Marvel to take over SW comics in 2015

So it fully makes sense that she would remain ignorant of that element of her culture. Not a plothole in the slightest.

And their ethics? They have to be ok with the matter to do it.

Even if she was ignorant of the event itself, there's the fact that she grew up strongly opposed to murder, rape, and slavery in a culture that practices all of the above.

Which is why I included Geoff Johns' work on my list, whose Justice League you criticised for not being deep interestingly enough.

Deep-deep isn't necessary, but I would solidly put KotoR above Justice League on the character front, themes front, and story front. KotoR has a very tight story arc that strongly affects the main character who we get to know very well. He has a tendency to write characters his way rather than as they are in their own books/prior stuff- *His* WW and the Wonder Woman in Azz's book are fairly different. Geoff Johns has some bad writing habits, and they show up in JL (less-so in Aquaman).

I'd put most SW books above JL pretty solidly. Some of the weaker ones on the same level.

Also notably, the Geoff Johns ones are about the only ones that you listed that could be considered the same genre. I mean, Animal Man and Swamp thing, great, sure, but a Vertigo-esque title is very very different than a SW title and trying to do a SW title in that tone would be very non-SWsy.

And again, consistency. All the SW books are very solid. Of DC's more adventure-y books, a lot of them sink like stones and the ones that don't are reliant on just a few authors, while every DH SW author is fairly solid. Going from 'regularly good' to 'hit and miss- with plenty of misses' would not be a good transition.

Marvel's less hit-and-miss than DC, when they try to do a solid book they normally succeed, but it's still going to be hard to get Dark Horse's level of consistency.

And their ethics? They have to be ok with the matter to do it.

Even if she was ignorant of the event itself, there's the fact that she grew up strongly opposed to murder, rape, and slavery in a culture that practices all of the above.

Well it's not so much about their ethics as it is their attitude towards men. Sure they do all of those things (not sure that rape was involved btw) but chances are that they see ethics as not applying to men, in the same way their hunting of animals is not so much a reflection of their ethics as it is a reflection of the fact that they do not believe that ethics apply to animals.

Given that their treatment of men in how they reproduced was something they kept secret from Wonder Woman, and that the manner in which they treated men wouldn't be reflected in the values they would teach their children to uphold in a female utopia like society, I don't really see an issue here.

Deep-deep isn't necessary, but I would solidly put KotoR above Justice League on the character front, themes front, and story front. KotoR has a very tight story arc that strongly affects the main character who we get to know very well. He has a tendency to write characters his way rather than as they are in their own books/prior stuff- *His* WW and the Wonder Woman in Azz's book are fairly different. Geoff Johns has some bad writing habits, and they show up in JL (less-so in Aquaman).

I'd put most SW books above JL pretty solidly. Some of the weaker ones on the same level.

I agree that the characterisation in Justice League isn't always the best but the storytelling is the main focus, and after the first 6 issues it's been great. For the record I was also talking about the JLA series which has been very different to JL.

Also notably, the Geoff Johns ones are about the only ones that you listed that could be considered the same genre. I mean, Animal Man and Swamp thing, great, sure, but a Vertigo-esque title is very very different than a SW title and trying to do a SW title in that tone would be very non-SWsy.

And again, consistency. All the SW books are very solid. Of DC's more adventure-y books, a lot of them sink like stones and the ones that don't are reliant on just a few authors, while every DH SW author is fairly solid. Going from 'regularly good' to 'hit and miss- with plenty of misses' would not be a good transition.

Marvel's less hit-and-miss than DC, when they try to do a solid book they normally succeed, but it's still going to be hard to get Dark Horse's level of consistency.

Is it not possible that you're simply aware of DC's lesser series, due to their higher profile and how big a deal has been made about DC's editors (which appears to have coloured your perception of them) whereas with Dark Horse you remain blissfully unaware of their lesser titles? How can you be so sure that Dark Horse are as consistent as you claim they are? And I maintain that they don't come close to reaching the highs that Marvel and DC do, especially if we're limiting the discussion to their SW output.

Also, going back to what you were saying about it being about the talent behind the work and how they're managed that makes a series however good it is, well it's also about the setting, and the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of comicbook writers have two types of books they grow up wanting to write: creator-owned books and books belonging to either one of the Big 2's shared universes; not random franchise tie-ins. The norm for a successful comicbook writer is to write superhero stories for either Marvel or DC; these are the types of comics they grew up reading and fell in love with, the comics that they go into the industry brainstorming ideas for and thinking about how they would write certain characters, it's where they draw a lot of inspiration from and its a rich history that most are intimately familiar with as fans. The Star Wars setting will simply never have that same impact on comicbook writers and it's largely why you rarely see top talent writing for it, and that when you do, it's usually not very inspired.

Astor

Is it not possible that you're simply aware of DC's lesser series, due to their higher profile and how big a deal has been made about DC's editors (which appears to have coloured your perception of them) whereas with Dark Horse you remain blissfully unaware of their lesser titles? How can you be so sure that Dark Horse are as consistent as you claim they are?

One, I'm talking about their Star Wars line specifically, where I've read the wide majority of the books and am familiar with every big one they've ever put out, and while early ones were hit-and-miss, by the 00s their quality was rather good. They certainly keep a tight eye on those and make sure they pick good authors.

Two, Dark Horse's strategy is to produce a fairly limited number of titles and to keep a reputation for quality. It's not that hard to at least keep tabs on most of their books, and you'll be hard pressed to find a bad one. Sure, no-one's perfect, but quality control is clearly a priority to them. For their size, they have a rather disproportionate amount of Eisner and other comic industry awards.

DC had a huge array of flops during their 52 relaunch of all places, they couldn't keep quality consistent during their most publicized event ever. And many of the replacement writers in turn also turned out to be flops. When you can't even get things right with multiple tries on your big "Look at this everyone" event, that shows slopping quality control. Sure, there's hits in there, good ones, but it's dartboard style hits, just throw things out there until they stick and eat a large number of misses in the process.

Also, very significantly, there's lots of SW comics with complete, finished story arcs. Something DC has a problem with even with their good books, just look at Batwoman. Knights of the Old Republic was a *fantastic* book, but it wouldn't have been nearly as strong if some editor with a desire to meddle swapped out the writer as the climax begins.

The Star Wars setting will simply never have that same impact on comicbook writers and it's largely why you rarely see top talent writing for it, and that when you do, it's usually not very inspired.

Ah, so you're moving to how you think the two should be in general. Though I would point out that if that's how you think, shouldn't that apply to the big 2 as well? And of course, tons of people grew up loving/watching SW.

Except the real big problem with the argument is that their talent is rather good in output regardless of how you think they should be, and is often superhero comic veterans of high note to boot. John Ostrander has several very famous comic book runs. Not to mention, well, how many people grew up with and love SW.

You know turning Barbara Gordon into Oracle, during the acclaimed
Suicide Squad, a change widely praised and used for decades? His idea. He also made the famous Grimjack comic that still gets reprinted 30 years later and there's been a fair amount of movie talk about it (JMS almost managed to make it into one a few years back).

Ostrander also wrote the Star Wars story Twilight in the Republic comic, which had so much impact that one of the Jedi from it got adopted into the movies themselves, something I believe unique for extended-universe Jedi. Aayla Secura, you might have heard of her. From the same story, Quinlan Vos made it into the Clone Wars show as well.

And John Jackson Miller, writer of the Knight Errant comic series, also wrote multiple SW novels that made it to the New York Times bestseller list and are considered some of the better in the entire SW novel line. That's plural critically acclaimed NYT bestsellers.

Knight Errant, Knights of the Old Republic, Republic, Legacy, Dawn of the Jedi. I'd disagree highly with your 'uninspired' comment, the comics tend to have more inspired and tighter plot than the rest of the EU.

And while they may not have an impact on the comic industry per se, they *do* have an impact on both the NY Times bestseller list and the movies themselves, which I believe speaks for itself, and both are something most writers quite appreciate.

It seems to me like you have an image of how the comic writers are, but seriously, this is grade-A talent that has made plenty of great stories. And there's also some grade-B talent with merely 'fun and readable' stories, but grab a random SW book off the shelf and you are

What are we talking about right now?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
What are we talking about right now?

Mostly on whether or not a new company would be able to match Dark Horse's output.

Astor thinks DC would be able to do a better job, but I highly question their consistency.

I question Marvel's consistency less than DC's, but I still view Dark Horse as a tough act to follow because they've done a really good job of avoiding putting out bad SW comics for the last decade+.

Originally posted by Q99
[B]One, I'm talking about their Star Wars line specifically, where I've read the wide majority of the books and am familiar with every big one they've ever put out, and while early ones were hit-and-miss, by the 00s their quality was rather good. They certainly keep a tight eye on those and make sure they pick good authors.

Well you keep on switching between the two so it's hard to tell!

Two, Dark Horse's strategy is to produce a fairly limited number of titles and to keep a reputation for quality. It's not that hard to at least keep tabs on most of their books, and you'll be hard pressed to find a bad one. Sure, no-one's perfect, but quality control is clearly a priority to them. For their size, they have a rather disproportionate amount of Eisner and other comic industry awards.

A quick glance tells me they release a number or original books each month in the region of 50-60. Hardly a limited number of titles comparatively. I think you're being a little disingenuous in claiming that you can keep tabs on most of them.

DC had a huge array of flops during their 52 relaunch of all places, they couldn't keep quality consistent during their most publicized event ever. And many of the replacement writers in turn also turned out to be flops. When you can't even get things right with multiple tries on your big "Look at this everyone" event, that shows slopping quality control.

As I said, DC's misses are generally more highly publicised, as a company they are generally held to a far higher standard than the non-Big Two companies, and you severely exaggerate the number of misses they've had.

Sure, there's hits in there, good ones, but it's dartboard style hits, just throw things out there until they stick and eat a large number of misses in the process.

Now the idea that they have no control over their hits is just silly, when they typically put their best creative teams on the more important series, and by no coincidence these are the series that usually do well. Green Arrow being a massive success wasn't blind luck, it was the fact that they put one of their best writers on the series in Jeff Lemire and oversaw his inspired vision for the series. Likewise with Snyder and Batman, Azzarello and Wonder Woman etc.

Also, very significantly, there's lots of SW comics with complete, finished story arcs. Something DC has a problem with even with their good books, just look at Batwoman. Knights of the Old Republic was a *fantastic* book, but it wouldn't have been nearly as strong if some editor with a desire to meddle swapped out the writer as the climax begins.

Batwoman is the exception, not the rule, and I'd hardly call KotOR fantastic.

Ah, so you're moving to how you think the two should be in general. Though I would point out that if that's how you think, shouldn't that apply to the big 2 as well? And of course, tons of people grew up loving/watching SW.

Sure they did but it wasn't something that they associated with comics, and the reality to them as aspiring comicbook writers was that they would hopefully write for the Big Two one day. Hardly any of them would have been familiar with the Star Wars EU like they are with the DCU and MU, and as I said there has never been a truly top tier comicbook writer that has written an inspired Star Wars story. Brian Wood comes close, but his efforts were the furthest thing from inspired you could imagine. Ostrander is a legit writer, and had an interesting vision for his stories, but he is by no means top tier. He's no Ennis, Waid, Azzarello, Vaughan etc. Those guys are grade A talents, Wood is borderline, and Ostrander is quite clearly nowhere near that league. There has never been a spectacular Star Wars comic series.

Astor

Well you keep on switching between the two so it's hard to tell!

You're the one switching between them.

I said DH's SW is very consistent. You asked about other stuff, and I mentioned they do well there too, but most specifically the SW part is the one I'm most familiar with.

Now the idea that they have no control over their hits is just silly, when they typically put their best creative teams on the more important series, and by no coincidence these are the series that usually do well. Green Arrow being a massive success wasn't blind luck, it was the fact that they put one of their best writers on the series in Jeff Lemire and oversaw his inspired vision for the series. Likewise with Snyder and Batman, Azzarello and Wonder Woman etc.

Um, considering that Lemire is the *fourth* Green Arrow writer team after the reboot? Yes, that's dartboard.

It went J.T. Krul, Keith Giffen and Dan Jurgens, Ann Nocenti, and *finally* Lemire. Lemire wasn't plan A, plan B, or even plan C. He was literally their plan D.

If they were on the ball, he'd be plan A, but he wasn't.

If it takes you four tries to get something good (none of the prior three runs were well-received by either readers or comics), then it's a good sign that you cannot consistently get those results.

Also don't forget Nu52 books like Static Shock, Blue Beetle, Mr. Terrific, and Firestorm where things never worked from the start and continued to not work until they were canceled.

Then you've got books like Voodoo where the writer, Ron Marz, another respected industry veteran, was literally announced to be changed before the 3rd issue was out because they changed their mind on direction while the story had barely started.

Or just to go pre-52, remember JMS's famous and much-hyped runs on Superman and Wonder Woman one year before the reboot? Where Superman started out an absolute trainwreck and WW started out dull, until the new writers stepped in to salvage them?

DC has an impressive number of unforced writer errors and mid-stream writer replacements.

Batwoman is the exception, not the rule, and I'd hardly call KotOR fantastic.

And Grifter? Deathstroke? Sword and Sorcery? Superman (they lost George Perez, writer of some of DC's most famous stories and who himself did a critically reclaimed reboot before, due to meddling)? All also exceptions? Writer change overs in NuDC are common.

Heck, the creator of Earth 1 quit DC due to meddling, despite that having a couple of good books.

Not to mention, one that didn't actually make it onto a book, announced critically-acclaimed writer Andy Diggle pre-quits Action Comics due to professional issues with editorial. He was the one they pegged to fill Morrison's shoes.

And don't forget Gail Simone being fired off of Batgirl only to get re-hired due to fan outrage.

Dark Horse's has zero cases like that.

Whether or not you, personally, like KotoR, most people disagree, it's a very well-received story that I see frequently citing among people's very top SW recommendations and in some general comic recommendations too.

Sure they did but it wasn't something that they associated with comics, and the reality to them as aspiring comicbook writers was that they would hopefully write for the Big Two one day. Hardly any of them would have been familiar with the Star Wars EU like they are with the DCU and MU, and as I said there has never been a truly top tier comicbook writer that has written an inspired Star Wars story. Brian Wood comes close, but his efforts were the furthest thing from inspired you could imagine. Ostrander is a legit writer, and had an interesting vision for his stories, but he is by no means top tier. He's no Ennis, Waid, Azzarello, Vaughan etc. Those guys are grade A talents, Wood is borderline, and Ostrander is quite clearly nowhere near that league. There has never been a spectacular Star Wars comic series.

Oh gee, Dark Horse is only full of *B* and B+ rank comic writers, with just one maybe-A (also, I will, frankly, put Ostrander, Wood, and JJMiller all above Azzarello. Aside from my issues with the WW book- both on plotholes and characterization- quite a lot of his other books aren't exactly A-grade either, like For Tomorrow and Before Watchman).

But, I will note, and very much to my point, no Cs or Ds (well, not since Dark Empire at least, but that was back in the 90s).

Dark Horse very consistently makes good stuff. DC has some better ones, but also a lot of worse ones, and they don't seem good at being able to consistently pull off good matches even with their talent pool, and are known to lose some of their best people due to meddling.

I think some'll disagree on the 'never been a spectacular SW comic story,' but the gap in consistency is much more evidence and much less a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I remain skeptical. Look at what a cock-up the superhero-verse is at Marvel.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
DC is just shitty anyways.

Not a single SW story is even near the quality of All Star Superman.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Yeah, I'm torn personally. The last truly decent star wars comic series to come out, imo, was KOTOR.

But on the other hand, Marvel has done absolutely zero to impress me since Civil War. Not a damn thing.

^ Hasn't read God of Thunder.

Pussy.

(also, I will, frankly, put Ostrander, Wood, and JJMiller all above Azzarello. Aside from my issues with the WW book- both on plotholes and characterization- quite a lot of his other books aren't exactly A-grade either, like For Tomorrow and Before Watchman).

Wood, around the same level, though Azzarello edges it, and as I said, Wood's Star Wars book was shit regardless of how good he is. Ostrander is good, but not on that level at all. He is very much a tier 2 writer. John Jackson Miller is a complete and utter nobody in the comic book world... it's frighteningly bizarre that you would consider him above Azzarello, and says everything I believe that needs to be said about the value of your opinion in this matter.

You didn't really have any valid complaints about the WW series and it's been a huge critical success, Luthor and Joker were fantastic, and 100 bullets is one of the greatest creator owned works of all time. Wood is the only writer comparable to Azzarello in terms of comic book accomplishments, and quite frankly he simply did not have an inspired Star Wars story to tell.

Azzarello is a god among men. Joker and Lex Luthor: Man of Steel are two of the greatest comics ever created.

Originally posted by NemeBro
^ Hasn't read God of Thunder.

Pussy.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Read above.

Not a single SW story is even near the quality of All Star Superman.

Bro you hardly need to bring All Star Superman into this. There isn't a single Star Wars comic book story even near the quality of a fairly good (by DC's standards) Superman run.

I don't do things by half measures.

Why keep All Star Superman in reserve when its name alone renders any counter-point meaningless?

Originally posted by NemeBro
I don't do things by half measures.

My Dad says otherwise.

It isn't my fault that he can't get me up.

You didn't really have any valid complaints about the WW series[/b]

Lesse, have I gone through them all here...?

The main character has an ethical standard 180 from her home culture, doesn't know how they reproduce despite living into her 20s there (somehow no-one even *mentioned* that in her presence while growing up, even past puberty), doesn't know they're ok with slavery, managed to get strongly opposed to everything they do anyway, which is a pretty massive plot hole, affecting base character motives as it does.

She has a not-very-explored character for a book that's gone on over two years (we don't get inside her head much), and there's odd moments like in response to Orion being sexist, she kisses him before grabbing his balls for being sexist (why the kiss...?) and puts up with him slapping her butt (why?), or for some reason having her mother bring up her old origin just to retcon it the same issue (why would Hippolyta make up the 'made from a statue' origin if reproduction with males is normal in their culture? There was no story reason to include it at all).

That's aside from the thematic problems in making all the Amazons evil rapists, and shifting all of her power sources and formative influences from female characters to male ones (powers? Zeus. Trainer? Ares. Ethics? Thin air. Etc.).

I've had multiple friends drop the book due to the lack of development of Wondy, and way more have had problems with the Amazons being remade into a misogynist strawman.

It is not a book without significant complaints, and it's not Azzarello's best work.

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
and as I said, Wood's Star Wars book was shit regardless of how good he is.

Not really, it's been quite well received.

John Jackson Miller is a complete and utter nobody in the comic book world... it's frighteningly bizarre that you would consider him above Azzarello, and says everything I believe that needs to be said about the value of your opinion in this matter.

He's only a multi-NYT bestselling novelist....

Look, you're bouncing around on standards here. "Wood's rep in the comic world is good, but his book is totally bad anyway!" "JJM may have good stories, but he has no rep in the comic world!". Pick one and stick with it, ok?

These people all make solid stories. The books themselves are good.

Someone on their first story can make a terrific story. If you're judging solely on rep, sure, whatever, DC has people with bigger rep.

But that's very much not my standard, which is more based on "are these stories really fun?" and "How many of them are actually bad?". And the answer is, 'most of them' and 'almost none.'

And considering DC doesn't consider many of it's own books at the launch good, as evidenced by them writer-shuffling them, several times in a row in some cases, that says a lot about the differences in consistencies.

Wood is the only writer comparable to Azzarello in terms of comic book accomplishments, and quite frankly he simply did not have an inspired Star Wars story to tell.

Inspired? No. Solid and well-written? Yes.

But if we want inspired stories, there's a fair number of others. Sith realms run by a nihilistic sith and a solipsist sith in Knights Errant, or the story of a failed padawan who's master try and kill him out of fear of a sith outbreak in the middle of the mandalorian war.

Hey, let's take a look at some Amazon reviews. Just for fun.

Knights of the Old Republic: Commencement.

31 reviews. Average, 4.6. Zero below 3 stars. Only two 3 star reviews.

Vol 2 of the same. 18 reviews, 4.6, lowest review 4 stars.

Wonder Woman: Blood.

61 reviews. Average, 4 stars. Seven 3-star ratings, four 2-star, six 1-star.

Going by Amazon reviews, JJM's SW tops Azzerello's WW solidly.

And hey, again, the primary argument I'm making isn't that DC doesn't make good books, it's that the SW line has been very consistent. Which it has. And DC hasn't. Which it really, really hasn't.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I don't do things by half measures.

Why keep All Star Superman in reserve when its name alone renders any counter-point meaningless?

Counter-point: All Star Batman and Robin ^^

Though, more serious counterpoint: Morrison's left DC anyway, he doesn't count when talking about future good stuff.

(Additionally, Miller has also left DC, which is purely a good thing)

Lesse, have I gone through them all here...?

The main character has an ethical standard 180 from her home culture, doesn't know how they reproduce despite living into her 20s there (somehow no-one even *mentioned* that in her presence while growing up, even past puberty), doesn't know they're ok with slavery, managed to get strongly opposed to everything they do anyway, which is a pretty massive plot hole, affecting base character motives as it does.

She has a not-very-explored character for a book that's gone on over two years (we don't get inside her head much), and there's odd moments like in response to Orion being sexist, she kisses him before grabbing his balls for being sexist (why the kiss...?) and puts up with him slapping her butt (why?), or for some reason having her mother bring up her old origin just to retcon it the same issue (why would Hippolyta make up the 'made from a statue' origin if reproduction with males is normal in their culture? There was no story reason to include it at all).

That's aside from the thematic problems in making all the Amazons evil rapists, and shifting all of her power sources and formative influences from female characters to male ones (powers? Zeus. Trainer? Ares. Ethics? Thin air. Etc.).

I've had multiple friends drop the book due to the lack of development of Wondy, and way more have had problems with the Amazons being remade into a misogynist strawman.

It is not a book without significant complaints, and it's not Azzarello's best work.

"She has a not-very-explored character for a book that's gone on over two years (we don't get inside her head much),"

This is completely untrue. She goes through numerous shocks/tragedies, all of which she responds to in a very open and emotional way, from the revelation that her entire origin had been a complete lie and that Zeus was her father, to having her people turned into snakes and her mother turned into a statue by Hera, to finding out the shocking truth behind how her people reproduced, to having to deal with Hermes' betrayal, and the deaths of Lennox and Ares. We see her good nature manifest itself repeatedly, from general heroism such as protecting Zola and her baby to attempting to free what she at the time thought of as slaves from Hephaestus, to feeling sorry for Hades and trying to help him by shooting him with Eros' bullets while he was looking at his own reflection (so that he would learn to love himself and not be so self-hating), to sparing the Minotaur, we see her capacity for forgiveness in how she comes to forgive Hera for all that she had done, we know that she's wary of her own power and wears cuffs to keep it in check, we see a softer side to her as she connects with a family she's only just come to realise she has. There's the cool twist when Hades tries to get her to marry him by shooting her with Eros' bullets so that she would love him (and later getting further confirmation of this via the truth lasso), only to later find out that it has no impact on her as she is all-loving in the first place and loves everyone, including Hades. And of course when she's able to sacrifice Ares so that she could put a stop to The First Born, showing that she can make tough decisions for the greater good.

This is of course, not to mention the central role she takes as the primary hero of the book, and what she represents in the book's mythology (one of the last remaining demigod children of Zeus, and more importantly, since killing Ares, the new God of War).

And all this while Azzarello has an entire ensemble cast of heroes and villains to explore alongside Wonder Woman. I'd hardly say she's unexplored in light of all the above.

"or for some reason having her mother bring up her old origin just to retcon it the same issue (why would Hippolyta make up the 'made from a statue' origin if reproduction with males is normal in their culture? There was no story reason to include it at all)."

1. It gave insight into how Wonder Woman had always been alienated from her fellow amazons for having been made of clay.

2. It served as a reminder of the original origin, and made the twist that she was actually the daughter of Zeus more impactful.

3. As I already explained, the manner in which they reproduced had been kept a secret from Wonder Woman, so it wasn't "normal".

4. It's explained that Hippolyta had made up the story to protect Wonder Woman from Hera.

"and shifting all of her power sources and formative influences from female characters to male ones (powers? Zeus. Trainer? Ares."

This hardly qualifies as an objective assessment of the book.

Everything else you mention I already adequately addressed.

None of your complaints have been valid, and while it's not Azzarello's best work (that would be 100 bullets), it's certainly up there.

Not really, it's been quite well received.

I don't believe it's been particularly well received, and reception isn't a perfect indication of quality; by any account there's nothing particularly different he's doing with the series, and it's simply not very interesting or compelling.

He's only a multi-NYT bestselling novelist....

I believe the majority of the Star Wars EU, much of which is shit, makes the NYT bestselling list, and it has a lot to do with the Star Wars brand itself. Either way sales =/= quality.

Look, you're bouncing around on standards here. "Wood's rep in the comic world is good, but his book is totally bad anyway!" "JJM may have good stories, but he has no rep in the comic world!". Pick one and stick with it, ok?

I've read Knight Errant and it's not particularly good. In JJM's case he has neither. He's hardly demonstrated that he's a rising star or an emerging talent like somebody such as, Charles Soule who's currently writing Swamp Thing.

Inspired? No. Solid and well-written? Yes.

So you basically agree it seems. Yes it is well written at its core because, Brian Wood's a great writer, but the story is incredibly bland. There's simply nothing interesting about what he's been doing with the Rebellion trying to find a new home, and there being a spy among them. The space battles are also incredibly boring and tedious, filled with technical jargon where it's hard to tell who's saying what, he doesn't capture Luke, Leia or The Emperor well at all (apparently he thinks that Luke is Anakin, and The Emperor came across as entirely petty when dealing with Birra Seah) and he doesn't seem to have a particularly good grasp of the EU. Not to mention setting up Bircher to be this major badass only to have him fail spectacularly the first time we see him in action to a manoeuvre that isn't made out to be particularly impressive.

The KotOR storyline you just described isn't inspired at all... and Knight Errant while having somewhat interesting ideas (in so far that it's real world philosophical system being applied to a Force User, so hardly the most inventive but I guess it's not something we've seen in a Sith before) didn't manifest itself into an interesting book.

As for the amazon reviews, Wonder Woman had a greater number of reviews (typically the rating lowers the more reviews you have), and the Amazon reviews are hardly a great sample size to work from, nor do they reflect the same standards being used to measure and rate the two books. If you look at a legitimate and universal reviewer like ign or cbr, you'll see that Wonder Woman's reviews (which routinely measure in the 9s and 10s) are vastly superior, they're basically not close.

Though, more serious counterpoint: Morrison's left DC anyway, he doesn't count when talking about future good stuff.

Actually, and on the subject of Wonder Woman, he's currently writing Wonder Woman: Earth One, as well as Multiversity which apparently has a good chance of being his magnum opus.

Also something else interesting about the New 52 Wonder Woman series, there's actually a single issue that wasn't written by Azzarello and was not received particularly well in stark contrast to Azzarello's stuff, and guess who it was written by? The one and only Ostrander.

The KotOR storyline you just described isn't inspired at all... and Knight Errant while having somewhat interesting ideas (in so far that it's real world philosophical system being applied to a Force User, so hardly the most inventive but I guess it's not something we've seen in a Sith before) didn't manifest itself into an interesting book.

Why do I get the feeling what you want from a SW book is not-a-SW book?

As for the amazon reviews, Wonder Woman had a greater number of reviews (typically the rating lowers the more reviews you have), and the Amazon reviews are hardly a great sample size to work from, nor do they reflect the same standards being used to measure and rate the two books. If you look at a legitimate and universal reviewer like ign or cbr, you'll see that Wonder Woman's reviews (which routinely measure in the 9s and 10s) are vastly superior, they're basically not close.

You'll also find more negative reviews and negative feedback from comic reviewers because it's turned off a fair number with it's issues. And, proportionally? there's only twice as many Amazon reviews for WW than Commencement, yet there's *ten* low-ratings, so it's not like just high numbers is enough.

KotoR is a SW story that, well, you're literally the first person I've met to hate it!

Anyway, individual books are not the point. The consistency, as repeatedly mentioned, is. DC has a lot of books where the authors couldn't handle it, were rotated out, had crappy takes on the subject, etc..

I am quite glad if someone in the big two has to get it, it's Marvel and not DC, as they have a lot less misses. Dark Horse is good at making sure their Star Wars books have solid writers that produce good SW stories.

Sure, DC has Morrison, Azzarello, etc., but they aren't going to get SW books even if they were at the company, and whoever they do pick has a higher odds of flubbing it up, because, well, they have a history of flubbing it up. *Four tries* to get a good Green Arrow! And GA has a TV show right now.