iceman is one of my fave characters... this sucks... not that anything is wrong with being gay... just sucks that they have to change him so much...
Well... to be fair, now you have a different version of the same character to enjoy. Maybe the "original" (current? old?) Iceman will remain the same as always? (time travel makes my head hurt)
iceman is one of my fave characters... this sucks... not that anything is wrong with being gay... just sucks that they have to change him so much...
Well... to be fair, now you have a different version of the same character to enjoy. Maybe the "original" (current? old?) Iceman will remain the same as always? (time travel makes my head hurt)
I knew it! The Doctor always secretly had a thing for Captain Jack!
Why doesn't he make Jessica Jones gay? Probably because that would crap on established continuity and be inconsistent with a character he created. Wouldn't want that.
Why doesn't he make Jessica Jones gay? Probably because that would crap on established continuity and be inconsistent with a character he created. Wouldn't want that.
She's a woman, in a mixed marriage, with a biracial child, whose entire pre-history is full of soft retcons that altered established continuity. He probably felt like she'd had enough boxes ticked.
Why doesn't he make Jessica Jones gay? Probably because that would crap on established continuity and be inconsistent with a character he created. Wouldn't want that.
She's a woman, in a mixed marriage, with a biracial child, whose entire pre-history is full of soft retcons that altered established continuity. He probably felt like she'd had enough boxes ticked.
And she probably has had more story exploring and establishing her straight love life in her first 30 issues than Bobby Drake has had in his first 30 years.
Well, OK, the point was more about him taking a character he's created and retconning their history...something I doubt he'd ever do.
Probably not. If they are a character he created, then they are likely who he wanted them to be in the first place.
And I don't think that is a comment on Bendis. I would be hard pressed to think of any creator retconing a history they made up in the first place. It is up to the other creators to do that. And others will. That's the game.
The more likely thing is that Bendis has seen characters he's created for the Marvel Universe-- like Jessica Jones, Maria Hill, Daisy Johnson, Miles Morales-- written by other people. And maybe saying or doing things he would never have them do. In some cases, in comics and across other media. But that's how it goes. These characters, if they succeed, get shared for decades. I haven't read this story yet, but if this is a retcon, then it is just one of maybe dozens, large and small, on the shelves this month. This is just the one that is getting all the attention, as it presses some buttons for people.
But these characters are not consistent or fixed in their histories. They never have been. An argument could be made that they were never meant to be.
And if you read the story and don't like the choice he made, then fair enough. Not all retcons or spins on identity are a good idea. Some things don't work. This might end up being a bad character choice. But I think the process of trying to find spins on long-lived characters has been the job at Marvel for a long time. You can hate the play he's making, but Bendis is playing the same game that everyone else he works with is. And, I am sure, he knows and expects the same will happen with the characters he has created and doesn't own at Marvel, if they have staying power. Because that is the game.
I haven't read the comic yet, but a few things come to mind:
1) Jean Grey has been shown to not have a lot of boundaries with her powers, and this could be another case of her screwing up people's lives due to the lack of boundaries.
2) There has been fan speculation as to Iceman being gay since the 70's. And in the 90's, a lot of X-Men writers played with it
3) Time travel is broken and we still don't know how and why that works.
4) Orange soda rarely has any actual orange juice in it. OK, I just put that there to see if you are paying attention
5) With modern Bobby not being gay, it's pretty clear that there's more to come and this is just the start of a subplot.
did whilce portacio invent the iceman ice effect that people still use today? it's the first time i recall his ice powers being drawn that way... with the circle of ice around his hands...
My take-away is that it's just another form of lazy writing. The industry sometimes appears overly concerned with diversity to the point that they handle the LGBT community with kid-gloves - and to mixed results. I remember back when the big announcement was that the 'Green Lantern is Gay' and DC was even putting him in an interracial, same-sex relationship, very similar to Northstar’s relationship, but gay activists were bothered when Alan Scott's boyfriend was disposed of because he was a non-white character. SO it wasn't exactly the "win" DC had probably hoped for. Remember the dust-up over NBC not keeping Constantine's bisexuality intact? And how many of us doubt that if Superman, Wonder Woman, or Captain America came out as gay, that somehow they wouldn't eventually revert back to straight? Similar to when Lois Lane became a black woman during in the bronze age. Which is why I believe, if diversity is such a major concern, then they should introduce the LGBT character / hero - or the racially diverse team member, instead of retconning it in like this. Retcons are rarely, if ever, well-received.
And certainly the publishers are well aware that this kind of change is a bit off-putting to continuity wonks, and even to many readers of religious faiths. But along with most current readers, the attitude towards them is "damn anyone who has a problem" with these sexuality swaps. Or worse, if you don't like it, "you must be a bigot." It seems today's pop culture is more concerned with normalizing gay people into the broader culture, or at least pandering to it, than in holding decades of established history as anything worth honoring or maintaining. Get used to it.
So, while some people may have been upset in the 70's with the way the Falcon was portrayed sometimes, it was a reflection of the culture at the time, or at least what the comic creators believed it to be. Does anyone remember the embarrassing portrayal of the Rawhide Kid as a gay cowboy in his Max series from about ten years ago? This Iceman sexuality shift is just a reflection of what the writers believe the culture desires, or needs, at this period in time and Bobby Drake isn't important enough of a character for the editors to say "no way" to such a change. The activists may go on to demand more important characters- next time. Either way, we have to accept that these characters do not belong to us fans. They belong to the corporations that produce the books or the creator(s) that created them. If these publishers want to expand or even narrow their properties' appeal to fit certain ideals, who are we to do anything but bitch about it if we don't like it?
Would that mean a woman trying to date Bruce Jenner is really gay?!
M
Depends...we don't know what Bruce was telling people about his state of mind or his personal identity. Cloud was a character that all of the Defenders knew had a male and female form. It was one of those things that I had no idea how it got through Marvel's homophobic editorial back in the early 80's or the Comic Code.
The Lobdell scene is pretty telling; I don't remember it (like a lot of the 90's comics I read--need to re-read those). It's the only one that's a strong hint, in my opinion. The rest could be written off as Bobby trying to be a jokester or being immature.
What I find really funny is that Chuck Austen didn't try to make him gay. Austen was all about the sexual subplots in the X-Men and here was an opportunity. But he didn't go for it. (I think Northstar would know if Bobby was gay or not, so when he said Bobby was straight, I believe that was Austen's statement).
My take-away is that it's just another form of lazy writing.
You've read the issue?
You may retort I'm just a lazy reader, but I don't believe one needs to read the entire issue to get the gist. Several panels in preview pages can be enough of a taste to get the flavor of the dish, so to speak. Plus, I'm familiar with Bendis's penchant for tweaking canon and ignoring established history to fit into his stories - a form of lazy writing.
My take-away is that it's just another form of lazy writing.
You've read the issue?
You may retort I'm just a lazy reader, but I don't believe one needs to read the entire issue to get the gist. Several panels in preview pages can be enough of a taste to get the flavor of the dish, so to speak. Plus, I'm familiar with Bendis's penchant for tweaking canon and ignoring established history to fit into his stories - a form of lazy writing.
No, if you are judging the writing of a book you haven't read, I wouldn't call that being a lazy reader. Because that would mean you've actually read it at all.
You've read what other people have said about this. And seen some excerpts others chose for you. And then joined the conversation about a comic available to read you haven't read. And from that you have a "takeaway". You're going to tell us what the historical and cultural context is. And who is behind this or that agenda. And who is or isn't lazy.
And you are in good company. This is probably true of the majority, positive and negative, talking about this online. Another typical day in Web 2.0 comics fandom.
If you feel that a few panels is enough to judge writing by, well, that's your right. God bless America. But it is also judgment without investigation or context. I don't judge that as lazy, as it is not your job to read comics. Just uninformed.
did whilce portacio invent the iceman ice effect that people still use today? it's the first time i recall his ice powers being drawn that way... with the circle of ice around his hands...
For some reason, I always thought that look for Iceman's powers was developed by Walt Simonson, but this is the closest I can find to back up my theory;
You've read what other people have said about this. And seen some excerpts others chose for you. And then joined the conversation about a comic available to read you haven't read. And from that you have a "takeaway". You're going to tell us what the historical and cultural context is. And who is behind this or that agenda. And who is or isn't lazy
If you feel that a few panels is enough to judge writing by, well, that's your right. God bless America. But it is also judgment without investigation or context. I don't judge that as lazy, as it is not your job to read comics. Just uninformed.
@David_D I can assure you that I'm not the only person that can tell you if I'll like a dish from one bite, sometimes even by how it smells. Am I an uninformed eater? I can often tell if I would like a movie after watching the trailers. And if I walked out of a terrible movie before it ended and told my friend that "it sucked," would you call me uninformed too? I make most my comic purchases based on the solicit two months early. So, no I don't think one has to consume the entire item to know whether or not they will enjoy it. At least I don't.
Case in point, I've already seen enough of JRjr's work to know I don't care for it, and can tell you why. The Superman preview pages were enough to affirm my opinion which still stands. I'm also very familiar with BMB's work (some I've liked, some I didn't) and I can read the previews that have been put out already. I've concluded that he very often employs "lazy writing" and I lumped that in with many examples of 'gender-bending' and 'race-bending' that publishers have used to sensationalize their product so they get an increase in sales. I never said anyone had "an agenda," it's simply the cultural zeitgeist that's happening in popular culture. That's my takeaway, then you judged me for it.
By the way, what I meant by "takeaway" is basically the point or idea emerging from a discussion or meeting. Not sure it adds much to the enjoyment when forum moderators consider it their duty to give other comic fans a hard time about how they reach their conclusions or opinions, but as you reminded us, it's a free country. You don't have to like my viewpoints either.
A dish and a story are two different things. I would never judge Star Wars by the scene where Luke whines about not getting to hang out with his friends.
You've read what other people have said about this. And seen some excerpts others chose for you. And then joined the conversation about a comic available to read you haven't read. And from that you have a "takeaway". You're going to tell us what the historical and cultural context is. And who is behind this or that agenda. And who is or isn't lazy
If you feel that a few panels is enough to judge writing by, well, that's your right. God bless America. But it is also judgment without investigation or context. I don't judge that as lazy, as it is not your job to read comics. Just uninformed.
@David_D I can assure you that I'm not the only person that can tell you if I'll like a dish from one bite, sometimes even by how it smells. Am I an uninformed eater? I can often tell if I would like a movie after watching the trailers. And if I walked out of a terrible movie before it ended and told my friend that "it sucked," would you call me uninformed too? I make most my comic purchases based on the solicit two months early. So, no I don't think one has to consume the entire item to know whether or not they will enjoy it. At least I don't.
Case in point, I've already seen enough of JRjr's work to know I don't care for it, and can tell you why. The Superman preview pages were enough to affirm my opinion which still stands. I'm also very familiar with BMB's work (some I've liked, some I didn't) and I can read the previews that have been put out already. I've concluded that he very often employs "lazy writing" and I lumped that in with many examples of 'gender-bending' and 'race-bending' that publishers have used to sensationalize their product so they get an increase in sales. I never said anyone had "an agenda," it's simply the cultural zeitgeist that's happening in popular culture. That's my takeaway, then you judged me for it.
By the way, what I meant by "takeaway" is basically the point or idea emerging from a discussion or meeting. Not sure it adds much to the enjoyment when forum moderators consider it their duty to give other comic fans a hard time about how they reach their conclusions or opinions, but as you reminded us, it's a free country. You don't have to like my viewpoints either.
What I challenged is whether one can pass a value judgment on writing when one hasn't read it. We can have different standards on what is or isn't an informed conclusion. But, simply put, my opinion is that stories aren't stews. A taste of a dish is informative. A few panels of a larger story, and then judging the writer who has been working with this character for 40 issues based on that "taste"? Less than a single, 20 page issue? My opinion is that is not enough for a value judgment like that. At least, not one I consider informed.
And if you disagree and feel confident you can call out who's lazy and who isn't from a page or two of content then so it goes.
And for the accusation that this is moderators vs. comic fans? Rubbish. I am clearly engaging in a discussion speaking only for myself. Clearly at no point this was about rules. So let's skip the persecution narratives.
OK - odd idea that came to me as I am reading the Avengers stuff to get reeady for Secret Wars:
The rules of the Marvel Universe used to be that you can't time travel back to your own past, but your travel can affect your timeline (all explained in ruthless detail by Roy Thomas back in FF Annual #11, Marvel 2 in 1 Annual #1 and M2in1 #20) so...the X-Men can't go back to the past...maybe it's because that past no longer exists. It was destroyed in an incursion.
What I challenged is whether one can pass a value judgment on writing when one hasn't read it. We can have different standards on what is or isn't an informed conclusion. But, simply put, my opinion is that stories aren't stews. A taste of a dish is informative. A few panels of a larger story, and then judging the writer who has been working with this character for 40 issues based on that "taste"? Less than a single, 20 page issue? My opinion is that is not enough for a value judgment like that. At least, not one I consider informed.
You've read what other people have said about this. And seen some excerpts others chose for you. And then joined the conversation about a comic available to read you haven't read.
Actually I've been reading Bendis's All-New X-Men ever since issue #1, onward. I have it in floppies and the first trade in digital. I absolutely loved the first several issues, but it's become a bit boring lately. So yes, I think I'm able to give an informed decision about his writing based on what I've seen so far. I think I've got the general "flavor" and I called it like I saw it. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm sticking to mine.
OK - odd idea that came to me as I am reading the Avengers stuff to get reeady for Secret Wars:
The rules of the Marvel Universe used to be that you can't time travel back to your own past, but your travel can affect your timeline (all explained in ruthless detail by Roy Thomas back in FF Annual #11, Marvel 2 in 1 Annual #1 and M2in1 #20) so...the X-Men can't go back to the past...maybe it's because that past no longer exists. It was destroyed in an incursion.
"What do you think, sirs?" - Joel MST3K.
I've been confounded by the Marvel Universe's time travel rules ever since 'The Crossing' when Tony Stark went insane. Then the Avengers went back in time to bring teen Tony to the future and old-Tony sacrificed himself. Then Onslaught/Heroes Reborn fixed some of that, with Avengers Forever batting clean-up and completely retconning it. I think teen Tony was from an alternative timeline. Probably what's happened here. I'm guessing that in the alternative timeline of the past, Bobby likes boys instead of dames.
I remember this being hinted at for years now. First time I saw it was in the first 2 years of X-factor. I thought it had been brought out years ago until I saw all the people on FB freaking out over this.
But then there was many many clues about Northstar in the first Alpha Flight run. Hell I can remember a storyline where even to a fairly young me it was obvious that Northstar had Aids. But instead we got the "Northstar and his sister are part elf. And them not living in elfland is why Northstar is sick" cop out.
I'm way, waaaaaaaaaaay behind in X-Books, so I can't speak to how out-of-nowhere this really was, but I don't think it's that far fetched.
We live in a (real) world where people old enough to be your grand parents come out of the closet for the first time, at least partially because they grew up in a time where that sort of thing was just flat out socially unacceptable. So you hide within yourself, you lie to everyone, you lie to yourself, and it just becomes normal. And sometimes, when you look around and see society's attitude has changed...not totally, but enough...maybe you start to think it's ok to just be you for once.
Bobby grew up in the 60s. Do I believe that he was ever intended to be gay in the first place? No. Is it unreasonable that a gay teenager in the 1960s would hide that fact about himself because of how the world around him would react? No. ESPECIALLY when he already has to deal with everyone hating and fearing him for being a mutant...who would want to double that grief by also being an openly gay mutant, in a time of low tolerance?
Comments
(Sorry, Zelda the Coffee-a-Go-Go Waitress.) :)
And I don't think that is a comment on Bendis. I would be hard pressed to think of any creator retconing a history they made up in the first place. It is up to the other creators to do that. And others will. That's the game.
The more likely thing is that Bendis has seen characters he's created for the Marvel Universe-- like Jessica Jones, Maria Hill, Daisy Johnson, Miles Morales-- written by other people. And maybe saying or doing things he would never have them do. In some cases, in comics and across other media. But that's how it goes. These characters, if they succeed, get shared for decades. I haven't read this story yet, but if this is a retcon, then it is just one of maybe dozens, large and small, on the shelves this month. This is just the one that is getting all the attention, as it presses some buttons for people.
But these characters are not consistent or fixed in their histories. They never have been. An argument could be made that they were never meant to be.
And if you read the story and don't like the choice he made, then fair enough. Not all retcons or spins on identity are a good idea. Some things don't work. This might end up being a bad character choice. But I think the process of trying to find spins on long-lived characters has been the job at Marvel for a long time. You can hate the play he's making, but Bendis is playing the same game that everyone else he works with is. And, I am sure, he knows and expects the same will happen with the characters he has created and doesn't own at Marvel, if they have staying power. Because that is the game.
1) Jean Grey has been shown to not have a lot of boundaries with her powers, and this could be another case of her screwing up people's lives due to the lack of boundaries.
2) There has been fan speculation as to Iceman being gay since the 70's. And in the 90's, a lot of X-Men writers played with it
3) Time travel is broken and we still don't know how and why that works.
4) Orange soda rarely has any actual orange juice in it. OK, I just put that there to see if you are paying attention
5) With modern Bobby not being gay, it's pretty clear that there's more to come and this is just the start of a subplot.
And certainly the publishers are well aware that this kind of change is a bit off-putting to continuity wonks, and even to many readers of religious faiths. But along with most current readers, the attitude towards them is "damn anyone who has a problem" with these sexuality swaps. Or worse, if you don't like it, "you must be a bigot." It seems today's pop culture is more concerned with normalizing gay people into the broader culture, or at least pandering to it, than in holding decades of established history as anything worth honoring or maintaining. Get used to it.
So, while some people may have been upset in the 70's with the way the Falcon was portrayed sometimes, it was a reflection of the culture at the time, or at least what the comic creators believed it to be. Does anyone remember the embarrassing portrayal of the Rawhide Kid as a gay cowboy in his Max series from about ten years ago? This Iceman sexuality shift is just a reflection of what the writers believe the culture desires, or needs, at this period in time and Bobby Drake isn't important enough of a character for the editors to say "no way" to such a change. The activists may go on to demand more important characters- next time. Either way, we have to accept that these characters do not belong to us fans. They belong to the corporations that produce the books or the creator(s) that created them. If these publishers want to expand or even narrow their properties' appeal to fit certain ideals, who are we to do anything but bitch about it if we don't like it?
It is what it is.
And these examples: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/04/22/how-that-all-new-x-men-iceman-scene-could-have-gone/
M
What I find really funny is that Chuck Austen didn't try to make him gay. Austen was all about the sexual subplots in the X-Men and here was an opportunity. But he didn't go for it. (I think Northstar would know if Bobby was gay or not, so when he said Bobby was straight, I believe that was Austen's statement).
You've read what other people have said about this. And seen some excerpts others chose for you. And then joined the conversation about a comic available to read you haven't read. And from that you have a "takeaway". You're going to tell us what the historical and cultural context is. And who is behind this or that agenda. And who is or isn't lazy.
And you are in good company. This is probably true of the majority, positive and negative, talking about this online. Another typical day in Web 2.0 comics fandom.
If you feel that a few panels is enough to judge writing by, well, that's your right. God bless America. But it is also judgment without investigation or context. I don't judge that as lazy, as it is not your job to read comics. Just uninformed.
Case in point, I've already seen enough of JRjr's work to know I don't care for it, and can tell you why. The Superman preview pages were enough to affirm my opinion which still stands. I'm also very familiar with BMB's work (some I've liked, some I didn't) and I can read the previews that have been put out already. I've concluded that he very often employs "lazy writing" and I lumped that in with many examples of 'gender-bending' and 'race-bending' that publishers have used to sensationalize their product so they get an increase in sales. I never said anyone had "an agenda," it's simply the cultural zeitgeist that's happening in popular culture. That's my takeaway, then you judged me for it.
By the way, what I meant by "takeaway" is basically the point or idea emerging from a discussion or meeting. Not sure it adds much to the enjoyment when forum moderators consider it their duty to give other comic fans a hard time about how they reach their conclusions or opinions, but as you reminded us, it's a free country. You don't have to like my viewpoints either.
And if you disagree and feel confident you can call out who's lazy and who isn't from a page or two of content then so it goes.
And for the accusation that this is moderators vs. comic fans? Rubbish. I am clearly engaging in a discussion speaking only for myself. Clearly at no point this was about rules. So let's skip the persecution narratives.
The rules of the Marvel Universe used to be that you can't time travel back to your own past, but your travel can affect your timeline (all explained in ruthless detail by Roy Thomas back in FF Annual #11, Marvel 2 in 1 Annual #1 and M2in1 #20) so...the X-Men can't go back to the past...maybe it's because that past no longer exists. It was destroyed in an incursion.
"What do you think, sirs?" - Joel MST3K.
But then there was many many clues about Northstar in the first Alpha Flight run. Hell I can remember a storyline where even to a fairly young me it was obvious that Northstar had Aids. But instead we got the "Northstar and his sister are part elf. And them not living in elfland is why Northstar is sick" cop out.
We live in a (real) world where people old enough to be your grand parents come out of the closet for the first time, at least partially because they grew up in a time where that sort of thing was just flat out socially unacceptable. So you hide within yourself, you lie to everyone, you lie to yourself, and it just becomes normal. And sometimes, when you look around and see society's attitude has changed...not totally, but enough...maybe you start to think it's ok to just be you for once.
Bobby grew up in the 60s. Do I believe that he was ever intended to be gay in the first place? No. Is it unreasonable that a gay teenager in the 1960s would hide that fact about himself because of how the world around him would react? No. ESPECIALLY when he already has to deal with everyone hating and fearing him for being a mutant...who would want to double that grief by also being an openly gay mutant, in a time of low tolerance?