|
Nessus posted:The impression I get is that he's being written as somewhat camp gay but is not solely defined by that; at least, that is the idea. I agree with some skepticism as to the execution of that plan, but there are a fair number of somewhat camp gays out there, so it doesn't seem terribly offensive to me. Extraño. Yeah. I dunno, this COULD work, but it's gonna be tough to pull off.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 06:13 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 21:53 |
|
|
It's more than halfway through the 52's and I have to say that I've been pretty content with all the issues. I've bought a majority of them and the only one I was actually disappointed with was Green Arrow. Considering I never read DC much as a kid I've liked a lot of new superheroes I've never heard of/or knew very little about.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 06:45 |
|
|
There's nothing wrong with having a character who acts like a stereotypical gay man because there is nothing wrong with being a stereotypical gay man. It's important that not every gay character is written this way because obviously, not all gay people act like stereotypes, but I think it's a good thing to have a character who represents those who do. There's of course a difference between having a well written character who happens to fit a stereotype and a character who is offensively stereotypical. A good example of a flamboyantly gay character that isn't offensive is Damon Matthews from Manhunter. Obviously, this can end up being offensive an awful, but it might not. I think one thing we can all agree on right now is that that costume is offensively ugly and that a character who's supposed to be flamboyantly gay should know better than to wear pink with purple.  (Man, this post was hard to write. It's difficult to put into words how I feel about the issue. I'm not even planning to read this book, I just think it's nice to have more gay male characters in the DCU, stereotypical or not.)
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 06:51 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Isn't the reverse of this true for straight characters too though? Or any character, ever, in any form of literature? I could just as easily say that no heterosexual characters are not identifiable as such until it's addressed within the body of the story either. You know why they aren't identified as straight? Because literally almost everyone assumes you're straight as long as you don't exhibit any percieved "gay" qualities. That's the default sexuality, you're straight until proven otherwise. Simply put there is no need to point out they're straight, cause that's just a built in assumption. TheJoker138 posted:Unless their sexuality is important to the story being told, either way, then it probably shouldn't be something that the characters are just wearing on their sleeves. I don't care how many girls Wolverine had sex with over the weekend, or how many girls Batwoman had sex with over the weekend, unless the story arc is them getting into a wacky bet about who had sex with more girls or something. The thing is, even though it's not explicitly being told to you every time Batwoman shows up, being homosexual is still part of her character, just as much as being heterosexual is still part of Wolverine's I dont even know what you're trying to say here. Because he's a campy gay he'll be screaming about all the cocks he's sucked every issue? Or are you saying that because he's a bit gay he's "wearing his sexuality on his sleeve"? Look here, just because you have effeminate traits it doesn't mean you are flaunting your sexuality any more than having masculine traits do. A gay character isn't wearing his sexuality on his sleeve because he drinks cosmos and likes fashion any more than wolverine does when drinking beer and watching hockey, so why the double standard? Furthermore, charcters may not be solely defined by their sexuality, but it's still a contributing factor. The wiccan, batwoman and shatterstar are partially defined by their relationship just as Clark, Logan and Stark are. Look, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're just concerned about him becoming a offensive stereotype, but understand that reading between the lines subtext I see is "it's ok to be gay, just don't be a fag about it". Yeti Yeti Yeti posted:
Personally, i think you've written the best post on the subject, so I'd say the effort was worth it!
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 08:24 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Unless their sexuality is important to the story being told, either way, then it probably shouldn't be something that the characters are just wearing on their sleeves. But some gays do wear their sexuality on their sleeves. Is representation for that portion of the gay population - at least in theory - inherently a bad thing, considering that such people are even more underrepresented in comics than LGBT people in general? quote:When Lobdell says that it's not going to be like that, I, and I'm assuming necessary voodoo does as well, get flashes to every other time I can think of where a writer has gone "How do I make sure people know this character is gay? Well, I'll have them wear all pink, say 'fabulous!' a lot, talk with a lisp, and only talk about how promiscuous they are!" and start to get worried. And as NV said, DC (hell, the industry as a whole) doesn't have the best track record with this kind of thing. I honestly can't think of very many examples of that sort of character other than Extrano from the New Guardians, and I'd like to think that both writers' understanding of what it means to be gay and our overall culture have progressed to the point where the mention of a gay male character being effeminate doesn't necessarily lead one to go there. Maybe that's naive, I dunno. I think skepticism is certainly warranted here, though Booth is saying more than enough of the right things (including the comments section of his blog) that I'm at least willing to give Lobdell the benefit of the doubt for now. But there's a distinction between skepticism about how this particular character will be handled by this particular creative team, which is completely reasonable, and reacting like the very idea of a somewhat effeminate gay male superhero is fundamentally problematic or even offensive, for which I can't say the same.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 13:40 |
|
|
Barry Convex posted:But some gays do wear their sexuality on their sleeves. Is representation for that portion of the gay population - at least in theory - inherently a bad thing, considering that such people are even more underrepresented in comics than LGBT people in general? I sort of fail to understand the connection between acting flamboyant and enjoying penises, personally. Or why this discussion is happening at all.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 13:55 |
|
|
Myrddin Emrys posted:Or why this discussion is happening at all. Because there's still a lot of intolerance in the world (i.e., this thread), and this week's comics weren't good enough to support an interesting discussion.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 14:38 |
|
|
Why cookie Rocket posted:Because there's still a lot of intolerance in the world (i.e., this thread), and this week's comics weren't good enough to support an interesting discussion. You take that back, Demon Knights was fantastic.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 15:09 |
|
|
Demon Knights was last week. Though that does raise the question about how he knows this week's comics weren't interesting enough to merit discussion since they're not out yet.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 15:11 |
|
|
This week we've got some pretty good books coming out actually. Batman should be fantastic if Snyder's Tec run is any indication, I've heard great promise from Wonder Woman, Reed Hood could be good based on how Superboy seemed to surprise a lot of people, and Nightwing and Blue Beetle look to be at least fun from the previews. Also this week in case people are curious is Cap Atom, GLC, Legion, DCU Presents, BoP, Catwoman, and Supergirl.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 15:16 |
|
|
Why cookie Rocket posted:Because there's still a lot of intolerance in the world (i.e., this thread), and this week's comics weren't good enough to support an interesting discussion. How does a discussion of sexual representation in comics indicate intolerance?? I'm not saying that everyone here is an extremely accepting person, but the mere fact that the discussion is happening doesn't mean that there is 'a lot of intolerance in the world.' In fact, I'd say that the discussion points to a widening of acceptance because people, at least some of us, are concerned about including differing levels of homo- and heterosexuality in comic books. That's a good thing.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 15:19 |
|
|
etcetera08 posted:How does a discussion of sexual representation in comics indicate intolerance?? I'm not saying that everyone here is an extremely accepting person, but the mere fact that the discussion is happening doesn't mean that there is 'a lot of intolerance in the world.' In fact, I'd say that the discussion points to a widening of acceptance because people, at least some of us, are concerned about including differing levels of homo- and heterosexuality in comic books. That's a good thing. I never said it was a bad thing, I said it was necessary because of existing intolerance, Jesus Christ
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 15:29 |
|
|
Why cookie Rocket posted:I never said it was a bad thing, I said it was necessary because of existing intolerance, Jesus Christ Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying, I guess? It sounded like you thought it was a bad thing since you insinuated that it was just a fill in discussion since the week's books were weak. I dunno, I just woke up. Anyways, what I said can be taken as a response to Myrddin Emrys's question then.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 15:33 |
|
|
Batman is going to kick so much rear end. Snyder's issues of 'Tec were fantastic. Capullo looks like he's putting out the best work of his career. The whole production is going to be amazing. Wonder Woman will be a gorgeous book also. Cliff Chiang is a guy who produces distinct beautiful artwork. I'm really looking forward to Wednesday.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 15:33 |
|
|
Do we know anything about what the new Wonder Woman arc is going to be like? Out of the big 3, she's the only one I'm really not sure what to expect of from this relaunch. The only thing anyone could seem to talk about with her up until now was whether she was wearing pants or not. I assume it's not going to be an origin thing, cause I remember hearing that Superman and JL were the only two books taking place in the past, but is it going to be a straight super hero thing? A more fantasy based book? What's going on with it?
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 16:13 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Do we know anything about what the new Wonder Woman arc is going to be like? Out of the big 3, she's the only one I'm really not sure what to expect of from this relaunch. The only thing anyone could seem to talk about with her up until now was whether she was wearing pants or not. I assume it's not going to be an origin thing, cause I remember hearing that Superman and JL were the only two books taking place in the past, but is it going to be a straight super hero thing? A more fantasy based book? What's going on with it? I don't know the source of this, but I've heard it's going to be a more horror take on the character. Other creators have also said that Azarello's doing some really different things with the character so it might be none of the above.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 16:17 |
|
|
An interesting thing to note from this month's solicits, despite DiDio's assertions otherwise it seems that the artists who weren't able to complete their deadlines are NOT being replaced. Green Lantern Corps, Mister Terrific, and Blackhawks were all solicited with their original artist for the month of December. Also, Keith Giffen and Dan Jurgens are writing Green Arrow now apparently?
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 16:23 |
|
|
Animal Man was one of my favorite books, and hey, him being married actually created MORE drama and made the story more interesting! Who would have thought???
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 16:35 |
|
|
E the Shaggy posted:Animal Man was one of my favorite books, and hey, him being married actually created MORE drama and made the story more interesting! Who would have thought??? This is a great point. How is Animal Man going to appeal to a young audience when he isn't out barking and mooing at babes and getting them all hot and bothered?
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 16:46 |
|
|
E the Shaggy posted:Animal Man was one of my favorite books, and hey, him being married actually created MORE drama and made the story more interesting! Who would have thought??? I think the established difference there is that Animal Man's family dynamic has been an important part of his character since the vertigo series, which for all intents and purposed was the real beginning of the character's publications (he only had a handful of appearances till then). Spider-man and Superman both had their marriages introduced late into their stories (30 years into Spider-Man and 60 years for Superman), and as such, didn't really do much with them or feel that important. Neither marriage produced that many memorable stories or felt like they added an important level of depth that the character couldn't exist without whereas Animal Man stories were really all about him and his family. Of course, I still blame the writers for having Lois Lane and Mary Jane Watson, who can both be pretty damned compelling characters and worked to give the superhero elements of their respective spouses a more mundane (in a good way) grounding, and not figuring out anything all that interesting for them to do. I always enjoyed the way both would be shown as completely self capable in handling the insanities of their husband's lives, even without superpowers. Cadavers4Algernon fucked around with this message at Sep 19, 2011 around 16:59 |
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 16:55 |
|
|
Cadavers4Algernon posted:I think the established difference there is that Animal Man's family dynamic has been an important part of his character since the vertigo series, which for all intents and purposed was the real beginning of the character's publications (he only had a handful of appearances till then). Spider-Man's been married for as long as I've been alive and yet the image most prevalent in my head is him having adolescent-style women problems. Ditto for Superman (though he did get married within my lifetime) and his needing to balance Clark and Superman around Lois lest she find out. That said, the most interesting stories that I think can be told with these characters is when Mary Jane or Lois rub shoulders with the rest of the super community. I loved when Spider-Man in his Spider-man persona introduces Mary Jane to Captain America and can't explain to Cap why he's meeting this woman or when Lois Lane teamed up with Batman to steal Luthor's kryptonite ring. Interesting stories happen when the supporting cast isn't kept sequestered in their own little office in their own little title.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 17:28 |
|
|
FutureBoy posted:That said, the most interesting stories that I think can be told with these characters is when Mary Jane or Lois rub shoulders with the rest of the super community. I loved when Spider-Man in his Spider-man persona introduces Mary Jane to Captain America and can't explain to Cap why he's meeting this woman or when Lois Lane teamed up with Batman to steal Luthor's kryptonite ring. Interesting stories happen when the supporting cast isn't kept sequestered in their own little office in their own little title. I totally agree with this. I think the issue wasnt that they were married in the first place it's that the writers couldn't think of anything for them to do. Not the character's fault. I was just pointing out the argument about Buddy being married making the idea of Superman/Spider-man having their marriages erased completely ridiculous is a pretty flawed argument considering all the characters' respective histories.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 17:47 |
|
|
Newsarama confirms that Krul is off of Green Arrow and that Giffen is his permanent replacement. Guess this is gonna be the first time since Cliff Chiang stopped drawing Green Arrow/Black Canary that I read a GA book
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 19:46 |
|
|
I thought Green Arrow was the most boring comic of the 52 so far, so hurray for new writers.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 20:14 |
|
|
Semper Fudge posted:Newsarama confirms that Krul is off of Green Arrow and that Giffen is his permanent replacement. It's almost as if DC wants people to keep reading the new books. I am so excited fro Batman and Wonder Woman, and hopefully LOSH is better than Legion Lost.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 20:15 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:It's almost as if DC wants people to keep reading the new books.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 21:46 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:It's almost as if DC wants people to keep reading the new books. I am so excited fro Batman and Wonder Woman, and hopefully LOSH is better than Legion Lost. If this is the logic you're going to go with, then we should see a new 'Tec writer soon. (He says knowing that full well won't happen.  )
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 22:01 |
|
|
But apparently JT Krul wasn't taken off due to quality concerns, but rather because he's working on a new super-special project! We will read the work of comics superstar JT Krul and like it, one way or another.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 22:05 |
|
|
 Manapul is a loving monster. Buy this book.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 22:06 |
|
|
The blood splatter coming out the other end is just so loving genius. It seems Giffen is co-writing GA with Jurgens, so I suspect we're going to get a lot more Jurgens than we're gonna get Giffen. He'll probably just be plotting it. Which is a shame, because Giffen's dialog can be incredibly sharp.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 22:13 |
|
|
This whole what is and isn't "5 years ago" thing is a little confusing to me. I can see that JLA starts out 5 years ago, but does that mean action comics starts even earlier than that?
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 22:15 |
|
|
Kingtheninja posted:This whole what is and isn't "5 years ago" thing is a little confusing to me. I can see that JLA starts out 5 years ago, but does that mean action comics starts even earlier than that? I believe that the arbitrary timeframe given by DC puts AC six months prior to JL #1. But really, "before Justice League, but not long before" is about as specific as you need to get.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 22:18 |
|
|
It would be kind of cool if the end of the prequel story arc for Action Comics was the same as the end of the first issue of Justice League. Though I guess that would be kind of confusing and disappointing for people that aren't picking up Justice League.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 22:25 |
|
|
Semper Fudge posted:
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 22:26 |
|
|
Honestly they should have just reset it to 'Ten Years' like they've done with every other drat reboot. Five years is absurdly short for keeping major stories in continuity.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 22:27 |
|
|
Endless Mike posted:Nope. Not buying Barry comics. (Sadly, because Manapul is a loving monster.) NOT MY FLASH
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 22:28 |
|
|
Chaltab posted:Honestly they should have just reset it to 'Ten Years' like they've done with every other drat reboot. Five years is absurdly short for keeping major stories in continuity. The reason they're doing this is to make the characters younger. Ten years means that Superman and Batman are going to be over 30. We've always had to condense a large amount of story in a small amount of time. Think about Batman. I like the way Grant Morrison goes about it. As far as he's concerned, pretty much every Batman story ever has happened in some kind of sense. Why can't we look at the entire DCU the same way? Sure, some stories simply aren't compatible right now, but it does you no good to fret about it. I've learned how to stop worrying and love the comics.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 23:45 |
|
|
At this point DC continuity is such a cluster gently caress that I don't care anymore. I wouldn't even care if they made the whole universe into what the All Star line was originally going to be, where every time there's a shift in creative team, they just get to pick what is and isn't in continuity.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 00:33 |
|
|
Revol posted:The reason they're doing this is to make the characters younger. Ten years means that Superman and Batman are going to be over 30.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 02:12 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 21:53 |
|
|
TheManWithNoName posted:NOT MY FLASH Not my Flash, not my problem.  I love Manapaul so much as an artist, but I'm still a little bit wary about Flash. Mainly because I'm never sure about artists writing. It can turn out to be amazing and I'll be proved wrong and have to go out and get it. But right now I'm sitting on the fence for this one. Who knows, maybe the word of mouth will get me to try it. Also, it took DC long enough to semi-realize that Krul was a bad writer for Green Arrow. But now they are just shoveling him off to some other book. I guess they'll never actually see the error of their ways. (and just keep giving this HOT SUPERSTAR jobs)
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 06:02 |
|
