lol i guess now we know who falls into the intersection of that venn diagram
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Comic Book Nerds Thread
- Thread starter Darkaxis
- Start date
But Alan Scott's weakness is wood, not yellow iirc?
THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
Banned deucer.
she already knows. just like the rest of us
I haven't been a comic book nerd for a while but aren't there thousands of Green Lanterns? Of course there's at least one gay one.
I reacted negatively because I liked Peter Parker =[
Joke about him making things with the ring
ed: yeah this is kind of an issue in media and i'm not sure what the right way to go about it is. you always hear complaints of - "there are no women or persons of color in this show/book/movie and that makes it bad" -- for TV, but sometimes friends groups just are abundantly white. or all male. and it looks bad to seemingly drop a "token" character in. you have to navigate expertly on that fulcrum between real life (which is realistic in how minority groupings don't define themselves by their minority status, but also in that friend groups aren't necessarily representative of tolerant messages) and the world of tolerance that you're trying to portray (in which ostensibly the same thing happens, but you find the perfect balance of groupings with your characters)
ed: yeah this is kind of an issue in media and i'm not sure what the right way to go about it is. you always hear complaints of - "there are no women or persons of color in this show/book/movie and that makes it bad" -- for TV, but sometimes friends groups just are abundantly white. or all male. and it looks bad to seemingly drop a "token" character in. you have to navigate expertly on that fulcrum between real life (which is realistic in how minority groupings don't define themselves by their minority status, but also in that friend groups aren't necessarily representative of tolerant messages) and the world of tolerance that you're trying to portray (in which ostensibly the same thing happens, but you find the perfect balance of groupings with your characters)
I would've thought it was Guy Gardner. I mean usually when something like this is announced it's with a less centric character. Then and again DC has about 500,000 earths and this Green Lantern was touched on 50 something years ago and has only been referenced in Earth 2. Whereas Hal Jordan or John Stewart are on the other 499,999 during the modern DC time.
Posts like this are amusing because not only do they manage to miss the entire point of this, they actually reinforce it.
Any given character in media is assumed to be heterosexual until stated otherwise, and when it is stated otherwise, there's always inevitably a big fuss to the extent of "why does it matter whether he's gay, who cares". When you stop caring about writers making a character gay, we can consider the portrayal of homosexuality in media a social non-issue. The character is gay because the writers want him to be gay, for whatever reason. If you think his sexual orientation shouldn't matter, you should react the exact same way you would if you found out that they were making literally any other characterization decision ("he's tall", "he's skinny", "he wears a pink leotard").
At least Guy Gardner being gay would be hilarious.
"Any gay character" is not a step up. Especially when it reeks of cowardice. For instance it was so easy for JK Rowling to casually remark that Dumbledore was gay after all the books had been sold. If instead they introduced a new gay character and gave him his own comic that would be taking a chance that it would sell. If instead they introduced a new gay character and put him on the Justice League that might actually have been controversial instead of just being bitched about for a few days.
When you have characters that have been around for decades and have gone through countless character development, who have formed numerous relationships and often cases had spouses and children, what kind of a message does it send to just "switch" them gay? They could have at least found a character without any developed sexual preference like they did with Renee Montoya (who is now the Question and hence gay), but no, they didn't want a character who "comes out", because apparently DC thinks coming out is weak. Still think this is a step up?
"Any gay character" is not a step up. Especially when it reeks of cowardice. For instance it was so easy for JK Rowling to casually remark that Dumbledore was gay after all the books had been sold. If instead they introduced a new gay character and gave him his own comic that would be taking a chance that it would sell. If instead they introduced a new gay character and put him on the Justice League that might actually have been controversial instead of just being bitched about for a few days.
When you have characters that have been around for decades and have gone through countless character development, who have formed numerous relationships and often cases had spouses and children, what kind of a message does it send to just "switch" them gay? They could have at least found a character without any developed sexual preference like they did with Renee Montoya (who is now the Question and hence gay), but no, they didn't want a character who "comes out", because apparently DC thinks coming out is weak. Still think this is a step up?
Ideally Peter Parker having always been white would always be portrayed as white. People bitch when their favorite character's hair color is wrong. What people didn't realize though was that Donald Glover was the best possible candidate for the role in spite of not looking like Peter Parker.
With most characters it isn't an assumption. Love stories are shoehorned into every medium and when they aren't women are usually only around to flirt with male characters. The "super-progressive" DC turned Starfire into a sociopath who only values humans when having sex with them, and who runs around naked because "she's sexually liberated". It's just another annoying change to stab all your established fans in the back all in the name of finding the elusive new reader. This isn't the old Alan Scott. The old Alan Scott is dead, and by extension so are Jade and Obsidian. Everyone who was pissed off that DC killed Lean Harper a while back, now she just never existed. The list just goes on and on. This is a small addition.
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
Gaise! Did you know Ghirahim is sooooooooooooo totally gay?? Lets discuss the real life implications of this fictional character depicted as having stereotypical homosexual attributes!
mattj you are so out of touch with reality.
Half of those characters don't exist anymore.
Half of those characters don't exist anymore.
Read 52 Outlaw. It'll answer your question but more importantly, it is one of the best comic book reads out there.
I dont know, if Alan Scott came out as black I think itd be pretty newsworthy.
THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
Banned deucer.
I think there should be more native american heroes, more gay heroes, more black heroes, chinese super heroes, etc etc
while they are just comic books, I think that they should reflect how different the world is more for the sake of the story and people in the real world
white people who have dead parents can get pretty boring after awhile
while they are just comic books, I think that they should reflect how different the world is more for the sake of the story and people in the real world
white people who have dead parents can get pretty boring after awhile
Wait, is this Starfire from Teen Titans we're talking about? Innocent little girl? Gets shy about kissing Robin? That's some bullshit.
Anyway, I have no problem with people who say "this guy shouldn't be gay, that goes against his character" as opposed to people who say "this guy shouldn't be gay, it shouldn't matter". I feel like the latter reason is duplicitous when it comes to its implication, because saying "it doesn't matter if he's gay" essentially states that it's not acceptable to characterize someone as gay (lest it be assumed to be a publicity stunt) which seems to assert the opposite of the point these people are trying to imply.
i was talking about the miles morales ultimate spiderman thing
You would think, but have you read Red Hood and the Outlaws?
Well this is cool, Its nice to see that superheroes are not all the same general stereotype anymore.
This ^
They're taking older characters and messing around with them, nothing more than an attempt to appeal to the gay community.
It's also double weaksauce because Green Lantern is more a TITLE than a singular superhero.
If they just focused on the hermaphroditic slug lantern of Earth 656 they could say they're breaking new ground. Instead they just gave Alan Scott's kids some serious daddy issues.
If they just focused on the hermaphroditic slug lantern of Earth 656 they could say they're breaking new ground. Instead they just gave Alan Scott's kids some serious daddy issues.
