I don't think quality of art is or can be objective, but I enjoyed that initial Azzarello run. I also understand why Wonder Woman fans would react to some parts of it with anger! What Azzarello did to the Amazons is comparable to making Jor-El tell Kal to rule Earth without mercy! But I always liked Azzarello's take on Diana, her friends, and on the Olympians a lot, and Zeus being her birth-father is a big part of the story.

For whatever it's worth, Azzarello did make that part of WW's origin important to the story he was telling. He didn't change the origin just because he felt like it.

There was a of of praise for Azzarello's portrayal, but a LOT of hate as well.

The hate wasn't purely about the parentage, though: it's about DC's direction for the character in general. Wonder Woman is a woman from an island of women who was given life by goddesses.

And now? Men introduced in her origin everywhere. Suddenly she's not a special creation but just another demigoddess, written like a Hercules with tits. Violent and grim, even worse when she became war. She gets many half brothers and an even more powerful boyfriend. The Amazons, who had a rich history as survivors of sexual violence, suddenly become rapists.

Even if there were "good storylines" or "nice art", they completely threw out every part of her character. But nobody reads Wonder Woman and swords are kewl so DC ran with it.

As much as I hate the continuity issues it causes, I'm glad they're finally fully ditching the daughter of Zeus angle even though a lot of damage has already been done.

Making Zia’s her father fundamental misses the point of Wonder Woman’s original origin in that she is created by two women. The whole point of Wonder Woman was about why Bisexuality and Woman are good things. And the original origin is clear (well as clear gas it could be in the 40’s) that Wonder Woman does have two mothers.

As Tupka says they introduce so many men in to her backstory when before hand it’s had been mostly women now it was mostly men.

The fact she is made from clay is also clearly to link her to Pandora (and thus be extension Eve) and to point out that you can’t blame women for all the worlds problems. (Someone else could probably write that a bit better). Beyond this point the fact that they actually had Pandora running around or the the New 52 as part of the Trinity of Sin, means that they could have done some really interesting thematic analysis between them but no as soon as they introduce Pandora they ditch Wonder Woman’s backstory.

Zeus being her father I feel is at best a complete failure to understand the purpose of her origin.

"The whole point of Wonder Woman was about why Bisexuality and Woman are good things. And the original origin is clear (well as clear gas it could be in the 40’s) that Wonder Woman does have two mothers."

William Moulton Marston was weird for his time and ours but that is simply incorrect.

@Tupka217 I understand that but I'm curious if any story that came out of it was objectively good, because I find it hard to believe there's none. Also I guess in a way you're right she's just another demi god but she's still special among other amazons.

There is no "objectively good".

The entire run is one big interconnected storyline that relies on the alternate take on the character and as soon as other writers came on board, they tried to fix the problems it caused. The Finches, though they were terrible, fixed the first thing (Diana as War) and everyone else slowly moved away from the take as far as they could. Parts were retconned, written out, or shoved aside as "an illusion". The stories might have been good and entertaining for some people, but they weren't Wonder Woman stories which made many people dislike it. Compare it to a gun-wielding Batman story: no matter if it's the best story ever written, it just isn't good Batman.

I'm sorry, Tupka, but you can't just dismiss that era of Wonder Woman simply because you don't like it nor you can dismiss it as an "alternate take on the character" because, technically, every single depiction of WW would qualify as a such, except for her original depiction in the Golden Age. That is the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Personally, I don't even believe the "definitive" Wonder Woman can exist because

1. Warner Bros. and DC Comics change things way too often to even make the existence of a definitive, perfect WW possible

2. even if a definitive, perfect WW existed, that would somehow imply that that every other WW out there is a fake or an imposter that can never measure up to this one true WW.

Ever since her debut,, WW has been enjoying the kind of career most actors would kill for. She has been a goddess of war, an ambassador for a foreign country, cultural rebel, loving mother, girlfriend of Superman, pilot of a giant robot and even tyrannical villainess. If you're wondering how is it possible for a single character to possess so many different, yet equally valid, interpretations throughout the years, the answer is simple: WW is whatever the story and the audience need him to be at the time.

While the core aspects of WW have remained mostly unchanged throughout the years, the simple truth is this: WW is a highly versatile character that can be adapted into any kind of situation. Not every WW story will be accepted by absolutely everyone out there, but there is nothing wrong with that. I don't

I like approaching long-running characters like WW as concepts than as a characters because it helps appreciate something in all those different versions of those characters. If anyone genuinely believes WW should always be portrayed in a very specific way and you'll never allow her to grow beyond that very specific portrayal, then they might as well gatekeep WW and her entire community into obsolence.

Besides, WW's parentage is only background lore. It's not something superimportant to her personality and morals. Even if Themyscira turns bad, WW will still be good.

Any official story with the WW logo on it is a legitimate installment within the larger WW franchise according to the official policies of both WB and DC, but if you refuse to add a particular story to your personal canon, well, that's cool, I guess.

I don't dismiss it - I acknowledge it exists. But I point out other writers have reversed unpopular changes. Not even the core aspect of WW stayed true to its origin or its evolved history in that run, it was controversial and DC has walked it back.

For the rest, let's just say there are some bad takes in that, and some even worse.

And that's not what a No True Scotsman is.

I liked the 52 origin where Diana's original origin was a cover to protect her from Hera.

Only thing I didn't care for was the depiction of the Amazon's.

Everything else was an interesting read. Especially where she became the new God of War. Even liked the First Born as a villian.