The mystery is over

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

Y’know, I don’t see them making him gay as besmirching the character in any way. I don’t think it’s that big a deal; either in continuity OR for society any more. What bugs me is how DC plays stuff like this up like it IS a big deal, and then tosses it as soon as it becomes awkward.

Not that doing so is a NEW thing.... they’ve been rebooting their setting every few years forever.... It’s a big part of why I never got into entertainment by committee.

Don C.

[palitoy]

Hmmmm....

Y’know, I don’t see them making him gay as besmirching the character in any way. I don’t think it’s that big a deal; either in continuity OR for society any more. What bugs me is how DC plays stuff like this up like it IS a big deal, and then tosses it as soon as it becomes awkward.

Yeah, I don't see it as an offensive thing either, lots of my heroes were gay.

[hedrap]

At first, I found the hucksterism sad as it showed Dido and Johns treading water, desperate for attention.

Then, I heard the choice and thought it made sense, as a way to differentiate him from the other GL's.

But then I started reading Robinsons logic behind it, and that's when I realize how arbitrary and haphazard this choice really was.

For example,

1. As pointed out... "wood"

2. They retconned a character to be gay, thereby overshadowing his son, who was a gay character long before dad.

3. The "logic" behind the costume, for character and creator, was to create something garish so it stood out.

I really think that someone in DC/WB squashed what the real plans were, which was to out Kyle or make Obsidian the new Lantern, or make them the gay couple. Instead, they chose the Liberace of superheroes.

[The Toyroom]

^ Obsidian doesn't even exist in the DCnU...And the Earth-2 characters are now considerably younger so Alan Scott could not possibly have an adult son (or daughter).
So Robinson's "logic" was since they were losing a gay character like Obsidian it made "sense" to transfer the sexual preference to his father (or the character that once was his father in a previous continuity) in order not to "lose" a gay character.

Which makes their reasoning seem even more trivial and arbitrary that sexual preference is just something you can transfer from character to character...

[LadyZod]

I'm not offended by the fact that they took a grand old character and shoehorned him into a role that doesn't seem to fit, because as others have mentioned, he's essentially a new character.

I'm offended by the blatant tokenism.

We saw how great that work out with the new Firestorm.

[Cosmicman]

I feel the worst for Alan Scott's creator, Martin Nodell. I'm sure that this isn't what Mr. Nodell meant for his creation to become.

Nice job DC.

Kinda like deciding to reboot the Mona Lisa and just paint over the original.

Bastages.

Well thankfully Martin Nodell has been dead since 2006. This would have been a cruel and rude punishment to a great man if he was still alive. I'm not sure how it works or if Martin Nodell or his family even have any say about the original Green Lantern but I know if this was Superman, the whole Schuster and Siegel clan would come walking from cemeteries looking like something from a zombie movie in search for someone's brains as payback.

[PNGwynne]

Alan Scott has always been a stalwart, loyal man of both character and courage. He was always a leader and the very definition of integrity. Now that he's gay...he still is.

This new 52 character, whoever they claim he is, isn't the one we know. This is a completely new creation that might as well have been given a new name. This new direction, while radical and completely driven by desperation and potential profits, might actually be a story worth reading. They are doing this for all the wrong reasons, but we may end up with a book that's good. I'm still waiting for a full shot of his outfit to see how much they ape Ross' designs.

This is indicative of DC as a company. They are stuggling in their search for an identity. The sad part is it's been in front of them the entire time, it just needed a little work. They try to grab headlines, and succeeded, by changing the fifth best known lantern in an alternate reality universe. Way to really stretch your boundries DC.

DC is at the very edge of the high diving board with a crowd looking up and a crowd behind you. Not much choice but to jump at this point. I predict a loud, welt-inducing belly flop.

I couldn't express my own views any better than you've, Scott.

I'm not 100% against all this, but it's a bit ST "Mirror, Mirror" and just a rehash of what DC did (successfully) with Pied Piper years ago.

Ultimately, it's much ado about very little & still indicative of DC as disrespectful & venal.

[kept back]

I was really hoping that their choice would, ya know, make sense. Kind of like the last piece of a puzzle. "Oh! Now all of this other stuff we know about this character makes sense!" But I really should have known better after the last few years of DC shenanigans.

If they wanted to write stories about having a different sexual orientation, they could have easily explored Wonder Woman falling for a man since it seems the rest of Themiscyra likes the ladies. They could have done something with J'onn J'onnz since he is a shapeshifter and kind of ambiguos to...oh, wait. He's stranded in the Wildstorm universe. Good job, DC.

If it leads to good stories, great. The problem is, based on the last few years, it won't. And it will all be rebooted by next summer.

[kingdom warrior]

If DC had a real set of cojones they would have made Wonder Woman a Lesbian, but you know they won't because the character is so tied up with product licenses and DC just won't do that to their three cash cows.......can't lose that easy money.

[aquatroy]

Perhaps it's a reflection of my age. I don't care that DC want's to use sexual preference as a means to define a character. As long as it's something akin to a reference on a Who's Who page. In practice, I like my supers as asexual as possible.

[Janson]

DC... Don't Care

HAhaha, this has been my mantra. Thanks dude, hope you don't mind if I use it.

[MIB41]

I'm not offended by the fact that they took a grand old character and shoehorned him into a role that doesn't seem to fit, because as others have mentioned, he's essentially a new character.

I'm offended by the blatant tokenism.

We saw how great that work out with the new Firestorm.

SPOT ON.

[ctc]

>But then I started reading Robinsons logic behind it, and that's when I realize how arbitrary and haphazard this choice really was.

You can say that of a lot of superheroes though. Think Batman; tights, leather cape and mask, kneehigh boots.... TOTALLY aggro. (Plus, he keeps an underwear clad boy in a cave....)

There’s a great bit on gender in the film “Metal: A Headbanger’s Journey” that apples here; how flash and image is all about attracting attention; and the gender bias towards maleness that I think applies to superheroes as well. If you haven’t seen it, I recommend doing so.

As for the arbitrary rearranging of everything; that’s the hazard of following entertainment by committee. It happened before, and it’ll happen again and again. And again.... Hell; the Silver Age for DC was based on erasing the preceding two decades.

Don C.

[boynightwing]

I don't think it's going to make a difference either way if he's gay or not. I barely know anything about the character as he was before. So long as they tell a good story I'm happy.

[hedrap]

>
There’s a great bit on gender in the film “Metal: A Headbanger’s Journey” that apples here; how flash and image is all about attracting attention; and the gender bias towards maleness that I think applies to superheroes as well. If you haven’t seen it, I recommend doing so.

As for the arbitrary rearranging of everything; that’s the hazard of following entertainment by committee. It happened before, and it’ll happen again and again. And again.... Hell; the Silver Age for DC was based on erasing the preceding two decades.

Don C.

Very good points.