Green Lantern is Gay

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

summerof2010:
I notice a lot of people saying "who cares?" And indeed, that should be a attitude when a prominent fictional character is gay. But the fact of the matter is that until recently, writing a gay character in this context would have been unthinkable; it would have caused a major backlash. The fact that this can happen, and furthermore that he can just be gay, rather than making his sexuality the whole point, represents a significant turn in public attitudes towards sexuality. I mean, it's not that significant, but my point is that it's not significant because it's great that it happened, it's significant because it's great that it could happen.

And btw, his boyfriend is cute. Just saying.

The thing is even though it's great that a fictional character context can just be gay DC made him gay for the sake of Publicity. It's the reason they were all like "OMG guys who's it going to be?"

him over there:
The thing is even though it's great that a fictional character context can just be gay DC made him gay for the sake of Publicity. It's the reason they were all like "OMG guys who's it going to be?"

I think DC can be rightly criticized for that approach. But the responses I was talking about are dismissing the character re-write in general, not just for DC's handling of the situation or their motivations, and I still think they were missing the point that makes this story interesting.

summerof2010:

him over there:
The thing is even though it's great that a fictional character context can just be gay DC made him gay for the sake of Publicity. It's the reason they were all like "OMG guys who's it going to be?"

I think DC can be rightly criticized for that approach. But the responses I was talking about are dismissing the character re-write in general, not just for DC's handling of the situation or their motivations, and I still think they were missing the point that makes this story interesting.

Oh that I understand. It especially seems like a cop out on DC's part because they're like "OMG we're shaking things up look how progressive we are guys!" but not only are they being progressive for the sake of being progressive which is arguably a perversion of the entire gay rights movement but they don't even really follow through and do something entirely inconsequential by making "a" green lantern but not "the" green lantern gay. It defeats the purpose of alerting the public because it doesn't really change anything which means it doesn't even work as a publicity stunt.

him over there:
Oh that I understand. It especially seems like a cop out on DC's part because they're like "OMG we're shaking things up look how progressive we are guys!" but not only are they being progressive for the sake of being progressive which is arguably a perversion of the entire gay rights movement but they don't even really follow through and do something entirely inconsequential by making "a" green lantern but not "the" green lantern gay. It defeats the purpose of alerting the public because it doesn't really change anything which means it doesn't even work as a publicity stunt.

What do you mean they changed "a" Green Lanturn? I thought this was the reboot one, so he's the only current official GL in existence. Certainly they wouldn't retcon the older stories so that he is gay in those. I don't really read comics, so I might be misunderstanding something basic here.

summerof2010:

him over there:
Oh that I understand. It especially seems like a cop out on DC's part because they're like "OMG we're shaking things up look how progressive we are guys!" but not only are they being progressive for the sake of being progressive which is arguably a perversion of the entire gay rights movement but they don't even really follow through and do something entirely inconsequential by making "a" green lantern but not "the" green lantern gay. It defeats the purpose of alerting the public because it doesn't really change anything which means it doesn't even work as a publicity stunt.

What do you mean they changed "a" Green Lanturn? I thought this was the reboot one, so he's the only current official GL in existence. Certainly they wouldn't retcon the older stories so that he is gay in those. I don't really read comics, so I might be misunderstanding something basic here.

What I mean is that Hal Jordan is the most iconic green lantern and the one that even people not versed in the series would know about so changing a different one defeats the purpose of the publicity stunt. Other than that it makes sense since I believe Alan Scott is the Gl featured in the new continuity.

him over there:

summerof2010:

him over there:
Oh that I understand. It especially seems like a cop out on DC's part because they're like "OMG we're shaking things up look how progressive we are guys!" but not only are they being progressive for the sake of being progressive which is arguably a perversion of the entire gay rights movement but they don't even really follow through and do something entirely inconsequential by making "a" green lantern but not "the" green lantern gay. It defeats the purpose of alerting the public because it doesn't really change anything which means it doesn't even work as a publicity stunt.

What do you mean they changed "a" Green Lanturn? I thought this was the reboot one, so he's the only current official GL in existence. Certainly they wouldn't retcon the older stories so that he is gay in those. I don't really read comics, so I might be misunderstanding something basic here.

What I mean is that Hal Jordan is the most iconic green lantern and the one that even people not versed in the series would know about so changing a different one defeats the purpose of the publicity stunt. Other than that it makes sense since I believe Alan Scott is the Gl featured in the new continuity.

Ok this is gonna be sorta confusing for people. Yeah DC Rebooted their continuities... Sorta. You see All of the Green Lantern and Batman and a few other characters and comics got to keep their continuities. IE while Superman and wonderwoman's comics got reset to issue one Green Lantern and Batman comics didn't and are pretty much just rolling on like nothing happened... Except when they cross over with other characters.

summerof2010:

What do you mean they changed "a" Green Lanturn? I thought this was the reboot one, so he's the only current official GL in existence. Certainly they wouldn't retcon the older stories so that he is gay in those. I don't really read comics, so I might be misunderstanding something basic here.

If you think they've suddenly written Hal, John, Guy, and Kyle out of continuity then you're madder than you look.

They'll be back, especially Hal, he's the one who most comic readers think of when you mention Green Lantern. Alan Scott, even though he was the original, isn't.

Also, Alan Scott was involved in an interesting story not unrelated to this subject in the previous continuity, as his son was gay and he, as someone from an earlier and less accepting generation (the JSA characters in old continuity were just that, older), had to cope with that.

Since the "new 52" is a massive retcon they can certainly wipe out all of that storytelling, but it's a poor way to have a gay "iconic" character for the sake of tokenism.

Hell, they integrated the Wildstorm universe, just publish a headline title for Midnighter and Apollo, hell, that was back in 1998 and Warren Ellis managed to throw in copies of Batman and Superman as a gay couple without it being parody or tokenism, they were just two solid characters who happened to be in a relationship.

hmm does the affect the justice league cartoon from the 90's green lantern as well??

Cecilthedarkknight_234:
hmm does the affect the justice league cartoon from the 90's green lantern as well??

No. The original Green Lantern, Alan Scott, the one they are talking about here, is different from the Green Lanterns run by the big-headed Blue Guys on Oa. This GL found a magical lantern in the ground (more like a Genie Lantern than the Bullseye Lantern the Oan GL's use, and it was powered by magic). Instead of being weak against the color yellow, it was weak against wood. Different thing entirely. The original GL was part of the JSA, the Justice Society of America, in the 1940's, not the JLA or Justice League of America of more modern times.

i know hes not published by dc but i have been trying to picture the right wing shit storm if they made captain america gay

Ayjona:

Andy Chalk:
Scott's sexuality will be just one aspect of the character, and it won't define him.

I'm confused. Is this change only acceptable if being gay does not define him?

No, but it would be little more than a campaign stunt if he was just going to be "the gay character", not to mention somewhat offensive to gay people. This is suppose to be DC showing that they try to write real characters, not making a hyper-sexualized gay character to be edgy or fill a quota.

summerof2010:

him over there:
Oh that I understand. It especially seems like a cop out on DC's part because they're like "OMG we're shaking things up look how progressive we are guys!" but not only are they being progressive for the sake of being progressive which is arguably a perversion of the entire gay rights movement but they don't even really follow through and do something entirely inconsequential by making "a" green lantern but not "the" green lantern gay. It defeats the purpose of alerting the public because it doesn't really change anything which means it doesn't even work as a publicity stunt.

What do you mean they changed "a" Green Lanturn? I thought this was the reboot one, so he's the only current official GL in existence. Certainly they wouldn't retcon the older stories so that he is gay in those. I don't really read comics, so I might be misunderstanding something basic here.

He's the main Green Lantern on Earth 2, which is a separate universe. In the main reboot continuity, I think we actually have most of the other main GLs already in continuity. Hal Jordan, Kyle Rainer, John Stewart, and Guy Gardner. So, it's really not that big a leap and if he doesn't work out they can just can him. Also, since he's only gay on Earth 2, it could mean that he's not on their main Earth, just in case it doesn't work out. It's not that brave a move really given that they picked the one that would offend the fewest of their readers. It's like saying: "Yeah we'll make one Green Lantern gay, but don't worry guys! It's not going to be anyone that you actually care about! And besides! You still have five other human Lanterns to pick from!" Had they actually chosen the Barry Allen Flash, Hal Jordan, Batman, or Superman I'd be more impressed. But this, it's just sort of meh.

Also am I the only one who finds it ironic that they deaged and rebooted Alan Scott on Earth 2, the timestream that was originally designed for the kids of the DC superheroes. The place where time passed normally and everyone got married and had kids? I mean, Helena Wayne and Power Girl are already in the reboot. So trading in Obsidian, Alan Scott's already gay son for the father seems silly. They could have picked Guy or Rainer, but no.

And I get that Alan Scott was iconic within the DC setting being the original Green Lantern, but he hasn't been iconic in the public consciousness for a long time. I don't think he's ever even appeared on any of the cartoon shows. He got a nod in Smallville once, but not in name. In the context of them adding more diversity to their cast it's great, but when you think about how brave they could have been and how badly they chickened out. It's really just kind of sad.

bafrali:
Green Lantern is Gay.Nobody cares.Lets move on

I care. Lots of people care.

*shrugs*
So his sexuality changed. So what?
Was this really a pivotal part of his character?

Or is it just pandering to appeal to the Homosexual Rights movement?
Such a change is meaningless unless they actually DO SOMETHING with it.

ReiverCorrupter:

Grey Day for Elcia:

Scrumpmonkey:

So if people don't ask, they won't tell :P

To be honest i have trouble seeing your point. Sexuality is still a massive dividing issue in the US and so its hard NOT to care about sexuality one way or another. Personally i think the wholesale attack on gay rights by some states is pretty disgusting and warps the legal rights of all non married couples.

It's all just so draining and idiotic. One side thinks what two or more adults feel or share together is any of their fucking business and the other side won't shut up about what they do in private. I'm just so over the whole thing. I don't give a flying shit who you love or who you wanna do the dirty with or how (so long as they are an adult and consent, blah, blah, blah) and no one else should either. That this little stunt is "necessary" is just salt on my aching wound of not giving a shit.

Why can't people just not care? What in sanity's name is stopping people from waking up tomorrow and going "oh hey, who gives a fuck what sexuality someone describes themselves as?" Are you gay? I don't care. Are you straight? I don't give a crap. Something else? Zero shits are given. In the most non-narcissistic way possible... why can't people just be like me in this regard?

Sorry for ranting in your direction. Nothing against you. You seem quite nice. I am just so, so, so, so over sexuality being an issue. Could you tell? :P

You're not alone, buddy.

It was bad enough when the right wingers (Imbecilicus Religiosus) were constantly going on about "protecting marriage" (whatever the FUCK that's supposed to mean). But now there's a growing amount of radical progressives (Sui-Istus Douchebagicus) who no longer abide by the principle of tolerance or minding your own business and have instead taken it upon themselves to actively proselytize and browbeat people into accepting other people's lifestyles. If you disagree with them then you must be a bigot. If you even say that homosexuality grosses you out but that you're fine with gay people getting married, you're STILL a bigot. Upon close zoological investigation it turns out that they're really just two species belonging to the genus: Assholus Ignoramus.

Your post was both laugh out loud hilarious and spot on intelligent. If there was some kind of internet medal, you'd get it.

Treefingers:

bafrali:
Green Lantern is Gay.Nobody cares.Lets move on

I care. Lots of people care.

So?What i meant was it is not a big deal as this was just an excuse to compete with Marvel in PC stunt and they used a relatively obscure version of an "iconic" character.I don't hold grudge against game developers who use scantily-clad hot chicks in their ads.I just say it is stupid and move along.I think everyone should too.

Cecilthedarkknight_234:
hmm does the affect the justice league cartoon from the 90's green lantern as well??

Nope, one thing to learn about comic characters... cartoons... each cartoon series or special DVD release are alternate universes that has nothing to do with the comics. Heck this doesn't even effect

Even better the DC reboot makes everything that happened for the previous twenty years to never have never happened. Not Batman RIP, no Identity Crisis (thank god) , no 52 (which Alan Scott was a huge part of the conclusion of), no Countdown (thank god), no Teen Titans, no New Teen Titans, no Infinite Crisis, no Death of Superman... etc. etc.

Instead we got a merge "continuity" that included two characters from Wild CATS that stopped being relevant in 1995, Gen13 characters that were never relevant, overdesigned costumes on nearly every character and Animal Man, Swamp Thing and Aquaman being the best written characters out of the whole thing.

OT: I did call Alan Scott being the one they'd use but I did it based on every single hint they lead. Alan Scott is Iconic, he's one of the first Super-Heroes ever in the DCU. He's also now just part of their 'Earth-2' comic which will probably get cancelled after seven issues.

It's a publicity stunt that actually damages the possibility of a Green Lantern 2 movie (which I didn't think was going to happen anyways) as most non-comic readers will go "Green Lantern's gay? Screw that yo!"

DC pulled a great publicity stunt with this... especially when you consider that they already made a new gay character with the New 52. (Nice job BTW naming you're reboot after a much more successful series, with better writing. Oh wait, you're calling the next set of comics Second Wave? Gee.. I wounder if the series of pulp comics called First Wave was popular.)

This new character, he's Bunker in the Teen Titans comic and the writer pointed out in the interviews published in the first couple of issues how it was important to have the Teen Titans be diverse (Yeah never had a minority in that book... oh wait Cyborg... Oh wait Bumblebee, oh wait Black Adam Jr, oh wait Jericho, oh wait ad nausea.) The writer made a big deal about how this new character was both Latino (the new Latino Blue Beetle was a member of the Titans before the reboot and how he was gay, Slade's son: Jericho was implied to be gay and was a member of the Titans)

I don't mean to sound bitter. I'm bisexual myself and love the idea of seeing more gay, bisexual and transgendered characters in comic books. My problem is forcing the issue.

Batwoman and Rene Montoya was a perfect "Northstar" example. DC writers showed that they were both gay and no issue was made of it. On the other side, making a character gay just to "be gay" is insulting and doesn't help anything. Especially when Alan Scott was the father of a Kyle Ratner (one of the Green Lanterns) love interest and his son was an out of the closet homosexual that Scott had issue with.

Both characters who were interesting and still had many stories to be told about them are now gone. Replaced with mid-90s over-designed nonsense and publicity stunts that will amount to nothing.

bafrali:

Treefingers:

bafrali:
Green Lantern is Gay.Nobody cares.Lets move on

I care. Lots of people care.

So?What i meant was it is not a big deal as this was just an excuse to compete with Marvel in PC stunt and they used a relatively obscure version of an "iconic" character.I don't hold grudge against game developers who use scantily-clad hot chicks in their ads.I just say it is stupid and move along.I think everyoe should too.

You know the sad thing? Most people are only going to take "DC Comics announces that Green Lantern is Gay," from this? They will think they mean the character from the current cartoon and the movie and never realize the difference.

When I live on something called -Earth 2-, I might give a shit about this retcon.

But I don't, so I won't.

Atmos Duality:
*shrugs*
So his sexuality changed. So what?
Was this really a pivotal part of his character?

Or is it just pandering to appeal to the Homosexual Rights movement?
Such a change is meaningless unless they actually DO SOMETHING with it.

YES Yes his sexuality actually was a pivotal part of his character! It had to do with his relationship with his children. one of whom was gay. It gave the character depth.

People could read comics and not only see a gay superhero if they wanted, they also got his straight dad Who was one of the most importaint superheroes around A living Legend, someone Superman himself grew up hearing stories about, dealing with it and coming to accept him.

ReiverCorrupter:
If you even say that homosexuality grosses you out but that you're fine with gay people getting married, you're STILL a bigot.

Well... yes. Because if you said black people gross you out but you're fine with them living in your neighborhood, you'd still be a racist.

There comes a point where people need to stop and think before blurting out whatever pops into their head. If you, personally, have a problem with homosexuality, it is by definition your problem and not necessarily something you need to put out into the world.

Winnosh:
YES Yes his sexuality actually was a pivotal part of his character! It had to do with his relationship with his children. one of whom was gay. It gave the character depth.

Except, as so many people have already pointed out, that character no longer exists. This is Alan Scott of the New 52, and while you can certainly argue that DC's reboot has been poorly and inconsistently executed, it's not like they've been implying that the Alan Scott you're talking about is still out there somewhere. In this, at least, they've been clear: the Alan Scott who fathered Obsidian is gone, deleted, kaput. You don't have to like that decision - I certainly don't - but it's done.

Diana Kingston-Gabai:

Winnosh:
YES Yes his sexuality actually was a pivotal part of his character! It had to do with his relationship with his children. one of whom was gay. It gave the character depth.

Except, as so many people have already pointed out, that character no longer exists. This is Alan Scott of the New 52, and while you can certainly argue that DC's reboot has been poorly and inconsistently executed, it's not like they've been implying that the Alan Scott you're talking about is still out there somewhere. In this, at least, they've been clear: the Alan Scott who fathered Obsidian is gone, deleted, kaput. You don't have to like that decision - I certainly don't - but it's done.

My big thing is that this, just like giving Barbara back the use of her legs does not help diversify the DCU it lessens the diversity. And this Alan Scott is Alan in name only, he shares nothing in common with the original he's pretty much a completely different character with a different origin, different supporting cast, different personality.

In Essence They HAVE made an new character and just slapped his name on it to say he's Iconic. That's another reason I'm upset. Those things from before were what defined him.

bafrali:

Treefingers:

bafrali:
Green Lantern is Gay.Nobody cares.Lets move on

I care. Lots of people care.

So?What i meant was it is not a big deal as this was just an excuse to compete with Marvel in PC stunt and they used a relatively obscure version of an "iconic" character.I don't hold grudge against game developers who use scantily-clad hot chicks in their ads.I just say it is stupid and move along.I think everyone should too.

How about we discuss whatever we want to discuss? thankuverymuch

Winnosh:
My big thing is that this, just like giving Barbara back the use of her legs does not help diversify the DCU it lessens the diversity. And this Alan Scott is Alan in name only, he shares nothing in common with the original he's pretty much a completely different character with a different origin, different supporting cast, different personality.

In Essence They HAVE made an new character and just slapped his name on it to say he's Iconic. That's another reason I'm upset. Those things from before were what defined him.

There was a time when being an absolute prick to Lois Lane was what defined Superman, and when the scariest thing the Joker ever did was throw giant custard pies at Batman. These aren't static, rigidly-defined characters, especially given DC's tendency to hit the reboot button over and over. So yes, those things from before defined the Alan Scott of before; now they don't.

And, realistically speaking, if this actually was a genuine attempt at diversity (as opposed to spotlight-hogging, which of course is the more likely scenario), then I understand why DC used an established character - new characters very rarely catch on, and if their New Gay Hero was cancelled after six issues, it would look very bad for DC (especially after their relatively recent racefail with Jaime Reyes, Jason Rusch and Ryan Choi).

Treefingers:

bafrali:

Treefingers:

I care. Lots of people care.

So?What i meant was it is not a big deal as this was just an excuse to compete with Marvel in PC stunt and they used a relatively obscure version of an "iconic" character.I don't hold grudge against game developers who use scantily-clad hot chicks in their ads.I just say it is stupid and move along.I think everyone should too.

How about we discuss whatever we want to discuss? thankuverymuch

When i said let's move on, i trusted that people would take it as a friendly advice rather than a forceful propaganda.But i guess depending on other people to fill the blanks was too much.I will put it into consideration.Thanks

I'm pretty sure most people expected they would choose a woman, since lesbians in their mind = what people who read comic books (AKA teens/young men) would want.

Also, I accidentally clicked the Report button on this article. Sorry Andy! Seriously, it was a mistake! >.<

Diana Kingston-Gabai:

Winnosh:
My big thing is that this, just like giving Barbara back the use of her legs does not help diversify the DCU it lessens the diversity. And this Alan Scott is Alan in name only, he shares nothing in common with the original he's pretty much a completely different character with a different origin, different supporting cast, different personality.

In Essence They HAVE made an new character and just slapped his name on it to say he's Iconic. That's another reason I'm upset. Those things from before were what defined him.

There was a time when being an absolute prick to Lois Lane was what defined Superman, and when the scariest thing the Joker ever did was throw giant custard pies at Batman. These aren't static, rigidly-defined characters, especially given DC's tendency to hit the reboot button over and over. So yes, those things from before defined the Alan Scott of before; now they don't.

And, realistically speaking, if this actually was a genuine attempt at diversity (as opposed to spotlight-hogging, which of course is the more likely scenario), then I understand why DC used an established character - new characters very rarely catch on, and if their New Gay Hero was cancelled after six issues, it would look very bad for DC (especially after their relatively recent racefail with Jaime Reyes, Jason Rusch and Ryan Choi).

There is a difference between subtle personality tweaks and changing everything about the character. This character doesn't have two superhero kids, This character has never been in WW2 This character was never married this character new character wasn't directly responsible for getting a large majority of the DCU both trained as well as giving them the insperation to become superheroes in the first place.

This isn't changing subtle things about the character's behavior like those other things you mentioned. This is creating a new character and slapping an old character's name on it. They have nothing in common other than power set. Even where they got those powers is gonna be different.

OhJohnNo:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

thiosk:
Man, and I was sure it would be matter eater lad.

image

Was that a real comic?

I've stopped wondering that. I've seen such a hilariously huge number of comic strips that bad or worse on the internet, nothing surprises me anymore.

I'm really hoping that's a joke comic. I've seen chatbots that could write better dialogue.

Da Orky Man:

OhJohnNo:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Was that a real comic?

I've stopped wondering that. I've seen such a hilariously huge number of comic strips that bad or worse on the internet, nothing surprises me anymore.

I'm really hoping that's a joke comic. I've seen chatbots that could write better dialogue.

Its real Matter Eater Lad is actually pretty cool, eventually retires from being a Superhero and becomes a lawyer.

Yes, good on them for redoing one of their characters as homosexual thus pleasing the homosexual movement whilst annoying every comic fan and so inciting conflict.

They could have just introduced a whole new character and made his homosexuality a part of him instead of slapped on in the name of rights, but no. Causing a fight is definitely the best way to go about it. -.- Funnily enough, this way his homosexuality will define him to all the new fans he gets since the only reason he'll be the most popular character on the web is _because_ he got changed to a homosexual.

Note that changing sexual preference is different to changing age (although why change at all?) since no-one cares about age. Boy Wonder won't be Boy any more and he'll need a new name, but if you made him an old man then the amount of people who cared apart from purists will be infinitesimally small. The amount of people who will bother to create an organisation to protest changing who you f*** around on the other hand is so large that I'll need a Hitchhikers moment to explain it.

Good times watching the reaction though.

Winnosh:

Atmos Duality:
*shrugs*
So his sexuality changed. So what?
Was this really a pivotal part of his character?

Or is it just pandering to appeal to the Homosexual Rights movement?
Such a change is meaningless unless they actually DO SOMETHING with it.

YES Yes his sexuality actually was a pivotal part of his character! It had to do with his relationship with his children. one of whom was gay. It gave the character depth.

People could read comics and not only see a gay superhero if they wanted, they also got his straight dad Who was one of the most importaint superheroes around A living Legend, someone Superman himself grew up hearing stories about, dealing with it and coming to accept him.

Shush, you're ruining the moment.

=P

Vault Citizen:

DVS BSTrD:
He's a man who draws power from jewelry, what did you expect?

I laughed.

My money (if I had bet money) was on the gay character being Nightwing or Green Arrow. I didn't think it was going to be Aquaman because of his relationship with Mera (also shame on whoever wrote the last article stating Aquaman is a joke character).

I thought Green Arrow.
But Nightwing? I'm fairly sure there isn't a woman in the DCU he HASN'T slept with...

Also, OP, this was kinda disappointing, because this version of green lantern, no matter how you wanna sell it, IS NOT A MAINSTREAM character, Its a minor character who shares the name of a well known character. and is most certainly not one that kids will know about. I may be wrong, but wasn't the point of this to give insecure gay teens or kids representation or someone to look up to? It's hard to do that when very few people have heard of this incarnation. I would have far prefered if they had made one of the well known characters well known incarnations gay.

And to say what we're all thinking: IT SHULD HAVE BEEN FLASH.

Well At least Marvel has a couple of Deaf heroes, We don't have any of those over in DC that I can think of without trying to search the interwebs.

Winnosh:
This character doesn't have two superhero kids, This character has never been in WW2 This character was never married this character new character wasn't directly responsible for getting a large majority of the DCU both trained as well as giving them the insperation to become superheroes in the first place.

This isn't changing subtle things about the character's behavior like those other things you mentioned. This is creating a new character and slapping an old character's name on it. They have nothing in common other than power set. Even where they got those powers is gonna be different.

What you don't seem to understand is that this is true of every character on Earth-2, and therefore has nothing to do with Alan Scott specifically.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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