I know he said "stupid joking aside", but he seemed pretty serious about it.
I was serious in how bad the brief preview for the new GL read, but given some thought, if DC actually furthers the idea beyond using Alan Scott's boyfriend as a surrogate damsel in distress or just popping up once in a while to remind readers that Green Lantern is gay, then making comics topical again is great.
But if DC really had brass balls they would have outed Batman and Robin. Done right, that would be the biggest selling comic since the 90's.
So Irredeemable ended with issue 37. I hadn't heard that Waid decided to self-cancel the book, and I thought the "FINAL ISSUE" on the cover was a late April fool's joke, but nope. It ended. It's a bummer, but I suppose it's better than dragging it out for years on end. This type of comic did pretty much scream for an ending, or some type of resolution or ... redemption? (HEYOOOOH!) The ending did seem a teeny bit truncated, but it was still cool.
Plus, it will be easier to get friends/family into trying to read it because there are only 37 issues, and not 40-60 years worth of issues like Batman/Spidey/Superman, etc.
One more thing, I find that a lot of people are arguing that DC shouldn't address homosexuality at all, because they say that silent integration is the best way towards equality (similar to Booker T. Washington's philosophies on racial equality), but there's a bit of a contradiction in this idea. You see, sexuality is not something visible or externally apparent like race. Thus, subconsciously, until we hear otherwise, we assume everyone we meet is a heterosexual. Thus, it has to be explicitly established that one is homosexual if one wants to make a statement about it, or use it as a theme in their story. In addition, in this case in particular, the announcement was specifically about outing one of their characters, so it's not like they could dodge the issue.
Now, I'm not irrational. I'm not going to make the claim that everyone who opposes this is homophobic; that would be insane. What I am saying is that people who do have a problem with this should really re-examine their motives for why they think it is such a big deal.
I know he said "stupid joking aside", but he seemed pretty serious about it.
I was serious in how bad the brief preview for the new GL read, but given some thought, if DC actually furthers the idea beyond using Alan Scott's boyfriend as a surrogate damsel in distress or just popping up once in a while to remind readers that Green Lantern is gay, then making comics topical again is great.
But if DC really had brass balls they would have outed Batman and Robin. Done right, that would be the biggest selling comic since the 90's.
How can they really explore this issue effectively without giving him a boyfriend? Also, how do you know how they are going to characterize his boyfriend if the comics haven't been released?
My general point is that making the Green Lantern gay out of nowhere is making a spectacle of the subject and not really doing anything positive. "Oh look he's gay now! That's so controversial and stuff and now I have to buy the comic because being gay is totally weird!" It's just a forced marketing device meant to stir up controversy to boost sales.
If you want to read an interesting comic series that dabbles with homosexuality for reasons other than making headlines read The Authority.
My main question is the reasoning behind every little thing having to have a homosexual character nowadays. It always seems like they have to shove one in so that they look politically correct. I don't neccesarily support homosexuals, but if they want to be together I don't have the right to stop them. But they don't need to yeall and scream it at the sky like these characters in some of the entertainment nowadays do.
Forlorn Drifter wrote:My main question is the reasoning behind every little thing having to have a homosexual character nowadays. It always seems like they have to shove one in so that they look politically correct. I don't neccesarily support homosexuals, but if they want to be together I don't have the right to stop them. But they don't need to yeall and scream it at the sky like these characters in some of the entertainment nowadays do.
That's the thing; most homosexuals don't. Other people just interpret it as such very often. If you saw a straight couple holding hands in public, you wouldn't think anything of it, would you? Now, be perfectly honest, would you consider a gay couple holding hands in public to be "shoving their sexuality in your face"? Most people probably would, as you don't see it as often, and thus think of it as weird.
lisalover1 wrote:
How can they really explore this issue effectively without giving him a boyfriend? Also, how do you know how they are going to characterize his boyfriend if the comics haven't been released?
Guilty of judging future issues by the two page sneak peek released, but cynicism from a lifetime of reading comic books tells me that the storyline will involve a villain manipulating Alan Scott's boyfriend, a breakup, the ex turning into a supervillain, heroically redeemed, killed off, resurrected, and they live happily forever in continuity purgatory as dictated by the next writer or editorial mandate.
Bikeage wrote:
But if DC really had brass balls they would have outed Batman and Robin. Done right, that would be the biggest selling comic since the 90's.
Never going to happen.
Blah blah blah, comics!
Just reread a bunch of Marvel Age. Fred Hembrek still cracks me up, and the idea I bought a comic for a checklist of comics to buy reminds me of how brilliant Marvel's marketing can be.
lisalover1 wrote:
How can they really explore this issue effectively without giving him a boyfriend? Also, how do you know how they are going to characterize his boyfriend if the comics haven't been released?
Guilty of judging future issues by the two page sneak peek released, but cynicism from a lifetime of reading comic books tells me that the storyline will involve a villain manipulating Alan Scott's boyfriend, a breakup, the ex turning into a supervillain, heroically redeemed, killed off, resurrected, and they live happily forever in continuity purgatory as dictated by the next writer or editorial mandate.
Wow... that actually sounds... pretty spot-on. No comment here, I'll just wait and see.
