Lesbian Marriage Too Tough For Batwoman, Authors Leave

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

oldtaku:
Marriage is for stability, which is anathema for a comic book. It's a cheap gimmick up there with 'The Death Of'.

The wedding always ends up being this stupid spectacle issue with everyone happy and crying and even the villains showing up to play nice when you know it's all going to end horribly later. Until the breakup, plots are constrained because marriage makes things staid and boring - that's what it's /supposed/ to do. Old heroes are sometimes allowed to get married and mostly stay happily married, like Reed and Sue Richards once Namor got over his thing for her, but writers can't resist f@#$ing with that at some point either.

I'm sure the writers really cared for the character, but it sounds like DC was trying to keep them from fanficing her. Lesbian or not, it's a bad idea.

Ehh, Black Panther and Storm's marriage seems pretty excellent.

Anyways, I say let her get married. She could have developed some beef from the Bat family with Bats like "You're making your wife a target, you fool!" and blah blah.

So looks like the intentional clickbait title isn't changing. Just to clarify, this isn't about DC not wanting Batwoman to marry because she's a lesbian this story is about DC not wanting Batwoman to marry and she happens to be a lesbian. Only in Karloff's head is her being a lesbian the reason why they don't want her married. Keep it classy Escapist, drum up a moral outrage and a false sense of superiority to attract hits. Delivering news and fact is a mug's game.

I'm not being mean or anything, but... I don't really care what DC does nor the writers do to characters.

How many times has a superhero been revived somehow?
How many times has a superhero went through obstacles of being a bad person only to turn good again, or the other way around?
How many times has a superhero had a love interest and only a dozen times been in love with villains, sidekicks, and their sexual interests changed by becoming homosexual or a lesbian?

If you had a character stay the same, for a long time.. then it would have more impact.
I even remember a comic about superman getting infected with monkey DNA and going all primate on batman and catwoman in the jungle. The crap is that? Lol.

Still, I wish the best for the writers who quit their jobs.

oldtaku:
Marriage is for stability, which is anathema for a comic book. It's a cheap gimmick up there with 'The Death Of'.

The wedding always ends up being this stupid spectacle issue with everyone happy and crying and even the villains showing up to play nice when you know it's all going to end horribly later. Until the breakup, plots are constrained because marriage makes things staid and boring - that's what it's /supposed/ to do. Old heroes are sometimes allowed to get married and mostly stay happily married, like Reed and Sue Richards once Namor got over his thing for her, but writers can't resist f@#$ing with that at some point either.

I'm sure the writers really cared for the character, but it sounds like DC was trying to keep them from fanficing her. Lesbian or not, it's a bad idea.

It's really not a bad idea, saying that a marriage makes a relationship or a person stable is ridiculous, you can have good stories and good drama with a characters marriage, just as you can end up breaking off the marriage (if one of the characters die for example). I never understood the thought of not wanting to have characters get married, you could get the same thing if the characters were romantically involved, and weren't ever going to cheat on one another.

Your comment reminds me of the One More Day thing with Spider Man, where the Joe Quesada believed that married people can't have drama, something anybody with married parents or who is married themselves can tell you is bullshit.

It's not a fanfic if it's done by the writers of the book, and has been planned, built up, then executed, by your logic, every character change would be a fanfic (despite not being done by the fans).

Personally I think they (DC) were just worried that if they establish too much regarding a character, they'll have less they can change around however they want later, not to mention the fan backlash when they inevitably do that anyway will be slightly lessened.

Good

Anyone who thinks that any iteration of Batman (of either gender) getting married is a good idea, shouldn't be writing Batman.

Batman is married to the job. Crime fighting is his passion not women. Any Female version of Batman should reflect this. She needs to be dark, smart, driven and strong. But most of all clear in her intent, she needs to focus on who she is (A Crime Fighter).

Batman sort of has a thing for Catwoman and Ra's AL Ghul's daughter, but he hasn't married them. He gets Talia pregnant but leaves her to raise the kid herself.

Just no. A bat marriage is a dumb idea. It just seems like some kind of controversy ploy to sell a few copies.

Zeldias:

Ehh, Black Panther and Storm's marriage seems pretty excellent.

Anyways, I say let her get married. She could have developed some beef from the Bat family with Bats like "You're making your wife a target, you fool!" and blah blah.

Black Panther had his marriage to Storm annulled in the aftermath of the horrible AvX crossover. She's currently in a romantic relationship with Wolverine.

And Batwoman herself isn't actually part of the Bat-Family oddly enough. She took up the mantle separately from Batman and his like. They already don't get along that well.

Ickorus:
Seriously people?

Everyone knows controversy sells and the people in charge of DC probably know it better than most, I'd bet anything that this is a little less black and white than DC being a bunch of homophobes.

Controversy sells? I'm not so sure about that. Who, exactly, is going to go out and buy the comics from this? Firstly, you have people like me... I'd just started reading Batgirl, and was looking at starting Batwoman, having heard that it was really damn good. No chance of that now. Secondly, you have people who are anti-gay-marriage, who... still aren't going to buy it because the main character isn't getting any less lesbian from this. Who is this controversy selling to?

Edit:

verdant monkai:
Anyone who thinks that any iteration of Batman (of either gender) getting married is a good idea, shouldn't be writing Batman.

You realize that Batwoman has no relation to Batman other than thematic appearance, right? She's not a gender-swap.

Spot1990:
The only one making this about lesbians are the writer of this article and the people in here bitching. As has already been said, none of the major DC heroes are married. They even broke up Lois Lane and Superman for the New 52. There's no reason to think this is any different than them not marrying their other heroes other than people love moral outrage.

After reading your post it hit me, I started to enjoy again reading Superman since they broke his marriage, really it was so dull and boring to watch Supes and Loise doing the perfect couple crap, I'm ok with this, here's an suggestion for the new writers, let a villain kill Maggie.

verdant monkai:
Good

Anyone who thinks that any iteration of Batman (of either gender) getting married is a good idea, shouldn't be writing Batman.

Batman is married to the job. Crime fighting is his passion not women. Any Female version of Batman should reflect this. She needs to be dark, smart, driven and strong. But most of all clear in her intent, she needs to focus on who she is (A Crime Fighter).

Or, you know, she should show up his whiny, self-pitying ass and have a fulfilling crime fighting career, a loving partner, AND drama.

Having a satisfying relationship doesn't make your life revolve around the other person, you know. Considering that they're engaged, I'm pretty sure that the relationship is already pretty damned serious and that Batwoman takes care to keep her partner out of harm's way (as much as possible, anyway, in a world where supervillains are insane and powerful). Only unhealthy relationships force your life to revolve around your partner.

Plus this dumbass cultural ideal of being single-in-name-only so that you can totally be free to do whatever and whoever you want without repercussions (which, even if you're not married, makes no sense if you have a partner you care for) is just...so stupid. A marriage is a contract, putting in writing what you already live with the bonuses that only come to married couples (legal rights and so on). Not sure what Gotham's tax code is like, but you get my drift.

JarinArenos:

Ickorus:
Seriously people?

Everyone knows controversy sells and the people in charge of DC probably know it better than most, I'd bet anything that this is a little less black and white than DC being a bunch of homophobes.

Controversy sells? I'm not so sure about that. Who, exactly, is going to go out and buy the comics from this? Firstly, you have people like me... I'd just started reading Batgirl, and was looking at starting Batwoman, having heard that it was really damn good. No chance of that now. Secondly, you have people who are anti-gay-marriage, who... still aren't going to buy it because the main character isn't getting any less lesbian from this. Who is this controversy selling to?

I think the point was that making her get married would cause a controversy that would sell issues. So they probably actually have a reason for not doing it? The same reason that's been mentioned several times, the same reason no one else is getting married and the same reason they broke up Lois and Superman.

Also what, you're not going to buy it because Batwoman's not getting married? That's stupid. You know who else isn't getting married? Every DC superhero.

Angelous Wang:

because same gender homophobia tends to be allot more common.

I'll agree to this because as a male working in the massage therapy profession, straight males are the biggest hurdle I run into. Their homophobia of being touched by another man in a massage situation (BTW for you folks thinking of making "happy ending" jokes, thats not massage therapy thats PROSTITUTION and an insult to those of us who actually work for a living) scares the living shit out of a large portion of them.
BUT they'll let their male proctologist put on a glove and shove their finger up their ass...

Spot1990:
Also what, you're not going to buy it because Batwoman's not getting married? That's stupid. You know who else isn't getting married? Every DC superhero.

Lack of marriage isn't the issue. Editorial meddling to the point of driving off award-winning authors is.

JarinArenos:

Spot1990:
Also what, you're not going to buy it because Batwoman's not getting married? That's stupid. You know who else isn't getting married? Every DC superhero.

Lack of marriage isn't the issue. Editorial meddling to the point of driving off award-winning authors is.

Ah well that's fair. I'm not on speaking terms with DC ever since they axed Hellblazer to make Constantine part of the main DC universe.

verdant monkai:
Good

Anyone who thinks that any iteration of Batman (of either gender) getting married is a good idea, shouldn't be writing Batman.

Batman is married to the job. Crime fighting is his passion not women. Any Female version of Batman should reflect this. She needs to be dark, smart, driven and strong. But most of all clear in her intent, she needs to focus on who she is (A Crime Fighter).

Batman sort of has a thing for Catwoman and Ra's AL Ghul's daughter, but he hasn't married them. He gets Talia pregnant but leaves her to raise the kid herself.

Just no. A bat marriage is a dumb idea. It just seems like some kind of controversy ploy to sell a few copies.

I like the fact that he can have plenty of girlfriends, some of them quite serious, but marriage is a no-no. I also like the fact that his counterparts, apparently, have to be literal distaff counterparts. I like the fact that Batchicks can have full-on careers, but marriage would show a lack of commitment to the cause. I also like the fact that it's obviously a ploy, even though having a lesbian main character isn't.

It really looks like a series of arbitrary excuses.

amaranth_dru:

I'll agree to this because as a male working in the massage therapy profession, straight males are the biggest hurdle I run into. Their homophobia of being touched by another man in a massage situation (BTW for you folks thinking of making "happy ending" jokes, thats not massage therapy thats PROSTITUTION and an insult to those of us who actually work for a living) scares the living shit out of a large portion of them.
BUT they'll let their male proctologist put on a glove and shove their finger up their ass...

I'm not sure anyone particularly wants a gloved hand poking them in that sense. I've never known a man to have anything positive to say about a prostate exam and the same goes for women getting their lower bits checked out. Either sex.

I take your overall point, but even then I'm not 100% sure the alternative provided applies.

Warachia:
Your comment reminds me of the One More Day thing with Spider Man, where the Joe Quesada believed that married people can't have drama, something anybody with married parents or who is married themselves can tell you is bullshit.

Oh there's plenty of drama, just mostly not the sort that's all that interesting to everyone else who doesn't want to hear you guys arguing about where to eat again or socks on the floor. I don't know anyone who's gotten married who's managed to preserve all the good drama. They get staid and comfortable - even the ones who think otherwise. Especially once they have kids - just forget it.

Yes, I know it has happened (keeping the adventure alive) - the key there seems to be spending enough time apart. And perhaps Superhero weddings could work better that way.

LittleThestral:

Or, you know, she should show up his whiny, self-pitying ass and have a fulfilling crime fighting career, a loving partner, AND drama.

Having a satisfying relationship doesn't make your life revolve around the other person, you know. Considering that they're engaged, I'm pretty sure that the relationship is already pretty damned serious and that Batwoman takes care to keep her partner out of harm's way (as much as possible, anyway, in a world where supervillains are insane and powerful). Only unhealthy relationships force your life to revolve around your partner.

Plus this dumbass cultural ideal of being single-in-name-only so that you can totally be free to do whatever and whoever you want without repercussions (which, even if you're not married, makes no sense if you have a partner you care for) is just...so stupid. A marriage is a contract, putting in writing what you already live with the bonuses that only come to married couples (legal rights and so on). Not sure what Gotham's tax code is like, but you get my drift.

Or, you know, she could be a different character altogether.

The point of putting a character through the gender bender (when handled well) is to see how the character changes with the gender. Of course there needs to be some change otherwise there is almost no point, but it can't be something so core to the character like Batman's devotion to his cause.

The no spouse for work purposes isn't dumb though come on dude. Batman as had loads of chances for relationships, but he refuses so the bloody joker won't kidnap them, a relationship with Batman would expose you to danger.

It's just a really dumb idea.

Zachary Amaranth:

verdant monkai:
Good

Anyone who thinks that any iteration of Batman (of either gender) getting married is a good idea, shouldn't be writing Batman.

Batman is married to the job. Crime fighting is his passion not women. Any Female version of Batman should reflect this. She needs to be dark, smart, driven and strong. But most of all clear in her intent, she needs to focus on who she is (A Crime Fighter).

Batman sort of has a thing for Catwoman and Ra's AL Ghul's daughter, but he hasn't married them. He gets Talia pregnant but leaves her to raise the kid herself.

Just no. A bat marriage is a dumb idea. It just seems like some kind of controversy ploy to sell a few copies.

I like the fact that he can have plenty of girlfriends, some of them quite serious, but marriage is a no-no. I also like the fact that his counterparts, apparently, have to be literal distaff counterparts. I like the fact that Batchicks can have full-on careers, but marriage would show a lack of commitment to the cause. I also like the fact that it's obviously a ploy, even though having a lesbian main character isn't.

It really looks like a series of arbitrary excuses.

Umm ok...

Dont know if you are agreeing with me or not so... YES I agree.

The fact she is a lesbian doesn't interest me its just that marriage just isnt Batman full stop.

oldtaku:

Warachia:
Your comment reminds me of the One More Day thing with Spider Man, where the Joe Quesada believed that married people can't have drama, something anybody with married parents or who is married themselves can tell you is bullshit.

Oh there's plenty of drama, just mostly not the sort that's all that interesting to everyone else who doesn't want to hear you guys arguing about where to eat again or socks on the floor. I don't know anyone who's gotten married who's managed to preserve all the good drama. They get staid and comfortable - even the ones who think otherwise. Especially once they have kids - just forget it.

Yes, I know it has happened (keeping the adventure alive) - the key there seems to be spending enough time apart. And perhaps Superhero weddings could work better that way.

You seriously think that's it? Please talk to people that have been married for a long time (at least ten years), there's a lot more to it than what you think, marriage by itself does not bring stability, having children definitely DOES NOT bring stability, if anything it can tear them apart, people trying to make the marriage work bring stability, any person in a romantic relationship where they want to make it work can be just as stable, if not more so, then married couples.

How many DC writers know how to write married crime fighters, or a crime fighter who is married?

It simply be that so many comic book writers don't know how to write good married characters, and so DC wouldn't be able to get anyone to write for the book after they left in the future. They would have reboot Batwoman after this run.

Also, DC might be worried how a largley teen audience would react to stories about a married couple. It reduces the relatability of the character. Though, I don't know what demographic Batwoman is targetting.

verdant monkai:
Batman sort of has a thing for Catwoman and Ra's AL Ghul's daughter, but he hasn't married them. He gets Talia pregnant but leaves her to raise the kid herself.

The ever shifting Batman continuity is getting difficult to keep up with. So has it been retconned that Batman knew about the kid, but left him in Talia's care? Also, is this the deceased Damian Wayne/Robin we are talking about?

Zhukov:
Batwoman is into chicks?

I did not know this.

Then again, I didn't really know there was a Batwoman. I thought she got paralyzed... or something? Or is this one of them alternate universe things?

Eh, comics.

Legion:

I am not into comics either but my understanding is that there is Batwoman, who is the character being referred to, and several Batgirls.

I know one of the Batgirls is the police commissioners daughters from playing the Arkham games (she was shot and paralysed, hence the wheelchair) and I know of one other called Cassandra Cain, but beyond that I am clueless.

Batwoman has been a lesbian for quite some time. Before new 52 she was with Renee Montoya while she was "The question" IIRC.
I hadn't kept up with new 52 stuff, though.

Honestly Scandal Savage was my favorite DC Lesbian. DC just completely kaboshed the Secre Six, and her character though.

OT:
Damnit DC! Stop screwing up! X(
Well, hopefully the relationship will stay intact at the least. I might not be into New 52, but that's no reason to deny those who are!

Frikking industry kneeing the creatives in the groin!

LGBTQ comic characters are pretty important when done well.

verdant monkai:

Dont know if you are agreeing with me or not so... YES I agree.

You agree that you're making a series of arbitrary excuses?

Well, that was the most straightforward argument I've ever had.

Thank you and good day.

This is the problem when you go to work for a major publisher and create material for properties you don't own the rights to.

If D.C. felt this story idea was a step to far and didn't want to turn their comic property in the the Gay Marriage Lunch Counter at Woolworth, they are well within their rights not to print it.

However, as consumers you are all within your rights to stop supporting the title, or even the company, if this decision annoys you.

Warachia:

You seriously think that's it? Please talk to people that have been married for a long time (at least ten years), there's a lot more to it than what you think, marriage by itself does not bring stability, having children definitely DOES NOT bring stability, if anything it can tear them apart, people trying to make the marriage work bring stability, any person in a romantic relationship where they want to make it work can be just as stable, if not more so, then married couples.

Hell, how many decades did we have Spider-Man's marriage ADDING instability?

Monster_user:
How many DC writers know how to write married crime fighters, or a crime fighter who is married?

How many know how to write lesbians?

It seems a really odd question to ask, since we're talking award-winning writers who have picked up the lesbian angle and evidently done a really good job of it.

It simply be that so many comic book writers don't know how to write good married characters, and so DC wouldn't be able to get anyone to write for the book after they left in the future. They would have reboot Batwoman after this run.

Like they did with the lesbians?

Sorry to harp on this, but the parallels seem solid. And honestly, if "people can't write it well" is an issue, I would think that a gay divorce would probably have less backlash than un-gaying Batwoman down the line.

Also, DC might be worried how a largley teen audience would react to stories about a married couple. It reduces the relatability of the character. Though, I don't know what demographic Batwoman is targetting.

You mean with the company that claims it writes for 45 year olds? I don't know what demo they get, but apparently, teens are not the ones they're targeting.

And I'm not an avid follower of comics anymore, but what I have read and what I've read about regarding Batwoman indicates they were already writing a kind of "mature" relationship for the teen market, anyway.

That is, if you buy the notion that kids can't ever relate to married people in the first place, which I don't.

Rebel_Raven:

LGBTQ comic characters are pretty important when done well.

Hell, even an interesting woman in comics is still pretty important.

Psychobabble:

If D.C. felt this story idea was a step to far and didn't want to turn their comic property in the the Gay Marriage Lunch Counter at Woolworth, they are well within their rights not to print it.

Maybe I missed it: has anyone actually argued they have no such right?

verdant monkai:

LittleThestral:

Or, you know, she should show up his whiny, self-pitying ass and have a fulfilling crime fighting career, a loving partner, AND drama.

Having a satisfying relationship doesn't make your life revolve around the other person, you know. Considering that they're engaged, I'm pretty sure that the relationship is already pretty damned serious and that Batwoman takes care to keep her partner out of harm's way (as much as possible, anyway, in a world where supervillains are insane and powerful). Only unhealthy relationships force your life to revolve around your partner.

Plus this dumbass cultural ideal of being single-in-name-only so that you can totally be free to do whatever and whoever you want without repercussions (which, even if you're not married, makes no sense if you have a partner you care for) is just...so stupid. A marriage is a contract, putting in writing what you already live with the bonuses that only come to married couples (legal rights and so on). Not sure what Gotham's tax code is like, but you get my drift.

Or, you know, she could be a different character altogether.

The point of putting a character through the gender bender (when handled well) is to see how the character changes with the gender. Of course there needs to be some change otherwise there is almost no point, but it can't be something so core to the character like Batman's devotion to his cause.

The no spouse for work purposes isn't dumb though come on dude. Batman as had loads of chances for relationships, but he refuses so the bloody joker won't kidnap them, a relationship with Batman would expose you to danger.

It's just a really dumb idea.

By this logic I assume any and all superheroes and superheroines who, upon receiving their powers, don't immediately sever all ties with everyone they've ever cared about are irresponsible. Significant others are a popular target, but last I checked Aunt May was constantly tossed about, threatened, and killed, and yet she never got it on with Peter.

Not outside of some truly disturbing fanfics, anyway.

The idea that superheroes/heroines can't have significant people in their lives is, yes, stupid. It leads to characters who go through the same old "I want, but I can't, but I want!" with potential partners, over and over, until you want to scream Chinese curses at the top of your lungs and wedgie Batman's emo ass to kingdom come.

Maybe it's irresponsible to have loved ones if you have a target on your back, but guess what? Most superheroes/heroines are humans. Humans are flawed. We're not rational beings, and sorry, but this constant "setting the one I love aside only to grab the next piece of tail that heads my direction" is fucking annoying.

Sounds to me it's still the comic book industrie having a big problems with married characters... They seem hellbent on keeping almost all of theyr character out of any marriage, no matter if they are straight or gay

Lilani:
The sad thing is, gay marriage is becoming less and less of a "risk." In a few more decades, it'll be about as controversial as interracial marriage is today. As it becomes the norm, steps to minimize or even eliminate it when the plans were in production such as this is more a step backward than a lack of a step forward. DC made a terrible decision, here. They're going to get more condescension for refusing to let this story continue than if they had let it go in the first place, and from all the wrong people. If anything, lesbian relationships are less discomforting than male gay relationships, at least to most males. So if they're worried about offending their primary reader-base, they're sorely mistaken. The group that would have been the most grossly offended by Batwoman being gay would have been conservatives, and mostly older ones, a group which also isn't known for overlapping with their primary reader-base.

They shouldn't be worried about disgusting the people who watch FOX news. If anything, DC doing something to upset FOX would earn cheers from most of the geek universe.

Well said and quoted for truth.

I'm ticked off on principle, but aside from that... meh. I don't much like DC anyway (I'm a Marvel girl).

I'd make a comment about how Wonder Woman should be bisexual (for various reason) but considering how much DC has been screwing up lately, I don't really trust them to do anything with Wonder Woman. Which sucks, because she's a DC character I actually like.

sensationalist title.

they arent against the marriage, they are tired to have to change a years worth of material only because the publisher wants to spontaniously throw gay marriage scenes "just cause".

and its understandable.

Bara_no_Hime:

I'd make a comment about how Wonder Woman should be bisexual (for various reason)..

and those reasons are?
besides having grown up on an island full of woman and fan wish fullfillment that they are all lesbians.

Zachary Amaranth:

Warachia:

You seriously think that's it? Please talk to people that have been married for a long time (at least ten years), there's a lot more to it than what you think, marriage by itself does not bring stability, having children definitely DOES NOT bring stability, if anything it can tear them apart, people trying to make the marriage work bring stability, any person in a romantic relationship where they want to make it work can be just as stable, if not more so, then married couples.

Hell, how many decades did we have Spider-Man's marriage ADDING instability?

I was talking about real life, you can't judge something simply by what writers for a comic book chose to do or what they didn't do. If they didn't add any drama then that was their choice, it doesn't mean it can't happen.

rhizhim:
sensationalist title.

they arent against the marriage, they are tired to have to change a years worth of material only because the publisher wants to spontaniously throw gay marriage scenes "just cause".

and its understandable.

Bara_no_Hime:

I'd make a comment about how Wonder Woman should be bisexual (for various reason)..

and those reasons are?
besides having grown up on an island full of woman and fan wish fullfillment that they are all lesbians.

I suggest you do a little research into the life of William Moulton Marston, the creator of Wonder woman and then you may gain some insight into Bara_no_Hime's reasoning.

JarinArenos:

Ickorus:
Seriously people?

Everyone knows controversy sells and the people in charge of DC probably know it better than most, I'd bet anything that this is a little less black and white than DC being a bunch of homophobes.

Controversy sells? I'm not so sure about that. Who, exactly, is going to go out and buy the comics from this? Firstly, you have people like me... I'd just started reading Batgirl, and was looking at starting Batwoman, having heard that it was really damn good. No chance of that now. Secondly, you have people who are anti-gay-marriage, who... still aren't going to buy it because the main character isn't getting any less lesbian from this. Who is this controversy selling to?

Edit:

verdant monkai:
Anyone who thinks that any iteration of Batman (of either gender) getting married is a good idea, shouldn't be writing Batman.

You realize that Batwoman has no relation to Batman other than thematic appearance, right? She's not a gender-swap.

Controversy = publicity = sales

Admittedly I'm simplifying things a bit but the gist of it is that it is a sometimes risky maneuver that gets lots of publicity with the potential of garnering a lot more interest in the comic, in this case it wouldn't be particularly risky either since they would have already weeded out most of the people that would take exception to gay marriage by the character already being gay.

I'd love to write a longer and more informative post but I'm typing on my phone and it is a rather time consuming process.

Really? Good for DC. Now if only they would fix the bullshit they did to Alan Scott and everything will be right in the world of comics again.

verdant monkai:
Good

Anyone who thinks that any iteration of Batman (of either gender) getting married is a good idea, shouldn't be writing Batman.

Batman is married to the job. Crime fighting is his passion not women. Any Female version of Batman should reflect this. She needs to be dark, smart, driven and strong. But most of all clear in her intent, she needs to focus on who she is (A Crime Fighter).

Batman sort of has a thing for Catwoman and Ra's AL Ghul's daughter, but he hasn't married them. He gets Talia pregnant but leaves her to raise the kid herself.

Just no. A bat marriage is a dumb idea. It just seems like some kind of controversy ploy to sell a few copies.

Batwoman isn't Batman

She's her own character, with her own archenemies, and with her own supporting characters, that just happens to dress as a bat. She didn't even start off as his sidekick, she just modeled her hero identity after meeting him in an alley once.

Yes, Batman getting married would be bad, but Kate Kane isn't Bruce Wayne and Batwoman isn't Batman.

Perhaps you should actually know at least one thing about the character before passing judgement on what's a good idea or not.

Spot1990:

K12:
Well done to the writers for making a difficult decision and sticking to their principles.

Let's hope that Batwoman crashes and burns from this point and DC are forced to retcon everything back to this point and allow the writers to tell their fucking story!

Bollocks to DC for screwing over the people who are making all their damn money for them and screw them for being think enough to think that an engaged couple wouldn't eventually get married because they are lesbians.

The only one making this about lesbians are the writer of this article and the people in here bitching. As has already been said, none of the major DC heroes are married. They even broke up Lois Lane and Superman for the New 52. There's no reason to think this is any different than them not marrying their other heroes other than people love moral outrage.

That pissed off way more people than this will ever do. Hell they killed both Superman and Lois Lane in Earth 2, while Superman and Wonderwoman is dating in the main universe. DC hate's marriage, and they are not gonna let that shit slide for anyone. Hell Alan Scott was engaged to his boyfriend, guess where his boyfriend is now? 6-feet under.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 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