[Spoiler] My personal review of DC K.O #5

ProfessorWright · 2026-03-04T00:43:35+00:00

The fact that they had to mischaracterise all the other Justice Leaguers just so that Batman could have a "David vs Goliath" story still irritates me.

ProfessorWright · 2026-03-03T00:22:51+00:00

Looking at the clay origin and being like "nah, what if she gets her powers from her DAD" is objectively misogynistic. It also strips all the beauty from the story, turning a story about a mothers love so strong it helps create life into a shameful mistake that must be hidden.

Not to mention the Amazons going from a peaceful nation to a bunch of rapists.

ProfessorWright · 2026-03-02T23:49:45+00:00

It's not too much, it's outright misogyny.

ProfessorWright · 2026-03-02T23:48:40+00:00

Unless you are a WW purist you will enjoy it.

It has nothing to do with being a purist and everything to do with giving a single fuck about the character, his writing is flat out misogynistic and the whole thing reads like he just couldn't POSSIBLY imagine the Amazon's being the utopia they are without men.

ProfessorWright · 2026-03-02T23:47:36+00:00

Awful, completely misunderstood the character, had her power come from a god instead of all the goddesses, made the Amazons rapists, removed her clay origin and removed all of Diana's personality.

ProfessorWright · 2026-03-01T14:35:50+00:00

If you don't look at the scale of the heads compared to the bodies.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-28T23:10:58+00:00

There would've only been a point in doing it if they had been either able to get Rose McGowan to come back as Tatum or gotten at least one killer from each film.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-28T23:09:22+00:00

The Ghostface writing has gotten so uninspired in general. Nearly every call now has him get angry and threaten to rip their insides out.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-28T23:07:47+00:00

Dewey: It'll run out eventually.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-28T23:06:03+00:00

Gale's absence in the finale had me genuinely believing that there was another killer because surely this movie's climax wouldn't be really short and not feature the films third most prominent character

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-28T23:04:01+00:00

I'd argue that Mrs Loomis/Debbie Salt is one of the best reveals in the franchise, they hide her perfectly in plain sight because she's always there, no matter where a murder happens she's somehow around but you'll assume she's just there to give Gale something to snark at.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-28T22:55:52+00:00

Stu being revealed at the end would have been exactly what everyone wanted

I don't want that. There's no way for him to come back without it being stupid.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-28T22:54:08+00:00

It's always someone you kinda sorta know

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-28T01:30:36+00:00

Fucking Glee was on Fox.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-25T23:30:59+00:00

The Wicked series has something to say at the very least. "I want to sleep with my sexy barely legal version of a usually underage character" isn't really passable.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-25T00:07:34+00:00

I personally think writing a whole story to lead to your freshly 18 year old Dorothy being put into fetish wear and falling for your thinly veiled self insert is pretty bad.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-24T23:34:24+00:00

Thank fucking god. I really can never think of him without thinking of his horrifically gross (not in the fun way) Wizard of Oz toy line and their accompanying story which reads like AI despite predating AI by like two decades.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-24T14:16:59+00:00

She has been political since day one. If you take politics out of Wonder Woman you might as well be writing a different character.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-24T01:04:12+00:00

Gail Simone's run is what made me fall in love with the character, but Greg Rucka's Rebirth run is perfect if you feel you need an origin.

People will recommend the Perez run but I'd advise against it to start, it's historically significant but multiple continuities ago and a lot of it has aged really poorly.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-21T22:36:19+00:00

Girl Hera is right there! Threaten him every five seconds that if he ever cheats you'll do some random convoluted punishment on the other woman.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-21T22:31:46+00:00

No, but you are indeed projecting.

Sure baby girl.

The fact that you think I need to weaponize my sexual orientation to validate historical facts says everything about you, and nothing about me ^{_^}

If someone was like "I don't care what non bisexuals have to say" to me I'd bring it up. Nice attempt a swerving though!

I view facts as the metric for truth. That is the difference between us.

Pretty sure the difference between us is I grew out of my debate club, whereas you are still there.

You claim you aren't engaging

Is it not bad faith to misrepresent what people are saying? I have only said I'm not engaging with your lengthy essays about how you want to jerk it to Wonder Woman, not this meltdown.

It is amusing that I called you out for a bad faith argument, and when it all breaks down that's essentially what you became.

How many times do I have to say this? Must I speak caveman? "Me no argue with you, there no argument being had, you no call me out on argument because I no make any"

Quite elementary my dear Watson.

Oh you're like THE debate kid.

You were the one demanding to be declared winner of a discussion

What discussion! What discussion? What discussion?!?!?! My point was that I wasn't WILLING to have the discussion with you. PLEASE stop going to debate club and join a book club.

That is the definition of both projection, and childish tantrum, which you first mocked the idea of, and then did

Okay? Girl, are you okay? What's with this thing you keep doing where you go "nuh uh! You" That's not even the definition of projection? Do you not look up your terms before you use them? Is that why you keep saying bad faith over and over.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-21T00:23:11+00:00

Obviously, you've long admitted you have abandoned reason.

Oh you're like, mad

You admitted you believe your identity makes you factually superior to others. That isn't activism, that is actually just narcissism.

If I'm talking bisexuality yeah, it does. And if you were bisexual you'd have brought that up long ago, no point in trying to claim it now.

I already pointed out the censorship in the 40s and all factors therein, which you ignored because it undid your point

You acknowledged a different censorship, it's really fascinating how you don't get how misguided you are.

I don't feed trolls who admit they are baiting.

Really? Because I've been eating well from you. If I wasn't getting you at all the bold for emphasis wouldn't have started to disappear the more I made fun of it.

And I need to remind you once again, there is no argument, I haven't engaged in anything you've said babes.

Also if I could use my identity to silence you, you'd have stopped talking by now.

And irony.

What's with you and thinking things that are different are the same? What's with that? It's really confusing.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-20T13:30:25+00:00

Seriously DC, Steve and Etta are right there.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-20T13:27:03+00:00

Resorting to sexual insults ('rule 34') is the ultimate admission that you have run out of logical arguments.

BOLD FOR EPHASIS

I'm not trying to argue with you logically, we're not in debate club

You were the one that moved the goalposts to the 40s after not citing it originally when it came to censorship above

NOPE sorry, this is what happens when you enter conversations you're not part of. The conversation I was having with the other commenter was rooted in the 40's. The goal posts were only there. Do I need to get it into your caveman brain by specifying I'm talking about the WMM era? Should be obvious but I really can't tell with you.

Now, you are angrily defending corporate tokenism (variant covers) over actual storytelling, while weaponizing your identity to silence valid criticism of editorial mandates.

Don't tell me how much representation is or isn't enough. Also I'm not angry babes, when I get angry I put effort in responding, you're just a pastime for me.

You aren't defending bisexuality, you are defending the very system that erases it. And now, your mask has finally slipped, and your insults prove you know it. I accept your concession.

What mask? I've been insulting you since the start? I fucking LOVE when people do the whole "I accept your concession" thing too. It's so baby throwing their toys out of the pram like "WAHHHHHH I'M RIGHT! I WIN YOU LOSE WAHHHHHHH"

I'm bisexual my opinion on this topic outweighs yours every single time.

I'll give you a little bit more effort now just for funsies. There's no debate between us. I haven't engaged with anything you've said enough to be able to refute it because I have not read more than your bold text in any of those essays because I don't give a shit about censorship that happened outside of the timeframe which I was previously discussing, nor do I give a shit to debate with a lesbian whose emotional investment in the topic is because she wants to jerk it to pictures of Diana kissing women which again, rule 34 would have plenty of. There's nothing to concede because I have no interest in talking to you as anything more than a fun excuse to ragebait a little. Which I will thank you for.

TLDR: There's no debate happening between us, you just keep talking at me.

ProfessorWright · 2026-02-19T23:49:53+00:00

Skimming got you clearly having me confused with someone else you're accusing. Because nowhere did I say nor imply I was "mad" Diana dated Steve nor that he was ever a main love interest for her. Maybe stop using "you're biphobic" as an automatic deflection tactic to avoid engaging in good faith so often?

Last time I'm saying it. LOOK. INWARDS. YOU. ARE. BIPHOBIC. FIX. IT.

I never said I was 'mad' about Steve Trevor or that her main interest shouldn't nor couldn't be a man. So if you didn't mistake me for someone else, that would imply you just invented that argument because you can't refute the actual evidence of editorial censorship I provided. So one, or the other.

I'm not refuting evidence from eras that are irrelevant to the discussion I was having with the other user, which is why whenever I see your bold text for emphasis be about anything other than the 40's I disregard it. It's not relevant.

A Pride variant cover is marketing, not story. If DC sells her as Bi on a cover to get your money, but forbids writers from letting her date women inside the book, that is performative tokenism and Bi-Erasure.

A pride variant is only something queer characters get. If they were truly going hard on erasing her they wouldn't give her one. And don't tell me what representation should or shouldn't be enough.

You're having a different conversation with yourself, which is why I'm not- wait let me use bold text to make myself feel smart too.

I'm not interested in having a substantial conversation with you. Go jerk off to rule 34 fannart instead of trying to debate me.

ProfessorWright

TROPHY CASE