The General Comic Discussion Thread - Part 2

[Babillygunn]

Two things all should be aware of:
1.) equating being gay or bi with being a murderer will never be acceptable behavior here.
2.) People of all faiths are welcome but DO NOT use this site to preach yours. We had to get rid of the religion threads for a reason.

 

[Gee]

2.) People of all faiths are welcome but DO NOT use this site to preach yours. We had to get rid of the religion threads for a reason.

Oh that's why I couldn't find the atheism thread few months back.

 

[Sithborg]

Gee, I dont know, I generally think Twitter is not for real people and should be ignored. But I have seen several times, tons of people replying on stuff, clearly not having a clue about the characters or the characters history. This coming from every side of the argument. People getting really really angry about something (or pretending to be angry) about either somebody being being bi/gay in comics, OR! for example getting really angry about stories were Joker and Harley are a couple.
General insanity.

Harley Quinn has evolved into a character I really enjoy, beyond her "side kick" status for the Joker. And yes, there are reasons why people don't like stories with Joker and Harley together. Because when written correctly, it is an abusive relationship. And when you have a character who has very much grown into their own character, that isn't great to read.

And really, if Cyclops can survive Jean/Emma debates, I think Tim will be fine with Steph/Bernard debates.

The colorist got angry and ranted that they stopped using the slogan "Truth Justice and The American Way". He said that was his reason

" It's not about gay or anything else. What really ****** me off was saying truth, justice, and a better world, **** that it was Truth, Justice, and the American way. My Grandpa almost died in World War II"

Now I am only commenting on what the colorist said. Not what anyone else said that is quoted in that article.

I am commenting on what Gabe Eltaeb said. And when you do a rant like that, its known that you most likely wont continue working for the company you are ranting about.

And I just saw a clip of where Mr. "American Way" Eltraeb was on Evan Van Sciver's show discussing this, and in the conversation about "slippery slope" commented about how there "already was a comic about a guy banging his dog". Man is a bigot and all in on the comics gate grift. **** him.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Harley Quinn has evolved into a character I really enjoy, beyond her "side kick" status for the Joker. And yes, there are reasons why people don't like stories with Joker and Harley together. Because when written correctly, it is an abusive relationship. And when you have a character who has very much grown into their own character, that isn't great to read.

And really, if Cyclops can survive Jean/Emma debates, I think Tim will be fine with Steph/Bernard debates.

It's so interesting to see people get hyped for Joker/Harley at this point. If you are actually a fan of the character, why would you want to see that? Her being abused? I'd much rather watch her have fun and grow as a person. One of the brilliant things about her show, is they start with the end.

And I just saw a clip of where Mr. "American Way" Eltraeb was on Evan Van Sciver's show discussing this, and in the conversation about "slippery slope" commented about how there "already was a comic about a guy banging his dog". Man is a bigot and all in on the comics gate grift. **** him.

Considering how many people who complain about gay folks end up being gay, you have to wonder how many people bringing the BS comparison to raping animals want to... you know.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I see on what level this discussion is. The constant "you made it worse" etc. Accusations starting with me not reading comics, to me not having family/friends/relatives who are part of the LGBT community.

I dont regret any of my posts. Me commenting on what the colorist said is one of those posts that I dont regret at all. It was a bit typical rant that I expected from him, and its a guy who has implied for a long time that he was quitting DC . I

find it quite amusing with this "divorced from reality" stuff. Possibly becouse I have always been around people who have very different opinions, political and othervise. Also it might be cultural difference, not being as tribal as people in the US often seem to be.

That guy has done coloring on various Indiegogo projects before that people would categorize as CC. Its not like any of this came as a surprise.

Biggest issue here seems to be people getting offended that I think the majority of modern books are quite bad, and that I think twitter is a freakshow. I think both of those thoughts are sane and normal. Something can be really progressive but still not be a very good comic you know. I really like Maggie Sawyer and North Star. I was a huge John Byrne fan as a kid. Those characters were featured in actually
GOOD COMIC BOOKS. But I suppose this will probably also be made to that I just made that up, and I secretly loathe those characters.

Anyway, enjoy your day.

Like what you want. The issue isn't that, at least not for me. I like plenty of stuff others don't, and I dislike popular stuff as well. That's how the world is. One can have a different opinion, and it be objectively bad, however. Whether someone likes a comic? subjective. But lets say someone dislikes a comic based on a character's sexuality. Sure, it's a different opinion. It's also objectively hateful.

If someone hangs with white supremacists, shares their talking points, the idea they aren't at least associated with them is fundamentally wrong. It exist outside of reality. It wouldn't just be a different opinion, it would be a wrong one.

The issue with your twitter discourse. When you say something like, "it's a freakshow" after complaining about "blue haired" folk on twitter, the coding isn't subtle. Anyone who has ever talked about this before knows what you mean when you use that phrase. Your talking about the LGBTQIA+ community on there. And to even associate them with the word freak, is incredibly crappy. I would think someone with family members in the overall community would understand that.

 

[Mani-Man]

Superman shouldn't be bisexual. My opinion has nothing to do with sexuality or religion or any of that nonsense. Superman has always been heterosexual, and there's simply no need to change what works.

In practically all comic books, Clark has been with Lois, and occasionally Diana(?) along with a few other characters whilst working at the Daily Planet or before (such as Lana). Not once has he ever been in a relationship with another man because ... he's always been heterosexual.

WB changing his sexuality was presumably done to please a minority within the LGBTQ+ which, frankly, is BS.

If WB needs a LGBTQ+ character, create one. Don't change one.

Ah see, this is the problem.
Nothing against you, but you bring up a few fine points on what the actual problem is.

First the fact that many just read the headlines "Superman will be bisexual" and lose their mind.
People have the time to complain about it, but not the time to read the details on it.

Secondly, how do you know Superman/Clark was always Hetero? Bisexual doesnt mean someone needs to be with a certain gender.
If they would make Clark Bisexual, it wouldnt change anything on his love for Lois.
They could literally show him being with a man before he met lois and it wouldnt change anything in terms of his Relationship with Lois.

Third, He always was this or that is not a good reason...its one of the worst even.
Just because something was always one way, doesnt mean it needs to stay.
I mean that was a mindset people had who were against freeing slaves too...didnt make it good right?
We are where we are right now because of change, because we evolved and grew...why shouldnt this include a comic book character realizing that he is BI or Transgender or so?
Its a process in growth and understand who one person is, finding their true self.

Fourth...so its fine to do stuff just to please the straight people, but its not okay to please the LGBT community? Why?
People scream constantly that DC should have Batman and Catwoman get married, remember the big King arc about Marrying? Is that not just to please one part of the fandom? Why do they deserve it but not the LGBT community?
Why is whenever anything is given to the LGBT community, its BS but not when they please the Heteros?

They own the characters, they are free to change or create them...and as we see with Jon, creating them isnt solving the problem.
Because then its being "woke" its just wanting to score points, its forcing things etc.
So we can any minute stop with the super dumb "Dont change characters, make new ones" because with Jon we have checked all the boxes that people demand to accept LGBT content, and they still dont accept it.
So people should just be honest and say they dont want LGBT content, because thats the sad truth in this.

EDIT:

Gabe Eltaeb Not Coloring Superman: Son Of Kal-El #5 After DC Comments?

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Or do.

They should really check who they hire, if they are part of CC in some kind of way.
There is a unlimited amount of talent out there, you dont need to rely on CC *****ebags and those who support them.

 

[super85]

Like what you want. The issue isn't that, at least not for me. I like plenty of stuff others don't, and I dislike popular stuff as well. That's how the world is. One can have a different opinion, and it be objectively bad, however. Whether someone likes a comic? subjective. But lets say someone dislikes a comic based on a character's sexuality. Sure, it's a different opinion. It's also objectively hateful.

If someone hangs with white supremacists, shares their talking points, the idea they aren't at least associated with them is fundamentally wrong. It exist outside of reality. It wouldn't just be a different opinion, it would be a wrong one.

The issue with your twitter discourse. When you say something like, "it's a freakshow" after complaining about "blue haired" folk on twitter, the coding isn't subtle. Anyone who has ever talked about this before knows what you mean when you use that phrase. Your talking about the LGBTQIA+ community on there. And to even associate them with the word freak, is incredibly crappy. I would think someone with family members in the overall community would understand that.

I looked at that clip. None of those guys he hangs with is a white supremacist. Many of them are conservative, some of them can be rather obnoxious and I can understand the dislike for that, but no, I dont buy that "white supremacist" thing, just because somebody dislikes a person. And I get that hanging out that crowd usually means that they wont be doing work for mainstream comics anymore. I don't really have anything against companies having that policy either, If I would run a comics company my policy would be that social media is to promote books, not argue about politics or insult people to the right or the left.

Also, if somebody gets really offended at my little blue-haired thing, fine, get offended. None of my LGBT friends have blue hair, I don't care what somebody's sexuality is if there a part of twitter keyboard activists. I already pointed out that the platform gathers a "freakshow" of all sides of political opinions.

 

[Mani-Man]

Guilty as charged. Admittedly, I saw a few posts about Superman being bisexual on Instagram, and comments where people were complaining about it, some of which specifically stating "but Clark's always been with Lois". They obviously hadn't read the actual articles either, and I came here having read their posts, so wasn't in the know.

It gets funny when people literally say "Superman should always be with lois" because in this specific instance, it would mean wanting Jon to be in a romantic relationship with his own mother.
But yeah, its a problem everyone can be guilty off.

Fundimentally, you're right. It wouldn't change anything about the character and his love for Lois, but I'd ask the question why are the writers making the change in the first place, and it's going back to what I said earlier; it's putting something in place to please a minority, and it's something that's never needed to be addressed. To address it now, to please a select few is, honestly, quite sad.

Why? Superman was created to please, Batman was create to please a certain group...every fictional character is created, has traits etc to please a group of people.
Why is it when it comes to LGBT sad?
No fictional medium exists due to natural reasons, its all forced in a certain way.
Lois and Clark is not natural, DC decided to force the characters and the story into a direction where they are a thing.
Why cant it be the same for LGBT? Why does it matter Why something is done?

If the LBTQ+ community want people to accept them, then they should accept what already is, and not want it to be changed to suit their ... exploits. Acceptance works both ways. I'm not suggesting either that they've petitioned for this, but someone has obviously spoken out about it, or felt pressure from somewhere to highlight Jon's sexuality.

Again, why? Why does the LGBT community have to accept anything but not the other way around.
I mean people literally have put out petitions for Batcat Comics and look what DC did.
You dont hear anybody say DC was pressured into higlighting Batcat or put a bullet to kings chest telling him to write a sex scene in his comic.
Or Look at Jon in the first place.
People bothered DC for so long to give Lois and Clark a child, instead of accepting how it was, people wanted to change stuff to suit their...exploits.
DC was pressured into creating Jon by the Superman fans...dont seem to be a big deal on that.
Or that DC was pressured into changing Talia Raping Bruce to something that is not sexual assault...all fine, but LGBT ask for something and are the bad people?

These are very different examples though. Slavery, racism, misogyny and a whole heap of other labels have been improved upon for the better, though granted, there's still a little way to go. How is anything improved by having (or in some cases, turning) a superhero from heterosexual to homosexual, or bisexual?

Representation is always helping to improve things.
It shows teenagers, kids that how they feel is not wrong, that their heroes are like them.
That they struggle like them etc.

If DC wanted Harley and Ivy to get married, taking into account their relationship, there'd not be a problem - not from me at least, because they're not going out of their way to turn what I deem an established heterosexual character into a homosexual one.

Did they not? Wasnt Harley the most devoted abuse victim ever?
It was established that she would kill and die for the Jokers love for love...her whole character was created as a heterosexual woman who is obsessed with a man who abuses her.

I don't watch it any more, I bailed because of Ruby Rose, but the Batwoman series is a prime example of this. Rather than cast someone as Batwoman, they had to highlight that not only was the role of Kate Kane a lesbian, but also they had to cast a lesbian in the role. Why? Any good actress can portray a lesbian, so why was there a need to specifically cast a lesbian? Caity Loitz is (as far as I know) heterosexual, and she's played the bisexual role. Matt Ryan is heterosexual, and again, has played the bisexual role.

The Batwoman crew needed to cast a lesbian for the role of a lesbian, and then highlight time and time again that Batwoman was a lesbian? Who cares. If an actress can act, cast her, regardless of sexuality, and it should be Batwoman that draws in the crowd, not her sexual exploits.

Well on that we agree, on the casting at least.
Casting Ruby Rose was the first problem of the show, because you needed a good lead and not a lead who happens to be part of the LGBT community.
You needed someone who can carry a show, and Ruby Rose isnt that strong enough of a Actress.

As for Highlighting...never felt to me like they did too much.
It is a important part of Kate that she is Lesbian.
I see this complaint a lot, but thats the thing...being LGBT is considered a big deal.
Because its still not as accepted as it should be.
Kate having to deal with Discrimination etc in military and so on, isnt too unheard off.
Many LGBT people face discrimination and hate just because they are LGBT.
That is why it is important, that is why its important that a Batwoman show focuses on how it is being LGBT in a world that struggles for no reason to accept that.
Her Orientation matters because we still live in a society that frowns upon her Orientation when it didnt need to.
We dont need to have all this mess about Jon being Bisexual, because its not that huge of deal.
But those against it make it a big deal, therefore we need to adress it and work towards making LGBT something that doesnt need to be accepted or tolerated...it just is.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I looked at that clip. None of those guys he hangs with is a white supremacist. Many of them are conservative, some of them can be rather obnoxious and I can understand the dislike for that, but no, I dont buy that "white supremacist" thing, just because somebody dislikes a person. And I get that hanging out that crowd usually means that they wont be doing work for mainstream comics anymore. I don't really have anything against companies having that policy either, If I would run a comics company my policy would be that social media is to promote books, not argue about politics or insult people to the right or the left.

Also, if somebody gets really offended at my little blue-haired thing, fine, get offended. None of my LGBT friends have blue hair, I don't care what somebody's sexuality is if there a part of twitter keyboard activists. I already pointed out that the platform gathers a "freakshow" of all sides of political opinions.

I didn't say they were white supremacists. The point is, if you hang and agree with white supremacists, your a white supremacist. In this case, he'as hanging and agreeing with racists, sexists, transphobic and homophobic people. We know, because they are Comicsgate people. That's their ideology. That's the point. I also noticed you just ignored Sithborg's posts pointing out he is exactly that. Why?

You just use coded language by accident, and agreed with posts that were pretty obviously bigoted crap. Ask Calvin how those posts worked out for him.

 

[Snow Queen]

If the LBTQ+ community want people to accept them, then they should accept what already is, and not want it to be changed to suit their ... exploits. Acceptance works both ways. I'm not suggesting either that they've petitioned for this, but someone has obviously spoken out about it, or felt pressure from somewhere to highlight Jon's sexuality.

Classy.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Fundimentally, you're right. It wouldn't change anything about the character and his love for Lois, but I'd ask the question why are the writers making the change in the first place, and it's going back to what I said earlier; it's putting something in place to please a minority, and it's something that's never needed to be addressed. To address it now, to please a select few is, honestly, quite sad.

I am going to ignore the fact that crapping on minorities, especially those based around immutable characteristics like skin color and sexuality, is just wrong. Most white people didn't want black people integrated into their schools. Should that not have happened, because it was meant to please a few? Of course not.

What is the issue in general? What is so upsetting about same gender relationships that it sets people off?

If the LBTQ+ community want people to accept them, then they should accept what already is, and not want it to be changed to suit their ... exploits. Acceptance works both ways. I'm not suggesting either that they've petitioned for this, but someone has obviously spoken out about it, or felt pressure from somewhere to highlight Jon's sexuality.

Their exploits? The ****?

Acceptance does not work both ways when confronted by intolerance. You don't meet a racist halfway. Because they are 100% wrong, every time and an obstacle to progress.

That said, one of the ways DC clearly plans on surviving, is to change with the times. To be more inclusive. This might not help comic sales, but overall the majority of their business isn't necessarily tied up into that. It's film, television, merch. And if you characters who speak to broader groups, beyond the social benefits, it works for the company on the whole. Because representation matters for the broader public.

These are very different examples though. Slavery, racism, misogyny and a whole heap of other labels have been improved upon for the better, though granted, there's still a little way to go. How is anything improved by having (or in some cases, turning) a superhero from heterosexual to homosexual, or bisexual?

Integration that works towards normalization has a very good track record. See below...

If DC wanted Harley and Ivy to get married, taking into account their relationship, there'd not be a problem - not from me at least, because they're not going out of their way to turn what I deem an established heterosexual character into a homosexual one.

You do realize that neither Harley nor Ivy started off bisexual, right? Harley was created in the 90s, Ivy the 60s. They revealed their bisexual status later. Just like Jon and Tim. It's the exact same thing.

But do you want to know why you didn't realize that? It's because after awhile, it becomes the status quo. A part of the character, you never realize was different. Like Nick Fury being black. Most people on Earth, don't know white Nick Fury.

Except that it isn't. I don't mind LGBT characters. I don't particularly care when it's shoved in our faces, but if it's the character, then so be it.

What qualifies as shoving it into your face?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I hope that's a rhetorical question because I don't have the answer for you.

Same sex relationships are probably frowned upon for varying reasons; insecurities, circumstantial, societal, belief. If you're brought up continually told that same sex relations are wrong and impure, you're going to grow up believing that; the middle east is a prime example of that theme, among many other poor messages, but even then, you needn't look too far back into the western world where churches and various religions frowned upon it. Thankfully, in the western world at least, it's starting to change and become accepted.

Go back a century or two, and it wasn't frowned upon at all; in fact it was probably somewhat the norm. It's only really society that's placed these labels as wrong - a similar society that's now trying to label sexual differences as accepted, or normal. At what point did it become wrong?

So, bigotry. Why argue for the side of bigotry?

Poor choice of wording on my part...

that's an understatement.

That's just the thing though, there's change, and then there's change.

Nick Fury aside (and I'm sure there's a couple of others too), but you don't turn Kal-El black to suit diversity. You create Val-Zod. You don't turn Bruce Wayne black. You create Tim Fox. Using that very same logic, you don't turn Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne homosexual or bisexual. You use (or create) another character and apply a non heterosexual label to them.

Here's my question. What about any of these characters require them to be white? I can tell you why Black Panther, needs to be black. Why does Clark Kent, an alien from outer space need to e white? Why does he need to conform to Earth's expectations for sexuality?

If we are working from the fundamental idea, that your skin color or sexuality aren't inherently things that can be bad, what is the issue, outside of bigotry? Clark and Lois are each other's destiny. But Clark has dated other people before. Lana and his recent relationship with Lois being obvious examples. Why would it change his love for Lois, if he also dated another man?

Sara Lance and the need to portray her desire to sleep with every woman in history... John (Constantine) had same sex relationships, but it wasn't in practically every episode. Legends went through a phase back some seasons ago where Sara's character became unbearable and cringe-worthy to watch. Not quite as bad as Ruby Rose, but close.

So, not a Bond fan? Never enjoyed a ladies man character at all?

Why did you just ignore my point on Harley and Ivy? Did it hurt your argument too much?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Controversial, I'm sure, but take paedophiles into account here. As far as I'm concerned, they're in the LGBTQ+ community too (I should highlight the difference between a paedophile and a convicted paedophile here); the LGBTQ+ community exists for those who have an attraction to anyone that isn't specifically the opposite sex and of a certain age. If you walked into a LGBTQ+ event and promoted that paedophiles apply to the label, you'd be evicted. Why? Because such a label doesn't comply, when it should. Paedophillia by it's core definition is just another level of sexual attraction (that thankfully isn't always acted upon). Should that be accepted and/or tolerated because those people are different too? If not, why not?

You just compare rape to the sexual acts of consenting adults. That sounds an awful lot like comparing being gay/bi/pan to being a murderer. And well...

Two things all should be aware of:
1.) equating being gay or bi with being a murderer will never be acceptable behavior here.
2.) People of all faiths are welcome but DO NOT use this site to preach yours. We had to get rid of the religion threads for a reason.

 

[DKDetective]

Controversial, I'm sure, but take paedophiles into account here. As far as I'm concerned, they're in the LGBTQ+ community too (I should highlight the difference between a paedophile and a convicted paedophile here); the LGBTQ+ community exists for those who have an attraction to anyone that isn't specifically the opposite sex and of a certain age. If you walked into a LGBTQ+ event and promoted that paedophiles apply to the label, you'd be evicted. Why? Because such a label doesn't comply, when it should. Paedophillia by it's core definition is just another level of sexual attraction (that thankfully isn't always acted upon). Should that be accepted and/or tolerated because those people are different too? If not, why not?

As @flickchick85 just warned someone else here for posting along the same lines:

Two things all should be aware of:
1.) equating being gay or bi with being a murderer will never be acceptable behavior here.
2.) People of all faiths are welcome but DO NOT use this site to preach yours. We had to get rid of the religion threads for a reason.

 

[The Shape]

*Opens thread to discuss the DC comics I picked up this week*

 

[Babillygunn]

Wow.

This thread:

 

[Babillygunn]

*Opens thread to discuss the DC comics I picked up this week*

So. Don’t leave me in suspense. What’ve you been reading?

Some good stuff is out there.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Wow.

This thread:

View attachment 50082

 

[valmont]

Some appalling homophobia going on here.

 

[Detective Conan]

Well…the last few pages of this thread have been…something.

 

[super85]

I didn't say they were white supremacists. The point is, if you hang and agree with white supremacists, your a white supremacist. In this case, he'as hanging and agreeing with racists, sexists, transphobic and homophobic people. We know, because they are Comicsgate people. That's their ideology. That's the point. I also noticed you just ignored Sithborg's posts pointing out he is exactly that. Why?

You just use coded language by accident, and agreed with posts that were pretty obviously bigoted crap. Ask Calvin how those posts worked out for him.

I probably missed it since I was away for a while, or I didn't see a reason to reply to it. No need to keep yapping if somebody has such a opposite point of view here I think.

I have no problems crowdfunding comics from Indiegogo, sometimes they are by people who have appeared on live-streams with those "problematic" people you put a bunch of labels to. I recently read a great sci-fi comic by female creator Annas Eskander. called EYVA. A recommend.

Since its clearly impossible to dislike mediocre comics by DC Comics here, if those mediocre comics have an agenda that is popular that is, Ill have to rethink this then. I shall not comment on stuff that I find awful. Ill just comment on stuff that I enjoy.

I also want to take a moment to tell everyone that I read all my posts here. I agreed with everything I wrote, and I think I should have been a bit tougher on people actually . But like I wrote, ill just write about the books that are actually worth reading .

 

[Sithborg]

I mean, queer content does not free a story from criticism. I mean, Bendis got it from pretty much everyone, because he made Iceman gay in the absolute, positively the worst way possible. Seeing queer content as an "agenda" however, is going to get pushback.

Everything I've seen is that Tim's story only starting. And I know based on the Alex Danvers storyline in season 2, that that is an important story to tell.

 

[CrimsonMist]

I've had an incredibly busy but fun work schedule that has unfortunately left me behind on my reading of last week's books but I made time specifically for Brubaker and Philips' new Reckless graphic novel, "Destroy All Monsters". It's the third of a proposed 5 novel series and this volume is the third released in one year, which is pretty impressive.

Unfortunately, I thought this was probably the weakest of the trio. It could have been longer and they could have expanded more on the villain a bit to give it a bit more weight. But the fatalism of the main character, Ethan Reckless, shines through as we know that all these stories are told basically as the character now, looking backwards in time. And Brubaker's writing is about as effortless as it's ever been. It still amazes me how easy he makes writing seem. And Sean Philips is just an underrated god. No flash, nothing elaborate or splashy. Just straight solid storytelling. His pencils have loosened a bit, and while it hasn't become abstract, you can feel the fluidity of the art. Despite winning awards, I still think he doesn't get nearly enough attention as a master as he should. Check it out if you've read the previous two books. But if you're new and curious, "Destroy All Monsters" is as good a place as any to jump in.

 

[Mani-Man]

Since its clearly impossible to dislike mediocre comics by DC Comics here, if those mediocre comics have an agenda that is popular that is, Ill have to rethink this then. I shall not comment on stuff that I find awful. Ill just comment on stuff that I enjoy.

Ah yes, good old "Cant say anything critical anymore"...funny, i could voice my worry how they handle the Jon story just fine a few pages back.

Maybe because i didnt use the childish "agenda" angle or played the victim.

Its best for us all if you only comment on what you like, since you clearly arent able to have a proper conversation otherwise without playing the victim or some other nefarious comments towards diversity in comics.

 

[super85]

Ok, I will now change my mind. I will also comment on stuff that I dislike too. I think that is the best for me .