Well Amazons Attack is over. What do you think???

[mybotisgone]

Well there is also this. I forget where I found it.t:

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

bloody awfull series and i wasted my money buying all of the tie-ins. i thought this would be epic.

 

[GoldenAgeHero]

should've download it. yeah i said it

 

[Darthphere]

bloody awfull series and i wasted my money buying all of the tie-ins. i thought this would be epic.

It was epic, but the wrong kind of epic.

 

[Tropico]

Well there is also this. I forget where I found it.t:

That was as crappy and stupid as the series was, maybe even worse considering the horrible grammar.

 

[Darthphere]

Parodies are supposed to be funny.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

It makes sence that DC is not talking about the event anymore.How were the sales?

 

[Tropico]

Parodies are supposed to be funny.

That guy didn't get the memo.

 

[mybotisgone]

It makes sence that DC is not talking about the event anymore.How were the sales?

Bad real bad. You can go her it see how it went from issues 1 to 4.

 

[Darthphere]

Actually #61 for issue #4 really isn't that bad. Considering it didn't involve top tier creators and that Wonder Woman isn't the biggest draw out there.

 

[mybotisgone]

Actually #61 for issue #4 really isn't that bad. Considering it didn't involve top tier creators and that Wonder Woman isn't the biggest draw out there.

No, it is when this crossover was looked at as a way for DC to holed up to something like World War Hulk. WWH is all the way at number 1. You would think ti would at lest a higher rating then 61.

 

[Fledermaus]

I wonder if the amazons raped any men during their pillaging. Would be interesting to see about a dozen pregnant amazons in the near future.

Generally, when a woman rapes you, she makes you pull out.

 

[Tropico]

No, it is when this crossover was looked at as a way for DC to holed up to something like World War Hulk. WWH is all the way at number 1. You would think ti would at lest a higher rating then 61.

I doubt very much that it's meant to compete against WWH. Why? Because they're both about war? Amazons Attack was a way to set up events for the Final Crisis, I'm certain that apart from that it will be utterly forgettable.

 

[mybotisgone]

I doubt very much that it's meant to compete against WWH. Why? Because they're both about war? Amazons Attack was a way to set up events for the Final Crisis, I'm certain that apart from that it will be utterly forgettable.

No, both DC and Wizard magazine where calling Amazons Attack DC's answer to World War hulk. And from what i understand is that there where even more cossovers planned for the last two parts of Amazons Attack even Grant Morrison's Batman. But for some reason (Maybe to do with AA sucking so badly) where all called off. And the last two issues where rushed out in just one month.

 

[Tropico]

No, both DC and Wizard magazine where calling Amazons Attack DC's answer to World War hulk. And from what i understand is that there where even more cossovers planned for the last two parts of Amazons Attack even Grant Morrison's Batman. But for some reason (Maybe to do with AA sucking so badly) where all called off. And the last two issues where rushed out in just one month.

DC was calling it that? Where? Link, please.

Telling me that Wizard said is like telling me the Wizard OF OZ said so, no relevance.

 

[fifthfiend]

Generally, when a woman rapes you, she makes you pull out.

Presumably the Amazons of AA would just de-ball you prior to the rape.

 

[GoldenAgeHero]

damn,checkmate is selling like ****

 

[BrianWilly]

Yeah, but I don't think it's made clear whether everything the Bana did was well-known to the Amazons. Hippolyta may have been giving orders or whatnot, but there's no indication that the Amazons were aware of everything that the Bana were doing. Besides, can the Amazons be held responsible for the actions of their leader, and of a different branch of their military force?

Hippolyta claims responsibility for the burning of Kansas both to her generals and on live TV. She was the one who told the Banas to do what they did. What does it even matter? The Bana are Amazons. They are another faction of the same exact people; everything that they said about how they didn't like the Themysciran Amazons was a lie from the outset.

No excuse, of course not. But it is PLAUSIBLE. Did you even read the passage of mine that you quoted? It begins with my saying "I'm not excusing them at all." My point on this has been that it is plausible, and not misogynistic in the least, because the American soldiers behaved just as badly.

...

Then let that be your argument! But don't attack AA on grounds of implausibility! The corruption of a perfect being is not without precedent in literature!

Okay, pay attention here.

It is implausible. It is COMPLETELY IMPLAUSIBLE that the Amazons turned from pacifistic nurturing enlightened women into barbarians who slaughter children without a moment's hesitation. There is nothing that could explain this, and indeed we are given absolutely no explanations. Whether or not their queen ordered it makes no difference whatsoever; not only was Hippolyta stripped of her monarchy years ago anyway -- something else that this series chose to outright ignore -- but the Amazons have rebelled against their queen before. In fact, in matters of warfare, they are supposed to answer to Phillipus. Throughout their entire canon they have been portrayed as thoughtful warriors who do not fight without provocation; their chief goddess is Athena, goddess of just warfare. The fact that they suddenly do kill without provocation, much less slay children, is completely implausible without a damn good justification. There is absolutely none of that here.

I don't even understand why you keep bringing up the fact that there is literary precedence for this. The fact that a "fall from grace" somehow exists somewhere out there does not make this specific incident any more plausible. So Paradise Lost contained a fall from grace? So? So the hell what? How does that make the Amazons' fall from grace plausible? How does it make it anything other than the senseless, implausible drivel that it is?

The skill of the writing has never been my point. Or hadn't you noticed that I called the mini "sub-mediocre"?

Whether or not a story is plausible is determined by the skill of the writing. This story is not plausible due to poor writing, and this story contains poor writing because it is implausible. The two are not mutually exclusive.

But don't **** around with things like "implausibility" and the way the Amazons were portrayed. You're talking about a much larger-level issue than Amazons burning Kansas and killing kids, or about whether this is consistent with Hippolyta's past portrayals.

Uh, this is not consistent with Hippolyta's past portrayals and therefore it is not plausible.

Have you read much of the Amazons in the past, Aristotle? Have you read much of Hippolyta? Because you're acting like it's completely normal and "plausible" for them to be acting this way, despite the fact that every single person in the room is telling you it's not.

Prisoners of war? The prisoners the American soldiers were guarding were detained for the biological fact of their gender and tenuous associations with the Amazons. Curtailing freedom on a mass level is as evil and dangerous an action as is the murder of civilians. It may not be the same, but it is not to be tolerated, and it is a moral outrage. The American soldiers can be seen no more favorably than can the Amazons.

Ask someone if they would rather be locked up in jail for a day or if they'd rather be shot through the neck with an arrow. Go ahead; ask.

It's nice that you foster a healthy moral outrage towards unconstitutional acts, but it is obviously clouding your objectivity here. Not all evil acts are created equal. Not every single vile deed is as bad as every single other vile deed. That is the was law and morality works. The laws of our own country distinguish between the reprehensibility of criminal acts based on a case by case analysis. The structure of the universe is not split into "good acts," "okay acts," and "bad acts."

The Americans were attacked and made some bad choices in response. The Amazons murdered thousands for no reason whatsoever. There. Is. No. Comparison. The Amazons come across as genocidal maniacs and the Americans come across as desperate people forced into corrupt decisions. The two are not the same, and you are being willfully blunt if you insist that they are.

It's not morally right. Whether the evil is committed in reality, or in fiction, the perpetrator is committing an act not morally right. But that's no reason to keep it out of a story. If we kept all morally wrong actions out of comic books, there would be no bad guys.

I don't want to keep morally wrong actions out of comic books. I want to keep morally wrong actions out of comic books when they are written with absolutely no tact or skill or explanation whatsoever.

Sorry, but I don't devalue freedom as you do. Without freedom, life is meaningless. You're one of these people that agreed with Tony in Civil War, aren't you?

AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA




HAHAHAHHFAjgikHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, I just...ha, that was just...pretty priceless, if you've ever read anything I ever wrote concerning Civil War. And I wrote a lot, on these boards. I realize that you probably never visit the Marvel forums ever, but still...this was pretty priceless.

No, I wasn't one of those people. I know that your little worldview would have been so much more manageable if I did agree with mean little Tony, just like it would make your argument so much easier if everyone just hated Will Pfeifer for some reason or if everyone just had a blind Marvel bias and "let Civil War off" on its variety of flaws...but no. I think Tony acted like a reprehensible hypocrite at best and an arrogant fascist at worst who violated more laws than he ever upheld...and yet I still think Hippolyta comes off worse here. Sorry to disappoint.

I can see the decision to do that as possibly having implications in gender politics, and possibly fostering subconscious sexism. But misogyny is the HATRED of women. It is like misanthropy, but for women. That is a conscious thing. I really don't see how this decision can be misogynistic.

Misogyny does not need to be conscious; that's completely absurd. Just like racism doesn't need to be conscious, and bigotry doesn't need to be conscious, and so on and so forth. Misogyny consists of outright hateful attacks, yes, but it also consists of casual ideologies ingrained into the social consciousness and cultural standards that you don't even realize are belittling towards the intended subject. Wouldn't it be nice if all misogynistic acts came prepared with bright flashing neon warnings that make it readily apparent to everyone concerned, including the instigator? But no, the world isn't quite so simple.

You say that misogyny is the hatred of women? What could be more hateful towards women than to depict an entire race of females -- who were once loving and peaceful -- as cold-blooded mankillers and terrorists in reality?

Perhaps that will be explored in the Wonder Woman title. I would certainly hope so.

Don't hold your breath. Simone has been given free leave to ignore the hell out of this crap.

Again, then: if that's what you feel, let the misogyny and sexism you perceive be your attack.

Um, I'm pretty certain it was. It factored just as much into how much this story sucked as the implausibility, piss-poor writing, incohesiveness, etc etc etc.

 

[Darthphere]

No, it is when this crossover was looked at as a way for DC to holed up to something like World War Hulk. WWH is all the way at number 1. You would think ti would at lest a higher rating then 61.

Negative. To put things in perspective, it sold as well as the first Annihilation did.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

I really was lost for the most part in this series. It looked good at the start. I enjoy Pete Woods art, but the story made no sense to me. As it has been said here before, for the Amazons to go to a peaceful, and compassionate people to outright violent, war hungry beasts just makes little to no sense. I'm not sure I understand what went on with Granny Goodness pretending to be Athena either. It should've been a huge even for DC, as they were playing it up to be that, and it just fell flat. Other than the art, for me, it really wasn't that enjoyable.

 

[Harlekin]

I'm thankful the only thing from this series I had to read was the Teen Titans tie-ins.

 

[yenaled]

And from what i understand is that there where even more cossovers planned for the last two parts of Amazons Attack even Grant Morrison's Batman. But for some reason (Maybe to do with AA sucking so badly) where all called off. And the last two issues where rushed out in just one month.

That's complete bull****. Stop making things up to further your crusade.

 

[Aristotle]

I just hate Amazons Attack more. It's not exactly that strange, you know. People can hate one pile of crap more than another pile of crap. In fact, I openly admit that the utter sht that is Amazons Attack is more affecting to me than the sht that is Civil War because I'm more fond of the characters involved in Amazons Attack. It's a purely biased response. So what? It's still shtty.

I'm also much more fond of the characters involved in Amazons Attack. Which is why I'm more willing to look at it and see what exactly its flaws and (much less numerous) strengths are. And at the end of the day, I don't see the worst event DC has ever put out, although perhaps the most pointless, out-of-left-field one. I mean, come on, we've put up with Underworld Unleashed? BLOODLINES?

Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps so many people thinks it sucks because it actually sucks?

Yes. Until I recently decided to go back and check it out again, I was one of them.

If everyone else actually thinks it's horrible and one of the worst comics ever published, maybe you're the one who's looking at it through rose-colored lenses?

Rose-colored lenses? I'm just asking for a little bit of objectivity. This kind of negativity feeds on itself (one might almost call it mob mentality.) The more negativity is spewed out, the more people want to agree with it, and force themselves to do so. I think it there were no such thing as message boards and instant ejaculation of thought, the response to Amazons Attack would have been much more measured.

 

[mybotisgone]

Negative. To put things in perspective, it sold as well as the first Annihilation did.

I'm sorry but don't Annihilation do a lot better then AA did? Annihilation sold around 46. AA right now is at 61.

 

[Aristotle]

SO??? is someone told a soldier to kill his whole family then he'll do it with out question?

Not quite what we're talking about, is it?

No, it is when this crossover was looked at as a way for DC to holed up to something like World War Hulk. WWH is all the way at number 1. You would think ti would at lest a higher rating then 61.

Wait, wait. You're saying Amazons Attack, a miniseries with a few scattershot tie-ins in a few books, and a few mentions in Countdown, was DC's answer to World War Hulk, a sprawling crossover that has separate tie-in minis to go along with the mainline book, not to mention all the scattershot tie-ins in way too many books? That would make sense if DC was run by a pecan pie, but it is in fact run by a human.

damn,checkmate is selling like ****

Of course it is, it's one of the best books on the market.

Have you read much of the Amazons in the past, Aristotle? Have you read much of Hippolyta?

I admit, much less than you appear to have, and some of the details you've provided in this most recent post do cause me to reconsider my reconsideration. I still doubt I'll end up finding it as offensive as you, but po-tay-to, po-tah-to, I suppose.

Because you're acting like it's completely normal and "plausible" for them to be acting this way

Normal and plausible are not the same word. In a world where Superman can be turned into a murderous juggernaut because some nose-bleeding suit tells him to, I don't think that normal can ever dictate plausibility.

It's nice that you foster a healthy moral outrage towards unconstitutional acts, but it is obviously clouding your objectivity here. Not all evil acts are created equal. Not every single vile deed is as bad as every single other vile deed.

The historical ramifications of the two sides' actions are different. An Amazon killed a child. 100 years from now in the DCU, would anyone remember that specific action as more than a symbol of the war? Doubtful. But 100 years after the precedent for such grossly unconstitutional actions was set, you can damn well be certain that the impacts would still be felt.

Just like racism doesn't need to be conscious, and bigotry doesn't need to be conscious, and so on and so forth.

Racism is not analagous to misogyny. Racism is analagous to sexism, and these two concepts can certainly be unconscious or subconscious or institutional. But misogyny is hatred.

What could be more hateful towards women than to depict an entire race of females -- who were once loving and peaceful -- as cold-blooded mankillers and terrorists in reality?

Murdering some women because they were women would be more hateful, I think.

Don't hold your breath. Simone has been given free leave to ignore the hell out of this crap.

Free reign to ignore the hell out of maybe the only salvageable part of the event? Oh, excelsior.