Anyways just so I don't drive this thread completely off topic has anyone considered it could be Ted Kord? That would definitely change up the Booster Gold/Blue Beetle bromance.
Not a bad thought...I can see that being a possibility.
Hmm... 3 users agreed that a post of mine about @FoneBone was worth a "Troll".
And two new users ( @Rilke and @UGoBoy) joined tonight using @FoneBone's email and IP address.
Nah. Must be a coincidence.
Actually, one was me, not for any reason but to highlight that the flagging thing is not being used correctly here and that even though you had wanted to downplay the impact/importance earlier in this thread that it does have some significance and having your comments silenced just because people disagree is not a positive or useful feature. I have already spoken out about the improper flagging thing and some posts in this thread are/were getting a high number of flags so I was hoping some would get greyed out due to flagging to again show that it isn't good. (FTR, I didn't flag any other comments nor would I)
If it is used correctly it can be useful, but I just don't see that happening and the spam is modded quickly without them anyhow. It would make more sense to just remove the feature or set it so it has no significance.
Sorry to be OT to the topic at hand but it has long since been a futile discussion anyhow. Disagree, dislike, etc. no problem but the censorship/silencing aspect just doesn't sit right with me even if it is basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things... like a character being made "gay" for some publicity or shock value or whatever. Both are weaksauce.
Every forum I visit has been discussing this and it's been one of the hottest topics on each of them. It didn't feel like a huge publicity thing to me at first because of the way it came to light, but it certainly turned into one.
On Bleeding Cool, someone already outed One Million Moms as a branch of the wisdom of Don Wildmon... look him up. I am very conservative, but automatically disavow anything this moron is involved in.
On Bleeding Cool, someone already outed One Million Moms as a branch of the wisdom of Don Wildmon... look him up. I am very conservative, but automatically disavow anything this moron is involved in.
I'll never forgive him for getting Mighty Mouse canceled back in the '80s.
Bandwagon or not, it has the opportunity to broaden the universe & add more depth to a male character in a similar fashion to Batwoman if handle properly. Like I said before, I will be interested to see who it is.
Matthew
Sure, good things can come from companies "jumping on the bandwagon" and joining the latest trendy cause.
But I don't think they should be lauded or rewarded for using those causes to further their own goals. Hollow gestures rarely change the world.
There is a bank that asks you to choose it over others because of it's "GO GREEN" checking program. Is "going green" by using my checking card instead of my checkbook really going to change the environment? No... it's just a company using hollow sentiment to make you think they care, when they really favor you using a check card over paper checks, anyway, due to kickbacks and fees.
Don't be fooled. For the past few years, DC has been playing hard at being relevant, hoping to increase public awareness and therefore sales, and this announcement smacks of this.
Okay, now the serious answer--
I get what you are saying, and I understand your suspicion. But I think there is an angle that isn't being considered: What if DC actually thinks there is a readership that wants this?
What if- instead of just thinking that what they are doing this is merely ideological, or for a publicity gain- what if it is actually simpler than that? What if it is actually them just trying to sell a book to readers that want this? I mean, that is the business they are in, no?
To put it this way, DC published dozens of books about violent conflict resolution in brightly colored super suits every month because they have good reason to believe that is what their readers (myself included, lest you think I am judging) want.
And we have told them so by buying that product. To give readers what they want is not ideology. It can simply the the business they are in. Five monthly Batman books, or whatever it is these days, is not The Change That DC Wants To See In The World. That is them meeting demand with supply.
Could it not be possible that, in this case, too, they simply think they are meeting a demand? They are in the business of selling comics. Which means they have to sell them. And like all for-profits they need to grow their business. Could this not simply be another way to grow their business?
Remember, whatever praise they might get for doing something that could be seen as ideological (as well as whatever criticism), a few news cycles later that will have faded, and there will still be next month's books to sell. Publicity and even scandal fades fast. At the end of the day, they've got to make the books they think they can sell.
So what if they believe there is an audience that has a demand for a book like this? Is meeting that demand really any different than meeting my demand for a monthly dose of Swamp Thing, Animal Man, and All Star Western?
Good points, all. And you may be right. You're definitely right about them wanting to sell comics, which I can definitely get behind. I would like to think that DC is taking a "pro gay" stance for altruistic purposes, and will sell a crap ton of comics as a consequence, but I still don't buy it.
People aren't buying DC comics for romance... gay romance probably won't sell more. They aren't buying DC comics for stories about married life (didn't they eliminate Lois and Clark's marriage for some reason?)... gay marriage won't sell more comics long-term.
I still stand by my belief that this is a short-term publicity stunt and PR move. Creating a new character who is gay would be story and character driven and organic. Picking an established character and "making him gay" is telling as to their (disconnected) understanding of that community. Time will tell if I am right. And if so, readers should be insulted that DC would use a topic so important to so many in such a flippant manor.
Oh, and I'm looking at you, too, Marvel. But at least Northstar has always BEEN gay.
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.
Personally, I do not give my comics away to kids, nor do I typically encourage kids to read them. I don't feel they are appropriate, and unlike films or books, their parents just assume the content is geared to kids. If they did monitor them, they'd kill me for recommending them to their kid. It's not just the sexuality, it's the violence and lack of heroic character. My daughter is 20, and expressing an interest, so I'm giving her some classics like Ghost World and some Harvey Pekar and will probably give her a subscription to Aquaman at college next year just because she'll find that goofy and fun. She can read whatever she wants, as she's an adult, but that's just what I think would appeal to her.
Anyway, back to this One Million Moms thing, it's a giant waste of time trying to force non-Christians to observe Christian boundaries. That's simply not the job of Christians. Here's Paul from 1 Corinthians Ch. 5. I apologize in advance to anyone offended by Paul's use of the term "sexually immoral people", but that's what this translation actually says and I'm not big on historical revisionism in the name of political correctness.
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to leave the world! For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside."
I purposefully stayed away from this aside from the flag thing, but outside of all the talk so far, having been in publishing and the press what this seems like to my spidey senses is an idea cooked up because the gay marriage thing was in the news and a hot topic... by the time it was actually executed on in the comic it had fallen out of the news. It happens all the time. That or someone may have thought it would pass and then start to gain momentum and they'd be right on time to capitalize from it. Also a common tactic. I'm not saying I know either of these scenarios to be true or the case here but that more likely than not they had some part in it all. Comics are faster to print than some other media and mediums and it is always funny when things like toys based on a Youtube sensation or meme try to be produced, the 1-2 year lag time between idea and final product on shelves usually makes them seem like dusty relics or long forgotten laughs when they do. My guess is a similar situation here. I don't actually care one way or the other I just wish it were done well and without all the attention-seeking that cheapens it and makes it seem like a gimmick or publicity stunt.
@WetRats I get that but using sexuality, especially at a time of unrest and inequality with it all without it being done in a genuine and honest way is lame. If it fits the story and is a natural progression then fine, it is no different than a character getting a costume change or a haircut or a fight with a new villain, but to make it a show and for press cheapens it for everyone involved.
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?
@Zhurrie, I think you take comics far more seriously than I do.
And I admire you for being all principled and idealistic & stuff.
I enjoy our silly fringe hobby, and as far as I'm concerned, anything that reminds people that comics exist, and therefore helps sell a few more and keep the comic shops in business a little longer is a good thing.
@WetRats I wish more people stood for something, anything, they'd fall for far less... as the saying goes. I had well over a decade in the media/press and once you see some things first-hand it changes your perspective. It isn't about taking anything too serious or ideals, for me it is a simple formula: Put out a quality product and people will buy it.
The things with massive advertising budgets and forced hype and hoopla almost always suck. Amazingly the really great stuff gets tons of free press and word of mouth and sell big without the B.S. If your product needs the B.S. maybe it should just get more effort put into it or change tack entirely.
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?
Without derailing this even further, I asked that same question a lot during the last election year. I never got a satisfactory answer and you won't either. With fiction, however, it is a little bit different. When reading a story, I want a character I can relate to. I don't need to be able to relate to an elected official so much as have someone who I think can get the job done. Or at least in theory. In reality, if I do vote, it's for the lesser of two evils.
@Zhurrie, I had over 25 years in the media/press. My respect for you still having principles & ideals & stuff has doubled knowing you're also a survivor.
@WetRats I get that but using sexuality, especially at a time of unrest and inequality with it all without it being done in a genuine and honest way is lame. If it fits the story and is a natural progression then fine, it is no different than a character getting a costume change or a haircut or a fight with a new villain, but to make it a show and for press cheapens it for everyone involved.
How do we know yet whether the work will be genuine or not when we don't have the work yet. For all we know, this might be coming from a genuine place. Too soon to know. I think. Shouldn't we give the artists behind the work a chance for the work to be judged, rather than dismissing it sight unseen?
@David_D, I'm basing my comments off of the established interviews with Dan Didio and his comments directly. He flat out stated that they would introduce new characters to be LGBT rather than have any characters change sexual orientation. So to me that tells a lot. The LGBT stuff is only to be created for just that reason rather than work it into a story naturally with existing characters. The way you make it genuine is by not talking about it or even making it a big deal but just as I stated, no different than a costume change or haircut. No one came out in multiple interviews to discuss those kinds of things, but they did with this. With this it is not an entirely new character but one that is currently not being used and brought back for this big reveal, that is kind of my definition of a gimmick.
I'd rather judge the work than interviews about the work. I know the Internet lives a rush to judgment, but I would rather wait the couple of weeks and judge what it is than what Didio describes it to be.
@Zhurrie, I think you take comics far more seriously than I do.
And I admire you for being all principled and idealistic & stuff.
I enjoy our silly fringe hobby, and as far as I'm concerned, anything that reminds people that comics exist, and therefore helps sell a few more and keep the comic shops in business a little longer is a good thing.
But do you really want to remind them that they are cheap, dismissible, one-step-behind-the-curve, desperately-seeking-to-be-relevant, crap entertainment? They can be capable of so much more than that, yet that's how they come across to many people. Every time DC trots out a "lipstick lesbian" to great fanfare, or Eirk Larsen practically goes down on Obama on the cover of Savage Dragon, I feel a tinge of embarrassment for the art form.
In the day and age that Avengers is the biggest grossing movie EVER, Marvel and DC should be forging ahead and setting the standard for what is hot, not pandering to what seems to be hip and trendy in the "real world".
Sorry @David_D, but it is pretty clear, that's fine to want to wait and see but it just isn't that deep or probable to be any other way to me. We shall see, though, soon enough.
@Tonebone, that is exactly why I don't read many mainstream books, most of what I read this would not even be worth a discussion, gay, straight, trans, whatever because the books are created without sensationalism or pandering and just are what they are and it has a real reason and purpose not just for fluff or press. That is also why I have a hard time even understanding what there is to debate or discuss for 8 pages+.
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?
Without derailing this even further, I asked that same question a lot during the last election year. I never got a satisfactory answer and you won't either. With fiction, however, it is a little bit different. When reading a story, I want a character I can relate to. I don't need to be able to relate to an elected official so much as have someone who I think can get the job done. Or at least in theory. In reality, if I do vote, it's for the lesser of two evils.
Fair enough. I have the same question about comic movies attracting enough of a new readership to warrant altering the source material to mimick what's adapted from it. My jadedness & marketing background has me judging things through the eyes of "are we judging the book by the cover?" I feel the same way about movies & TV shows that use the character names, but nothing else of the comics.
I feel the same way about elections. That's my PoliSci background.
I'd rather judge the work than interviews about the work. I know the Internet lives a rush to judgment, but I would rather wait the couple of weeks and judge what it is than what Didio describes it to be.
Did I ever tell you I enjoy when you get into a passive argument type discussion with people?!
I'd rather judge the work than interviews about the work. I know the Internet lives a rush to judgment, but I would rather wait the couple of weeks and judge what it is than what Didio describes it to be.
Did I ever tell you I enjoy when you get into a passive argument type discussion with people?!
And it may turn out to be pandering rubbish. Bad work gets done all the time. But good work gets done, too. Even in corporate comics.
If it turns out to be a character in Robinson's Earth 2 book, he even has a track record of handling a gay character well (in Starman more than 10 years ago, another reminder that this is all old news). But Robinson has done bad work, too. Execution varies. I'm just keeping an open mind, that's all. Because soon enough it won't be speculation, it'll be a comic. And not having read it, I'm not going to decide I know what it is. Because even Big 2 books can still surprise me sometimes.
Bandwagon or not, it has the opportunity to broaden the universe & add more depth to a male character in a similar fashion to Batwoman if handle properly. Like I said before, I will be interested to see who it is.
Matthew
Sure, good things can come from companies "jumping on the bandwagon" and joining the latest trendy cause.
But I don't think they should be lauded or rewarded for using those causes to further their own goals. Hollow gestures rarely change the world.
There is a bank that asks you to choose it over others because of it's "GO GREEN" checking program. Is "going green" by using my checking card instead of my checkbook really going to change the environment? No... it's just a company using hollow sentiment to make you think they care, when they really favor you using a check card over paper checks, anyway, due to kickbacks and fees.
Don't be fooled. For the past few years, DC has been playing hard at being relevant, hoping to increase public awareness and therefore sales, and this announcement smacks of this.
Okay, now the serious answer--
I get what you are saying, and I understand your suspicion. But I think there is an angle that isn't being considered: What if DC actually thinks there is a readership that wants this?
What if- instead of just thinking that what they are doing this is merely ideological, or for a publicity gain- what if it is actually simpler than that? What if it is actually them just trying to sell a book to readers that want this? I mean, that is the business they are in, no?
To put it this way, DC published dozens of books about violent conflict resolution in brightly colored super suits every month because they have good reason to believe that is what their readers (myself included, lest you think I am judging) want.
And we have told them so by buying that product. To give readers what they want is not ideology. It can simply the the business they are in. Five monthly Batman books, or whatever it is these days, is not The Change That DC Wants To See In The World. That is them meeting demand with supply.
Could it not be possible that, in this case, too, they simply think they are meeting a demand? They are in the business of selling comics. Which means they have to sell them. And like all for-profits they need to grow their business. Could this not simply be another way to grow their business?
Remember, whatever praise they might get for doing something that could be seen as ideological (as well as whatever criticism), a few news cycles later that will have faded, and there will still be next month's books to sell. Publicity and even scandal fades fast. At the end of the day, they've got to make the books they think they can sell.
So what if they believe there is an audience that has a demand for a book like this? Is meeting that demand really any different than meeting my demand for a monthly dose of Swamp Thing, Animal Man, and All Star Western?
Good points, all. And you may be right. You're definitely right about them wanting to sell comics, which I can definitely get behind. I would like to think that DC is taking a "pro gay" stance for altruistic purposes, and will sell a crap ton of comics as a consequence, but I still don't buy it.
People aren't buying DC comics for romance... gay romance probably won't sell more. They aren't buying DC comics for stories about married life (didn't they eliminate Lois and Clark's marriage for some reason?)... gay marriage won't sell more comics long-term.
I still stand by my belief that this is a short-term publicity stunt and PR move. Creating a new character who is gay would be story and character driven and organic. Picking an established character and "making him gay" is telling as to their (disconnected) understanding of that community. Time will tell if I am right. And if so, readers should be insulted that DC would use a topic so important to so many in such a flippant manor.
Oh, and I'm looking at you, too, Marvel. But at least Northstar has always BEEN gay.
I get what you are saying. And I don't mean they need to (or should) appeal to an audience by foregrounding the romance at the expense of the other, usual elements of the genre. The would be a mistake no matter what kind of romance they are dealing with.
Because, I agree, they are not selling romance comics. That is true of their existing books, too. But in nearly all (all?) their existing books there are romantic subplots. And that has been the case in superhero books for a long time. So clearly they have done that because it is at least a part of what the audience wants- there is some appeal there to at least some of the readership. Otherwise there wouldn't be such an effort made to create romantic subplots. Heck, it could be argued that the Peter Parker and Clark Kent marriages were undone not to make for less romance in their books, but actually to reset them to single life to create MORE space for romantic stories to be told (which is to say, to repeat the whole process of getting the girl- not that married life is not romantic, but it is likely more of a challenge to come up with stories about it).
So I am not saying that a book that might have romantic subplots would be anything more than subplots. They don't have to become romance comics anymore than, say, X-Men or Teen Titans are romance comics. The kissyface stuff doesn't need to take over the whole book any more than it usually does.
As for motivation- I may be cynical, but I don't think there is anything altruistic about it. DC might just think that they may create an appeal to a certain readership that they are not getting now (and that some competitors in the same medium, like Manga that have gay romance elements, are getting).
Again, just a guess. But I feel like, if they are in the business of selling and CONTINUING to sell books, then they can't just do something to sell the one or two books that the press might focus on. They need to make a book that will sustain an audience beyond an initial speculation or curiosity.
And given that there is a potential cost to this sort of thing- alienating certain readers, clearly from this thread at least annoying others, they have to do something for a sustainable gain. Not just for a temporary bump.
On Bleeding Cool, someone already outed One Million Moms as a branch of the wisdom of Don Wildmon... look him up. I am very conservative, but automatically disavow anything this moron is involved in.
I'll never forgive him for getting Mighty Mouse canceled back in the '80s.
But, if it wouldn't have been cancelled, John K wouldn't have created Ren and Stimpy. So, out of every drop of rain that falls, some kitty litter grows.
How many of you will/will not buy the comic because the iconic character has changed orientation?
M
It will depend on the writer. As I stated before, there are some writers who have shown such a lack of credibility on handling LGBT issues (I! Am! GAYYYYYYY! or "I created that character and he's not gay. I wouldn't create a gay character" or "Teens shouldn't be exposed to gay characters because it might influence them to experiment")I won't go near it, when I might read their work in other regards.
Then again, the more I hear about the new DC (which is rapidly becoming Marvel in 1995) it's more the editor and artist, the writer has less to do with the stories than they used to....
Comments
If it is used correctly it can be useful, but I just don't see that happening and the spam is modded quickly without them anyhow. It would make more sense to just remove the feature or set it so it has no significance.
Sorry to be OT to the topic at hand but it has long since been a futile discussion anyhow. Disagree, dislike, etc. no problem but the censorship/silencing aspect just doesn't sit right with me even if it is basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things... like a character being made "gay" for some publicity or shock value or whatever. Both are weaksauce.
I am very conservative, but automatically disavow anything this moron is involved in.
People aren't buying DC comics for romance... gay romance probably won't sell more. They aren't buying DC comics for stories about married life (didn't they eliminate Lois and Clark's marriage for some reason?)... gay marriage won't sell more comics long-term.
I still stand by my belief that this is a short-term publicity stunt and PR move. Creating a new character who is gay would be story and character driven and organic. Picking an established character and "making him gay" is telling as to their (disconnected) understanding of that community. Time will tell if I am right. And if so, readers should be insulted that DC would use a topic so important to so many in such a flippant manor.
Oh, and I'm looking at you, too, Marvel. But at least Northstar has always BEEN gay.
Personally, I do not give my comics away to kids, nor do I typically encourage kids to read them. I don't feel they are appropriate, and unlike films or books, their parents just assume the content is geared to kids. If they did monitor them, they'd kill me for recommending them to their kid. It's not just the sexuality, it's the violence and lack of heroic character. My daughter is 20, and expressing an interest, so I'm giving her some classics like Ghost World and some Harvey Pekar and will probably give her a subscription to Aquaman at college next year just because she'll find that goofy and fun. She can read whatever she wants, as she's an adult, but that's just what I think would appeal to her.
Anyway, back to this One Million Moms thing, it's a giant waste of time trying to force non-Christians to observe Christian boundaries. That's simply not the job of Christians. Here's Paul from 1 Corinthians Ch. 5. I apologize in advance to anyone offended by Paul's use of the term "sexually immoral people", but that's what this translation actually says and I'm not big on historical revisionism in the name of political correctness.
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to leave the world! For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside."
*Actually, don't get me started on opera's sordid history... ;)
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
And I admire you for being all principled and idealistic & stuff.
I enjoy our silly fringe hobby, and as far as I'm concerned, anything that reminds people that comics exist, and therefore helps sell a few more and keep the comic shops in business a little longer is a good thing.
The things with massive advertising budgets and forced hype and hoopla almost always suck. Amazingly the really great stuff gets tons of free press and word of mouth and sell big without the B.S. If your product needs the B.S. maybe it should just get more effort put into it or change tack entirely.
youtube.com/watch?v=qsxlMPLm_jo
In the day and age that Avengers is the biggest grossing movie EVER, Marvel and DC should be forging ahead and setting the standard for what is hot, not pandering to what seems to be hip and trendy in the "real world".
@Tonebone, that is exactly why I don't read many mainstream books, most of what I read this would not even be worth a discussion, gay, straight, trans, whatever because the books are created without sensationalism or pandering and just are what they are and it has a real reason and purpose not just for fluff or press. That is also why I have a hard time even understanding what there is to debate or discuss for 8 pages+.
I feel the same way about elections. That's my PoliSci background.
M
M
And it may turn out to be pandering rubbish. Bad work gets done all the time. But good work gets done, too. Even in corporate comics.
If it turns out to be a character in Robinson's Earth 2 book, he even has a track record of handling a gay character well (in Starman more than 10 years ago, another reminder that this is all old news). But Robinson has done bad work, too. Execution varies. I'm just keeping an open mind, that's all. Because soon enough it won't be speculation, it'll be a comic. And not having read it, I'm not going to decide I know what it is. Because even Big 2 books can still surprise me sometimes.
Because, I agree, they are not selling romance comics. That is true of their existing books, too. But in nearly all (all?) their existing books there are romantic subplots. And that has been the case in superhero books for a long time. So clearly they have done that because it is at least a part of what the audience wants- there is some appeal there to at least some of the readership. Otherwise there wouldn't be such an effort made to create romantic subplots. Heck, it could be argued that the Peter Parker and Clark Kent marriages were undone not to make for less romance in their books, but actually to reset them to single life to create MORE space for romantic stories to be told (which is to say, to repeat the whole process of getting the girl- not that married life is not romantic, but it is likely more of a challenge to come up with stories about it).
So I am not saying that a book that might have romantic subplots would be anything more than subplots. They don't have to become romance comics anymore than, say, X-Men or Teen Titans are romance comics. The kissyface stuff doesn't need to take over the whole book any more than it usually does.
As for motivation- I may be cynical, but I don't think there is anything altruistic about it. DC might just think that they may create an appeal to a certain readership that they are not getting now (and that some competitors in the same medium, like Manga that have gay romance elements, are getting).
Again, just a guess. But I feel like, if they are in the business of selling and CONTINUING to sell books, then they can't just do something to sell the one or two books that the press might focus on. They need to make a book that will sustain an audience beyond an initial speculation or curiosity.
And given that there is a potential cost to this sort of thing- alienating certain readers, clearly from this thread at least annoying others, they have to do something for a sustainable gain. Not just for a temporary bump.
Then again, the more I hear about the new DC (which is rapidly becoming Marvel in 1995) it's more the editor and artist, the writer has less to do with the stories than they used to....
Maybe, say, Abin Sur had a couple of half-human love children along the way...