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

[MajorHoy]

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.

Why do you say that? As far as I'm aware, Richard Stanton wasn't usually depicted as gay or as a cross-dresser/drag queen in his regular daily life: he used the disguise of being an elderly woman to deceive criminals.

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.

from 2012

[skyvolt2000]

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

Actually it does.

The issue in question is HOW it does.

If your idea of support is someone ALWAYS with a solo book
If your idea of success is a 100+ issue run
If your idea of success is someone getting a movie or tv show
If you idea of success is someone with high trade sales

Then you are correct.

Is Static a failure? That tv show say NO.
Is Blade a failure? His 3 movies & tv show says NO.
Is Moon Girl a failure? Her trade sales and upcoming tv show say NO.
Is Cassandra Cain a failure? Her long running solo says NO.
Is Goldie Vance (Boom studios) a failure? She has 4 trades and a movie coming that say NO.
Is Dr Who a failure as a comic? If I go to my library he has more trades on the shelf than a LOT of DC & Marvel folks.

We can talk about price being an issue all we like but even then we got folks who take issue with the sex or skin color of that lead.
It does not matter quality of writing if I don't like seeing a POC, LGBT or women with a book on the shelf in my store.
I have heard too many folks say "I don't want to walk in to a store and SEE these books."

[skyvolt2000]

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

For some folks it does not matter if the book is good or not. Especially if they take issue with the lead being something other than a straight white male.

When we look at trade sales on Amazon-a lot of those "bad" new character books are selling. Even better than Batman. Yet you can't convince some folks that there are actually folks who think those books are good.

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.

Companies like Image are NOT held hostage by certain characters.

Who did Image start with? Spawn, Savage Dragon, Youngblood, Wildcats & Cyberforce. Now look at who the faces of Image are now-Wicked& Divine, Sex Criminals, Walking Dead and so on. With Spawn & Dragon still kicking.

Why does Ms Marvel and Miles work? Excluding actually having good books (despite Bendis's filler issues and forgetting Miles's powers)-Marvel never let up on the SUPPORT. Not once has those two been viewed as threats to Carol & Peter.
Marvel MADE it work. They chose to give you the best of both worlds. DC wants to FORCE you to choose who they like. Thus you have the fan wars that you see today.

It's like what Midnight V said-we have a battle over who was here first and you should be a fan because of THEM not others.

So Dc ends up kicking themselves-what was the point of the 6 year solo run of Cassandra Cain if you made her toxic and under write her in books? You chase off her fans and that means it's one less fan who might pick up say Flash or Supergirl.

I know folks say movies don't bring in new comic book readers but Dc nor Marvel can ONLY be about that floppy and comic book store.

On Amazon at one point every top seller of comics trades was BLACK PANTHER. Including the failures known as Black Panther Crew & WOW. Disney laughed their way to the bank. Before that it was nothing but both Thors, GOTG, Miles, Moon Girl, Cho Hulk & Ms Marvel at the top.

Maybe the new characters don't need to be in a floppy? Why can't you have a new LGBT DC guy in a trade only series every 3-5 months? Meanwhile you can have him or her show up in a team book or guest star in another one a few times.
I would rather use the trades to build up guys like Cyborg than waste a floppy spot. Let Shazam or JSA have that spot.

Let a 2 volume trade tell the story of the first LGBT Golden age hero and WHY they never bothered with JSA. You will reach way more folks.

[Jim Kelly]

Why do you say that? As far as I'm aware, Richard Stanton wasn't usually depicted as gay or as a cross-dresser/drag queen in his regular daily life: he used the disguise of being an elderly woman to deceive criminals.


from 2012

Thanks for pointing out that appearance. As you can see, I wasn’t aware of it and when I did an online search for Madame Fatal it didn’t come up.

A man doesn’t have to be gay or a drag queen to identify as a woman in a secret life. And while it’s difficult for many men to make themselves look like a beautiful young woman, it’s easier to look like an older woman—thus Mrs. Doubtfire, Tootsie, Madea and Big Momma.

Surely I don’t need to explain why a story of someone who leads a double life as both man and woman is an intriguing concept. But it’s full of pitfalls, as we see that it’s usually played for laughs and the character is pigeon-holed into conventional categories.

[9th.]

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?

In a perfect world the answer would be yes but in reality it just depends on the character. Some properties allow changes like this to happen and others don't. I believe it's due to the way the big 2 has trained people but I'm not expert so it could be something else.

[Aahz]

But when it comes to seccessfull new characters, the trick is imo to find a niche for them, and just being black or LGBT isn't really one.

Constantine, Hitman and Preacher were all books and characters that are quite different from the usual DC Heros and thats what made them work.

I think when it comes to Miles, Kamalah ect. the thing is that Mavel had previously a lack teen characters.

[kjn]

But when it comes to seccessfull new characters, the trick is imo to find a niche for them, and just being black or LGBT isn't really one.

Constantine, Hitman and Preacher were all books and characters that are quite different from the usual DC Heros and thats what made them work.

I think when it comes to Miles, Kamalah ect. the thing is that Mavel had previously a lack teen characters.

Given that Spiderman has been the perhaps most iconic teen superhero, I'm not sure I agree with that Marvel lacked teen characters. They also had Jubilee (though she was a supporting one in X-Men), and probably more. What they arguably lacked was characters who fit into the concerns and mentality of today's young people. I think they could have updated Spiderman to do so, but they choose to go with Kamala Khan as Ms. Marvel.

Kamala works not just because she is a teen, but because she works in an environment that teens today can recognise and relate to: multi-ethnic, with lots of clashing expectations and identities, trying to find freedom in an environment that constrained her, and nerdy in a modern and non-toxic way.

After all, I'd argue that "teen" is just as much a label as "black" or "LGBT". Any decent character creation will need to explore the meaning of those labels.

[CaptCleghorn]

In a perfect world the answer would be yes but in reality it just depends on the character. Some properties allow changes like this to happen and others don't. I believe it's due to the way the big 2 has trained people but I'm not expert so it could be something else.

True. Some properties could be changed and still maintain the basic essence and idea of that character. Others I'd argue against. We've different lists of who's OK to change to us and who wouldn't be to us. My take is these particular acceptances develop more based on our individual lives than from anything the big 2 do. All my opinion, of course, and YMMV.

[Ascended]

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

I have. My daughter loves that show. And he's pretty over-the-top.

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

That's a really fun idea actually. If it's an open secret that Bruce Wayne is secretly gay, the only women who'll approach him are the gold diggers, and no one will wonder why he tosses them aside.

I'd say it could work in the modern day too, except for gay marriage being legal now (trump hasn't undone that yet has he? I've been out of touch), which would render the act pointless.

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?

Absolutely. But DC struggles with getting new characters to stick.

Which isn't to say they shouldn't continue to make new characters. All it means is that DC has to use more tools in the creative tool box than just that one. They also need to invest in the characters they already have and push them more. And making some changes to an established character is just one more tool. It's something that shouldn't just be done haphazardly, but it can (and has) worked.

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.

Eh, I think DC draws a different audience than the likes of Image and Vertigo, and I think a lot of DC fans aren't interested in something new from the company. I mean, how's New Age selling? We say we want new characters and diversity but the community doesn't back it up. We come to DC for the big names. When we want something fresh and new we go to a different publisher.

[Aahz]

Given that Spiderman has been the perhaps most iconic teen superhero, I'm not sure I agree with that Marvel lacked teen characters. They also had Jubilee (though she was a supporting one in X-Men), and probably more. What they arguably lacked was characters who fit into the concerns and mentality of today's young people. I think they could have updated Spiderman to do so, but they choose to go with Kamala Khan as Ms. Marvel.

Kamala works not just because she is a teen, but because she works in an environment that teens today can recognise and relate to: multi-ethnic, with lots of clashing expectations and identities, trying to find freedom in an environment that constrained her, and nerdy in a modern and non-toxic way.

After all, I'd argue that "teen" is just as much a label as "black" or "LGBT". Any decent character creation will need to explore the meaning of those labels.

Afaik Peter hasn't been a teenager for quite some time.

I'm not that much into Marvel but I think they had at least no book that did Spiderman like balancing of normal teen life with Superhero stuff.

And of course a book must to connect in someway with the audience to be successful. But my point is that a new character needs also to offer something you don't get by other books to succeed, just having a minority lead is not enough.

[dancj]

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.

I'm not sure the market has changed that much, but that list has two creator-owned limited series', comic which kinda sorta is too and one who was created in 1984.

John Constantine completely qualifies, but we need a higher hit-rate than that.

AMskyvolt2000 gave a better list with genuine successful DCU and Marvel Universe characters - and that is great, but new characters are still a harder sell, so I don't object to some retroactive changes here and there.

[Aahz]

John Constantine completely qualifies, but we need a higher hit-rate than that.

But again Constantine is not really a classic Super Hero, and for the most part published under the Vertigo inprint. And at the time there was seemingly a demand for darker more urban fantasy like comics (Spawn, Hellboy, ...) not sure if that's still the case.

And when it comes to the market. It became smaller, and people have now much more entertainment options than in the 90s, when the internet was still barely starting.

[MajorHoy]

AMskyvolt2000 gave a better list with genuine successful DCU and Marvel Universe characters - and that is great, but new characters are still a harder sell, so I don't object to some retroactive changes here and there.

But do retroactive changes in older characters generate new readers/new acceptance, or are those changes more likely to alienate older (but still current) readers?

At the end of the day, if aggressively promoting a stronger social agenda causes a company to lose readers / lose money, . . . that's not good from a business viewpoint. They'd be better off trying new characters and seeing if any of those can maybe connect, rather than turning off other readers from characters they previously liked (or at least didn't not-liked).

[iron chimp]

But when it comes to seccessfull new characters, the trick is imo to find a niche for them, and just being black or LGBT isn't really one.

Constantine, Hitman and Preacher were all books and characters that are quite different from the usual DC Heros and thats what made them work.

Precisely my thoughts.

Hey we've got a new character!
Oh yeah?
Yeah he fires laser out of his hands and fights evil but there's a twist
Ok...
Ready?
Go on...
He's a gay black guy. Boom.
Sigh.

Or

Hey new Cyborg book it's got art by chr..
Can i just stop you there?
Erm ok..
Its going to be am i man or machine? for 12 issues isnt it?
Well that will be part of it but..
No it's fine thank you.

Yet garth ennis can have Mother's Milk top the best seller lists and kirkman can make huge money off a black woman with a sword.

[dancj]

But do retroactive changes in older characters generate new readers/new acceptance, or are those changes more likely to alienate older (but still current) readers?

I don't know, but I'm happy for them to try it and see.