Was he? Hmm, I need to reread the first issue.
Was he? Hmm, I need to reread the first issue.
Gotta be Guy Gardner
My guess an interesting twist in both character and being a villain would be Black Adam.
My guess an interesting twist in both character and being a villain would be Black Adam.
Well if it's Wally, who is the only one that fits the iconic bill, I'm going to miss his kids.
I could see either Power Girl or Black Adam.
I don't see the purpose in making black adam gay.
I'm telling you brahs it freakin' Tomcat.
I think he means Wildcat. Which I could actually see, as he's an Earth-2 character that hasn't been introduced and it would be an interesting contrast to his Golden Age persona as a rough, tough macho boxer.Tom Cruise?
I could see either Power Girl or Black Adam.
What part of "MALE" aren't people getting?We've already seen PG in the New 52 so it's not her.
Literally last week on Young Justice they revealed Wally hung up his hero garb during the time skip to focus on his studies, and his relationship with Artemis. And he's still clearly crazy about her on the show. This would really mess with the fans on what should be an established plotline, because the show does borrow heavily from comic plotlines (working around limitations as they can, so Speedy's heroine addiction became his self-destructive search for the original Roy Harper).
It would show incredibly bad communication on DC's part with their various production arms. But that's probably to be expected.
My take is that it's going to be either an Earth-2 character (one of the "big" Golden Agers) or one of the Before Watchmen characters (guess which one).
I wonder though, just how much of this is PR and how much is a story that got away from them (them being DC). All of this started because of a response on LGBT diversity at a Q&A session, that got picked up on twitter and the comic blogs and within a day was making Fox News as "DC Comics Making Superman Gay?!?" sensationalism. And this "news" is now overshadowing anything else happening this week in comics, including Marvel's own planned announcements about a gay marriage in their books, and DC just keeps reaping the rewards with minimal effort on their part.That would be taking PR fluff to the next level.
I wonder though, just how much of this is PR and how much is a story that got away from them (them being DC). All of this started because of a response on LGBT diversity at a Q&A session, that got picked up on twitter and the comic blogs and within a day was making Fox News as "DC Comics Making Superman Gay?!?" sensationalism. And this "news" is now overshadowing anything else happening this week in comics, including Marvel's own planned announcements about a gay marriage in their books, and DC just keeps reaping the rewards with minimal effort on their part.
Obviously Marvel will have to make Thor Iranian to try to get back on top.
It's going to be Rorschach and I will hear no arguments to the contrary.
Making Batman gay would make me so happy just for the outrage.
shanshan310 said:Hey, you know what would be really forward thinking? Introducing this gay character without going "HEY LOOK HE'S GAY!". This is black spiderman all over again -_-
This. It wouldn't be bad if they just introduced him and a partner without it being completely beating you over the head obvious. Then again, my major worry is they're going to go with stereotypes or have Bioware level writing for the romance. :/
Slayven you need a tag acknowledging your encyclopaedic knowledge of comics.
They make a pill for that.I fought that side of me for the longest. But when I see something I have to respond to it burns with a righteous fire.
They make a pill for that.
Neil Gaiman handled this surprisingly well in his Sandman series considering it was written 25 years ago.
Iconic you say?
My guess an interesting twist in both character and being a villain would be Black Adam.
The only reason DC is turning anyone gay is for the positive PR. What benefit is there to turning a villain gay?
Not that I wouldn't want to see that.
The only reason DC is turning anyone gay is for the positive PR. What benefit is there to turning a villain gay?
Its obviously batman. But they wont do that.
Black Adam was more of an anti-hero since Infinite Crisis. He became a ruler of his own country and gained his own 'Marvel family'. He mellowed out for a while. He became a mentor to Mary after she lost her Shazam powers.The only reason DC is turning anyone gay is for the positive PR. What benefit is there to turning a villain gay?
Not that I wouldn't want to see that.
Come to think of it Sexual frustration or someone with penis envy would make a good villain origin story. Something fellow comic readers could identify with. But the Comics Code Authority would roll in it's grave if that happens.
I wouldn't mind if it was Icon because that would mean he would be in the universe or have his on ongoing again.
They spent years proving he isn't gay and very much a lover of women.
You know, Batman having sex is too weird for me. He's like a monk.
That was like the hottest thing in mainstream comics.
You know, Batman having sex is too weird for me. He's like a monk.
People just want to be right about Batman.Exactly. Prudes lost their shit.
Because he's brooding? I think he has to have sex to keep his mind right. And with all the beautiful dangergous women throwing themselves at him, he probably has a very active sex life.
Perhaps you missed the sh*tstorm this little tryst caused, markot.