Interview: Charles Soule and Tony Daniel Talk SUPERMAN/WONDER WOMAN

I just want to read this because of how many superman villains they're going to use.

@ssj4jw: That was in a single one shot. But you make it sound like He has been with several.

@darkman61288:

Well Bekka is one, Orion's wife.

Cant wait for this comic

CIN

@ssj4jw What other women from other titles?

I looking forward to this series. New 52 is trying something different not redoing the same exact thing all over again. No Clark does not need to be with Lois. She is in a relationship with a good guy already. I find it hypocritical that Batman can be with other women from other comic titles but Superman can only be with one woman from his own title.

Part of me is going to give this a chance, but the other half of me still sees this as a stunning example of everything wrong with New 52. Clark needs to be with Lois, not his equal. It is a plus that Soule/Daniel is the creative team though at least.

oh lord can't wait to buy this. Hope they have sex yes i said it

@sanohibiki: My pleasure and I agree on the ability to doubt being a useful virtue in itself. If such views were more widespread, we'd be worse the wear for it.

@lvenger:

Similarly, Superman is still human enough in personality to have human doubts and emotions about what he does.

Personally, I prefer to think that ability to have doubts (and emotions as well) should be considered as one of best human values as well. Having doubts means being unsure in your own rightness, perfectness, its basis for further improvement of yourself, for making yourself better than you were before. Think that should be applied to Superman too. People who absolutely sure that their set of values, their outlook on world is right, often further develop that concept and start think that their opinion is only one right. Then they can start pushing that outlook to other people, regardless of their own position, set of values. People with such personality, ideology make good candidates in terrorists, tyrannies and cult leaders.

Anyway, thanks for describing your take on Superman as a person.

@johnni_kun:

Which is why and is very unwilling to ever incorporated something that is so out of character.

Admittedly, I didn’t read entire Azzarello run on New-52 Wonder Woman, only 5-6 issues. But anyway, I got the feeling that he hardly incorporated anything at all in his run outside Diana’s very own personal legacy (like her comics can be perfectly read as separate from all New-52 continuity).

A misunderstanding on your part. But, perhaps is my failure to explain myself. I meant on the stance that he holds in the DC comic world. As well among the mainstream audience.

Thank you for clarifying this. It was quite a sore point for me.

What they lack is called humanity. That why characters like Batman always tend to more popular.

To tell the truth, my cynical mind (after several courses in sociology) has opinion that Batman popularity and need that so many people feel in their desire to pair Superman with Lois Lane in not so little part can be explained by much more … unpleasant subconscious stereotypes.

In the case of Lois Lane, she is just as much as a part of Superman's character as him being the last son of krypton. Lois is Superman's Humanity.

Gonna say first, I have utmost respect for Lois as a strong woman and character. But that idea that Lois is source of Superman’s humanity always bothered me (another big sore point for me). He was infant when he got adopted by kind and loving couple. He grow up with human children, he went to school with them, he had friends (Lana Lang, Pete Ross), he walks among us every day - he grow up among us, with human way of thinking. It all of that wasn’t enough to make Clark part of humanity, to make him understand human motives and actions, then this is lost cause. How relationship with Lois can help him in that case? I think – it can’t.

It can't be someone that can steal the focus or interest of that character. They can't out shine, showed up or damage, said character. Wonder Woman with Superman does that, at the expense of mostly her character.

Say, lets imagine that Clark and Diana not in relationship. They close friends and comrades (like in Pre-52). Superman/Wonder Woman title centered just on their shared exploits, heroics and stopping various villainies. In many regards just like such titles as Superman/Batman and Batman/Superman. In this situation can Superman outshine Diana’s character?

If DC ties Woman Woman with him, then years down the road, especially considering most conic readers are men, people could very much think Wonder Woman as Superman's girl.

Well, if you put it like that… Maybe. That depends how profitable would be SM/WW title and how long DC going to keep this relationship.

If we for a minute would forget that we talking about Wonder Woman, then you IMO just perfectly described situation with Lois. After nearly 75 years of Clois readers just think about her as Superman’s girlfriend.

@sanohibiki:

I think you divided my post too early. I wanted to say basically next: there exist bunch of stereotypes, like Diana – powerful Amazon Princess, untouched by influence of Patriarchal World and ideal of all feminists, Superman – flying around and doo-gooding Big Blue Boyscout in red cape, Batman – outsmarting all and everyone Caped Crusader with 1000 gadgets in his belt. But that just set of stereotypes. We really shouldn’t limit our characters just to that set behavior, there more to them. Regardless of their birthplaces, their gender, their power levels, first of all, there are persons with rich inner world, their emotions and dreams. They can make mistakes, they can be wrong, they can become better, they can be awe-inspiring – they change with years (and DC’s Crisises).

I agree. I'm all for modernize these character. I don't have a problem in seeing these characters become something more, then what they were intended to be. However, not when it's at the expense of the very reason why these characters were created.

This New-52 Wonder Woman - daughter of man (god-like man, but man nevertheless), I think that most part of her solo run she dealing with fallout from family of her father. She is TIED to both Matriarchal and Patriarchal world. Still, she is number 1 female hero in DC, powerful and strong-willed.

Again, I agree. But, this stems only to Wonder Woman in her solo book. Whether or not you agree on the Brian Azzarello's Wonder Woman. He does have the right approach on the character. He understands her. Which is why and is very unwilling to ever incorporated something that is so out of character.(WW/SM)

Sorry in advance, maybe I misunderstand you, but I pretty irked by because characters like him are below her. What that supposed to mean? Power, fame and gender aside, how anyone, one of them (or people in general) can be below than other one.

A misunderstanding on your part. But, perhaps is my failure to explain myself. I meant on the stance that he holds in the DC comic world. As well among the mainstream audience. Characters like Steve, are not held in such high regards, as characters of Wonder Woman's status. Kids don't want to be him. Adults never learned lessons from him, etc. As appose of others, likes Superman. These character mean much more that just a form entertainment. They are truly inspiring heroes.

Analogy: Clark and Lois were married and that was okay because Lois was below him? Even if characters value not equal ( not that I agree), it’s even sounds logical that SM and WW now together -- why limiting him(her)self in relationships with characters below them, when they could be with someone equal. Maybe you wanted to say that heroes should be in relationships with common people (not drift too much apart from people they protecting) and likes of that.

No. In the case of Lois Lane, she is just as much as a part of Superman's character as him being the last son of krypton. God level characters lack a real relatable feature, for the reader. What they lack is called humanity. That why characters like Batman always tend to more popular. Lois is Superman's Humanity. She part of Superman, meaning that she is just as important. And not below him.

Now, for the other question. It has nothing to do with them dating common people. It about them dating Characters that should stand alone with their own worlds.(books) Here, let me say it this way. It can't be someone that can steal the focus or interest of that character. They can't out shine, showed up or damage, said character. Wonder Woman with Superman does that, at the expense of mostly her character.

That must be some weak "title", if it holds only in relationship with men not famous or powerful as her.

Her title holds important values, however since we are speaking about the relationship of Superman and Wonder Woman, I only applied it to this current argument.

Vice versa true too. “Look, up in sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s a Wonder Woman’s boyfriend, Superman!” IMO they actually on equal ground (unlike before).

I disagree, Superman is quite universally known, on a colossal scale. He is far more known a loved. If DC ties Woman Woman with him, then years down the road, especially considering most conic readers are men, people could very much think Wonder Woman as Superman's girl. And not the other way around.

Mainly, I think I understand your reasoning about SM/WW as official pair. Not going to agree with you, but still understand.

That is fine, I never set out to have people agree with me. I only felt the need to voice my opinion.

@sanohibiki: Well he can still make mistakes and he can still have trouble doing the right thing when a lot of people wouldn't like the kind of right decisions to be made. Humanity has strived to do things such as find cures for diseases and send men to the moon but there have been pitfalls on the way. Similarly, Superman is still human enough in personality to have human doubts and emotions about what he does.

Dat art.

Im more exited for this book then I am for JL3000.

@lvenger:

Curios about one detail. Think we both agree that Superman don’t have bad human habits (smoking, gambling and so on), add to that set of best human values you mentioned above – so what do you leave to possessing enough humanity to not be wholly perfect?

Your Superman has such large-than-life feeling about him (my prof sometimes called such personality type “Paragon of his/her kind”). Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinion.

@sanohibiki: The ideal Superman for me is someone who represents the best values of humanity rolled into one character, He's compassionate, principled, charming, charismatic, kind, noble and more whilst possessing enough humanity to not be wholly perfect. He's still an ideal to strive towards though, someone we can aspire to be and to follow his example to make ourselves better people. Does that suffice for my view on Superman?

@lvenger:

Maybe it’s just that – bad writing on Lobdell and Johns parts. Gonna admit that I am pretty sold on Soule and Daniel approach.

I wanted to ask for quite some time, but constantly got distracted. I with interest was reading your critics on MoS, your reviews on some comics and so on. With some points I agree, with others - not so much. Think that that because you judge from position of your personal opinion what values should represent Superman, what is his personality. Can you in several sentences describe your ideal Superman to me?

@sanohibiki: He did but it was a bad portrayal of Diana that was more worrying than anything else. Since when does Diana start demanding to do more in the grand scheme of things? That's not what she's in Man's World for.

@johnni_kun:

I think you divided my post too early. I wanted to say basically next: there exist bunch of stereotypes, like Diana – powerful Amazon Princess, untouched by influence of Patriarchal World and ideal of all feminists, Superman – flying around and doo-gooding Big Blue Boyscout in red cape, Batman – outsmarting all and everyone Caped Crusader with 1000 gadgets in his belt. But that just set of stereotypes. We really shouldn’t limit our characters just to that set behavior, there more to them. Regardless of their birthplaces, their gender, their power levels, first of all, there are persons with rich inner world, their emotions and dreams. They can make mistakes, they can be wrong, they can become better, they can be awe-inspiring – they change with years (and DC’s Crisises).

This New-52 Wonder Woman - daughter of man (god-like man, but man nevertheless), I think that most part of her solo run she dealing with fallout from family of her father. She is TIED to both Matriarchal and Patriarchal world. Still, she is number 1 female hero in DC, powerful and strong-willed.

Sorry in advance, maybe I misunderstand you, but I pretty irked by because characters like him are below her. What that supposed to mean? Power, fame and gender aside, how anyone, one of them (or people in general) can be below than other one. Analogy: Clark and Lois were married and that was okay because Lois was below him? Even if characters value not equal ( not that I agree), it’s even sounds logical that SM and WW now together – why limiting him(her)self in relationships with characters below them, when they could be with someone equal. Maybe you wanted to say that heroes should be in relationships with common people (not drift too much apart from people they protecting) and likes of that.

She can't still hold this "title", if she is in a relationship with someone that is on her level of status.

That must be some weak "title", if it holds only in relationship with men not famous or powerful as her.

Not many are going to think "Hey, it's Wonder Woman, that's Steve's girl" But, putting her with someone on the likes Superman, or Batman will.

Vice versa true too. “Look, up in sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s a Wonder Woman’s boyfriend, Superman!” IMO they actually on equal ground (unlike before).

Mainly, I think I understand your reasoning about SM/WW as official pair. Not going to agree with you, but still understand.

@lvenger:

Just to play devil’s advocate.

Look at how Johns and Lobdell have badly portrayed how Wonder Woman acts in the relationship.

Maybe that because Lobdell and Johns simply bad in portraying characters?

Trying to persuade Superman to end his enemies and take authoritarian reins in the world isn't how a relationship should be portrayed IMO.

Didn’t Superman have his own opinion and word in relationship? Maybe he can persuade Diana to calm down. Or he always obeys his girlfriend’s whims?

@johnqestion:

In your head it might not. In many other fans heads it does. You know for the life of me, I'll never get this ridiculous soap boxing on comics. Hurt what? If a character is strong then nothing can undo that. The mere fact you saying they shouldn't is you saying WW can't stand along side a strong male and hold her own.

Not true. I'm saying that they are changing one of the main aspects(and important one at that.) of her character. Think of it like if they gave Batman a superpower it hurts his concept. Which is one of the most important reason why he was created. The same goes for Diana.

But it's okay for males to go shop around I bet. Weird logic and sounds medieval to me.The only character she shouldn't be hooked up with is one who limits her. She's doing pretty much in those pages what she does in her books even if she's dating Clark ( flying, going off to investigate the cause of a storm).

Not once did I say it was okay for iconic male characters to hook up with others icons. The assumption on your part has proved that you clearly miss the point I was making, with your desperation to shame me. Wonder woman can have a love interest, just not one on the same status as she is suppose to be held. She shouldn't be consider one of the trinity's "girl". And to think that people won't think of her as "Superman's girl", because of this..... is just being naive.

Actually it is not like Batwoman and Batman...(WW's appearance in Batwoman btw way was a as meh as could be) This would be it's more like Catwoman and Batman who are a power couple concept.

They both operate on darkness, similar power sets, suited to the street level setting. No one can argue they don't work.

Again you miss my point. The example wasn't on the status of the characters, or there capably as a couple. It was on the concept of why that character was created. A lesbian being pair with a man is against Batwoman's concept. Wonder Woman was created into comics to be a representative of the independent female Superhero. And, now that she is being pair with a fellow icon, it goes against her very creation. Diana can't still be her independent self if people are going to associate her with someone on the likes of Superman's status.

You know might be nice for some females and many of us who want something fresh to read a couple who are on equal terms, where the guy doesn't have to fly the girl around all the time, or worry to death for her, to turn evil or goes nuts if something happens to her and the girl can kick the ass of an enemy while watching his back. Might teach some fanboys something too.

Although a fair statement, it hardy means anything in terms of the current argument. My point still stand regardless of how you feel about the nature of certain gender roles.

@sanohibiki:

It seems to me like you somehow missed a little part of New-52 relaunch.

I am aware that Diana was created, as you put it, “to be DC's number 1 Independent female icon”. Just that was part of her original, first creation. She was not even born, but made from clay – to eradicate male participating in her creation. Even then, DC many times hinted on mutual attraction between her and Clark, sometimes – between her and Bruce, she somewhat dated Steve Trevor, I think there were attempt at Nemesis romance. So, if following your reasoning, then we see that core part of character was methodically damaged over many years.

Yes, in a sense. However, because they never fully went out with it, it was more of annoyance. If the golden, silver, and modern age were annoyances, New 52 is a problem. Now, it's a problem because it's in the main continuity of DC books. Her with Superman is the first time ever, that they have completely supported her with someone held in the same regard as herself.

Now Diana not made from clay, she born as usual child, just her parent weren’t usual. Hyppolita and Zeus. Now her strength comes from her father blood, but to me she still looks like DC's number 1 Independent female icon. Why she couldn’t be in relationship with a man and be the main DC female hero in the same time – beyond my understanding. Or being independent for Diana means being forever alone (or maybe lesbian)?

Not once did I say that she couldn't be with a man. She can't still hold this "title", if she is in a relationship with someone that is on her level of status. Her and Steve are okay because characters like him are below her. Not many are going to think "Hey, it's Wonder Woman, that's Steve's girl" But, putting her with someone on the likes Superman, or Batman will.

@johnqestion said:

There have also been many teased scenes that they dug each other throughout the decades, even last canon, just never got it on because Clark got hitched to Lois because of the tv series. In 2000 DC wanted to even undo the marriage. Also earth 22...part of the current multiverse says you are wrong.

Plus what do you mean thematically same? They both have similar ideals but have differences in backgrounds and personalities. Have you read a WW book? It's sci-fi and mythology bridging each other in this team up. Least Superman won't have to act like he's brainless as he does when near Batman.

What I meant about them being thematically similar wasn't the sci fi and mythological fantasy link. What I was saying was both are the premier male and female superheroes for DC if not comic books in general and putting two characters that are so similar doesn't make for the most exciting relationship. Also I knew you'd bring up Kingdom Come as an argument for them working. That's the only Superman/Wonder Woman interpretation I like. And the ONLY reason it works is because Mark Waid knew to only put these two together in an entirely different set of circumstances. All their loved ones are dead, both have been isolated from the world for some time and are finding their place in it. That's what made the Kingdom Come relationship work. But in canon history, Superman and Wonder Woman together does not work. It only serves to alienate both characters from the people they protect. Look at how Johns and Lobdell have badly portrayed how Wonder Woman acts in the relationship. Trying to persuade Superman to end his enemies and take authoritarian reins in the world isn't how a relationship should be portrayed IMO.

@johnni_kun: It's the concept of Wonder Woman's character, that is the problem. She was created to be DC's number 1 Independent female icon. Having her tie to another icon(Supes or Bats) hurts her character. Having her in "this" type of relationship, goes against the essence of her character.

It seems to me like you somehow missed a little part of New-52 relaunch.

I am aware that Diana was created, as you put it, “to be DC's number 1 Independent female icon”. Just that was part of her original, first creation. She was not even born, but made from clay – to eradicate male participating in her creation. Even then, DC many times hinted on mutual attraction between her and Clark, sometimes – between her and Bruce, she somewhat dated Steve Trevor, I think there were attempt at Nemesis romance. So, if following your reasoning, then we see that core part of character was methodically damaged over many years.

Now Diana not made from clay, she born as usual child, just her parent weren’t usual. Hyppolita and Zeus. Now her strength comes from her father blood, but to me she still looks like DC's number 1 Independent female icon. Why she couldn’t be in relationship with a man and be the main DC female hero in the same time – beyond my understanding. Or being independent for Diana means being forever alone (or maybe lesbian)?

This.

Another book with Wonder Woman is usually a good thing to me. Cant wait for it to come out.

(the following is read in a movie trailer man's voice):

First it was Superman/Batman BADUMDUM

Then DC did a team up we never saw coming: Superman/Wonder Woman BADUMDUM

But this winter, get ready for... Superman/Vibe!!! BADUMDUM

And then, just when you thought the cold of winter was over... join us this spring for Superman and the CocaCola Polar Bear in: Where is Santa Claus? BADUMDUM

That's right DC fans. These four new titles will reach their head in this summer's new crossover: "Christmas 2012 Revisited"

Something has happened in the multiverse that has had rippling effects throughout all Christmases, past and future, and all things point to Christmas 2012. Join Superman and his new allies as they must find Santa Claus and return him back to Christmas 2012 before the world as we know it loses Christmas! The effects of this crossover will shake through the DC Universe for years to come! All those who wish to partake in this momentous event need only to ask themselves one question: will you be naughty this year, or will you be nice? BADUMDUM!

@johnni_kun said:

@johnqestion said:

There have also been many teased scenes that they dug each other throughout the decades, even last canon, just never got it on because Clark got hitched to Lois because of the tv series. In 2000 DC wanted to even undo the marriage. Also earth 22...part of the current multiverse says you are wrong.

The problem of the relationship isn't that it doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure if this was real life, Clark and Diana would probably be interested into each other. It's the concept of Wonder Woman's character, that is the problem. She was created to be DC's number 1 Independent female icon. Having her tie to another icon(Supes or Bats) hurts her character. Having her in "this" type of relationship, goes against the essence of her character. It would be on the equivalence of Batman and Batwoman being together. Batwoman concept is that she DC's lesbian character. Someone that girls, who are in the same boat can look to. I'm pretty sure if DC even did try that, it would insult anyone that is a fan of Batwoman.(and maybe some that are not even.) Just because something makes sense, doesn't mean that it's a good idea. I don't care if people like this paring, I don't care even if it is written well.(like kingdom comes) But, as a comicbook fan if some "story" element comes at the expense of a character...... Then I do care.

In your head it might not. In many other fans heads it does. You know for the life of me, I'll never get this ridiculous soap boxing on comics. Hurt what? If a character is strong then nothing can undo that. The mere fact you saying they shouldn't is you saying WW can't stand along side a strong male and hold her own. But it's okay for males to go shop around I bet. Weird logic and sounds medieval to me. The only character she shouldn't be hooked up with is one who limits her. She's doing pretty much in those pages what she does in her books even if she's dating Clark ( flying, going off to investigate the cause of a storm). Actually it is not like Batwoman and Batman...(WW's appearance in Batwoman btw way was a as meh as could be) This would be it's more like Catwoman and Batman who are a power couple concept. They both operate on darkness, similar power sets, suited to the street level setting. No one can argue they don't work. You know might be nice for some females and many of us who want something fresh to read a couple who are on equal terms, where the guy doesn't have to fly the girl around all the time, or worry to death for her, to turn evil or goes nuts if something happens to her and the girl can kick the ass of an enemy while watching his back. Might teach some fanboys something too.

Stop putting words in anyone's mouth. You don't know what anyone is reading. Plus the poster is ranting like a typical idiot about IDs when the freaking interview did not even utter a word about Diana Prince.

@toplel:

I doubt you ever will.

@johnqestion said:

There have also been many teased scenes that they dug each other throughout the decades, even last canon, just never got it on because Clark got hitched to Lois because of the tv series. In 2000 DC wanted to even undo the marriage. Also earth 22...part of the current multiverse says you are wrong.

The problem of the relationship isn't that it doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure if this was real life, Clark and Diana would probably be interested into each other. It's the concept of Wonder Woman's character, that is the problem. She was created to be DC's number 1 Independent female icon. Having her tie to another icon(Supes or Bats) hurts her character. Having her in "this" type of relationship, goes against the essence of her character. It would be on the equivalence of Batman and Batwoman being together. Batwoman concept is that she DC's lesbian character. Someone that girls, who are in the same boat can look to. I'm pretty sure if DC even did try that, it would insult anyone that is a fan of Batwoman.(and maybe some that are not even.) Just because something makes sense, doesn't mean that it's a good idea. I don't care if people like this paring, I don't care even if it is written well.(like kingdom comes) But, as a comicbook fan if some "story" element comes at the expense of a character...... Then I do care.

TAKE MY MONEY!!!!!!!!!

I love it! Keep up the good work Dc. They keep this up and they'll have tons of fans. Me and my buds recently got more into this because Dc's way more daring now. Fabulous!

She didn't have in Messner-Loebs' run, John Byrne's run, Phil Jimenez' run, Greg Rucka's run, (and she didn't have it in most part of Gail's run). She didn't have it in the JL cartoon, and on the animated movie it's only at the very end. It's been established for many years that she doesn't have an alter-ego anymore. When some writers took it back, it was a "saudosist" thing, not the standard. Your hate towards Azzarello's run is blinding you. As a matter of fact, what does everything you said about Azz' run have to do with the Superman/Wonder Woman book, the interview or some other comment here? A poster says he doesn't like Diana prince alter-ego, and it's automatically because of Azzarello? Also, I don't see Batman using guns like his "almighty" and "godly" creator Bob Kane wrote him.

And look, I like the Diana Prince alter-ego. Get a life.

*Facepalm* opposed to Batman's 6 books, plus this is a book for Wonder Woman as well.

I know right. I'm kind of warming up to the duo at this point but Daniel's art sells the book by it's lonesome.

This.

People really think this comic will only be Clark and Diana dating? What a pathetically quick jump to judgment, would expect nothing less of comic readers.

@johnqestion: Maybe he means they're thematically similar in the sense that they are these two massively powerful and majestic and godlike characters. Not that they have similar backgrounds. I see where you are coming from but it isn't exactly wrong to say they are thematically similar.

There have also been many teased scenes that they dug each other throughout the decades, even last canon, just never got it on because Clark got hitched to Lois because of the tv series. In 2000 DC wanted to even undo the marriage. Also earth 22...part of the current multiverse says you are wrong.

Plus what do you mean thematically same? They both have similar ideals but have differences in backgrounds and personalities. Have you read a WW book? It's sci-fi and mythology bridging each other in this team up. Least Superman won't have to act like he's brainless as he does when near Batman.

Okay, wait. In addition to Clark having 3 books already. He's also going to get a new one that's basically going to amount to him and Diana playing lovey dovey all day.

What the f*ck is wrong with DC right now?

I'm buying this book. Art looks nice. I like the idea. Should be interesting to read.

could be really fun, but DC knows that people will ending shipping these two, so I think we won't see this book soon

@johnni_kun: Exactly my problem with the Wonder Woman/Superman romance. They're too alike personality and thematically wise. The Pre Flashpoint universe showed why they would be good friends but never romantic partners. The Superman/Wonder Woman date issue laughed off any notion of them being romantically linked.

@judasnixon:

Gah! I need my privacy!

I'm going to have agree. I already have wrote before(in other threads) why this "relationship" is a big problem for Wonder Woman's character.( and even Supes.) So, I'll focus on this book, since it's suppose to be more than "just about their relationship."

CS: Well obviously you have Superman and Wonder Woman together, which is not something we see often. We see the Justice League but Wonder Woman doesn't really pop up in the Superman titles and Superman doesn't really pop up in Wonder Woman's book. The idea that you can see them having adventures together is one of the things that absolutely makes it unique. There just isn't much else around like it.

This quote alone is more than enough to sum up what is so wrong about the "concept of this book." Mr. Soule can't even give a good reason of why this book is even here. Of course other than "It's Superman and Wonder Woman!" "They can have super sex." A team book need a great dynamic relationship, to keep the story interesting and worth the read. Taking characters like Superman and Wonder Woman, who are so much alike, means that this book is doomed to disappoint. The reason why books like Superman/Batman work, is because they are so different in their personally, and world. You can also tell in this interview of how the twist their answers to make sure not hurt the already bad opinion of this book.

Amped up beyond belief for this title.

I feel the same; Daniel draws Superman beautifully. But I gave Soule's Swamp Thing a chance and it was so dull and his dialogue is very awkward. I don't know how the guy has suddenly been given three(?) titles by DC.