The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[SuperginraiX]

That's wrong.

Morrison and co. ripped off the FIRST improvement on that Silver Age idea, which was when Dick took over for Bruce in the post-Knightfall story "Prodigal".





Grant loses AGAIN.

*Ambiguously gay Snagglepuss voice*
"He'd better go practice his magic! It's TRAGIC, even!!"

So Morrison improved on a Dark Ages story which was an improvement on a Silver Age story.

[Herald]

So Morrison improved on a Dark Ages story which was an improvement on a Silver Age story.

So he ripped off that Dark Ages story.
"Ripped off" does not mean "improved".
The connotations suggest quite the opposite, in fact.

[SuperginraiX]

So he ripped off that Dark Ages story.
"Ripped off" does not mean "improved".
The connotations suggest quite the opposite, in fact.

So he wrote an arguably superior version of a Dark Ages story that was a rip off of a Silver Age story.

[Ntikrst]

Reading is Fundamental!

He's not saying that the character is gay, he's saying that the idea of Batman (and by extension, the whole man/boy sidekick love thing) is gay.

Then he doesn't understand the true nature of sidekicks in general. After Fawcett started publishing Captain Marvel, everyone else realized their leads lacked that kind of reader identification. So out came the sidekicks and Pals.

Oh, and that we're all gay because we like to read about guys in tights who put young boys in tights and have exciting adventures with them.

Now he's definitely projecting. Guys in tights is just the modern day depiction of the masculine ideal that has always been prevalent throughout mythology. It's meant to inspire greatness in the audience, and the presence of a sidekick means a child can imagine a sooner pay off than having to wait and grow up to be like the hero.

Grant's cracked in the head.

[Arion]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Freud'd!

[Gladiator X]

Sad Batman always makes me smile.

[Lord Simian]

Sad Batman always makes me smile.

[Eli Katz]

Then he doesn't understand the true nature of sidekicks in general. After Fawcett started publishing Captain Marvel, everyone else realized their leads lacked that kind of reader identification. So out came the sidekicks and Pals.

Now he's definitely projecting. Guys in tights is just the modern day depiction of the masculine ideal that has always been prevalent throughout mythology. It's meant to inspire greatness in the audience, and the presence of a sidekick means a child can imagine a sooner pay off than having to wait and grow up to be like the hero.

Rationalization (also known as making excuses) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.

[The Shadow]

this is the same guy who described the FF as being based on the following core:

"The series has always had these underlying stresses - Stan and Jack created the dynamic like this: Reed and Sue are Mom and Dad right? Johnny's the older son and Ben's the big baby. However... Sue is Johnny's sister and mother in this scheme. Sue wants to fuck Johnny and can't, so what does she do? She fucks Johnny's dark side, his perennial opposite in the Fire and Water complex-- Prince Namor-- the dark, sexy, murky counterpart to Johnny's clean and shining sky faring fire spirit."


GFY, Morrison. you and all your peyote-inspired overanalytical Freudian bullshit.

Done and done!

[Regulator]

Rationalization (also known as making excuses) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.

This is the viewpoint that I don't get. A person projects himself as Mr. Enlightened and is apparently so comfortable and confident with his sexuality that anyone who disagrees with calling something gay is obviously a latent homosexual or an outright homophobe. Of course, it wouldn't be passive aggressive to say this explicitly so everything is cleverly implied.

Gay is when a man wants to have sex with another man. It's not fetish clothes or having a butler or adopting a boy. It's even more ludicrous to say that the "concept" of Batman is gay. Concepts can't be gay, they don't have sex with anything. DMM was right earlier when he said Batman is more asexual than anything. He doesn't have time for any kind of real romantic entanglements because of his mission, but writing in a column about psychology that a guy wants to eradicate crime because of extreme idealism wouldn't be the salacious headline as saying everything he does is motivated by the suppressed desire to stick his dick in a hairy ass.

[Eli Katz]

This is the viewpoint that I don't get. A person projects himself as Mr. Enlightened and is apparently so comfortable and confident with his sexuality that anyone who disagrees with calling something gay is obviously a latent homosexual or an outright homophobe. Of course, it wouldn't be passive aggressive to say this explicitly so everything is cleverly implied.

Gay is when a man wants to have sex with another man. It's not fetish clothes or having a butler or adopting a boy. It's even more ludicrous to say that the "concept" of Batman is gay. Concepts can't be gay, they don't have sex with anything. DMM was right earlier when he said Batman is more asexual than anything. He doesn't have time for any kind of real romantic entanglements because of his mission, but writing in a column about psychology that a guy wants to eradicate crime because of extreme idealism wouldn't be the salacious headline as saying everything he does is motivated by the suppressed desire to stick his dick in a hairy ass.

Hmmm, someone else seems guilty of over-rationalizing, too.

I'm kidding. And my other post was meant as a joke, too.

But on a more serious note: I find it hard to believe that so many posters here can't or won't see the homosexual and pederastic undertones in Batman? The comics aren't about Batman trying to repress gay urges through violent crime fighting. That's not what people are suggesting when they question Batman's sexuality. Rather, what they're noting is that writers, artists, and actors have frequently incorporated blatant homosexual innuendos into the Batman stories.

I don't think it's a leap to see those innuendos, either. A grown man parading around in tights with a young teenage boy in really short shorts--it is certainly suggestive of a certain type of sexual relationship. And it's become such a cliche that SNL has parodied the relationship with their characters the Ambiguously Gay Duo.

[Arion]

Rationalization (also known as making excuses) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.

That's a nice explanation.

[Eli Katz]

That's a nice explanation.

It's from wikipedia. I can't take credit for it.

[sdsichero]

I don't think it's a leap to see those innuendos, either. A grown man parading around in tights with a young teenage boy in really short shorts--it is certainly suggestive of a certain type of sexual relationship. And it's become such a cliche that SNL has parodied the relationship with their characters the Ambiguously Gay Duo.

It's not hard to make the leap, but I don't know if it is inherent in the character. I don't know, I never wrote him.

It's like with Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie. As a kid I never would have thought anything of those two guys, who apparently have no jobs, living together. Much hay can be made of it, and who knows, maybe there is something to it, I just don't think there is anything there.

[Eli Katz]

It's not hard to make the leap, but I don't know if it is inherent in the character. I don't know, I never wrote him.

It's like with Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie. As a kid I never would have thought anything of those two guys, who apparently have no jobs, living together. Much hay can be made of it, and who knows, maybe there is something to it, I just don't think there is anything there.

I think it's kind of snowballed over the years. The cheesy Golden Age stories, coupled with the '60s TV show, really turned Batman into this hokey, sexually suspicious figure. The TV show is hilarious and, at times, really overt. Admittedly, when I saw the episodes as a kid, I never picked up on it.

I think the Batman and Robin relationship could be portrayed much differently. In ASBR, I think Miller was trying to portray Batman as this guy who basically recruits Robin as a child soldier. At least, it seemed to be heading in that direction. But the book was too ridiculous to explore the relationship in a serious way. But I could imagine a story where Batman is pushed in that direction. I'm interested to see where Snyder takes Batman in the New 52. All we've seen, so far, is an unhinged Batman. We haven't really seen much of Bruce or his supporting cast and so we don't know how he interacts with them. But I wouldn't be surprised if he does something interesting with Batman.