lose faith in her goals and be corrupted,a psychotic desire to say to her,"i told you","i want to be there when you realize you have been playing a loosing game",i find all these about cheetah to be very interesting.

#192 Posted by PowerWoman (3576 posts) - - Show Bio
#193 Edited by drgnx (3566 posts) - - Show Bio

It's funny because many people are complaining DCnU Superman isn't Superman either,,,okay we'll a few are like Lvenger, but I multiply their votes by the thousands. But seriously ,,, This is kind of like when they change a show you like and it causes you to no longer like the show, some people will still like it if the don't really care about the parts that were changed, or have tastes that align more with the new format.

Now I get why some people would like the new format but not others, and it is a given their are different version of her based on what different people define as her core, but I think it is very pompous to dictate which version of wonder women is the real version and which version you should like to be a true fan. Besides, with this logic, if anyone has the right to talk smack, it should be the very first generation of fans.

#194 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio
#195 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

there isn't much development about the first born so far,and he is stereotypical.

#196 Edited by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

@drgnx said:

It's funny because many people are complaining DCnU Superman isn't Superman either,,,okay we'll a few are like Lvenger, but I multiply their votes by the thousands. But seriously ,,, This is kind of like when they change a show you like and it causes you to no longer like the show, some people will still like it if the don't really care about the parts that were changed, or have tastes that align more with the new format.

Now I get why some people would like the new format but not others, and it is a given their are different version of her based on what different people define as her core, but I think it is very pompous to dictate which version of wonder women is the real version and which version you should like to be a true fan. Besides, with this logic, if anyone has the right to talk smack, it should be the very first generation of fans.

I think you misunderstand the change we talk about. And, yes your right the first generation of fans should be pissed by what someone like Loeb did turning WW and Amazons into sexual object. Again that goes against the core of the character. However atleast Loeb, inspite of the overtly sexual nature of his run kept wonder womans basic mythology intact.

I mean you can´t seriously be telling me, if they turned Superman into an all out badass, loner, wolverine type character, changed the planet he was from, made the Kents assholes to him, who lied to him his whole life and treated him like a freak. If they made all those changes to Superman would you not feel legitimately as if he was transformed so much he was another character. Further more which would you consider the real Superman.

I don´t mind people modernizing and adding a touch here and their, making a darker or more gritty take on a characters mythology. But when you change what they represent. completely vandelise the whole story that for me is too much.

By the way I´m not too fond of New 52 Superman either. But to be fair they haven´t changed what he stands for and the mythology underlying the character.(More angry with The Man Of Steel when it comes to that) The most telling changes to him have been cosmetic (no pants) but in the end, something like that can always be changed back. Where as knowing the clowns at DC they probably like the idea Zeus is WW father and all that other mess. It will take a true fan writing her book, hopefully to get rid of that as well as the changes to the Amazons, which for me is even worse. What they did to The Amazons is seriously akin to making the Kents a midwest serial killer couple, just for the sake of sensationalism. And even worse once revealing that big revelation, not even bothering to explain or explore what that means. Just dropping it in for the sake of it then killing them off. Its bad writing, plain and simple.

@gokuwarrior - The Cheetah story is just for a script. I wouldn´t do that in a comic or animated series, but for a screenplay where Cheetah isn´t really the main villain. Sorry, I just didn´t see her as the main villain of the piece, but hey I may change my mind. The point though was to show how maluable she is as a character, how she can serve so many purposes depending on what Wonder Woman story you are trying to tell.

#197 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio
#198 Edited by drgnx (3566 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26 said:

@drgnx said:

It's funny because many people are complaining DCnU Superman isn't Superman either,,,okay we'll a few are like Lvenger, but I multiply their votes by the thousands. But seriously ,,, This is kind of like when they change a show you like and it causes you to no longer like the show, some people will still like it if the don't really care about the parts that were changed, or have tastes that align more with the new format.

Now I get why some people would like the new format but not others, and it is a given their are different version of her based on what different people define as her core, but I think it is very pompous to dictate which version of wonder women is the real version and which version you should like to be a true fan. Besides, with this logic, if anyone has the right to talk smack, it should be the very first generation of fans.

I think you misunderstand the change we talk about. And, yes your right the first generation of fans should be pissed by what someone like Loeb did turning WW and Amazons into sexual object. Again that goes against the core of the character. However atleast Loeb, inspite of the overtly sexual nature of his run kept wonder womans basic mythology intact.

I mean you can´t seriously be telling me, if they turned Superman into an all out badass, loner, wolverine type character, changed the planet he was from, made the Kents assholes to him, who lied to him his whole life and treated him like a freak. If they made all those changes to Superman would you not feel legitimately as if he was transformed so much he was another character. Further more which would you consider the real Superman.

I don´t mind people modernizing and adding a touch here and their, making a darker or more gritty take on a characters mythology. But when you change what they represent. completely vandelise the whole story that for me is too much.

By the way I´m not too fond of New 52 Superman either. But to be fair they haven´t changed what he stands for and the mythology underlying the character.(More angry with The Man Of Steel when it comes to that) The most telling changes to him have been cosmetic (no pants) but in the end, something like that can always be changed back. Where as knowing the clowns at DC they probably like the idea Zeus is WW father and all that other mess. It will take a true fan writing her book, hopefully to get rid of that as well as the changes to the Amazons, which for me is even worse. What they did to The Amazons is seriously akin to making the Kents a midwest serial killer couple, just for the sake of sensationalism. And even worse once revealing that big revelation, not even bothering to explain or explore what that means. Just dropping it in for the sake of it then killing them off. Its bad writing, plain and simple.

I can honestly say I wouldn't bother me that much, I'm always interested in seeing new takes on heroes. I absolutely love else-worlds and alternate universes for that very reason and actually wish the would be more bold during reboots to the main Universe. And I'm not trolling. Superman to me is a hero with kick-ass powers who uses them to save people. But if they depowered him and made him struggle through life powerless for a year or 2, I would still be okay if the story was good. But his being from Krypton, while important, isn't why I like the character, if they made him a modified Human like old school Ultraman, I'd still like the character. While I understood their importance, I never cared too much for the Kents much, nor smallville for that matter and I actually liked the new young brash DCnU Superman who still needed to be humbled as he gets older.

While I like his other elements I'm not overly attached to them. AND I NEVER LIKED HIS RED TRUNKS AND AM ECSTATIC THEY ARE GONE!!!!!! But despite buying several of his titles over the years does this revelation suddenly make me not a true Superman fan?

To give you more insight; Cyborg Superman was my favorite villain, but they changed him, they made him an actual Kryptonian (Supergirl's Dad) and made him a Supergirl villain. I don't like all that change; mainly, I liked him being a kick-a** Superman villain, but I'm still eager to see him in action. But I would NOT call anyone who likes the change someone who is "not a Cyborg Superman fan" and that is the point I'm trying to make!.

How would you feel if I said "Perhaps the real fans are the ones more willing to accept different versions of her"?

Your first mistake was assuming what you think what makes Superman "Superman" is the same thing that everyone else does. You're making the same mistake for wonder woman. The fact that you implied what changes I would, or would not, like is very presumptuous and is a shining example of many of the issues caused in this forum by others.

#199 Edited by Sinisteri (550 posts) - - Show Bio

Well,

It is easy to say radical changes to Superman wouldn't be a problem when the Powers To Be would not and never have made any to radical to him.

This version of WW is not one for the long haul. Had she existed in the 40s, the character would have not endured. There is a strong, basic vision behind Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman that stands the test of time.

There is a reason females feel good about the idea of being a Wonder Woman or feel inspired by her. There is a reason fans have supported her for decades before this current very long baby story.

I still remember that WW's problem was that no one could relate to her and I guess now there are a faction of fans who somehow can relate to a female Hercules who values War over her Taoist murdering mother/sisters who is quick to brandish a blade and smack someone around. This is the image parents picture their little girls dressed for Halloween or night clothes.

Let's be honest, part of WW's enduring quality to this day and through this run is based on her decades long history NOT the last two years.

Call them lame all you like, but Cheetah, and Dr. Psycho are older than most of us and are still thriving even if they have to do it outside of a book where the writer doesn't like the true concept of the original character. First Born can have all the fun imaginable with horribly portrayed ancient gods, he is not a first rate villain.

#200 Edited by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

@drgnx said:

@jphulk26 said:

@drgnx said:

It's funny because many people are complaining DCnU Superman isn't Superman either,,,okay we'll a few are like Lvenger, but I multiply their votes by the thousands. But seriously ,,, This is kind of like when they change a show you like and it causes you to no longer like the show, some people will still like it if the don't really care about the parts that were changed, or have tastes that align more with the new format.

Now I get why some people would like the new format but not others, and it is a given their are different version of her based on what different people define as her core, but I think it is very pompous to dictate which version of wonder women is the real version and which version you should like to be a true fan. Besides, with this logic, if anyone has the right to talk smack, it should be the very first generation of fans.

I think you misunderstand the change we talk about. And, yes your right the first generation of fans should be pissed by what someone like Loeb did turning WW and Amazons into sexual object. Again that goes against the core of the character. However atleast Loeb, inspite of the overtly sexual nature of his run kept wonder womans basic mythology intact.

I mean you can´t seriously be telling me, if they turned Superman into an all out badass, loner, wolverine type character, changed the planet he was from, made the Kents assholes to him, who lied to him his whole life and treated him like a freak. If they made all those changes to Superman would you not feel legitimately as if he was transformed so much he was another character. Further more which would you consider the real Superman.

I don´t mind people modernizing and adding a touch here and their, making a darker or more gritty take on a characters mythology. But when you change what they represent. completely vandelise the whole story that for me is too much.

By the way I´m not too fond of New 52 Superman either. But to be fair they haven´t changed what he stands for and the mythology underlying the character.(More angry with The Man Of Steel when it comes to that) The most telling changes to him have been cosmetic (no pants) but in the end, something like that can always be changed back. Where as knowing the clowns at DC they probably like the idea Zeus is WW father and all that other mess. It will take a true fan writing her book, hopefully to get rid of that as well as the changes to the Amazons, which for me is even worse. What they did to The Amazons is seriously akin to making the Kents a midwest serial killer couple, just for the sake of sensationalism. And even worse once revealing that big revelation, not even bothering to explain or explore what that means. Just dropping it in for the sake of it then killing them off. Its bad writing, plain and simple.

I can honestly say I wouldn't bother me that much, I'm always interested in seeing new takes on heroes. I absolutely love else-worlds and alternate universes for that very reason and actually wish the would be more bold during reboots to the main Universe. And I'm not trolling. Superman to me is a hero with kick-ass powers who uses them to save people. But if they depowered him and made him struggle through life powerless for a year or 2, I would still be okay if the story was good. But his being from Krypton, while important, isn't why I like the character, if they made him a modified Human like old school Ultraman, I'd still like the character. While I understood their importance, I never cared too much for the Kents much, nor smallville for that matter and I actually liked the new young brash DCnU Superman who still needed to be humbled as he gets older.

While I like his other elements I'm not overly attached to them. AND I NEVER LIKED HIS RED TRUNKS AND AM ECSTATIC THEY ARE GONE!!!!!! But despite buying several of his titles over the years does this revelation suddenly make me not a true Superman fan?

To give you more insight; Cyborg Superman was my favorite villain, but they changed him, they made him an actual Kryptonian (Supergirl's Dad) and made him a Supergirl villain. I don't like all that change; mainly, I liked him being a kick-a** Superman villain, but I'm still eager to see him in action. But I would NOT call anyone who likes the change someone who is "not a Cyborg Superman fan" and that is the point I'm trying to make!.

How would you feel if I said "Perhaps the real fans are the ones more willing to accept different versions of her"?

Your first mistake was assuming what you think what makes Superman "Superman" is the same thing that everyone else does. You're making the same mistake for wonder woman. The fact that you implied what changes I would, or would not, like is very presumptuous and is a shining example of many of the issues caused in this forum by others.

I assure you I like else-worlds as well. But if that is what you´re doing don´t try and write it into the main continuity. As for the rest of your post, I respect your position but I feel differently. What pisses me off most about WW changes is they would not dare do that to other characters. I also think to be fair you´re in a minority when it comes to accepting radical changes to ones favorite heroes mythology. People accept it with WW, but their is generally outcry if it is done with their favorite heroes. Even if minor and clearly not something meant to be permanent. I accept minor changes on the other hand. The most insulting things to me about the changes is that it robs a new generation of women and other potential fans from realizing how inspiring a message WW should and can have. Whether it was the 40s whith Marston, 80s with Perrez, or 2000s with Rucka and Simone, WW at her best, as a trully feminine hero, who would rather not result to violence unless there´s no other way, whose society proved that women amongst other oppressed minorities could look after themselves in the absence of a patriarchal world without becoming Barbarians, who was a warrior and a diplomat, who was wise, strong and at peace with herself and whose beauty emanated from inside out, these were all uplifting messages. This myth especially in these dark times when inequality is on the rise are worth preserving. WW´s mythology was an all out radical challenge to the statusquo and it ought remain that way in my opinion. I honestly think humanity will be slightly worse off without it. I hope a film in future may correct this, but who knows?