DC Says One Of Its"Iconic" Heroes Is Gay
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Thespian said:
Buddy, hate to break this to you, but you have no idea what you are talking about. No, seriously, you've gravely misunderstood a few significant things.
1 - I have to refer to your first two paragraphs now... "Call the whole continuity into question"? "Villains who have learned everything about a hero"?
Do you comprehend the idea of a Relaunch? You know that the New 52 is a COMPLETE reset of the DC universe after the events of Flashpoint?
All that history is now rebooted. They have complete free reign to do whatever they want with DC history, save for the last nine issues of each series that has come out. With what we know of Batman, Superman and Flash in this Universe, they could all be gay but not open about it.
Perhaps you should google "New 52" and just get a clear idea of what the reboot is, because you seem to have misunderstood it from what I can tell.
2 - You think it'd be a good idea to bring Midnighter and Apollo in? Here's a plan: Go back in time one year and tell Paul Cornell that. See, Midnighter and Apollo are in the DC Universe. Stormwatch has been running for nine issues now in the New 52. And for the record, Paul Cornell did a fantastic job of re-introducing the couple's romance in a subtle and classy way (You should give that a read, if you liked the old Authority comics)
3 - What's the problem with making changes to established characters? Especially since right now is the IDEAL time to do it considering how everything is set back to a status quo.
I mean, would you rather batman still wore blue and yellow and Dick ran around in briefs?
Would you rather Superman's powers involved random rainbow fingers? Or would you like to see him torture Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen every week for laughs?
Should Wonder Woman still go everywhere in her flying jet?
Should Green Lantern be crippled by the daunting power of the colour yellow? Or anything made of wood?
Characters change over time. We don't see this with a lot of other media of story-telling, but comics or sort of unique in that they have the same characters written by dozens of writers over several decades. These characters have survived way bigger changes in the past and even come out from it looking better.
In short, ONE character becoming gay during a time period where it doesn't conflict with the character's past is NOT a big deal.
So all in all, you basically claim it's a stunt because if they just wanted gay characters they'd bring in Apollo and Midnighter, or make new ones. Well they've done both of those things. But maybe they'd like to have an Iconic gay character, and a recognizable gay character, and you can't manufacture that.
Also, your logic appears to be that it's a stunt, because they have nothing to prove, thus it's a stunt? If they had nothing to prove then this publicity "stunt" would get them nothing.
Besides, if making the JLA a small bit more diverse is a "stunt", then it's not exactly a bad one. Looking at Bunker, Batwoman (eh, sorta batwoman), Apollo and Midnighter in the New 52, gay characters have been written very cleverly. Plus, if it's a character in one of the flagship books then it will most likely have a very good writer behind it.
You seem to be very poorly informed considering the authoritative tone you assume.[/quote]
Wow, I forgot about this post, which I was more interested in than some of the other garbage I've had to respond to. Despite you being rude I was actually fairly interested in answering this one as it has to do with comics.
I'm more of a Marvel fan to be honest, but I have a degree of familiarity with DC. I will say that I was not aware of the Stormwatch re-launch so I will have to check that out when I have some time. That said if Apollo and The Midnighter do happen to be in the main DC universe now, there really isn't much reason for them to pull this stunt so far as it goes (you might not think it's a stunt, but I do).
I do have some knowlege of DC's most recent reboot, but honestly I don't take DC reboots seriously. Ever since "Crisis On Infinite Earths" they pretty much decide to reboot every time they want to sell a few more comic books. Allegedly they do this to sort things out, or try new ideas, but in the end the status quo is almost always restored back to the way it was. There HAVE been lasting changes, but not as many as some would have you believe, and half the time a "change" is actually just re-introducing something from decades ago that most people forgot about.
As a result, yes I suppose they could use that to try and justify saying that an iconic character was "always gay" at least as far as the new history goes, but that isn't the same as "always having been gay", and really that's kind of a cop out since it's by it's nature temporary since everyone knows that the basic status quo is coming back, no matter how much they insist it won't. That actually kind of cheapens the promise of this as a big reveal, like it will be something lasting. If they go that way, what we'll wind up with is yet another alternate Superman to show up for big events 30 years from now "Oh yeah that other Superman, he's the one that was gay from way back in 2012, I guess that continuity continued in a parallel universe... kind of awesome to see him with the hemaphrodite Superman from 2020 and the orange haired punk Superman from last year".... and to think I'm only being slightly sarcastic there, since these reboots wind up exactly with that kind of garbage.
At any rate, unless this is even more tasteless attempts at hype than I gave it credit for, I'd imagine their intent is at least to try and lastingly retcon a major backstory and leave it there, and say it was that way in all universes, including whatever one was destroyed last year since this goes on constantly.
-
As contridictory as the above is, I will say that when you alter an existing character too much it ceases to be the character anymore. This is something that I think a lot of writers just don't get. Sort of like when they decided to kill off Gen-13 and re-launch an entirely differant team with Fairchild as a mentor and sort of present it as the same thing (followed by them relaunching the original characters again in an offhanded way... but well it gets insane and I'm sure you know that).
The thing is that the iconic DC heroes are tied to their mythos and their love interets. Superman and Lois Lane pretty much go together and you associate one with the other. The same could be said to Batman and Catwoman (even if they have only beeb an item recently), and to fans Talia, Aquaman has almost always had an undersea princess/queen, and well it goes on. With Hawkman the nature of his romance is part of what defines the character and what he is all about currently.
Of course that is also why it's big news. If you decided to make Superman gay and get rid of Lois Lane with how long she's been part of that character and defining him through their back and forth, it wouldn't be Superman anymore, no matter what suit you put him in, and what powers he happens to have.
At any rate now that I think about it, it is probably nothing. I was aware of the universe reboot but I hadn't really put it together. I imagine they'll do this, say it's permanant, and then reset the status quo in a few years tops. Then during some other major event the gay version of whomever will probably show up at some point to provide backup and make people go "oh hey, I remember that".
Our inevitable arguement aside, before I track it down, whose on the roster of the new Stormwatch, is it the whole "Stormwatch Black" team from back in the day, or the whole collection of Prime/Black? Or just a reboot with a bunch of new chaacters with only those two acting as the face. My favs were Jenny Sparks and Winter, though they killed them both off (and to be fair, they should have left Winter dead even if I liked him, bringing him back was a little much and kind of spoiled the final moments of Stormwatch and his post-death storyline where he had posessed the sun).
Hydros was just an off the head suggestion, the point is it sounds more like a comic book character name than a bottled-water bascot, admittedly it sounds more like a SuperVILLAIN's name but still, I think it's better than Aquaman. Hydroman some some reason doesn't work. Maybe it's just too predictable.Winnosh said:
Look, if it was super strength that let Aquaman (lets call him that for now) survive at such depth then that means he has no unique powers over Superman. He's jsut a lesser superman who has a pointless affinity for water. Think about it: if his gambit is the magical power to move water with near infinite force and superhuman precision then that means he is USEFUL beyond being a weaker 2nd-rate superman. No. For Aquaman to be really unique he has to have unique superpowers that would come from surviving such depths because he can reduce the water pressure around him, he can even suck dissolved oxygen out of the water to breath and allow others to breath.
In other words, he can do some things superman can't do and can't do some things superman can do.
This is my problem with various Super-Leagues, they all to often have NOT been structured in a away where their various strengths and weaknesses can compensate for each other. Their superpower lore has been constructed in singular.
Batman is already set apart by having essentially human strength, adding another character to to roster who can juggle cement-trucks and shrug off supersonic missiles just makes Batman more of a liability. Make Aquaman a mortal. Make superman (and Wonderwoman as well) the only indestructible superheroes. If you have too many indestructible heroes then whenever bad shit happens it'll be too tempting just to get the interesting but mortal characters to hide in a hole. And if you are going to have flash be super-speed then don't ALSO give superman super-speed and reflexes.
He is SUPER man. Make him super.
I'd extend Superman's weakness beyond kyrptonite to a general weakness to radiation and to varying extents to all energy weapons. He can exert huge physical force and absorb huge force but radiation cuts through that like a knife through butter. Kyrptonite would be still his most potent weakness as it is the one substance that NATIVELY releases a radiation that is harmless to humans yet very fatal to superman while remaining a fairly common substance, so would be used against him most. So superman would need Batman's technical expertise in dealing with such weaponry. I also think it would have interesting commentary on ideas of machismo where all obvious threats like fast moving projectiles can be shugged off yet radiation, that we don't understand: we cannot see, cannot taste, nor feel nor touch is his greatest weakness. I'd tie this in with nuclear weapons, their awesome destructive power and how that is tied with their poisonous curse.
It's not SuperAquaMan, It'a Aquaman. His power should be supreme control of water and only above average strength.
But his huge strength in fighting goons is how any punch can be magnified by how he can impart so much more force because his target is 80% water. But, just as superman needs his kryptonite, Aquaman needs a weakness, and that is how if there is no considerable water around and his opponents are mostly non-water then he is just the peak of human strength, so on par with batman or other mortal superheroes.
PS: I really think Aquaman could do with a big badass beard. Instantly 90% less lame having an awesome beard. And please, can we retcon it so "Aquaman" is said to be just the name the media gave him in this universe, that his friends and associates know him by another name that isn't so tabloid.
Ya know I really hope it is either Batman or Supes.
In an ideal world, it be Wonder Woman, just because that would make sense thematically... And I would think it plain interesting to see such a strong character have to deal with the paradox of being some non-powered female butch's *****.
But alas, if were going to choose a man, I would pick Batman. Why Batman? Cause Batman is fucking badass, and it's about time we got around to creating a gay character that others would be down right piss afraid of calling a fag. Call Batman a fag, I dare you, he'd break every fucking bone in your body.
Or alternatively, Superman. Go ahead, call Superman a fag. Fucker could conquer the world if he wanted to, you really want to piss him off?
But more then likely this is a publicity stunt, and as such... I mean, c'mon it has to be Flash. Martian Manhunter don't count cause he's a shapeshifter, and Aquaman... if they turn Aquaman gay, I mean... for fucks sake, no one wants to be Aquaman, I'm sorry.
In an ideal world, it be Wonder Woman, just because that would make sense thematically... And I would think it plain interesting to see such a strong character have to deal with the paradox of being some non-powered female butch's *****.
But alas, if were going to choose a man, I would pick Batman. Why Batman? Cause Batman is fucking badass, and it's about time we got around to creating a gay character that others would be down right piss afraid of calling a fag. Call Batman a fag, I dare you, he'd break every fucking bone in your body.
Or alternatively, Superman. Go ahead, call Superman a fag. Fucker could conquer the world if he wanted to, you really want to piss him off?
But more then likely this is a publicity stunt, and as such... I mean, c'mon it has to be Flash. Martian Manhunter don't count cause he's a shapeshifter, and Aquaman... if they turn Aquaman gay, I mean... for fucks sake, no one wants to be Aquaman, I'm sorry.
I waaaaaant Batmannnn to be gayyyyyyyy, pleaaaaaaaaase (in lovely sing-song voice to the tune of The Hills Are Alive")
SaneAmongInsane said:
Hey! Okay, I know they're not as popular but Apolo and Midnighter are totally bad-ass fags.
SaneAmongInsane said:
Well, as I said in another post, the Batman/Superman thing has already happen. Apollo and The Midnighter were Wildstorm's direct analogies to Superman and Batman and they were gay lovers, and got married and everything. Although as was just pointed out they did a version of "Stormwatch" in DC and both those characters now exist in the DC continuity (which is a bit odd given that they were analogies, but I haven't read it yet) so it seems unlikely that Superman and/or Batman would be gay as it would be redundant.
Not to mention as I pointed out, the major iconic characters arguably can't be made gay without ruining them. See when it comes to Superman he's almost synymous with his whole interplay with Lois Lane. You could say that Lois is part of the character at this point. The same could be said about Batman to an extent as his back and forth with Catwoman, even before they became an item, was a big deal and one of the more interesting things about him. The same could be said of his relationship with Talia.. but that's something mostly comic geeks know. The Martian Manhunter's previous life and loves are part of his makeup, so he'd be hard to do. The Flash seems to be the easiest to make gay, as there have been a bunch of guys wearing that mask, and really a love interest doesn't pop into mind instantly the way it does when I think of "Superman" or "Batman". Aquaman is unlikely to be made gay, because he's always got a mer-babe (princess/queen) as part of his schtick, especially nowadays. Indeed his love interest had a pretty big role in the whole Darkest Night/Brightest Day thing, becoming a lantern of rage if I remember... so yes, The Flash *does* seem like a likely choice, not that I think the article writer had any insider information.
Oh yes, and as far as what happens when someone calls Superman and/or Batman a fag was kind of covered in Wildstorm with Apollo and The Midnigter at various times. Although to be honest Apollo did wind up being used as a human punching bag by Teuton for a while on those grounds during one storyline where they were defeated and replaced. I don't think anyone has ever gay bashed Midnighter though.
As far as iconic goes, that could be stretched. People are looking at the JLA side, but there is the whole JSA side of things as well. Certain characters like the Alan Ladd Green Lantern, Wildcat, Blue Beetle and others have all been around for quite a while, and could easiy be used as a lot of their backrounds are less solidly set in the mainstream mindset. Doctor Fate could also be "gay" depending on who he's incarnated as (and how they are currently defining him).
The most hilarious thing I could think of would be Marvin from the olllld Superfriends showing up, "Iconic" in way, and coming out of the closet, both literally (he was lost in a transdimensional closet for the last couple of decades) and figuratively (he's gay!). Simply because after all the hype and speculation everyone on all sides would be punk'd.
That's Hawkman, and it's not likely.Pinkamena said:
The way Hawkman is currently defined he's got this curse where he has a soulmate, Hawkwoman, where if he falls in love with her one of them dies. It's been one of his recurring things for a while, and part of what drives his personality and emotional repression. Another one of those things that came to a head in the whole "Darkest Night/Brightest Day" event several years ago, and is apparently still ongoing.
They did do a universe reboot, and I suppose if they had his soul make incarnate as a dude they could make it work, but I really can't see them pulling that one. Among other things it would wind up writing Hawkwoman (and perhaps Hawkgirl) out of continuity and the lady hawks have their own little fandoms, and it's all kind of tied together through him as the anchor character.
If you took away focus of every superhero that had a power in common with Superman you'd have to change most of the DCU.Treblaine said:
Hell you'd run into the very problem that made people see Aquaman as Lame in the first place.
Aquaman was just fine before Superfriends. Not as popular as some other heroes but not seen as overly lame. What happened was that the people in charge of the show wanted to draw focus away from his superstrength and combat skills and focus on the water stuff. They didn't want any mind control stuff for good guys so they made him just talk to fish.
Well by definition they aren't handling it well, we knew that from the very moment it was a major annoucement. "One of our iconic characters is about to be retconned as gay" is right up there on the subtlety meter as yelling "Fire! run for your lives, we're all going to die". It's a giant publicity stunt.Detective Prince said:
Like dealing with most minority groups, this is an impossible situation. Intentionally setting out to create a minority character rarely works, and when you annouce it, that's what your doing.
It's sort of like creating a black character, if you make the character act just like anyone else... a hero that happens to be black, and does what everyone else does, then you wind up with the black community saying the character isn't black enough. The whole "Storm is black, wow, I didn't notice... I really couldn't tell from how she acts" thing. The counterpoint would of course be Luke Cage, who has in the past... especially as "Power Man" has been accused as being an offensive stereotype because he acts too streetwise black. As Seanbaby once jokingly put it "Reading Power Man, he used so much jive I couldn't figure out if he wanted to beat the guy up or dance with him". Those are Marvel examples, but it illustrates the point of a couple of lasting characters that never really hit the way they were intended, probably because they were specifically created to be minority characters, as opposed to characters who happened to be minorities.
With this current issue, it's a similar situation. If they say decide Superman is gay, but he just continues to act like Superman, there will be complaints about the character simply being gay as a technicality. On the other hand if they decide to have Superman act notably gay, he'll be called as an offensive "flaming" stereotype. The same could be said of any hero (not just Superman).
See, to do this kind of thing right, a company can't decide "we're going to have a character of X type" as part of the planning, and annouce it as an event. A creator, without any input otherwise, has to come up with making a character that way to begin with, and then have it succeed on it's own. A lot of people when they hear this seem to think that it's me argueing exclusionism, but that isn't the case. Things have to happen on their own, over time, if you force something, it's going to come out forced.
Wildstorm handled this well, it's my favorite imprint, and even as someone who is hardly pro-gay IRL, I've been sold on a number of their characters. I don't believe they ever sold one of their characters based on being a minority, they just gave the writers permission to do what they wanted, and it kind of worked. Nobody promoted "Gen 13" as having "A chinese guy, and a native American, look at the diversity!!!!", and when Sarah Rainmaker was revealed to be a Lesbian it was kind of a surprise thing since it wasn't telegraphed. Likewise when Apollo and The Midnighter were introduced by way of Stormwatch, there wasn't any kind of annoucement "we're going to have some gay major characters!!!!". It kind of just happened, the characters sold themselves, and well... Wildstorm was always a secondary imprint, but those characters lasted and helped contribute to keeping the label alive.
See, DC is stupid in managing their main brand. They were right to think that introducing a new character would be the way to get a LGBT character accepted. However it's something they have to let happen on it's own, and the worst thing to do is shout from the rooftops its coming.
As a result this is a stunt, and will never be more than a stunt. As the comics company that has probably kept more homosexual characters running than any other I can think of, I'd think they would be smarter about it.
That said, in the spirit of my previous suggestion that it be Marvin from the old Superfriends show, it could also be Xandor.... will his coming out break up the Wonder Twins, does his sister Jaina care, or is she kind of into her brother being into that?
It could also be Lobo, all that leather and macho posturing, he must have been hiding something all this time. Especially when you consider his original costume.
Winnosh said:
Actually I always kind of figured it was because he was a highly specialized character and with most of the other characters running around on land/space/whatever there wasn't a lot for him to really do.
Aquaman is fine in his own element, being underwater, dealing with aquatic civilizations, etc... He's less awesome when your say slugging it out with Godzilla in the middle of a landlocked city.
I think the problem with Aquaman is that they keep trying to use him with teams (on TV or otherwise) when really he by his nature works best as a solo character that happens to crossover into other titles when the storylines involve the ocean or whatever.
As far as downplaying his other power, I seem to remember that there were some conflicts with Marvel over The Sub Mariner and how "similar" Aquaman was to the character, and that's why certain aspects were played down. Namor is very much a brute character, so having Aquaman do the same stuff would be a problem if that conflict actually happened the way I heard. On the other hand Namor doesn't really command sea creatures, so that was probably safe territory to focus on.
While it's now very, very, old I remember that Aquaman on his home turf was one of the heroes able to take out an Imperiax dupe one on one. Of course he apparently died, got trapped in the past, and had to be rescued during the whole "Obsidian Age" thing if I remember.
I don't think they would risk Aquaman on a blatant publicity stunt like this.
The character is in the infant stages of a renaissance of sorts, and could very well be the next Batman if the history of the Batman franchise is anything to go by. Batman went from negative zero to absolute hero after a series of 'lightning in a bottle' arcs by Frank Miller and Alan Moore. Before his reinvention in the eighties Batman was an absolute joke, just like Aquaman, but those stories successfully reinvented him into the modern Batman we all love and loathe today.
Then again DC is owned and operated by the company that brought us the Green Lantern movie, maybe they like train wrecks. Speaking of trains wrecks though, I hope it is Hal Jordan simply because elements of his fan base would absolutely lose their marbles over their precious Republican straight man coming out of the closet.
The character is in the infant stages of a renaissance of sorts, and could very well be the next Batman if the history of the Batman franchise is anything to go by. Batman went from negative zero to absolute hero after a series of 'lightning in a bottle' arcs by Frank Miller and Alan Moore. Before his reinvention in the eighties Batman was an absolute joke, just like Aquaman, but those stories successfully reinvented him into the modern Batman we all love and loathe today.
Then again DC is owned and operated by the company that brought us the Green Lantern movie, maybe they like train wrecks. Speaking of trains wrecks though, I hope it is Hal Jordan simply because elements of his fan base would absolutely lose their marbles over their precious Republican straight man coming out of the closet.
Yeah, DC is trying to pretend they give a crap about equality and they change Amanda Waller from a fat ugly woman into a hot fit one. This is bullshit, it reeks of publicity stunt and it would require completely ignoring all those heroes' past legitimate relationships with women.
And there's also the issue that you shouldn't change a character's sexual orientation just for kicks. Either you actually design the character with a certain sexual orientation in mind and keep it hidden until you wish to reveal it or you don't do anything. Changing a character's sexual orientation after years of publication will require completely ignoring his past history. Even taking into account the reboot, this can't possibly end well.
The problem here is not the sexual orientation issue, but the fact that they are changing a character's personality trait for no valid reason while pretending it was that way all along. They could be making Batman an alien descendant and it would be the same thing. If they had planned it from the beginning and inserted small clues all throughout the character's history (like Marvel did with Alpha Flight), it would work perfectly and there'd be no complaints. But simply stating something is like this now while past stories completely contradict that fact is a stupid thing to do and always has brought backlash from readers. I smell DC's clone saga emerging from this.
You know how people love to joke about how all superheroes are inherently gay, but I honestly think that is all bullcrap people like to jerk around with, since no one who says that takes a moment to properly analyze the characters and find evidence to those statements. Now are you going to tell me DC is going to actually listen to the people who mock its characters instead of those who appreciate them? Yeah, that has always worked so well...
And there's also the issue that you shouldn't change a character's sexual orientation just for kicks. Either you actually design the character with a certain sexual orientation in mind and keep it hidden until you wish to reveal it or you don't do anything. Changing a character's sexual orientation after years of publication will require completely ignoring his past history. Even taking into account the reboot, this can't possibly end well.
The problem here is not the sexual orientation issue, but the fact that they are changing a character's personality trait for no valid reason while pretending it was that way all along. They could be making Batman an alien descendant and it would be the same thing. If they had planned it from the beginning and inserted small clues all throughout the character's history (like Marvel did with Alpha Flight), it would work perfectly and there'd be no complaints. But simply stating something is like this now while past stories completely contradict that fact is a stupid thing to do and always has brought backlash from readers. I smell DC's clone saga emerging from this.
You know how people love to joke about how all superheroes are inherently gay, but I honestly think that is all bullcrap people like to jerk around with, since no one who says that takes a moment to properly analyze the characters and find evidence to those statements. Now are you going to tell me DC is going to actually listen to the people who mock its characters instead of those who appreciate them? Yeah, that has always worked so well...
My instincts tell me its Green lantern.
Just have to remember that its DC, if it doesn't work out they will just reboot their entire universe again.
Just have to remember that its DC, if it doesn't work out they will just reboot their entire universe again.
It doesn't matter who they pick. It will suck no matter who they arbitrarily "change".
I've said this before about race and casting in the recent string of superhero movies, but the same principle applies here too: Do not change historic and iconic characters just to be politically correct.
Batman, GL, Flash, WW, Superman, Hawkman, Aquaman, are the main heros of DC. They are historic characters and should not be changed because of an attempt to be more mainstream politically. Also B-listers like Robin, Plastic Man, Superboy, Nightwing, Teen Titans, have intrinsic value as comic characters that are reasonably well known.
I think the best case scenario would be to change a C-lister like Booster Gold or the Blue Beetle. Their comparitively limited history, and non-iconic status makes them perfect both in story creation and limiting the pandering.
The big problem with the A-list and B-list is that all of those characters have enough history that their sexual preference is pretty well established.
My personal preference for how to handle making a known superhero gay, is Marvel's treatment of Collosus in the Marvel Ultimates. The "original" iconic Collosus is kept intact in the normal universe, while the ultimates version is revealed as gay without flamboyance and with limited pandering. Or at least that was the status of those two characters last time I read X-men.
I do realize that comics are notorious for changing all sort of aspects of their characters in an effort to stir up readership. Most of the time it involves a character dying and coming back, or stepping down from hero status and letting someone else take over their hero identity temporarily. The problem with the homosexual aspect is that, you can't change back and forth. . . at least not without insulting the gay community and the decades of fans who love the character at the same time.
I've said this before about race and casting in the recent string of superhero movies, but the same principle applies here too: Do not change historic and iconic characters just to be politically correct.
Batman, GL, Flash, WW, Superman, Hawkman, Aquaman, are the main heros of DC. They are historic characters and should not be changed because of an attempt to be more mainstream politically. Also B-listers like Robin, Plastic Man, Superboy, Nightwing, Teen Titans, have intrinsic value as comic characters that are reasonably well known.
I think the best case scenario would be to change a C-lister like Booster Gold or the Blue Beetle. Their comparitively limited history, and non-iconic status makes them perfect both in story creation and limiting the pandering.
The big problem with the A-list and B-list is that all of those characters have enough history that their sexual preference is pretty well established.
My personal preference for how to handle making a known superhero gay, is Marvel's treatment of Collosus in the Marvel Ultimates. The "original" iconic Collosus is kept intact in the normal universe, while the ultimates version is revealed as gay without flamboyance and with limited pandering. Or at least that was the status of those two characters last time I read X-men.
I do realize that comics are notorious for changing all sort of aspects of their characters in an effort to stir up readership. Most of the time it involves a character dying and coming back, or stepping down from hero status and letting someone else take over their hero identity temporarily. The problem with the homosexual aspect is that, you can't change back and forth. . . at least not without insulting the gay community and the decades of fans who love the character at the same time.
For fucking realz? Damn thats depressing that hes now Batman's son. Still, Robin could be gay, right guys? Unless hes under 14, that shit would suck.Royta said:
Didn't he have a series of kids, who were either adopted or his legal kids that gained his powers somehow?TheMadDoctorsCat said:
I'm just fantasizing about how they'll fuck this up, and therefore thinking of characters they can't fuck it up with in hopes of them not losing readership by instead taking my idea. Crazy? Hairball? You decide, readers!Grey Day for Elcia said:
-------------------------------------------
Robin, the most iconic side-kick, therefore he is a iconic-hero, therefore he is my candidate.
