dc killing off the new 52 superman

but the are replacing him with the one from the previous continuity the one married to lois lane who has a son named jonathon. yes i liked the previous continuity more than new 52 but the new 52 superman was starting to really come into his own after spending about a year as a more diminished superman. what are your thoughts on this.

a reply to: proteus33

i gave up on the new 52 after they started pushing the gay agenda, as far as superman himself i never liked him something about an alien savior rubbed me the wrong way.

but i would guess dropping the new superman was due to poor sales

The point of the Dc Rebirth is to keep everything that works and get rid of things that don't.

Weak Superman doesn't work. Superman has a role to fill and he cannot do it without being powerful.

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

Xenophobic and homophobic much? How is 2 out of 52 separate story lines featuring a gay character "pushing" the gay agenda? I think you are missing the morality lessons that are inherent in every comic book.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog
My comic books never push any kind of moral or insightful agendas. Mine are purely to entertain, making characters gay is a bold move because it panders to only a small demographic of people consuming this sort of media. No one needs to be homophobic to see that. The industry does try to accommodate everyone but things like that dont always work for the general audience.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

neither, i just get bored when a certain agenda is clearly being pushed and its in your face obvious. I go back and read the old comic books and view other media of the time to see what agenda they were pushing in that Era. Its fun, and teaches one about the heard mentality and humanity itself.

As for not liking Superman ? Thats how I was born, so if you have something negative to say about my beliefs and how I was born, its hate speech and you should be censored. (see what i did there )

a reply to: Brotherman

That's not true. The major moral theme of Superman from the start was breaking down the social and psychological concept of "The Other" and making it less alien (pardon the pun).

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

It gets really old when they take an established brand and kill/replace/etc. estblished characters to make them "inclusive." I get it ... they want to be more female, minority and gay friendly. That's fine. Create new female, minority and gay characters rather than figuring out how to more or less retcon established ones to make them female, minority or gay.

I get tired of the inconsistency.

a reply to: proteus33
I don't like when superman dies, but I liked the old one better.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

It gets really old when they take an established brand and kill/replace/etc. estblished characters to make them "inclusive." I get it ... they want to be more female, minority and gay friendly. That's fine. Create new female, minority and gay characters rather than figuring out how to more or less retcon established ones to make them female, minority or gay.

I get tired of the inconsistency.

It's laziness that makes them change established characters. It's easier to change a character than to introduce a new one. You'd think they would have learned their lesson by now.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

There's a difference in storytelling subtlety between Superman's strange man in a strange land identity and Captain America beating up Trump supporters on the border.

I think what you're saying is true, comics have always had some kind of moral tone to them, but what DOCH is saying is true as well, that moral tone has transformed into straight propaganda and its so blatant it's obnoxious.

There's nothing wrong with gay character if it adds to the story, but at the end of the day people aren't reading comics to see Superman or any superhero get laid so why is their sexuality even something that is addressed.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

There's a difference in storytelling subtlety between Superman's strange man in a strange land identity and Captain America beating up Trump supporters on the border.

I think what you're saying is true, comics have always had some kind of moral tone to them, but what DOCH is saying is true as well, that moral tone has transformed into straight propaganda and its so blatant it's obnoxious.

There's nothing wrong with gay character if it adds to the story, but at the end of the day people aren't reading comics to see Superman or any superhero get laid so why is their sexuality even something that is addressed.

All us nerds want to feel as though we have something in common with the characters in the comics we read. Gay nerds should have that opportunity as well. I do agree that they don't need to change a character though, I'm talking well established characters.

With so many writers coming and going on titles. The two big, shared universe, comic book companies always end up painting themselves into a corner. So they have no choice but to reboot. Plus, new number one issues always boost sales.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

There's a difference in storytelling subtlety between Superman's strange man in a strange land identity and Captain America beating up Trump supporters on the border.

I think what you're saying is true, comics have always had some kind of moral tone to them, but what DOCH is saying is true as well, that moral tone has transformed into straight propaganda and its so blatant it's obnoxious.

There's nothing wrong with gay character if it adds to the story, but at the end of the day people aren't reading comics to see Superman or any superhero get laid so why is their sexuality even something that is addressed.

All us nerds want to feel as though we have something in common with the characters in the comics we read. Gay nerds should have that opportunity as well. I do agree that they don't need to change a character though, I'm talking well established characters.

Speaking from the perspective of a woman, why did they need to make Thor a woman? C'mon! You can surely make a character who is a fascinating and interesting and entertaining as Thor in her own right. Why make her Thor? I would think a gay person would feel the same rather than experiencing an intense need to see a gay Spider-Man or something.

And we do know it works. They have some strong, accomplished female characters in the stable on both sides.

a reply to: superman2012

Exactly. Comic books are for the people buying and reading them right now. That includes gay people and minorities and women. If you are not actively buying and reading the comic. It should not bother you at all.

For the most part what people are complaining about is characters other than the original taking up the mantle of an established super hero. Its not like Clark Kent suddenly woke up one morning and became gay or another race or female.

The big ones people complain about are.

Captain America. Well Steve Rodgers was thought dead. So the Falcon took his place.

Spiderman. A Spiderman from the Ultimates universe comes into the main universe and people lose their minds. The regular Spiderman is still there. Now there is two and one is not white, OH NOES. Did anyone complain about the other ten spider people running around. Nope. Did they complain when Spiderman was the villain doctor octopus, nope.

Thor stepped up and became the new Odin. So a female stepped up and took the Thor name. Did people complain any of the times when Beta Ray Bill stepped into Thor's shoes. There have been something like 14 different people who have temporarily had the power to be Thor. But only the woman Thor received massive complaint.

The Green Lantern. How many Green Lanterns have there been. A lot. Its established in the lore that multiple Green Lanterns exist. The other Green Lanterns did not go anywhere. They did not all become gay. A gay guy just happened to be chosen to be a Green Lantern. Massive freak outs ensue.

And on and on. Most of the complaints it seems to me. Come from people who are not actively reading the comic books in question. It is all from people who do not currently read comics. It seems the people complaining have an agenda. Just like the comic book writers have an agenda, to be inclusive to all the readers currently reading. Its always been the outsiders who read and support comic books.

The only character change I had a problem with, was when Bendis tried to change Ice-Mans sexual orientation. When the classic original X-men team were brought into the modern timeline. And then that younger version of Ice-Man came out as gay. That actually went against the established character. As Ice-Man has a long history of being straight. The rest are just misunderstandings by people who do not currently buy or read comic books.

a reply to: karmicecstasy

You don't know my husband. He did indeed complain over all the different Spider-Mans.

As to Thor ... it was the first one I thought of. But it still feels pandering. Thor is who he is because he was the son of Odin; he isn't Thor because of Mjolnir. If she picks up Mjolnir, make her someone else other than Thor. Maybe I'm hanging on mythology, but Mjolnir is Thor's weapon, not what makes Thor ... Thor.

a reply to: ketsuko

If your husband is a fan and was buying and reading the books. Then yeah, there were a lot of fans who complained about all the different changes. I was more talking about the people who are not comic fans, who suddenly cry foul in large numbers specifically about race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Where were all those people, for all the non different race, gender, or sexual orientation characters, taking up the mantle of an established super hero. It has been happening since the very beginning of the medium. Its not like it is a new thing. There have been multiple versions of practically every single character. Even Thor has had multiple people take up the mantle. But no massive outcry for the others. It is well established in the universes the stories take place in. That when something happens to a hero. Someone else takes up their name. In homage, and to keep the legacy of the name alive.

The only thing that has changed. Is that now women, minorities and gay people are being considered to take up the mantle. The massive outcry of the general non comic reading public is always about race, gender, or sexual orientation.

So who has the agenda? The comic book companies have the agenda of making money. So they try to do what sells. What the current readers want. Whats the agenda of the people who do not read comics but still complain?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

There's a difference in storytelling subtlety between Superman's strange man in a strange land identity and Captain America beating up Trump supporters on the border.

I think what you're saying is true, comics have always had some kind of moral tone to them, but what DOCH is saying is true as well, that moral tone has transformed into straight propaganda and its so blatant it's obnoxious.

There's nothing wrong with gay character if it adds to the story, but at the end of the day people aren't reading comics to see Superman or any superhero get laid so why is their sexuality even something that is addressed.

All us nerds want to feel as though we have something in common with the characters in the comics we read. Gay nerds should have that opportunity as well. I do agree that they don't need to change a character though, I'm talking well established characters.

Speaking from the perspective of a woman, why did they need to make Thor a woman? C'mon! You can surely make a character who is a fascinating and interesting and entertaining as Thor in her own right. Why make her Thor? I would think a gay person would feel the same rather than experiencing an intense need to see a gay Spider-Man or something.

And we do know it works. They have some strong, accomplished female characters in the stable on both sides.

I agree that changing a whole character to another gender is different, but if it is just the costume that makes a character, why can't it change gender, race or religion?

If a character has come out of the closet and decided now was the time to reveal that they were gay, that also wouldn't take away from the story, imo. I bet a lot of people could/would relate to that. Personally, I don't care either way, but as long as it doesn't take away from the story, I can understand why they would do this.

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: Brotherman

That's not true. The major moral theme of Superman from the start was breaking down the social and psychological concept of "The Other" and making it less alien (pardon the pun).

You believe that when people start writing comic books they have a pre ordained moral to the story?

a reply to: proteus33

I am sorry, I have missed something. What the hell is New 52?

What is being discussed?