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

[Fledermaus]

I'm inviting ridicule, but how so? I mean beside the fact that a New God is in every f#cking DC book coming out now?

 

[yenaled]

Yup, mainly that.

Just turning that last page, instead of thinking "oh a twist" I thought "well... that's actually obvious". There had to be some kind of tie-into Countdown, and Countdown is all New Gods and who else would you put into a book about warrior women killing people.

 

[Manic]

who else would you put into a book about warrior women killing people.

Someone that makes sense, which is clearly too much to ask...

 

[Mee]

You can run it over with a semi truck.

Then I'd have to buy it and a semi truck.

 

[Aristotle]

Someone that makes sense, which is clearly too much to ask...

Why? Warrior women killing people? That could be the Amazons...or that could be the Female Furies.

The more I go back and look at the issues, the more I can't figure out what exactly everyone's talking about. The only real weak link, in terms of characterization, was Hippolyta being so easy to push. Maybe one could account for that by Hippo being a bit unstable after a resurrection. I suppose that could put anyone a bit out of sorts. As far as the Amazons being spineless for not rebelling--remember who said that? Granny ****ing Goodness! That's not Pfeiffer talking, that's the evil *****mo talking! Pfeiffer probably would have had the REAL Athena saying, "Hey, rebellion might have been a good idea, but YOU'RE GODDAMN SOLDIERS."

Let's not forget, it wasn't only the Amazons who followed stupid-ass orders. The American soldiers did too, in that whole Supergirl/Wonder Girl/Teen Titans/and then Superman at the end fiasco. I don't know, maybe none of that action really showed up in the main book. Wouldn't be the first time some of the best parts of a story were ******edly left out of the main miniseries.

I think the whole point of this was not "wimmin are teh suxxorz" so much as it was a hamfisted attempt at condemning war and aggression and the tension in the world today. Certainly no more or less hamfisted than the majority of such superheroic attempts at social commentary (Ultimates, Civil War, JLA-Superpower, a couple of JLA Classified arcs, etc.) and no more or less to be condemned and ignored for that.

Now, one could certainly argue that it wasn't necessary. That, from the beginning, was the problem for me. I mean, a crossover/event is never REALLY necessary, except in the case of Crisis on Infinite Earths, but a lot of them have some sort of buildup--how many times have we seen "The Road to this or that" crop up? How many times have we seen Onslaught appear like a year before the event, or had hints of Venom and Bane popping about Gotham before Knightfall? But this? BAM--out of ****ing nowhere. Not even a hint. Not even in Circe's appearance early in the Wonder Woman series. This was just random. Like I was looking through the list of DC's releases a couple months in advance, and it was like, "yeah, OK, Batman, Teen Titans, Supergi--what the ****? Amazons Attack? Where the hell?" I assumed I'd get some kind of buildup before it happened--no. Not really, no. That's my problem with it.

 

[Manic]

What was it someone once pointed out? That Hippolyta was removed from her throne years ago, and the amazons elected two new leaders. The amazons have no reason to follow the orders of a powerless former monarch acting irrationally.

 

[BrianWilly]

The more I go back and look at the issues, the more I can't figure out what exactly everyone's talking about. The only real weak link, in terms of characterization, was Hippolyta being so easy to push. Maybe one could account for that by Hippo being a bit unstable after a resurrection. I suppose that could put anyone a bit out of sorts. As far as the Amazons being spineless for not rebelling--remember who said that? Granny ****ing Goodness! That's not Pfeiffer talking, that's the evil *****mo talking! Pfeiffer probably would have had the REAL Athena saying, "Hey, rebellion might have been a good idea, but YOU'RE GODDAMN SOLDIERS."

HaHAHAHA, yeah no. Just because Granny Goodness said it doesn't make it any less true.

Their queen was ordering these women, supposedly the paragon of compassion and reason, to slaughter children and unarmed civilians and bomb major cities with innocent people living in them. For what reason? What was the justification Hippolyta gave them? I dunno; you tell me, 'cause it sure as hell wasn't clear from the story. First they wanted Diana back...and then Diana came back and started arguing with Hippolyta and then Hippolyta and her cronies threw spears at Diana, so that sure as hell wasn't the real reason. So basically, all these Amazons ended up being bloodthirsty barbaric childkillers for...absolutely not given reason at all. And "they're just soldiers following orders!" is one of more inane excuses I've ever heard. Nazis were just "solders following orders." It doesn't make them any less evil and reviled.

Everything that Granny Goodness said was completely accurate; these women were created by gods to be held to a higher standard than mankind and they were supposed to lead mankind out of their aggression and ignorance. Instead, they turned into Nazis, "soldiers following orders." Why? Just because.

Let's not forget, it wasn't only the Amazons who followed stupid-ass orders. The American soldiers did too, in that whole Supergirl/Wonder Girl/Teen Titans/and then Superman at the end fiasco. I don't know, maybe none of that action really showed up in the main book. Wouldn't be the first time some of the best parts of a story were ******edly left out of the main miniseries.

American soldiers followed "stupid-ass orders" because their country was being invaded and their people were being bombed and the entirety of Kansas was set on fire. And even then you saw resistance and dissent in some of the crossovers. The Amazons followed stupid-ass orders because...they just did. For some reason. The distinction is astronomical.

I think the whole point of this was not "wimmin are teh suxxorz" so much as it was a hamfisted attempt at condemning war and aggression and the tension in the world today. Certainly no more or less hamfisted than the majority of such superheroic attempts at social commentary (Ultimates, Civil War, JLA-Superpower, a couple of JLA Classified arcs, etc.) and no more or less to be condemned and ignored for that.

Boy, an entire dissertation could be written as to exactly how misogynistic it is to turn an entire race of women -- whose sole purpose is to show the world the virtues of femininity and compassion and divine altruism and just warfare -- into bloodthirsty childkillers and terrorists committing unwarranted warfare and genocide on an unprecedented scale. Of course it wasn't "the point." Of course no writer in his right mind would actually set out to write something like that. That doesn't mean the story didn't end up being about that anyway.

 

[The Question]

Honestly, Civil War looks like a damn masterpiece next to Amazon's Attack. All the complaints about CW's pooer characterization and rushed plot points seem whiny compared to everything wrong with AA.

 

[fifthfiend]

Honestly, Civil War looks like a damn masterpiece next to Amazon's Attack. All the complaints about CW's poor characterization and rushed plot points seem whiny compared to everything wrong with AA.

That's going a little far, I mean at least they didn't have like, Wonder Woman and Batman lead Amazon's crazy-ass murder frenzy or send a clone of Sue Dibny to go murder Black Lightning or any crazy **** like that.

I guess I just think there's a space for acknowledging that both were extraordinarily awful series in their own uniquely horrible ways.

 

[The Question]

That's going a little far, I mean at least they didn't have like, Wonder Woman and Batman lead Amazon's crazy-ass murder frenzy or send a clone of Sue Dibny to go murder Black Lightning or any crazy **** like that.

But it had Hippolyta lead the murder frezny, which is just as bad.

I guess I just think there's a space for acknowledging that both were extraordinarily awful series in their own uniquely horrible ways.

Amazon's Attack is worse.

 

[Aristotle]

What was it someone once pointed out? That Hippolyta was removed from her throne years ago, and the amazons elected two new leaders. The amazons have no reason to follow the orders of a powerless former monarch acting irrationally.

Except that it was wartime. This, of course, brings up the question of how plausible the reason for the war was, and there are certainly arguments to be made on this front. However, let's keep in mind that the last time the Amazons were here, they were under attack by crazy humans and cybernetic nutso slave assassins, and Diana was being branded as a criminal for doing what many people would have said was necessary. They left here mistrusted by "Man's World" and returned to find whatever their fears were verified. Am I interpreting pretty hard here? Yes. But I'm just trying to say, this isn't as bad as Underworld Unleashed, or even as implausible as Civil War.

Honestly, Civil War looks like a damn masterpiece next to Amazon's Attack. All the complaints about CW's pooer characterization and rushed plot points seem whiny compared to everything wrong with AA.

In CW, EVERYONE was mischaracterized. Except, like, the Human Torch. And he was in a coma for most of it. ****, man, the American citizenry was mischaracterized. You don't get more out of control with the characterization ****ups than that. In Amazons Attack, you have arguable mischaracterizations with the Zons (who have been shown to be less than perfect before) and Hippolyta. Who else was mischaracterized? Circe? Not really. Batman? No, he was just Morrison's BatGod again, which might bother some people, but isn't exactly without precedent. Superman? I didn't notice it. Everyman? Spot-on, but it isn't hard to nail him. The American people? No. Unlike in Civil War, there was actual disagreement and discourse on the issue, which may not seem like much, but is incredibly important to the plausibility of the story.

Amazon's Attack is worse.

Hitler-Thor, Evil Iron Man, Evil Reed Richards, Evil American People, Nutso Hank Pym, Outlaw Captain America, Surrendering Captain America, vs...a people who have always been more warlike than they were supposed to be, going to some serious extremes in a perhaps implausible manner.

Yeah, I'm not seeing your math there.

 

[Aristotle]

So basically, all these Amazons ended up being bloodthirsty barbaric childkillers for...absolutely not given reason at all. And "they're just soldiers following orders!" is one of more inane excuses I've ever heard. Nazis were just "solders following orders." It doesn't make them any less evil and reviled.

I'm not excusing them at all. But I am saying that the mini portrays them no more horribly than the tie-ins portrayed the American soldiers. The American soldiers were royal *****ebags in the same way, and one gets the feeling that if there would have been Amazon children to kill and Amazon civilians to massacre, they'd have done it. So, yes, the Amazons ****ed up. But if history has shown us anything, it's that soldiers follow orders. Does it absolve them? Not in my opinion. But one can certainly understand it, and have some compassion for their position. There's no question in my mind that the real bastards are the ones who exploit loyalty and patriotism for cheap personal or political gain, or in Hippolyta's case, to indulge personal insanity.

Everything that Granny Goodness said was completely accurate; these women were created by gods to be held to a higher standard than mankind and they were supposed to lead mankind out of their aggression and ignorance.

I seem to remember another God-created perfect being who fell from grace. I'm just saying it's not unprecedented in literature, and perhaps, as in that other example, is part of the point of the story.

American soldiers followed "stupid-ass orders" because their country was being invaded and their people were being bombed and the entirety of Kansas was set on fire.

And our boys in Iraq and Afghanistan have done some damned fool things because the twin towers went down. It happens. And none of that makes any of it right.

And even then you saw resistance and dissent in some of the crossovers.

You saw dissent. Which is exactly what you saw in the Amazon forces. The "resistance" was pretty low level and insignificant. And of course you're going to see more examples of it when the sheer volume of soldiers is so much higher. The American soldiers surely outnumbered the Zons, the Zons were just way better. So in a larger sample, outliers will be more numerous.

The distinction is astronomical.

Only because you have a point to make.

Boy, an entire dissertation could be written as to exactly how misogynistic it is to turn an entire race of women -- whose sole purpose is to show the world the virtues of femininity and compassion and divine altruism and just warfare -- into bloodthirsty childkillers and terrorists committing unwarranted warfare and genocide on an unprecedented scale.

I'm sure something like this would have been done long ago with Kryptonians if there were any Kryptonians left. There aren't that many humanish races bouncing around the DCU that have enough familiarity with a wide base of readers to be able to use in this situation. Sexism is a charge that could MAYBE be argued here, but misogynistic? That's a ****ing massive stretch of the term.

 

[The Question]

In CW, EVERYONE was mischaracterized. Except, like, the Human Torch. And he was in a coma for most of it. ****, man, the American citizenry was mischaracterized. You don't get more out of control with the characterization ****ups than that. In Amazons Attack, you have arguable mischaracterizations with the Zons (who have been shown to be less than perfect before) and Hippolyta. Who else was mischaracterized? Circe? Not really. Batman? No, he was just Morrison's BatGod again, which might bother some people, but isn't exactly without precedent. Superman? I didn't notice it. Everyman? Spot-on, but it isn't hard to nail him. The American people? No. Unlike in Civil War, there was actual disagreement and discourse on the issue, which may not seem like much, but is incredibly important to the plausibility of the story.

Hitler-Thor, Evil Iron Man, Evil Reed Richards, Evil American People, Nutso Hank Pym, Outlaw Captain America, Surrendering Captain America, vs...a people who have always been more warlike than they were supposed to be, going to some serious extremes in a perhaps implausible manner.

Yeah, I'm not seeing your math there.

And I'm not seeing yours. The mischarterization of Hippolytia and the Amazona isn't arguable. Yes, they are warriors. But there is a massive difference between warriors who's whole mission statement was to fight for peace and use their martial skills only when forced to and warriors who slaughter children and set Kansas on fire without ever even giving a substantial reason. The mischaracterizations in Civil War were nothing compared to Amazon's Attack.

And I'm also not sure I agree with your assesment of how the characters in Civil War were mischaracterized. While Tony and Cap both over reacted to the whole situation, and Reed quietly followed all kinds of orders he'd usually question and completely ignored his wife, I wouldn't have called any of them evil. And hell, Cap's surrendering was the only in character moment for him in that entire story, because he was doing what actually made sense. I also fail to see how the American people were evil.

 

[mybotisgone]

American soldiers followed "stupid-ass orders" because their country was being invaded and their people were being bombed and the entirety of Kansas was set on fire. And even then you saw resistance and dissent in some of the crossovers. The Amazons followed stupid-ass orders because...they just did. For some reason. The distinction is astronomical.

I agree with you on most but you forgot about the whole prison camp mess. What dum*** president orders to have hafe the woman in the US imprisoned? And what soldier would even follow that?

 

[Aristotle]

And I'm not seeing yours. The mischarterization of Hippolytia and the Amazona isn't arguable. Yes, they are warriors. But there is a massive difference between warriors who's whole mission statement was to fight for peace and use their martial skills only when forced to and warriors who slaughter children and set Kansas on fire without ever even giving a substantial reason. The mischaracterizations in Civil War were nothing compared to Amazon's Attack.

First, didn't the Bana do Kansas? Second, we've seen these people behave less than perfectly before. Third, it is not out of the question for angels or amazons to fall from grace. Maybe that aspect should have been played up a bit more, because it's a bit more interesting, but it's there nonetheless. Fourth, even if I were to grant the mischaracterizations, there's not nearly as much of it as there was in CW. But that's how I see it, and I don't suspect we'll reach a compromise.

And I'm also not sure I agree with your assesment of how the characters in Civil War were mischaracterized. While Tony and Cap both over reacted to the whole situation, and Reed quietly followed all kinds of orders he'd usually question and completely ignored his wife, I wouldn't have called any of them evil...I also fail to see how the American people were evil.

Needless to say, I disagree with you on all points, except Cap surrendering. It's not how I would have seen it ending, but I can see how Cap would surrender. However, I've derailed a few too many threads lately, so let's leave this one alone for now.

I agree with you on most but you forgot about the whole prison camp mess. What dum*** president orders to have hafe the woman in the US imprisoned? And what soldier would even follow that?

Hey, if racial profiling is OK and dandy, why the hell not gender profiling? It operates on the same principle. And while I find both ideas repulsive and disgusting, it's clear that "repulsive and disgusting" has been a goal of the United States government since the birth of the nation. And, in all fairness, a goal of the people too. You can't rightly disagree with such policies if you keep voting for the people who dream them up. As for the soldiers: what soldier would follow a shoot-to-kill order against unarmed protestors? What soldier would follow an order to massacre a village? What soldier would follow an order to bomb civilians? I know I run the risk of derailing the thread, which I said I didn't want to do...but these examples are serving to demonstrate my point. Soldiers do as they are told, and militaries wouldn't work if this wasn't the case.

 

[The Question]

First, didn't the Bana do Kansas? Second, we've seen these people behave less than perfectly before. Third, it is not out of the question for angels or amazons to fall from grace. Maybe that aspect should have been played up a bit more, because it's a bit more interesting, but it's there nonetheless. Fourth, even if I were to grant the mischaracterizations, there's not nearly as much of it as there was in CW. But that's how I see it, and I don't suspect we'll reach a compromise.

It's quality, not quantity. More individual characters were mischaracterized in Civil War, but the mischaracterization of The Amazons was worse. There's a difference between acting less than perfectly and slaughtering innocent children for no reason in particular. There's a difference between falling from grace and randomly becoming a bunch of feminazi mass murderers and doing nothing to stand against the obviously insane orders of your superiors. Tony Stark acted like a dick in Civil War. Hippolyta acted like a raving loonatic with no consience. Big difference.

 

[Aristotle]

doing nothing to stand against the obviously insane orders of your superiors.

This is an unfair criticism! Good people do horrible things because of mob mentality all the time! And a lot of the time, those good people happen to be in militaries, where that mob mentality happens to be carrying out orders.

Tony Stark acted like a dick in Civil War.

I didn't want to get into this, but...participating in the liberation of undeniably evil individuals to turn loose against people who, at worst, could never be characterized as more than "misguided"? Releasing an obviously unstable clone of Thor without ever bothering to test it out? Not publicly condemning the actions of Commander Hill, who basically STARTED the Civil War by trying to detain Captain America for disagreeing with her? Not trying to reach out to heroes, or try to come to some compromise by which identities would be secured and training provided by an INDEPENDENT body comparable to DC's STAR Labs? Not even CONSIDERING the points Captain America was making about the ramifications of government-run superheroics? These aren't the actions of a dick. A dick is Batman post-Death in the Family. Tony Stark's actions were the actions of an evil, cruel, misanthropic son of a ***** with no regard for his friends, for justice, or for doing what's right, a man looking to preserve a public image as a do-gooder while damning the rest of the Marvel U. to hell.

Hippolyta acted like a raving loonatic with no consience.

Mind control, coupled with the instability of being brought back from the freaking dead. **** what Circe said, it's pretty clear that Granny was behind the whole thing. So who KNOWS what was going on with Hippolyta and the Zons?

 

[The Question]

This is an unfair criticism! Good people do horrible things because of mob mentality all the time! And a lot of the time, those good people happen to be in militaries, where that mob mentality happens to be carrying out orders.

They killed innocent people. They killed children. They could have said no, and they didn't. They are responsible for their actions.

I didn't want to get into this, but...participating in the liberation of undeniably evil individuals to turn loose against people who, at worst, could never be characterized as more than "misguided"? Releasing an obviously unstable clone of Thor without ever bothering to test it out? Not publicly condemning the actions of Commander Hill, who basically STARTED the Civil War by trying to detain Captain America for disagreeing with her? Not trying to reach out to heroes, or try to come to some compromise by which identities would be secured and training provided by an INDEPENDENT body comparable to DC's STAR Labs? Not even CONSIDERING the points Captain America was making about the ramifications of government-run superheroics? These aren't the actions of a dick. A dick is Batman post-Death in the Family. Tony Stark's actions were the actions of an evil, cruel, misanthropic son of a ***** with no regard for his friends, for justice, or for doing what's right, a man looking to preserve a public image as a do-gooder while damning the rest of the Marvel U. to hell.

What the Amazons did was ten times worse than anything Tony did, and they're victims of mob mentality, while he's evil? I don't buy it. Tony did a lot of bad things, and made a lot of mistakes, but I wouldn't call him evil. He was trying to keep people safe. He was honestly trying to do the right thing. He's an arrogant, stubborn prick who should have handled the situation completely differently and has a lot to make up for, but he's not evil.

 

[Tropico]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is true love for arguing! I'm appalled that two posters that are usually pretty knowledgeable are reduced to basically arguing about the texture, smell, color and taste of CRAP!! Did you guys really get so involved on trying to prove each other wrong (when this is a matter of personal taste, so no one really wins) that you forgot over what you're arguing over? It's. Amazons. Attacks. For.God's.Sakes!!!! Stop embarrassing yourselves!!

 

[The Question]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is true love for arguing! I'm appalled that two posters that are usually pretty knowledgeable are reduced to basically arguing about the texture, smell, color and taste of CRAP!! Did you guys really get so involved on trying to prove each other wrong (when this is a matter of personal taste, so no one really wins) that you forgot over what you're arguing over? It's. Amazons. Attacks. For.God's.Sakes!!!! Stop embarrassing yourselves!!

You're right. Why are you always right?

 

[Red Mask]

As far as I can tell this is the biggest pile of crap ever. Some even say that it's even worse than another DC crossover "Genesis". This even makes when Wonder Woman lost her powers look good. This whole ending is bad if not the worst. the Amazons are all minded wiped and spread around the world in a plot that makes no sense what so ever that's for some reason goes into both Countdown and Final Crisis. And to add to this horrible plot is that Athena is really Granny Goodness. Oh, and Hippolyta is sentenced to live on Paradise Island alone for all time. And to make matters worst Pfeifer has found a way to keep this horrible idea of a story to go on and on and on. My, God it's Civil War all over again. The only good news is that sales are really bad on the crossover and that only Catwoman is the only crossover to this crap fest that is selling lower then Amazons Attack and Catwoman is written by Pfeifer as well. but what do you think?

I think I don't want to see what you're talking about.

Save us, Gail! Please!

 

[Aristotle]

I'm appalled that two posters that are usually pretty knowledgeable are reduced to basically arguing about the texture, smell, color and taste of CRAP!! Did you guys really get so involved on trying to prove each other wrong (when this is a matter of personal taste, so no one really wins) that you forgot over what you're arguing over? It's. Amazons. Attacks. For.God's.Sakes!!!! Stop embarrassing yourselves!!

Flattered, I'm sure, for your classification of me as "usually pretty knowledgeable," but I wonder if you're thinking of a different Aristotle? I mean, I think I'm pretty knowledgeable too, but arguing is what I do. I certainly do enjoy it, and I think it's important for an idea to be challenged, if there's a challenge to be made. I don't think that the reaction to Amazons Attack has been fair at all. The things that Civil War largely got away with, Amazons Attack has been crucified for. Is it because it's easy to argue with a mini called "Amazons Attack"? Is it because everyone hates Pfeiffer? I don't know. But I just don't think it's been fairly evaluated. I didn't like it all that much, I'd call it mediocre or even sub-mediocre because of poor scripting and no real usefulness, but it's not the worst comic ever published, and the prevailing assertion here seems to be that it is.

Here's a thought I had, which has no real bearing on the quality of Amazons Attack: maybe the Athena we've seen in Countdown will turn out to be Granny as well. That would make sense, continuity-wise. In fact, I'm hoping that's the case, for continuity's sake. So maybe what Amazons Attack did was serve as a way of finally moving that damn subplot forward. So maybe it did SOME good? Maybe?

 

[BrianWilly]

First, didn't the Bana do Kansas?

Did you read this story? It's revealed in issue five that the Banas were working with Hippolyta and the Amazons all along.

I'm not excusing them at all. But I am saying that the mini portrays them no more horribly than the tie-ins portrayed the American soldiers. The American soldiers were royal *****ebags in the same way, and one gets the feeling that if there would have been Amazon children to kill and Amazon civilians to massacre, they'd have done it. So, yes, the Amazons ****ed up. But if history has shown us anything, it's that soldiers follow orders. Does it absolve them? Not in my opinion. But one can certainly understand it, and have some compassion for their position. There's no question in my mind that the real bastards are the ones who exploit loyalty and patriotism for cheap personal or political gain, or in Hippolyta's case, to indulge personal insanity.

It makes no difference who ordered it; if there's an innocent child in front of you and your sword is the one that cut its throat, then you are to blame. You get no sympathy. You get no excuse. Law and order and judgment do not function that way.

We're not talking about enemies in the field. We're not talking about terrorist actions. We're not even talking about prisoners of war. We're talking about innocent unarmed civilians and children who get slaughtered in a genocidal onslaught for no reason whatsoever. If any "soldier" did what the Amazons did, I'd say the exact same thing. Except that you haven't shown me any examples of American soldiers in this comic -- or in Civil War, or in any other comic you want to randomly compare this to -- walking up to an innocent child and shooting him or her in the head, so I don't say the exact same thing.

I seem to remember another God-created perfect being who fell from grace. I'm just saying it's not unprecedented in literature, and perhaps, as in that other example, is part of the point of the story.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Please don't tell me you just compared Amazons Attack to the Bible.

Just because the literary archetypal plotline exists in other stories doesn't mean that it exists here or that, even if it does exist here, that it's accomplished with any skill whatsoever. So...the Amazons fall from grace, mirroring falls from grace in other stories. So? It's still stupid and it's still done without any tact to speak of. By your own admission you're stretching the hell out of these points. "Well, see, if we tilt our head and squint sideways really really hard we can sort of see what they were trying and if we pretend that this completely hypothetical theme was what they actually tried to hypothetically accomplish then maybe the story doesn't actually suck so bad!" Yeeeeah, no.

And our boys in Iraq and Afghanistan have done some damned fool things because the twin towers went down. It happens. And none of that makes any of it right.

What does this have to do with anything at all? People act stupid in real life, so it's okay for them to act stupid in Amazons Attack? Except that you specifically say it doesn't make any of it right, so I don't even understand why you're bringing this up.

You saw dissent. Which is exactly what you saw in the Amazon forces. The "resistance" was pretty low level and insignificant. And of course you're going to see more examples of it when the sheer volume of soldiers is so much higher. The American soldiers surely outnumbered the Zons, the Zons were just way better. So in a larger sample, outliers will be more numerous.

The Americans were not the aggressors here. Do you understand this? They did not invade Themyscira. They did not attack and brutalize innocent Amazon women. They defended themselves against a superior force that attacked them with absolutely no provocation whatsoever.

The worst that the American government did here was to round up innocent women suspected of having a connection to the Amazons and incarcerate them in temporary prisons. And then they realized they were being stupid, and then let them go. All this is bad, and unconstitutional, and unwarranted, but guess what? It's several times less atrocious than bombing those women and then slicing their throats.

You see, for all of Civil War's faults -- and there are many -- they at least tried to make it sound like Tony had a point. At times, they succeeded; at times, they failed miserably. But they at least tried. There is absolutely none of that here. Hippolyta is just crazy, and her soldiers are just dumb drones who gleefully slaughters innocents, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to sympathize with them in any way. Hippolyta was a great woman and leader of her people who fought alongside the Americans and the Justice Society in World War II; now she's a raving lunatic who gleefully orders the execution of thousands, including her own daughter. Tony Stark was a manipulative *****e before who saw things mechanically and "For the greater good" as if he's running the world like a corporation; now he's a manipulative *****e who saw things mechanically and "For the greater good" as if he's running the world like a corporation.

There is no comparison.

Only because you have a point to make.

What?

I'm sure something like this would have been done long ago with Kryptonians if there were any Kryptonians left. There aren't that many humanish races bouncing around the DCU that have enough familiarity with a wide base of readers to be able to use in this situation. Sexism is a charge that could MAYBE be argued here, but misogynistic? That's a ****ing massive stretch of the term.

Explain this, because you're going to have to do a little better than "it's just not." Why is it not misogynistic to turn an entire race of warrior women -- who have been portrayed in nearly the entirety of their existence as wise, compassionate, good, and fair -- into bloodthirsty warmongers who slaughter innocents for absolutely no reason and spout psychotic exposition at every turn. Keep in mind, meanwhile, that Wonder Woman is the single most popular superheroine in existence, the very first feminist icon for the comic book world, and these are her people. These are supposed to be the people who taught her how to be Wonder Woman. They are more than just "generic comic book alien race #4"; they are a symbol, they were meant to exist as a symbol right back to their origin in the 30s. Every single competent writer in memory has utilized the ideology and the symbolism of the DCU Amazon race as a code for feminism, for progressive social thinking, and for outright political overtones.

The Code of the Amazons
Let all who read these words know: We are a nation of women, dedicated to our sisters, to our gods, and to the peace that is humankind's right. Granted life by Gaea, the goddesses, and the souls of women past, we have been gifted with the mission to unite the people of our world with love and compassion.
Man has corrupted many of the laws our gods set forth. So, in their wisdom, the goddesses did create a race of female warriors dedicated to the ideals of uniting all people, all sexes, all races, all creeds. No longer will man rule alone, for now woman stands as an equal to temper his aggression with compassion, lend reason to his rages, and overcome hatred with love.
We are the Amazons, and we have come to save mankind.

That was then. And now? Isn't this just every ranting misogynist's wet dream come true? "HA! I knew it! Those damned feminists pretended to be good and understanding and peaceful, but what they actually want to do all the time is kill men and act crazy because they're WOMEN and all women, especially the feminists, are just crazy senseless manhaters who hate penis and men and want to destroy all our good old-fashioned AMERICAN values." For god's sake, man; the Amazons knocking over the Washington Monument wasn't just subtext, it was outright text. They're sporting standards with the iconic emblem of female/Venus at the top. This is not exactly rocket science here. The message, whether intentional or otherwise, comes across very clearly: The foremost feminist race of all comicdom is merely a race of psychotic murderers.

That's the message the Amazons Attack delivered from day one. And it is as offensive and tactless now as it was then.

 

[BrianWilly]

I don't think that the reaction to Amazons Attack has been fair at all. The things that Civil War largely got away with, Amazons Attack has been crucified for.

That's a pretty tall claim to make, not to mention completely subjective and unverifiable. I lambasted Civil War pretty heavily too, as I'm sure most people here might recall...and I certainly recall it being pretty unpopular a lot of others here as well. I wouldn't say it "got away with" much of anything.

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.

Is it because it's easy to argue with a mini called "Amazons Attack"?

No. That's just...no.

Is it because everyone hates Pfeiffer?

I don't think Pfeifer has much of a following at all, positive or negative. In fact, most people say that his work before this has been generally good. So, no, it's not because everyone hates Pfeifer. He certainly doesn't have a hatebase like Bendis or Johns might.

I don't know. But I just don't think it's been fairly evaluated. I didn't like it all that much, I'd call it mediocre or even sub-mediocre because of poor scripting and no real usefulness, but it's not the worst comic ever published, and the prevailing assertion here seems to be that it is.

Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps so many people thinks it sucks because it actually sucks? 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? You can think whatever you want of it, but there's no denying the prevailing opinion here.

 

[BrianWilly]

Finally, I leave everyone with this gem: