Wonder Woman is apparently getting a new costume this week:
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/new-wonder-woman-costume-100629.html
It's ok I guess, but it doesn't seem iconic enough to me.
It's not hateful, but I don't really care for it. The jacket looks weird. Of note in the rest of the article, with issue #600, Wonder Woman gets her 600th new direction. Is there another character as well known that flounders as much as Wonder Woman to find their own niche and purpose? It's a shame.
I like it. It downplays the frankly ridiculous American flag aspect of the costume, and keeps the whole thing sexy, but in a more practical and less downright skanky manner. Much more in line for what the (arguably) premier female superhero should be.
I was already planning on dumping Wonder Woman from my subscriptions at the local comic book shop (I'm also dumping Justice Society of America once the Fourth Reich arc is done) after issue #600 due to JMS coming on board as writer. But if I wasn't, I would be now.
I don't mind the costume change, but I'm tired of heroes switching to costumes that have a lot of black. One of the problems I have with the Bucky America costume. I also don't like the fact that Diana's new outfit looks more like street clothes with accessories than a superhero costume.
(I'm just glad Diana's new outfit doesn't have star spangled pants. That would actually be worse than black pants!)
The part about the bracelets change made me roll my eyes AND nod my head. So if she hits someone with them, it leaves a `W' mark. Meaning now they have her ripping off the Phantom.....
Interesting. I think it's far better than what she's been sporting. Can't say I love it though.
Now they just need update Superman.
For me, parts work, parts don't.
I like the bodice, but don't like the jacket. I kinda like the bracers, don't like how the boots merge into the legs or the strappy bits on the feet. Like the navy blue leggings in concept, not crazy about the "plating" look to them. Belt works, can't see enough of the tiara to say either way. Choker, probably not. The character in this drawing also feels way too young but since Lee isn't the regular artist, this is minor.
Thing is, I don't hate it. It's not a bad costume overall, I'm just not sure it says "Wonder Woman" to me and a lot of what I don't think works comes down to that - does it fit the character or not.
Meh...whatever. It won't last. She'll be back in her classic outfit sooner or later.
Quote from: murs47 on June 30, 2010, 12:56:03 AM
...Now they just need update Superman.
Don't hold your breath.
Well I do hate. Her iconic costume doesn't make much sense for the modern version of the character but this doesn't work for me at all. give me something more mythic. Not that bad for Wonder girl except I loathe the jacket.
:thumbdown:
I dunno.
I like Wonder Woman's classic costume, whilst admitting that it makes absolutely no sense for her to wear something so heavily based on the US flag.
The new costume isn't bad, and I like the verstility/accesorisation nature of it, how it can work with or without the jacket. If she is being shifted to having grown up in an urban environment then she needs a new costume, since the whole "Amazons do not fear their bodies" walking around in a swimsuit doesn't fit any more.
The pockets comment in the article is a bit low grade stand up comedy.
I'm definitely not interested in JMS's total overhaul of the character though - there is no reason other than commercial for him to actually call this character Wonder Woman. I've got fairly limited exposure to him as a writer, none of it particulalry great.
So yeah. Looks OK. I might get the first issue. I don't really have any better solution as to what to do with Wonder Woman really.
Actually, the America themed costume made perfect sense. It screamed "I'm siding with America." She was a foreign immigrant and shouting allegiance to her new country.
Of course, that was 70 years ago, and when America wasn't so much a country divided, and the writers weren't embarrassed to have her be pro-American.
This new costume screams "Jim Lee's sense of heroine style stalled in 1993" and "Look at what I found I-Love-the-90s boutique." It looks like a generic costume from 15 years ago.
Another book for the drop pile.
Not bad but a little generic, kinda 90's... I dunno.
Edit: or like my gay co-worker said "why is she all covered up? Is she pantsuit woman now?"
Personally I always thought the more they made her into a helenistic warrior (armor, dress, spear, etc) the cooler she was. Oh well...
Quote from: Kenn on June 30, 2010, 06:21:39 AM
This new costume screams "Jim Lee's sense of heroine style stalled in 1993" and "Look at what I found I-Love-the-90s boutique." It looks like a generic costume from 15 years ago.
Funny to hear you say that, I always thought he had the worst taste too. In the early 90's every X-Woman constantly wore these tacky "Married With Children" spandex miniskirts whenever not fighting magneto. Usually in day glow colors too.
It doesn't really say "Patriotic Barbarian Amazon Woman" like the last one did.
It kinda says "Good-natured Teenage Idol. Don't do drugs."
As a design, I quite like it... but not on Wonder Woman.
Lose the jacket & the pants, keep the rest. Why not just let fight her armor? I always love her armor/ warrior costume.
Edit: on second thought....just lose the jacket, I like the rest.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on June 30, 2010, 01:59:42 AM
Meh...whatever. It won't last. She'll be back in her classic outfit sooner or later.
Agreed. It's nice and all..but it feels like a throw away look. And they've kinda tried this look before...give her more of a street clothes..short hair look. There are "elements" that I do like (the belt...her hair) but overall Jim Lee hasn't done enough with this look to make a real "appropriate" change and does look dated in a sense as Kenn mentioned. I think the best thing they could have done is (yes...get her out of the bathing suit..something I have a "HUGE" problem with in modern comicbooks that there is still this need for that look) Kinda go a little retro...the skirt has always worked IMO...and her going a little more Greek warrior...sandals...a few armor pieces...might sell her a lot more. ;) I'm not gonna boycott the book because they gave her a new look...I'll do with this what I do with most titles these days...wait and see. ^_^
issue 600 did the same for batman, it's not gonna go past the issue
I took another look at it, and I kind of hate it.
The only the only thing I actually like? The belt.
The new headpiece is ugly. And have they forgotten that her tiara is also a throwing weapon? Sure, she doesn't use it as such that often, but it is.
The choker makes me wonder if the new outfit was given to her by Black Canary, and the stars on the shoulder remind me a bit of my state's flag (Tennessee).
Looks like another example of "street clothes as costumes". Or an example of "They've stuck me with this character, so I'm going to write it the way I want to, and to heck with concepts and designs that have been around for years", or "I don't want to write [super hero or heroine], I want to write my own character, so I'll change [super hero or heroine] to be like my own character",or "the comics have dropped in sales; it's obviously the tired old concept and design that is the problem (not the cost or the art or the writing), so let's make it new and edgy for the 'aughts."
I try not to look at such stuff as "they're raping my childhood", but they are.
The real problem with the outfit is that it doesn't shout "Amazon Princess" or "Greek Goddess" in the way that WW has been most successfully portrayed. It makes sense given the new direction for the character, but I agree that it probably won't last.
All they really needed to do was lose some of the things that didn't work. I'm not sure a total retcon and 're-imagining' of the character was necessary. An urbanized, 'gritty' Wonder Woman on the run and basically hiding from her enemies? And how does this impact the JL and the rest of the DC universe?
I think they're losing the essence of why WW has lasted in the DC universe as long as she has. She's supposed to be an icon of powerful femininity. All of the strengths of feminine character in one package and none of what masculine figures might perceive as weakness. Men would like to dominate her, but they can't. Underestimate her on account of her gender and you're asking for trouble. She's not uncomfortable with her sexuality, but she doesn't let it define her either. Her virtue speaks for itself, and as a result she is respected and adored.
And then they give her a jacket so she can 'cover up' and hide. That's not Wonder Woman. It's true she doesn't need to flaunt her sexuality and they could have changed her costume somewhat to reflect that, but she doesn't need to hide her femininity, either. I'd rather see her in warrior's armor than in that outfit.
Quote from: GhostMachine on June 30, 2010, 01:04:48 PMThe choker makes me wonder if the new outfit was given to her by Black Canary
Maybe it was. :p They're both in JLA....
Quote from: Reepicheep on June 30, 2010, 11:47:06 AM
It doesn't really say "Patriotic Barbarian Amazon Woman" like the last one did.
It kinda says "Good-natured Teenage Idol. Don't do drugs."
As a design, I quite like it... but not on Wonder Woman.
Yeah, that's my thoughts too. if I saw the outfit but didn't know ahead of time that it was Wonder Woman, I wouldn't recognize it as her.
Oh and since people asked.... Wonder Woman was apparently created to fill the "token female superhero" role.... However since that was 70-ish years ago. That aspect has been lost, and to fill in the gap they keep coming up with silly ideas.
Quote from: marhawkman on June 30, 2010, 02:57:44 PM
Oh and since people asked.... Wonder Woman was apparently created to fill the "token female superhero" role.... However since that was 70-ish years ago. That aspect has been lost, and to fill in the gap they keep coming up with silly ideas.
The 'suits' probably wanted the token female, but as I understand it that was not what WW's creator actually had in mind. She was created to represent what passed for the feminist ideal in that day.
she's wearing a jacket so people will quit laughing at wondermans red members only jacket! :lol:
Quote from: BlueBard on June 30, 2010, 03:45:53 PMQuote from: marhawkman on June 30, 2010, 02:57:44 PMOh and since people asked.... Wonder Woman was apparently created to fill the "token female superhero" role.... However since that was 70-ish years ago. That aspect has been lost, and to fill in the gap they keep coming up with silly ideas.
The 'suits' probably wanted the token female, but as I understand it that was not what WW's creator actually had in mind. She was created to represent what passed for the feminist ideal in that day.
Quite true. But.... as the years went on active feminism became trite and outdated.
My first reaction was an echo of C6: meh.
It does look more Wonder Girl than Wonder Woman. Either that, or it's something to be worn at a low-key event, semi-civilian attire. I'm *not* digging the bracers, though. With the classic ones being smooth, you at least have *some* expectation of where a riccochet is going to go....add detailing like that, and it's just as likely to go where you *don't* expect it. Also, the attachment as a "glove", in conjuction with the choker and all of the black, gives it a goth look it doesn't need.
Why are we all getting bent out of shape about the bracers? Has nobody looked at the boots yet?
What she really needs is to lose her powers, study kung fu and wear a white body suit.
Quote from: yell0w_lantern on June 30, 2010, 04:38:31 PMWhat she really needs is to lose her powers, study kung fu and wear a white body suit.
Again? It was boring the first 2 times.
No! It was a really really good idea for updating the character and it worked so well. :rolleyes:
Quote from: yell0w_lantern on June 30, 2010, 06:27:42 PM
No! It was a really really good idea for updating the character and it worked so well. :rolleyes:
Which time?
So, I guess next they are going to make it so Superman was a genetic experiment by his father, and he grew up feeling alien and alone. Able to lift a car, leap a quarter of mile, and nothing short of a bursting artilery shell can pierce his skin... He'll run around in a tank top, work pants, and heavy boots.
Personally, I don't really care about the new costume either way. It's the change in the timeline that irks me, for oh so many reasons. Aside from the obvious continuity issues, they're taking out what made Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman. They might as well just have made a new character, but since other iconic characters have been screwed up before, I suppose it's only natural. ;)
I think it's terrible...As bad INHO, as that horrible 90's outfit Diana had with the dated jacket, bra top and bike shorts. Why deviate from such an iconic outfit as the WW "bathing suit"? There have been a few really good re-designs of the iconic suit (George Perez did a good job), but all of these outfits that artists design for her with pants or jackets just look really stupid to me.
Dana
Any chance its actually an alternate reality story?
I really think what Wonder Woman needs is Fred Van Lente.
Did anyone read his run on Incredible Hercules?
Play up her mythology, give her some armor, slap her with an interesting sidekick (a bloodthirsty warrior, a young amazon, a smart kid, whatever...) and put her on a quest/road trip.
Btw a few of these touch on what I mean about armor:
(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2858/contactsheet001i.jpg)
Design #5 (which looks like my crush Jennifer Connely) and the last one are wonderful halfway points between armored and costumed.
The costume looks nothing like Wonder Woman. It looks like Straczynski's "Urban Vigilante Wonder Woman", so our main problem is yet another reboot. DC never learns, they keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again...
From a Newsarama interview:
Nrama: Are other characters in the DCU involved in this story? Have they also forgotten her previous interaction with them in, for example, the Justice Society and Justice League? And how does this affect characters like Wonder Girl or Donna Troy?
Straczynski: It depends on the character. Someone like Superman would only know of her in the current timeline, whereas others with a more supernatural origin ? Deadman, Phantom Stranger ? might be able to perceive what was and what is at the same time, and could be very helpful. (Yes, you may assume that this is going to happen at some point.)
I'd rather let the Donna Troy folks speak for themselves, rather than my trying to characterize their approach. Just seems polite to do so
Looks like "Who is Donna Troy/Wonder Girl/Troia?" again?
I like DC, I really do, but sometimes...
... Sometimes I want to punch their continuity changes in the face.
Oh well, this look won't last. I don't read much with WW, so I'll just hunker down and wait for it to pass. Will be a shame if this is the version that gets made into a movie, though.
Ironically, it's been done to WW before. Back in the 60's, Diana had a little spat with mommy, and she was grounded from using her powers; so, she went and changed her costume to in hippy mod style pants suits. As far liking the new image, I tend to prefer golden and silver age designs over revamped costumes in general, but hey, I'm an older guy and I'm a bit of a fuddy duddy.
*shakes head* I'd really rather they put her in something that makes sense for someone of a ancient Greek-type origin to wear. I've always liked AA's alternate version of her with the modified Greek armor.
Quote from: Tawodi Osdi on June 30, 2010, 11:56:23 PM
Ironically, it's been done to WW before. Back in the 60's, Diana had a little spat with mommy, and she was grounded from using her powers; so, she went and changed her costume to in hippy mod style pants suits. As far liking the new image, I tend to prefer golden and silver age designs over revamped costumes in general, but hey, I'm an older guy and I'm a bit of a fuddy duddy.
Yeah, I remember that: Diana Rigg as Diana Prince.
Not that there is anything wrong with Diana Rigg, mind you...
And Benton: I aggree with you.
Steamteck: Hypertime... YEAH!
Lugaru: some of those don't look too bad.
If they wanted to change her costume, they should have went with the one Cathy Lee wore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udlOu1hTQ88&feature=player_embedded#!)
I was simply trying to make a point that the previous makeovers haven't really worked no matter what the dip sticks in charge at DC think at the time.
Let me get his straight: They're getting rid of Wonder Woman's iconic but "sexist" outfit ... and replacing it with a non-sexist outfit that can be "accessorized". Really???? :banghead:
Hey, here's another great idea. Let's also change her iconic name: From Wonder Woman to ... Perfect Lady. :doh:
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 01, 2010, 02:45:15 PM
If they wanted to change her costume, they should have went with the one Cathy Lee wore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udlOu1hTQ88&feature=player_embedded#!)
Bad. Bad Jey.
Quote from: AncientSpirit on July 01, 2010, 04:26:07 PM
Let me get his straight: They're getting rid of Wonder Woman's iconic but "sexist" outfit ... and replacing it with a non-sexist outfit that can be "accessorized". Really???? :banghead:
Hey, here's another great idea. Let's also change her iconic name: From Wonder Woman to ... Perfect Lady. :doh:
Y'know as long as they're modernizing and accessorizing, they ought to replace those bracers with full body armor and give her a pair of semiautomatic pistols to replace that old lasso. Get rid of the tiara and put her in some mirrored wraparound shades.
Oh, and get rid of the Greek Gods. They're so old-school. Replace them with Ascended Masters or something. Instead of drinking ambrosia on Mt. Olympus, they ought to be knocking down Iced Capps at Starbucks.
I'm just sayin'. If they're going to change the character that much, why not go all the way, hey?
HUSH! Don't give them any ideas!
But that's pretty much what I complained about. Instead of writing Wonder Woman, why didn't they just let Straczinski write a whole new character? Andromede-The Lost Amazon, lost as a child when her parents sailed into a hurricane, she was rescued by a ship on its way to NYC, where she grew to adulthood in the slums of the city.
Of course, if they did that, they might have to pay JMS royalties on the character.
As for the accessories, think about Barbie.
Quote from: daglob on July 01, 2010, 07:29:09 PM
As for the accessories, think about Barbie.
You want her to drive a pink convertible?
That would certainly be a change from the invisible jet.
Quote from: BlueBard on July 01, 2010, 05:38:29 PM
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 01, 2010, 02:45:15 PM
If they wanted to change her costume, they should have went with the one Cathy Lee wore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udlOu1hTQ88&feature=player_embedded#!)
Bad. Bad Jey.
My point exactly!
Quote from: BlueBard on July 01, 2010, 07:59:27 PM
Quote from: daglob on July 01, 2010, 07:29:09 PM
As for the accessories, think about Barbie.
You want her to drive a pink convertible?
That would certainly be a change from the invisible jet.
Invisible boat-mobile?
Dana
Here's a quote from Cassandra over at the HERO games boards that really spoke to me.
"I'm beginning to thinks that DC means Desperate Comics.
DC has some of the most popular and longest lasting comic book characters in history. It also has a major problem in knowing what to do with them. It seems every few years the company revamps its entire universe, killing off major characters, changing timelines, rewritting origins, and generally betraying all those who briefly enjoyed the continuity that had existed.
Now they put pants on Wonder Woman. Why don't they make her blonde?
Well I doubt that the new costume will last (remember the short haired version of Wonder Woman?), it's sad that instead of having a universe that allows interesting stories and characters to grown and experience new adventures they have to destroy all that is near and dear to the fans."
Ok, so I'm gonna say I'm the minority here, but I don't mind the new look. Finally, she can go into a store and not have everybody gawk at her. I mean, they're going to anyways, because she's over 6' tall. But not because Wonder Woman just walked in. Plus, now she can actually pay for something she buys due to a little invention called pockets. Seriously, the patriotic one piece is a little dated and very impractable. Not a lot of fabric there to protect her Wonder Girls from busting out. It is a little generic, but I've seen lots worse than this. (Lefield, I'm looking at you.)
But we are talking about what amounts to an icon here. Characters' costumes change all the time (check out Action #1 and the most recent issue of Superman, or Detective #27 and the most recent issue of Batman), but most characters' first costume and their current costumes are recognizably the same. This costume is part of a complete overhaul, and an attempt at saying "the last 70 years didn't happen". Yeah, yeah, I know; there are stories that NEED not to have happened ("I'm no slop... I'm a Glop..."), but there are always people who will dissagree.
Sometimes a one-piece swimsuit thing IS appropriate for the character (Right, Namor?).
Quote from: daglob on July 02, 2010, 06:26:38 PM
This costume is part of a complete overhaul, and an attempt at saying "the last 70 years didn't happen".
And that is my biggest problem as my quote above says
That's how I feel about that Battlestar Galactica remake and the new Clash of the Titans.
Just call it something else instead of betting that I'm too stupid to reralize that you're relying on some name recognition. Sure, the new thing might even be good but show me that you have the confidence that it can stand on its own merit.
Quote from: yell0w_lantern on July 02, 2010, 06:58:16 PM
That's how I feel about that Battlestar Galactica remake and the new Clash of the Titans.
Just call it something else instead of betting that I'm too stupid to reralize that you're relying on some name recognition. Sure, the new thing might even be good but show me that you have the confidence that it can stand on its own merit.
I changed the channel and never went back once I saw they switched Starbuck into a woman. If they wanted more central female characters...then
create them. What a concept.
Well for what is worth, the change gave her the much needed media coverage.
I dunno, I'm kind of a purist when it comes to stuff like this. I get very comfortable with characters and rosters that don't really do any major shifting for a long time (I know, change makes things more interesting), so I'm finding this new look of hers a bit hard to get used to. I'm STILL ticked about Eddie Brock not being Venom anymore. >=|
Quote from: yell0w_lantern on July 02, 2010, 06:58:16 PM
That's how I feel about that Battlestar Galactica remake and the new Clash of the Titans.
Just call it something else instead of betting that I'm too stupid to reralize that you're relying on some name recognition. Sure, the new thing might even be good but show me that you have the confidence that it can stand on its own merit.
Remakes have their place. It's not a matter of stupidity re: name recognition - if a concept is interesting and creative types wants to revisit it, why not? Particularly when the concept wasn't done very well the first time around, as in the case of Battlestar Galactica. Just calling it something else doesn't work if you really want to work with the same ideas and concepts, because then you get sued for copyright infringement.
Quote from: Talavar on July 03, 2010, 03:42:23 AM
Quote from: yell0w_lantern on July 02, 2010, 06:58:16 PM
That's how I feel about that Battlestar Galactica remake and the new Clash of the Titans.
Just call it something else instead of betting that I'm too stupid to reralize that you're relying on some name recognition. Sure, the new thing might even be good but show me that you have the confidence that it can stand on its own merit.
Remakes have their place. It's not a matter of stupidity re: name recognition - if a concept is interesting and creative types wants to revisit it, why not? Particularly when the concept wasn't done very well the first time around, as in the case of Battlestar Galactica. Just calling it something else doesn't work if you really want to work with the same ideas and concepts, because then you get sued for copyright infringement.
Emphasis added.
I take issue with that. BSG may was great for what it was intended to be, science fiction adventure. It is a product of its time, but it is still great. I'd say it's a good deal better, in its way, than Soap Opera Galactica.
Quote from: Talavar on July 03, 2010, 03:42:23 AM
Quote from: yell0w_lantern on July 02, 2010, 06:58:16 PM
That's how I feel about that Battlestar Galactica remake and the new Clash of the Titans.
Just call it something else instead of betting that I'm too stupid to reralize that you're relying on some name recognition. Sure, the new thing might even be good but show me that you have the confidence that it can stand on its own merit.
Remakes have their place. It's not a matter of stupidity re: name recognition - if a concept is interesting and creative types wants to revisit it, why not? Particularly when the concept wasn't done very well the first time around, as in the case of Battlestar Galactica. Just calling it something else doesn't work if you really want to work with the same ideas and concepts, because then you get sued for copyright infringement.
Battlestar Galactica did pretty good for its time; it did fantastically well for a SF show on network TV (when there were only three networks). I preferred the first season before it became a war between the shadows and the light, but even the later episodes had some merit. Hey, even the last season, where they got rid of everybody and had a new cast, wasn't THAT bad (although it wasn't that good, either).
I'd rather watch Galactica TOS, Buck Rogers, Star Trek TOS, The Invisible Man (with David Macullam), Probe, The Champions, or The Avengers than most of the slop on SyFy these days.
And I really hate the Terminator Cylons.
It's probably all a ploy for the movie. Get a origin story that can actually be a movie unto itself, as opposed to just a first chapter. Get a costume that more actresses will be willing to wear (and will look less pro-America so we can sell the film overseas).
I only saw one episode of the original Battlestar Galactica. Seemed kinda goofy if I recall correctly. I definitely enjoyed the remake though. I've got no problem with remakes and re-imaginings as long as I enjoy them. I can think of lots of examples.
As for JMS' new take on Wonder Woman, I'd be more willing to give it a try if it was in a separate continuity. Making a change like this in regular continuity just creates confusion. But the costume probably works well with his new take.
For some reason I feel like most of the people producing comics these days are like a secondary antagonist in a Steve Ditko story. They're cutting all the heroism and nobility out of the characters, removing all the fantasy (and/or SF), ditching the colorful costumes, making them morally ambiguous, making their lives dismal and hopeless, saying that there is no hope, no chance of improbvement, and "noble" heroes just depress readers (so that's another reason for low sales).
Where's Gloria Steinem when you need her?
Quote from: Kenn on July 03, 2010, 06:09:10 AM
It's probably all a ploy for the movie. Get a origin story that can actually be a movie unto itself, as opposed to just a first chapter. Get a costume that more actresses will be willing to wear (and will look less pro-America so we can sell the film overseas).
And how does marvel intend to sell us "captain america"?
By the way, the wonderwoman tv show with the classic costume was a huge success outside of the U.S too, so that shouldn't be a concern. Plus, there's ton of actresses who don't mind plain and simple nudity, only a diva would complain for the swimsuit (Sin City had lots of soft nudity from secondary characters, except...in the striptease scene, since jessica alba got the role)
Back on topic, i really don't see that change lasting (or having positive response if it last). Her origin was a major part of a character, the amazonian island gave a her a point of view unbiased by "the world of man", where women, honor an duty make the law. It was the contrast between these two world, and the fact that she was the bridge between these two society that gave her such a unique point of view for criticism. I don't see that wonderwoman having anything interesting to say.
Interesting
http://techland.com/2010/07/02/wonder-womans-new-look-leads-to-comic-sellout/
I wonder when was the last time that happened to WW comic.
Quote from: bat1987 on July 03, 2010, 05:44:18 PM
Interesting
http://techland.com/2010/07/02/wonder-womans-new-look-leads-to-comic-sellout/
I wonder when was the last time that happened to WW comic.
It's not just the new costume. It's a combination of being an anniversary issue, a new high profile writer coming on board, media coverage and interest in the costume.
Quote from: Podmark on July 03, 2010, 05:58:56 PM
Quote from: bat1987 on July 03, 2010, 05:44:18 PM
Interesting
http://techland.com/2010/07/02/wonder-womans-new-look-leads-to-comic-sellout/
I wonder when was the last time that happened to WW comic.
It's not just the new costume. It's a combination of being an anniversary issue, a new high profile writer coming on board, media coverage and interest in the costume.
Yes, and hopefully sales go down the toilet soon, leading to JMS being removed from the title and the new costume canned.
Quote from: GhostMachine on July 03, 2010, 07:29:33 PM
Yes, and hopefully sales go down the toilet soon, leading to JMS being removed from the title and the new costume canned.
It probably will, regardless of what DC does. Wonder Woman doesn't have a large enough fan base and this is DC's attempt at expanding it. It's difficult to maintain a female solo book when the market is dominated by male readers.
Quote from: Talavar on July 03, 2010, 03:42:23 AM
Remakes have their place. It's not a matter of stupidity re: name recognition - if a concept is interesting and creative types wants to revisit it, why not? Particularly when the concept wasn't done very well the first time around, as in the case of Battlestar Galactica. Just calling it something else doesn't work if you really want to work with the same ideas and concepts, because then you get sued for copyright infringement.
If you don't think that marketing folks think we're dumb then just look at Hasbro's attempt to appeal to folks who don't like D&D 4E: http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Game/dp/0786956291/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278186924&sr=1-11 (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Game/dp/0786956291/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278186924&sr=1-11)
If you change the fundamental ideas and concepts then its not the same thing.
All they really did with the new BSG was keep the names. Aside from that the only other similarity was humans versus robots. They could just as legitimately have called it Blade Runner, Terminator or Dune: the Butlerian Jihad.
Being a visual medium, the look of character is often a very important part of its concept.
Quote from: murs47 on July 03, 2010, 08:02:08 PM
Quote from: GhostMachine on July 03, 2010, 07:29:33 PM
Yes, and hopefully sales go down the toilet soon, leading to JMS being removed from the title and the new costume canned.
It probably will, regardless of what DC does. Wonder Woman doesn't have a large enough fan base and this is DC's attempt at expanding it. It's difficult to maintain a female solo book when the market is dominated by male readers.
I'm not so sure. JMS is a pretty good draw in comics, and the revamp and press might buy them some extra sales for a while. I could see the book selling better for a while then Gail's run.
Indeed... and you might see WW actually in mythology inspired stories, since JMS did very well with Thor and made him slightly more popular. But, it's still a female led book, so the sales WILL drop, and she'll be kept around because of her Trinity status.
Though, there's a lot of irony at play here. WW really could have used the support when her sales were dying off, and yet it took a drastic change for people to take notice of and appreciate her "old" self.
I hated the new costume, but hated the new origin still more!
Sales will be better for a short while, but they will drop until the book could be cancelled.
The TV series was very popular here in Brazil: boys and men liked it because Lynda Carter's good looks and girls identified with the main character.
Personally I like Kingdom Come's armored version and the WW armor Terry Dodson made for Donna Troy.
Quote from: yell0w_lantern on July 03, 2010, 08:17:26 PM
Quote from: Talavar on July 03, 2010, 03:42:23 AM
Remakes have their place. It's not a matter of stupidity re: name recognition - if a concept is interesting and creative types wants to revisit it, why not? Particularly when the concept wasn't done very well the first time around, as in the case of Battlestar Galactica. Just calling it something else doesn't work if you really want to work with the same ideas and concepts, because then you get sued for copyright infringement.
If you don't think that marketing folks think we're dumb then just look at Hasbro's attempt to appeal to folks who don't like D&D 4E: http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Game/dp/0786956291/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278186924&sr=1-11 (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Game/dp/0786956291/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278186924&sr=1-11)
If you change the fundamental ideas and concepts then its not the same thing.
All they really did with the new BSG was keep the names. Aside from that the only other similarity was humans versus robots. They could just as legitimately have called it Blade Runner, Terminator or Dune: the Butlerian Jihad.
Being a visual medium, the look of character is often a very important part of its concept.
I don't get the DnD book reference - how does that starter set attempt to appeal to people who don't like 4th edition? It's very clearly labelled on Amazon as a 4th edition product.
The new BSG kept more than the names - it also used a lot of the underpinning 'mythology' - protecting a fleet of civilian vessels while on the run, the twelve colonies/tribes, the search for the missing 13th, Earth. What they did with those ideas was different (for instance, when Earth was found, the people from Galactica's fleet didn't have super powers there), but it's close enough to obviously not be the Terminator or Blade Runner.
What this has to do with Wonder Woman's new retcon & outfit, I've got no idea. To reiterate, her new outfit isn't very good, her new direction worse.
They're using an image for the cover that is iconic for an older version of DnD, thus trying to symbolically ally the 4th Edition, which is quite different, with early versions.
Wonder Woman... Wonder Woman...
All the world's waiting for you,
and the power you possess.
In your leather pants...
Like you're ready to dance...
And the old Red, wait... Black and Blue....
Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman.
Now the world is ready for you,
and your wardrobe, new.
Jacket is Jim Lee's...
Letover from the '90s...
Don't have to worry about road rash....
Wonder Woman...
Put me back under, Wonder Woman...
I've got 200 bucks just for you.
And the magic that you do.
Stop a bullet cold,
Not with the method old,
Lose the braclets, lose your wrists...
Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman.
It's a blunder for, Wonder Woman.
That was hilarious, Kenn...
I didn't address the back story changes, but I also think it's horrible. JMS screwed up Spider-Man and now he's doing it to Wonder Woman...Who now is not so wonderful, she's now more of a street level, Black Canary wannabee.
Dana
Saw the preview of WW 600 and the costume is not THAT bad, she really should lose the jacket, but the top & pants are not bad. It should be an alternate outfit for her, not her main one.
Also while reading the preview, I notice that the artist like to focus on her Boot-y. Why? There's a couple of panels where the first thing you notice is her backside, has comics stoop so low now?
Well, back when Deodato was drawing the book he reduced her shorts down to the wonder thong. This actually takes it one step better because now with just one long pair of tights, it's just like drawing her bum nekkid.
The star-spangled panties showed off her legs, this can show off her bum. Increased coverage AND more objectifying of women. SCORE!
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 04, 2010, 04:05:10 PM
Saw the preview of WW 600 and the costume is not THAT bad, she really should lose the jacket, but the top & pants are not bad. It should be an alternate outfit for her, not her main one.
Also while reading the preview, I notice that the artist like to focus on her Boot-y. Why? There's a couple of panels where the first thing you notice is her backside, has comics stoop so low now?
Do you read comics? Every single comic I've ever read with She-Hulk or Ms. Marvel attempts to use their colons as a focal point in at least two panels per character per issue.
Quote from: BWPS on July 04, 2010, 06:49:34 PM
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 04, 2010, 04:05:10 PM
Saw the preview of WW 600 and the costume is not THAT bad, she really should lose the jacket, but the top & pants are not bad. It should be an alternate outfit for her, not her main one.
Also while reading the preview, I notice that the artist like to focus on her Boot-y. Why? There's a couple of panels where the first thing you notice is her backside, has comics stoop so low now?
Do you read comics? Every single comic I've ever read with She-Hulk or Ms. Marvel attempts to use their colons as a focal point in at least two panels per character per issue.
IT's been a good 5 years since I sat down a read a comic. Longer if you count a very good comic.
Has comics stoop so low? Hardly a new thing. I remember comics from the 70s and 80s objectifying women just as much because it was "sexy." A lot of male artists do that. I guess it's to make it entertaining for them. Let us not forget that we're talking about a character who used to get tied up all the time because it was her "weakness." Sure, I'll bet it was. ^^
Heh, yeah, that is hardly a new thing. Sadly, the nature of the comic business gives it a fairly unenlightened approach to women. My wife hates Wonder Woman for precisely that reason, as a matter of fact. She regards the character as immoral and "loose" because of the costume, and pointing out that this is just a function of 40 year old children who have never touched a real woman drawing the books doesn't seem to have much effect.
The thing is, I think the new costume, though it covers more, actually is more objectifying than the classic costume. This new costume, the penciller basically draws her nude from the waist down and the inker and colourist actually make it cloth. The old costume may have looked like she was going to fall out of it (and according to Lyle WaGGoner, Jennie Epper, Lynda Carter's stuntwoman, often did) but this new look looks like she's looking for someone to rip it off of her.
Quote from: BWPS on July 04, 2010, 06:49:34 PM
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 04, 2010, 04:05:10 PM
Saw the preview of WW 600 and the costume is not THAT bad, she really should lose the jacket, but the top & pants are not bad. It should be an alternate outfit for her, not her main one.
Also while reading the preview, I notice that the artist like to focus on her Boot-y. Why? There's a couple of panels where the first thing you notice is her backside, has comics stoop so low now?
Do you read comics? Every single comic I've ever read with She-Hulk or Ms. Marvel attempts to use their colons as a focal point in at least two panels per character per issue.
Yeah, this is definitely nothing new. Ed Bene's was incredibly blatant with that kind of thing in his JLA run under Meltzer and McDuffie (well, he's like that on everything he draws, but it seemed like he was really trying to top himself in JLA).
Quote from: Silver Shocker on July 05, 2010, 07:18:43 AM
Quote from: BWPS on July 04, 2010, 06:49:34 PM
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 04, 2010, 04:05:10 PM
Saw the preview of WW 600 and the costume is not THAT bad, she really should lose the jacket, but the top & pants are not bad. It should be an alternate outfit for her, not her main one.
Also while reading the preview, I notice that the artist like to focus on her Boot-y. Why? There's a couple of panels where the first thing you notice is her backside, has comics stoop so low now?
Do you read comics? Every single comic I've ever read with She-Hulk or Ms. Marvel attempts to use their colons as a focal point in at least two panels per character per issue.
Yeah, this is definitely nothing new. Ed Bene's was incredibly blatant with that kind of thing in his JLA run under Meltzer and McDuffie (well, he's like that on everything he draws, but it seemed like he was really trying to top himself in JLA).
Well, Ed Benes is a Brazilian artist, and a LOT of them focus on that. I've got the website for an art dealer who handles mostly Brazilian artists bookmarked, and I'd say a good amount (if not the majority) is rear view or rear focus shots. (Incidentally, Benes' brother and sister also draw, and his sister is possibly better than he is)
I own a piece of Wonder Woman art by a Brazilian artist, and thankfully its NOT a rear view shot (got it off eBay, and wouldn't have bid on it the first place if had been).
Well. my 20 year old daughter, who may well be the biggest Wonder Woman fan on earth ( her room has 6 Wonder woman statuettes and a poster as well as a Justice league poster) is for the first time since she could buy her own comics, not getting Wonder Woman. She even stuck with her through Greg Rucka, whom she wanted to " beat the crap out of for not getting it".
She says when the real Wonder Woman returns she'll start buying again. She wants me to start picking her up when she changes back to help out. I only get the first wave stuff now but maybe so.
I'm all for the classic costume to be rendered in a bit more functional, more modest way (no thongs, constant butt-shots and not having her breasts nearly falling out of her top in every panel)....But this is a comic book, do we really need to be concerned with the possibility of the character having a wardrobe malfunction? :rolleyes: Who cares about realism when we're talking about a character of ink and paper who can fly, has superhuman strength and a magic lasso that compels people to tell the truth?
This is why people like Jim Lee and JMS should not be making comics! Wonder Woman is not "street"...She battles super-villains, gods and monsters, for criminy's sake!
Dana
Quote from: BWPS on July 04, 2010, 06:49:34 PM
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 04, 2010, 04:05:10 PM
Saw the preview of WW 600 and the costume is not THAT bad, she really should lose the jacket, but the top & pants are not bad. It should be an alternate outfit for her, not her main one.
Also while reading the preview, I notice that the artist like to focus on her Boot-y. Why? There's a couple of panels where the first thing you notice is her backside, has comics stoop so low now?
Do you read comics? Every single comic I've ever read with She-Hulk or Ms. Marvel attempts to use their colons as a focal point in at least two panels per character per issue.
Anus that the truth! :lol:
Dana
Wonder Woman's a dilemma.
She was created by a guy who enjoyed a polyamorous power exchange lifestyle, and aspects of her are based on this. Alternative sexuality like this is a fascinating subject, and shouldn't be repressed or reviled in my opinion. To do so is my definition of unenlightened. But at the same time she's the female flagship character for a line of comics and other merchandise often marketted to kids.
So as much as I'd love to see, say, Grant Morrison do a series that goes back to her roots, I don't think its appropriate for the character, and would be better served by an analogue character instead. (In fact some people have described Alan Moore's Promethea as one of the best Wonder Woman stories ever written.)
As for her original costume making her look "loose" or "immoral", I say no. As long as it isn't thongified, it no more revealing than an outfit worn by dancers, sports player, pop stars or female member of the original Star Trek crew. And fictionally, she's from a semi-tropical society where women's bodies are not the subject of constant judgement, so it makes sense that she doesn't cover. Its no more deliberately titillating from her point of view than the Hulk walking around in ripped pants showing off his six-pack and pecs. Sure, JMS has provided her with a new origin under which this no longer makes sense, so she's wearing pants now. But this is no longer Wonder Woman, and won't stick any more than Electric Superman did.
Oh, Electric Superman - he might as well have had an expiration date stamped on his forehead, and a short one too, like milk. This Wonder Woman change might last longer than that, but it'll be gone before too long.
What I would like in a Wonder Woman costume: something largely her traditional outfit, but with shorts rather than the one-piece bathing suit bottom (even tight ones, like bike shorts), and straps over her shoulders or a closed-in top (something like Black Canary used to wear). It's not as...hostile as her armoured outfits have looked, but just a touch more functional and not quite as revealing.
I haven't really read anything JMS has said about it, but I imagine this new take probably isn't meant to last long term. It's probably just something he wants to try for a while. What little I know it sounds like a pretty drastic change so I can't imagine DC thinks this is going to last forever.
They should just give her the same body as Jessica Rabbit and cover her nipples with golden stars, give her the tiara and bracers...call it a day. Highest selling comic for at least a year.
Call if you're interested in generating more sales, DC. 1-800-MURS-047
Quote from: Podmark on July 06, 2010, 04:21:05 AM
I haven't really read anything JMS has said about it, but I imagine this new take probably isn't meant to last long term. It's probably just something he wants to try for a while. What little I know it sounds like a pretty drastic change so I can't imagine DC thinks this is going to last forever.
Unfortunately, JMS is not as wise as you, Pod...
Nrama: I'm sure you can understand that, after years of seeing alterations (although usually more minor) to Wonder Woman coming and going, it begs the question of how permanent this change really is. Or are you admitting up front that it's temporary, since she's trying to put the timeline back in order?
Straczynski: Putting the timeline back in order doesn't mean that some changes don't stick, especially if some of those changes end up being popular or well accepted. It'd be a shame to reboot a character and make her popular only to later throw it all away and go back to what wasn't working as well as it should've.
Having read some of JMS's responses now (Linkara did a response to it as well that you can find here (http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com/2010/07/about-wonder-woman-stuff.html)), it reads to me like he barely knows WW and came up with every excuse he could to change it. That'd annoy me more if I cared about this character at all.
The WORST thing to me is his insistence on removing WW's very small (active) supporting cast. He did that once... on Spider-man. We saw how well that worked out for him. People complained about the lack of a supporting cast in the main book, and Spidey and his family had the most depressing 2 year period ever. You'd think he'd learn from that mistake.
Quote from: John Jr. on July 06, 2010, 04:57:10 AM
Quote from: Podmark on July 06, 2010, 04:21:05 AM
I haven't really read anything JMS has said about it, but I imagine this new take probably isn't meant to last long term. It's probably just something he wants to try for a while. What little I know it sounds like a pretty drastic change so I can't imagine DC thinks this is going to last forever.
Unfortunately, JMS is not as wise as you, Pod...
Nrama: I'm sure you can understand that, after years of seeing alterations (although usually more minor) to Wonder Woman coming and going, it begs the question of how permanent this change really is. Or are you admitting up front that it's temporary, since she's trying to put the timeline back in order?
Straczynski: Putting the timeline back in order doesn't mean that some changes don't stick, especially if some of those changes end up being popular or well accepted. It'd be a shame to reboot a character and make her popular only to later throw it all away and go back to what wasn't working as well as it should've.
Yeah like I said, I've barely read anything he's actually said about the new take. Wonder Woman isn't a character I'm interested in. Still that quote basically says "if people end up liking it then we'll keep using it!" which is a pretty sound way to do it. JMS probably doesn't plan to write the old take, but at some point his run will end (early if the new take fails) and the next writer may very well revert things back.
Quote from: Previsionary on July 06, 2010, 05:07:10 AM
The WORST thing to me is his insistence on removing WW's very small (active) supporting cast. He did that once... on Spider-man. We saw how well that worked out for him. People complained about the lack of a supporting cast in the main book, and Spidey and his family had the most depressing 2 year period ever. YOu'd think he'd learn from that mistake.
Yeah that was probably the main reason I ended up dropping his Spidey run. To me Spidey's at his best when he's interacting with a good sized supporting cast. Current Spidey is pretty decent about that, that's actually one of the things that pulled me back in.
Just saw this at Bleeding Cool:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/07/06/wonder-whedon-how-diana-might-have-looked-in-the-movie/
Supposedly designs commissioned by Joss Whedon back when he was working on the Wonder Woman film. I kinda like all of them to a certain extent but most would probably look pretty skanky on a real woman, though the second one would be a pretty big departure from the norm.
Quote from: Podmark on July 06, 2010, 04:21:05 AM
I haven't really read anything JMS has said about it, but I imagine this new take probably isn't meant to last long term. It's probably just something he wants to try for a while. What little I know it sounds like a pretty drastic change so I can't imagine DC thinks this is going to last forever.
Then they really shouldn't let him do it in regular continuity...It should be an elseworlds tale...DC's continuity is a freaking mess as it is, why are they letting writers screw it up more?
I also have to add, I'm glad I'm not a fan/collector of the character...But this sort of thing just makes me feel bad for the fans, who have to wade through this nonsense or like Steamteck's daughter...Wait till the character they love returns.
Dana
Quote from: Podmark on July 06, 2010, 07:46:37 PM
Just saw this at Bleeding Cool:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/07/06/wonder-whedon-how-diana-might-have-looked-in-the-movie/
Supposedly designs commissioned by Joss Whedon back when he was working on the Wonder Woman film. I kinda like all of them to a certain extent but most would probably look pretty skanky on a real woman, though the second one would be a pretty big departure from the norm.
I like the bottom right.
Quote from: Podmark on July 06, 2010, 07:46:37 PM
Just saw this at Bleeding Cool:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/07/06/wonder-whedon-how-diana-might-have-looked-in-the-movie/
Supposedly designs commissioned by Joss Whedon back when he was working on the Wonder Woman film. I kinda like all of them to a certain extent but most would probably look pretty skanky on a real woman, though the second one would be a pretty big departure from the norm.
I like the first (which is close to the traditional look) and I kind of like the third and fourth (except for the exposed midriffs)...The black dress (2nd) is awful...I also don't like the stars on the bracelets...I know they did it for the tv series, but some artists/costume-designers tend to over-do the star aspects of the costume (on the briefs and tiara, but some do the bracelets and sometimes even star earrings)
Dana
So, my folks just got back in the country, over the weekend, after a couple week cruise. Dad went to pick up his comics today, and we were talking comics as we do sometimes. I told him about the change. Then I pulled up the picture. He stared with a disturbed look on his face for several seconds and finally said "that's ugly."
And he agrees with me on the increased sluttyness of the new outfit.
I'm not seeing the "sluttiness" or "skankiness" of the new costume or the Whedon designs. Is a bit of cleavage that offensive?
And can we get through the rest of this discussion without using these words? The sexual politics behind them is pretty abyssmal.
I picked up my comics this week, including Wonder Woman #600.
The costume change is bad enough, but I don't like the reboot. From the looks of the oracle (NOT Barbara Gordon; I'm talking mythological), they're trying to modernize the look of everything. (The oracle is a blonde dressed like she belongs in a dance club with a live dj, more or less) And apparently Hippolyta died when Diana was a kid (the story says `fifteen years ago'), so she was raised by other people.
Definitely glad I filled out a drop form and dumped Wonder Woman from my subscriptions at the comics shop before I left.
That's the sad thing. This is probably a ploy to bring more readers flocking to Wonder Woman, but they are alienating some of the present readers.
If things are that bad, then cancel Wonder Woman and let her guest star in other comics for awhile, then publish a WW mini series or special periodically to test the market. Don't give us Streetfighter Woman and call her Wonder Woman and figure that the long time readers don't care what they get it it's got the right name.
Quote from: daglob on July 08, 2010, 07:42:00 PM
That's the sad thing. This is probably a ploy to bring more readers flocking to Wonder Woman, but they are alineating some of the present readers.
If things are that bad, then cancel Wonder Woman and let her guest star in other comics for awhile, then publish a WW mini series or special periodically to test the market. Don't give us Streetfighter Woman and call her Wonder Woman and figure that the long time readers don't care what they get it it's got the right name.
If I'm not mistaken though, DC
has to publish a regular Wonder Woman book - if they go a certain amount of time without doing so, the rights revert to the estate of her creator.
I believe that's the case. Its also one of the reasons Marvel does a new Captain Marvel series every so often; if they don't they'd eventually lose the rights and DC could actually use the name as a comic title.
And if I've heard right, this reboot isn't actually meant to be permanent. Issue #600 does hint that there's a sort of `out' that they could use to change everything back.
Oh, and of those Whedon commissioned designs, I like the top left and bottom right (though the belt on the bottom right looks awful). The top right is Wonder Goth, not Wonder Woman. But Wonder Woman in pants just seems wrong. Put her in bicycle shorts or boyshorts, if you must, but NOT pants!
The Whedon draws are ok. I actually liked the little tweaks Jim Lee made to Wondie's classic costume for his Superman run.
Spoiler
(http://i25.tinypic.com/357ln2e.jpg)
Though if I had my way the Just Imagine costume would be the version she would wear. It's classic armor with a superhero twist without make it look impractical. Though I would incorporate the WW into her chest plate. I also thought that costume would play well with Superman primary colors and Batman dark colors.
That just imagine costume is pretty rad. I flipped through the book on the stand and the costume looks good on the page, just not great for her. The rest of the issue was real sweet too, if it is still on stands I might pick it up when I go back next week.
The only part of the Just Imagine costume I like is the boots, and they're still too much of a busy design to be part of a regularly used costume; would be a real headache for an artist to draw on a regular basis.
I've got an idea for a WW costume design in my head, but I suck royally as an artist so I won't be drawing it. It removes any blue from the costume at all, but keeps the stars and moves them to a different location.
Basically, imagine the upper part of the regular WW costume with the skirt/loincloth of the Kingdom Come design but armored and recolored red with some gold trim and black (not blue) boyshorts underneath with two white stars on the part of the shorts that peek out from under the skirt/loincloth on each side and boots that go up to her knees, which are covered with engraved gold armored kneepads with a red star (like on her tiara) on each.
Honestly my favorite part of that design is the left arm. it's one of those giant Gladiator style metal gloves. :) the boots look good at first glance but then I realize that her feet would have to be TINY inside those boots. The guy drawing it attempted to draw thick metal greaves as if they were skin tight. And the torso armor has the same problem. A wasp waist is okay if the character is waering nothing more than skin tight fabric. It's stupid if she has body armor. Oh and there's the metal pushup bra added in.
Here's a little comic-commentary on the subject:
http://www.the-gutters.com/comic/15-evan-shaner (http://www.the-gutters.com/comic/15-evan-shaner)
Quote from: BlueBard on July 16, 2010, 12:32:27 PM
Here's a little comic-commentary on the subject:
http://www.the-gutters.com/comic/15-evan-shaner (http://www.the-gutters.com/comic/15-evan-shaner)
Heh. I liked it.
Weregeek did a bit about the costume change, too. http://www.weregeek.com/2010/07/12/ (Its two strips long, so take a look at the next one, as well - http://www.weregeek.com/2010/07/14/ )
Liefeld? LIEFELD!!!!!! Damnations!