my only problem with Alan Scott being homosexual is that it probably means no jade or obsidian.
There are homosexuals who have fathered children. In fact, IIRC, their original conception was under less than traditional circumstances. As it is, this Alan Scott is considerably younger than his predecessor, so we'd be waiting a while for Jade and Obsidian anyway.
Incidentally, I know Alan is the odds on favourite right now, but if the story is supposed to be in June, he doesn't appear as Green Lantern until July. So if it's supposed to be someone we haven't seen yet, coming out in June, neither of his identities qualify.
I'm an evangelical Christian. I think it's fairly telling that comic books have featured major characters violating Christian sexual ethics seven ways to Sunday since the 70s, but only when it ventures into this territory do groups of this kind go to war.
That is such a great point. I used to be a hard core christian minister. There was a time when I was very homophobic. I came to the realization that I had been whipped into a frenzied bigotry because there was NOTHING that was close to the level of...well, let's be honest, hatred, directed at say fornication or even adultery. If the Christian community would invest as much time, energy, and money into the sick, abused, hurting, hungry, and alone as they do trying to stop gay people from sharing insurance benefits and spousal rights the world would be a better place. It's really sad.
I've been wondering would making a character switch orientation, will that really make the comic sell more? Will gay people buy the comics with the character because he's gay? If so, wouldn't that be as shallow as me buying Batman, Flash, & Superman because they're all Caucasian males?
Let's say it is Alan Scott. If he gets his own series, there about a dozen reasons I wouldn't get it without thinking about his sexual orientation (note THAT wouldn't keep me from buying anyway.) So, does that mean on the reverse side, people would buy the comic because 1.) he's gay, than the other reasons?
How many of you will/will not buy the comic because the iconic character has changed orientation?
M
Matt, I understand what you are saying but I think there is a difference insomuch as we are inundated with white dudes in movies and media all the time.
If you ever go watch a movie in a theater with a predominately black audience, you will become acutely aware of how different the people on the screen look from the people in the theater, and often even how the few black characters may be presented. This has happened to me a couple times and it was eye opening.
I don't think it's shallow minded for someone to support something because it has a character that looks like them and is under represented in the entertainment world.
As for whether I'll read it or not? That will depend entirely on how it's done. They threw a Latino kid in the Blue Beetle suit (old Universe) and a black kid in the Spiderman suit and the stories were were good reading. DC did Mr. Terrific and Static in the nU, both were characters I wanted to support but the terrible writing ran me off pretty quickly.
my only problem with Alan Scott being homosexual is that it probably means no jade or obsidian.
There are homosexuals who have fathered children. In fact, IIRC, their original conception was under less than traditional circumstances. As it is, this Alan Scott is considerably younger than his predecessor, so we'd be waiting a while for Jade and Obsidian anyway.
Incidentally, I know Alan is the odds on favourite right now, but if the story is supposed to be in June, he doesn't appear as Green Lantern until July. So if it's supposed to be someone we haven't seen yet, coming out in June, neither of his identities qualify.
If the rumor is true, I don't mind it. James Robinson has shown he can write these characters in the past (both gay men AND Golden Age characters). And since the Golden Age heroes are a complete blank slate now, it might be a good story decision.
(yeah, I'm really grateful it wasn't Rob Liefeld or Chuck Dixon...)
my only problem with Alan Scott being homosexual is that it probably means no jade or obsidian.
There are homosexuals who have fathered children. In fact, IIRC, their original conception was under less than traditional circumstances. As it is, this Alan Scott is considerably younger than his predecessor, so we'd be waiting a while for Jade and Obsidian anyway.
Incidentally, I know Alan is the odds on favourite right now, but if the story is supposed to be in June, he doesn't appear as Green Lantern until July. So if it's supposed to be someone we haven't seen yet, coming out in June, neither of his identities qualify.
i said probably
I think probably was already the case anyway, considering the reframing of the Justice Society's ages. Like Wetrats said, if they do return, they just might not be legacy characters anymore.
Hmmmm. I kinda feel about this the same way I feel about sexuality in Doctor Who. For the original series I felt like the character was largely asexual. It didn't come up (no pun intended) which was appropriate for a children's show. I guess I can't say that is the case for comics though because they've been writing for adults for decades. I just don't see what the big deal is. Northstar has been gay for better than 20 years. I don't think it's news. I don't want this shoehorned onto an existing character in a way that doesn't make sense. Create a new character. I think that was an in incoherent ramble. Sorry.
New characters don't tend to hang around in a primary role in Big Two universes for very long, as a rule of thumb. Hanging this on an established character, at least in theory, means that there already is an existing fan base for said character.
I'm with David D. on the "witholding judgement until I read the book" idea. Sure, it's a gimmick. Sure, it's designed to sell books. But who knows? In the right hands it just might make sense and it just might be done well...or not.
I'm with David D. on the "witholding judgement until I read the book" idea. Sure, it's a gimmick. Sure, it's designed to sell books. But who knows? In the right hands it just might make sense and it just might be done well...or not.
but that is not what the Internet is for..... Judging before you read/watch/listen to it? Why else would the Internet exist? Don't tell me the ol' scienctists @ CERN didn't gossip/chat about each other under assumed fake avatars. That was the second thing they did...
I'm with David D. on the "witholding judgement until I read the book" idea. Sure, it's a gimmick. Sure, it's designed to sell books. But who knows? In the right hands it just might make sense and it just might be done well...or not.
but that is not what the Internet is for..... Judging before you read/watch/listen to it? Why else would the Internet exist? Don't tell me the ol' scienctists @ CERN didn't gossip/chat about each other under assumed fake avatars. That was the second thing they did...
I'm with David D. on the "witholding judgement until I read the book" idea. Sure, it's a gimmick. Sure, it's designed to sell books. But who knows? In the right hands it just might make sense and it just might be done well...or not.
but that is not what the Internet is for..... Judging before you read/watch/listen to it? Why else would the Internet exist? Don't tell me the ol' scienctists @ CERN didn't gossip/chat about each other under assumed fake avatars. That was the second thing they did...
I'm with David D. on the "witholding judgement until I read the book" idea. Sure, it's a gimmick. Sure, it's designed to sell books. But who knows? In the right hands it just might make sense and it just might be done well...or not.
but that is not what the Internet is for..... Judging before you read/watch/listen to it? Why else would the Internet exist? Don't tell me the ol' scienctists @ CERN didn't gossip/chat about each other under assumed fake avatars. That was the second thing they did...
The first was porn.
And the third was downloading music?
and fourth was blogging about #1-3
And the fifth was spamming...I mean, advertising ways to make easy money from home.
If the Christian community would invest as much time, energy, and money into the sick, abused, hurting, hungry, and alone as they do trying to stop gay people from sharing insurance benefits and spousal rights the world would be a better place.
If the Christian community would invest as much time, energy, and money into the sick, abused, hurting, hungry, and alone as they do trying to stop gay people from sharing insurance benefits and spousal rights the world would be a better place.
We can dream, can't we?!
It always baffles me when I see someone like, say, Rick Santorum, managing to recall every passage in the Bible that references sexuality, yet never referencing the ones related to helping the poor and the sick, or about not engaging in violence, not judging people, etc.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but seriously, that's how you're going to prioritize things? I've read sizable chunks of the Bible over the years, and the sexual morality stuff is such a small part of the overall work that I would feel silly devoting that much emphasis to it. It would be like going on and on about the parts that say you shouldn't eat shellfish, or that women should leave the village during their period.
That's interesting. It does change things with the character. Will that mean that Jade and Obsidian won't be a thing that happens in the comic? I can imagine they wouldn't exist anyway since it looks like this JSA will be a the beginning of their careers. Unless they are exist in some other manner. Maybe they won't be related to Alan in this existence. I don't see it as being a big deal. I thought the first issue of this series was really quite amazing and I am trusting James Robinson that he'll do a good job going forward.
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.
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.
Comments
Incidentally, I know Alan is the odds on favourite right now, but if the story is supposed to be in June, he doesn't appear as Green Lantern until July. So if it's supposed to be someone we haven't seen yet, coming out in June, neither of his identities qualify.
"So. Come down to the cave. And see where I shave. I see you shiver in Bat-tici-pation."
Matt, I understand what you are saying but I think there is a difference insomuch as we are inundated with white dudes in movies and media all the time.
If you ever go watch a movie in a theater with a predominately black audience, you will become acutely aware of how different the people on the screen look from the people in the theater, and often even how the few black characters may be presented. This has happened to me a couple times and it was eye opening.
I don't think it's shallow minded for someone to support something because it has a character that looks like them and is under represented in the entertainment world.
As for whether I'll read it or not? That will depend entirely on how it's done. They threw a Latino kid in the Blue Beetle suit (old Universe) and a black kid in the Spiderman suit and the stories were were good reading. DC did Mr. Terrific and Static in the nU, both were characters I wanted to support but the terrible writing ran me off pretty quickly.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=60524
(yeah, I'm really grateful it wasn't Rob Liefeld or Chuck Dixon...)
And 2.99!
The first was porn.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but seriously, that's how you're going to prioritize things? I've read sizable chunks of the Bible over the years, and the sexual morality stuff is such a small part of the overall work that I would feel silly devoting that much emphasis to it. It would be like going on and on about the parts that say you shouldn't eat shellfish, or that women should leave the village during their period.
Newsarama
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.