DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, zslane said:

 

I think it makes more sense to say that when it comes to superheroes in the comics, being 100% straight is the assumed default unless clearly and unequivocally shown otherwise. This is, after all, the genre and medium that didn't put any focus on sexual identity for its first couple of decades (and why would it? it's not relevant), and then was made even more squeaky clean by the imposition of the comics code in the 1950s. It is only relatively recently that issues of sexual identity have been directly addressed in mainstream superhero comics. And it wasn't something that became an editorial agenda until a few years ago. So I'd argue that the burden of proof falls on showing an unshakably non-straight character with zero hetero inclinations, since 100% straight has been the assumed default for over eighty years.

 

20 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

Sexual attraction isn't really binary. It's more of a spectrum, and the comics are now starting to reflect that.

 

I remember in a chat here on the website with Steve Long, someone asked him a question about how many official Champions characters were gay. He answered to the effect that he never went out of his way to define a character's sexuality, because that would almost never affect their motivations for becoming a hero (or villain). Moreover, in contemporary Western society homosexuality is rarely a serious complication any more. Steve said that if a character's sexual preference isn't specified, a given game group who want to use it can define it however would work for them.

 

Both the comics writers and the fans are making more fuss over this than is necessary, pro or con. If you're writing a story with romantic drama, the emotions matter a lot more than the plumbing.

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, zslane said:

 

I think it makes more sense to say that when it comes to superheroes in the comics, being 100% straight is the assumed default unless clearly and unequivocally shown otherwise. This is, after all, the genre and medium that didn't put any focus on sexual identity for its first couple of decades (and why would it? it's not relevant), and then was made even more squeaky clean by the imposition of the comics code in the 1950s. It is only relatively recently that issues of sexual identity have been directly addressed in mainstream superhero comics. And it wasn't something that became an editorial agenda until a few years ago. So I'd argue that the burden of proof falls on showing an unshakably non-straight character with zero hetero inclinations, since 100% straight has been the assumed default for over eighty years.

 

Why would it be the assumed default? The comics did not present characters as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transexual for 50 - 80 years.  It basically presented them as asexual.  Sexuality was simply a topic which was not addressed, beyond some characters having (or pining over) boyfriends/girlfriends, and a few being married.  I recall a letter to one book some years back complaining that, even in a line that targeted "mature readers", the characters were presented in, as I recall, some mystic mindscape as lacking genitalia.  The letter writer indicated that, in his view, "real people have genitals".

 

The statement that the characters' sexuality is "not relevant" suggests that one should not care whether Tim Drake is heterosexual, bisexual or whateversexual.  If it's not relevant, it does not matter - regardless of whether he is straight or not.  The level of complaint indicates the extent of relevance to the person making the complaint.

[zslane]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why would it be the assumed default?

 

Because heterosexuality is the dominant sexual orientation for our species. And in the era in which superhero comics were born, all other sexualities were pretty much ignored/disregarded, making heterosexuality the assumed default. You say "would" as if we're talking about "should", but I'm not. I'm only talking about what "has been".

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The statement that the characters' sexuality is "not relevant" suggests that one should not care whether Tim Drake is heterosexual, bisexual or whateversexual.

 

Personally I don't care. In fact, I think it's probably better not to state/indicate one way or another. That way the reader can superimpose whatever orientation makes the character more interesting to them. As I've said before, I don't feel that superheroic action/adventure stories are a consonant place to explore sexual identity and indulge in romantic/sexual fantasies. That stuff strikes me as the realm of fanfic, and while fanfic may be extremely popular with some folks, it doesn't seem to lead to sustained increases in comic book sales for DC or Marvel.

[mattingly]

[Dr.Device]

I don't think that's really Ben Affleck.

[archer]

4 minutes ago, Dr.Device said:

I don't think that's really Ben Affleck.

 

Ask him for behind the scenes details about Daredevil.

 

If he comes up with them, surely he's Ben Affleck.

[Lord Liaden]

If he talks about Daredevil, he's not Ben Affleck.

[Ranxerox]

Here is overview of the the whole, Tim Drake is bi thing.

 

 

Tbh, I am not really a fan of this, but that is mainly because really like Stephanie Brown and Tim Drake as a couple.  I do, however, consider it a valid take on the character in that I don't think it directly contradicts anything in the character's history and it did seems like certain writers were leaning into this view.

[Scott Ruggels]

....And now, Superman is Gay

https://monzulbd.com/dc-comics-will-make-superman-gay-in-an-unexpected-shake-up-and-fans-are-overjoyed/

 

No the fans are not overjoyed, It was a Cynical ploy to boost sales.

 

 

D.C. is just re-arrainging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Greywind]

I wonder if we'll get a story where Superman blows the back of Robin's head off and tries to hide the body.

[Hugh Neilson]

Funny...the objection to Tim Drake was that the character has been around for decades, and they should not "retcon" such a long-term character in this manner.  I don't think Jon Kent has been around very long, has he?  Well, six years, I suppose.

 

I seem to recall a time when the writers were criticized for creating brand-new characters to fill "inclusivity" niches.  Now we criticize discovery that existing characters may not be 100% straight.

 

What is the suggested approach?  I know one was that their sexuality is irrelevant so ignore it.  But, to consistently implement that, we need to get rid of all romantic relationships - no "Superman's Girlfriend" or "Wedding of Reed and Sue", along with no "Tim Drake struggles with his sexuality".

 

At the same time, I wonder how many fans of the current approach recall how long changes and trends typically last in the comic book world.

[Greywind]

I doubt the industry will last long enough for them to finally please everyone.

[assault]

1 hour ago, Scott Ruggels said:

....And now, Superman is Gay

https://monzulbd.com/dc-comics-will-make-superman-gay-in-an-unexpected-shake-up-and-fans-are-overjoyed/

 

No the fans are not overjoyed, It was a Cynical ploy to boost sales.

 

 

D.C. is just re-arrainging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

The "source" for this is the ridiculous troll Ethan Van Sciver.

 

I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

[zslane]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I seem to recall a time when the writers were criticized for creating brand-new characters to fill "inclusivity" niches.

 

I'm not in touch with recent comics history enough to recall that, but regardless, I disagree with that criticism. Creating new characters to fill "inclusivity niches" and broaden diversity is exactly the right approach, IMO. Anyone who criticizes that is basically against any kind of diversity in comics at all. And I call BS on them.

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, zslane said:

 

I'm not in touch with recent comics history enough to recall that, but regardless, I disagree with that criticism. Creating new characters to fill "inclusivity niches" and broaden diversity is exactly the right approach, IMO. Anyone who criticizes that is basically against any kind of diversity in comics at all. And I call BS on them.

 

I'm not sold that creating, say, the "matches pretty much every stereotype" Extrano back in 1988 was a better move than "outing" characters whose sexuality has never been a solid point in their prior appearances. I don't recall Apache Chief, Black Vulcan, Samurai and El Dorado being viewed as great examples of diversification in the Superhero genre when they appeared in Super Friends.

 

Would you also criticize the decision that Black Manta was actually black (revealed in 1977; first appearance was 10 years prior, in 1967)?  Aquaman was surprised.

 

What about something less visible?  The Thing was around a long time before 2002, when he was revealed to be Jewish.  Colossal Boy was revealed to be Jewish in 1980, 20 years after he first appeared.  Moon Knight retroactively became Jewish in #37 of his book, almost 10 years after he first appeared.  Magneto became retroactively Jewish in the 1990's. 

 

Sexuality, like religion (or even race if you are always fully masked) is pretty easily invisible.  We tend to assume "straight", but we also tend to assume some branch of Christian, and WASP until they unmask and prove us wrong.  All of these were the standard in the Golden Age, not just "straight".

 

Considering how many real people struggle with defining their sexuality, even denying or hiding it, the possibility that some existing characters whose sexuality has never really been a defining characteristic (much like religion may never have come up) being gay or bi (or Jewish) doesn't seem like it flies in the face of their character development.  We might discover after many years of publication that a character came from an abusive home (Hulk), is of a specific faith (Thing) or has a non-straight sexual orientation (Tim Drake; maybe Jon Kent), or even is not white (Black Manta).

 

Is the problem that the writers never disabused the assumption that they were straight WASPs from their very first appearance, or is the problem with readers who assumed one thing and are now uncomfortable with another being revealed?

[zslane]

There's organic character development, planned from the start, where such background details are revealed little by little as readers get to know the character, and then there's sudden (from the reader's perspective) changes piled on in order to check off a box from an editorial diversity agenda. I feel that if the word comes down from corporate HQ that there suddenly needs to be more diversity in the company's line of comics, the superior approach is to create fresh new characters that meet those diversification needs. Gender bending, race bending, and out-of-the-blue sexual identity reveals are lazy, transparent, and usually dismissive of the existing character history in a way almost guaranteed to piss of long-time readers.

[Scott Ruggels]

Exactly So.  New characters should be tried.  There are hundreds of characters in the past, but of them a handful of them them have become popular. For Marvel it's Spiderman, Wolverine, and for a while The X-Men. for DC, it's the holy trinity of Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. Those in charge now, do not want to create a tone of characters new, with only a handful getting any popularity. It's hard work, and it is so much easier to take an existing character with an existing audience, and hijack it for identy, as a ply to boost new articles and possibly sales in the short term.  In the long tern, it's just going to bleed fans.  It's flag planting, rather than real work. But yes New characters is preferable to modifying old ones.    Someone that exlains it far better than I do is Superfan Eric D. July
 

 

[archer]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Funny...the objection to Tim Drake was that the character has been around for decades, and they should not "retcon" such a long-term character in this manner.  I don't think Jon Kent has been around very long, has he?  Well, six years, I suppose.

 

 

I don't have a problem, at all, with Jon Kent being gay. Completely different situation that Tim Drake.

 

I've got a problem with DC killing off Clark Kent just to make way for Jon, but that's another matter....

[assault]

2 minutes ago, archer said:

 

I've got a problem with DC killing off Clark Kent just to make way for Jon, but that's another matter....

 

Which isn't going to happen in any real way, trolls to the contrary.

[archer]

2 minutes ago, assault said:

 

Which isn't going to happen in any real way, trolls to the contrary.

 

Well, take that for what you will. There's been constant rumors since before the DC "Future" series were announced.

[Matt the Bruins]

Whatever gets done with his story in the near future, I'm fairly certain that long-term Clark Kent as Superman will be around as long as the DC Comics IP—and indeed, the superhero genre in general—is. He's just too iconic for that not to be the case. Besides, we're almost two years out from the last DC reboot at the end of Doomsday Clock, so another line-wide retcon is probably overdue.

[assault]

OK, this Superman stuff: it looks like we are talking about the series Superman: Son of Kal-El.

 

This is not main continuity Superman, but a spin off title that may or may not sell and/or be cancelled. Traditional Superman is still being published alongside it.

 

It's nothing to be outraged about, except in the minds of the easily outraged.

[Dr.Device]

I find the idea that there's something unrealistic or inappropriate about established characters being revealed to be gay or bi hilarious. I made it it to fifty years old without realizing that I'm trans. I was married with two kids. No one (including me) suspected that I was anything other than a straight, cisgender man. And I know a ton of people in the same (or a similar) boat.

 

As long as society keeps moving in the right direction, I think this will happen less and less, but it's not going  go away, at least not in my lifetime. People figure out they're different at their own pace. Or they just don't reveal certain aspects of themselves until they're ready. It's the world we live in. Even though comic book worlds aren't our world, there's no reason to expect them to be different in that particular regard.

 

Just because you don't want to see something doesn't make it unrealistic or inappropriate.

[dmjalund]

Why don't they bring back Jericho?

[csyphrett]

12 hours ago, dmjalund said:

Why don't they bring back Jericho?

Didn't they reduce him to a Deadman like mental influence and trap him in Cyborg's eye? On the other hand, that was three history revisions ago.

CES