The Displaced Time-Clone of Iceman is Gay?

[Overcast]

People love the characters they know, and comic making isn't a very reliable business at the end of the day. DC and Marvel are powerful because they have a fistful of people that a select demographic +/- various fans will buy just because it has the name on it. For this reason the way they tend to introduce any new ideas is by dropping them in a big name and edging them toward the spotlight before drawing enough attention for their own comic book. If it looks positive anyway. As for if they could put together their own gay/bi/pan/masconlynotops/ect character, prolly but I'd bet you that character would get just as much cheap heat as (no pun intended) Iceman right now.

[Amake]

Not to be that guy but has anyone actually read the whole comic? Bendis is a very good writer and often likes leveraging his not insignificant influence in the industry to push it forward. I wouldn't discount the idea it's both a good read if you're into X-men and a not useless bit of representation if you're gay; not without reading it first.

[Premmy]

Man I was going to tell Doc that he has the most boring opinions, but then I remembered it was Mac was the one who made the Superman post, ao Mac and doc yall are super boring

[MSperoni]

Originally Posted by Amake

Not to be that guy but has anyone actually read the whole comic?

I've read it three times. Even though I'm not a huge Bendis fan I like getting the most outta my money!


Honestly I thought the Gay Reveal was more natural feeling than Young Angel's declaration of love to Girlverine, but that's just me XD


EDIT: however, up until ANX40 the only issue of ANX I read was 37 because apart from Jean I don't much care about the old crew. So I guess I've never really read the comic all that closely, so for all I know Bobby being gay was something that has long been hinted at.

POS would probably be able to tell ya more.

[Amake]

I found someone anyway. A pretty interesting read, especially for those who think these publicity stunts only serve to score brownie points and ruin comic books.

Heck, I'm almost tempted to get my hands on it now.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by MSperoni

So I guess I've never really read the comic all that closely, so for all I know Bobby being gay was something that has long been hinted at.

POS would probably be able to tell ya more.

Unless those hints were dropped throughout the Black Vortex crossover with Guardians of the Galaxy (which I only read in spots because I didn't feel like following a crossover with a book I don't read), it wasn't hinted at in the slightest.

Originally Posted by Amake

I found someone anyway.

My issue isn't that Jean acted inappropriately as much as Jean acting inappropriately is treated as a good thing. The Jughead parallel doesn't really add up because, from what I understand, the Archie story paints Jughead in a negative light for his actions, which ANXM does not do with Jean. A character behaving in a problematic way so long as the story acknowledges it as such is fine. But if the author effectively endorses that behavior by framing it in a positive light, that's not cool, which is more or less what I feel happened here.

[Bum Bill Bee]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

But if the author effectively endorses that behavior by framing it in a positive light, that's not cool, which is more or less what I feel happened here.

So its another case of "Moral Dissonance" or "Designated Hero" huh?

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Bum Bill Bee

But what surprises me a lot more is them doing an entire team of females.

The plural of woman that you are looking for is called women.

---------- Post added at 03:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 AM ----------

This is by the very definition of a token character.

Its literally a publisher making a writer insert a gay character in for brownie points.

I understand trying to reach that audience but you have a literal slew of characters who can do this. And if you still want to stomp on canon like its one fire there are subtler ways to do this. There are better ways that push the writing and artistic limits that will make people want you to do this.

OOOOOOOOOR they decide that the 1940s values and writing established in comics really wasn't worth keeping to, and that we want a more modern take on heros and stuff.

Like, heroes change WAY more drastically for the sake of telling more modern stories/representing the modern world better, than just changing who someone wants to have sex with. It's not tokenism, it's people in 2015 deciding not to shackle themselves to the choices made by people in the 40s.

[Bard The 5th LW]

I will rectify my statement saying that I don't think these changes RUIN comics (I kinda made it clear that I have a low opinion of them anyways I guess). Like, I suppose they are better than nothing (and apparently Miles Morales lasted a LOT longer in the universe than I thought), I just think its not really the best solution to the lack of diversity seen in comic books.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by K-Re$ha

I'm just really curious if the writer came out and said "You know what these people who are mad are right, we're going to undo this" and the comic kept on going like it had never happened....

Would that be pandering?
I mean, I hear the term pandering thrown around a lot, and it always seems to be, rather explicitly: "The author did something I don't like for people I don't agree with."

Yes, actually, it would be pandering.

I'd been out of comics for a bit, when I was reintroduced to (one of the) Wonder Woman (reboots): the one where she was (to quote the homosexual comic store guy I was working with), "a man-hating lesbian."

This immediately rubbed me the wrong way. First, it's Wonder Woman as a terrible person, and then as a Lesbian, which just felt weird, given everything I'd ever known about her. It was... not a good impression.

We continued talking, and comic-book store employee (possibly noting my negative reaction), explained that it was just a thing they did for a short time, then went on to talk about how she and Superman got together and had sex or something, I don't know. Same continuity. And I hated it.

Why? First, the Superman/Wonderwoman thing was, well, blech, it's like a fan-wanky style comic that every kid makes in their head before they ever actually know canon, and it's cheesy. But more importantly, she'd just been described as a "man-hating" lesbian. Suddenly Super Stud shows up and they get it on because... why? That... that's stupid, and shows a disregard for established characterization.

It could have been presented as her being bisexual, or any other of interesting takes on the character that didn't make her angry, hateful, or "Oh, a man, now I want those too!" which, from my conversation with the store guy is kind of how it came off.

And, I'm going to be clear: I don't know what's in those stories. Maybe the store guy just really sold it the wrong way. That's fine. That's not the point.

The point is that it was weird pandering at first, and weird pandering to reverse it. Both were really annoying.

What do I want out of comics characters? Well... consistent characterization, and good people. The latter seems to be lacking most of the time I peek back into comics (it's possible that it was always lacking, and my very long sabbatical is just giving me rose-colored glasses)^.

A lot of people talk about how Cyclops is pretty terrible now - and they have the weight of comics to do it - but I'd always thought he was a pretty great guy. A devoted, married man, who had a strong sense of right and wrong, was a good leader, and as good a father as he could be under the very, very, weird circumstances he continually found himself in.

The everything was obviously changed, and has been for some time, and I didn't like it - still don't. It was done for drama or whatever... blech. Boring.

And I think that's what my problem is with "pandering" and "oh noes!" in general. You have a character. They have a history. You change it to make them Different to... do what? Gain points with a particular crowd of people? Meh.

At least Cyclops technically has the excuse that he literally has a bit of Apocalypse inside his soul potentially influencing him towards jerkitude and bad leadership (En Saba Nur has never been a very good leader, despite his power)*.

But then again, I'm, like, 10-12 years out of comics, so, meh.

* His first "dip" to my mind, was when Prof. X proved to be part of Onslaught. I thought he was a bit "iffy" there, but okay, whatever. Then when he died from fusing with Apocalypse attempting to ascend via the Twelve or whatever, and got better later (as such folk are wont to do), he just... kind of dropped off the "good leader and husband" list. Jean started making out with Logan in freaky brain-mutant's imaginary realm (which didn't transform them, for some reason, unlike the other people), and he started cheating with Emma (or at least heavily hinting to Jean that he was doing so... for... some... reason?) and blarg, I hate everything and don't have the money, so dropped.

EDIT: Just to be clear: pandering is bad and annoying and tends toward making bad stories. If character consistency is maintained, however, even from "pandering" origins, and good stories are told... that's fine, and not a bad thing. But the act of pandering itself usually denotes weird poorly-written dissonant work for the sake of attracting a crowd, very similar to the "t3h DRAMAS!" style of writing where Spiderman's marriage is dissolved and "they can never get back together ever!" until they do a short time later. Both are pretty terrible writing and are something that comics do a lot. It's frustrating, even when you otherwise like the comics in question.

EDIT: ^ Aaalllso, I just wanted to say, even with an all-to-often seeming loss of "good" people in comics, that is not to say that all comics decisions "recently" (for a very broad definition) are bad, but rather the characterization of people that I used to like seems to be taking a dive for "reasons" which mostly amount to poor storytelling. I like the return (however brief) of Nate Grey, Batwoman's orientation was cool (but I have less canon relationships there), Miles Morales was neat (even if I like Peter by virtue of him being Peter), and Dick Greyson inheriting Batman - however briefly - was awesome. Good stuff there. I also highly enjoy the Marvel films, especially both Captain America ones. Just sayin'.