Iceman is in the news...

[comicmike]

Interesting controversy, IMO. Now this is what art is all about: Moving people's emotions. I think the news has a good chance of creating powerful cognitive dissonance. I put this forward because I am a former military social worker: One of my biggest learnings in my practice has been that sexuality is a process and a spectrum; not some simple all-encompassing label. So there is a bit more to Iceman revealed. This tidbit of info fails to discount parts of his past or future. It is just 'part of' his story; not all of it. IMO, says little about the quality of Iceman's character, nor devalues his previous relationships, relations or crushes. So it shows a bit more of his timeline. So what? Moreover, he is still a fighter. He is still a strong, diverse character. In the same vein of mutant lore, I'd like to believe Xavier's wisdom would have helped a mutant self-actualize, self-accept, and prepare for inopportune moments where a mature character still goes through self-doubt about her/his abilities and identity. A good character self-accepts, grows and moves forward. Perhaps, so do comic book readers. For me, comics reflect snip-its of life 'through story'. The comic book medium has always made bold, poignant statements about community and social awareness. I think the news is yet another example of the medium remaining valid storytelling about many different points about human existence (conflict, war, political angst, trauma, falling in love/ being single, success, loss, family, identity, ...).

[huedell]

Don't know if anyone has liked Back Issue on Facebook but here is a little article that was posted by one of it's likers (Word?) :

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/04/...tailer-speaks/

Just is one more nail in the big 2's hold on the comic book industry. They can't even keep their older collectors interested because they've done it once again to the older readers and collectors. Jumping off point for a lot of older readers...this thing Marvel is doing will be one more nail in the coffin. Only thing Marvel really has left is to rely on the older story lines to convert into billion dollar movies. How IRONIC is that.

There's irony, but only in that print is essentially dead and those classic stories have to "live on" somewhere that'll actually nab them some bucks---and, correct me if I'm wrong, but compared to toys and movies and other miscellaneous stuff, comics themselves make up a very small part of the money that DC or Marvel makes in the overall scheme of things.

You brought up Death Of Superman earlier---and how collectors that were speculators bit the big one as far as their investment.

But, Death Of Superman (the one where he actually dies) is listed on matty.com as being the highest selling DC comic ever. Isn't that what DC is going to pay attention to?

Why care about the very small contingent of old-school collectors if printed comicbooks are becoming extinct, and "event" stories in comicbooks prove time and time again to be good sellers--- and GREAT publicity to boot?

[huedell]

Interesting controversy, IMO. Now this is what art is all about: Moving people's emotions. I think the news has a good chance of creating powerful cognitive dissonance. I put this forward because I am a former military social worker: One of my biggest learnings in my practice has been that sexuality is a process and a spectrum; not some simple all-encompassing label. So there is a bit more to Iceman revealed. This tidbit of info fails to discount parts of his past or future. It is just 'part of' his story; not all of it. IMO, says little about the quality of Iceman's character, nor devalues his previous relationships, relations or crushes. So it shows a bit more of his timeline. So what? Moreover, he is still a fighter. He is still a strong, diverse character. In the same vein of mutant lore, I'd like to believe Xavier's wisdom would have helped a mutant self-actualize, self-accept, and prepare for inopportune moments where a mature character still goes through self-doubt about her/his abilities and identity. A good character self-accepts, grows and moves forward. Perhaps, so do comic book readers. For me, comics reflect snip-its of life 'through story'. The comic book medium has always made bold, poignant statements about community and social awareness. I think the news is yet another example of the medium remaining valid storytelling about many different points about human existence (conflict, war, political angst, trauma, falling in love/ being single, success, loss, family, identity, ...).

One thing I get from what you said is that doing stuff like this gives the Marvel Universe (and the DCU, etc) more leeway to examine the politics of the "real world"---and, yeah, I think that's 100% legit. And, if it doesn't work out well, there's always the next iteration of the Iceman character to explore other avenues.

[Blue Meanie]

Why care about the very small contingent of old-school collectors if printed comicbooks are becoming extinct, and "event" stories in comicbooks prove time and time again to be good sellers--- and GREAT publicity to boot?

Then why even bother with printing them at all? If what you say is true then that means that there really is no future whatsoever with comic books. To hell with 75 years of continuity...let's just start over again and see what happens. What happens is that you leave the industry in the hands of new readers that could care less about these characters. If that's what these companies are feeding by all of these ridiculous events and stuff then they might as well fold those divisions of their entertainment empires. Why throw money at a losing proposition??!!?? If anyone out there thinks that this stunt Marvel is pulling is anything other than a ploy to make some sort of money then they are either in complete denial or I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you really cheap. This is not a story to shed light on "issues" that are in today's headlines...it's the all mighty $$$$. Plain and simple.

It's obvious that both DC and Marvel have the corporations that own them telling them what to do and putting people in charge that have NO RIGHT running a company they don't know anything about. Comics have been for the most part dreck for the last 20 years. There is nothing memorable that has happened in that time period. In part I blame myself for supporting this awful story telling that has gone on. No more is what I say to it. Jumping off the big 2's bandwagon. Took me 20 years and a lot of $$$ spent...but there is a time when enough is enough. Give me back issues from 25 years ago and I'm happy.

[huedell]

[huedell]

Then why even bother with printing them at all? If what you say is true then that means that there really is no future whatsoever with comic books. To hell with 75 years of continuity...let's just start over again and see what happens. What happens is that you leave the industry in the hands of new readers that could care less about these characters. If that's what these companies are feeding by all of these ridiculous events and stuff then they might as well fold those divisions of their entertainment empires. Why throw money at a losing proposition??!!?? If anyone out there thinks that this stunt Marvel is pulling is anything other than a ploy to make some sort of money then they are either in complete denial or I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you really cheap. This is not a story to shed light on "issues" that are in today's headlines...it's the all mighty $$$$. Plain and simple.

So, yes, we're in 100% agreeance.

I guess your argument is that DC and Marvel are supposed to do what you perceive as the noble thing to do rather than make money?

But when you say it's a "losing proposition" it seems to be a contradiction. It's not a losing proposition financially. You just said it yourself.

[monitor_ep]

CDN6rQ-WAAEhlk9-1.jpg

For those who are still having a problem with Iceman coming out as gay please read his Gay History:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/04/...uld-have-gone/

[Blue Meanie]

So, yes, we're in 100% agreeance.

I guess your argument is that DC and Marvel are supposed to do what you perceive as the noble thing to do rather than make money?

But when you say it's a "losing proposition" it seems to be a contradiction. It's not a losing proposition financially. You just said it yourself.

The losing proposition is the comic book publications as a whole. Stunts like this increase your sales for that one stunt...it's not going to save the overall fact that the industry will be losing more money by losing older readers. No company or corporations owes ME anything. Never said that. And it sure as hell not about doing the noble thing. It's about doing the smart thing and these stunts aren't smart at all. Go to a comic store that's been in business for 30 years and has a lot of regulars that have been around for at least 20 of those 30 +years...ask them what they think about this crap that the companies are pulling. They are tired of it...the only thing that is stopping them from dropping all of the titles that they are reading is the COLLECTORS MENTALITY. That's it. If it wasn't there in their head...they'd have canceled their pull sheets a long time ago. The owner of the shop that I go to even said that this might be a jumping off point for him...and he's collected since the 50's.

[Blue Meanie]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]15068[/ATTACH]

For those who are still having a problem with Iceman coming out as gay please read his Gay History:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/04/...uld-have-gone/

I have no problem with Bobby being gay. I am a lefty liberal democrat. I could care less if he's gay, black, white, brown, blue, or purple. This whole story has nothing to do with him coming out. It has everything to do with $$$$ in my opinion.

[Blue Meanie]

One last thing on this and then I am done...why waste being gay or coming out as gay on a second rate character like Bobby or other second rate characters like Northstar in the past when Marvel last did this??!!?? If you really want to make a statement, or raise the issue of being gay or lesbian or transgender in a comic, why not make Bruce Wayne gay? Why not make Wonder Woman a lesbian? Hell, really go for it and have Steve Rogers/Captain America or Clark Kent/Superman come out as being gay? Because Marvel and DC don't have the balls to do that. They get just enough publicity out of these little stunts every few years to make a little extra $$$. If they really CARED about gay, lesbian, or transgender people then go for it and make one of their lead characters in their companies gay,lesbian, or transgender. It will NEVER HAPPEN. BOOM! that's me dropping the mic

[huedell]

The losing proposition is the comic book publications as a whole. Stunts like this increase your sales for that one stunt...it's not going to save the overall fact that the industry will be losing more money by losing older readers. No company or corporations owes ME anything. Never said that. And it sure as hell not about doing the noble thing. It's about doing the smart thing and these stunts aren't smart at all. Go to a comic store that's been in business for 30 years and has a lot of regulars that have been around for at least 20 of those 30 +years...ask them what they think about this crap that the companies are pulling. They are tired of it...the only thing that is stopping them from dropping all of the titles that they are reading is the COLLECTORS MENTALITY. That's it. If it wasn't there in their head...they'd have canceled their pull sheets a long time ago. The owner of the shop that I go to even said that this might be a jumping off point for him...and he's collected since the 50's.

I understand. And I'm sympathetic.

But I'm looking at this from the POV of someone who sees print comicbooks as a very small part of what makes these entities money.

I see it like the long term mentality is a losing proposition financially-----so why worry about that smaller contingent when you could use the print comicbook medium for things like event standalone quick bucks, and publicity stunts?

Again, I realize that you and your buddies ARE that smaller contingent, and am sympathetic.

But, my POV is that trying to fight what's going on is the typical "ant pushing against a mountain", "trying to stop progress" mentality.

And, again, if what I'm seeing is true, then it's not "all" a loss.

1) DC/Marvel movies and other projects will still keep those legendary heroes alive and making money even when comics aren't that much of a concern proportionally.

2) The "twisted" mentality of DC/Marvel that defines whatever is left of their comicbook audience will continue to make some money and get some publicity, albeit not with "long-term goals" as defined by the mindset of yesteryear.

and...

3) Smaller comicbook companies have a greater chance of flourishing by pushing a business model more akin to what you are looking for---and the richer story-telling (and other more respectable cool stuff) will matter more to them because (until their corporate strategy says differently) their comicbook print material will be a major source of income for them, and they'll give more of a darn not alienate certain parts of their fanbases.

[knight errant00]

One Writer even bragged "were going to tare down childhoods."

Which writer was that? Just so I know who to complain and write about specifically.

[PNGwynne]

It's a no win-whatever DC & Marvel do, IMO. You'll embrace X-Men as long as it's a parable about difference and discrimination, but as soon as it's made concrete, "fans" are uncomfortable with it. If a C-list character's perceived orientation is altered--or revealed more fully, there are cries of "foul." It's written off as lazy story-telling, profit-pandering--which may be true. But how much greater would the disconnect be if an A-list character was altered, either in race or orientation? Outrage--as expressed here, often. Readers' say it's no big deal as long as it's tacit, which is really saying: Don't challenge us beyond the costume, the powers, and a superficial, wooden alter-ego.

It's suggested, "Let's create unique diverse heroes. That's more comfortable and more validating, surely?" Except such characters don't sell, so the Big Two are trying to shorthand it in, have their cake & eat it, too. When an LGBT character is created, (ie. Northstar), he's dismissed with snarky, homophobic jokes. His very sexuality devalues his powers & character in some readers' eyes. That's not Marvel's doing. Suffering Sappho, what's your take on Wonder Woman? It's entirely plausible and even apt for Amazons to exhibit a fluid sexuality.

DC & Marvel are not creating comics much for me, or "us" here, it seems. I'm primarily a traditionalist, but I have a few personal opinions about characters. I think they're apt but not necessarily good story-telling. That story-telling is what should really be examined when these "revisions" appear, of whatever sort. From what I've seen, Bobby's "outing" was depicted in an intrusive, condescending way: To me,. that's more distressing than Marvel's motives. Diverse characterization isn't easy it seems, and I don't think it's as easily reduced as this thread suggests.

I appreciate your thoughtful post, Comicmike.

[huedell]

From what I've seen, Bobby's "outing" was depicted in an intrusive, condescending way: To me,. that's more distressing than Marvel's motives.

If you mean distressing in an overall negative way towards the issue of being gay---I'm seeing it differently, 'cause I see it as akin to an "All In The Family/Archie Bunker" scenario----from what I get from the Jean Grey outing dialogue and overall presentation, Grey is made out to BE intrusive and boldly judgmental----basically "lacking sensitivity" towards Bobby. I can't imagine such an obvious lacking on Grey's part isn't being utilized in any other way except as a straight literary commentary on insensitivity to gays, altho' I can't be fully sure unless I have the rest of the comic to be sure.

But, as you mentioned in your post (which contained a lot of ideas that I too had enter my brain while taking in the whole scenario, both literal & literary), this IS "X-Men" after all, the one big-time superhero title that most inherently, analogously holds a majority of the political issues gays traverse on a consistent basis (discrimination, persecution, etc). That's why I highly doubt they didn't consider Jean Grey's actions as at least partially negative so as to illustrate a point. Now, whether or not it was handled best as possible---THAT I could see them fumbling the ball on.

[PNGwynne]

In regards to this thread and the news bite, I'd agree that it'd be useful to see the full story content. But from I've the panels I've see, Jean seems to be speaking from a position of authority, by virtue of both her powers and character-level.