The General Comic Discussion Thread - Part 2

[Primal Slayer]

I was the one who didnt like Dianas new "boyfriend" for the same reason too, so there is that.
And we live in a time where two characters only need to stand together for people to ship them, so thats also not an argument.

And if making him bi isnt a big deal...why did DC then throw this at every single news outlet they could find instead of letting people explore this natural?

My point is that they did lazy work with Jon on every corner, and this feels like the latest approach of it.
Tims "coming out" was well done, i just dont have any faith in them doing the same with Jon seeing the way they handled Jon so far.

We dont live in a time that is any different from a decade ago. People have been shipping people together for looking at each other forever now. Lets not forget Wincest.

DC didnt have to throw it at ever news outlet, they do their job where they pick up the hot goss which this was. They released on National Coming Out Day, one person picks it up and others follow suit, of course to get sales as they do with anything else. But regardless my comment is more of "he's brand new, so complaining about his "sudden" change in sexuality" that some are harping about on the internet isnt a big deal since he doesnt have that "history" dating only women.

From what we've seen thus far, Jon's coming out isnt much different apart from these two sharing a kiss. We havent seen the actual issue yet to see how they even build up to it.

I can agree that just about everything with Jon is rather uninspired since they want to recreate Superman but younger but his sexuality doesnt seem some grand build up.

 

[CrimsonMist]

I'm having a hard time seeing what the fuss with Jon being bi- is. How exactly does one build up to it? FFS, they could do a 12-issue maxie series called "Sexual Crisis!" and everyone would still say that there was no build-up to it. Should it just stand to reason that ALL characters are straight? It's absurd. The issue comes out in November. I'm sure it'll be built towards this month and in November, and expounded upon in issues that follow it.

The more I think about it, what exactly was Jon before Bendis aged him up? He was a kid defined solely by being Superman's son, and being friends with Damian. That's it. He's a foil for the uptight Damian Wayne and makes everyone think Superman's more interesting as a dad. He had nothing else. And now he's a bi-sexual teenager and everyone thinks he's being robbed of potential? Just stop.

I've been reading comics for too long to be bothered by this. Jon isn't like Iceman or even Obsidian. He's practically a blank slate with no sexual history whatsoever. I think the story potential of 2 teenagers, one a socially conscious reporter and the other a superpowered being with the ability to enact actual change, both more in tune to the world around them than arguably Lois and Clark, is fodder for great storytelling in a big way. It's Taylor's job to make it count and be meaningful. It if doesn't work, critique Taylor for not being up to the task, not because a fictional character is bi-sexual. And if it doesn't work now under Taylor's pen, it can work later under someone else because comics can afford to do that.

 

[Snow Queen]

Word to the wise: don't post links to directly financially support serial harassers and spewers of hate speech on here. That's not going to fly.

 

[Mani-Man]

I'm having a hard time seeing what the fuss with Jon being bi- is. How exactly does one build up to it? FFS, they could do a 12-issue maxie series called "Sexual Crisis!" and everyone would still say that there was no build-up to it. Should it just stand to reason that ALL characters are straight? It's absurd. The issue comes out in November. I'm sure it'll be built towards this month and in November, and expounded upon in issues that follow it.

The more I think about it, what exactly was Jon before Bendis aged him up? He was a kid defined solely by being Superman's son, and being friends with Damian. That's it. He's a foil for the uptight Damian Wayne and makes everyone think Superman's more interesting as a dad. He had nothing else. And now he's a bi-sexual teenager and everyone thinks he's being robbed of potential? Just stop.

I've been reading comics for too long to be bothered by this. Jon isn't like Iceman or even Obsidian. He's practically a blank slate with no sexual history whatsoever. I think the story potential of 2 teenagers, one a socially conscious reporter and the other a superpowered being with the ability to enact actual change, both more in tune to the world around them than arguably Lois and Clark, is fodder for great storytelling in a big way. It's Taylor's job to make it count and be meaningful. It if doesn't work, critique Taylor for not being up to the task, not because a fictional character is bi-sexual. And if it doesn't work now under Taylor's pen, it can work later under someone else because comics can afford to do that.

Wait, November? Then they have plenty of time, i thought they will do it in the next issue already.
So then there is nothing to worry right at this moment, they got what? 3-4 issues before this, so plenty of time to build towards it.

I mean they had plenty of issues to work towards making Jon Superman too and didnt do a good job there, but that doesnt mean they will do the same bad job on this.

Seems i was way too fast to voice my concerns on this.

 

[NHawk19]

Dean Cain's read on the issue

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/dean-cain-superman-bisexual-1235030248/

I have to admit he makes a few valid points about this being DC jumping on the societal bandwagon to look relevant rather than pushing boundaries and tackling real issues in the world today.

 

[Babillygunn]

The more I think about it, what exactly was Jon before Bendis aged him up? He was a kid defined solely by being Superman's son, and being friends with Damian. That's it. He's a foil for the uptight Damian Wayne and makes everyone think Superman's more interesting as a dad. He had nothing else. And now he's a bi-sexual teenager and everyone thinks he's being robbed of potential? Just stop.

This is an interesting point, but I think his role was to be that foil. He admittedly was a bit of a blank slate as a 10 year old, but he also was a curious and irrepressible kid who served strongly to make other characters more interesting through their interactions with him. Clark was a better character because of him. Damien was a better character because of him. Lois was a better character because of him. He was Jason Kidd, bringing out the best in his teammates, being the unselfish point guard who makes those around him better. He’s not Kobe who is scoring tons of buckets. Now he has lost that role and it’s clear that it was done without a plan, which is frustrating. To say that he was just a foil for other characters is unfair, because that was his value. And it was valuable. Now he really doesn’t have any value. To follow the basketball analogy, it’s like taking Rajon Rondo and say “we are going to make him the focal point of our offense and ask him to carry the scoring load.” He’s not equipped for that. But that doesn’t mean that his value is diminished when he certainly has a role that makes the whole team excel.

 

[Babillygunn]

So I celebrated Strange Adventures #12 coming out by reading the whole series. I am both completely moved by the story and also repulsed by the changes that were made in the characterizations. But make no mistake, it is very well written, if not difficult to stomach.

I’m really interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on this one.

 

[Primal Slayer]

Dean Cain's read on the issue

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/dean-cain-superman-bisexual-1235030248/

I have to admit he makes a few valid points about this being DC jumping on the societal bandwagon to look relevant rather than pushing boundaries and tackling real issues in the world today.

Jon literally saved immigrants trying to come to the US and refusing to allow them to be treated as criminals. How much more real world issue is there,

 

[gohei_]

Some recent reads from me;

Nice house on the lake, issue 5. I am Really enjoying this one. It's supposed to be only 12 issues so I am gonna pause reading and pick up the trade once it's out instead.

Suicide Squad Get Joker, issue 2. As much as I like the art and I am a big Jason Todd fan, this sadly isn't for me, so I am gonna stop here.

Clear, issue 1. cool futuristic setting, great art. Will come back for more.

We have demons, issue 1. This is by the dream team of Snyder and Capullo so you know the art is great, and so far the story is cool as well.

Mazebook, issues 1 and 2. This is by Jeff Lemire. The art is Really something here and The story Really pulls you in. For sure recommends this one.

 

[NHawk19]

Jon literally saved immigrants trying to come to the US and refusing to allow them to be treated as criminals. How much more real world issue is there,

I think the point was they wanted to see more of a focus on what you pointed out to push discussions.

A character being gay or bi just isn't that shocking, ground breaking, or edgy anymore. It's been done, and continues to be done in every major form of media. In fact DC themselves has even been increasing representation as just a little while ago Tim Drake was established as bi. With the Supes reveal DC wants to sound like this is breaking some new ground and it's really not.

While acceptance still isn't 100%, we've come a long way as a society form where we were 40 years ago. There's an expectation now that some level of inclusion becomes the norm.

 

[Primal Slayer]

I think the point was they wanted to see more of a focus on what you pointed out to push discussions.

A character being gay or bi just isn't that shocking, ground breaking, or edgy anymore. It's been done, and continues to be done in every major form of media. In fact DC themselves has even been increasing representation as just a little while ago Tim Drake was established as bi. With the Supes reveal DC wants to sound like this is breaking some new ground and it's really not.

While acceptance still isn't 100%, we've come a long way as a society form where we were 40 years ago. There's an expectation now that some level of inclusion becomes the norm.

We've come a long way but we still arent that progressive. LGBTQ+ rights are still threatend on a yearly basis, it still is very taboo in sports, Disney/Marvel studios are still afraid of gay characters. The fact that so many people in news articles/twitter/etc...talk about gay characters are ruining their comics shows that it isnt a big acceptance in the comic world. It is still very much of a straight boys club.

 

[CLARKY]

I disagree with you primal slayer. Partly, I mean.
You're right, we've come a long way but there is a lot to do. I disagree about "people saying a gay character ruins a comic". If a character is gay, I can't give a **** because I don't think it defines them only. If they make a character who was implicitly straight into gay, yes, I can have a problem with this. Because the character was not done this way and we all know the publishers are all, how could I put it?, "surfing" on the fashion ?
Now for Jon Kent, he is a new character, nobody ever mentionned what he would choose to be. Now he is bi, I don't give a f*ck. It's all fine.
To me, there is a difference there. The same difference there is between a character who happen to be gay and a character that they sell as gay.

And I also make a difference between respecting LGBTQ rights, which is to me, the very basic principle of respect toward any human being, and what you call "acceptance" which can very often be viewed as promoting. For me there is a difference.

 

[Mani-Man]

We've come a long way but we still arent that progressive. LGBTQ+ rights are still threatend on a yearly basis, it still is very taboo in sports, Disney/Marvel studios are still afraid of gay characters. The fact that so many people in news articles/twitter/etc...talk about gay characters are ruining their comics shows that it isnt a big acceptance in the comic world. It is still very much of a straight boys club.

The "jon is bisexual" thing is a very good example for how we are still not there where we should.

Because look at the 3 major argue points people normally use when doing LGBT characters.
"Dont change existing characters, make new ones" "Children shouldnt see this kind of stuff(Kissing etc)" "Comics shouldnt be about romance".

Here we have a new character, who was recently aged up and is in an age where his sexual orientation is a natural progress to him growing up.

Then we have the "children shouldnt see this kind of stuff", i want you all to look at one of the recent Superman comics where Lois and Clark spent their last night together, or Kings Batman run...you see plenty of kissing, implying sex etc...nobody was upset about children seeing this there.

And again for the third argument, i want to point out that DC greenlit a whole Batcat Romance comic book series that really is mainly about that...the romance between Selina and Bruce.
Again not a problem seemingly.

It goes to show that any inclusion of LGBT is a problem to some, not the how or why.

I disagree with you primal slayer. Partly, I mean.
You're right, we've come a long way but there is a lot to do. I disagree about "people saying a gay character ruins a comic". If a character is gay, I can't give a **** because I don't think it defines them only. If they make a character who was implicitly straight into gay, yes, I can have a problem with this. Because the character was not done this way and we all know the publishers are all, how could I put it?, "surfing" on the fashion ?
Now for Jon Kent, he is a new character, nobody ever mentionned what he would choose to be. Now he is bi, I don't give a f*ck. It's all fine.
To me, there is a difference there. The same difference there is between a character who happen to be gay and a character that they sell as gay.

And I also make a difference between respecting LGBTQ rights, which is to me, the very basic principle of respect toward any human being, and what you call "acceptance" which can very often be viewed as promoting. For me there is a difference.

I dont understand this because it seems to imply that the concept of change is so unknown.
There are people in their 40s etc who come to the realization that they are Gay or Transgender.
We all grow up constantly and learn new things about us...so i never understand this idea that a character who for a long period was straight, cant become gay.

 

[Babillygunn]

@Mani-Man, I know that this is off-topic, but I have a deep respect for you and it is funny: while I have always been fine with and even in favor of, the Bat-Cat pairing, I now find myself almost being against it simply because I know that it bothers you so much.

 

[Primal Slayer]

The "jon is bisexual" thing is a very good example for how we are still not there where we should.

Because look at the 3 major argue points people normally use when doing LGBT characters.
"Dont change existing characters, make new ones" "Children shouldnt see this kind of stuff(Kissing etc)" "Comics shouldnt be about romance".

Here we have a new character, who was recently aged up and is in an age where his sexual orientation is a natural progress to him growing up.

Then we have the "children shouldnt see this kind of stuff", i want you all to look at one of the recent Superman comics where Lois and Clark spent their last night together, or Kings Batman run...you see plenty of kissing, implying sex etc...nobody was upset about children seeing this there.

And again for the third argument, i want to point out that DC greenlit a whole Batcat Romance comic book series that really is mainly about that...the romance between Selina and Bruce.
Again not a problem seemingly.

It goes to show that any inclusion of LGBT is a problem to some, not the how or why.



I dont understand this because it seems to imply that the concept of change is so unknown.
There are people in their 40s etc who come to the realization that they are Gay or Transgender.
We all grow up constantly and learn new things about us...so i never understand this idea that a character who for a long period was straight, cant become gay.

Exactly. They forget all of the Bat/Cat sexual moments in comics but they're fine "subjecting" kids to that.

 

[Snow Queen]

Look at those comics, promoting heterosexuality.


Reminds me of a video I saw the other day of a Fox News commentator losing his mind over it and bringing up those heroes without love interests, Batman and Spider-Man.

 

[super85]

The thing with these stories, first wth Tim Drake and then now with the new Superman comic, the entire thing is the characters sexuality. Its a non story, its not like its a new Dark Phoenix or Watchmen or anything that includes a character who is bi or gay. Its just "This character is bisexual". The story that Taylor describes he is going to tell sounds uninteresting as ****.

First issue might give some sort of spike in sales, and after that nobody will care. Wouldnt surprise me if that titel is cancelled within a year or two.

This is at least somewhat better than what they did with TIm Drake. That was just a dumb stunt. This could be better, but having a full of himself guy like Taylor writing it, it will most likely stink. Back in the day comics used to kill characters all the time, when nobody was interested in the books. This feels like a modern version of that.

 

[Babillygunn]

Why the sudden hate for Tom Taylor???

You guys do realize that he is responsible for the best title in Infinite Frontier (Nightwing), don’t you? I’ve always enjoyed his writing, even when I hate the overarching story, like Injustice.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Why the sudden hate for Tom Taylor???

You guys do realize that he is responsible for the best title in Infinite Frontier (Nightwing), don’t you? I’ve always enjoyed his writing, even when I hate the overarching story, like Injustice.

Taylor's Harley Quinn in Injustice is one of the all-time best renditions of the character. He completely nails her funny/tragic/ditzy/psycho mishmash of a personality, giving her some hilarious, endearing (in a batsh*t crazy kind of way) moments.

 

[super85]

Why the sudden hate for Tom Taylor???

You guys do realize that he is responsible for the best title in Infinite Frontier (Nightwing), don’t you? I’ve always enjoyed his writing, even when I hate the overarching story, like Injustice.

I have never liked his writing, and I dislike how he comes across in interviews. In the most recent one he talks about white saviors, but then proceeds to make himself look like one.

Don't wish anything bad for the guy of course, since I am an adult haha, but I stay away from his writing.


I thought "Injustice" was lousy. He, along with Tom King and Scott Snyder are writers that I don't read anymore.

 

[Snow Queen]

This finally showed up the other day after over a year of delays. Lovely cover and printing, I'm really happy with this one. Someone else's photo.

Spoiler

Makes three copies of Elegy I own now.

 

[Sithborg]

So, I have bought some of my first DC single comics in forever. Picked up the first two issues of the Harley Quinn TAS: Eat Bang Kill Tour. I love the art. Max Sarin's art is just amazing. They are able to convey so much emotion in the faces. I am almost sad that the show can't adapt this style for the show. It also gets very.... spicy.

Spolier for long

Spoiler

Happy to go point by point:

It’s not a misunderstanding of what toxic masculinity is. A big problem with perceptions and portrayals of masculinity in the past has been that straight men are viewed as “weak” or “feminine” if they show love, tenderness, patience, etc. Basically any trait that wasn’t aggressive or stoic.

Men we’re viewed to be especially weak if they showed those types of feelings toward another man. Generations of fathers didn’t say “I love you” to their own sons because of this belief. It’s very real. This is a part of toxic masculinity. Men were told they needed to be “men”. And in this antiquated way of thinking, being a “men” was tied to all that outdated tough guy machismo stuff - where men aren’t allowed to show a full spectrum of emotions.

Second point: No one is saying that Tim being made LGTBQ means that “bros can’t be bros.” I’m saying that he seems to have been chosen because he has deep relationships with other male characters. This is a trend that some fans have shown with other characters (Steve and Bucky, Po and Finn, etc). I understand the impulse. There is a hunger for more representation. And there needs to be more representation. But the idea that, “This straight character is non-romantically very close with this straight character … let’s put them together romantically” is a bad one. Just because two straight men are very close friends doesn’t mean they will become romantically involved - it’s pretty problematic to demand that they do. Just like it’s problematic to suggest a straight character can “turn” a gay character. This assumes preference and not orientation.

Your third point we agree on. That’s my point. The reasons justifying Tim being LGBTQ confirm that problematic way of thinking: He can’t possibly be this close to male characters without being gay and romantically interested in one of them …

“Shipping” of m/m or f/f IS problematic if the characters in question aren’t LGBTQ. Would be the same if fans were demanding to see a gay character with a character of their opposite sex. Again, it’s orientation not preference. Preference suggests that there’s a choice on the character’s part to steer their sexuality. I’m pretty sure that type of thinking went out a while ago and now we accept that people are born with their particular orientation, whatever it happens to be.

Again, this isn’t outrage over “the collapse of the bromance.” This is pointing out that demanding any two males who show affection for each other have to become romantically involved is deeply flawed and problematic. Men should be able to show any and all emotions, and those emotions shouldn’t be reserved only for non-straight men. Yes, we are in an age where LGBTQ characters are becoming normalized. And a small part of the reason for that acceptance is the progress made by a lot of folks in trying to get rid of toxic masculinity. But sending the message that loving another man and having a deep affection for him isn’t something straight men do … contributes to that toxic masculinity. Plain and simple.

-R

First of all sorry for the late quote, but didn't particularly want to join in the gang up with Darth and Snow when I didn't have DC comics to feel posting the thread. Plus, I needed to think, as this hits some spots for me. But, I want to assure you, this has been in my mind for a while, and I want to assure you, its not accusatory.

A large part of why this post has stuck with me is because I can literally find you posts on this board that argue nearly the exact same thing at the end of Legend of Korra. And that ending is very important to me. It was quite literally a changing point in my life. Although, to be accurate, it wasn't the actual finale, but the reaction to it that changed me. God opened my heart to the joyous reaction to this ending that had no real lead up and was still ambigous. And lead to a 180 turn in my beliefs. Saved me from joining in the various gate hate groups and probably a red hat.

That's the thing, I understand your arguments. Because I would have made them long ago. To see that same exact argument being used years later is frustrating. Tim being bi does not harm his other male relationships. Focusing on this one character, in a line wide selection of characters, and randomly holding him up as the beacon for untoxic masculinity is silly. I admit, I am not all that much of a DC guy, but I am fairly certain there are other male characters, who also have untoxic relationships. That Tim being bi means that you must be queer to have close unsexual relationships with members of the same sex unless you are queer is placing a lot more impact on a character than he probably has.

And shipping is harmless. As is fanfiction. Star Trek isn't a terrible fandom for being the origin of "slash fic", or better known as Kirk/Spock fanfiction. The active shippers are a minority who can have little impact. I mean, Supergirl has lasted seasons beyond the supercorp fandom has vowed destruction. And that is a core of fanfiction, taking something established and changing it. "Sticking to what is canon" would make boring fanfic. Frankly, changing sexual orientation in shipping or fanfic is one of the least problematic things out there.

The thing with these stories, first wth Tim Drake and then now with the new Superman comic, the entire thing is the characters sexuality. Its a non story, its not like its a new Dark Phoenix or Watchmen or anything that includes a character who is bi or gay. Its just "This character is bisexual". The story that Taylor describes he is going to tell sounds uninteresting as ****.

First issue might give some sort of spike in sales, and after that nobody will care. Wouldnt surprise me if that titel is cancelled within a year or two.

This is at least somewhat better than what they did with TIm Drake. That was just a dumb stunt. This could be better, but having a full of himself guy like Taylor writing it, it will most likely stink. Back in the day comics used to kill characters all the time, when nobody was interested in the books. This feels like a modern version of that.

Yeah, no. Take the disaster of Bendis making Iceman gay. The way that happened was horrible, everyone hated it. However, it lead to Sina Grace's Iceman series, which is a very important queer story. That probably would have gotten recognized if editorial didn't try to kill it.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

This finally showed up the other day after over a year of delays. Lovely cover and printing, I'm really happy with this one. Someone else's photo.

Spoiler

Makes three copies of Elegy I own now.

Very nice!

 

[Mani-Man]

The thing with these stories, first wth Tim Drake and then now with the new Superman comic, the entire thing is the characters sexuality. Its a non story, its not like its a new Dark Phoenix or Watchmen or anything that includes a character who is bi or gay. Its just "This character is bisexual". The story that Taylor describes he is going to tell sounds uninteresting as ****.

Even if we argue that it is...which it isnt simply for the fact that being Gay etc isnt just ones sexuality.
It is so much more in a world where society forced people into such small cages that their whole self was opressed.
Its a completely lack of understanding the basics to go and say its just about ones orientation.

I might not be a huge fan of the writing so far they did for Jon, but looking at it...it fits.
Because we have a character who has no idea who he is, who steps into his fathers shoes but doesnt know who Jon is...that is what the writing at least got across since they aged him up.
And his Orientation plays part in it, because it is one key aspect of ones self.

As i said when they revealed Tim Drake...there is no good argument here unless you showed the same problem with Tom Kings Batman Run...but as far as i remember, you didnt.
Not going after King here by the way, but its a perfect example.
Because Kings Batman run and now his Batcat comic, shows that the very people who are trying to argue that they against Tim or Jon being BI for some grand reason, arent.

Kings whole Batman run was just about Two white Straight people being in love.
But yet i dont hear the same pushback.

And before it might come up, no i dont accuse anybody of Homophobia or so...at least not ill willed.
Because i realized it on me, thanks to society my first thought was that somehow they need to earn it you know? It needs to be written so well that its deserved, that you need some Eisner Award worth writing to justify LGBT representation.

I make this mistake sadly still quite often that i somehow expect/demand that LGBT,POC content is something spectacular to deserve to exist...but it doesnt.
LGBT isnt "special" its just as normal as breathing, it shouldnt need some grand spectacle to exist.
Why should exploring Jons orientation, his first romantic relationship, need to have some grand purpose when (again not trying to **** on him) Tom Kings whole reason for his batman run was "because i wanted to write Batcat"?

 

[super85]

I strongly disliked Tom Kings run on Batman. The "Bat... Cat..Bat..:Cat" stuff was horrible and that writing made me drop the Batman monthly after reading it for like 20 years straight. I gave some of Kings other books a shot after it, and really disliked everything I have checked out.

I will never read any books by Tom King again. So yes, I have a problem with that writer and his stories. And apparently I wasnt the only one who disliked it since DC got rid of King from the regular Bat-monthly. So yes, there was pushback to his writing.