Major DC Character To Be Outed As Gay

[ctc]

>X-Men style soap opera really doesn't hold a candle to the much more complex and nuanced stories that the Los Bros Hernandez or Terry Moore have been mining for decades prior.

I still think that’s ‘cos of the perpetual nature of the superhero books. I suspect that’s why so many team books have ben heralded as being awesome: you can juggle the team and make stuff feel new without really changing things.

*sigh*

>Diverse POV's are really important to building bridges of empathy between all kinds of folks

Plus, it doesn’t do anybody any good if everyone has the same opinion. The whole point of public discourse is to expose your ideas to different ones, thus facilitating greater input and a chance to test theories.

>I thought Gail Simone portrayed WW as a lesbian years ago.

That’s actually how the original was portrayed. Well, more bi I guess. They were kinda vague.... and kinda not, if you check out #4:

5 Superhero Movie Scenes They'll Never Let You See | Cracked.com

It’s one of them artefacts from years gone by that nobody really knows what to do with any more. Especially after the 50's kiddifying of the old characters.

>They should just make a character and their sexuality is merely a facet of who s/he is from the get-go.

Yes, they should. They WON’T; ‘cos any opportunity for press boosts sales.... I wouldn’t think a gay character would be a big deal because:

- in the average superhero setting you encounter so many strange things I suspect old prejudices like ethnicity and orientation wouldn’t rate any more.

-I suspect that this sort of thing isn’t a big deal for the audience any more either. Well.... not MOST of them. There’s still gonna be some holdouts:

How Archie's Gay Friend Proved the Internet Can Do Good | Cracked.com

....but I don’t think the average person’s gonna be phased. Except by the inevitable press blitz that’ll play it up like some kind of big, new thing.

Don C.

[megojim]

I just read this today on Drudge . . . . if this wasn't an obvious marketing ploy and/or a move to political correctness (what a contradiction in terms), I wouldn't have an issue with it. I'm saddened that DC is basically floundering and grasping at straws to drive business. It's not a good sign. If the story lines and such were good they wouldn't have to reinvent stuff over and over and the presense of a Gay character would be seen as just part of a compelling story line. Marvel has it figured out and knows that the future of their charaters and their success is not in print form.

[Kotter]

Six pages of posts peppered with homophobic, sophomoric humor that hasn't been in style since the '50s & '60s is proof enough of that, IMO. Jimsmegoes' comment about the probable media reaction is apparent here, too: "tasteless gay jokes about the rest of the characters..."

Doubtless, I'll be decried as an over-sensitive, politically-correct militant out to spoil the Forum's butch locker-room good-fellowship.

And really, I'm not. It just seems to me that it's derailing a substantive discussion. As a courtesy of public discourse, I wouldn't denigrate hetero behavior in the way that several here feel free to joke about gay life.

I guess I just want to say, bluntly, "Grow up."

+1!!!!

[JediJaida]

Why can't the bigwigs at DC just leave well enough alone?

First, they retcon everything in the 80's, which was bad enough. Then, they do it AGAIN this year!

NOW, they want to change the orientation of an established character just because they want to be seen as progressive?

Pardon my French but WTH???

That doesn't make ANY kind of sense.

This is all a gimmick to sell more comics and increase the fan base.

Which is all a bunch of hooey.

If they really, REALLY want tin increase sales and the fan base, all they have to do is WRITE BETTER STORIES!!!!!

Or...does that make too much sense?

That is why I prefer to read more independent comics, which don't have a large fan base, but their plotlines do make sense, the art is pretty cool, and the characters aren't tired retreads of the usual stuff.

[Figuremod73]

All the gimmicks in the world cant beat good writing.

Thats the number 1 issue with comics now. They have ran off MOST of the talented folks who knew what good comics were.

[PNGwynne]

DC has done some good things within their former "Universe" regarding gay themes, inclusiveness, & visibility.

We've seen gay heroes (Obsidian, Estrano, Starman Mikaal, Batwoman), gay supporting cast (Superman, GL, Flash, WW), even gay villains (Pied Piper, Cavalier & Capt. Stingaree).

Aside from Denny O'Neil's rather heavy-handed & stereotypical depiction of the Joker as fey in a few '70s stories, these depictions were story-driven. If elements were added to lesser, established or supporting characters, it was done in an unsensational way.

I don't advocate DC messing about, any more than they already do, with classic established characters: Not Robin, not Aquaman, not Jimmy Olsen. It's disrespectful to fans & creators.

I'm not suddenly going to embrace a character because of their orientation--it wil depend on the writing & context. If DC wants to take an established supporting character & "make them gay," it will only be successful--as it has been with Obsidian & Piper--if written well.

This media statement by DC is sensationalistic marketing IMO: At worst, it is cashing in; at best, it is too little, too late, and a disservice to classic creations.

The "alter-ego" of superheroes can be seen as a type of closet--super-hero comics could explore this duality one step further by having a gay hero who is closeted & acts out as a hero, or even vice-verse. This was explored satirically in Veitch's Brat Pack.

But to do it glibly, to pander, to distort the core of an iconic character, is not only a disservice to gay fans, but to all fans.

[kingdom warrior]

Why can't the bigwigs at DC just leave well enough alone?

First, they retcon everything in the 80's, which was bad enough. Then, they do it AGAIN this year!

NOW, they want to change the orientation of an established character just because they want to be seen as progressive?

Pardon my French but WTH???

That doesn't make ANY kind of sense.

This is all a gimmick to sell more comics and increase the fan base.

Which is all a bunch of hooey.

If they really, REALLY want tin increase sales and the fan base, all they have to do is WRITE BETTER STORIES!!!!!

Or...does that make too much sense?

That is why I prefer to read more independent comics, which don't have a large fan base, but their plotlines do make sense, the art is pretty cool, and the characters aren't tired retreads of the usual stuff.

Because they can't leave well enough alone anymore, once upon a time they were a regular comic book company and then they went public, and now they have to answer and make money for shareholders at all cost.....

You see they can take chances that small comic book companies can't because of their back catalog....want the old Superman and Batman take your pic from any era on the last 70 years they have it....

That's why they can change things up and not give a flying flip what us olds farts want.....they want those who have that extra cash to buy their new ideas and gimmicks.

[kingdom warrior]

DC has done some good things within their former "Universe" regarding gay themes, inclusiveness, & visibility.

We've seen gay heroes (Obsidian, Estrano, Starman Mikaal, Batwoman), gay supporting cast (Superman, GL, Flash, WW), even gay villains (Pied Piper, Cavalier & Capt. Stingaree).

Aside from Denny O'Neil's rather heavy-handed & stereotypical depiction of the Joker as fey in a few '70s stories, these depictions were story-driven. If elements were added to lesser, established or supporting characters, it was done in an unsensational way.

I don't advocate DC messing about, any more than they already do, with classic established characters: Not Robin, not Aquaman, not Jimmy Olsen. It's disrespectful to fans & creators.

I'm not suddenly going to embrace a character because of their orientation--it wil depend on the writing & context. If DC wants to take an established supporting character & "make them gay," it will only be successful--as it has been with Obsidian & Piper--if written well.

This media statement by DC is sensationalistic marketing IMO: At worst, it is cashing in; at best, it is too little, too late, and a disservice to classic creations.

The "alter-ego" of superheroes can be seen as a type of closet--super-hero comics could explore this duality one step further by having a gay hero who is closeted & acts out as a hero, or even vice-verse. This was explored satirically in Veitch's Brat Pack.

But to do it glibly, to pander, to distort the core of an iconic character, is not only a disservice to gay fans, but to all fans.

Well said Scott!!

Steve.

[kingdom warrior]

All the gimmicks in the world cant beat good writing.

Thats the number 1 issue with comics now. They have ran off MOST of the talented folks who knew what good comics were.

All the gimmicks in the world can't get me to buy overpriced slick magazines that pretend to be comic books......

[PNGwynne]

Oops! Duplicate post.

[hedrap]

I don't advocate DC messing about, any more than they already do, with classic established characters: Not Robin, not Aquaman, not Jimmy Olsen. It's disrespectful to fans & creators.

I'm not suddenly going to embrace a character because of their orientation--it wil depend on the writing & context. If DC wants to take an established supporting character & "make them gay," it will only be successful--as it has been with Obsidian & Piper--if written well.

This media statement by DC is sensationalistic marketing IMO: At worst, it is cashing in; at best, it is too little, too late, and a disservice to classic creations.

The "alter-ego" of superheroes can be seen as a type of closet--super-hero comics could explore this duality one step further by having a gay hero who is closeted & acts out as a hero, or even vice-verse. This was explored satirically in Veitch's Brat Pack.

But to do it glibly, to pander, to distort the core of an iconic character, is not only a disservice to gay fans, but to all fans.

You deserve 100% credit for probably the most objective comment I've read about this anywhere, online.

Most comic sites are contorting themselves to congratulate DC, and if anyone refers to it as sensationalism, the straights are the ones who go nuts.

But, it is pure exploitation. Dido and Johns stink at running a company. All they know is how to create hype, and fail on the follow through.

If this was an honest creative direction, it would just happen. No major emphasis, no neon signs. Simply, one of the characters is gay and we learn of it through backstory.

The odds of that happening now, are slim to none.

It's the same thing with Marvel and Northstar.

[megoscott]

Moderator's Note: 2 posts have been removed due to political content. Please avoid making partisan political statements on the Mego Museum Forums. Take it up with a mod if you have any questions.

We are pleased to have a thoughtful and respectful discussions on this topic. Thanks.

[PNGwynne]

Everyones first thought seems to be Aquaman but I don't think DC would do that. He's considered a lame superhero by many already and I think if they do it right, they need to find someone who will be welcomed as a gay superhero, not someone who will be further ridiculed for coming out.

I DO NOT advocate for Aquaman to "come out," & I like Mera, too. But you would be amazed at the gay fan base Arthur has. I like the character for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is, er...character design.

[torgospizza]

I DO NOT advocate for Aquaman to "come out," & I like Mera, too. But you would be amazed at the gay fan base Arthur has. I like the character for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is, er...character design.

How would you feel if it was Bruce Wayne? I know people have been joking about him and Robin for ages, but when you think about the years of bailing on women wanting to share nightcaps with him, it's possible that if one person's been closeted for decades he would be the guy. The whole deal about the war on crime coming first and all just seems like an excuse. Thing is, if Bruce is gay, I'm not sure he even knows it, he's so lacking in introspection. I know he had a kid and has been with a couple gals, but even Oscar Wilde had children. When it comes to Batman, I really don't know what to think.

[Earth 2 Chris]

In the Golden Age, Bruce Wayne had a succession of girlfriends; Julie Madison, Linda Page, etc. And of course there was Catwoman and Vicki Vale. By the early Silver Age he had Batwoman, and like every DC hero mostly rebuffed her advances because of either his dedication to duty or fear of reprisal by his enemies. By the 70s he had quite a few love interests, most famously Talia and Silver St. Cloud. It was strongly hinted that they had a sexual relationship (gasp!). In the 80s Vicki Vale returned, and you also had Alfred's daughter Julia Remarque and Catwoman, who actually became his crimefighting partner for a while. Of course "Son of the Demon" showed us that Bruce and Talia had consummated their relationship. Sometime after, the idea of Batman as a psychologically damaged man-child obsessed with vengance emerged, and the theory was he had no time for women due to his "holy war" on crime. There were still overtures to him and Talia, and Vicki Vale and Vesper Farichild and others tried to break through, but by that point writers seemed to have forgotten to write much for Bruce Wayne to do.

In the last decade, Jeph Loeb and Jim Lee reignited the Batman/Catwoman romance in HUSH. I lost track of Batman's continuity during Morrison's run. But Batman has actually had a healthier romantic life than most people give him credit for over his 70 plus year career.

Chris