I would say that those were minor stylstic changes that didn't change the overall iconic look or recongizability of Wonder Woman in the least. Pope's Batman is not nearly as instantly recognizable as Batman.

Frankly, as long as the monthlies stay on accessible model, I don't mind the idea of having other creators do "out of continuity" takes on the characters...as long as they still respect and adhere to the basic tenents of the character. However, on a personal note, I seriously don't see how any company would pay money to Tony Millionaire to do anything. That art looks like stuff me and my friends would draw in our notebooks during class in high school. (Pope's art is good...I just don't think his rendition of Batman looks good.)

You really couldn't tell Pope's Batman (set in the future) was Batman

I could tell it was something that was supposed to be Batman-ish. But, like I said before, to me it looks like a homeless guy with a malformed head dressed up in a batsuit. It doesn't look like he's supposed to be the real thing. It's TOO far off model. Of course, that seems to be somewhat intentional/part of the story, right?  Personally I don't have a problem with the concept at all...it's just a matter of personal taste that I think his Batman as rendered looks pretty ugly (and not like Batman). Just my opinion.

or that Cooke's Green Lantern was Green Lantern?

Oh definitely. I had no problem whatsoever identifying him and really like Darwyn Cooke's rendition. That's why I didn't mention him at all. See my post above re: the trunks.

Was it "necessary" (your point re: the Green Lantern change) for JB to stylistically "change" Wonder Woman's bracelets? Reduce the number of stars on her shorts?  Increase the size of her tiara?  Bring the belt up so far that its point rested flush with the inverse part of the underside of the double-W emblem?

Necessary? No. But all those things looked very cool and were well-rendered. The way I see it, he embelished certain elements while keeping the overall style/look. The important thing is that those stylized touches didn't veer too far from the source. Personally, I think that Cooke also accomplishes this. And personally, I think Pope does cross the line in veering too far from the source.

In your opinion Joel and that's it. 

Uh, did I say otherwise? I said "it's just a matter of personal taste." Of course it's just my opinion. Just as your posts are your opinion.

You just thought it was "cool" when John changed things but "not cool" when Pope did. 

More accurately, I thought it looked good when JB did it and I don't think what Pope did w/ Batman looks good.  

Cooke can draw circles around most artists today and for that matter so can Pope. 

In your opinion Michael and that's it. :-)

What is the Batman supposed to be?  A sleek, "I don't get my costume dirty", character?  Tell Frank Miller or, better yet, tell Adams who has shown Batman "dirty" once or twice.  I've even seen Adams draw Batman with his shirt off!  I could hardly recognize him.

Now you're being ridiculous.

And, Joel when a book is entitled Batman Year 100 and you don't know it is Batman I find that really hard to believe.  You really can't tell that is Batman?

Don't be stupid. Yes, I am able to read. Reread my post above. I explain my opinion pretty clearly there.