Page 23 of 28 FirstFirst ... 13192021222324252627 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 417
  1. #331
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    881

    Cool

    The conservative pearl clutching over “why does sexuality have to be part of the story now” is so outrageously disingenuous:articularly:: for this franchise that I can’t even stand it.

    For as “wholesome” as Superman supposedly is, his relationship with Lois has been extremely sexually charged for literally decades. The interview scene from Superman: The Movie was a literal oral sex innuendo for 10 minutes straight. No, kids didn’t understand it but it’s extremely clear for adults that that scene is FILTHY. There was a love scene in Superman 2. In like 1980!

    Lois and Clark? The show Dean Cain I guess thinks was so devoid of this stuff was, again, loaded with sex in the 4th season.

    In fact, I actually don’t think there has been a Superman media property in the last 40 years without a love scene between the two. And not like an ::implied:: love scene—but like an actual sex scene. Smallville had them using the Kent farm porch swing as a sex swing and had extensive long “dream” sequences (that were actually Lois’s memories) in the 9th season of sex scenes that they literally used to promote the show at comic con that year.

    And, yes, there has been some “think of the children” BS with Lois and Clark too. Mostly linked to misogyny or slut shaming of Lois or the implication that she’s too slutty for him etc etc barf. And it’s very much linked to that messed up mindset that teaches that only “bad boys” like and enjoy sex and so people can’t handle someone like Clark who is very much viewed as “pure” (whereas misogyny dictates that Lois is impure) engaging in sex. And so you get a lot of “oh is this appropriate for the kids” nonsense like after Batman v Superman came out etc where people are just so “concerned” for the kids seeing Superman have sex with someone he loves in a bathtub but the violence is fine for the kids! Because intimacy and love making will damage children but seeing Superman get his face kicked in is fine, I guess. Conservative logic!

    But my point is….it’s just so completely disingenuous to get up on a soapbox and say that sexuality doesn’t have a place in this franchise as if the implication and explicit canon for decades hasn’t been repeatedly that Lois and Clark f*** each other’s brains out as a hobby. Like it’s not even debatable, that’s definitely the canon. So, now, to stand up there and act precious about Jon Kent engaging in literally JUST A KISS on a cover—when his parents have been shown doing only God knows what for the last 40 years—is just plain BS. It’s homophobic nonsense.
    Last edited by Nelliebly; 10-14-2021 at 07:20 PM.

  2. #332
    Fantastic Member Writerblog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Posts
    412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DABellWrites View Post
    Superman.

    Well, we're talking about a fictional story, real life is vastly different. We can do scenarios and stories that just can't be done in real life.

    But, that's an interesting character to explore.
    Of course people can do new scenarios, but always taking care of destroying the character. Like I don't think Superman ever cared about physical strenght of any woman or man (friendships)
    That is why pastiches exists like Homelander.
    Last edited by Writerblog; 10-14-2021 at 07:21 PM.

  3. #333
    Mighty Member witchboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelliebly View Post
    The conservative pearl clutching over “why does sexuality have to be part of the story now” is so outrageously disingenuous:articularly:: for this franchise that I can’t even stand it.

    For as “wholesome” as Superman supposedly is, his relationship with Lois has been extremely sexually charged for literally decades. The interview scene from Superman: The Movie was a literal oral sex innuendo for 10 minutes straight. No, kids didn’t understand it but it’s extremely clear for adults that that scene is FILTHY. There was a love scene in Superman 2. In like 1980!

    Lois and Clark? The show Dean Cain I guess thinks was so devoid of this stuff was, again, loaded with sex in the 4th season.

    In fact, I actually don’t think there has been a Superman media property in the last 40 years without a love scene between the two. And not like an ::implied:: love scene—but like an actual sex scene. Smallville had them using the Kent farm porch swing as a sex swing and had extensive long “dream” sequences (that were actually Lois’s memories) in the 9th season of sex scenes that they literally used to promote the show at comic con that year.

    And, yes, there has been some “think of the children” BS with Lois and Clark too. Mostly linked to misogyny or slut shaming of Lois or the implication that she’s too slutty for him etc etc barf. And it’s very much linked to that messed up mindset that teaches that only “bad boys” like and enjoy sex and so people can’t handle someone like Clark who is very much viewed as “pure” (whereas misogyny dictates that Lois is impure) engaging in sex. And so you get a lot of “oh is this appropriate for the kids” nonsense like after Batman v Superman came out etc where people are just so “concerned” for the kids seeing Superman have sex with someone he loves in a bathtub but the violence is fine for the kids! Because intimacy and love making will damage children but seeing Superman get his face kicked in is fine, I guess. Conservative logic!

    But my point is….it’s just so completely disingenuous to get up on a soapbox and say that sexuality doesn’t have a place in this franchise as if the implication and explicit canon for decades hasn’t been repeatedly that Lois and Clark f*** each other’s brains out as a hobby. Like it’s not even debatable, that’s definitely the canon. So, now, to stand up there and act precious about Jon Kent engaging in literally JUST A KISS on a cover—when his parents have been shown doing only God knows what for the last 40 years—is just plain BS. It’s homophobic nonsense.
    Cain's Lois and Clark had a lengthy discussion that Clark was a virgin but Lois wasn't! Sex was very much a part of that show.

  4. #334
    Astonishing Member Darkspellmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,542

    Default

    One thing I was thinking about with the whole Jay having powers, is that it brought up the whole "Kleenex women" trope in some discussions I had. Namely that, since Jay will have powers, that Jon won't have to worry about hurting him in the case of their romance if he get rough with him. The idea being that because Lois has no powers Clark has to hold back in how he shows how he feels and Jon now won't have to. And my brain was like, "So if Jay had no powers would we be wanting to pair him with someone who does?" and on some level that really bothers me. Does a physical strong hero need to have a love life with another physically strong hero to be seen as having a "true" Partner? Because if that's the case several relationships should be thrown out the window due to at least one partner not being "equal" in something to the other in fiction.

  5. #335
    Extraordinary Member Restingvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,345

    Default

    Some interesting bits from BC:

    "The creators involved Meghan Fitzmartin writing Tim Drake stories in the anthology Batman: Urban Legends and Tom Taylor on Superman: Son Of Kal-El. They independently thought it would be an interesting take on the characters, might make a twist that could inform new stories, and might reflect the desires and wishes of new audiences without turning off the old.

    They each had their stories approved by their direct editors at DC Comics, but higher-up editorial only found out about what was going on when the comics were well underway.

    And in Batman: Urban Legends #6's case, already sent out from the printers.

    In both cases, this necessitated some urgent editorial meetings to a) check what was going on and b) suggest that maybe people might mention it a little further advance next time.

    There was no push back against the idea, no pulping this time, just the company exploring the implications and consequences. And, in the end, the books continued pretty much as planned.

    Once it was all agreed, DC Comics marketing suggested they officially announce the Superman news (about 6 weeks after Bleeding Cool had run it) on National Coming Out Day. Which was clever.

    If it had all been planned, as part of some conspiracy, there would not have been a four-month gap between Batman Urban Legends #6 and #10, for the next part of Tim Drake's story.

    And there wouldn't have been such frantic Zoom meetings arranged at the Batman and Superman DC Comics editorial offices after the fact, with everybody kicking off.

    DC Comics has become a lot warier of scaring the horses after the Batman Damned Batpenis event of three years ago, and the not-entirely-pandemic-related redundancies last year… there's far too many spinning of plates, firefighting, dealing with not enough paper, printers, or trucks, with delays stacking up, to ever consider some pushing some kind of woke liberal social agenda as a corporate policy. If only. There just isn't the time."

    https://bleedingcool.com/comics/incr...gbtq-bisexual/

  6. #336
    Extraordinary Member HsssH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,227

    Default

    I have hard time believing that Tim being bi wasn't Tynion's idea.

  7. #337
    Ultimate Member Last Son of Krypton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    13,957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Restingvoice View Post
    Some interesting bits from BC:

    "The creators involved Meghan Fitzmartin writing Tim Drake stories in the anthology Batman: Urban Legends and Tom Taylor on Superman: Son Of Kal-El. They independently thought it would be an interesting take on the characters, might make a twist that could inform new stories, and might reflect the desires and wishes of new audiences without turning off the old.

    They each had their stories approved by their direct editors at DC Comics, but higher-up editorial only found out about what was going on when the comics were well underway.

    And in Batman: Urban Legends #6's case, already sent out from the printers.

    In both cases, this necessitated some urgent editorial meetings to a) check what was going on and b) suggest that maybe people might mention it a little further advance next time.

    There was no push back against the idea, no pulping this time, just the company exploring the implications and consequences. And, in the end, the books continued pretty much as planned.

    Once it was all agreed, DC Comics marketing suggested they officially announce the Superman news (about 6 weeks after Bleeding Cool had run it) on National Coming Out Day. Which was clever.

    If it had all been planned, as part of some conspiracy, there would not have been a four-month gap between Batman Urban Legends #6 and #10, for the next part of Tim Drake's story.

    And there wouldn't have been such frantic Zoom meetings arranged at the Batman and Superman DC Comics editorial offices after the fact, with everybody kicking off.

    DC Comics has become a lot warier of scaring the horses after the Batman Damned Batpenis event of three years ago, and the not-entirely-pandemic-related redundancies last year… there's far too many spinning of plates, firefighting, dealing with not enough paper, printers, or trucks, with delays stacking up, to ever consider some pushing some kind of woke liberal social agenda as a corporate policy. If only. There just isn't the time."

    https://bleedingcool.com/comics/incr...gbtq-bisexual/
    So much for WB/DC supposed to have a big long-term well-thought masterplan. lol

  8. #338
    (formerly "Superman") JAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DABellWrites View Post
    We can say this because we don't have the strength to punch a mountain, life would be pretty lonely in reality. But, in our fictional stories it's different. That's why I listed where you can take the idea and popular stories. Having super-strength is just what brought them together. Of course a good story doesn't center it around their physical powers.
    I was going to mention an article I read about Alan Moore's Supreme run, but I haven't read it yet, so it didn't sit right with me trying to use it.
    We don't have the strength to punch a mountain, no, but there are other comparisons that can work on an allegorical level - combining physical necessity with various pressures/etc. Actors, wrestlers, football players, etc (and before we talk about their rarity vs superheroes... in the DC universe, either are about as easy to find at this point) And I'm not saying that a coupling of two people *with* powers is inherently more wrong; the story can be done and done well. I'm saying that when it's generally presented in discussion, it's more of a celebrity/power level thing with not much thought put in beyond that. It *generally* thinks of the physical with little thought to character/personality. Superman is also a special case; he's spent his lifetime learning how not to danger humans with his power, and we've already read stories about how it's a natural reflex. It would be much easier for him to be in a relationship with a human than other powerful characters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelliebly View Post
    And, yes, there has been some “think of the children” BS with Lois and Clark too. Mostly linked to misogyny or slut shaming of Lois or the implication that she’s too slutty for him etc etc barf. And it’s very much linked to that messed up mindset that teaches that only “bad boys” like and enjoy sex and so people can’t handle someone like Clark who is very much viewed as “pure” (whereas misogyny dictates that Lois is impure) engaging in sex. And so you get a lot of “oh is this appropriate for the kids” nonsense like after Batman v Superman came out etc where people are just so “concerned” for the kids seeing Superman have sex with someone he loves in a bathtub but the violence is fine for the kids! Because intimacy and love making will damage children but seeing Superman get his face kicked in is fine, I guess. Conservative logic!
    Right?!? The bathtub scene is one of the few scenes I *liked* from BvS! I guess they'd say it's because I married a Canadian, lol

    But my point is….it’s just so completely disingenuous to get up on a soapbox and say that sexuality doesn’t have a place in this franchise as if the implication and explicit canon for decades hasn’t been repeatedly that Lois and Clark f*** each other’s brains out as a hobby. Like it’s not even debatable, that’s definitely the canon. So, now, to stand up there and act precious about Jon Kent engaging in literally JUST A KISS on a cover—when his parents have been shown doing only God knows what for the last 40 years—is just plain BS. It’s homophobic nonsense.
    Exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkspellmaster View Post
    One thing I was thinking about with the whole Jay having powers, is that it brought up the whole "Kleenex women" trope in some discussions I had. Namely that, since Jay will have powers, that Jon won't have to worry about hurting him in the case of their romance if he get rough with him. The idea being that because Lois has no powers Clark has to hold back in how he shows how he feels and Jon now won't have to. And my brain was like, "So if Jay had no powers would we be wanting to pair him with someone who does?" and on some level that really bothers me.
    See, for me, powers/no powers doesn't matter. Do they love each other? Then (imo anyway) love should find a way, or at least try to. Look at an example brought up earlier: so many people wanted Gambit and Rogue together, when her powers would literally kill him. So if that can be a thing, the powers shouldn't enter into it (unless the powers are a core personality trait, too, ie: Maxima, etc)

    Does a physical strong hero need to have a love life with another physically strong hero to be seen as having a "true" Partner? Because if that's the case several relationships should be thrown out the window due to at least one partner not being "equal" in something to the other in fiction.
    This. Forgive my being a broken record, but powers or no powers, it should be about compatible personalities. Otherwise, it's very often more of a popularity contest than "who the respective persons choose." I very much liked the character growth aspect in Byrne's approach to Wonder Woman & Superman (the general concept, if not every bit of the specifics): it made sense on paper so they tried it, but didn't work in practice. Not saying that has to be the approach every time with those two, but that aspect in particular is good character-building.
    Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
    www.jamiekelleymusic.com
    TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/

  9. #339
    Extraordinary Member Restingvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HsssH View Post
    I have hard time believing that Tim being bi wasn't Tynion's idea.
    I buy it because if he's a classic Tim fan like he said he'd want to promote him but sticking as close to the classic as possible, and he's all about Tim/Steph when he was writing them.

  10. #340
    Fantastic Member The Frog Bros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Otisburg
    Posts
    426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelliebly View Post
    The conservative pearl clutching over ďwhy does sexuality have to be part of the story nowĒ is so outrageously disingenuous:articularly:: for this franchise that I canít even stand it.

    For as ďwholesomeĒ as Superman supposedly is, his relationship with Lois has been extremely sexually charged for literally decades. The interview scene from Superman: The Movie was a literal oral sex innuendo for 10 minutes straight. No, kids didnít understand it but itís extremely clear for adults that that scene is FILTHY. There was a love scene in Superman 2. In like 1980!
    For real! That scene is remarkable in that the innuendo is so blatantly obvious that anyone over the age of 13 (and maybe even younger) can figure out what's going on. Right down to Supe's cheeky grin during the whole convo. It's almost as if he's telling the audience, "hey you all know what we're talking about here, wink wink."

    And not to give Dean Cain too much more verbiage here because he's not really worth the time, but George Takei had a pretty solid takedown:

    "So Dean Cain apparently is upset that the new Superboy [sic] in the comics is bisexual," Takei, who publicly came out as gay in 2005, tweeted. "I used to be upset that Dean Cain was straight but he has definitely cured me of that."
    "There is nothing quite so perfect as the exact way in which comics combine the word and image." --Alan Moore
    "Before it was a Bomb, the Bomb was an Idea. Superman, however, was a Faster, Stronger, Better Idea." --Grant Morrison

  11. #341
    Mighty Member witchboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Restingvoice View Post
    Some interesting bits from BC:

    "The creators involved Meghan Fitzmartin writing Tim Drake stories in the anthology Batman: Urban Legends and Tom Taylor on Superman: Son Of Kal-El. They independently thought it would be an interesting take on the characters, might make a twist that could inform new stories, and might reflect the desires and wishes of new audiences without turning off the old.

    They each had their stories approved by their direct editors at DC Comics, but higher-up editorial only found out about what was going on when the comics were well underway.

    And in Batman: Urban Legends #6's case, already sent out from the printers.

    In both cases, this necessitated some urgent editorial meetings to a) check what was going on and b) suggest that maybe people might mention it a little further advance next time.

    There was no push back against the idea, no pulping this time, just the company exploring the implications and consequences. And, in the end, the books continued pretty much as planned.

    Once it was all agreed, DC Comics marketing suggested they officially announce the Superman news (about 6 weeks after Bleeding Cool had run it) on National Coming Out Day. Which was clever.

    If it had all been planned, as part of some conspiracy, there would not have been a four-month gap between Batman Urban Legends #6 and #10, for the next part of Tim Drake's story.

    And there wouldn't have been such frantic Zoom meetings arranged at the Batman and Superman DC Comics editorial offices after the fact, with everybody kicking off.

    DC Comics has become a lot warier of scaring the horses after the Batman Damned Batpenis event of three years ago, and the not-entirely-pandemic-related redundancies last year… there's far too many spinning of plates, firefighting, dealing with not enough paper, printers, or trucks, with delays stacking up, to ever consider some pushing some kind of woke liberal social agenda as a corporate policy. If only. There just isn't the time."

    https://bleedingcool.com/comics/incr...gbtq-bisexual/
    And I'm sure there are instances in the past when characters coming out or being developed as LGBT wasn't allowed. Very possibly with Tim even.

  12. #342
    Fantastic Member Writerblog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Posts
    412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchboy View Post
    And I'm sure there are instances in the past when characters coming out or being developed as LGBT wasn't allowed. Very possibly with Tim even.
    There was comics code authority that only ended in 2011, LGBT charactes weren't allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkspellmaster View Post
    One thing I was thinking about with the whole Jay having powers, is that it brought up the whole "Kleenex women" trope in some discussions I had. Namely that, since Jay will have powers, that Jon won't have to worry about hurting him in the case of their romance if he get rough with him. The idea being that because Lois has no powers Clark has to hold back in how he shows how he feels and Jon now won't have to. And my brain was like, "So if Jay had no powers would we be wanting to pair him with someone who does?" and on some level that really bothers me. Does a physical strong hero need to have a love life with another physically strong hero to be seen as having a "true" Partner? Because if that's the case several relationships should be thrown out the window due to at least one partner not being "equal" in something to the other in fiction.
    Women of kleenex was a joke that people took seriously. If you take fictional characters with so much scrutnity you may discover that you are a adult and shouldn't be reading these characters anymore. Superman powers makes no sense LOL

    Also not all kind of powers would help in this case, they would have to similar to superman himself. I have no idea what Jay powers will be
    Anyway this is mostly BS logics

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Son of Krypton View Post
    So much for WB/DC supposed to have a big long-term well-thought masterplan. lol
    They really fooled me good here. specially with the spoiling of Jon coming out
    Last edited by Writerblog; 10-15-2021 at 08:13 AM.

  13. #343
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelliebly View Post
    It’s homophobic nonsense.
    Of course it is. I feel like they're not even really trying very hard to disguise it as anything else. And let's not all pretend to be surprised at that. We all knew what the reaction would be.

    F*ck 'em. If you pissed off Fox News, you're doing something right.

    We will see the exact same reaction, with the exact same excuses, when (and if) that black Superman movie ever gets made. Fox will trot out Cain to give his "expert" opinion on why a black Superman is a terrible, awful SJW agenda. And if that movie is about President "I'm totally not Obama" Superman, the reaction will be even more hilariously bigoted.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  14. #344
    Ultimate Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    13,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HsssH View Post
    I have hard time believing that Tim being bi wasn't Tynion's idea.
    Or that he at least didn’t talk about it with Fitzmartin before hand. Editorial being incompetent is nothing new, DC seems incapable of communicating with each other but I don’t buy that Tynion had zero involvement.
    For when my rants on the forums just arenít enough: https://thevindicativevordan.tumblr.com/

  15. #345
    Astonishing Member Darkspellmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,542

    Default

    I certainly think discussing things were happening at least with book editors, so I do believe most of the story and buy that Tynion did at least champion it with editorial. I also believe he is a big Tim and Steph fan and would have left their romance in tactic and had Tim come out to her differently than what we got here if he was driving the bus.

    Regarding the powers/no powers thing. For me its about the chemistry between the characters and how well they tell the story. The issue that I'm trying to express here is that because Jay is getting powers and you can't hurt him, people who use the whole Women are kleenex angle with Lois can now point to Jay and will be like, see Jon can go full super in bed with him and not break Jay in bed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •