Posted on 05/22/2012 5:00:00 AM PDT by BO Stinkss
Makes sense. He’s got the build, the fashion sense, and just maybe the gaydar-pinging facial structure. And yet — no one’s sure yet that he’s the one who’s coming out. All we know is that it’s a male, that it’ll happen next month, and that he’s “one of the major iconic DC characters.” Is there something you’d like to tell us, Batman? Actually, no need: We already know. So which one is it? The folks at DC Comics aren’t saying, but they do say it’s the latest effort to make sure their comics keep up with the times. Last September, DC Comics relaunched its entire line of comic books to feature an updated look and a new lineup of LGBT superheroes: including Voodoo, an African American bisexual woman and Batwoman, an open lesbian… “DC and (archrival) Marvel are recognizing that there is an LGBT audience that has been reading their comics for years,” said Matt Kane, associate director of entertainment and media for GLAAD. “When creating these fictional worlds it’s important to show the full diversity.” Aside from making good business sense, Kane said younger readers are perfectly comfortable with gay characters and expect to see their peers represented.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
That’s a big promotion for Jimmy Olsen, heretofore never considered much of a superhero....
I think WW would be more bang for the buck for DC.
Would address the growing lesbian comic book fan culture and might even interest the boys.
Don’t they have to have some sort of “proof” for their newly outed hero, i.e. a “love” interest?
Yes, but did not Wonder Woman fall in love with a pilot that she rescued?
Superman and Chuck Norris agreed to have a fight to settle who was tougher.
The stakes: the loser had to wear his underwear on the outside of his pants.
Yep. That pilot was gay...
I really don’t think it’s Superman. Why? Money. Zach Snyder’s “Man of Steel” is currently in production for release next June. This move would alienate far too many fans and would undoubtedly hurt the film’s box office take. Same goes for Batman and “Dark Knight Rises.”
Wonder Woman, OTOH, has been stop-and-go for a film for years now. She’s a major character who’s floundering. This could be a method of sparking some interest in her?
Maybe that's the real reason why his parents stuck him in a rocket and shipped him off the planet.
LOL!
These are cartoon characters. They are asexual. They are not even based on any real people.
They’re make believe, which means the creators can make them anything they want, and Marvel will make them whatever they think will turn the most profit. That’s the bottom line here.
—He argued for the Hulk and I supported Superman. —
When I was a kid, those arguments always cracked me up, for one simple reason: Take away Kryptonite, and Superman was basically omnipotent. None of the other characters are. QED.
So she's bi. That makes her even hotter.
If Batwoman is lesbian and Batman is homo, would that make them love one another again?
Why must they use the established super heroes that have become heroes in their own right. They could introduce some new “heroes” that are gay. I don’t think that would fly (no pun intended). They must be a hero first then come out of the closet. Kids that age don’t even know what gay is. No onw ever talked about these heroes having sex!
Why must they use the established super heroes that have become heroes in their own right. They could introduce some new “heroes” that are gay. I don’t think that would fly (no pun intended). They must be a hero first then come out of the closet. Kids that age don’t even know what gay is. No onw ever talked about these heroes having sex!
It’s Aqua Man. After all, he swims aroundf in tights everywhere with Aqua Lad. I mean, really “Aqua Lad”? Was “Aqua Twink” taken?
It would probably make historical consistency easier if the character who comes out is bisexual, not homo. Which one of those guys didn’t flirt with the ladies, or vice versa? Batman’s Robin is the only one I can think of but that would be way too obvious.
The very-early Superman was essentially a human-looking Hulk. He couldn't fly, just "leap tall buildings in a single bound". Bullets wouldn't hurt him, but a grenade would knock him out. Then they started making him steadily more powerful until they painted themselves into a corner, because he was too powerful to not be able to beat any enemy that came along unless they gave him some lame weaknesses.
He also doesn’t exist, so how can this matter?
Except for high level flirtations with acquaintances (like Superman as Clark Kent, with Lois Lane), that is quite true -- and WHY should DC Comics be polluting the world view of kids who aren't even in puberty yet? It's amusing to talk about on one level, but sickening on another. Someone should come up with a line of superheros that stay virtuous in a Judeo-Christian sense. If they are not religious at least they don't talk religion down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.