Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Wonder Woman #8 Review


Written by: Tom King
Art by: Daniel Sampere
Colors by: Tomeu Morey
Letters by: Clayton Cowles
Cover art by: Daniel Sampere, Tomeu Morey
Cover price: $4.99
Release date: April 16, 2024

Wonder Woman #8 finds herself grappling with the Sovereign's lasso of lies, misogyny, and the Bible.
Is Wonder Woman #8 Good?

I don't know if there's some magic formula Tom King uses, but it boggles the mind how King can make an entire comic that's simultaneously off-putting and boring except for two pages. Whatever dark magic King has, it's working because this comic is repulsive on multiple levels.

When last we left Wonder Woman, she went to a space mall and... never mind.

When we left Wonder Woman in the issue before last, she fought the Sovereign's ad hoc Legion of Doom near the Washington Monument. Diana won but passed out from injuries and exhaustion.

Now, Wonder Woman flip-flops between a fever dream where she acts as an oppressed housewife under the thumb of a misogynistic Steve Trevor and the real world where the Sovereign casually interrogates/tortures Diana as she is tied to a post with the Lasso of Lies.

Eventually, Diana breaks the bonds of her oppressive marriage as she breaks the bonds of the Sovereign's lasso, ending on a cliffhanger that suggests the Sovereign is about to lose several teeth.

What's great about Wonder Woman #8? The last few pages wherein Wonder Woman breaks her bonds and gets ready to crack skulls is a satisfying moment. Plus, Sampere's art is fantastic.

What's not so great about Wonder Woman #8? The dismissive, condescending visage of Steve Trevor is gross, and frankly, adds nothing to the story unless the goal was to use Wonder Woman to tell a heavy-handed message about the ills of a "traditional" marriage. If that was the goal, why?

The Sovereign's misinterpretation of the Bible is, likewise, gross and also adds nothing to the story unless King intended to convey a message about how the "Bible oppresses women." It doesn't, but if that was the message, why?

The last major point is the Sovereign's tedious, overlong, monotonous narration that goes on and on and on. The narration is a chore to get through.

When you add those points up, you get a comic that looks fantastic but is poorly paced, doesn't move the plot forward more than two steps, and delivers multiple messages about the hardships of women that do nothing for the story and don't make much sense (When has an Amazonian ever felt oppression due to the patriarchy? How would Diana know what a day in the life of a 1950s housewife looks like when King's version of Diana talks like a Russian unfamiliar with American customs?)

This issue is gross. This series is gross. And there's no reason to read it unless you're a masochist.

About The Reviewer: Gabriel Hernandez is the Publisher & EIC of ComicalOpinions.com, a comics review site dedicated to indie, small, and mid-sized publishers.

Follow @ComicalOpinions on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter

Bits and Pieces:

Wonder Woman #8 is a slowly-paced, tedious, boring, and off-putting comic. King wastes a lot of time delivering multiple heavy-handed messages about Religion, the patriarchy, and misogyny to play out what amounts to one scene. If Sampere's art wasn't so good, this comic would be a total waste.



  1. It's funny to me that when I saw the preview for this issue, I immediately told myself "you know what would be the real subversive storytelling in this day and age? If Diana really realised that what she actually wanted at her heart is having a family of her own with a nice husband and children, not being a warrior anymore but instead a peaceful life just with her family" but I knew for a fact that King would never dare to go there and adress the fact that some women just like some men really like being devoted to their families and have that as an important priority, not their everything of course but one of the most important parts of their life which they feel fulfilled by. Imagine that for a moment! A strong female character not being completely satisfied with her loneliness!!! In 2024? Get out of here! He would never write that story because the true "subversion" would be that story and what would offend modern audiences and have them think and question about something that doesn't get talked about in depth in mainstream. Instead we got exactly what I thought we would get which is a story done a milion times before and is a tired old (and untrue) story . King's writing for DC honestly makes me question whether he has just discovered concepts these past 3 or 4 years because he seems to think that what he has written for both Batman and Wonder woman is an innovation or something. I am fine with him being on wonder woman though because it means he doesn't get to ruin other characters. Now here's something that might really offend people instead of this boring story of king's: I have never liked wonder woman and don't think she is a good character (hot take I know, but people want to like her cause they want to like a prominent female hero while I always thought we had wayyy more well written and interesting female characters that have more to say and are cooler while not being constantly cringe inducing that don't get the spotlight because of her for example Donna Troy. Other characters that have way better dynamic and friendship with Batman and Superman like Martian Manhunter and the Flash to represent the cosmic or scientific side of the DC universe get brushed aside so we can get her boring character that doesn't have an interesting rogues gallery of her own and represents a misandrist society that people don't dare to speak against in fear of getting canceled, I see no difference between Amazons and the character The Sovereign is supposed to represent here, both of those types are bad but some people only care with one group. Ignoring all that she just doesn't have a good run of her own and certainly not on the level of characters like superman or batman or even other JL members, what's so special about her to put her on the higher level than Oracle for example? There are certainly way better stroies and track record with Oracle than there ever has been with wonder woman who doesn't have any deeper characteristics than a cardboard. But no we are stuck with her as a part of the trinity. I will get opposition for this but I just can't bring myself to lie about this and pretend just because she is popular) but regardless of what I think about the character, King has certainly not written a story that would win over people like me who do exist that are either unfamiliar with or uninterested in wonder woman and make them see what's good about her character or stories or side characters (quite the opposite in fact, it's just shown her in more cringe fashion than usual). Apart from all of this the comic is still boring and moves like a snail. There are no complex cast of characters here, it's really empty. It's just Diana and her crew of fangirls who all are written with all the depth of watching some paint dry (worse actually really, there could arguably be real peace and enjoyment in watching paint dry on some wall)

    1. I don't dislike Diana but I find myself being more and more nostalgic for her New 52 run for the very least acknowledging "Amazons treating men horribly because they're men" was bad which seems to be a controversial take among certain WW fans. The art by Cliff Chang was also gorgeous as well as the creative takes on the Greek Gods and monsters.

    2. I am not very familiar in particular with her titles but I know what you are referencing. That is a novel idea but didn't it also make Donna Troy a villain? (When arguably she and Cassie are was the last Amazons to do that) or maybe I am confusing it with someone else. In any case I feel like even before new 52 they at least acknowledged it from time to time. Nevertheless it's really really awkward that they are just sitting there and comment from time to time on how the ideal world should be run.

    3. I'm should have been more exact but by New 52 I mostly meant Brian Azzarello's run specifically. When he left it fell down in quality with reintroducing Donna to be a villain and giving Diana an ugly new costume meant to cover as much skin on her as possible.

  2. King's parents had a very ugly divorce and were very hostile to each other so the story goes. It's not surprising then that he views traditional marriage as a pact with the devil. King needs to work his issues out with a therpist instead of subjecting readers who aren't paid to deal with his broken brain.

    Side note: Someone mentioned, if Tom King read any of the bible, he would know that there are passages specifically about treating your wife and women with respect and love.
    On the other hand King's conveiniently ignores things like Sharia law...

    1. most people aren't interested in giving a complex view of higher concepts of religion or different ideologies except their prefered one just like this issue and the comment ( just saying christianity is bad, Islam is bad etc is enough for them without taking the time research the actual topic they are talking about or see if there are things that outright contradicts their views. Both Christianity and Islam are the same here, people just repeat certain buzzwords that if you question them about it more than two minutes, they wouldn't know anything about it). That's why writers should just stick to getting their characters and plot in order first to even entertain talking about something more complex.
      Also I don't think King is doing these stuff cause he thinks anything that deep about the subject matter. My impression of him is that he just wants to be a talking point by being "edgy" and shallow for the mainstream audience. He just wants to say look I wrote something that got people offended, aren't I a revolutionary? (Ignoring the laughably bad plot and characters he writes in the process)

  3. This review shows a stunning lack of basic media literacy and comprehension.

    Having Steve Trevor be a piece of crap isn't a message about the "ills of traditional marriage". It's Sovereign manipulating Diana into thinking that that's what she deserves/where she belongs.

    Sovereign isn't "misinterpreting the bible". He's selecting parts of it that he wants to support his twisted world view. He's "spinning" it, basically, taking things out of content and using it for his manipulations.

    Pro tip: Having a viewpoint/message come out of the villain IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF THAT VIEWPOINT/MESSAGE. It's literally the exact opposite! The villain represents a viewpoint, the hero represents the opposite. The villain is then defeated by the hero, and the hero's worldview is triumphant.

    This is basic media literacy 101 here people. This review is either completely in bad faith and done to support some agenda of the reviewer or just completely incompetent.

    For the record, this issue sucks and I can't stand Tom King's writing, but not for the terrible reasoning in this review.

    Love the podcast though!

    1. Don't worry, we got all that. People usually are not saying every word out of the mouth of the enemy is the truth but one can tell when you are supposed to take it as opposite and when you are supposed to see it as a commentary on certain subjects even if not every word is to be taken as face value. And especially that heroic moment is what damns the issue which you unfortunately pointed out as a side note to educate us: having wonder woman in response to the opposing side in the heroic moment say essentially I reject your God is more indicative of the overall tone otherwise she would have said I reject you or your lies or etc because this implies since she is Amazonian then she is immune to the belief and power of this religion in geenral having harmed her or that the answer is not believing the existence in the first place, don't pretend it's not what it is if you write it ( you could go the extra mile interpretation of oh diana means the god sovereign is specifically describing etc etc, feel free to strech far to justify that but then it would be defending since it's an interpretation, not the interpretation, the writer could have made it clear but didn't and it's way needlessly convoluted method of getting the message across if true. Which I don't think since it's kinda obvious what that sentence is supposed to mean but oh well). And this ambiguity is just barely extended to the religious aspect, there is no ambiguity in regards to the view the issue holds about the kind of life a housewife type woman has in contrast to a warrior like wonder woman or at least the view Diana holds in regards to the matter and the certain life surrounding to steve would look like to her, albeit exaggerated since it's a feverish scenario, if you think otherwise I don't know what to say except to read the issue again. The problem isn't that that life is a lie the sovereign is telling diana, it's the contrast of certain lifestyles behind the exaggeration, one side is glorious while the other is implied to have the danger of leading to this kind of abuse, people would not have this much problem with showing the negative outcomes going too far in that direction has if it wasn't always so one sided in these kind of stories. The subtext is there because you never see the opposite in these series, you never see the warrior woman type leading to unhappiness as a woman or abuse, it's always the other types. In fact showcasing a story like that would be the truly controversial story nowadays, this is just boring and overdone.
      I also agree that this issue is horrible on its own and that makes it even worse but taking issue with the writing when it's dealing with complex subjects in such a heavy handed misguided way and whether it got what it wanted across well or failed is also valid. If a series wants to be known as the one who went there and talked about these subjects, then it also should accept being scrutinised and challenged on it, you can't have your cake and eat it. (Also there is no such thing as media literacy as an objective metric to judge others, at least so far, since it's such a vague and wide concept and people mostly use it based on just one thing they witnessed to say person x has no literacy when realistically they should consider way more history of that person to be able to say it, so it is almost like it is just a way to demean the other side and belittle them and nothing else as opposed to being a real metric. How would you be able to tell someone on the internet writing a review has x amount of literacy or not? Do you know how much literature they have consumed? The amount of knowledge they have? And how would you rate it? I would advise just saying that this take is bad or etc as opposed to diagnosing that the person has no ability to decipher literature which illiterate implies. It just lowers the reliability of your evaluation)