So it looks like DC has struck again with their single minded stupidness. They're going to feel it this time though after the writer and artist of Batwoman both quit...in part because DC wouldn't let them have a gay marriage between Batwoman and her long time girlfriend. For me its not just about not allowing the marriage, its also about them trying to control their writers creative process :(
http://io9.com/dc-wont-allow-batwomans-gay-marriage-to-be-de...
Comments
DC Comics
Well, the company was founded in 1934. That probably means the origial owners are moldering away in the ground, right? Well then there are the kids, and then the grand kids. Did the old man build it up, and now the kids are feeding off the fat, and the grand kids will kill it?
Just wondering
G
No Clue
Its strange really because I always thought they were doing a good job lately at being progressive with this stuff. First they made Alan Scott gay then they gave Barbara Gordon a trangendered roommate. I guess it goes to show that they can only be progressive so far before they decide that some things are just too much for them. They're a bunch of cowards for sure.
Not Necessarilly So !
Gwen,
your suggestion that anyone around in 1934 must be dead by now is, I am happy to say, unfounded. Plenty of humans are still alive in their 80s. It is no longer so rare for people to live into their nineties, indeed the numbers who make it to a century are now quite large. It would be just possible for someone who set up a business at age 20 say, in 1934, to still be alive and involved in it, now. I am still working in mine at 76.
Briar
DC Comics history
According to Wikipedia (I know that that is not really considered an authoritive source) DC Comics is owned by Warner Bros. And was founded in 1934 by Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson (1890 – 1965) at the age of 44 as National Allied Publications. But he soon lost control because of debt. By the late 1940's he was gone from the company.
Sorry, I just didn't do the math.
And it is NOT because I am a girl ! :)
Gwendolyn
Publishers pay the bills.
I might point out that the Publishers are the people paying for everything, so they pretty much get to say what they want in and out of their comic. Now I think that the Publishers are being fairly stupid about it, but they get to be as stupid as they want.
Ever since the retcon uni
Ever since the retcon uni here I have been paying more attention to Comics than normal, even though I don't read them directly, I still get TONS of information from Tumblr and many of the comic blogs I follow.
This comes as really no surprise to me. DC has gotten more and more conservative recently, and it shows in the stories. I mean, a mysogynist Superman? To the point where the writer quit because it was screwing with the base character? And the minimizing of Lois, the introduction of trans characters in other titles and the subsequent squashing and re-writing of those?
It's good to see that the artists and authors are standing up about this subject and making noise, but DC acting like the comic arm of the Republican extreme right and the popular media of the Radical Christian Reich is not shocking.
At the risk
Of making myself (more) unpopular, so what? It's a comic book. On the list of things I need to worry about its pretty much at the bottom, right next to Cyrus. Real world events are what we should be concerned about, not the direction a comic book takes.
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace becomes a circus.” - Turkish Proverb
It's important because things
It's important because things like comics and tv shows raise the profile of trans and gay characters. Think about the fight for marriage equality that has been happening lately, and think about ten years ago. No one would have considered it then, but by bringing it to the fore of the national conscience, it's becoming normalized. Putting it into comics gets it even further normalized.
Eventually it would be a non-event to have a transgirl or transman working next to you, and they will be treated the way we should be.
That's why this is important.
Nah
I don't see TV, books, movies, or comics as having any leading roll in current events. Such medium has always been on the trailing edge, afraid to venture far from what is mainstream at the time. Honestly, can you say adult comic book readers are more than a tiny percentage of the adults in the U.S. Say it with a straight face, I mean. At the most comics may get a bit mention in the regular news, nothing more. There is more concern over Ben Afleck being chosen to play Batman in the movie than there is over a lesbian comic book marriage. Not even NOM or AFA care enough to complain.
With all the sanctioned misogyny at events like the Penny Arcade Expo or Dragon Con, or the ways the ladies of Skepchick or Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency have been insulted, assaulted, and threatened with bodily harm or death - all real things happening in the real world that are not being addressed far outweigh any comicbook tempest in a teapot.
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace becomes a circus.” - Turkish Proverb
Comic
Comics may not be relevant to you but to some degree they do influence kids and young adults. To say that books, tv and others plays no relevance is to say that nothing you say right now makes not a bit of difference. Thats about as close minded as anyone can be.
Comics helped play a role in lots of kids in my day on how they viewed things. TV played a role in influencing our minds, not with just the news but with how people viewed other people. Star Trek alone influenced a lot of people not with just the stories but with the technology.
Movies depicting real life situations played a role on how people viewed their lives. Farrah Faucet in the Burning Bed brought out more woman against abuse.
Yes there are books, movies an others that give the stereotypical ideas but even my son says in todays age says that there are movies that make him think.
Even if you don't thinks its current now it plays a factor in the lives of those in the future.
More to it than that
While real world events are of course vitally important, many real world events are influenced by culture, literature and other art. And right now, comics are one of the wellsprings of popular culture in this country and therefore the world since we export huge chunks of our culture wholesale. A large number of highly visible movies and some TV shows have been and are based on comic book franchises and yes, they do influence real world events.
Art is always important and popular art is usually the most influential art and therefore the most important. On the other hand, many politicians who ought to be more important are simply making npise to keep their names in front of the public.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
I'm reminded of something Stan Lee once said
Stan Lee was talking about being the editor and basically the head writer at Marvel during the early days. He said that on the same day he could get chewed out by Jack Kirby for being a fascist and by Steve Ditko for being a socialist. :)
I know how he felt and I suspect that the editorial leadership at DC knows, too.
That's not to say that I agree with them on these decisions, but I think that generally, these are publishing and editorial decisions and have little to do with politics or social movements. They just want to sell the most comics they can and support the principal product of their parent companies which is movies, not comics.
I think the creative team understands this, too and objects on the grounds of it being bad editorial and managerial decisions and not on the grounds of politics or real world context.
And that's why I don't buy any DC comics right now, not their political or social slant but the wrongheadedness of their editorial decisions. Two and a half years ago, I bought twice as many DC's as Marvels. For the most part, DC comics are going down the wrong road editorially in terms of sustainable, interesting comics. Marvel has a looser philosophy, wandering this way and that but letting their creators tell good stories is more often the result. Still not often enough as my purchasing is down to about 15 titles a month from close to 50.
And more than half of the comics I buy now are from independents, I only follow 7 Marvel titles and none from DC.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Marvel's Philosophy
That's because Ayla Goodkind owns Marvel! ;-)
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace becomes a circus.” - Turkish Proverb
That would be so much better than owned by Disney.
I love my Disney as Disney but I have lots of reservations about how they do things.
Ayla would be far better.
I miss Whatley.
Bailey Summers
Batwoman Writer and Artist Quit ....
...... MMMMM, Kind of reminds me of somthing similar that happened.
First a rhetorical question Would anybody out there object to a Female being promoted to First officer or Captain of An aircraft carrier/destroyer or friggate?
Before you send out lynching parties I have a reason for asking this question!!!
In 1964 NBC executives decided that the pilot episode of Star Trek 'The Cage' was unsuitable to be aired.
Gene Rodenberry himself gave this as ONE reasons
" The Public would not relate to or beieve that a female could be 1st officer "
That Episode was finally aired in November 1988, Now nearly 50 years later that reason is laughable!
Given the social barriers
Given the social barriers that were in place, now would be laughable. Also remember that a lot of stations did not air the episode of where Kirk kissed Ohura due to racial barriers.
I haven't read many comics lately
so I have a question. Are the comics featuring Batwoman good? Does Batwoman's sexual preference add to her character as a superhero, or eclipse it to the point that she's just a lesbian caricature? That is, is the character well written?
Considering she was made a lesbian explicitly to appeal to the "diversity" crowd, I wouldn't expect much out of her. Some of DC's other "diversity" cast have been awfully offensive. Particularly Starfire, whose characterization pretty much shows that somebody at DC can't tell the difference between a liberated woman and a slut. If Batwoman's writer and artist have been using her as a platform for their political views instead of as a superheroine, I can't say I blame DC for pulling in the reins on them. That sort of thing can ruin a character.
If, on the other hand, Batwoman is a popular and well written character, the execs at DC are just being a bunch of pinheads. I consider that somewhat more likely, but I'd like the opinions of people who actually read the comics to confirm.
Remember - just because somebody is expressing political views you agree with does not mean they're doing a good job of what they're being paid to do. In the case of Batwoman's marriage, I'd want to see how that actually ties into her career as a superheroine.
Batwoman
Batwoman is an ongoing story line. Not only is DC squashing the marriage of Batwoman but that of 'Any' upcoming or already known marriage. Part of the reason being that those in charge feel that it would limit or inhibit the growth of the characters. This includes but is not limited to the relationship of Superman and Lois Lane.
In other words they don't want to take a chance that if their characters were to make it to the movie screen that they would have to explain why as it has the potential to be a money making move. It would be hard to explain if Superman was to have a sudden love interest in Wonder Woman if in the comics he was married.
http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/09/05/batwoman-jh-williams/
Well, at least it's not bigotry
Bureaucratic idiocy, yes. Bigotry, no. I'd almost prefer bigotry - as hard as it is to stop bigotry, it's at least possible. Bureaucracy, not so much.
Superman and Wonder Woman
But they are together in comics...right now actually. They're pretty good together too :)
I wholly disagree with the way WW is portrayed.
She should not be with Superman.
Though I do agree he shouldn't be with Lois either, he needs someone to match better with him. Not further insult the WW character. I hate the fact they just dismiss her culture and her upbringing.
And the new series where they're basically murderers rather than really portray a lesbian culture...just really bad writing for her character so much of the time.
Bailey Summers
The Batwoman comic
Batwoman has been one of the more well-regarded comics of the New 52. The art and writing have been ground-breaking in many ways and Kate's relationship with her lover has not been any more of a focus than Bruce's relationship with his son in the parallel Batman storylines. Damian is dead now (for now, this is comics) and apparently the marriage that had been planned for some months in the Batwoman comic is dead too.
To be clear, the creative team is not upset that they have been told that Kate and Maggie cannot get married but that they have been told this after having had the storyline approved before for several months. They were putting tile in the kitchen when corporate came down and said use linoleum just as the job was almost finished. I don't think it is homophobia, I think it is fear of weddings.
But it really isn't that new or different of a story, this is what happens when you do creative work for a large corporation. People in front offices who have nothing to do with the creative end make decisions and send them down the line. Who knows, the editors may have fought this tooth and nail but they have to do their jobs, the parameters of which are decided perhaps even higher up than the publisher's office. Because DC is only the finger on the glove on one tentacle of the octopus called Time-Warner.
This is why guys like Mike Mignola work for companies like Dark Horse that let him be his own boss.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.