Page 24 of 28 FirstFirst ... 14202122232425262728 LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 417
  1. #346
    Ultimate Member Last Son of Krypton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    13,957

    Default

    Superman Son Of Kal-El #5 Second Printing Alongside First

    DC Comics has had a lot of media attention for Superman: Son Of Kal-El #5, out on the 9th of November (as is Jon Kent). The comic book by Tom Taylor and John Timms will tell the tale. Now Diamond Comic Distributors – who still distribute DC Comics titles to the UK vis Diamond UK – has added a listing for a second printing for Superman: Son Of Kal-El #5, to be published on the same day. Even though Final Order Cut-Off for the first printing of Superman: Son Of Kal-El #5 is only this coming Sunday. There's no cover visual yet, and DC Comics haven't told retailers the news themselves yet.

    https://bleedingcool.com/comics/prin...ongside-first/

    DC Comics also took the unusual step of scheduling a second printing of Superman: Son Of Kal-El #5 by Tom Taylor and John Timms, featuring that kiss between Jon Kent and Jay Nakamura, before the first printing had even gone to Final Order Cut-Off date. Basically, DC already knows that retailers aren't ordering enough copies.

    https://bleedingcool.com/comics/afte...-sons-in-2022/

  2. #347
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    755

    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.
    Many writers including Taylor have stated yes.

    While I agree that there they need to create new diverse characters of various backgrounds one of the reasons that writers like 'outing' old characters, with strong connections, is that it would be harder for DC/Marvel to place these characters in limbo
    Last edited by ZuLuLu; 10-15-2021 at 11:32 AM.

  3. #348
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkspellmaster View Post
    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.
    Yeah which is offensive for several reasons.

    Man of steel/woman of Kleenex is connected to rape culture and that doesn’t really change if it’s two men. The idea that one can imagine an alien from the stars who can shoot fire from his eyes but people can’t imagine them being gentle during sex is problem at best and actively offensive at worst.

    The implication becomes that the only way for sexual satisfaction is through traditional hard penetrative sex which is problematic on a lot of levels.

    It’s always been a disgusting thing to say about Lois and Clark. Not just because it equates the value of their relationship and connection as being defined by the physical (when obviously while sex is a big part of their relationship it’s not the entire reason they are connected/attracted/with each other) and it’s just a plain ugly and misogynist view about sex. It takes a story about the impossible and instead of theorizing how his powers could bring her pleasure focuses solely on female bodily pain. It doesn’t take into consideration that maybe Clark loves being able to be there for her in that way especially given how much he loves her. Not to mention it implies there isn’t value in creativity sexually or in gentleness and restraint with a partner which, again, is problematic. It’s a terrible, misogynist “theory” that no one should be bringing up in any serious way.

    So, yeah, I’m not thrilled to know that may become a Convo with Jon and Jay because there are also plenty of ways this theory becomes offensive when you are talking about two men. It still boils down sexual connection as being solely about penetration, it’s still heteronormative and it still enforces rape culture by implying that force and strength are absolute and implying there isn’t pleasure and satisfaction to be be found in gentleness, love and creativity.

    Thanks I hate it!
    Last edited by Nelliebly; 10-15-2021 at 12:43 PM.

  4. #349
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    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.
    Oh I know. Homophobia is so ingrained in their world view and they operate through the use of distortion of the facts and carefully placed headlines designed to make people angry.

    ďClark Kent and Lois Laneís son, Jon Kent, comes out as bisexual ushering in a new wave for the Superman storyĒ isnít as inflammatory as saying ďSUPERMAN GAY NOW, WOKE POLITICS RUIN ICONĒ and they donít want actual dialogue, they just want anger so they will gladly bend the facts to get it.

  5. #350
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    3,478

    Default

    I saw that Cain had a mini discourse with Taylor on twitter about Jon standing up/ fighting all the injustices, having THAT be what Jon is about/known for and giving that book a read as opposed to his sexuality being what makes news. Take that as you will.
    Last edited by rpmaluki; 10-15-2021 at 01:22 PM.

  6. #351
    All-New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Their dates are going to be awkward after Jay cancels Clark and Lois.




  7. #352
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Posts
    162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    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.



    Hey got to agree with you. Anytime that something is done and it pisses off Fox News , I love it !!!

  8. #353
    Black Belt in Bad Ideas Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,917

    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!

    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 donít 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 sceneóbut like an actual sex scene. Smallville had them using the Kent farm porch swing as a sex swing and had extensive long ďdreamĒ sequences (that were actually Loisís 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 ďthink of the childrenĒ BS with Lois and Clark too. Mostly linked to misogyny or slut shaming of Lois or the implication that sheís too slutty for him etc etc barf. And itís very much linked to that messed up mindset that teaches that only ďbad boysĒ like and enjoy sex and so people canít handle someone like Clark who is very much viewed as ďpureĒ (whereas misogyny dictates that Lois is impure) engaging in sex. And so you get a lot of ďoh is this appropriate for the kidsĒ nonsense like after Batman v Superman came out etc where people are just so ďconcernedĒ 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 isÖ.itís just so completely disingenuous to get up on a soapbox and say that sexuality doesnít have a place in this franchise as if the implication and explicit canon for decades hasnít been repeatedly that Lois and Clark f*** each otherís brains out as a hobby. Like itís not even debatable, thatís definitely the canon. So, now, to stand up there and act precious about Jon Kent engaging in literally JUST A KISS on a coverówhen his parents have been shown doing only God knows what for the last 40 yearsóis just plain BS. Itís homophobic nonsense.
    Co-signed.

    They never whine about DKR being political where it shows Superman being the personal hitman of the country's head politician.

    Their problem is entirely homosexuality and they're just trying to obfuscate it because they know just being bold-faced bigoted is wrong and they don't want to consider themselves as people holding awful values.

    Jon was a near blank slate. He was a new character with no history to invalidate. He's literally what they said is "diversity done right" and they're complaining.
    May we never forget:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    Daddy Zeus can hit the bricks.
    Truer words never spoken.

  9. #354
    Fishy Member I'm a Fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Ocean
    Posts
    3,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oneveryfineday View Post
    Mmmm, yes. Nothing sexual about superheroes.


    Nothing at all...


    ~I just keep swimming through these threads~

  10. #355
    Black Belt in Bad Ideas Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelliebly View Post
    Yeah which is offensive for several reasons.

    Man of steel/woman of Kleenex is connected to rape culture and that doesn’t really change if it’s two men. The idea that one can imagine an alien from the stars who can shoot fire from his eyes but people can’t imagine them being gentle during sex is problem at best and actively offensive at worst.

    The implication becomes that the only way for sexual satisfaction is through traditional hard penetrative sex which is problematic on a lot of levels.

    It’s always been a disgusting thing to say about Lois and Clark. Not just because it equates the value of their relationship and connection as being defined by the physical (when obviously while sex is a big part of their relationship it’s not the entire reason they are connected/attracted/with each other) and it’s just a plain ugly and misogynist view about sex. It takes a story about the impossible and instead of theorizing how his powers could bring her pleasure focuses solely on female bodily pain. It doesn’t take into consideration that maybe Clark loves being able to be there for her in that way especially given how much he loves her. Not to mention it implies there isn’t value in creativity sexually or in gentleness and restraint with a partner which, again, is problematic. It’s a terrible, misogynist “theory” that no one should be bringing up in any serious way.

    So, yeah, I’m not thrilled to know that may become a Convo with Jon and Jay because there are also plenty of ways this theory becomes offensive when you are talking about two men. It still boils down sexual connection as being solely about penetration, it’s still heteronormative and it still enforces rape culture by implying that force and strength are absolute and implying there isn’t pleasure and satisfaction to be be found in gentleness, love and creativity.

    Thanks I hate it!
    Nevermind Clark can use a urinal and not fire off a urine stream that rips through Metropolis, no we don't want to take actual evidence that Kryptonians can control their physiology to the precision of perfect human mimicry, let's also think about real world examples. Does anyone pick up their baby at the same force they use to lift a dresser that's fallen over? No.

    But hey, why make sense when we can poorly veil misogyny and homophobia?

    If someone wants to argue the they think someone else is a better fit for Clark, sure. They're wrong, but sure. That's never been the case, and there's also no reason Jon shouldn't be bisexual. Yeah, sure, people are forgetting about Kathy but I don't think Jon ever showed interest there. They were just friends. At most, I think she had one tease of interest in him and that's it.

    He had a thing for Imra, and now Jay. Good for him. Complain that Jon fell for a reporter and ultra fan of his mom making him too similar to Clark. That's a legitimate grievance.

    Quote Originally Posted by I'm a Fish View Post
    Mmmm, yes. Nothing sexual about superheroes.


    Nothing at all...


    "I like pink very much, Lois!"

    Was pink a euphemism for vagina in the 70s? If not, it's even filthier now.

    That movie gets better with age. Fight me.
    Last edited by Robanker; 10-15-2021 at 04:58 PM.
    May we never forget:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    Daddy Zeus can hit the bricks.
    Truer words never spoken.

  11. #356
    Fishy Member I'm a Fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Ocean
    Posts
    3,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robanker View Post

    "I like pink very much, Lois!"

    Was pink a euphemism for vagina in the 70s? If not, it's even filthier now.

    That movie gets better with age. Fight me.
    And while we're at it, I guess Henry Cavil was only shirtless for the most platonic of reasons. Since no human, man or woman, of any sexual orientation would ever find him attractive.
    ~I just keep swimming through these threads~

  12. #357
    Black Belt in Bad Ideas Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I'm a Fish View Post
    Mmmm, yes. Nothing sexual about superheroes.


    Nothing at all...


    Quote Originally Posted by I'm a Fish View Post
    And while we're at it, I guess Henry Cavil was only shirtless for the most platonic of reasons. Since no human, man or woman, of any sexual orientation would ever find him attractive.
    Yes, nobody...
    May we never forget:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    Daddy Zeus can hit the bricks.
    Truer words never spoken.

  13. #358
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    7,419

    Default

    I am in wonderland...and i don't even like alice.. basically they want comics code back.The funny thing is comics has left it's original audiences to think of the "children".They went from comics code to changin audience last time..

    "I’m not so interested in comics anymore, I don’t want anything to do with them. I had been doing comics for 40-something years when I finally retired. When I entered the comics industry, the big attraction was that this was a medium that was vulgar, it had been created to entertain working class people, particularly children. The way that the industry has changed, it’s 'graphic novels’ now it’s entirely priced for an audience of middle class people. I have nothing against middle class people but it wasn’t meant to be a medium for middle aged hobbyists. It was meant to be a medium for people who haven’t got much money."

    Reminds me why clark ain't or can't be action comics #1 guy.Superman is filtered through the prism of nostalgia for middle america.I also think that's a reason for where the industry is at aside lack of new endings and creations...

    History does do a spiral afterall
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 10-15-2021 at 07:44 PM.
    "Peopleís Dreams... Have No Ends"

  14. #359
    Fantastic Member oneveryfineday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Reminds me why clark ain't or can't be action comics #1 guy.Superman is filtered through the prism of nostalgia for middle america.
    Yeah, that’s the reason behind the reaction I’ve been seeing from the conservative sphere. “Conservatives hate this because they’re homophobic” is only a simplified version of why they’re in an uproar.

    You can write Superman as a leftist, but making Superman’s son a leftist came crashing into the psyche of conservative America because it taps right into the broader conflict of a generational divide. To conservatives, if everything wholesome and good and nostalgic is encapsulated within their Clark Kent Superman, then everything wrong and deviant with the current generation is encapsulated within his son. It’s the real-life narrative of parent vs child playing out right now. And Morrison—have to give them credit for being so prescient—wrote that exact dynamic of a Clark who is unable to change with the times and Jon as the frustrated youth rebelling against him.



    And, uh, yeah, Jon does kill Clark in that story. And in real life some conservatives fear that the left will transmogrify a sacred cultural symbol. Some gave a rallying cry for the rescue (yes, they used that actual word) of their All-American Conservative-At-Heart-Superman, re-emphasizing his virtues as a Kansas-grown farm boy and a symbol of Americana, because the bisexual socialist Superman with his radical sexuality and radical politics was coming to destroy them. If conservatives weren’t willing to defend an institution as American as Superman, then what was worth defending?

    I just thought it was interesting. There’s long been a cultural tension between a progressive Clark Kent and a conservative Clark Kent, and then you throw this queer Gen Z-er Superman into the mix.

  15. #360
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    881

    Default

    In response to the question above about the famous line from Superman: The Movie….

    Fairly certain that even in the 70’s “I like pink very much, Lois” was 100% a thinly veiled response to their earlier conversation about if he eats. I will refrain from describing in detail what he was saying he would eat bc there are kids on this forum but if you know you know.

    The only thing more blatant is the scene in Superman 2 in the Lester cut when he suggests they go somewhere to “talk” snd she asks where he wants to go to “talk” and the extremely obvious implication is that neither of them mean “talk” and both mean “where can we go to ****.”

    And this was 40 years ago. Again you can literally find the comic con video from season 9 of Smallville on YouTube and see the show blatantly pandering to the audience and fans with a fairly graphic by the CW standards sex scene between Tom and Erica with fans screaming over it.

    Superman and Lois filmed during a literal pandemic where their actors were supposed to be keeping 6 feet distance as much as possible and where very little physical contact was even allowed by the actors’ guild and that show STILL found a way to get a love scene in there during the honeymoon flashback because that’s the expectation now.

    The idea that THIS franchise of all franchises hasn’t been sexual is so laughable and ridiculous. Clark Kent has sex more than Batman. He’s “wholesome” but also literally ALWAYS having sex. He’s just monogamous and so because he’s monogamous it doesn’t register as typical “male” behavior with critics. The only complaints about it have always been linked to some kind of misogyny against Lois but never against him. She has been slut shamed PLENTY but he always walks away still seeming innocent to fans and critics even though it takes two people to tango and he is always a full participant and initiating their sexual relationship in literally every canon. (Misogyny)

    This BS now is just homophobia. And they are making complete asses of themselves. It’s just embarrassing, double standard homophobia.
    Last edited by Nelliebly; 10-15-2021 at 08:31 PM.

Posting Permissions

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