cellophanedeity

The BBC has been doing a suprisingly large amount of coverage on the new Batwoman series, 52. The comics first run began at the start of May, and there's been a considerable amount of buzz.

Apparently Batwoman is now a lesbian.

I'm looking forward to getting and reading this series.A queer female superhero that I recognize is someone I may be able to connect and identify with in some way.

But what do you think? Is the change too much? Is it unfair to the loyal readers who know Batwoman to be in an ongoing love/hate relationship with Batman?

The comic world has been consistantly diversifying itself for years, which is something I think it would be very hard to not support. Not many people are going to argue with the presense of a female, or non-white, or queer superhero, but when it's a character that they have known to be otherwise, such as Batwoman or the Blue Beetle, there's going to be some unhappiness.

The world of comics seems to be trying to become a more and more realistic reflection of the real world, which has resulted in a need for greater diversity and also more interpersonal conflicts. There is rarely a comic that clearly defines good and evil, right and wrong anymore. Morals are blurred and everything is getting darker.

What do you think? Is it a good move to transform already popular, or at least known, characters for the sake of diversification or even a new audience? Do you think comics should even have to diversify themselves? To reflect society and real life? Or should they just go back to being good vs. evil?

This is the link to the article I read:
"Whatever happened to the superheros of old?" undefined

maleficent

Wonder Woman lived on an island with nothing but women... the men were there for procreation purposes only and probably killed once they fulfillede their obligatioon... lesbian superhero is not a new concept... It's just a label given to them

Bruce Wayne had a teenage boy living with him, in a rather questionable relationship..don't tell me batman wasn't doing the hanky panky with the boy wonder

Comic books still can be good vs evil... why add the label to a person?

__________________

Siege

As the Toronto Star pointed out: If you really want to be more population conscious, why aren't there any overweight superheroes?

__________________
"Your name's Geek? Do you know the origin of the term? A geek is someone who bites the heads off chickens at a circus. I would never let you suck my dick with a name like Geek"

--Kevin Smith

This part just makes my posts easier to find

maleficent

most superheros where lycra in some form or another... or tights....

maybe if the superhero wore sweatpants...

__________________

guthmund

THERE WAS NO HANKY-PANKY....THERE WAS NO HANKY-PANKY!

I think it's great. I love the fact that the comic industry is making a conscious effort to 'update' the characters and the storylines to fit a more modern world. That being said...I don't think this movement is as big a leap forward as the public thinks (or fears), but that's another post.

If it gives the writers broader borders to explore and better stories to tell, then...well done. As long as idea to revise Batgirl's sexuality doesn't revolve around the notion of creating controversy for controversy's sake or filling some sort of quota then I think it's a fine idea.

There are a couple. They're just bad guys.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

highthief

Well, at least they aren't ret-conning an existing character.

It's OK - I think it's really more for shock value and the hopes of appealing to easily titilated young men than some desire to capture the enormous lesbian comic-buying demographic or for some noble purpose.

But it's OK.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

djflish

No overweight superheroes? What about....

__________________
Europes two great narcotics, Alcohol and Christianity.
I know which one I prefer.

aberkok

For my money, superheroes are mythology. If you decide to make a change to a character, you'd want to leave the essence of the character the same. In the case of Spider-Man, part of his essence is that he shoots webs. Whether the web shooters are organic or man-made does not really affect the essence of what Spider-Man the character or the myth is.

If the sexuality of a character is central to what makes them unique or special, then I might question altering it...for example if Lois Lane became a lesbian, then you'd be severely changing the Superman mythos. To my knowledge, Batwoman has always been a B-list/backburner type character who is fairly "tabula rasa." No problems with lesbian Batwoman here.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Lwang9276

lol fat fury looks ridiculous!.. and yea I agree with the above post.

Fremen

I always thought it weird to find out characters I'd grown up reading are all the sudden gay or lesbian, but I got used to it.
It's not my property, they can do with them what they like. If it makes them more money, more power to them.
If I don't like something, I don't have to read it.


As to overweight characters...
Here's one of my favorite comic characters:


BB will be one of the lead characters in the Cartoon Network's upcoming Legion of Superheroes cartoon.

__________________
Google

CSflim

You so sure about that?











From Superdickery.com

__________________

guthmund

NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.