The "retroactively making old DC characters gay/bi/biracial" thread

[Ascended]

Coming late to this thread, but it has been an interesting read.

I'd say that changing fundamental characteristics such as ethnic background or sexual orientation should be done with lots of care and respect for the old comics. But that doesn't say it shouldn't be done—only that it's hard to do right. It would also need a compelling story tied to any such revelation or change, otherwise I doubt the change would stick. The main exception is Wonder Woman, where her being bi- or pansexual totally fits with her background, both in- and out-comic, and more should be expressed as a fact.

But when I looked through my admittedly limited comic book knowledge, one character leapt out at me as having an extremely high potential when it comes to repressed sexuality: Batman.

If there is any character within comics who more embodies puritanical ideals, repressed feelings, and living a double life, I don't know who it would be. You also have his past relations with women, where he usually is fundamentally unchanged by gorgeous women throwing themselves at him. In a way, he would be a homosexual who wished he was heterosexual, and his reaction to Catwoman would not be "I wish this woman wasn't a criminal" but rather "I wish I could feel something more than admiration for this woman".

Not saying DC should go this way, but it fits for the character.

You know what? I wouldn't change Bruce's sexuality for the exact reasons you mention. It's too on-the-nose; the "confirmed bachelor" and his young "ward" with the short shorts. Everyone hits that note, from Wertham to Family Guy to SNL's Ambiguously Gay Duo to Frank Miller.

I mean, it's basically like pointing at Crazy Quilt and saying "Gaaaayyyyyy."

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I mean, it's basically like pointing at Crazy Quilt and saying "Gaaaayyyyyy."

Have you seen Crazy Quilt on DC Super Hero Girls? He's basically one of the gayer contestants on Project Runway.

[Jcogginsa]

I like the idea of Alan Scott being a gay man in his 90s, with a history of fighting for the rights for the LGBT community

I also think an interesting angle for Superboy would be to have him and Brainiac 5 be attracted to one another, with Brainy wishing they weren't because he knows Superman ends up with Lois, so any other romance is doomed

[CaptCleghorn]

You know what? I wouldn't change Bruce's sexuality for the exact reasons you mention. It's too on-the-nose; the "confirmed bachelor" and his young "ward" with the short shorts. Everyone hits that note, from Wertham to Family Guy to SNL's Ambiguously Gay Duo to Frank Miller.

I mean, it's basically like pointing at Crazy Quilt and saying "Gaaaayyyyyy."

I could actually see a modern take on a Golden Age Bruce making that his persona in order to throw off "serious" female suitors.

[Jim Kelly]

I’d like to see someone do a limited series on Madame Fatal either set in the original 1940s continuity or in the modern day. But maybe that subject is too difficult for most writers even now.

And I’m not sure if he/she is in the public domain, given DC hasn’t used him/her except in THE GOLDEN AGE Elseworlds cameo. Maybe there’s no money in it for big momma DC.

[Darkseid Is]

Does anyone think it's a better idea to introduce new characters that are gay or black or whatever instead of morphing established properties or giving it to throwaway legacies that no one gives a shit about?

[Waterfall]

Does anyone think it's a better idea to introduce new characters that are gay or black or whatever instead of morphing established properties or giving it to throwaway legacies that no one gives a shit about?

The market doesn't support new characters, that's the main problem.

[Darkseid Is]

The market doesn't support new characters, that's the main problem.

Then the market should stick to white, straight men. I mean if you can't take a chance on a different character, how could you take a chance on a different idea?

[Robanker]

Does anyone think it's a better idea to introduce new characters that are gay or black or whatever instead of morphing established properties or giving it to throwaway legacies that no one gives a shit about?

Yes, but...

The market doesn't support new characters, that's the main problem.

I think the answer is digital price drops. If the books are cheaper, a lot of readers could sustain other titles on their pull list. Let's say your average reader pulls five books a week for roughly $20 each visit to their store. For the argument, we'll assume no variants or trades they want are on the shelf that week. Maybe, MAYBE if all their titles are DC, one or at most two of those might be new properties. But Marvel, Image, Dark Horse, IDW and a lot more is on the shelf each week.

These books are too expensive for untested properties that will most likely break your heart. A two dollar digital title would be easier to squeeze in, no doubt.

It's a flimsy argument, sure, but I do think the biggest issue isn't that fans don't want to read about new characters, I think it's more that they won't give up those they do to try the rest and it's too expensive to throw the new kids on the pile. Lots of books about less popular characters can't get a foothold anymore.

[iron chimp]

The market doesn't support new characters, that's the main problem.

The market does support new characters - john constantine, the boys, hitman, preacher etc etc. It just doesnt support badly written ones

[Aahz]

The market does support new characters - john constantine, the boys, hitman, preacher etc etc. It just doesnt support badly written ones

The are for the part characters that were created more than 20 years ago. That was not the same market as now.

[Robanker]

The market does support new characters - john constantine, the boys, hitman, preacher etc etc. It just doesnt support badly written ones

The most recent example on that list is twelve years old, and even then the only one in the primary DC imprint was Hitman who appeared in '96.

It's a completely different market and generally different demographics. Plenty of books that came out since then have been very well-written, but don't last all that long because they quickly bottom out in sales. The two aren't always in line

[Midnight_v]

The market does support new characters - john constantine, the boys, hitman, preacher etc etc. It just doesnt support badly written ones

THE TRUTH.


Further if were honest... changing characters identity is more like to lose fans that bring them in overall if I'm not mistaken.

The problem is that someone made the forgone assumption that "We need more diversity" which was basically a lie to begin with if, and only if... the big two used the diversity they already had.

Obsidian, and Triumph for example man I really thought Triumph from war of the supermen, I was young and didn't even realize the "And give me better hair" was a hidden sexuality nod. The old mohawk think was terrible and
I just thought... Great redesign. Need more of this guy.
Obsidian and infiniti Inc really.
Apollo and Midnighter. Hell the entire authority series was great. Midnighter was one of my favorites and I stopped reading him after they made the terrible stormwatch in the dcu book.

I'm black but I hate everything about Cyborg. I think Mr. Terrific is kind of a milquetoast the way he's written, but Coldcast is vastly misused and underutilized.

I'm not saying that no one should ever take up a mantle ever anywhere "Firestorm" seems fine to me. However, I am saying the current trend of doing it the yelling out "OUR FIRST X character" or "All-new all diverse" is a weak sauce marketing ploy
and they're using it as a signal boost to prop up terrible character mediocrity when they could be focusing on writing more coherent books with better stories which would sell more books.

The most recent example on that list is twelve years old, and even then the only one in the primary DC imprint was Hitman who appeared in '96.

It's a completely different market and generally different demographics. Plenty of books that came out since then have been very well-written, but don't last all that long because they quickly bottom out in sales. The two aren't always in line

That IS new in terms of comics. I mean were dealing with otherwise 78 year old properties otherwise.
If you think its a good thing for a new character to come in and suddenly have the traction as a franchise or fanbase thats been in existence before any of use were born, thats not a new comics issue thats a math issue.

Its almost disingenuous when you think that a new book comes out and and its a monthly purchase, and we won't KNOW if the example is embraced fully for a number of years. A monthly book by definition would have to have its interest measured in years. So of course "NEW" popular characters would be years old.

[iron chimp]

The most recent example on that list is twelve years old, and even then the only one in the primary DC imprint was Hitman who appeared in '96.

It's a completely different market and generally different demographics. Plenty of books that came out since then have been very well-written, but don't last all that long because they quickly bottom out in sales. The two aren't always in line

You can add dmz, northlanders, y etc.

If new things didnt stick Image wouldnt exist. Alan Moore, Morrison, Brian K Vaughan, Kirkman, Garth Ennis, Brian Wood etc can all make new things stick no problem because they are top line writers and people enjoy their writing.

[Restingvoice]

The market doesn't support new characters, that's the main problem.

No, that depends. Kamala Khan is the most recent one and she's mega-successful. I'm not sure exactly why, but the things I know are she has a writer who know and care about the culture she represents, cute art, relatable personality and conflict for her target audience.

I think one of the problems for Kenan Kong, for example, is setting it in China. David Zavimbe Batwing also failed because they set it in Congo. It's too far away to be relatable or useable. The Luke Fox version last longer because he's in Gotham and can still be used in the Bat family even after losing a title.

Batwoman herself is the highest profile gay character of DC. Her title just doesn't last long because apparently not a lot of people relate to her, or expecting the title to portray more romance than she actually has. In her previous series people are leaving because she's not allowed to get married. So taste and personality matter too