har13quin

January 24, 2012 11:19 am As much as I would love to see that, the problem is he never could offer a realistic fight. Its well established that, although beyond intelligent by our standards, he is just not in the same league as Tony or Reed.

January 24, 2012 11:16 am You win the award for best comment so far! I agree wholeheartedly. Most of my favourite Avengers characters are either not currently on the team(s), or play minor roles. Cap, Thor and Iron Man are good in their way, but what I want to see is Black Knight, She-Hulk, Moondragon, Stingray, Swordsman and Tigra taking on universe shaking threats and implausibly beating them.

January 24, 2012 11:09 am Gotta agree here. Banner has had arguably a much more detrimental effect than Hank. True Dr Pym did make Ultron, but Bruce is responsible for the Abomination, the leader, the Red Hulk (still a terrible idea) and countless other villains, monsters and henchmen. I also liked Slotts direction with Mighty Avengers. The whole Sorcerer/Scientist/Engineer Supreme idea was full of promise and Hank was just begining to show some real leadership. I haven't read anything with him in of late, but he definitely doesn't deserver to be on this list with an intergalactic rapi-- I mean Starfox.

January 20, 2012 10:43 am PLease dont dignify that drivel with recognition. Downton Abbey is the biggest load of Toss. I love Phil Noto as well. Good art thought, my vote goes to Bane and baby Nick Fury.

January 11, 2012 7:09 am Love this art, I can definitely see the comparison with Bryan Lee O'Maley, but, dare I say it, Faith Erin Hicks is better! Similar cartoon aesthetic, but with more detail and real world touches. I will be looking her up from now on. Thanks iFanboys!

January 11, 2012 6:59 am You say that, but it seems to me that the fate of comics in general is tied in to the fate of the big two. Putting a fresh new voice on one of their books and possibly increasing the pool of fans interested in comics can only be a good thing for comics in general. It might not be the most original use of her talents, but it could be the most constructive, in terms of the industry as a whole.

January 5, 2012 10:18 am @MrSethypants I agree with your first point, however I take issue with equating the starfire/catwoman with female opression. These are characters written by men for men, as opposed to real people. That is where the issue lies, if these characters were real people then we could at least respect their choice to act the way they do, if not their actual actions. Unfortunately these characters are made up and as such each writer has a responsibility to his or her audience when portraying them.

January 5, 2012 8:46 am @ Zombox I don't know how our experience of this debate is different, but I rarely hear people demanding positive female role models. There already are plenty of, dare I say, superheroic female characters in comics. The issue as I see it is, why do many female characters have to be dressed at best for the pool and at worst like a stripper, while they are doing their superheroics? It is, in essence a double standard which undermines any positive characterisation and repels many readers, potential or otherwise. In the realm of pure character the recent furore over the likes of starfire and catwoman abound less because of their attire, which is a big issue with Starfire particularly, and more becuase their characterisation and depiction (positioning within the image, body style and so forth) is at odds with what we might call heroic, laudable behaviour and even simply normal behaviour. Portraying Starfire as little more than a personality void sex bot does *might* introduce drama or conflict. But what little potential there is in that depiction is overshadowed by how it plays up to the worst stereotypes of male comic book readers. The very stereotype which most damages the medium as a whole. Anyway, you or I saying we don't have a problem with it, does not stop there being a problem. Ultimately there are plenty of people who find this issue distressing, who are we to say their point of view is less valid than ours? Especially in the context of a seemingly dying industry, we should be making the greatest possible strides to fix any problems, percieved or real.

November 18, 2011 7:46 am Good analysis, however I would question whether any of the symbolism is relevant anymore? I personally never made the connection between Diana and Adam until you mentioned it. The mixture of Greek Myth and Biblical symbolism creates a very messy origin with very mixed messages. The purity of the Christian symbolism with the dark and explicit greek mythos is very contradictory, which thinking about it, is probably part of the reason WW never worked for me before. Much better to sink Diana right into the Greek myth that informs most of her world and create a real character with discernable motives and dramatic potential. Diana can also be a much more effective feminist icon as a real person acting in the world, earning her feminist credentials through action rather than heritage. Obviously we are in agreement in principle, the change is a good one. I just think anyone hanging on to the old origin needs to examine why and whether WW ever really benefitted from it.

November 18, 2011 7:32 am @SteenAR If you don't mind me saying, your comment sounds like a very male perspective on feminism. The days of man hating feminists who might wish for such a story are long gone. Feminists these days seem much more interested in true equality rather than aspiring to some kind of separatist ethos. Her clay origin, although not an intentionally feminist story as far as I know, smacks of the kind of origin a man would come up with to appear feminist. Feminism is only relevant in a world where men play an active part in women's lives. By giving Diana a father, particularly such a bad one as Zeus, Azarello makes her more of a feminist character, not less. More importantly it makes her more real and relatable (feminist or not), which has been her biggest downfall for years.