DC Says One Of Its"Iconic" Heroes Is Gay

[Wayne Mander]

I always wondered why they called him Martian "Man Hunter".

hahaha You just made my day

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I don't know about this. It feels like its just thrown in with no real reason other than to match a molding society. The character certainly wasn't gay before hand.

I just wish they had put a little more effort into it. This seems almost like a Bioware thing. Like how Garrus acts straight for 2 games, then just out of no where decideds he wants my sweet human ass.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

I don't see why anyone should give a shit. It just seems petty and inane to make a big deal over a fictional character's sexual orientation, regardless of what it is. You'd think we'd have more important things to care about, even as far as said fictional character is concerned.

I realize this is a publicity grab (a different rant for a different post) at certain members of the readership, and an attempt to collect a larger readership, but if said readers feel the need to validate their lifestyle choices through a piece of fiction, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate a few things in reality.

 

[CoL0sS]

Aw hell looking at that pic, it could be practically anybody. Big whoop.

 

[Treblaine]

Hold on, haven't we already got a gay character in DC? What's-is-name, Starman or something.
But, he might not be part of the reboot, so, oh well.

He is, Mikaal's in the Shade mini-series. He was in the JL for a while too but he wasn't really prominent enough for editorial mandate I guess >_>.

Hydros was just an off the head suggestion, the point is it sounds more like a comic book character name than a bottled-water bascot, admittedly it sounds more like a SuperVILLAIN's name but still, I think it's better than Aquaman. Hydroman some some reason doesn't work. Maybe it's just too predictable.

Look, if it was super strength that let Aquaman (lets call him that for now) survive at such depth then that means he has no unique powers over Superman. He's jsut a lesser superman who has a pointless affinity for water. Think about it: if his gambit is the magical power to move water with near infinite force and superhuman precision then that means he is USEFUL beyond being a weaker 2nd-rate superman. No. For Aquaman to be really unique he has to have unique superpowers that would come from surviving such depths because he can reduce the water pressure around him, he can even suck dissolved oxygen out of the water to breath and allow others to breath.

In other words, he can do some things superman can't do and can't do some things superman can do.

This is my problem with various Super-Leagues, they all to often have NOT been structured in a away where their various strengths and weaknesses can compensate for each other. Their superpower lore has been constructed in singular.

Batman is already set apart by having essentially human strength, adding another character to to roster who can juggle cement-trucks and shrug off supersonic missiles just makes Batman more of a liability. Make Aquaman a mortal. Make superman (and Wonderwoman as well) the only indestructible superheroes. If you have too many indestructible heroes then whenever bad shit happens it'll be too tempting just to get the interesting but mortal characters to hide in a hole. And if you are going to have flash be super-speed then don't ALSO give superman super-speed and reflexes.

He is SUPER man. Make him super.

I'd extend Superman's weakness beyond kyrptonite to a general weakness to radiation and to varying extents to all energy weapons. He can exert huge physical force and absorb huge force but radiation cuts through that like a knife through butter. Kyrptonite would be still his most potent weakness as it is the one substance that NATIVELY releases a radiation that is harmless to humans yet very fatal to superman while remaining a fairly common substance, so would be used against him most. So superman would need Batman's technical expertise in dealing with such weaponry. I also think it would have interesting commentary on ideas of machismo where all obvious threats like fast moving projectiles can be shugged off yet radiation, that we don't understand: we cannot see, cannot taste, nor feel nor touch is his greatest weakness. I'd tie this in with nuclear weapons, their awesome destructive power and how that is tied with their poisonous curse.

It's not SuperAquaMan, It'a Aquaman. His power should be supreme control of water and only above average strength.

But his huge strength in fighting goons is how any punch can be magnified by how he can impart so much more force because his target is 80% water. But, just as superman needs his kryptonite, Aquaman needs a weakness, and that is how if there is no considerable water around and his opponents are mostly non-water then he is just the peak of human strength, so on par with batman or other mortal superheroes.

PS: I really think Aquaman could do with a big badass beard. Instantly 90% less lame having an awesome beard. And please, can we retcon it so "Aquaman" is said to be just the name the media gave him in this universe, that his friends and associates know him by another name that isn't so tabloid.

OK, throwing this out here now, READ an Aquaman comic. Seriously, just, any comic you can find, the new Geoff Johns run? Gold, it'll show you how there are some problems only Aquaman's really cut out for solving. A 90's run? You can watch the time Aquaman has to cut off his own hand and grows the beard you so desperately want to see

Spoiler

Superman is always going to be the top-dog around DC, even if Captain Marvel/Shazam has the same powers and a type advantage (Shazam used MAGIC it's SUPER EFFECTIVE!!!), but that doesn't by default make Aquaman lame. It makes him someone who can throw trucks around and is on the same scale of power as Wonder woman.

He is also Awesome

and not going to be the outed super-hero/

Ok, well looks like they ALREADY have fixed him, it's just I never got his depiction in the media I am exposed to. You have to admit, when Family Guy does a skit like this:


(PS: I normally can't stand family guy) that is consistent with the mainstream view of Aquaman. His IP holders need to really put the new Aquaman out there and show he isn't the useless fish whisperer any more. Seriously, he is a liability to the whole Justice League's reputation as a team you'd want to read about. I'll concede you don't need to change the name, what's in a name, I'll be honest I only suggested the name be changed because in popular culture Aquaman had garnered such a bad reputation.

I'm not to sure about the hook/harpoon hand thing, I mean just trying to escape from the lameness of Superfriends you don't have to go all Youngbloods on us. That latter 4-series image, that seems to be the right look. Distinct, confident and with a very personable range.

But Aquaman need to be put out there in this form. I'll admit I don't read comicbooks yet I know about Superman, Batman and Wonderwoman, yet all I know about Aquaman is how badly he has been mishandled.

 

[DRTJR]

I am betting on Wonder Woman, It can't be Aquaman dude is married.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Ok, well looks like they ALREADY have fixed him, it's just I never got his depiction in the media I am exposed to. You have to admit, when Family Guy does a skit like this:

(PS: I normally can't stand family guy) that is consistent with the mainstream view of Aquaman. His IP holders need to really put the new Aquaman out there and show he isn't the useless fish whisperer any more. Seriously, he is a liability to the whole Justice League's reputation as a team you'd want to read about. I'll concede you don't need to change the name, what's in a name, I'll be honest I only suggested the name be changed because in popular culture Aquaman had garnered such a bad reputation.

I'm not to sure about the hook/harpoon hand thing, I mean just trying to escape from the lameness of Superfriends you don't have to go all Youngbloods on us. That latter 4-series image, that seems to be the right look. Distinct, confident and with a very personable range.

But Aquaman need to be put out there in this form. I'll admit I don't read comicbooks yet I know about Superman, Batman and Wonderwoman, yet all I know about Aquaman is how badly he has been mishandled.

It's cool man, but it IS worth looking into it before saying how lame he is, is all I'm saying. DC's trying to re-invent him as best they can but the Superfriends thing sticks like glue. If you search him on youtube from his appearance in Brave and the Bold you get the idea how he's handled nowadays.

 

[floppylobster]

It's so the dude on the right in the Robin Hood costume. Green Arrow? Is that what he's called? Sorry I don't know that much about Superheroes by 'gaydar' shifted to DEFCON 1 just looking at him.

If they make it Wonder Woman that would be really lame and have the opposite effect if they're trying to appear forward thinking.

 

[Mr Smith]

My bet is that it's going to be The Flash. He's the only one that could be considered iconic without having a huge mainstream presence or a current Hollywood star who could get offended by association.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Actually, far from admiring their ethics, I'm getting more than a little annoyed at all this token BS. It's like simply making a character have a certain race or sexual orientation is enough to be taken as equality. No, it has to actually matter. It's like all those 'flawed hero' types whose weakness is they are an alcoholic. Yet drinking never makes an effect on the story. It makes absolutely no difference if it isn't significant.

 

[NLS]

My bet is on Wonder woman.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Smart money is on Aquaman. As lame as Aquaman is, he is pretty iconic.

The only heroes off the table are Superman and Batman. They wouldn't dare risk it with those 2 characters.

 

[Shavon513]

Yeah, it's probably going to be Aquaman.

 

[aenimau5]

Anyone else think it could be Robin? He's major enough without completely pissing off fanboys. Other than that Batman would make some sense or flash (I'm not really up to date with the rebooted relationships statuses (god that sounds like something to do with facebook))

 

[Gabanuka]

Not to resurrect a dead topic but I think I know who it might be. Alfred is a character who they can make gay without ruining anything and hes more prominent than to of DC's biggest heroes. My cash is on him.

 

[Thespian]

-snip-

Okay, I'll try to keep this brief-ish since it's not exactly a heated topic.

First off, apologies if I came off rude, you just seemed to be kind of abrasive in your post considering the lack of actual accurate info you had to back yourself up.
That said, that's a shit apology, but I do recognize that I was overly belligerent in what I said, which doesn't really help the communicative process. So yeah, my bad.

Secondly, whilst a lot of what you say is true, i.e things returning to the status quo, major changes to characters contradicting them and whatnot, it's all very conditional.

I mean sure, writing out Lois Lane and making Supes gay would be stupid and would definitely not last. But your argument only really applies in the precise scenario you gave, so you sort of straw-manned it there.
See, Lois is a big part of Superman's character, (whereas the sexuality of Superman doesn't come up all too often) and writing that out would be as big a change as making him decide circumstantial killing was A-okay, or deciding he is prejudiced toward... I dunno, Egyptians?

Batman though. Making Batman gay? What would that actually change, that people would have a problem against? So Bats and Vicki Vale never happened? Tali Al Ghul never got it on with him?
Uh, big whoop. While significantly large story arcs, they aren't exactly synonymous with Batman. I mean, you can't picture Supes without Lois. But does Batman have a definitive love interest? Not really. I mean, it would make a lot of sense if Batman's past and post-reboot flings with Cat-Woman were one-sided affairs. There never was any real chemistry there anyway, just poorly disguised porn.

And Hawk-man hasn't been all tangled up with Hawk-Girl in a while. And in the New 52, she's not around at all. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was Hawk-man.

That doesn't mean I think it's Batman for sure though. How significant are the romance stories for Green Arrow, or Martian Manhunter, or Zatanna, or Wally West, Ted Kord, Guy Gardner, Booster Gold(I could totally see him as gay), or Captain Marvel?
Sure, I totally agree that making Superman gay would be a bad move, but no one said it's going to be superman, so your point lacks applicability since not everyone is Superman.
In fact, DC said that it was a character not yet introduced in the New 52.

Plus, whilst comics do often return to a status quo, New 52 has been going on for a year now, and the changes it's making aren't dramatic or anything. I pretty much view the reboot as a synchronized "Streamlining character retcons" time period.
I mean, no one's going to reject it because it's just going to slip in a few changes. Changes we'd all like to see, but there's something in the characters history from a lame one-shot in 1995 or something that contradicts it.
Perhaps, somewhere, there is a poor heterosexual love interest crammed in for an Iconic secondary character, preventing them from being made homosexual which would add some extra story-telling potential. Well now that the New 52 is around we have a legitimate excuse to implement such a change.

Oh and on that: I know I am probably making it seem like introducing a gay iconic character is a brilliant idea by rights, simply because the character is gay; And many think it is unnecessary.
But when you make a change in comic books, there should really only be one question to ask to validate making the change - Does this create opportunity to tell a greater variety of stories?
And to be honest, there's plenty you can do with a gay character. As much as you can with a straight character, of course, but most of that has already been explored.

Variety is the spice of life and all that. I would love to see a gay character who is recognizable and actually well known and people who don't read comics might know who they are so you don't have to go and explain who Wiccan and Hulkling are to defend stupid claims of homophobia in comics.

Wow. Apparently, that is what I call brief. Oops.

((On Stormwatch: You won't find it to be very familiar territory, at all. While I also miss Winter (And Hellion and Fuji, actually... Thought Fuji is entering through the reboot another way) there aren't many classic Stormwatch characters around.
Stormwatch fits into the DC universe very well, but as a secret extra-terrestrial defense team guarding Earth from all sorts of attacks that other heroes are too stupid and mainstream to detect.
Jenny Quantum/Sparks is not the chain-smoking cynic you know and love, but is... A little kid. The spirit of the Twenty First Century who has the power to manipulate physics based on the current scientific knowledge on them. I know it sounds like a turn off, but she's still very cool and likable.
Joining the team is Martian Manhunter, who quite the Justice League because he's a hipster now, Apollo and Midnighter, Jack Hawksmoor (who's city-talking power is portrayed amazingly), the Engineer, the Projectionist, and Harry Tanner the Eminence of Blades. It's really a great book and the first six issues, by Paul Cornell, are sublime.))

 

[Atmos Duality]

No, but it's a significant character change, obviously. These are stories with characters, of course it matters. If they were making one of the characters Hare Krishna or something it'd be an equally important change.

For some reason, the name "Donna Troy" keeps echoing in my mind.
Can't figure out why though..

 

[RonHiler]

There was an article in today's SF Examiner on this subject. Northstar is getting married this summer to his boyfriend. But I think he's Marvel (part of the x-men universe) rather than DC. They didn't say anything about a DC character coming out.

 

[Therumancer]

-snip-

Okay, I'll try to keep this brief-ish since it's not exactly a heated topic.

First off, apologies if I came off rude, you just seemed to be kind of abrasive in your post considering the lack of actual accurate info you had to back yourself up.
That said, that's a shit apology, but I do recognize that I was overly belligerent in what I said, which doesn't really help the communicative process. So yeah, my bad.

Secondly, whilst a lot of what you say is true, i.e things returning to the status quo, major changes to characters contradicting them and whatnot, it's all very conditional.

I mean sure, writing out Lois Lane and making Supes gay would be stupid and would definitely not last. But your argument only really applies in the precise scenario you gave, so you sort of straw-manned it there.
See, Lois is a big part of Superman's character, (whereas the sexuality of Superman doesn't come up all too often) and writing that out would be as big a change as making him decide circumstantial killing was A-okay, or deciding he is prejudiced toward... I dunno, Egyptians?

Batman though. Making Batman gay? What would that actually change, that people would have a problem against? So Bats and Vicki Vale never happened? Tali Al Ghul never got it on with him?
Uh, big whoop. While significantly large story arcs, they aren't exactly synonymous with Batman. I mean, you can't picture Supes without Lois. But does Batman have a definitive love interest? Not really. I mean, it would make a lot of sense if Batman's past and post-reboot flings with Cat-Woman were one-sided affairs. There never was any real chemistry there anyway, just poorly disguised porn.

And Hawk-man hasn't been all tangled up with Hawk-Girl in a while. And in the New 52, she's not around at all. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was Hawk-man.

That doesn't mean I think it's Batman for sure though. How significant are the romance stories for Green Arrow, or Martian Manhunter, or Zatanna, or Wally West, Ted Kord, Guy Gardner, Booster Gold(I could totally see him as gay), or Captain Marvel?
Sure, I totally agree that making Superman gay would be a bad move, but no one said it's going to be superman, so your point lacks applicability since not everyone is Superman.
In fact, DC said that it was a character not yet introduced in the New 52.

Plus, whilst comics do often return to a status quo, New 52 has been going on for a year now, and the changes it's making aren't dramatic or anything. I pretty much view the reboot as a synchronized "Streamlining character retcons" time period.
I mean, no one's going to reject it because it's just going to slip in a few changes. Changes we'd all like to see, but there's something in the characters history from a lame one-shot in 1995 or something that contradicts it.
Perhaps, somewhere, there is a poor heterosexual love interest crammed in for an Iconic secondary character, preventing them from being made homosexual which would add some extra story-telling potential. Well now that the New 52 is around we have a legitimate excuse to implement such a change.

Oh and on that: I know I am probably making it seem like introducing a gay iconic character is a brilliant idea by rights, simply because the character is gay; And many think it is unnecessary.
But when you make a change in comic books, there should really only be one question to ask to validate making the change - Does this create opportunity to tell a greater variety of stories?
And to be honest, there's plenty you can do with a gay character. As much as you can with a straight character, of course, but most of that has already been explored.

Variety is the spice of life and all that. I would love to see a gay character who is recognizable and actually well known and people who don't read comics might know who they are so you don't have to go and explain who Wiccan and Hulkling are to defend stupid claims of homophobia in comics.

Wow. Apparently, that is what I call brief. Oops.

((On Stormwatch: You won't find it to be very familiar territory, at all. While I also miss Winter (And Hellion and Fuji, actually... Thought Fuji is entering through the reboot another way) there aren't many classic Stormwatch characters around.
Stormwatch fits into the DC universe very well, but as a secret extra-terrestrial defense team guarding Earth from all sorts of attacks that other heroes are too stupid and mainstream to detect.
Jenny Quantum/Sparks is not the chain-smoking cynic you know and love, but is... A little kid. The spirit of the Twenty First Century who has the power to manipulate physics based on the current scientific knowledge on them. I know it sounds like a turn off, but she's still very cool and likable.
Joining the team is Martian Manhunter, who quite the Justice League because he's a hipster now, Apollo and Midnighter, Jack Hawksmoor (who's city-talking power is portrayed amazingly), the Engineer, the Projectionist, and Harry Tanner the Eminence of Blades. It's really a great book and the first six issues, by Paul Cornell, are sublime.))

Basically it's Jenny as per the later authority? Or is this little, little, kid as opposed to her aging herself into a teen? and as opposed to actually being Stormwatch, while they are calling it that, it's pretty much "The Authority" minus Swift who was both the most sexualized and most extraneous character of the team. It could be defended as being the "Stormwatch Black" team however. I'll have to look for it.

That said, the point isn't so much Batman's getting it on with Catwoman being important so much as their interplay, which wouldn't work if Batman was gay. She's a classic villain for a reason. When it comes to Talia, that has lead to major subplots involving Batman's son, which they would likely have to retcon, if they haven't already.

I'm not sure about the iconic status of some of the characters you mention, and I believe one of them is already bi-sexual. Zatanna is one of my favorite characters given that I'm a fan of super mages, and I'm pretty sure she mentioned she was bi-sexual in Books Of Magic at some point (though it's been a while), I think it was mentioned off handedly in connection to her doing the tantric sex magic stuff with John Constantine.

In the case of the characters that are iconic, I think all of them have been established as firmly heterosexual which is the problem. It's not a matter so much of one shots, but the fact that heroes are always running out to rescue their girlfriends and stuff, and this has fueled countless events. In retconning all of this and saying "well, Barry Allen was actually rescueing his boyfriend Steve that time" if they have to referance something, it's just kind of strained.

You kind of also illustrate the issue with Superman, by pointing out that comic relationships in DC (barring "M" imprints like one I mentioned) tend to gloss over sexuality. The thing is the whole point of redefining a character as gay like this (Screaming it from the rooftops) is to put that to the forefront, and it just doesn't work given DC's general vibe.

It's like any other attempt to deliberatly create minority characters (as I pointed out in another post). If they set out to create a black character for example they trap themselves. To look at some of Marvel's longer lasting attempts, if you have the character act just like a super hero who happens to be black, people start to argue the character is only black on a technicality because they don't act that way. Storm from "The X-men" is an example of that, and occasionally mocked for it when she shows up on lists of black super heroes. The flip side to that would be say "Luke Cage" who was all about "the black attitude" which lead to him generally becoming a mocked and much criticized stereotype for a lot of his career. Seanbaby once made a joke about reading Power Man and how "Luke cage talks with so much jive, I don't know if he wanted to beat the guy up, or dance with him" which was funny because there was a grain of truth in it.

The same basically applies to this stunt. They set out to make this major gay character. If the character continues to act just like he did before and the almost complete lack of sexuality means it basically never comes up, he's going to be called "gay as a technicality".
If they bring it up by way of reminding you that so-and-so is gay now (yell it from the rooftops once or twice an issue) and having the person act flamboyantly gay so it's noticable, it's going to be considered an offensive stereotype to those who would otherwise support it at the very least.

As much as people hate the point, I believe that when it comes to comics a company cannot set out to create minority characters (of any minority). They need creators to do it on their own without prompting, and just let it happen without fanfare. Of course that kind of slow introduction isn't to everyone's liking.

I'd point at Wildstorm as a case where it was done pretty well, an example I've used before. When say Gen-13 came out, they didn't promote it as "Hey, we've got an Indian and a Chinese guy! Look how diverse we are everyone" they just put the characters in. They didn't telegraph that Sarah was a lesbian, and just pulled it out by surprise at one point and ran with it from there. While not a huge success, Gen-13 lasted quite a while, they tried to reboot it with differant characters after killing most of the original team (thanks Adam Warren), and it was so unpopular that they found an offhanded way to more or less reboot the originals.

Likewise when Apollo and The Midnighter were introduced, there was no huge annoucement "we're going to have a pair of gay supermen joining Stormwatch!". They just sort of brought them in, and didn't immediatly make it clear they were into each other if I remember (though it didn't take long). Those characters wound up lasting quite a while, and are still in publication.

Granted, Wildstorm is not the huge imprint the main DC label is, but it's run by DC and you'd expect them to know better. This whole publicity grab of "one of our iconic characters will be turned gay" is kind of tasteless and I can't see it ending well for anyone. In trying to guess who it is, the thought processes are less about who would fit the bill, but rather which character being "the chosen one" would be the least extreme trainwreck.

-

Oh and I don't consider Guy Gardner iconic at all really, he had a chance to be when he was first introduced, but he's become an actual comedy relief character. Booster Gold was always intended to be a joke of sorts (although it's now a double joke, because he still seems like a clown, but is actually a huge hero) and is someone I also wouldn't consider iconic. Green Arrow could be considered fairly iconic, but he had that whole thing with Black Canary and is arguably the character that wound up making her popular by association due to their relationship/partnership, and they still go together as a sort of tension-filled duo in a lot of people's minds.... so I can't see that one. I'm not a big Green Arrow fan though to be honest so I'm not sure what their exact status is at the moment.

I seem to remember they made "Plastic Man" gay before, and the idea here is that they want to make a BIG character gay for the publicity, so it's not likely to be one of the lesser characters who just happens to be around.

To be honest if I had to make some guesses, and think in terms of them making "Iconic" a technicality, I'd look at the JSA characters (as I also mentioned in another post). Wild Cat, Alan Ladd, and others have all been around for a long time, and while well developed aren't generally at the forefront of people's minds the same way the JLA and associates are. If they say had Alan Ladd (the original, original Green Lantern) come out as being gay, for example they could claim iconic, and also not change much that is currently in the popular mindset.

To be honest when I heard this the first character that actually came to mind might have been "Captain Marvel". If they have Billy (or whomever the current host will be after the retcon) be gay, they could have the whole "picked on gay pretty boy, who turns into the mega-stud that protects everyone" schtick. As well as sort of retconning away that whole awkward plotline about how Captain Marvel was into a teenage girl, and everyone thought he was a pedophille before it became more generally known to the rest of his team mates that he was actually a kid himself.... that was differant, but I never got the impression that went over paticuarly well. Captain Marvel being gay would be a way of sort of erasing a (fairly recent) awkward moment, and by the time they revert the regular status quo (which they probably will) everyone will have been thinking of the gay thing, rather than the faux-pedophille arc.

That said I'm pretty sure it's not Captain Marvel, in part because I don't think the guys announcing this are that clever, and also because he's arguably be the best character if they are trying to attract a new young, gay readership, because the whole thing could be turned into a sort of empowerment of gay youth fantasy.

In closing the thing I wish people WOULD with, is acting like DC as a publisher is trying to catch up with Archie or whatever, rather than this being a publicity stunt. They were publishing gay super heroes before almost anyone in the mainstream, and some have held down places in titles since their inception.

 

[SAMAS]

There are so many ways this could be done wrong, and so few that it could go right. And honestly, I don't trust them to do this right either.