I think Jamie D on this weeks Comic Talk episode more eloquently expressed how I felt. And yes, I am 19 and the gay situation has never been a big deal to me. It is great your gay and that is about it. My earlier reaction was just that, a snap reaction. I just don't like when minorities are used to make money just because they are minorities. But under further investigation, DC is not doing that. We can't be certain until the comic comes out, but I think they will do a good job. Again Jamie D helped me understand something better. That's what he does.
I really doubt it's going to be an A-lister. or even a B-lister. It's going to be some second rate character, we're all going to shrug, and the world is going to move on. I am very suspicious of DC's use of the word "iconic."
The word about must really getting out there. I've gotten a mad amount of email and text messages from family, friends, co-workers and even my wife's friends and co-workers asking me about this. A lot of people are thinking it's Superman because of an article Fox News posted, and of course they don't read the whole article, they look at the headline and just ass-ume that's the case.
I think the timing of this change is unfortunate because it makes it feels like such a gimmick to me.
Since the news of DC reboot, DC has held the spotlight and has enjoyed increased sales...rightfully so. Now that their sales are leveling off and the newness of the new DCU is wearing off , they come out with this announcement. It feels to me they are only doing it to retain the spotlight and increase sales.
I understand that because the characters are new it make sense for DC not to wait to long to reveal a characters sexual orientation. If they wait too long people will complain that they should not change a established New DCU character.
If DC feels the need to make this change it is better they do it sooner then later. I just wished they had done this right off the bat when they created the New DCU.
I think the timing of this change is unfortunate because it makes it feels like such a gimmick to me.
Since the news of DC reboot, DC has held the spotlight and has enjoyed increased sales...rightfully so. Now that their sales are leveling off and the newness of the new DCU is wearing off , they come out with this announcement. It feels to me they are only doing it to retain the spotlight and increase sales.
I understand that because the characters are new it make sense for DC not to wait to long to reveal a characters sexual orientation. If they wait too long people will complain that they should not change a established New DCU character.
If DC feels the need to make this change it is better they do it sooner then later. I just wished they had done this right off the bat when they created the New DCU.
I feel exactly the same. That's probably why they are changing a character not yet introduced.
It would be so bogus if it is Alan Scott. They have sold it as a major Icon. I never even hear of the guy until I switched from Marvel to DC. A major Icon is someone who even those who dont read would know exist. Whether his name is Green Lantern or not, he is not the Icon Green Lantern. But it would be smart if they kept it to Earth 2 the way Marvel Ultimates does with Colossus and Spiderman. If they can make alternate universe Spiderman gay why not alternate universe Superman.
Batman, I say, is always off limits. Batman & Robin with a gay Batman... sorry, that is a big NO. I'm all for gay scout leaders but not if they are asking the scouts to come train with them in their underground lair dressed in a lone ranger mask, green speedos and little elf slippers. That just seems wrong.
So would Shiara be reincarnated again? Into a guy?
Is the Shiara reincarnation romance even part of the reboot? I only read the first 2 but it seemed like they were totally destroying his past story. Besides, they already addressed how the last Hawkgirl felt the bond to him but was not sexually attracted to him so I don't see how this would be different.
Since the news of DC reboot, DC has held the spotlight and has enjoyed increased sales...rightfully so. Now that their sales are leveling off and the newness of the new DCU is wearing off , they come out with this announcement. It feels to me they are only doing it to retain the spotlight and increase sales.
I personnally think in this day and age something like this is even news,just seems like a jump on the bandwagon after Obama okayed it.Stick to telling good stories and leave the sensationalism to the rags.
I personnally think in this day and age something like this is even news,just seems like a jump on the bandwagon after Obama okayed it.Stick to telling good stories and leave the sensationalism to the rags.
The story sees print in June.
The Biden statement, followed days later by Obama's, came in the first week of May.
That means the story with this gay character was already in production before that happened.
One can still feel that they are bandwagon jumping or taking on what has been some of the changes in the political climate, but the actual facts of the comic that comes out next month is that it can't actually be inspired by the specific news from the beginning of May. That is just too recent to effect a comic book that comes out in June.
I think the timing of this change is unfortunate because it makes it feels like such a gimmick to me.
Since the news of DC reboot, DC has held the spotlight and has enjoyed increased sales...rightfully so. Now that their sales are leveling off and the newness of the new DCU is wearing off , they come out with this announcement. It feels to me they are only doing it to retain the spotlight and increase sales.
I understand that because the characters are new it make sense for DC not to wait to long to reveal a characters sexual orientation. If they wait too long people will complain that they should not change a established New DCU character.
If DC feels the need to make this change it is better they do it sooner then later. I just wished they had done this right off the bat when they created the New DCU.
I agree that at the point of the reboot would have been better timing. The policy they had back in 2011 was timid, and they would have been better off doing this back then rather than getting less timid later.
This is nit-picky, but this whole story got rolling not in an "announcement" (and, believe me, we all know what it looks like when DC rolls out an announcement. I think they practically had sky-writing and robo-calls for Before Watchmen). This was an answer to a direct question at a panel. (It seems) this was a case of Didio letting his mouth get ahead of him in a panel situation, as he did years ago when he spoiled the end of 52. For all we know, the plan was actually to let the story see print first, and have readers meet that character and have their reaction at that point, rather than have these weeks of speculation and discussion without the work in front of us to judge.
Again, a nit-picky difference. But they answered rather than made this a separate announcement.
I personnally think in this day and age something like this is even news,just seems like a jump on the bandwagon after Obama okayed it.Stick to telling good stories and leave the sensationalism to the rags.
I'm curious how much this will be stressed in the storylines. It can be a tight rope to walk. I think about Willow from Buffy. It was a slow build to the character, so it didn't feel forced. It was apart of who she was without it being the thing that defines her. Than I think about the FBI agent in the modern Knight Rider series (played by Sidney Portier's daughter.) When you first saw her character, she was coming in from surfing and found the girl she hooked up with still naked in her bed. That was the last this was mentioned or hinted at. It felt forced to establish "See this show has diversity!"
I am curious who the character is and if it was always the plan for the reintroduction or if it was a response to the initial question. I'd be more on-board if it was always the plan, than if they changed it just to change it.
Batwoman is gay & it was big news back for DC then. Now, I do feel it is an gimmick after Pres. Obama gave his thoughts on the issue. But I am willing to wait & see which DC character it is.
Now if a character was into bestiality or necrophilia that would be news,but 'gaying'up a character just to make news shows lack of creativity.Even marvel put out that northstar is getting married,'yawn'.
Batwoman is gay & it was big news back for DC then. Now, I do feel it is an gimmick after Pres. Obama gave his thoughts on the issue. But I am willing to wait & see which DC character it is.
Matthew
The President made his comments earlier this month. The comic comes out in June, supposedly. So if they decided to do this because of what the President said, you are saying they made the decision to jump on the bandwagon by cancelling what they had planned for a June issue and replace it with something else (remember, it can't be a new #1 or something, since those solicits and orders got done in April, so for your premise to work they would have to change a story already on order for June), and get all of that done in the course of a week or two, and be ready to then talk about it when they answered a question at a panel a few weeks later.
That timeline seems unlikely. Maybe speaking out about it now the way they did was emboldened by the current climate, but if it is a June comic it is safe to say the decision was made to make this comic before what the President said. To some it may *feel* like a gimmick after what the President said, but I don't think it was made with anything the President said in mind, as there just wouldn't have been time to have it out in June.
Now if a character was into bestiality or necrophilia that would be news,but 'gaying'up a character just to make news shows lack of creativity.Even marvel put out that northstar is getting married,'yawn'.
Batwoman is gay & it was big news back for DC then. Now, I do feel it is an gimmick after Pres. Obama gave his thoughts on the issue. But I am willing to wait & see which DC character it is.
Matthew
The President made his comments earlier this month. The comic comes out in June, supposedly. So if they decided to do this because of what the President said, you are saying they made the decision to jump on the bandwagon by cancelling what they had planned for a June issue and replace it with something else (remember, it can't be a new #1 or something, since those solicits and orders got done in April, so for your premise to work they would have to change a story already on order for June), and get all of that done in the course of a week or two, and be ready to then talk about it when they answered a question at a panel a few weeks later.
That timeline seems unlikely. Maybe speaking out about it now the way they did was emboldened by the current climate, but if it is a June comic it is safe to say the decision was made to make this comic before what the President said. To some it may *feel* like a gimmick after what the President said, but I don't think it was made with anything the President said in mind, as there just wouldn't have been time to have it out in June.
I wonder if anyone has accused the guy who asked Didio the question of being a DC plant. Otherwise the no one would have known about this until the issue came out. It's the comic book press that took the answer and ran wild with it.
Batwoman is gay & it was big news back for DC then. Now, I do feel it is an gimmick after Pres. Obama gave his thoughts on the issue. But I am willing to wait & see which DC character it is.
Matthew
The President made his comments earlier this month. The comic comes out in June, supposedly. So if they decided to do this because of what the President said, you are saying they made the decision to jump on the bandwagon by cancelling what they had planned for a June issue and replace it with something else (remember, it can't be a new #1 or something, since those solicits and orders got done in April, so for your premise to work they would have to change a story already on order for June), and get all of that done in the course of a week or two, and be ready to then talk about it when they answered a question at a panel a few weeks later.
That timeline seems unlikely. Maybe speaking out about it now the way they did was emboldened by the current climate, but if it is a June comic it is safe to say the decision was made to make this comic before what the President said. To some it may *feel* like a gimmick after what the President said, but I don't think it was made with anything the President said in mind, as there just wouldn't have been time to have it out in June.
I wonder if anyone has accused the guy who asked Didio the question of being a DC plant. Otherwise the no one would have known about this until the issue came out. It's the comic book press that took the answer and ran wild with it.
Oh, I am sure it has been suggested. And, while, sure, that is possible, it would seem to me a terrible way for DC to frame the story: Instead of going to some friendly news outlet and giving a puff piece interview two months before to say, "Look- we have this new thing we're doing. Isn't that exciting and aren't we great! And here's a teaser image to run with your piece for a visual" the story becomes "Hey, remember a year ago when we said we would do this other thing.... well we were wrong, we are now going to do that thing we said a year ago we wouldn't do!"
I don't work in PR. But I would guess the former messaging is preferable to the latter. So why would they ever make use of a plant to just set up the latter? And all after the orders are in for whatever the hell book it is in June where this is happening anyway?
(PS- To be clear, I know you, yourself, are not suggesting that it was a DC plant. I am just saying that I agree with you that there are probably those who suspect it was, but I just can't see, personally, why they would go about doing it this way on purpose.)
Comments
Im sure its a hero. There is no way DC would make this character a villain.
I dont think its going to be an Earth 2 character (Superman) but its possible .
Since the news of DC reboot, DC has held the spotlight and has enjoyed increased sales...rightfully so. Now that their sales are leveling off and the newness of the new DCU is wearing off , they come out with this announcement. It feels to me they are only doing it to retain the spotlight and increase sales.
I understand that because the characters are new it make sense for DC not to wait to long to reveal a characters sexual orientation. If they wait too long people will complain that they should not change a established New DCU character.
If DC feels the need to make this change it is better they do it sooner then later. I just wished they had done this right off the bat when they created the New DCU.
Batman, I say, is always off limits. Batman & Robin with a gay Batman... sorry, that is a big NO. I'm all for gay scout leaders but not if they are asking the scouts to come train with them in their underground lair dressed in a lone ranger mask, green speedos and little elf slippers. That just seems wrong.
The Biden statement, followed days later by Obama's, came in the first week of May.
That means the story with this gay character was already in production before that happened.
One can still feel that they are bandwagon jumping or taking on what has been some of the changes in the political climate, but the actual facts of the comic that comes out next month is that it can't actually be inspired by the specific news from the beginning of May. That is just too recent to effect a comic book that comes out in June.
I give you...The Warlord (the Gay Blade!)
This is nit-picky, but this whole story got rolling not in an "announcement" (and, believe me, we all know what it looks like when DC rolls out an announcement. I think they practically had sky-writing and robo-calls for Before Watchmen). This was an answer to a direct question at a panel. (It seems) this was a case of Didio letting his mouth get ahead of him in a panel situation, as he did years ago when he spoiled the end of 52. For all we know, the plan was actually to let the story see print first, and have readers meet that character and have their reaction at that point, rather than have these weeks of speculation and discussion without the work in front of us to judge.
Again, a nit-picky difference. But they answered rather than made this a separate announcement.
Ripped from the headlines--!
Reminds me of Law and Order.
I am curious who the character is and if it was always the plan for the reintroduction or if it was a response to the initial question. I'd be more on-board if it was always the plan, than if they changed it just to change it.
M.
Matthew
That timeline seems unlikely. Maybe speaking out about it now the way they did was emboldened by the current climate, but if it is a June comic it is safe to say the decision was made to make this comic before what the President said. To some it may *feel* like a gimmick after what the President said, but I don't think it was made with anything the President said in mind, as there just wouldn't have been time to have it out in June.
;))
I don't work in PR. But I would guess the former messaging is preferable to the latter. So why would they ever make use of a plant to just set up the latter? And all after the orders are in for whatever the hell book it is in June where this is happening anyway?
(PS- To be clear, I know you, yourself, are not suggesting that it was a DC plant. I am just saying that I agree with you that there are probably those who suspect it was, but I just can't see, personally, why they would go about doing it this way on purpose.)