Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Episode 1231 Talkback: Comic Talk

PantsPants Posts: 567
edited May 2012 in CGS Episodes & Spin-Offs
'You can't get off topic if there is no topic to begin with.' We talk about the new Avengers TV show comic from Boom and the second wave of DC's new 52, but there's also a nice story about Jamie on a track. (1:01:26)

Listen here.
«1

Comments

  • John_SteedJohn_Steed Posts: 2,087
    Glad to hear from Jamie. Keep up the fight! The big C is not always winning - I'm now well in my 9th year....

    I love the Comic Talk episodes. Thanks guys :x
  • BlackUmbrellaBlackUmbrella Posts: 208
    Very happy to hear a good health report for Jamie D.

    I'm trying to think of the last time I heard a filmmaker or author staging a big press announcement to say that a film or book will include a homosexual character. I think this says a lot about comics today and what people (including the publishers, apparently) think of them: kids' stuff, plain and simple.
  • wordballoonwordballoon Posts: 87
    edited May 2012
    100% with Pants on The Johnny Carson love. It's interesting to watch how all of the former Tonight show/late night hosts "did it" . Paar & Steve Allen in particular, but Carson outshined them all.
  • KyleMoyerKyleMoyer Posts: 727
    I'm trying to think of the last time I heard a filmmaker or author staging a big press announcement to say that a film or book will include a homosexual character. I think this says a lot about comics today and what people (including the publishers, apparently) think of them: kids' stuff, plain and simple.
    I think that's a very unfair comparison for two reasons.

    1. That isn't quite the same thing. Introducing a new gay character is a different thing than turning a pre-existing character gay. If the next James Bond movie featured a gay James Bond you can bet it would be getting a lot more press than this DC announcement. There were no press releases regarding the creation of new characters in the Young Avengers who were gay that I know of.
    2. Quick. Name me one big budget blockbuster that featured a gay male character that was not comic relief. If you can name one I'm surprised. In that respect, the comic industry is well ahead of its equivalent in the film world.
  • Very happy to hear a good health report for Jamie D.

    I'm trying to think of the last time I heard a filmmaker or author staging a big press announcement to say that a film or book will include a homosexual character. I think this says a lot about comics today and what people (including the publishers, apparently) think of them: kids' stuff, plain and simple.
    In the case of Archie, they are kids' stuff... I find it really disturbing, in a way, that Archie so heavily promoted their token gay character. I didn't think of ANY of the Archie characters as having a "sexual preference", since sex doesn't exist in Riverdale, or in the minds of the 9 year old Archie readers. To "open a dialogue" about sexual preference is to open one about sex itself, which, at best, is inappropriate for kids' comics.

    Now, for Didio/DC to pull this stunt:

    A, someone beat you to it.
    B, have some self-respect, man. Shameless pandering to any social or political group is completely demeaning.
    C, enjoy the 15 minutes of fame this will buy you, for tomorrow, comics will be forgotten again in the eyes of those you are trying to get the attention of.
    D, I am not surprised.

    Now, if this were an "organic" plot thread in a character's development, I'm on board. But it's not. Those don't tend to get announced at a comic con, teaser-style, with the sole purpose of setting forums ablaze.
  • I'm trying to think of the last time I heard a filmmaker or author staging a big press announcement to say that a film or book will include a homosexual character. I think this says a lot about comics today and what people (including the publishers, apparently) think of them: kids' stuff, plain and simple.
    I think that's a very unfair comparison for two reasons.

    1. That isn't quite the same thing. Introducing a new gay character is a different thing than turning a pre-existing character gay. If the next James Bond movie featured a gay James Bond you can bet it would be getting a lot more press than this DC announcement. There were no press releases regarding the creation of new characters in the Young Avengers who were gay that I know of.
    2. Quick. Name me one big budget blockbuster that featured a gay male character that was not comic relief. If you can name one I'm surprised. In that respect, the comic industry is well ahead of its equivalent in the film world.
    Well, JK Rowling has said that Dumbledore is gay. And, the fact that his "gayness" wasn't apparent in the movies, is pretty realistic, I think. I am sure there are gay people here in my office that don't discuss it, just as we don't really talk about sex, or preferences, thereof, in general.
  • KyleMoyerKyleMoyer Posts: 727
    just as we don't really talk about sex, or preferences, thereof, in general.
    You work at a very different place than I do.
  • KyleMoyerKyleMoyer Posts: 727
    Regarding Dumbledore though, that kinda proves my point actually because when she did come out about it, it WAS in the news. I saw plenty of headlines about it and I don't even really follow the Harry Potter world other than seeing the movies and reading the first few books.
  • Oh, and to Jamie:

    Glad to hear you are well, brother. I, too, am diabetic, and can understand the problems of dealing with that ON TOP of your other issues. I was truly happy for you when you got to travel to England, and have been rooting for you all along. Hang in there, and stay well.
  • Regarding Dumbledore though, that kinda proves my point actually because when she did come out about it, it WAS in the news. I saw plenty of headlines about it and I don't even really follow the Harry Potter world other than seeing the movies and reading the first few books.
    just as we don't really talk about sex, or preferences, thereof, in general.
    You work at a very different place than I do.
    I work at a video game company, with lots of "rough talk", swearing, and yo momma jokes... but there are still sexual harassment laws, and general decorum is to tread lightly around those issues. My company is very forward thinking on such issues, extending benefits to "partners" of employees, both homo- and hetero-. No one really talks about sexual adventures, conquests or preferences.
  • ElsiebubElsiebub Posts: 338
    As others have said, it's good to hear good news about Jamie D's health. You probably don't need me to tell you this, my man, but there are a lot of people who barely interact with you guys online, who have never met you at cons, who have never spoken to you--but we are all pulling for you and thinking of you and wishing you the best always. Great to hear that you're doing so well!
    In the case of Archie, they are kids' stuff... I find it really disturbing, in a way, that Archie so heavily promoted their token gay character. I didn't think of ANY of the Archie characters as having a "sexual preference", since sex doesn't exist in Riverdale, or in the minds of the 9 year old Archie readers. To "open a dialogue" about sexual preference is to open one about sex itself, which, at best, is inappropriate for kids' comics.

    Now, for Didio/DC to pull this stunt:

    A, someone beat you to it.
    B, have some self-respect, man. Shameless pandering to any social or political group is completely demeaning.
    C, enjoy the 15 minutes of fame this will buy you, for tomorrow, comics will be forgotten again in the eyes of those you are trying to get the attention of.
    D, I am not surprised.

    Now, if this were an "organic" plot thread in a character's development, I'm on board. But it's not. Those don't tend to get announced at a comic con, teaser-style, with the sole purpose of setting forums ablaze.
    I wonder how many kids actually read Archie anymore. I could be off-base, but from what I see it tends to be adults around the age of 40, who still like Archie from their childhood. Same as most comics.

    I share your concern about whether or not such developments are "organic" or not. And it isn't a racial/sexual thing: I felt the same way about character-switches back in the '80s and '90s, when it was straight white male characters being replaced by other straight white male characters. Usually these identity shifts seem pretty gimmicky and forced to me, an excuse for media hype. Then again, I like how DC has handled the Kate Kane Batwoman, so they do have a pretty good track record imo.

    Really, I think the only thing to complain about regarding things like this is how nauseating the media coverage can be (I mean both pro and con coverage). The actual comics are what matter. The new Ultimate Spider-Man, which got tons of coverage for being a minority character? GREAT comic. GREAT character. Couldn't stand the initial media coverage, though, with Marvel all but insisting this was the most important pop culture event of all time and that anyone who didn't enthusiastically support the comic was probably a racist.

    So I just take a wait-and-see approach to all this. I'm usually skeptical but cautiously optimistic about every new development in mainstream comics, though.
  • bustybusty Posts: 104
    Nice to hear Jamie doing so well,however this sounds like the death nell of a once great show,just my opinion.
  • KyleMoyerKyleMoyer Posts: 727
    Nice to hear Jamie doing so well,however this sounds like the death nell of a once great show,just my opinion.
    huh?
  • bustybusty Posts: 104
    Come on you can't tell me that its as entertaining as it was,and I know Pants is holding it together.And I did say its my opinion.
  • KyleMoyerKyleMoyer Posts: 727
    Come on you can't tell me that its as entertaining as it was,and I know Pants is holding it together.And I did say its my opinion.
    For one thing, I was trying to figure out what that had to do with Jamie doing so well.
    And for another, I'm not sure I really can agree with you. It's a different podcast, and overall there were definitely things I liked better about the way it used to be. But from the beginning, there were always episodes that just didn't do it for me. The difference though is that now those episodes are still entertaining, just not quite for me. Back in the day, they used to do more creator interviews, but the problem was that a good chunk of the interviews were either boring people being interviewed and sometimes it was as clear that the geeks were as bored as me. I used to listen to the show at work and some episodes I had to skip because it was getting so hard to stay alert and concentrate on my work.

    On the other hand, when the show was good, it was great. So I would say that the old CGS had more highs and lows. The highs were a bit higher than they are now (although really not by all that much), but the lows were much lower. Unfortunately, nostalgia always causes us to compare the current lows with the old highs.
  • bustybusty Posts: 104
    Maybe it was peters and Brian's enthusiasm,loved the idea of a bunch of friends just chatting,now it seems like its a chore,anyway I'm not going to argue with you you have your opinion I have mine :)
  • KyleMoyerKyleMoyer Posts: 727
    I need my weekly dose of overexcited Pants, weary Mike, metaphysical Murd, sensitive Shane, smug Matt and of course the battle-wise Jamie. Sometimes we even get good old grumpy Bry.
    I love it!
  • bustybusty Posts: 104
    Only sometimes :-S
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,457
    Maybe it was peters and Brian's enthusiasm,loved the idea of a bunch of friends just chatting,now it seems like its a chore,anyway I'm not going to argue with you you have your opinion I have mine :)
    Ugh, here we go again. Can I put a vote in for shutting everything down?! I feel like I'm stuck in the Twilight Zone with the same repeat airing.

    M
  • bustybusty Posts: 104
    It's ok you'll get loads coming on declaring their love for cgs so don't worry hun.
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,457
    It's ok you'll get loads coming on declaring their love for cgs so don't worry hun.
    Trust me, it's not worth the hassle!

    M
  • LibraryBoyLibraryBoy Posts: 1,803
    I remember saying the same thing about the Ellen coming out episode back when that happened... it's great that she can say that, but why the big deal? A girl I was friends with who had taken a lot of crap for coming out in her teens explained it to me this way: although the open-mindedness I was expressing then (and people like Jamie and everyone on the show now) was a good thing, it was far from a universal constant, and the fact that someone could say openly in public that they were gay and not fear public reprisal or, worse, physical violence, was kind of a big deal, because for a long, long time, that wasn't the case. Public acceptance is about saying this is who I am and having it be accepted as perfectly normal. And, sadly, recent news stories show that we're a long damn way from that. So this sort of thing will continue to be really loud and really public until people realize that yeah, it's normal, it's not going away, and that society won't crumble if we maybe treat gay people like, you know, people.

    As for why you do this with an existing character instead of a new one, well, you create a new gay character, then that's what they are: The New Gay Character. The sexuality becomes the character's defining trait. Remember all that puerile "lipstick lesbian" stuff in the press when Batwoman was introduced? Luckily Kate Kane had some awesome writers in her corner to help define her character beyond that, but for a good long time, any media attention she got was basically all about potential hot girl-on-girl bat action. You take a pre-existing character, and a lot of that stigma goes away. Instead of Gay Superhero, you get Superhero who Happens to be Gay.

    (And nevermind the fact that for all intents and purposes these are ALL new characters in DC right now, anyway!)

    As for who it will be, I know there are a lot of Tim/Connor shippers out there who are begging for it to be Tim Drake. I've also seen a few people speculate about Alan Scott. I say make a big damn statement and have it be Superman. It would guarantee front page coverage, it would be a strong statement about just how mainstream and normal they think this thing should be, and it would certainly justify their stance about him not being with Lois this go-round! It'd never happen, but hey, go big or go home, right?
  • KyleMoyerKyleMoyer Posts: 727
    As for why you do this with an existing character instead of a new one, well, you create a new gay character, then that's what they are: The New Gay Character. The sexuality becomes the character's defining trait. Remember all that puerile "lipstick lesbian" stuff in the press when Batwoman was introduced? Luckily Kate Kane had some awesome writers in her corner to help define her character beyond that, but for a good long time, any media attention she got was basically all about potential hot girl-on-girl bat action. You take a pre-existing character, and a lot of that stigma goes away. Instead of Gay Superhero, you get Superhero who Happens to be Gay.
    And it won't be the same way with a pre-existing character? I think with a pre-existing character, it's likely to be an even bigger deal because all of a sudden (this person) is gay. That's a much bigger media storm (assuming they're not exaggerating about it being an iconic character) than making a new gay character.
    As for who it will be, I know there are a lot of Tim/Connor shippers out there who are begging for it to be Tim Drake. I've also seen a few people speculate about Alan Scott. I say make a big damn statement and have it be Superman. It would guarantee front page coverage, it would be a strong statement about just how mainstream and normal they think this thing should be, and it would certainly justify their stance about him not being with Lois this go-round! It'd never happen, but hey, go big or go home, right?
    Meh. The Lois/Clark dynamic is too much a part of who Superman is. The reason they're not together this go-round is because she's not interested. I've only read the first Superman issue, but his mannerisms at the end of that issue were not those of a gay man, they were those of a man who's getting rejected by someone he's really interested in. If you want to go big, make it Batman. For one thing, Batman is arguably bigger in the general public than Superman right now anyway. For another, while I don't completely buy it, it does fit the character a little bit more. And also, it might mean we finally get rid of the mandatory love interest in Batman movies that doesn't serve the plot.

    Keep in mind though that I'm not advocating Batman either. The problem with both of them is kinda summed up in your argument for them. It becomes a strong statement. Which isn't a bad thing necessarily, but in this context, the character disappears and they become a statement instead. It would be done for shock value. Which of course is what it already feels like, but this would make it even moreso.
  • CalibanCaliban Posts: 1,358
    Hazel? Is that you?

    Oh, and it's knell not nell.

    A death Nell was what did for Charles II
  • There has to be at least a Hazel on every new forum reboot.
  • DARDAR Posts: 1,128
    Jamie very happy to hear we are doing well. It's funny whatever our interests might be, comics, movies, games, sports, whatever. We gripe about changes done to a character, or a creator leaves a show. Or your star player gets traded. But what you went through puts things in perspective and let's you know what's really important in this world
  • LibraryBoyLibraryBoy Posts: 1,803

    And it won't be the same way with a pre-existing character? I think with a pre-existing character, it's likely to be an even bigger deal because all of a sudden (this person) is gay. That's a much bigger media storm (assuming they're not exaggerating about it being an iconic character) than making a new gay character.
    Oh, it'll be a big deal at first, much the same way it is in real life when someone comes out after having been married or something. Not everyone is certain of their sexual identity from an early age. So yeah, initial confusion from people, maybe, but eventual acceptance by most, and anyone else who'd put up a stink about it frankly isn't worth the effort of thinking about. Besides, most of the opposition seems to be coming from people who'll stop caring once it's dropped in favor of the next news cycle topic (that awful Million Moms group, for instance, which gives both motherhood and the number 1,000,000 a bad rap).

  • JamieDJamieD Posts: 210
    Busty, welcome and hells bells they all cant be great, and I felt it as we recorded it but its far from a Death knell. Glad to see you liked the Marvel in the 2000"s
  • bustybusty Posts: 104
    Love u Jamie,x
Sign In or Register to comment.