• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

DC sees half-black, half-latino Spiderman and raises them..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suairyu said:
Ultimate Colossus was about the only positive gay portrayal I've seen from a mainstream comic series.

Of course, they absolutely refused to show him even so much as kissing on-page (tell, don't show! You'll lose readers if you show!), so baby steps and all that.
Click to expand...
I know nothing about Ultimate Colossus, but Batwoman is absolutely tremendous.
 
Orayn said:
DC should have made that new character an unassuming straight white guy.
Click to expand...
indeed. only white dudes buy comics anyway. these gimmicks to bring in 'diversity' need to stop. us non-whites aren't fooled by this pathetic pandering. just keep with the status quo. change is overrated, look at obama!
 
Momo said:
That would be hilarious
Click to expand...
pregnant-batman-moon-superman-220x286.jpg


....wait what?
 
I wonder if we'll see a crying fit over something trivial first or if DC will go with the squeal to hug first.

Honestly, it's not so much who the character is that bothers me, it's that I have no faith in DC to pull it off in a way that's fair and even handed.
 
SalsaShark said:
Pretty ridiculous with the Miles Morales situation though, Marvel and DC competing for the "and suddenly: diversity" award.
Click to expand...

Yea, it's completely ridiculous that Marvel and DC are trying to diversify. Like some else said, all new characters should be white and straight.
 
notworksafe said:
WTF DC? You already have gay characters! And you married them!

PhSiI.jpg
Click to expand...

I think they kinda know already. Being the first gay character is not the point here.

crowphoenix said:
I wonder if we'll see a crying fit over something trivial first or if DC will go with the squeal to hug first.

Honestly, it's not so much who the character is that bothers me, it's that I have no faith in DC to pull it off in a way that's fair and even handed.
Click to expand...


Since they already do this with multiple gay characters, I'm not sure what you mean.
 
Lostconfused said:
Really? You don't see how that statement can be interperted to be extremely negative?
Click to expand...

I know right! I was CONSTANTLY OFFENDED by Will and Grace. How dare they make Gay people funny and human! Awful.
 
KibblesBits said:
I know right! I was CONSTANTLY OFFENDED by Will and Grace. How dare they make Gay people funny and human! Awful.
Click to expand...


Apparently the fight against stereotypes has caused people to think that showing a more feminine, "flamboyant" gay person is being offensive. I find that ridiculous as there are people that this highlights, and the majority of gay comics portrayals are exceedingly positive, if sexuality neutered.
 
I don't see the problem. If there were absolutely none or just one or two gay characters in comics I could see the problem, but there are a decent amount (relatively) and IIRC 99% of them are the "you would never know unless they told you" type. It's not like flamboyant gay people don't exist. Why can't they be represented?
 
Lostconfused said:
Really? You don't see how that statement can be interperted to be extremely negative?
Click to expand...

Well, people like people who are funny and entertaining............ I do understand if people are making fun of it just to demean them, that's different. There is an openly gay flamboyant bartender downtown, my wife and I go there all the time and he's funny as shit. It's his personality that I find entertaining, not to make fun of him. Sorry if that sounded insensitive at all.
 
krypt0nian said:
Apparently the fight against stereotypes has caused people to think that showing a more feminine, "flamboyant" gay person is being offensive. I find that ridiculous as there are people that this highlights, and the majority of gay comics portrayals are exceedingly positive, if sexuality neutered.
Click to expand...

You know, out of all of Gay gaf I've liked you best, usually. :D

Have some faith people, if the editors don't do a sanity check on storylines, trust that the fans will.
 
I don't see anything wrong with this. My only real problem with the Spiderman thing was that they just seemingly killed off Peter just to replace him with random unrelated* character X. And that was in the Ultimate universe so it really wasn't that big a deal.

Let him be flamboyant without just being a stereotype.

*I assume there will be some relation eventually.
 
speedline said:
Sorry if that sounded insensitive at all.
Click to expand...
I honestly can't speak to the issue since I don't even know anyone that's openly gay. I am just saying that choice of words can be interperted in a poor way. Since entertaining has nothing to do with properly representing some one in a positive light. Honestly I am just here so I could have an excuse to mention Tiger and Bunny and Fire Emblem. Although according to this thread the flamboyant gay stereotype is over represented and it's not a good thing.
 
After the interesting stuff they did with Batwoman, they do some excessively flamboyant stereotype like this?
 
Thunder Monkey said:
Gay comes in many forms... but I just don't see Scott Lobdell writing it well.

We'll see.
Click to expand...


Now this is a legitimate concern. Holding judgement until I read it.

KibblesBits said:
You know, out of all of Gay gaf I've liked you best, usually. :D

Have some faith people, if the editors don't do a sanity check on storylines, trust that the fans will.
Click to expand...


That's because we both love Tara. ;)


Dice said:
After the interesting stuff they did with Batwoman, they do some excessively flamboyant stereotype like this?
Click to expand...

I know you mean well by this, but can you see that this is akin to saying that more flamboyant gays are something to be hidden away or ashamed of? There are plenty of well written, less flamboyant gays in comics. As long as he is written with respect, there's no issue.

There is room for everyone at the table.
 
krypt0nian said:
I know you mean well by this, but can you see that this is akin to saying that more flamboyant gays are something to be hidden away or ashamed of?
Click to expand...
No I don't.

The thing with stereotypes is that they are begging to extend beyond their bounds. What I mean is, where stereotypes have been used to mock or make a type of person less than human, proliferating stereotypes will then in some way reinforce the negative uses of those stereotypes. For those who are more cultured and educated so that this does not occur, it will only become a point of debate on portrayals and messages about the group, and the whole time the character is removed from ever being viewed in a genuinely human way.

It's similar to the evolution of blackface. Even after it went away in literal practice for the most part, the archetypes continued in black character portrayals and still continue today. Do some black people, in some measure, take on characteristics of this culture that was shaped for/about them? Yes. That doesn't mean it is all they are, and it doesn't mean it is bad to have a subculture with identifiable characteristics, but the issue is when people who share the common denominator are interpreted through those stereotypes which are constantly reinforced through media, they are viewed as less than the individuals they are, and often from that attitude toward them, struggle with living beyond the image crafted for them and expected of them.

The smaller the minority, the more unfamiliar they are to the majority in real-life relationships, the stronger and more negative the effect is. I know how the intentions are good, just as many people have made a bunch of stereotype black roles trying to give them more presence and identity in media, but in the end all they did is give them more presence and lessened the identity of each because of the stereotypes they were characterized after. I can almost see it working if they gave him his own full comic so they could really shape him and fill out his character as a complete person who is shown in all their human complexity and dignity, but I just don't see that happening as a new member of a superhero group. Looks like it'll be a gayface sort of situation.
 
Momo said:
How about just showing him as a non flamboyant average Joe, then in one scene have a crime interrupt his date with a man or whatever? Why you gotta do dis bullshit?
Click to expand...

They did that with Batwoman. Also they've changed the pink to blue I think.
 
Dice said:
No I don't.

The thing with stereotypes is that they are begging to extend beyond their bounds. What I mean is, where stereotypes have been used to mock or make a type of person less than human, proliferating stereotypes will then in some way reinforce the negative uses of those stereotypes. For those who are more cultured and educated so that this does not occur, it will only become a point of debate on portrayals and messages about the group, and the whole time the character is removed from ever being viewed in a genuinely human way.

It's similar to the evolution of blackface. Even after it went away in literal practice for the most part, the archetypes continued in black character portrayals and still continue today. Do some black people, in some measure, take on characteristics of this culture that was shaped for/about them? Yes. That doesn't mean it is all they are, and it doesn't mean it is bad to have a subculture with identifiable characteristics, but the issue is when people who share the common denominator are interpreted through those stereotypes which are constantly reinforced through media, they are viewed as less than the individuals they are, and often from that attitude toward them, struggle with living beyond the image crafted for them and expected of them.

The smaller the minority, the more unfamiliar they are to the majority in real-life relationships, the stronger and more negative the effect is. I know how the intentions are good, just as many people have made a bunch of stereotype black roles trying to give them more presence and identity in media, but in the end all they did is give them more presence and lessened the identity of each because of the stereotypes they were characterized after. I can almost see it working if they gave him his own full comic so they could really shape him and fill out his character as a complete person who is shown in all their human complexity and dignity, but I just don't see that happening as a new member of a superhero group. Looks like it'll be a gayface sort of situation.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that even though their are gay kids.men that fit this stereotype, they should never be featured in media ever? This is exactly what I was talking about earlier.

You cannot ignore a subtype of a community just because some might ridicule them. This lets the bad guys win, while simultaneously tell kids that do fit this stereotype that they should be ashamed of themselves.

There is nothing to be offended by here, unless the writer botches this supremely. Everyone can be represented without fear.
 
To be honest it seems like every time I turn around theres a new gay character showing up in the DC and Marvel universes. Its not even a news item anymore.
 
You know, there are other Latin names besides "Miguel," DC...like, um, Juan, and, uh, Miguel. Alright, you win this time, DC.

Anyway, this is going to be embarrassing and uncomfortable for all involved no matter what, so why don't we have fun with it?

I do give them credit for creating, at the least, a new character, and not just offing an established character and replacing him with "Affirmative Action Spider-Man."

As a black male, I'm all for finally being able to go as my favorite superhero for Halloween without being harassed with, "But Peter Parker's not Black," but a part of me would have liked to have seen a new, positive black superhero that didn't play up "black" stereotypes (from "da hood," no father figure, angry all the time, big and tough, probably acts like Sam Jackson in some way, etc), but hey, I love Spider-Man. Maybe Miles Morales (also, there are other Latin names besides Morales, Marvel) will eventually branch off and become his own character after Peter Parker inevitably returns.

This is happening with the Invincible series next year too, with the new Invincible apparently being a black guy. I'm all for more black superheroes, but there's got to be a better, more creative way in approaching it, than this.

I feel the same about Gay and Lesbian characters. So far, I think it's been handled ok on the LBGT front, but why make such a big spectacle of this new Teen Titan? Write him as a quality character first. Focus on his sexuality later.
 
Pretty much what I was saying.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=34630

Bunker

I was initially full of "ugh" when I read about Bunker's impending arrival. He's flamboyant and fabulous, wearing pink, purple and a faux-hawk. And he's gay. To my mind, this was the comic book equivalent of "Born This Way." Both were created in the hopes of bringing a greater understanding of gay culture, but they both reeked of stereotypes that when perpetuated further marginalize the gay men that don't want to be a "queen," no matter how much Lady Gaga insists otherwise. Bunker wasn't my type of gay man, just like Lady Gaga wasn't singing to me.

This is where I change my name to Loser McWrongface, and everyone else out there having a kneejerk "no-no-no" reaction to Bunker gets in line behind me. Because just because I do not personally see myself in Bunker, that doesn't invalidate his existence. After looking at the gay, male superheroes currently active, I realized that there is a Bunker-shaped hole in the landscape. As I saw from the response to my Tumblr post, people are excited to see someone that looks like them fight alongside Superboy, Robin and the rest of the Titans. To devalue Bunker's outward appearance and claim (as I ignorantly did) that it is damaging to the further acceptance of the gay community is, essentially, telling all homosexual men to "straighten" up or shut up. Real gay men do look like Bunker, just like gay men look like Rictor, Apollo and (with ear-sharpening surgery) Northstar. The worry I immediately had with Bunker is how he will be portrayed. Bunker, and any minority character, has to be more than their stereotypes to ensure any kind of progress. He can't be a thesis on gay stereotypes bound a pastel folder. Fingers are crossed that he will have a mix of characteristics that make him uniquely "Bunker" instead of uniquely Bravo.
Click to expand...


Going further it will be the depiction that matters, which is true. But no one has seen the depiction yet. The complaints were about a more stereotypical gay character, which the comics field has basically none of. Extraño excepted. *shiver*
 
PastorOfMuppets said:
I can sort of understand the need to do things like this. Superhero comics are not a very healthy medium right now. Books are expensive relative to the content, the distribution model is kinda dumb and there is no real character progression. Most major story arcs just make the universe that much more ridiculous and unbelievable and then are rebooted. There's way too much focus on death and resurrection as well. The only way to freshen things up without screwing up their copyrights for potential movies is to add new characters or continue to do these ridiculous universe changing plot arcs.

The thing with adding new characters is that there are already so many white male superheroes and the point is to attract new audience to the books.

That being said, some of these new characters are ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You know what work better. Lower the fucking price.

No one is going to buy a 3.99 digital book because 1 guy on a team is gay.
 
remnant said:
You know what work better. Lower the fucking price.

No one is going to buy a 3.99 digital book because 1 guy on a team is gay.
Click to expand...

Digitally, Teen Titans is 2.99, and 1.99 a month later if you'd like to wait.
 
Why do people want Superheroes they can relate to? Comics are all about fantasy. Who can relate to Superman or Batman? The most popular DC comic book characters?
 
I hate how people get up in arms whenever a character is remotely stereotypical. Guess what, there are flamboyant gay guys in real life. As long as his personality isn't defined by how WACKY he is who gives a shit?

It's the same thing with people getting all uppity by black characters in shows using urban slang or whatnot. People like that exist. It's even more unrealistic to completely exclude them from shows just because they're stereotyped. A good writer will rise above the stereotype and show characters like that can be three dimensional.
 
LAUGHTREY said:
Why do people want Superheroes they can relate to? Comics are all about fantasy. Who can relate to Superman or Batman? The most popular DC comic book characters?
Click to expand...

You can relate to things that are not superpowers right? A kid can't relate to Superman's origin and being different from others as a youth? News to me.
 
Just like any idea, the writing will make it work or not.

LAUGHTREY said:
Why do people want Superheroes they can relate to? Comics are all about fantasy. Who can relate to Superman or Batman? The most popular DC comic book characters?
Click to expand...
Everyone thinks Batman's a human and because of that, the things he does are absolutely relatable

like being a billionaire and getting a Gold Medal at every Olympic event
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Half Man | Official Trailer | HBO Max
48
865
p_xavier replied
Japan's half-white Minister for Economic Security says she's only interested in "2D men"
2
74
1K
Mr Reasonable replied
Lantern | Trailer (HBO/DC)
2
75
1K
VulcanRaven replied
Irate Black Man
11
471
RSLAEV replied
Nearly half my body weight gone. 💪
2
66
5K
Solarstrike replied
Top Bottom