The Comic Book Thread

[BoringSupreez]

It's definitely Green Lantern. Like I said earlier, I'm no Green Lantern fan, so I'm relieved it wasn't a character I like.

Same here, though I do like the Green Lanterns to some extent. However, he isn't one I have too much familiarity with

According to the article, GL has been around for 70 years so there's plenty of existing material for anyone to read if they don't like this new direction.

I really do wonder though: is GL gay to stay, or could he easily straighten back out with a new writer/series?

[Gamerforlife]

It's definitely Green Lantern. Like I said earlier, I'm no Green Lantern fan, so I'm relieved it wasn't a character I like.

Same here, though I do like the Green Lanterns to some extent. However, he isn't one I have too much familiarity with

According to the article, GL has been around for 70 years so there's plenty of existing material for anyone to read if they don't like this new direction.

I really do wonder though: is GL gay to stay, or could he easily straighten back out with a new writer/series?

I always wonder why people have to turn a character gay, rather than bi. At least making them bi would make their past stories still valid.

It's dumb either way though. I personally would just leave established characters alone, but it's weird how writers often feel like a character has to be either straight or gay. The only successful bi sexual in fiction I can think of is this guy

[BurningDoom]

I'm more pissed about them changing the entire Golden Age cast of character, let alone Alan Scott. They're taking away everything about them that makes them such great characters. No longer will they be the first super-heroes in the DC Universe, they no longer have legacies or histories to speak of, and WWII was long over before they were even though of, now.

Without all of that, they're just gonna be seen as rip-offs of the main characters (which is ironic since it's actually the other way around).

[Mendoza]

It's definitely Green Lantern. Like I said earlier, I'm no Green Lantern fan, so I'm relieved it wasn't a character I like.

Same here, though I do like the Green Lanterns to some extent. However, he isn't one I have too much familiarity with

According to the article, GL has been around for 70 years so there's plenty of existing material for anyone to read if they don't like this new direction.

I really do wonder though: is GL gay to stay, or could he easily straighten back out with a new writer/series?

The fact that there is all that material is the reason this "direction" is nonsense.

[lisalover1]

I'm actually glad that DC made the move to make one of their superheroes gay. This will be one of the first times in a long time that I buy a comic, that's for sure. A couple things that I should point out, though. First, there are a lot of people saying "I don't like this because it messes up backstory/continuity!". Really? You're a comic fan and you're complaining about continuity? Do I even need to point out the irony? Second, there are are also a lot of people saying that it would be better if they left the Green Lantern alone and just made a new character that was gay from the get-go. That's a little more understandable, as they could craft the character's life and story to really create an interesting narrative to say something meaningful about the issue. But, there have been plenty of gay superheroes before, and no one but big comic fans have heard of them, and even less actually know they're gay. By outing an existing, more well-known character, there will be more people talking about it, and they will actually be making a statement. Overall, I would have liked them to choose a more interesting superhero, but hey, at least it wasn't Aquaman.

[Luke]

I'm actually glad that DC made the move to make one of their superheroes gay. This will be one of the first times in a long time that I buy a comic, that's for sure.

That's quite a silly reason to buy a comic if you haven't purchased a comic in a long time.

But I guess DC marketing wins.

[BoringSupreez]

I'm actually glad that DC made the move to make one of their superheroes gay. This will be one of the first times in a long time that I buy a comic, that's for sure.

That's quite a silly reason to buy a comic if you haven't purchased a comic in a long time.

But I guess DC marketing wins.

We'll know how well the change works out for them financially soon enough.

[lisalover1]

I'm actually glad that DC made the move to make one of their superheroes gay. This will be one of the first times in a long time that I buy a comic, that's for sure.

That's quite a silly reason to buy a comic if you haven't purchased a comic in a long time.

But I guess DC marketing wins.

What? I'm interested in the concept, and I want to reward DC for taking a chance.

[brunoafh]

So the Green Lantern is gay now. What's the point of that even? I guess just to get a rise out of people? I'm not sure how making the Green Lantern have butt secks is going to add anything to the comics.

He's very much the character he was. He's still the pinnacle of bravery and idealism. He's also gay.

Okay then... when I read character bios for Wolverine or Iron Fist or whatever, it usually doesn't read as: "Wolverine is a mutant who possesses animal-keen senses, enhanced physical capabilities, three retracting bone claws on each hand and a healing factor that allows him to recover from virtually any wound, he's also straight."

I don't have anything against gays or transgendered people, what I'm getting at is, isn't making a spectacle of people that are gay the opposite of what you guys want? Seems counter productive to me when a person's sexual orientation is put on the spotlight because they're gay, pointing it out is making it seem "not normal". Besides, there's a little gay in all of us!

[AppleQueso]

"taking a chance"?

It's the classic "stir up controversy to drive up sales" trick. Hardly any risk involved at all for DC.