DC Says One Of Its"Iconic" Heroes Is Gay

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Smart money is on Aquaman. As lame as Aquaman is, he is pretty iconic.

The only heroes off the table are Superman and Batman. They wouldn't dare risk it with those 2 characters.

Yeah, it's probably going to be Aquaman.

Anyone else think it could be Robin? He's major enough without completely pissing off fanboys. Other than that Batman would make some sense or flash (I'm not really up to date with the rebooted relationships statuses (god that sounds like something to do with facebook))

Not to resurrect a dead topic but I think I know who it might be. Alfred is a character who they can make gay without ruining anything and hes more prominent than to of DC's biggest heroes. My cash is on him.

Therumancer:

-snip-

Okay, I'll try to keep this brief-ish since it's not exactly a heated topic.

First off, apologies if I came off rude, you just seemed to be kind of abrasive in your post considering the lack of actual accurate info you had to back yourself up.
That said, that's a shit apology, but I do recognize that I was overly belligerent in what I said, which doesn't really help the communicative process. So yeah, my bad.

Secondly, whilst a lot of what you say is true, i.e things returning to the status quo, major changes to characters contradicting them and whatnot, it's all very conditional.

I mean sure, writing out Lois Lane and making Supes gay would be stupid and would definitely not last. But your argument only really applies in the precise scenario you gave, so you sort of straw-manned it there.
See, Lois is a big part of Superman's character, (whereas the sexuality of Superman doesn't come up all too often) and writing that out would be as big a change as making him decide circumstantial killing was A-okay, or deciding he is prejudiced toward... I dunno, Egyptians?

Batman though. Making Batman gay? What would that actually change, that people would have a problem against? So Bats and Vicki Vale never happened? Tali Al Ghul never got it on with him?
Uh, big whoop. While significantly large story arcs, they aren't exactly synonymous with Batman. I mean, you can't picture Supes without Lois. But does Batman have a definitive love interest? Not really. I mean, it would make a lot of sense if Batman's past and post-reboot flings with Cat-Woman were one-sided affairs. There never was any real chemistry there anyway, just poorly disguised porn.

And Hawk-man hasn't been all tangled up with Hawk-Girl in a while. And in the New 52, she's not around at all. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was Hawk-man.

That doesn't mean I think it's Batman for sure though. How significant are the romance stories for Green Arrow, or Martian Manhunter, or Zatanna, or Wally West, Ted Kord, Guy Gardner, Booster Gold(I could totally see him as gay), or Captain Marvel?
Sure, I totally agree that making Superman gay would be a bad move, but no one said it's going to be superman, so your point lacks applicability since not everyone is Superman.
In fact, DC said that it was a character not yet introduced in the New 52.

Plus, whilst comics do often return to a status quo, New 52 has been going on for a year now, and the changes it's making aren't dramatic or anything. I pretty much view the reboot as a synchronized "Streamlining character retcons" time period.
I mean, no one's going to reject it because it's just going to slip in a few changes. Changes we'd all like to see, but there's something in the characters history from a lame one-shot in 1995 or something that contradicts it.
Perhaps, somewhere, there is a poor heterosexual love interest crammed in for an Iconic secondary character, preventing them from being made homosexual which would add some extra story-telling potential. Well now that the New 52 is around we have a legitimate excuse to implement such a change.

Oh and on that: I know I am probably making it seem like introducing a gay iconic character is a brilliant idea by rights, simply because the character is gay; And many think it is unnecessary.
But when you make a change in comic books, there should really only be one question to ask to validate making the change - Does this create opportunity to tell a greater variety of stories?
And to be honest, there's plenty you can do with a gay character. As much as you can with a straight character, of course, but most of that has already been explored.

Variety is the spice of life and all that. I would love to see a gay character who is recognizable and actually well known and people who don't read comics might know who they are so you don't have to go and explain who Wiccan and Hulkling are to defend stupid claims of homophobia in comics.

Wow. Apparently, that is what I call brief. Oops.

((On Stormwatch: You won't find it to be very familiar territory, at all. While I also miss Winter (And Hellion and Fuji, actually... Thought Fuji is entering through the reboot another way) there aren't many classic Stormwatch characters around.
Stormwatch fits into the DC universe very well, but as a secret extra-terrestrial defense team guarding Earth from all sorts of attacks that other heroes are too stupid and mainstream to detect.
Jenny Quantum/Sparks is not the chain-smoking cynic you know and love, but is... A little kid. The spirit of the Twenty First Century who has the power to manipulate physics based on the current scientific knowledge on them. I know it sounds like a turn off, but she's still very cool and likable.
Joining the team is Martian Manhunter, who quite the Justice League because he's a hipster now, Apollo and Midnighter, Jack Hawksmoor (who's city-talking power is portrayed amazingly), the Engineer, the Projectionist, and Harry Tanner the Eminence of Blades. It's really a great book and the first six issues, by Paul Cornell, are sublime.))

Thespian:

No, but it's a significant character change, obviously. These are stories with characters, of course it matters. If they were making one of the characters Hare Krishna or something it'd be an equally important change.

For some reason, the name "Donna Troy" keeps echoing in my mind.
Can't figure out why though..

There was an article in today's SF Examiner on this subject. Northstar is getting married this summer to his boyfriend. But I think he's Marvel (part of the x-men universe) rather than DC. They didn't say anything about a DC character coming out.

Atmos Duality:

For some reason, the name "Donna Troy" keeps echoing in my mind.
Can't figure out why though..

Because it's an anagram for Tony Daron. That's all I got.

Thespian:

Therumancer:

-snip-

Okay, I'll try to keep this brief-ish since it's not exactly a heated topic.

First off, apologies if I came off rude, you just seemed to be kind of abrasive in your post considering the lack of actual accurate info you had to back yourself up.
That said, that's a shit apology, but I do recognize that I was overly belligerent in what I said, which doesn't really help the communicative process. So yeah, my bad.

Secondly, whilst a lot of what you say is true, i.e things returning to the status quo, major changes to characters contradicting them and whatnot, it's all very conditional.

I mean sure, writing out Lois Lane and making Supes gay would be stupid and would definitely not last. But your argument only really applies in the precise scenario you gave, so you sort of straw-manned it there.
See, Lois is a big part of Superman's character, (whereas the sexuality of Superman doesn't come up all too often) and writing that out would be as big a change as making him decide circumstantial killing was A-okay, or deciding he is prejudiced toward... I dunno, Egyptians?

Batman though. Making Batman gay? What would that actually change, that people would have a problem against? So Bats and Vicki Vale never happened? Tali Al Ghul never got it on with him?
Uh, big whoop. While significantly large story arcs, they aren't exactly synonymous with Batman. I mean, you can't picture Supes without Lois. But does Batman have a definitive love interest? Not really. I mean, it would make a lot of sense if Batman's past and post-reboot flings with Cat-Woman were one-sided affairs. There never was any real chemistry there anyway, just poorly disguised porn.

And Hawk-man hasn't been all tangled up with Hawk-Girl in a while. And in the New 52, she's not around at all. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was Hawk-man.

That doesn't mean I think it's Batman for sure though. How significant are the romance stories for Green Arrow, or Martian Manhunter, or Zatanna, or Wally West, Ted Kord, Guy Gardner, Booster Gold(I could totally see him as gay), or Captain Marvel?
Sure, I totally agree that making Superman gay would be a bad move, but no one said it's going to be superman, so your point lacks applicability since not everyone is Superman.
In fact, DC said that it was a character not yet introduced in the New 52.

Plus, whilst comics do often return to a status quo, New 52 has been going on for a year now, and the changes it's making aren't dramatic or anything. I pretty much view the reboot as a synchronized "Streamlining character retcons" time period.
I mean, no one's going to reject it because it's just going to slip in a few changes. Changes we'd all like to see, but there's something in the characters history from a lame one-shot in 1995 or something that contradicts it.
Perhaps, somewhere, there is a poor heterosexual love interest crammed in for an Iconic secondary character, preventing them from being made homosexual which would add some extra story-telling potential. Well now that the New 52 is around we have a legitimate excuse to implement such a change.

Oh and on that: I know I am probably making it seem like introducing a gay iconic character is a brilliant idea by rights, simply because the character is gay; And many think it is unnecessary.
But when you make a change in comic books, there should really only be one question to ask to validate making the change - Does this create opportunity to tell a greater variety of stories?
And to be honest, there's plenty you can do with a gay character. As much as you can with a straight character, of course, but most of that has already been explored.

Variety is the spice of life and all that. I would love to see a gay character who is recognizable and actually well known and people who don't read comics might know who they are so you don't have to go and explain who Wiccan and Hulkling are to defend stupid claims of homophobia in comics.

Wow. Apparently, that is what I call brief. Oops.

((On Stormwatch: You won't find it to be very familiar territory, at all. While I also miss Winter (And Hellion and Fuji, actually... Thought Fuji is entering through the reboot another way) there aren't many classic Stormwatch characters around.
Stormwatch fits into the DC universe very well, but as a secret extra-terrestrial defense team guarding Earth from all sorts of attacks that other heroes are too stupid and mainstream to detect.
Jenny Quantum/Sparks is not the chain-smoking cynic you know and love, but is... A little kid. The spirit of the Twenty First Century who has the power to manipulate physics based on the current scientific knowledge on them. I know it sounds like a turn off, but she's still very cool and likable.
Joining the team is Martian Manhunter, who quite the Justice League because he's a hipster now, Apollo and Midnighter, Jack Hawksmoor (who's city-talking power is portrayed amazingly), the Engineer, the Projectionist, and Harry Tanner the Eminence of Blades. It's really a great book and the first six issues, by Paul Cornell, are sublime.))

Basically it's Jenny as per the later authority? Or is this little, little, kid as opposed to her aging herself into a teen? and as opposed to actually being Stormwatch, while they are calling it that, it's pretty much "The Authority" minus Swift who was both the most sexualized and most extraneous character of the team. It could be defended as being the "Stormwatch Black" team however. I'll have to look for it.

That said, the point isn't so much Batman's getting it on with Catwoman being important so much as their interplay, which wouldn't work if Batman was gay. She's a classic villain for a reason. When it comes to Talia, that has lead to major subplots involving Batman's son, which they would likely have to retcon, if they haven't already.

I'm not sure about the iconic status of some of the characters you mention, and I believe one of them is already bi-sexual. Zatanna is one of my favorite characters given that I'm a fan of super mages, and I'm pretty sure she mentioned she was bi-sexual in Books Of Magic at some point (though it's been a while), I think it was mentioned off handedly in connection to her doing the tantric sex magic stuff with John Constantine.

In the case of the characters that are iconic, I think all of them have been established as firmly heterosexual which is the problem. It's not a matter so much of one shots, but the fact that heroes are always running out to rescue their girlfriends and stuff, and this has fueled countless events. In retconning all of this and saying "well, Barry Allen was actually rescueing his boyfriend Steve that time" if they have to referance something, it's just kind of strained.

You kind of also illustrate the issue with Superman, by pointing out that comic relationships in DC (barring "M" imprints like one I mentioned) tend to gloss over sexuality. The thing is the whole point of redefining a character as gay like this (Screaming it from the rooftops) is to put that to the forefront, and it just doesn't work given DC's general vibe.

It's like any other attempt to deliberatly create minority characters (as I pointed out in another post). If they set out to create a black character for example they trap themselves. To look at some of Marvel's longer lasting attempts, if you have the character act just like a super hero who happens to be black, people start to argue the character is only black on a technicality because they don't act that way. Storm from "The X-men" is an example of that, and occasionally mocked for it when she shows up on lists of black super heroes. The flip side to that would be say "Luke Cage" who was all about "the black attitude" which lead to him generally becoming a mocked and much criticized stereotype for a lot of his career. Seanbaby once made a joke about reading Power Man and how "Luke cage talks with so much jive, I don't know if he wanted to beat the guy up, or dance with him" which was funny because there was a grain of truth in it.

The same basically applies to this stunt. They set out to make this major gay character. If the character continues to act just like he did before and the almost complete lack of sexuality means it basically never comes up, he's going to be called "gay as a technicality".
If they bring it up by way of reminding you that so-and-so is gay now (yell it from the rooftops once or twice an issue) and having the person act flamboyantly gay so it's noticable, it's going to be considered an offensive stereotype to those who would otherwise support it at the very least.

As much as people hate the point, I believe that when it comes to comics a company cannot set out to create minority characters (of any minority). They need creators to do it on their own without prompting, and just let it happen without fanfare. Of course that kind of slow introduction isn't to everyone's liking.

I'd point at Wildstorm as a case where it was done pretty well, an example I've used before. When say Gen-13 came out, they didn't promote it as "Hey, we've got an Indian and a Chinese guy! Look how diverse we are everyone" they just put the characters in. They didn't telegraph that Sarah was a lesbian, and just pulled it out by surprise at one point and ran with it from there. While not a huge success, Gen-13 lasted quite a while, they tried to reboot it with differant characters after killing most of the original team (thanks Adam Warren), and it was so unpopular that they found an offhanded way to more or less reboot the originals.

Likewise when Apollo and The Midnighter were introduced, there was no huge annoucement "we're going to have a pair of gay supermen joining Stormwatch!". They just sort of brought them in, and didn't immediatly make it clear they were into each other if I remember (though it didn't take long). Those characters wound up lasting quite a while, and are still in publication.

Granted, Wildstorm is not the huge imprint the main DC label is, but it's run by DC and you'd expect them to know better. This whole publicity grab of "one of our iconic characters will be turned gay" is kind of tasteless and I can't see it ending well for anyone. In trying to guess who it is, the thought processes are less about who would fit the bill, but rather which character being "the chosen one" would be the least extreme trainwreck.

-

Oh and I don't consider Guy Gardner iconic at all really, he had a chance to be when he was first introduced, but he's become an actual comedy relief character. Booster Gold was always intended to be a joke of sorts (although it's now a double joke, because he still seems like a clown, but is actually a huge hero) and is someone I also wouldn't consider iconic. Green Arrow could be considered fairly iconic, but he had that whole thing with Black Canary and is arguably the character that wound up making her popular by association due to their relationship/partnership, and they still go together as a sort of tension-filled duo in a lot of people's minds.... so I can't see that one. I'm not a big Green Arrow fan though to be honest so I'm not sure what their exact status is at the moment.

I seem to remember they made "Plastic Man" gay before, and the idea here is that they want to make a BIG character gay for the publicity, so it's not likely to be one of the lesser characters who just happens to be around.

To be honest if I had to make some guesses, and think in terms of them making "Iconic" a technicality, I'd look at the JSA characters (as I also mentioned in another post). Wild Cat, Alan Ladd, and others have all been around for a long time, and while well developed aren't generally at the forefront of people's minds the same way the JLA and associates are. If they say had Alan Ladd (the original, original Green Lantern) come out as being gay, for example they could claim iconic, and also not change much that is currently in the popular mindset.

To be honest when I heard this the first character that actually came to mind might have been "Captain Marvel". If they have Billy (or whomever the current host will be after the retcon) be gay, they could have the whole "picked on gay pretty boy, who turns into the mega-stud that protects everyone" schtick. As well as sort of retconning away that whole awkward plotline about how Captain Marvel was into a teenage girl, and everyone thought he was a pedophille before it became more generally known to the rest of his team mates that he was actually a kid himself.... that was differant, but I never got the impression that went over paticuarly well. Captain Marvel being gay would be a way of sort of erasing a (fairly recent) awkward moment, and by the time they revert the regular status quo (which they probably will) everyone will have been thinking of the gay thing, rather than the faux-pedophille arc.

That said I'm pretty sure it's not Captain Marvel, in part because I don't think the guys announcing this are that clever, and also because he's arguably be the best character if they are trying to attract a new young, gay readership, because the whole thing could be turned into a sort of empowerment of gay youth fantasy.

In closing the thing I wish people WOULD with, is acting like DC as a publisher is trying to catch up with Archie or whatever, rather than this being a publicity stunt. They were publishing gay super heroes before almost anyone in the mainstream, and some have held down places in titles since their inception.

There are so many ways this could be done wrong, and so few that it could go right. And honestly, I don't trust them to do this right either.

Furioso:

huser:

Furioso:

Really? But Aquaman seems like such a lame character... oh well, no matter who it is the fan outrage will be hilarious

But why? What of the character's history, motivations, etc make him "such a lame character?" I mean Grant Morrison's version was pretty much the epitome of badass.

As far as I can figure, he can be dealt with if the criminals just operate somewhere inland

Sure, if those criminals can deal with a superstrong and borderline bulletproof fighter with psychic powers second to J'onn, sufficient to turn off parts of their brains (hence why I brought up the Grant Morrison version). Which is why I harp on the groupthink brought on by the Super Friends, where "everyone" knows all he can do is talk to fish and ride a seahorse. That was a lame version of a comic character from a lame 70's cartoon. The comic version, which is what would be discussed here is pretty badass, just overshadowed by the literal gods (and due to fandom even Bat-God) on the JLA.

This of course also blinds most of the writers (who most likely grew up on Super Friends cartoons) where Aquaman is canonically shown as being able to go just under Mach 1 under water making him not only a low end speedster (not sure why the physical ability to swim fast couldn't be adapted to land movement for a humanoid being), but also immensely strong and durable. Probably far more than is actually regularly shown. Heck, between those physical abilities, the need for a strongly developed kinesthetic sense and 3D awareness, and his superior senses in the dark, he's probably a better Bat-Family city patroller than most of the Bat-family. It's why I shake my head at dramatic power changes to the character trying to spruce him up, he'd be a monster if writers would stop trying to reconcile their (or pop culture's) memories of a 40 year old cartoon even without pulling in the fact he has dominion over the 1500 states of Atlantis and all it's high end magic/tech/sunken relics (King Arthur anyone?)

Dahdutcher:
As long as it's not Batman, I don't care about this little stunt.

It's not gonna be Superman, he's married to Lois.

It's obviously going to be Aquaman or one of the women.

It's obviously NOT going to be one of the women..."one of the women" can't even name any, eh? Way to go. Anywho they've already stated it's going to be a male character.

I'm leaning towards it not being Aquaman unless they want to being more attention to him but I really don't think that'd be the way to do it.

And srsly why would it be so bad if it was Batman? How much time does he actually spend chasing tail anyway? He's so damn busy I don't think it'd make much of a difference.

My problem with this is that they'll most likely have to retcon/introduce another character as gay just so they can shoe-horn a love-interest in there somewhere.

my money is also on the flash

Is Moon Knight a DC character?

Not Batman (him and cat woman make me say hes straight).
Superman has had whole TV shows built around him and Lois.
Aqua has had series were he was married with kids.
Green Arrow, he is gay.

^Green Arrow is all over Black Canary

Then again, men who have been married with children have come out too, so that all means nothing.

But let's be serious, they aren't going to mess with Batman or Superman, no way, no how.

"he is considered an "iconic" level character"

That can mean a LOT of people actually, Shazam or whoever the current Dr. Fate is even.

In the first issue of new 52 catwoman her an bats have some hot sex so no Batman my bets is captain marvel since its an as yet introduced hero.an for the record someone wanting there favorite super to stay straight is no different than someone else wanting there's to be gay they are not homophobic for this. Would you call someone straightphobic for wanting a Typically straight hero to be gay. No why people are such hypocrites on the political correctness thing ill never get.everyone has this right straight or not straight alike.

I wonder if they have a broader view of who is iconic than we do. The shortlist here is only a handful, but there are plenty more characters that could be said to be iconic. I can't imagine it would be any of the biggest names, it's too much of a fanbase to risk. The Flash is more likely, or someone sidekick-like.

The Genius:
Is Moon Knight a DC character?

Nope. Marvel.

Alright, here is a thought if nobody has tried this yet. Let's approach it from a matter of process of elimination. As this is a publicity stunt, an "Iconic" character is going to have to be someone that most people will have heard of, rather than someone known mostly to serious comic book readers. Basically someone like Doctor Fate is unlikely because your average person is liable to have absolutly no idea who the heck Doctor Fate is for it to have any meaning. Nor is it someone that the gay community could really get much cred for being able to tout, since few people (including the gays themselves) will probably have heard of it.

For the sake of simplicity I think we can eliminate Green Arrow, Superman, and Batman right off the bat. The reason is that I don't think DC could retcon those characters as gay if it wanted to. Those rights have all been sold to multiple parties. We have Batman movies planned up the wazoo (apparently the next movie series after the Nolanverse concludes has been being planned), Superman is apparently up for another movie attempt and allegedly another TV series as Smallville concluded, and apparently there is a Green Arrow TV series on the way since the character was fairly popular in Smallville. Even if some of this doesn't materalize it's all been being planned out for years, and represents tons of potential money. While the whole "the hero is now gay" thing will genrate publicity, it could play havoc with these plans, and create problems with the guys who hold the rights. After all if they are writing a whole series of TV shows about Green Arrow, playing him up for the ladies (I guess part of it was girls liked the character in Smallville, even if this is probably going to be a differant version) and spending tons of money getting it ready, suddenly outing him as gay and having all these comic shop posters of him smootching guys or however they plan to promote it could play some serious havoc. I could even see lawsuits over that kind of thing... and it would be a big mess. The same applies to all three of those. Basically if DC has been shopping the rights around out there, or already sold them, and you've been hearing serious discussion of new IPs around the character, DC isn't going to do this with that character.

Heroes I'm pretty sure DC doesn't have any rights to in current circulation for TV, movies, etc... are The Flash, Aquaman (he was in Smallville, but the plans for a TV show apparently didn't pan out, and I don't think anyone holds that option or had plans), Cyborg, Martian Manhunter, and some of the lesser Green Lanterns are all potentially up for grabs. I'm pretty sure that despite the horrible performance of the Green Lantern movie, the rights are still being held since I believe they grabbed it for multiple movies, anticipating it being the next big thing. So if they have a gay green lantern, it's not likely to be "The" Green Lantern (Hal Jordan).

At any rate, following this chain of logic, who else can people eliminate based on how this could affect IP deals DC is already involved in? It's especially relevent is a project was under works or the rights had been sold/brokered long before DC's annoucement.

Whether you think it's bigoted, and wrong or not, in your mind if a character being gay could say affect a box office performance and get a company like Warner Brothers pissed off enough to try and go after DC for money, chances are it's not happening.

I doubt it will be batman, 3 main reasons:

1) if he was gay for robin it would make him a pedophile, DC wanna shake things up a bit, but thats taking it too far... also the current robin is his son i believe, so it would be even worse.

2) Selina Kyle

3) Talia Al-Ghul

Me and my mate have had a think on it our hottest candidate is Wally West, since he is only one of the flashes to have made next to no appearance since the new 52 reboot. He has a wife and kids but that would just make for a potentially awesome story-line (if handled correctly of course). The moral dilemma of his "coming out" would be really interesting to read as he struggled with letting his family down and worrying about how his friends in say the JSA would think of him for letting them down. It almost wouldn't be about him being gay as the same thing would happen had he fallen in love with a woman, so wouldn't be doing much to either negatively or positively portraying gays (thus not deliberately pissing people off).

Either that or Capt. Marvel goes through puberty and realizes that he still thinks girls are gross :P

John Funk:

I just hope it isn't Aquaman. Making the "joke" superhero gay would feel like a pretty sleazy thing to do.

iirc, before the reboot, Aquaman was married.

If they did this, rest assured, there would be soooooooo much fanrage.

John Funk:

I just hope it isn't Aquaman. Making the "joke" superhero gay would feel like a pretty sleazy thing to do.

Why do people think Aquaman is a joke character,because he talks to fish?
Its not like he is completely useless outside of water.

I don't really follow comic books (I've tried but I just don't have the money for that particular black hole) but if I had to guess probably Green Lantern. Making Wonder Woman gay is a fruit hanging so low it's practically hit the ground, and unless they make Aquaman no longer DC's joke character making him gay would be pretty low.

Just read an article (in the newspaper, so no link) that the re-imagined "coming out" hero hasn't been seen since the New 52 started. This leaves four "iconic" superheroes: The Spectre, Plastic Man, Powergirl, and The Question (II). Since the "he" pronoun has come up, that leaves only The Spectre and Plastic Man. My money's on the stretchy one.

The idea of a lesbian Powergirl seems tons better. Oh well, you play the hand you are dealt.

I'm a middle-aged adult and haven't read any comics since my mid twenties. The article also said that Colossus is gay?!?! Poor Kitty. What will Lockheed think? (Yes. It has been a while.)

secretly got my fingers crossed for wonderwoman.

This just sounds like they're trying to cash in on how homosexuality is no longer a bad thing. And when something goes from bad to fine, then using that in your media is considered amazing. If this character has been around for 50 years, and this isn't one of the alternate continuities, then it just seems silly to me. Why does the sexuality of a superhero, of all things, need to be brought up? They have above human powers, and people care about what gender they want to fuck? Plenty of them aren't even human.
This seems so juvenile to me. It holds no artistic purpose or otherwise; all it is, is DC going 'Hey, gays! Look! This character's gay now! Aren't we so in with the times and non discriminatory, and doesn't it just make you want to buy our new 52 comics?'.

I am calling Martian Manhunter, but that's based almost entirely off my experience with Justice League (cartoon).

Superman = Lois Lane, Green Arrow = Black Canary, Batman = various, and for a time, Wonder Woman, Flash = any woman that moves, Jean = . . . ???

The only time he was with someone was with an old lady as he tried to connect to humanity. Wasn't with her for the sex most likely.

I know, there's a shit ton of other stuff in the comics out there so I could easily be wrong. Still, that's my call.

I will say that when it comes to superheroes, one of the hugest things about them is that you want to be them.

Usually, you want to be your favorite superhero, because that person is so incredibly cool to you, but when you're a heterosexual, it's usually incredibly harder to want to be someone you know is gay.

Which would be fine if this were a new superhero that just happened to be gay, but when you do this to an already existing superhero, you're taking that aspect away from his already existing fans.

It doesn't matter if it's official. George Lucas already showed us that if you do something like this to someone or something a large group of people admire, it will cause an uproar and I can already see it happening. :/

I just want to say, that there is no way it's gonna be batman.
Seriously, what light would that shed on him having lived with a teenage-boy for, um, 75ish years?

I'm putting money on either Nightwing or Red Robin. I know it says "iconic" but Dick Grayson and Tim Drake are pretty well-known in the DC Universe.

if it's not a girl guess which company is going out of buissness lol srsly thou if it is a faggot i'll be sure to throw up everywhere :D

huser:

ReiverCorrupter:
snip

Uggh, strangely another example of a weirdly pervasive trope derived from a single showing flavoring everything that comes after. IE Dark Knight Returns.

If we were to lay it out, the first DC character that would pop into your mind with the word "arrogant" PROBABLY wouldn't be Big Blue. You know, the guy that happily plays a bumbling fool to safeguard the people he loves. I'm gonna throw out there that guessing Batman however would win you Family Feud. You know what with his plans to kill his fellow good guys constantly getting stolen by bad guys.

Everyone gets stupid around Batman now because all those teenagers that read DKR have grown up now to be the writers. One of the few exceptions being Morrison, but he made Aquaman cool so maybe coolness need not be a zero sum game or a pissing contest like most other writers make it. I say this for the obvious notion that the big thing about DKR regarding the World's Finest was that Superman was stumped by Batman's various gambits. It's really too bad Superman to that point in their lives hadn't faced down motivated, super rich and super intelligent humans that wanted nothing more to humble him (if not murder his ass) for like literally decades...oh wait.

The fact Superman had to have his "I created a crosstime/cross dimension computer" level intellect eliminated to carve out a niche for Batman is telling. The same character (albeit different iteration) who in CoIE was relegated to basically PRAYING for the day to be saved. Funny how things change I guess.

Erm... okay... pedantic allusions to comic book series I've never read aside... what I find arrogant about superman is more of his style of fighting than his motivations. He tends to rely upon brute strength more than anything else (though perhaps that was only the improper non-canon version of superman portrayed in the cartoons I used to watch as a kid). So what I was referring to was his assumption that Batman couldn't do anything to him. Granted he does do clever things on occasion, but he just seems overpowered and far too aware of the fact. In the more mainstream portrayals of Superman that I'm familiar with, he tends to constantly get himself in trouble by rushing in head first without thinking. But maybe those are the vulgar versions of Superman made to appeal to the unsophisticated rabble.

His motivations are admittedly pretty humble considering that he probably has the power to change society and he generally just devotes himself to preserving justice and peace. (Though I'm admittedly ignorant of the vast majority of his background outside of the 90's cartoon series and movies, and I'll give you that he did have more of a positive role when he acted as an objective means to get rid of the world's ICBMs in Superman III).

To be honest, I generally rooted for Lex Luther as a kid, I saw him as the social outcast trying to change society through his own intellect, whereas Superman represented the brute strength of main stream society and the herd instinct crushing abnormality. Though, admittedly Superman is also an outcast in a different and less subtle sense (i.e. he's an alien), and Luther could be taken to represent the wealthy corrupt elite that runs society. If you're going to argue that there's a canon version of Superman, and that I'm just mistaken, then sure. In that case we're really just talking about two different things.

GoodEyeSniper:

The Genius:
Is Moon Knight a DC character?

Nope. Marvel.

Pity. The jokes would have written themselves.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here