|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 13, 2021 11:31:00 GMT -5
Not necessarily wanting to speak for tingramretro, or anyone else who has a problem with this sort of thing, but I think the most important thing to remember is that these are fictional characters. They are not real people. If a real, live human being comes out as homosexual or bisexual then of course there should be a willingness to support, accept and understand them (unless you're a total asshat). But if you have followed a beloved fictional character for years and years and then some writer or editorial team suddenly decides to have him/her come out as homosexual/bisexual it is a deliberate decision made by those creatives working on the character. And it's a decision that doesn't in any way have to be taken. In comics, it is likely that readers have seen these characters act in a way representative of a certain sexual orientation and been privvy to their innermost thoughts for years, without even the remotest suggestion of them being closeted. Therefore, suddenly changing their sexuality is a fundamental change to that character's makeup that is obviously going to rankle with some long term fans (yes, I believe a person's sexuality is a fundamental aspect of their psychological makeup – right after gender in terms of importance). So, I think it's reasonable for fans of these characters -- and even casual observers -- to be somewhat cynical and annoyed about the motives behind such dramatic changes, whether it's "outrage marketing" to drive up publiscity/sales, or empty "virtue signalling", or whatever. However, most importantly, it is a mistake to automatically conflate a person's attitudes towards a previously heterosexual fictional character suddenly being revealed to be homosexual or bisexual with their attitudes towards a real human being who comes out. It amounts to he same thing though, fictional or real...nothing has changed about the character from when you thought they were straight to learning that they are gay. It doesn't make them less heroic, less intelligent, less humorous or any other characteristic that made you like them in the first place just because they are now gay. The only difference is that they're attracted to a different sex, and if that's a deal breaker then yeah that does say something whether its a fictional character or not. Sure we know there is a slightly cynical reason for making a character gay, and a little exasperation and eye rolling at that corporate decision because it seems hollow is to be expected and is indeed acceptable, but when you get into more than that? That the character is ruined, "taken away" from you and causes resentment simply for being gay? That's a completely different kind of reaction and one that shouldn't be accepted. No, it is a completely understandable reaction, because that character HAS been changed and is no longer the character I related to. Did you miss the part about being privy to the characters innermost thoughts? That's what thought balloons did. We knew exactly who Alan Scott thought he was and how he felt for decades. If he actually was gay all that time, I think he'd have mentioned it at least once, at least to himself. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 13, 2021 8:36:55 GMT -5
It's not about how many, it's about the sudden spate of them. And also which characters. I get that the gay community want representation, but Tim Drake is a character I've followed since his creation almost thirty years ago. He's a character I identified with because I've followed his development since the beginning. He was "my" Robin, the one I identified with. And now he's been taken away from me. And his decades long relationship with Spoiler, which I was emotionally invested in,has been ditched in order to make him gay. I resent that, frankly. I don't see that as me being homophobic, I see it as DC being completely oblivious to how invested long term readers are in their characters. And yes, I feel the same way about Alan Scott, another character I'd followed for decades. Where is Molly, anyway? Does anyone care? I've never gotten why a character's sexual orientation should stop one from identifying with them, I mean by that token do you have a hard time identifying with female characters because they're interested in men? Anne Shirley Cuthbert from Anne of Green Gables has always been and shall always be my favorite fictional character, and I totally see my self as her when I read L. M. Montgomery's novels and I've never once felt weird reading about her feelings for Gilbert Blythe or had any trouble understanding why she feels the way she does...and the reason for that is despite the fact that she's pining after a boy it's no different than my own memories of relationships I've had with women. Gay, straight, bi...or whatever else there might be... it's all the same emotions, so what's the big deal? I don't really identify with female characters. Sorry. I might enjoy reading about them, but I don't identify with them. I identify with characters who are like me. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 12, 2021 16:43:10 GMT -5
Just read Who's Afraid of Darkseid, this years DC Comics Halloween special, and really enjoyed it. I wish they'd do more of these anthologies.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 12, 2021 16:32:53 GMT -5
Yes, but these days it seems to me to be more like over representation. First Robin, now Jon? It's a bit much. Oh noes! Two characters out of thousands. It's not about how many, it's about the sudden spate of them. And also which characters. I get that the gay community want representation, but Tim Drake is a character I've followed since his creation almost thirty years ago. He's a character I identified with because I've followed his development since the beginning. He was "my" Robin, the one I identified with. And now he's been taken away from me. And his decades long relationship with Spoiler, which I was emotionally invested in,has been ditched in order to make him gay. I resent that, frankly. I don't see that as me being homophobic, I see it as DC being completely oblivious to how invested long term readers are in their characters. And yes, I feel the same way about Alan Scott, another character I'd followed for decades. Where is Molly, anyway? Does anyone care? |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 12, 2021 16:10:26 GMT -5
Spotted this story on the BBC. Apparently the latest Superman, Jon Kent, is going to be revealed to be bisexual in November's issue. It's apparently all part of the 'Superman: Son of Kal-El' storyline that is currently running. In this forthcoming issue Jon will be getting romanticly involved with his male friend Jay Nakamura. No doubt this will cause the usual teeth-gnashing and fury from the man-child bigots and online trolls. But then again, I'd be lying if I said I didn't roll my eyes at the shallow virtue signalling and obvious "outrage marketing" aspect of it all. On a related note, I also dislike the way that DC have chosen National Coming Out Day to announce this. I mean, the day is meant to bring attention to the fact that, even in 2021, not everybody is accepted for who they are or allowed to just be honest about who they're attracted to. It never sits well with me when a money-grabbing, tax-dodging bunch of fat capitalist pigs like Warner Bros jumps on a minority bandwagon and aligns themselves with some important social issue or terrible injustice just to sell more of their s**t. Anyway, full story here... www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58879161Sure, it's just a cash grab so I'm not going to go head over heals applauding them but at the same time it does create representation which can help build towards "normalcy" in the public's eye so I'm not going to be too down on the move even if there are obvious ulterior motives. Yes, but these days it seems to me to be more like over representation. First Robin, now Jon? It's a bit much. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 11, 2021 3:06:39 GMT -5
We get a fast recap of what occurs, come to an obvious conclusion and then go hunting for a traitor, only to find Wundarr has unleashed more chaos to distract (unknowingly?) Solarr and Klaw had teamed in Avengers #126 and Solarr was also part of Egghead's Emissaries of Evil, in Defenders, before getting his butt whooped. He was a pretty low-level villain. Klaw had a bit more status, having fought the FF and Black Panther, though, as we saw, he didn't come out of it well. Like to see Andy Serkis pull off that costume, though!
Solarr was a third-stringer, but probably the highest-profile mutant never to make it into the X-books. This was the period when Claremont's run was at its peak and I always wanted him to incorporate Solarr (now he's dead, I believe, so it's moot) (Solarr not Claremont obv).
In theory, any previously dead mutant could now be alive again on Krakoa, although sadly I doubt the writers of the X books would even remember Solarr. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 4, 2021 11:29:09 GMT -5
I've won three, two of them about twenty five years ago, the most recent just a couple of years ago (yes, they still give them out). I know the first was for correcting Stan Lee when he stated that Marvel had no deaf superheroes (Hawkeye wears a hearing aid) but I can't remember what the second was for, though I still have both envelopes. The most recent one was for pointing out that Aunt Petunia had just shown up in Fantastic Four when she was supposed to have died years ago, and giving an explanation (Uncle Jake had remarried to another woman with the same name). Interestingly, by the time of the most recent one, Marvel had stopped sending out empty envelopes; these days, a No-Prize is an email with a scan of the envelope!
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 13, 2021 7:39:23 GMT -5
I still don't understand why Marvel doesn't own their version of Red Sonya.
The licensing deal meant that all of the work was owned by the license holder, meaning the Howard Estate, including stuff derived from it. Since the idea for Red Sonja came from a Howard story, with a Red Sonya, it wasn't something original they created, like Shang Chi (in relation to the Fu Manchu characters). Therefore, the estate controlled that material, just as Lucasfilm owned the Marvel Star wars comics material. That is why Dark Horse could reprint those Marvel stories. As said, red Sonja was split off into a separate holding company, for licensing purposes and Marvel seems to have only licensed Conan and whoever else has popped up. Maybe Marvel hasn't negotiated a deal, or hasn't completed one. Maybe their research indicated too small of a demand for the cost of licensing. You missed the most obvious reason: that Dynamite have been publishing licensed Red Sonja comics continuously for over fifteen years now and seem likely to keep doing so, and so long as they hold the rights, Marvel have no say in the matter. Why would the Red Sonja Corporation terminate an agreement that's been serving them well since 2004 or so, just to hand the licence to Marvel, who barely used the character the last time they published her? |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 13, 2021 7:30:46 GMT -5
We can, but it's largely pointless if it could never happen because of legal/business considerations. I could bemoan the fact that Marvel aren't publishing a Rom series, but the fact is, they don't own Rom, so they can't.
But in this case it isn't something that couldn't happen, since Marvel does own the rights. So we're discussing a decision Marvel has made not to use certain characters because they think it doesn't make business sense. I say that is short-sighted thinking even from a business perspective, though why every discussion has to be taken from a business perspective I'll never understand. Note, this is not the same as taking the business perspective into account when discussing what is likely to happen, which obviously one has to do if one is to weigh the probabilities accurately.
But this isn't the Financial Post or the Wall Street Journal: it's ridiculous to think that no one should ever talk about anything but what business considerations render likely to happen. It's a comic book site where we talk about all kinds of things related to the medium - including of course the comic book industry, but not only that. Hell, we even talk about things that literally could never happen because the events took place in the past, e.g. "wouldn't it have been cool if Steve Englehart had stayed on the Avengers with George Perez instead of leaving after just one story-arc?"
Regarding the REH characters, I thnk it's smart for publishers to take some of their profits from more popular productions and big sellers and invest it in things that are less likely to turn a profit right now but at some point in the future might lead to something new and unexpected. It's like R & D: you put money into new ideas, 99% of which might lead nowhere, but if you don't commit some resources into these experiments you'll never grow.
I would say that discussions like this have to be taken from a business perspective because we are talking about comics publishers, which are a business. Why would they put money into publishing Kull or Solomon Kane when those characters never sold very well even forty-five years ago, when company was in a far better place to take those kinds of risks? I could see the point in Dynamite Entertainment trying a limited series with one of those characters, but not Marvel. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 12, 2021 6:44:51 GMT -5
Most publishers are out of touch these days as to what "fans" want in comics. And what should a publisher base their idea of what fans want? The loyal old and small reader base, the "collector" buying up multiple covers/issues/cash grabs? The next gen of new readers coming up? Did the fans truly ask for Conan being made a part of the MU? That only benefits Marvel as if/when they lose the REH license then nobody can reprint the Marvel Conan unless they negotiate with Marvel to pay for the use of MU heroes. By the same token, most "fans" are out of touch with what will resonate and sell to the mass market, which is where the profits lie and what makes producing the products economically viable for companies and creators. -M Absolutely right! That is what the publishers exist to do, after all. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 12, 2021 6:43:24 GMT -5
Sure, but why look at everything from the business POV? Can't we talk about what we as readers might like to see?
When Marvel started the Conan comics in the early 70s, was that a guaranteed profit-maker? Yes, I know there had been the paperback revival, but comics fans, mostly into superheroes, didn't necessarily know about that. And they went ahead and started a Kull series too - which, admittedly, didnt last long - but the point is, they did it!
Most publishers are out of touch these days as to what "fans" want in comics. And what should a publisher base their idea of what fans want? The loyal old and small reader base, the "collector" buying up multiple covers/issues/cash grabs? The next gen of new readers coming up? I'm not sure they are out of touch. It's more that, as you say, different fans want different things. Putting out comics that will appeal to people who've been reading for forty years is unlikely to bring in new readers. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 12, 2021 6:39:07 GMT -5
I think the other REH characters are largely forgotten these days so they're probably mostly unsaleable from Marvel's POV. The only exception being Red Sonja (who doesn't really resemble REH's character anyway), and these days Dynamite have a firm hold on that licensed property.
Sure, but why look at everything from the business POV? Can't we talk about what we as readers might like to see?
We can, but it's largely pointless if it could never happen because of legal/business considerations. I could bemoan the fact that Marvel aren't publishing a Rom series, but the fact is, they don't own Rom, so they can't. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 6, 2021 5:10:25 GMT -5
Both Kull and Kane appeared in an era spanning Conan limited series called Serpent War in 2019. Conan also has his own title, set in his customary time period, in addition to appearing in Savage Avengers. Actually, the Avengers thing is probably less jarring for longtime Marvel UK fans, as for quite some time in the seventies, Conan was the regular backup feature in Avengers Weekly! Thanks, I'll have a look online for the Serpent War, just out of curiosity. Still, disappointing, though not surprising, that they aren't doing more with the other REH characters. I think the other REH characters are largely forgotten these days so they're probably mostly unsaleable from Marvel's POV. The only exception being Red Sonja (who doesn't really resemble REH's character anyway), and these days Dynamite have a firm hold on that licensed property. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 25, 2021 7:26:31 GMT -5
Marvel have the rights to Conan back, and have had since 2019.
Ah, yes. I see they are using Conan - in the Avengers, of all places! What about Kull or Solomon Kane - has Marvel done anything with them since acquiring the rights to REH's characters again? Both Kull and Kane appeared in an era spanning Conan limited series called Serpent War in 2019. Conan also has his own title, set in his customary time period, in addition to appearing in Savage Avengers. Actually, the Avengers thing is probably less jarring for longtime Marvel UK fans, as for quite some time in the seventies, Conan was the regular backup feature in Avengers Weekly! |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 20, 2021 10:16:37 GMT -5
I like the idea of reviving the pulp heroes but so far the artwork has kept me away. Maybe the writing would too, but I haven't even got that far. Not that the art is necessarily so bad in every single comic, but none of the ones I've looked at have attracted me, from the Dynamite ERB stuff to the Dark Horse (or whoever has the rights now) REH comics. One of these days I hope there'll be somethng that looks so good to me I won't be able to resist, something I won't be reading solely because I like the pulp character. Marvel have the rights to Conan back, and have had since 2019. |
|
