They made a straight character gay and, according to an article I read, there will be some more gender and race changes coming down the line as well. How creative. 8-|
Also apparently now there's reports Robinson will be adding a SECOND gay character to the Earth 2 books. Which makes sense, as someone pointed out - or Alan Scott would have to be gay all by himself.
Why don't we have Earth-G be part of the multiverse? :)
They made a straight character gay and, according to an article I read, there will be some more gender and race changes coming down the line as well. How creative. 8-|
If whether or not they are being creative is the concern, how creative would it be to reintroduce the same universe of characters for, what, a third time, and keep them the same?
Of course I get that creating new characters (despite the fact that, as readers, we vote against that with our dollars all the time) is more creative than changing old characters. That would be the truly creative choice, no question.
But isn't changing old characters actually (a little) more creative than just playing IP Museum curator and keeping them all the same?
Nice way to side-step things DC. "We got an iconic character who is switching orientation; it's Green Lantern. No, not THAT Green Lantern. In factor, he's not even in the GL Corp. Or has a power ring from Oa. Or has ever had a weaken to the color yellow. Or directly involved in the War of the Lanterns. He does use the name, though!"
There can still be a Jade and Onsidian as the children of Alan Scott.
Another thing that shouldn't be news is that gay men can have kids.
It would just mean that his relationship to their mother (whoever she was, I can't remember a mention of her in all the JSA I read) would be different. Could be a surrogate, could be he was married and fathered them while closeted. Could be the green energy gets all midichlorine and goes and makes them. Who knows. But even in the real world there are ways it is possible. So in the funny book world there are even more ways to go about it.
So, for those that are concerned this means definitely no Jade and Obsidian, I think it is too soon to be sure of that.
After reading Robinson's interview, I think it is, as Alan Scott is too young to have had kids. He specifiably states that he decided to have Alan be gay because Obsidian will not be around.
Got it. When I saw the post on my phone, I didn't see that there was link there, so I didn't know the reasoning hadn't been given.
Still, I think the point stands that even though a younger, gay Alan Scott has not yet fathered Obsidian and Jade doesn't mean that he never will. That door is still open for other creators to tell that story later if they want to.
Nice way to side-step things DC. "We got an iconic character who is switching orientation; it's Green Lantern. No, not THAT Green Lantern. In factor, he's not even in the GL Corp. Or has a power ring from Oa. Or has ever had a weaken to the color yellow. Or directly involved in the War of the Lanterns. He does use the name, though!"
M
Well, those who want to make hay about these things sure didn't seem to care that a gay Batwoman wasn't Batman, or even Batman's partner or protege.
The idea that she had a "Bat" in her name was enough to get some people incensed and some people excited. I don't think anyone cared whether or not she had the same car or butler, or anything like that. The reactions- both negative and positive- will be made to the name no matter what the details are. So I am not sure what is being sidestepped, as they will get both uninformed bad and uninformed good reactions from those that don't understand the details (as they did with Batwoman).
Nice way to side-step things DC. "We got an iconic character who is switching orientation; it's Green Lantern. No, not THAT Green Lantern. In factor, he's not even in the GL Corp. Or has a power ring from Oa. Or has ever had a weaken to the color yellow. Or directly involved in the War of the Lanterns. He does use the name, though!"
M
I have no problem with DC making Alan Scott gay, but I do think the hype was a clumsy way to try and steal some of the spotlight away from Marvel's gay marriage story. It really didn't warrant all this attention.
Nice way to side-step things DC. "We got an iconic character who is switching orientation; it's Green Lantern. No, not THAT Green Lantern. In factor, he's not even in the GL Corp. Or has a power ring from Oa. Or has ever had a weaken to the color yellow. Or directly involved in the War of the Lanterns. He does use the name, though!"
M
I have no problem with DC making Alan Scott gay, but I do think the hype was a clumsy way to try and steal some of the spotlight away from Marvel's gay marriage story. It really didn't warrant all this attention.
I definitely agree it doesn't warrant this much attention or thought. It is definitely old news as far as comics go.
And I agree it would have been better if the comic had matter-of-factly been released first, and then they could talk about it once it was read.
Though I would argue that, as far as hype goes, how much did DC hype it? Remember the timeline of how it started:
This guy asked a question, trying to get them to address a timid policy when they relaunched the New 52. Now, sure, I suppose if they wanted to let the comic speak for itself, they could have said "No comment", or simply, "that is changing soon." Now, even if they did that, we all know the way this stuff works-- there STILL would have been all the speculation about who it would be, etc. And the answer they gave did not do much more than say that they were changing their minds on that policy in a prominent way in a book next month. And the Internet, and then the old media following suit looking for sensationalism, took it from there.
(And, remember, if this is all for a book that comes out next week, so orders would already have to be in.)
They didn't, for example, book an appearance on The View, you know what I mean? I am not saying that DC were quiet about this- they did answer the questions they were asked. Once it took off, they kept the speculation going.
But if their intent was to steal thunder away from Astonishing #50, then they actually didn't do a very good job of it, as they could have chosen to go to the press about this sooner, they could have chosen the way to get the ball rolling, and they could have done it early enough to affect orders (remember- Astonishing #50 came out last week, so orders for that were in well before even the first hints of what DC was doing in June started in early May). They even could have had the confirmation that it was a Green Lantern happen last week, or on the same day as that episode of the View, if they wanted to try to compete. They didn't. We got the confirmation today, more than a week after Astonishing #50 became available, and LONG after the Northstar wedding news cycle, whatever it would be, had washed out.
Don't get me wrong, it is not like DC is not patting themselves on the back for flip-flopping on their policy. But the idea that this was done specifically as a clumsy way to steal Marvel's thunder? I just don't think the timing works out right.
Nice way to side-step things DC. "We got an iconic character who is switching orientation; it's Green Lantern. No, not THAT Green Lantern. In factor, he's not even in the GL Corp. Or has a power ring from Oa. Or has ever had a weaken to the color yellow. Or directly involved in the War of the Lanterns. He does use the name, though!"
M
Well, those who want to make hay about these things sure didn't seem to care that a gay Batwoman wasn't Batman, or even Batman's partner or protege. Or that she and Batman didn't shop in the same store, or whatever.
The idea that she had a "Bat" in her name was enough to get some people incensed and some people excited. I don't think anyone cared whether or not she had the same car or butler, or anything like that. The reactions- both negative and positive- will be made to the name no matter what the details are. So I am not sure what is being sidestepped, as they will get both uninformed bad and uninformed good reactions from those that don't understand the details (as they did with Batwoman).
It's the type of move I'd use as a contingency plan. I'd have bought it a little more if it was Kyle, John, or Guy. Alan shares the name, but it's probably not going to be the first GL your casual viewer/reader thinks of. He always seemed like a throwaway GL once they started added John & Guy. It's a way to use the name, without really shaking things up.
I used the same argument with Bruce & his son. Once Bruce came back, he started Batman, Inc so he really wasn't with his son, BUT Damien was still in existence & still Batman, just not THE Batman. You have the character without shaking up Batman's image. Which, from my understanding, is not the situation with the new DCU.
Batwoman was still Kathy Kane. It would be different if the lesbian Batwoman was Sally Sue with no real connection to Gotham, Batman, a completely different type of costume, etc. THAT would appear to be using the name just for marketing. (Remember the Halle Berry Catwoman movie? That's a perrrrfect example.)
I felt like the Northstar story was out there at that point, and what was originally just a character element already planned in Robinson's book found itself turned into an attempt at a wider news story. I think if Marvel hadn't been getting so much attention, Didio's answer would have probably been more restrained than saying it was an "iconic" character.
Also, speaking of timelines-- for those who have suggested that DC did all this just to jump on the bandwagon after the President made his public comments in support of gay marriage, let's look at the timing--
Earth 2 #2 comes out next Wednesday (6/6). The President gave that now-famous interview on May 9th.
Do DC got all that done and in production, ready to print, in less than a month?
What the President said may have changed how they went about answering questions about this, and talking about this. But did it actually make for this story decision in a comic coming out next week? No way.
Also, had they crashed production and just changed a few pages or something to make a rush-change in what Earth 2 #2 would be, you would just know someone involved would end up telling Bleedingcool about it.
I think the more likely thing is that this has been planned for Earth 2 for at least the normal amount of time it takes for a script to get approved and the comic made, if not longer.
And this is, I think, one of the problems plaguing the industry right now - the emphasis has gone almost completely away from the books we buy to the companies that create them.
There was a time when you could be surprised by a reveal in a comic. Supergirl died fighting the anti-monitor. Magneto ripped Wolverine's adamantium out of his body. Terra's a mole agent in the Teen Titans. Spidey's black suit is more than it seems. You found out about these things by...horror of horrors...reading the books, or by hearing it via word of mouth a la "You gotta go get the new X-men book!"
Imagine if you were just reading your copy of Earth 2 without the "benefit" of the internet or DC's massive press junket, and suddenly Alan Scott plants one on another guy. Regardless of your individual feelings about relationships, you'd likely be a little bit floored, maybe want to know more, you'd definitely be telling people about it, etc.
Instead we know all this stuff before the ink is barely dry on the 1st pressing of the issue. We're told...we're expected...to make a big deal out of this, when it really isn't all that big a deal. We hear about issues that will "break the internet in half" or will re-invent the character completely...and seldom is the question asked if that's really what we, as readers, want.
Nice way to side-step things DC. "We got an iconic character who is switching orientation; it's Green Lantern. No, not THAT Green Lantern. In factor, he's not even in the GL Corp. Or has a power ring from Oa. Or has ever had a weaken to the color yellow. Or directly involved in the War of the Lanterns. He does use the name, though!"
M
Well, those who want to make hay about these things sure didn't seem to care that a gay Batwoman wasn't Batman, or even Batman's partner or protege. Or that she and Batman didn't shop in the same store, or whatever.
The idea that she had a "Bat" in her name was enough to get some people incensed and some people excited. I don't think anyone cared whether or not she had the same car or butler, or anything like that. The reactions- both negative and positive- will be made to the name no matter what the details are. So I am not sure what is being sidestepped, as they will get both uninformed bad and uninformed good reactions from those that don't understand the details (as they did with Batwoman).
It's the type of move I'd use as a contingency plan. I'd have bought it a little more if it was Kyle, John, or Guy. Alan shares the name, but it's probably not going to be the first GL your casual viewer/reader thinks of. He always seemed like a throwaway GL once they started added John & Guy. It's a way to use the name, without really shaking things up.
I used the same argument with Bruce & his son. Once Bruce came back, he started Batman, Inc so he really wasn't with his son, BUT Damien was still in existence & still Batman, just not THE Batman. You have the character without shaking up Batman's image. Which, from my understanding, is not the situation with the new DCU.
Batwoman was still Kathy Kane. It would be different if the lesbian Batwoman was Sally Sue with no real connection to Gotham, Batman, a completely different type of costume, etc. THAT would appear to be using the name just for marketing. (Remember the Halle Berry Catwoman movie? That's a perrrrfect example.)
M
But the people who will be shaken up by this-- news sites running blog posts, people who don't read comics commenting on it one way or the other (negative or positive)-- you know, those prone to shaking and shaking others, will be shaken up just by the idea that it is a Green Lantern. I don't think it will matter much to them which one, or on which Earth he lives.
That was certainly the case with Ultimate Spider-Man. He was Spider-Man enough to shake up the types of people who get shaken by these things.
You have a point. I'm assessing this as a reader familiar with the characters verses a news/media/gossip spreader outlets.
Since my post, I was wondering if I'd felt the same way if it's Jay Garrick. He's more of a Flash than Alan is a GL (Jay was a regular in Wally's series), but he doesn't have the same connection with the others (ie not powered by the speed force.)
OMG Green Lantern...!!!!!! I mean #yawn# Alan Scott, a character only half the people who read comics know exists, in a comic that has only about a 101% chance of being retconed back out of existence.. way to make a brave and meaningful stand DC.
Don't get me wrong I have no problem with it.. a characters sexuality doesn't often define who they are in comics. I see no reason to believe this would even be in the top 5 things changed about the Earth 2 GL.
I dug the first issue I very much look forward to the keep reading
Of course I get that creating new characters is more creative than changing old characters. That would be the truly creative choice, no question.
Then that is what they should have done.
(despite the fact that, as readers, we vote against that with our dollars all the time)
That doesn't matter here. A new character or Alan Scott would probably be equally as popular with the masses. In fact the new character would probably have a better chance of succeeding as it doesn't carry the baggage and stigma that the golden age green lantern might.
But isn't changing old characters actually (a little) more creative than just playing IP Museum curator and keeping them all the same?
I don't want them to play "IP Museum" with these characters. I want my characters to change. I want to see them grow and become something more than they were when we first start reading about them. That shows creativity in my opinion. but I don't think changing one's sexual orientation, race, or gender is a small, creative change.
If you want a black green lantern then go out and write about a new character and tell a story about how they got the powers. If you want a female Robin, Asian Atom/Batgirl, gay Batwoman(etc) then do the same. (which they did!)
I think James Robinson would have done better for comics if he had just created a new gay character. That's just my humble opinion.
You have a point. I'm assessing this as a reader familiar with the characters verses a news/media/gossip spreader outlets.
Since my post, I was wondering if I'd felt the same way if it's Jay Garrick. He's more of a Flash than Alan is a GL (Jay was a regular in Wally's series), but he doesn't have the same connection with the others (ie not powered by the speed force.)
M
Got it. I had misunderstood and thought you meant the mainstream perspective, but now I get that you mean from the point of view of a reader familiar with the universe.
I've been thinking about this and I think if they're really serious about bringing diversity to this and they want to change a character's sexual identity, then they need to truly "change" it. Not "Bwah ha ha, Green Lantern...feel the sting of my GAY GUN!" or anything...talk to actual gay men and learn about the prejudices they face, and why many choose not to come out at all...and have those conflicts face the character. Alan Scott is a fairly well known and popular businessman in this book, apparently. Think of the depth you could bring to the character and the book if he finally admitted to himself that he'd been living more than just two lives...but three, and it was time the parse down that number.
I'd be interested in reading something like that over "Oh, and he's gay now." Which is what we seem to be getting...
I've been thinking about this and I think if they're really serious about bringing diversity to this and they want to change a character's sexual identity, then they need to truly "change" it. Not "Bwah ha ha, Green Lantern...feel the sting of my GAY GUN!" or anything...talk to actual gay men and learn about the prejudices they face, and why many choose not to come out at all...and have those conflicts face the character. Alan Scott is a fairly well known and popular businessman in this book, apparently. Think of the depth you could bring to the character and the book if he finally admitted to himself that he'd been living more than just two lives...but three, and it was time the parse down that number.
I'd be interested in reading something like that over "Oh, and he's gay now." Which is what we seem to be getting...
Have you seen the pages they posted?
There are flying cars in the background.
This so-called "Earth-2"* appears to be a more advanced place, perhaps, their society is also sufficiently advanced to the point that being gay just ain't that big a deal.
*They can call it "Earth-2" if they want to... I know better!
I was against Rene Montoya coming out as gay in Gotham Central because I saw it as a stunt to grab some controversy and get readers to pay attention to the book. Turns out, Brubaker wrote one hell of a character--she had a deep and lasting character development, credible and genuine motivation, and in turn it created story possibilities for every writer down the line...
So, yes, I do believe the Alan Scott reveal is a bungled and blatant grab at the news cycle...but if the writer can deliver, who cares? Real characters, written competently, make a fictional universe diverse and interesting. Mainstream comics still have a loooong way to go...but maybe past this hiccup, say next year, we all might say what an awesome character Alan Scott is...a character who happens to be gay, not a "gay character".
*feel free to replace the word "gay" with "black", "asian", "woman", "jew", or any other underrepresented flavor in the text above, as it's just as relevant. I don't understand why comics are 40+ years behind the social curve...
I mention it because Pied Piper is in it. Hes still gay. doesn't appear to be news. i thought Depche Mode took care of this in the 80's. I like james Robinson. I think he develops the hell out of characters. I'm buying this book. Then again, I was buying it before.
Or it gives his weakness to wood a whole new meaning.
Yep, looking around the net, people are already jumping on jokes about his weakness to wood and his green flame. It's like they picked the worse character to be gay. People don't even have to make an effort to ridicule him. It's already there.
Comments
Why don't we have Earth-G be part of the multiverse? :)
Of course I get that creating new characters (despite the fact that, as readers, we vote against that with our dollars all the time) is more creative than changing old characters. That would be the truly creative choice, no question.
But isn't changing old characters actually (a little) more creative than just playing IP Museum curator and keeping them all the same?
M
Still, I think the point stands that even though a younger, gay Alan Scott has not yet fathered Obsidian and Jade doesn't mean that he never will. That door is still open for other creators to tell that story later if they want to.
The idea that she had a "Bat" in her name was enough to get some people incensed and some people excited. I don't think anyone cared whether or not she had the same car or butler, or anything like that. The reactions- both negative and positive- will be made to the name no matter what the details are. So I am not sure what is being sidestepped, as they will get both uninformed bad and uninformed good reactions from those that don't understand the details (as they did with Batwoman).
And I agree it would have been better if the comic had matter-of-factly been released first, and then they could talk about it once it was read.
Though I would argue that, as far as hype goes, how much did DC hype it? Remember the timeline of how it started:
This guy asked a question, trying to get them to address a timid policy when they relaunched the New 52. Now, sure, I suppose if they wanted to let the comic speak for itself, they could have said "No comment", or simply, "that is changing soon." Now, even if they did that, we all know the way this stuff works-- there STILL would have been all the speculation about who it would be, etc. And the answer they gave did not do much more than say that they were changing their minds on that policy in a prominent way in a book next month. And the Internet, and then the old media following suit looking for sensationalism, took it from there.
(And, remember, if this is all for a book that comes out next week, so orders would already have to be in.)
They didn't, for example, book an appearance on The View, you know what I mean? I am not saying that DC were quiet about this- they did answer the questions they were asked. Once it took off, they kept the speculation going.
But if their intent was to steal thunder away from Astonishing #50, then they actually didn't do a very good job of it, as they could have chosen to go to the press about this sooner, they could have chosen the way to get the ball rolling, and they could have done it early enough to affect orders (remember- Astonishing #50 came out last week, so orders for that were in well before even the first hints of what DC was doing in June started in early May). They even could have had the confirmation that it was a Green Lantern happen last week, or on the same day as that episode of the View, if they wanted to try to compete. They didn't. We got the confirmation today, more than a week after Astonishing #50 became available, and LONG after the Northstar wedding news cycle, whatever it would be, had washed out.
Don't get me wrong, it is not like DC is not patting themselves on the back for flip-flopping on their policy. But the idea that this was done specifically as a clumsy way to steal Marvel's thunder? I just don't think the timing works out right.
I used the same argument with Bruce & his son. Once Bruce came back, he started Batman, Inc so he really wasn't with his son, BUT Damien was still in existence & still Batman, just not THE Batman. You have the character without shaking up Batman's image. Which, from my understanding, is not the situation with the new DCU.
Batwoman was still Kathy Kane. It would be different if the lesbian Batwoman was Sally Sue with no real connection to Gotham, Batman, a completely different type of costume, etc. THAT would appear to be using the name just for marketing. (Remember the Halle Berry Catwoman movie? That's a perrrrfect example.)
M
Earth 2 #2 comes out next Wednesday (6/6). The President gave that now-famous interview on May 9th.
Do DC got all that done and in production, ready to print, in less than a month?
What the President said may have changed how they went about answering questions about this, and talking about this. But did it actually make for this story decision in a comic coming out next week? No way.
Also, had they crashed production and just changed a few pages or something to make a rush-change in what Earth 2 #2 would be, you would just know someone involved would end up telling Bleedingcool about it.
I think the more likely thing is that this has been planned for Earth 2 for at least the normal amount of time it takes for a script to get approved and the comic made, if not longer.
There was a time when you could be surprised by a reveal in a comic. Supergirl died fighting the anti-monitor. Magneto ripped Wolverine's adamantium out of his body. Terra's a mole agent in the Teen Titans. Spidey's black suit is more than it seems. You found out about these things by...horror of horrors...reading the books, or by hearing it via word of mouth a la "You gotta go get the new X-men book!"
Imagine if you were just reading your copy of Earth 2 without the "benefit" of the internet or DC's massive press junket, and suddenly Alan Scott plants one on another guy. Regardless of your individual feelings about relationships, you'd likely be a little bit floored, maybe want to know more, you'd definitely be telling people about it, etc.
Instead we know all this stuff before the ink is barely dry on the 1st pressing of the issue. We're told...we're expected...to make a big deal out of this, when it really isn't all that big a deal. We hear about issues that will "break the internet in half" or will re-invent the character completely...and seldom is the question asked if that's really what we, as readers, want.
That was certainly the case with Ultimate Spider-Man. He was Spider-Man enough to shake up the types of people who get shaken by these things.
Since my post, I was wondering if I'd felt the same way if it's Jay Garrick. He's more of a Flash than Alan is a GL (Jay was a regular in Wally's series), but he doesn't have the same connection with the others (ie not powered by the speed force.)
M
Don't get me wrong I have no problem with it.. a characters sexuality doesn't often define who they are in comics. I see no reason to believe this would even be in the top 5 things changed about the Earth 2 GL.
I dug the first issue I very much look forward to the keep reading
She told me that wasn't mentioned in the right up. Love than media spin!
M
If you want a black green lantern then go out and write about a new character and tell a story about how they got the powers. If you want a female Robin, Asian Atom/Batgirl, gay Batwoman(etc) then do the same. (which they did!)
I think James Robinson would have done better for comics if he had just created a new gay character. That's just my humble opinion.
Not that I wont' be reading Earth 2 though. :)
I'd be interested in reading something like that over "Oh, and he's gay now." Which is what we seem to be getting...
There are flying cars in the background.
This so-called "Earth-2"* appears to be a more advanced place, perhaps, their society is also sufficiently advanced to the point that being gay just ain't that big a deal.
*They can call it "Earth-2" if they want to... I know better!
So, yes, I do believe the Alan Scott reveal is a bungled and blatant grab at the news cycle...but if the writer can deliver, who cares? Real characters, written competently, make a fictional universe diverse and interesting. Mainstream comics still have a loooong way to go...but maybe past this hiccup, say next year, we all might say what an awesome character Alan Scott is...a character who happens to be gay, not a "gay character".
*feel free to replace the word "gay" with "black", "asian", "woman", "jew", or any other underrepresented flavor in the text above, as it's just as relevant. I don't understand why comics are 40+ years behind the social curve...