web stats

CSBG Archive

3 Chicks Review Comics – Episode 026

IT’S EPISODE 026

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN, DOWNLOAD, AND/OR SUBSCRIBE TO ITUNES NOW.

Inside this episode! This week we review J.H. Williams III and W. Haden Blackman’s Batwoman #1 and Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang’s Wonder Woman #1. Maddy is out this week, so for our hot topic section we asked Wonder Woman artist Cliff Chiang to stop by and chat about Wonder Woman.  This week’s Chick of the Week is phenomenal artist Sara Pichelli, who most recently brought gorgeous life to Ultimate Spider-Man #1.  Apologies in advance that we had some serious audio/volume problems in this episode.  I tried to correct it in post so that you could hear everything, but it was a mixed bag.

Episode links!: The Big Sexy Problem With Catwoman, Azzarello’s Wonder Woman Interview, Kelly’s CBR review of Wonder Woman #1, The Road to Batwoman #1, Sue’s Batwoman #1 Review, Darwyn Cooke on Wonder Woman writers, Wonder Woman in New Frontier, Phil Noto’s Emma Frost & Joe Strummer.

3 Chicks Review Comics is a podcast featuring female comics lovers and bloggers Sue from DC Women Kicking Ass, and Maddy from When Fangirls Attack! along with me, Kelly Thompson. Tune in weekly to CSBG every other Monday at noon as we review comics, and discuss hot topics of the week. In addition to the blogs above, you can also follow us all on twitter as well: Kelly, Maddy, and Sue. Special thanks to Nik Furious for our awesome 3 Chicks theme song.  Follow CSBG and Kelly on twitter, so that you never miss a She Has No Head! post or 3 Chicks podcast!

*As always beware of spoilers if you haven’t read the books in question!


21 Comments

Listening! I gotta admit… I was sooooooo hoping that this episode would be all about Catwoman #1 :)

[...] new 3 Chicks Review Comics is up on Comics Should Be Good. Though Maddy is absent this episode we have a very special guest star – from one of the [...]

@Nick: Well, I know you usually skip the review part of the cast and go straight for the “hot topic” section, but at the end of the Batwoman review we do spend some time talking about that stuff.

As for why we didn’t make it all about that. I think we were just tired of it, and having already read and commented on a lot by the time we got to casting…I think we just didn’t think we had a lot to add that would be constructive and hadn’t already been said before. And since there was really good recent stuff we COULD focus on, we decided to go positive.

Yeah, once I heard you talk about Catwoman a little bit I felt satisfied. Really good episode, BTW. One of my favorites so far. I enjoyed the reviews and interview a lot (and I normally never get into the interviews section).

And on a technical note, I thought you did especially well working with the audio difficulties. Were you editing a really long time for this one?

@Nick: We aim to please! And I’m glad you enjoyed the cast – especially if you listened to the whole thing!

And thanks for the compliment on the technical side. It DID take a long time to try to correct the audio – I had to split it into a million different tracks to isolate what were basically three different volumes – Cliff’s too quiet, mine about where we needed to be, and Sue’s too loud. Serves me right for neglecting to do a sound check before recording.

But I honestly appreciate your feedback on that. Truth be told when I was editing I actually thought to myself “oh man, Nick’s gonna eviscerate me for the crappy audio on this one”….so yay! to pleasant surprises :)

I could hear that Cliff’s side had to be turned up, but it didn’t sound bad at all. Just a little fuzzy.

I always get nervous about asking guests to fix their volume. I don’t want to be a jerk but I want to make sure it sounds good without a lot of editing, ya know? And some people barely ever use Skype and I don’t wanna try to explain to them how to fix their audio because I never know how long it’s gonna take to tell them how to get to the program options and change the levels!

But I do it anyway…

….because I am a jerk.

Fantastic episode. Very happy to hear about the positive side of the DC relaunch books. Folks don’t need to travel far on the interwebs thing for negativity.

Would love to hear more interviews with other comic creators in the future.

Dear Cliff Chiang: The Clash is not punk. Thanks!

Sorry, I just couldn’t resist!

Very good podcast this week. Of course, they all are, so why should this be any different?

Of course, why are you doing a podcast? Shouldn’t we all stay off the Internet? :)

@Greg: How do you categorize The Clash? A lot of people would call that Punk. Even iTunes classifies it broadly as Alternative/Punk.

“Alternative” didn’t exist in the late 1970s, but that’s not a bad category. The Clash’s music is more pop than anything. Sure, it has some ska/raggae/rockabilly in it, but other than Strummer’s terrible voice (seemingly a prerequisite for punk bands), there’s not much that’s punk about them. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the band, but they’re not punk. Of course, I guess it’s all in how you define punk, ain’t it?

Hmm. It’s more Punk or Post-Punk to me, but I’m sadly not a Punk expert…I would never call it Pop though.

We can agree that “it’s all in how you define punk” though ;)

Clash is punk rock. They started as a punk band and are still recognized as one of the quintessential punk bands.

Wonder Woman’s silver bracelets (which I’ve never cared for) can be traced to George Perez’ 1987 reboot. Prior to that they were black (with blue highlights). However, he also made them cover more of her arms rather than the traditional 3″-4″ bands they were prior to that. (Personally, I prefer the gold and wish they’d bring back the black or gunmetal wrist bands. :) )

(But I should also point out that I loved the new #1 and Cliff rocks!)

great episode!!! not just because i got a mention!!!! :D thanks, Kelly.

hearing Chiang’s thoughts was awesome, he seems like a really cool guy and on-the-level as an artist. i like the professional creator guest spots.

agreed on Sara Pichelli. i’ve been following her work online for years, even before she ever did any Marvel work, and it’s awesome to see her blowing up like she is. she can really draw up a storm and drew the hell out of Ultimate Spider-Man #1. can’t wait to see more.

Afraid I’m one of those people mentioned in the podcast that doesn’t like the new direction for wonder woman. Story or art. Just doesn’t do anything for me. Luckily my daughter and I have discovered, or rather rediscovered, all the old Marston/Peters and Andru/Esposito stuff.

But one question; if a comic pleased everyone then who would think it was “milktoast”? Because you know, everyone would like it…right? I actually think making a comic that everyone liked would be freaking awesome and should be something to aspire to rather than turn your nose up at. Isn’t comic fandom angry and divisive enough without encouraging the creation of comics that 50% hate? I’m not so naive to think that such a comic will ever be made. But damn, that would be something to see. Dare to dream, right?

PS.

Enjoyed the podcast and agreed with both of you about Batwoman. What a treat that was.

@Keith Bowden: Gold blargh! ;)

@ross: Anytime, you deserve the mention! Indeed Cliff was fantastic, such a nice guy. Did you pick up Ultimate Spider-Man #2 this week? Pichelli’s work was just as good – so beautiful!

@Diane: My personal opinion is that people’s tastes are generally too divergent to create something that everyone can love with ferocity. It might be possible to create a comic that everyone thought was okay and liked well enough – my use of the word “milquetoast” – (though even that might be a stretch) but in order to reach great heights where some people fall passionately in love with something and it can be lauded as something that is really going above and beyond, I think that usually means you’re NOT going to be pleasing a whole lot of other people who dislike or disagree with it. Especially if anything is likely to be controversial…that usually means some people will be terribly pleased, and others will be terribly offended (or disappointed). But that’s just my opinion…maybe it doesn’t always play out like that. Regardless, I’m sorry you didn’t like the new direction on Wonder Woman…can you elaborate on why it didn’t work for you?

@kelly re “could you elaborate”

It just had a terribly oppressive vibe to it. Which I guess comes with the “horror” territory. There was nothing in it that felt fun. There was nothing for me to cheer for. That the first thing I see when I open the book is three drunken bimbos didn‘t help either. Then a horse being decapitated with blood flying everywhere.

It looked somewhat promising when WW is introduced. As far as the art goes, WW was the one part I actually liked. Great face, great hair. But then she opens the closet and you see a sword and ax and I immediately flashed to that promo art of Diana holding an ax, drenched in blood and…well. But I think what really bothered me, and this is a small thing but it still really bugged me was when the girl says “you’re WONDER WOMAN!?” and WW says “Diana”. Now, I know this is just how I personally am reading it, I’m not saying this is the writers intent (although maybe it was for all I know). And it’s probably the off putting horror vibe that dictated my reading it like that, but when she says “Diana” it came off like an annoyed rock star rolling their eyes at a fan who’s pestering them for an autograph. I immediately had the picture in my head of a kid running up to Superman, yelling his name and Superman rolling his eyes, looking at the kid all annoyed and saying in a Napoleon Dynamite inflection “ for the millionth time It’s Kal-El! Gosh! Fricken idiot!”

Any enjoyment I might have had for the fight scene was tainted with the knowledge that it was going to end in bloody violence, which it did. And story elements that promised a bit of fun such as the woman being transported by the magical key to WW are just overwhelmed by all the rest of this other stuff that I hated. Just the notion that WW now carries a sword with her as part of her costume, letting you know that, like the lasso, it’s something that will be used at some point just gives me a headache. Except for the look of WW and some of the dynamics of the fight scene, the art just seemed kind of bland. It doesn’t leap off the page for me and seems in keeping with what I felt was that oppressive tone of the book. It all just really depressed me. And then it ends with those same damn party girls. Sigh. The only thing that made me ever so briefly consider picking up #2 was the nagging question of what was WW doing in London? Then the advil/ xanex/wine cooler cocktail kicked in and the curiosity as well as the headache, were gone.

What’s really depressing is the knowledge that this is going to be WW for the foreseeable future. Bloody sword and ax wielding, horror filled WW. Terrific. And after the JMS crap, well, thank God for trades is all I can say. I don’t begrudge those who like this. I’ve seen far too many reviews lately that take the tact of “how can ANYONE like this?” or “anyone who likes this crap is an idiot” or whatever. Well, there is always someone out there who likes what another person hates and I would never patronize them or disparage their taste just because I personally didn’t like what they liked. In fact, I’m kind of jealous of you and all the other people who like this. It’s like you said Kelly, how you feel bad for the people who don’t like it because you’ve been to that place where someone likes the direction of a character that you think is wrong. So cheers to those who like this. I’m glad it makes many WW fans happy. And don’t feel bad for me. I’ve got Marston, Peters, Andru, Esposito and Lynda Carter to keep me happy.

@Diane: Well, yes, if you don’t like horror or violence in your books (or in your Wonder Woman books) then you are right that this is probably not going to be a take that is going to work for you. So I hear you. Much in the vein of the “if 50% of the population doesn’t hate it you’re doing something wrong” thing we were talking about earlier, you and I are an excellent (albeit miniscule) case study for that – because all the things that you disliked – I loved.

One thing I would say, and it may not change your read of it, but my take on WW saying “Diana” was the exact opposite of how you took it. I thought she was saying it to be friendly and establish a connection instantly with Zola. Like if someone came up to me and said “Ms. Thompson!” and I said “Kelly” – almost as a shorthand for “you can call me Kelly”. No? I don’t know if that’s what Azzarello intended – he may have intended to set a precedent for her being called Diana because that works better as a name than Wonder Woman in a horror story – I obviously can’t know…but I DEFINITELY didn’t take it as her being mean or irritated or anything similar.

Anyway, hope some other books worked for you at least – sounds like Batwoman did – and I guess you can take solace in the knowledge that this version of Diana surely won’t last forever. :)

[...] Fans have been watchful a prolonged time for Kate Kane’s story, and even a prolonged time given we finally got a initial well-developed square of it in 2009 in a form of Greg Rucka’s Detective Comics run, nonetheless I’m happy to news that it was positively value a wait.  I wrote some-more about emanate #2 here and Sue and we pronounce about Batwoman #1 on Episode #26 of 3 Chicks Review Comics. [...]

Leave a Comment

 

Categories

Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives