Thursday, May 26, 2016 • Morning Edition • "Hope you survive the experience!"

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!


Midnight Shocker: W. Haden Blackman and J. H. Williams III Walk Off Batwoman

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

SporkBot

Motherfucker from Hell

Postby SporkBot » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:42 am

Punchy wrote:But I do get it, marriage does inhibit storytelling, I much prefer a single Spider-Man.


I really don't see how. Sure, some characters might work better single, but I never had a problem with Supes, Spidey, or other characters being married. I'm not seeing the narrative interference.

I never cared for Batwoman, to be honest. I only ever read her in Detective's "Elegy", and as much I enjoy Rucka's work, it didn't feel particularly strong. But that's me. Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate, I suppose it's possible that DC just doesn't want a married hero right now (Besides Arthur Curry), straight or gay. They can't be concerned about backlash, given the X-Men married off Northstar (at least, it was less annoying than Storm's wedding).
User avatar

Jack Burton

biny little tird

Postby Jack Burton » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:55 am

I swear to god one of these days some jackass is going to get it in his head that Reed and Sue should never have gotten married and pull the trigger.

God forbid people in comics have happy marriages.
User avatar

Punchy

Staff Writer

Postby Punchy » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:01 am

SporkBot wrote:
I really don't see how. Sure, some characters might work better single, but I never had a problem with Supes, Spidey, or other characters being married. I'm not seeing the narrative interference.

I never cared for Batwoman, to be honest. I only ever read her in Detective's "Elegy", and as much I enjoy Rucka's work, it didn't feel particularly strong. But that's me. Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate, I suppose it's possible that DC just doesn't want a married hero right now (Besides Arthur Curry), straight or gay. They can't be concerned about backlash, given the X-Men married off Northstar (at least, it was less annoying than Storm's wedding).


I think perhaps what VS said is correct, a gay marriage in comics today, and all it symbolises would indeed inhibit storytelling.

If DC were to eventually do to Batwoman what they are currently doing to Animal Man, ie have he and his wife break up, they would be accused of homophobia, because gay characters in comics are so few that fans feel they have to be protected. There was an article on Comics Alliance yesterday where the writer was freaking out because Jason Aaron said Amazing X-Men would have a rotating cast, which could mean Northstar would lose prominence. Completely baseless hysteria, but because Northstar is gay, he is taken seriously.

With gay characters, you can't do anything interesting with them as characters, because of the gay. Look at the anger over Hulking and Wiccan breaking up.
User avatar

mrorangesoda

FROGMAN

Postby mrorangesoda » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:24 am

Punchy wrote:With gay characters, you can't do anything interesting with them as characters, because of the gay. Look at the anger over Hulking and Wiccan breaking up.


You can't do anything with them because there's a couple dozen of them, none of which have a secure future. That was kind of the point of the CA article.
User avatar

bkthomson

Rain Partier

Postby bkthomson » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:37 am

At the end of it all I wonder if JHW had a planned leave date for Batwoman seeing how he is doing Sandman which would put more money in his pocket beyond just from comic shops. This just maybe pushed it along a little faster than planned.
User avatar

Tintin Quarantino

Rain Partier

Postby Tintin Quarantino » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:40 am

mrorangesoda wrote:
You can't do anything with them because there's a couple dozen of them, none of which have a secure future. That was kind of the point of the CA article.


LOL at grown adults reading superhero soap operas and fretting and fussing over fictional characters' "secure futures". :lol:
User avatar

Punchy

Staff Writer

Postby Punchy » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:05 am

mrorangesoda wrote:
You can't do anything with them because there's a couple dozen of them, none of which have a secure future. That was kind of the point of the CA article.


So writers who do make the effort to write gay characters should be restricted because other writers don't?

I want to read about characters, not quotas.
User avatar

bkthomson

Rain Partier

Postby bkthomson » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:05 am

Victorian Squid wrote:
LOL at grown adults reading superhero soap operas and fretting and fussing over fictional characters' "secure futures". :lol:


OMG, dude! Did you see who WB cast as the new Batman? Ben Aflack! What were they thinking! The move is doomed! Doomed! Doomed!
User avatar

bkthomson

Rain Partier

Postby bkthomson » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:07 am

Punchy wrote:
So writers who do make the effort to write gay characters should be restricted because other writers don't?

I want to read about characters, not quotas.


There is no real difference between a written gay comic character than a written straight comic character.
User avatar

Punchy

Staff Writer

Postby Punchy » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:09 am

For there to be drama, characters can't have 'secure futures', otherwise, what's the point? Even though the likes of Superman/Batman/Spider-Man/Iron do probably have them, you need the illusion that they don't, you need to be able to kill them off temporarily, break up their relationships or kill their supporting cast, otherwise it's boring.

I don't care if a character is gay or straight, I just don't want them to be boring, and if they are 'secure', they will be boring.
User avatar

Punchy

Staff Writer

Postby Punchy » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:10 am

bkthomson wrote:
There is no real difference between a written gay comic character than a written straight comic character.


In an ideal world, you're right, but gay characters are wrapped in cotton wool right now.
User avatar

bkthomson

Rain Partier

Postby bkthomson » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:11 am

Punchy wrote:
In an ideal world, you're right, but gay characters are wrapped in cotton wool right now.


Too itchy for me.
User avatar

habitual

Silly French Man

Postby habitual » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:37 am

Punchy wrote:For there to be drama, characters can't have 'secure futures', otherwise, what's the point? Even though the likes of Superman/Batman/Spider-Man/Iron do probably have them, you need the illusion that they don't, you need to be able to kill them off temporarily, break up their relationships or kill their supporting cast, otherwise it's boring.

I don't care if a character is gay or straight, I just don't want them to be boring, and if they are 'secure', they will be boring.


That's incredibly stupid.

Hab
User avatar

Punchy

Staff Writer

Postby Punchy » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:41 am

habitual wrote:
That's incredibly stupid.

Hab


Why?
User avatar

habitual

Silly French Man

Postby habitual » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:44 am

Punchy wrote:
Why?


Because it is.

What you're saying is there's never been a well written dramatic character that was married.

Ridiculous.

Hab

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: crawley, Glaeken, Google [Bot], SporkBot, Zenith and 165 guests