Marvel can kiss my big, gay ass. .but(t) they won't because I don't have an MR label [Archive]

bert

02-06-2006, 05:40 PM

Rich,

your story on Marvel/Quesada re: Rawhide kid is something I had heard rumors about.

However, you verified it, by going straight to the horse's mouth -- or is that horse's ass ?

I'm more inclined to say the latter.

"Joe Quesada explained to me that this was the act of a responsible publisher in the current marketplace, given a reactionary media, and widespread and increasingly vocal parental concerns.

More than a judgment on Marvel, this is a reflection of changing American reaction. With high profile examples such as Janet Jackson and Howard Stern, there's far more potential hysterical reaction that could harm Marvel as a brand than at the peak of Bill Jemas' excesses."

I call ABSOLUTE and TOTAL bullshit on this.

an act of a responsible publisher in the current marketplace is to not publish something like Marvel Zombies -- the cover of which (issue #5) shows Spidey getting married to Mary Jane. . . oh, except all her intestines are ripped out thru the gaping hole in her side.

and this book is "rated" T+

I wasn't a fan of the Rawhide Kid miniseries -- I found it to be borderline offensive, that the only "gay" man in the book is a galloping pansy and acts as such -- but Quesada's assanine comment above isn't being a responsible publisher.

it's being a Homophobe.

Marvel doesn't care about my business (never mind, that as a 39 year old man, I can afford to drop over $50 a week at the comics shop). They want the younger crowd. . and to Marvel "Gay" can't be anywhere around the youngsters.

If Marvel *did* care about my business, they would worry about shipping quality comics on time.

as it is. . this stance has angered me so much, that I am dropping all my Marvel pulls (true, it wasn't much, but I had added: Son of M, New X-men, New Excalibur, X-Factor, Generation M (all as part of Decimation), and Ares).

Marvel has just lost that business.

it's not a case of "Groucho" -- where I wouldn't be a member of any club that would have me. . . . but if the club barred a performer because he was gay, and might upset the neighborhood (despite the show containing no nudity), you damn well better believe I'd be out front protesting.

(and yeah, I get that I'm mixing two different versions of the word "club" above. . I'm kinda pissed right now)

bert

Charles RB

02-06-2006, 05:57 PM

Silly me, I thought Marvel were supposed to be the company known for being edgy, provocative and overall more adventurous than DC. Guess I was wrong.

Should I read a conspiracy into Karolina leaving the Runaways and not expect her to ever show up again? Because that would tick me off. I like Karolina.

ERoy

02-06-2006, 05:58 PM

an act of a responsible publisher in the current marketplace is to not publish something like Marvel Zombies -- the cover of which (issue #5) shows Spidey getting married to Mary Jane. . . oh, except all her intestines are ripped out thru the gaping hole in her side.

Americans in general accept violence in their pop culture (movies, television, comics). Sex is a different story.

it's being a Homophobe.

You're certainly welcome to think that, but it's not true. It's reflecting the common held viewpoint with Americans -- they are uncomfortable having their children exposed to homosexuality.

and to Marvel "Gay" can't be anywhere around the youngsters.

That is EXACTLY correct. Sorry you don't like that. I may not like it, but it is true, and Marvel is acting like a responsible publisher.

it's not a case of "Groucho" -- where I wouldn't be a member of any club that would have me. . . . but if the club barred a performer because he was gay, and might upset the neighborhood (despite the show containing no nudity), you damn well better believe I'd be out front protesting.

Bad analogy. If a club refuses to run a gay-themed show because they knew it would alienate their customers, that club is acting in the best interest of their show. Same with Marvel.

Charles RB

02-06-2006, 06:06 PM

It's reflecting the common held viewpoint with Americans -- they are uncomfortable having their children exposed to homosexuality.

If they're uncomfortable with that but are comfortable with comics showing Spider-Man eating people, then they're idiots.

Marvel is acting like a responsible publisher.

How? By wussing out? This is the same publisher that deliberately had black characters being treated like equals back in the early 60s, IIRC, but acknowledging homosexuals exist is too scary for them in 2006? Pansies, the lot of 'em.

Bright-Raven

02-06-2006, 06:31 PM

Ed Cunard

02-06-2006, 07:00 PM

Rich,

What of Young Avengers, then, which features two prominently gay characters?

bert

02-06-2006, 07:12 PM

Bad analogy. If a club refuses to run a gay-themed show because they knew it would alienate their customers, that club is acting in the best interest of their show. Same with Marvel.

I didn't say it was a "gay-themed" show.

I said it was a gay performer.

Please show me where it says in the Marvel Hanbooks that Rawhide Kid can NOT appear in a Western comic book from Marvel, unless he's "acting gay"

bert

02-06-2006, 07:14 PM

Marvel is not a responsible publisher.

A responsible publisher stands behind their creators and stands for the rights of free speech and expression, no matter how controversial. Marvel, however, is a multimedia corporation, owned by stockholders. Therefore their responsibility lies solely to the stockholders and their interests. Not to their employees, nor their clientele, nor any other group unless it creates an advantage to benefit the stockholders.

If you dislike the corporate agenda and how that affects the creators and the quality of work they produce, my advice is to walk away from Marvel and demand the creators stop riding the coattails of others for the paycheck and start fighting for legitimate publishers where they can produce their own creator-owned works with equal marketing and distribution.

Excellent point BR

which is why I'm planning on adding 3 DC books (Superman, Hawkgirl, and Man-bat), and at least two Image/Indie books (Invincible and Nodwick) when I go to the shop on Wed.

I'd rather give my cash to a company deserving of my respect.

(and yeah. . I realize DC is probably just as bad in your eyes as Marvel is. . but at least I've never felt disrespected by them)

LoneWolf21

02-06-2006, 07:18 PM

So Marvel is antsy around gay characters, while DC is publishing rape and bloody murder.

I guess neither is all that progressive.

Sean Whitmore

02-06-2006, 08:04 PM

You're certainly welcome to think that, but it's not true. It's reflecting the common held viewpoint with Americans -- they are uncomfortable having their children exposed to homosexuality.

Just because it's the common opinion doesn't mean it isn't homophobia. It was the common opinion decades ago that blacks should have their own drinking fountains. Was that opinion not racist just because majority rules?

That is EXACTLY correct. Sorry you don't like that. I may not like it, but it is true, and Marvel is acting like a responsible publisher.

Yeah, they're saints. Instead of books about gay cowboys they should stick to mini series about Spider-Man's ex-girlfriend being raped.

SEAN

Leslie Lee III

02-06-2006, 08:04 PM

If they're uncomfortable with that but are comfortable with comics showing Spider-Man eating people, then they're idiots.

You say this as if you're unsure. The hypocrisy exists. Yes, Marvel is wussing out and bending to pressure from special interest groups. No, they aren't being homophobic, they're trying to keep homophobes from hurting their company. This issue is much bigger than comics. Take a stand against Marvel being wusses if you like, but don't say they're doing something they're not.

Charles RB

02-06-2006, 08:23 PM

Yes, Marvel is wussing out and bending to pressure from special interest groups.

What pressure? No special interest groups have even noticed Runaways & Young Avengers. This is Marvel giving in to pressure that might happen and which may or may not actually be a threat. That's just daft. A few parents whining and not buying comics they were already not buying- is that really so scary a concept that Marvel is willing to self-censor itself before anything actually happens?

Adam Crocker

02-06-2006, 08:28 PM

Rich,

What of Young Avengers, then, which features two prominently gay characters?

He actually delt with that in the body of the column, noting that Marvel has had gay characters in their books and will probably continue to do so, it's just that if they take centre stage that will have the book slapped with a MR rating.

That is EXACTLY correct. Sorry you don't like that. I may not like it, but it is true, and Marvel is acting like a responsible publisher.

No Marvel is being asinine. Quesada went on about being a responsible publisher because they would have to slap on an 'Mature Rating' on the cover simply due to the fact that the lead character is gay. Yet as Bert pointed out, something which you did not address, is that at same time they publishing a comic of zombie versions of superheroes eating people, and include on the cover of issue four a pastiche of the Spiderman wedding cover with dead Mary Jane's intestines hanging out. And the rating for this is 'teens and up.' That is hypocrisy on Marvel's part.

Moreover, I'm not convinced by your arguments. Yes American society is more puritanical about sex than violence (and Canada vice-versa), but what sex? Simply because a character is gay does not mean there is actual sex involved. In fact there was zero in the actual Rawhide Kid mini, but it got it simply because the lead character was gay. That's ridiculous, not mention an egregious double standard. At best such a fact merits it rating that aims it at teenagers, but even that's pushing it if that's the only thing that raises it up to that level. The original Sailor Moon cartoon in Japan had characters who were gay, and in the last series of the anime (and storyline of the manga) men who turned into women (and in the manga women who disguised themselves as men, anyone got Blur's "Girls and Boys" in their heads now?). And it was still a kids' show. More gender bending and reference to homosexuality than early David Bowie and early Suede combined, but with 100% less sex too!

Hell, it's debatable how much this would cut into Marvel's bottom line, especially after Brokeback Mountain showed that a film about gay men may not necessarily be barrier to commercial success anymore.

ERoy

02-06-2006, 09:58 PM

Marvel is not a responsible publisher.

A responsible publisher stands behind their creators and stands for the rights of free speech and expression, no matter how controversial. Marvel, however, is a multimedia corporation, owned by stockholders. Therefore their responsibility lies solely to the stockholders and their interests. Not to their employees, nor their clientele, nor any other group unless it creates an advantage to benefit the stockholders.

A responsible publisher publishes books that sell, and don't publish books that will alienate the established or potential fanbase. Free speech has nothing to do with it. There's plenty of books out there featuring gay themes for those that it appeals to. Marvel just chooses not to be one of them. As a shareholder(I don't own much stock, but I do own some), I applaud them on their decision.

If you dislike the corporate agenda and how that affects the creators and the quality of work they produce,

If the creator MUST use gay themes in order to sell their work, they're not much of a creator.

ERoy

02-06-2006, 10:01 PM

I didn't say it was a "gay-themed" show.

I said it was a gay performer.

Please show me where it says in the Marvel Hanbooks that Rawhide Kid can NOT appear in a Western comic book from Marvel, unless he's "acting gay"

Because the entire purpose and "selling point" of the original Rawhide Kid MAX series was that he was gay. It would be a major selling point in a new one, otherwise, if it's a pure western title, why even mention that he's homosexual to begin with? No, what you want, it seems, is a gay character that is featured in a gay-themed title, so my analogy is more apt.

ERoy

02-06-2006, 10:10 PM

No Marvel is being asinine. Quesada went on about being a responsible publisher because they would have to slap on an 'Mature Rating' on the cover simply due to the fact that the lead character is gay. Yet as Bert pointed out, something which you did not address, is that at same time they publishing a comic of zombie versions of superheroes eating people, and include on the cover of issue four a pastiche of the Spiderman wedding cover with dead Mary Jane's intestines hanging out. And the rating for this is 'teens and up.' That is hypocrisy on Marvel's part.

As has been mentioned, violence is much more readily accepted by society at large than sex. Right or wrong, the typical mother or father may allow their son to watch Dawn of the Dead, but not Brokeback Mountain. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's simply the way it is, and Marvel is reflecting that attitude.

Moreover, I'm not convinced by your arguments. Yes American society is more puritanical about sex than violence (and Canada vice-versa), but what sex? Simply because a character is gay does not mean there is actual sex involved. In fact there was zero in the actual Rawhide Kid mini, but it got it simply because the lead character was gay. That's ridiculous, not mention an egregious double standard. [quote]

I'm not talking content, I'm talking PERCEPTION. When the original series hit, the media hit on only the fact that it was gay Western Hero, not what the comic was about. It's perceived as negative coverage, and Marvel doesn't want to repeat it.

I repeat -- why not allow Rawhide Kid to have a title without sex being a part of it at all? WHY make it a homosexual character unless you want it to be a part of the story, or something to sell the book on?

[quote]
The original Sailor Moon cartoon in Japan had characters who were gay, and in the last series of the anime (and storyline of the manga) men who turned into women (and in the manga women who disguised themselves as men, anyone got Blur's "Girls and Boys" in their heads now?). And it was still a kids' show. More gender bending and reference to homosexuality than early David Bowie and early Suede combined, but with 100% less sex too!

All lesbian/gender bending references in the Sailor Moon TV Show was cut for it's release in the US. You just made my point, thank you.

Hell, it's debatable how much this would cut into Marvel's bottom line, especially after Brokeback Mountain showed that a film about gay men may not necessarily be barrier to commercial success anymore.

Brokeback Mountain is designed to be watched by ADULTS. If it was a comic, it would certainly be a MAX title. Marvel certainly would not be making a Brokeback Mountain-style book either. Doesn't mean it's homophobic, just INTELLIGENT.

Bright-Raven

02-07-2006, 12:28 AM

Bert:

I realize DC is probably just as bad in your eyes as Marvel is but at least I've never felt disrespected by them.

Actually, no DC is not "as bad" in my eyes, per se. Yes, they have alienated me as a reader in similar fashion over recent year with their editorial direction (most of which being little more than emulation of the tactics that alienated me from Marvel), but in terms of interaction with the editorial people whom I have spoken with over the years, my experiences with DC have always been positive in tone, even if results were not that as I may have wished.

*****

ERoy:

A responsible publisher publishes books that sell, and don't publish books that will alienate the established or potential fanbase.

If that were true, ERoy, Marvel and DC's publications list would be merely a third of their current size.

Furthermore, you are specifically referring to corporate publishers or publishers with licenses to protect who are concerned with "alienating fan base". I was speaking of the far larger scope of publishing as a whole.

ERoy

02-07-2006, 01:17 AM

ERoy:

If that were true, ERoy, Marvel and DC's publications list would be merely a third of their current size.

Furthermore, you are specifically referring to corporate publishers or publishers with licenses to protect who are concerned with "alienating fan base". I was speaking of the far larger scope of publishing as a whole.

Yeah, I would agree that as a shareholder, a smaller schedule might be better. As a fan, I feel differently.

My point is two-fold with responsible publishing. Primarily, a publishers responsibility is the ensure they have the money to continue publishing, and to avoid potentially negative media coverage. This is the first and foremost duty of publishing any work. For Fiction publishers, it's to put out work that most reflects a potential or (in Marvel's case) an existing consumer base. Neither of this fits with creating a homosexually-charged storyline without a adult tag.

Some of you might think of me as homophobic, and you are entitled to this opinion. I'm simply looking at this from the perpective of "what would I do as a responsible publisher of Marvel". In doing that, it's a no-brainer -- I don't publish a storyline such as the gay Rawhide Kid without putting it in the MAX line. My second question -- will it sell? Are there enough people out there interested in a western-cowboy story based in the timeframe it is with a gay main character? The answer is, no. So -- I don't publish.

There's plenty of indie publishers that will and has created stories centering around a gay main character, and that's cool. Marvel simply isn't one of them. Does that make them wrong? No. It doesn't mean the organization or Joe Q is homophobic. It just makes him a good publisher.

Michael P

02-07-2006, 04:15 AM

it's being a Homophobe.

I would actually say it's being a homophobe-phobe. They don't have anything against gay people, they're just running scared from the fuckwits who do.

Which is only slightly less despicable, if at all.

Bert, I suggest you head on over to Newsarama and put the question directly to Joe for an upcoming Joe Fridays segment.

johncage1000

02-07-2006, 04:58 AM

Marvel is not a responsible publisher.

A responsible publisher stands behind their creators and stands for the rights of free speech and expression, no matter how controversial. Marvel, however, is a multimedia corporation, owned by stockholders. Therefore their responsibility lies solely to the stockholders and their interests. Not to their employees, nor their clientele, nor any other group unless it creates an advantage to benefit the stockholders.I would actually say it's being a homophobe-phobe. They don't have anything against gay people, they're just running scared from the fuckwits who do.

Which is only slightly less despicable, if at all.I just wanted to repost these. Personally when I read Joe's initial bit about only publishing Rawhide as a Max title I reread it twice just to make sure I was getting it right. I'm disappointed that Marvel feels that they can't have a gay lead in one of their titles unless it's presented as a mature readers book. But then again, I've found myself, a near-exclusive reader of Marvel Comics for ten+ years now, reading more DC and other publishers lately, so Marvel can do whatever it wants, I suppose.

Have a good day.
John Cage

MicroZone

02-07-2006, 05:30 AM

If they're uncomfortable with that but are comfortable with comics showing Spider-Man eating people, then they're idiots.

it's unlikely that anyone outside of the direct market was even aware of this. and if they were, you'd've already heard the outrage over such an appalling story.

dancj

02-07-2006, 05:36 AM

So Marvel is antsy around gay characters, while DC is publishing rape and bloody murder.

I guess neither is all that progressive.

I don't want to derail this thread, but how does publishing stories featuring rape and bloody murder stop DC from being progressive?
A responsible publisher publishes books that sell, and don't publish books that will alienate the established or potential fanbase.
Books featuring gay characters don't alienate hetrosexual people. They might, however increase their gay fanbase.
My point is two-fold with responsible publishing. Primarily, a publishers responsibility is the ensure they have the money to continue publishing, and to avoid potentially negative media coverage.
I think Bill Jemase proved quite effectively in his reign that any media coverage is publicity, which in turn leads to increased sales. In all honesty if they released a Rawhide Kid comic I doubt it would get much coverage.
This is the first and foremost duty of publishing any work. For Fiction publishers, it's to put out work that most reflects a potential or (in Marvel's case) an existing consumer base. Neither of this fits with creating a homosexually-charged storyline without a adult tag.
What makes you think this?
Some of you might think of me as homophobic, and you are entitled to this opinion. I'm simply looking at this from the perpective of "what would I do as a responsible publisher of Marvel". In doing that, it's a no-brainer -- I don't publish a storyline such as the gay Rawhide Kid without putting it in the MAX line. My second question -- will it sell? Are there enough people out there interested in a western-cowboy story based in the timeframe it is with a gay main character? The answer is, no. So -- I don't publish.

The second question is fine. If they don't think there's a big enough market for a Rawhide Kid comic then they're completely justified in not publishing it. The homophobic part is the belief that it's irresponsible to publish an non-Max comic centred on a gay character.

Dan

Leslie Lee III

02-07-2006, 06:09 AM

What pressure? No special interest groups have even noticed Runaways & Young Avengers.

But the article points out heat they got on Rawhide again. The rest of your post is just repeating that Marvel is being a wuss about things. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. However, anyone living in America should also understand it and not accuse them of homophobia. They're homophobe-phobic.

A few parents whining and not buying comics they were already not buying- is that really so scary a concept that Marvel is willing to self-censor itself before anything actually happens?

Obviously the answer to that question is, "Yes." Or are you accusing Marvel of just using this as an excuse? I really don't see much basis for that.

Don't mistake my explanation of what they're doing as my agreement with it. I'd prefer they take a stand against the forces that want to send this country into the dark ages, but it is so wrong to accuse them of being homophobic.

Adam Crocker

02-07-2006, 06:20 AM

As has been mentioned, violence is much more readily accepted by society at large than sex. Right or wrong, the typical mother or father may allow their son to watch Dawn of the Dead, but not Brokeback Mountain. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's simply the way it is, and Marvel is reflecting that attitude.

You missed my point. Even if violence is more readily accepted in entertainment in American society, it's still ethically questionable to have a comic aimed at teens as the youngest audience while having a cover where a characters' intestines are hanging out (to say nothing of the acts of cannibalism within). Hence why I find Marvel's stance asinine, because the double standards at work are ridiculous. Had Quesada said he merely considered it risky business proposition to publish a comic where the lead character is gay and thus they weren't going to do it I would have merely said that Marvel was gutless, shrugged my shoulders, and moved on. This nonsense about the MR rating just makes the company hypocritical in addition to being spineless.

I repeat -- why not allow Rawhide Kid to have a title without sex being a part of it at all? WHY make it a homosexual character unless you want it to be a part of the story, or something to sell the book on?

Well some may want to touch on issues of discrimination against gays. Others...just decide to it seems. But look below...

All lesbian/gender bending references in the Sailor Moon TV Show was cut for it's release in the US. You just made my point, thank you.

Further missing my point. I was pointing out how having homosexual characters (or even gender bending ones) does not equal to having sex and other such mature content in a piece of entertainment, despite your claims above. Or for that matter in Ellis' original run of the Authority he revealed that Apollo and Midnighter were lovers, but there was no depiction of sex attached to that. Most of the content that could get it considered 'for mature readers' (though it doesn't have that tag) the comic came from the violence.

Of course Rich also detailed in his column how even the original Rawhide Kid Max mini, even though played on some tasteless stereotyping, was even tamer than some of their non-max titles.

Brokeback Mountain is designed to be watched by ADULTS.

And again missing my point, which was less about content in this case than how popular entertainment has seemingly broken a commercial barrier with Brokeback Mountain's success despite the its subject matter still being considered somewhat taboo in North American society. I realize that doesn't necessarily mean all the barriers are cleared, but it seems that the movie's success is pretty significant in at least achieving it. In any case Brokeback Mountain was designed to be watched by adults due to the fact that the story was written for an adult audience in the first place and because the movie had sex and nudity in it.

(And then of course there is the Batwoman series Rich mentioned.)

west3man

02-07-2006, 06:49 AM

Bert, I suggest you head on over to Newsarama and put the question directly to Joe for an upcoming Joe Fridays segment.
I was thinking something similar.
Kinda makes me wish Quesada were going to MegaCON (and bert, too).

I thought I read the LiTG column, this week, but maybe not. *takes another look*

Donald M.

02-07-2006, 08:17 AM

Because the entire purpose and "selling point" of the original Rawhide Kid MAX series was that he was gay. It would be a major selling point in a new one, otherwise, if it's a pure western title, why even mention that he's homosexual to begin with? No, what you want, it seems, is a gay character that is featured in a gay-themed title, so my analogy is more apt.

I don't think that's what he's saying at all or necessarily what he wants.

At any rate, the Rawhide Kid was a gay character in a Western themed title. Any overarching gay theme can be chalked up to the lacking skill of a writer apparently unable to write a book about a gay protagonist without turning it into "Queer Eye for the Cowboy".

As to the sexuality of the character, if a character is gay or meant to be gay, why not mention it even if it is a "pure western title".

If a book is a "pure superhero title" why mention that they're straight or interested in sex at all? There's no room for sex in a story about big sweaty guys in spandex punching each other!

west3man

02-07-2006, 09:00 AM

Now that I've read the column, I'm gonna speak up, but with some reservation.

Basically, the problem is more about American society than it is about any entity within that society, like a comic book company. Since, however, such organizations ARE a part of the whole, they still bear some of the responsibility.

What's all that MEAN, baby??

Enh. Marvel's playing by the rules that "we*" set up.

It'd take real balls on Marvel's part to go against what they perceive as American standards of acceptability. It'd be great if they DID buck the system in some areas, but WE'RE the ones who dictate whether they'd survive such a thing.

From the start, even without reading the story, I already knew that bert was right... just because it's his doggone money and he's not obligated to spend it on THIS or THAT comic.

As far as what I believe to be the broader, implied question - he's STILL doing the right thing by speaking out with his wallet AND with his e-mouth. Dollars make'em pay attention. Speaking up gives'em something to pay attention TO.

That's something of a complicated answer, but society's kinda complicated.

* - Maybe not you or me, specifically, but definitely, as a whole.

mortari

02-07-2006, 09:18 AM

Charles RB

02-07-2006, 09:39 AM

it's unlikely that anyone outside of the direct market was even aware of this.

In that case, they're not going to be aware of comics that have gay characters either, are they?

It'd take real balls on Marvel's part to go against what they perceive as American standards of acceptability.

Which is what Marvel has done in the past. What's stopping it from doing it now that wasn't stopping it in earlier decades?

west3man

02-07-2006, 09:57 AM

Which is what Marvel has done in the past. What's stopping it from doing it now that wasn't stopping it in earlier decades?
As I said in the very next sentence, after the one you quoted, "It'd be great if they DID buck the system in some areas, but WE'RE the ones who dictate whether they'd survive such a thing."

In an age in which one can get into legal trouble just for SELLING comics that are supposedly not kid-friendly, it's a toss-up which way this'd go.

Adam Crocker

02-07-2006, 01:04 PM

I want to get this straight (so to speak), marvel doesn't want to use a character whose been around for 40+ years in a mainstream book. That never once mentions sex. Because he was in an off continurity mini series a few years ago making fun of him being gay.

Makes sense to me?

Yeah, basically that's part of it. More key to the issue at hand though is 'never once mentions sex' and the fact they'd have to put a 'Mature Readers' tag on it irregardless because the character would be gay.

Huh?

02-07-2006, 01:30 PM

I find it hillarious that Marvel only has a problem with male gay characters. Hot female lesbians with large breasts? Go for it!

Funny, a lot like America when you think about it.

MBunge

02-07-2006, 01:37 PM

I want to get this straight (so to speak), marvel doesn't want to use a character whose been around for 40+ years in a mainstream book. That never once mentions sex. Because he was in an off continurity mini series a few years ago making fun of him being gay.

Makes sense to me?

Here's the question - Why not put Rawhide Kid in the book and write a scene where he asks a girl for a date, thereby distiguishing the character from the other "Gay" Rawhide Kid book? On this issue JoeQ is concerned with continuity?!?!

Mike

Bright-Raven

02-07-2006, 02:10 PM

ERoy:

Again, a real *publisher* does not concern themselves with "bad" publicity. There are many authors in the book world who write controversial subject matter and publishers release them because they know there is an audience for them. Marvel is a *multimedia company*, with thousands of licenses garnering them tens of millions of dollars. Two totally separate things.

I am not saying there is enough of an audience for the gay Rawhide Kid to warrant further publications of the character.

But because of the gay RK series and the incredibly poor way it was handled (sensationalistically), it would be extremely difficult to sell to begin with and I for one have no confidence in Joe Quesada or anyone else at Marvel editorial to be capable of achieving such a goal. You may want to blame Bill Jemas and his carnival barker mentality, but Quesada was just as much the ringleader of that three ring circus as Jemas ever was.

This is where Marvel fails as a publisher - they only want to produce redundant superhero brands at the expense of all other genre. While there are plenty of publishers who are basically SMALL PRESS who publish to fit niche markets in the book publishing industry, no multimillion dollar megacorp book publisher is so short-sighted or so redundant in what they publish as Marvel has become. (Keep in mind up until Carl Icahn took over, there were still variable genre comics published under the original EPIC line through the HEAVY HITTERS line, and they still had occassional traditional horror comics.)

DC at least has enough sense to at least attempt to create separate divisions for different genres and maintain them (Vertigo, Paradox Press, Piranha Press, Helix). These divisions don't always succeed, and there any number of factors contributing to that, but the fact that DC is open-minded enough to explore these venues proves that they are a far more legitimate publisher than Marvel, who is almost entirely concerned with nothing else than character / brand identity for the purposes of licensing.

Adam Crocker

02-07-2006, 02:29 PM

Here's the question - Why not put Rawhide Kid in the book and write a scene where he asks a girl for a date, thereby distiguishing the character from the other "Gay" Rawhide Kid book? On this issue JoeQ is concerned with continuity?!?!

Who knows? I'm surprised that Marvel hasn't conveniently forgotten about the damn thing (most people already have) and throw up yet another property to be exploited.

Bright-Raven

02-07-2006, 02:39 PM

You all just wait - Rawhide will make a guest appearance in one of the western comics as the victim of a lynch mob who murder him because he's gay, and the straight hero will then take vengeance on those who killed RK in a "moralistic" tale of social tolerance.

You think that's horrible? You're damn right it is. But in the time period of the "old west", such goings on would have been par for the course. Homosexuality was neither understood nor tolerated anywhere near to the extent that it is today. So as disgusting as it may sound, it's a logical progression and I can see Marvel doing it, just to rid themselves of the gay version of the character (which has been argued as a major mistake on Marvel's part to begin with), and have someone else who is straight take up the mantle of the character after the fact.

Michael P

02-07-2006, 04:31 PM

I was thinking something similar.
Kinda makes me wish Quesada were going to MegaCON (and bert, too).

I thought I read the LiTG column, this week, but maybe not. *takes another look*
He'll be at the New York Con. And so will I.

DarkBlade

02-07-2006, 04:41 PM

All lesbian/gender bending references in the Sailor Moon TV Show was cut for it's release in the US. You just made my point, thank you.

Err, yeah, they were made cousins. WHICH WAS CREEPY! Cause they were still acting like lovers.

west3man

02-07-2006, 04:56 PM

He'll be at the New York Con. And so will I.
Go for it. I asked Smarty's question, last year. Quesada took it well and even had a somewhat decent answer.

He'll damn-sure get his share of "Is Ben Grimm's 'thing' all rocky," kinda questions. May as well toss him something with a lil weight.

Just remember to let us know what he says.

Puma

02-07-2006, 05:37 PM

I find it hillarious that Marvel only has a problem with male gay characters. Hot female lesbians with large breasts? Go for it!

Funny, a lot like America when you think about it.

exactly. there is all sorts of *wink wink* action of Storm, Yukio, and hell, the woman with the tentacle arms in the X Men but Northstar, a very open gay man, is the only significant character killed off during an attack on the school and in Ultimate Colossus' is essentially in the closet but dropping hints. the only alienation Marvel is worried about is horny fifteen year old boys and virginal thirty year old men.

Grazzt

02-07-2006, 05:40 PM

exactly. there is all sorts of *wink wink* action of Storm, Yukio, and hell, the woman with the tentacle arms in the X Men but Northstar, a very open gay man, is the only significant character killed off during an attack on the school and in Ultimate Colossus' is essentially in the closet but dropping hints. the only alienation Marvel is worried about is horny fifteen year old boys and virginal thirty year old men.

Minor nitpick, Ultimate Colossus is entirely out of the closet now. He's going to homecoming with Ult. Northstar.

bert

02-07-2006, 06:16 PM

Just wanted to post, since I started the thread.

I plan on going back and "debating/answering/commenting" on some of the repiles (as I did on the Community board).

but I'm sick like a DOG (103 fever w/ the flu)

so I'm off to bed.

I'll get back to this thread shortly.

Adam Crocker

02-07-2006, 07:10 PM

Err, yeah, they were made cousins. WHICH WAS CREEPY! Cause they were still acting like lovers.

Most people who saw the change felt the same way.

BlueThunderArmy

02-07-2006, 07:53 PM

You all are forgetting the big picture, the real reason Marvel won't publish a queer leading man: gays don't read comics (http://www.prismcomics.org).

:D

RichJohnston

02-08-2006, 12:38 AM

Rich,

it's being a Homophobe.

bert

Joe is not a homophobe. Marvel comics feature a number of gay characters, Runaways, Young Avengers and Ultimate X-Men to name the most prominent. But he's saying he can't give a gay character a lead book. Not nowadays, anyway. American culture has changed, and he's beholden to shareholders, advertisers and directors.

RichJohnston

02-08-2006, 12:41 AM

Rich,

What of Young Avengers, then, which features two prominently gay characters?

If it were Young Avenger and the title character was gay, it would have to be MAX. Apparently.

Michael P

02-08-2006, 03:59 AM

You all are forgetting the big picture, the real reason Marvel won't publish a queer leading man: gays don't read comics (http://www.prismcomics.org).

:D
There's a "Yaoi Press?" Do they just not know what the word means?

MBunge

02-08-2006, 08:36 AM

Joe is not a homophobe.

Okay. But then the question is, why not include a "straight" Rawhide Kid? Does he believe that if a character is portrayed as gay once, even if every other presentation of his sexuality was hetero, that character MUST be gay forever and ever? Or how about this - Does Joe regret the gay RK series, since he now apparently believes it's made the character all but unusable in the current climate?

Mike

BlueThunderArmy

02-08-2006, 08:38 AM

There's a "Yaoi Press?" Do they just not know what the word means?

I didn't name it...

BlueThunderArmy

02-08-2006, 08:40 AM

Okay. But then the question is, why not include a "straight" Rawhide Kid?

I think the "why not" is largely contained in the fact that there is an uproar over the refusal to publish a gay Rawhide Kid. Ret-conning his sexuality would further alienate the (rather sizable) gay comics community, and those making idle threats to drop their Marvel titles would be much more likely to make good on their promises.

west3man

02-08-2006, 09:16 AM

RichJohnston

02-08-2006, 09:49 AM

Okay. But then the question is, why not include a "straight" Rawhide Kid? Does he believe that if a character is portrayed as gay once, even if every other presentation of his sexuality was hetero, that character MUST be gay forever and ever? Or how about this - Does Joe regret the gay RK series, since he now apparently believes it's made the character all but unusable in the current climate?

Mike

I believe he regrets the publicity.

josh straightedge

02-08-2006, 11:08 AM

Marvel has gay characters. Young Avengers has main characters that are gay.

Of course, Rawhide Kid is a stupid character that wouldn't carry a title far enough worth putting out. If it made it past issue 10 I'd be surprised.

lament

02-08-2006, 12:08 PM

bfrank

02-08-2006, 12:35 PM

west3man

02-08-2006, 12:37 PM

What I don't understand is the whole issue of "vocal parental concerns." I have never, and I mean, NEVER, been in my comic shop when a kid was in there. My shop is frequented by adults. Honestly, how many younger kids really read comic books?
I'm not sure it matters a whole lot from some publishers'/sellers' points-of-view, considering some of the legal action that's been taken in recent years due to of concerns over what children are being exposed to... even in comics that aren't meant FOR children. *shrugs*

MBunge

02-08-2006, 01:21 PM

I think the "why not" is largely contained in the fact that there is an uproar over the refusal to publish a gay Rawhide Kid. Ret-conning his sexuality would further alienate the (rather sizable) gay comics community, and those making idle threats to drop their Marvel titles would be much more likely to make good on their promises.

Did the gay comics community really like the gay Rawhide Kid in the first place? I mean, the idea of it was one thing...but did they like the actual series?

And is declaring that having a gay main character automatically warrants a MR rating really less offensive than ret-conning the ret-con of Rawhide Kid being gay? I mean, ret-conning Northstar would be one thing but the RK series was seemingly just a wrong-headed publicity stunt.

Mike

west3man

02-08-2006, 01:38 PM

Did the gay comics community really like the gay Rawhide Kid in the first place?
I think one of bert's earliest statements in this or the other thread was that he not only disliked elements (or the whole) of the series/revamp, but he was actually offended by them.

That's distinct, though, from liking the basis for Marvel's decision to MK the series or TKO it.

Ottmeister X

02-08-2006, 03:26 PM

as it is. . this stance has angered me so much, that I am dropping all my Marvel pulls (true, it wasn't much, but I had added: Son of M, New X-men, New Excalibur, X-Factor, Generation M (all as part of Decimation), and Ares).

Marvel has just lost that business.

I understand and applaud Bert's stance. However, isn't boycotting all Marvel titles going to hurt the creators of those titles more so than Joe Q. or Marvel? Just seems like a rash decision, but maybe it's the only decision to make that could be noticed.

The comments by Joe Q. can be perceived as odd since I thought the demographics on comic books these days was the majority of fans being males in their 30's and 40's. I might have to check with my Mom, but it seems to me that most comic book buyers should have grown past their parental supervision stage.

west3man

02-08-2006, 04:36 PM

I look forward to someone asking Joe Q. about this during a panel discussion.

Gilda Dent

02-08-2006, 05:54 PM

A responsible publisher publishes books that sell, and don't publish books that will alienate the established or potential fanbase. Free speech has nothing to do with it. There's plenty of books out there featuring gay themes for those that it appeals to. Marvel just chooses not to be one of them. As a shareholder(I don't own much stock, but I do own some), I applaud them on their decision.

The mere presense of a gay character doesn't mean a book is based on "gay themes". Peter is obviously stright and has had an active love life, but the theme of Spider-Man has traditionally been responsibility. The theme of the Fantastic Four is adventure. Avengers is a bout Duty. All of them feature very openly heterosexual characters, but none of them could fairly be said to be comics based on "straight themes".

If the creator MUST use gay themes in order to sell their work, they're not much of a creator.

I'd agree that that basing all of one's work on a single theme is limiting, but that doesn't mean that creators aren't highly skilled at that theme or at exploring other themes in their work.

Also, you seem to be assuming that a book with a gay lead would be gay themed. This is not really a well-founded assumption.

Take the Rawhid Kid. What the people responsible for that series didn't seem to get was that he could be gay and that not be the facet of his character that was the focus of the title. Johah Hex is straight, but he's not shown doing "staight" sexual things in every story. Sexual relationships are used when the fit the story, and ignored when they don't.

This idea that for a gay person, that aspect of their being is the focus of their being is a little irritating. And it can be, and in certain circumstances, is, just as with a heterosexual person. Our sexuality is a big part of us. But it seems to be assumed that if a person is gay that that part of their being is determinate for most other parts of their being.

A straight white male can be written in a great variety of ways, and seldom is the straight, white, or male their defining charactersistic. It's sad that the same doesn't hold true nearly as often for women, and ethnic and sexual minorities.

Gilda

bert

02-08-2006, 06:19 PM

It's done.

I went to my comic's shop, and spoke with the Owner and Manager (actually, I walked in the door and announced to the Manager that I wanted to drop all Marvel from my pull list, and the Owner came over to find out what is going on).

I explained the situation, pointed them over to Newsarama, Rich's column here, and the threads on the boards.

They seemed *mighty* displeased w/ Marvel's/Quesada's stance. Probably because my shop has several gay customers. . .one of whom followed my lead and dropped Marvel books as well.

all it took, was one look at the books I put back on the shelf this week: "the 198" (Gratuitous boob shots -- top panel of page 6?), Marvel Zombies (characters tearing limbs off, and Hulk BITING the head off a character), and Son of M (didn't look at this one too close). . to reassure me I had made the right choice.

Then I got home and read Comic Shop News, and found this beauty of a quote from Dan Slott (referring to an upcoming fill in by Will Conrad,
"Basically, we have our first really. . . racy storyline coming up" "and when it comes to finding the PERFECT guest-artist, we wanted someone who REALLY excelled at two things: good storytelling, and characters that had sex appeal written all over 'em!"

I await the announcement from Quesada that this arc will have a Mature Readers label.

Oh, trust me, I'm not happy to have any part in driving anyone away from Marvel. . but they have betrayed my trust. And I think all comics readers should know the attitude of the company they are supporting.

Prior to leaving, I heard the Manager discussing it w/ several of the employees at another store (they apparently had stumbled on the CBR thread/Newsarama weekly, and were already discussing it, but the Manager called them to ask if they had heard about it).

and with the money I'm saving, I perused the sale rack, where I picked up 3 DC hardcovers (Orbiter, Wonder Woman: the Hiketeia, and Green Lantern: Willworld) for just $12.50 each.

bert

Charles RB

02-08-2006, 06:21 PM

Marvel Zombies (characters tearing limbs off, and Hulk BITING the head off a character)

That reminds me- I need to get the Marvel Zombies trade when it's out...

bert

02-08-2006, 06:26 PM

Because the entire purpose and "selling point" of the original Rawhide Kid MAX series was that he was gay. It would be a major selling point in a new one, otherwise, if it's a pure western title, why even mention that he's homosexual to begin with?

for no other reason than it's a part of the character now.

a gay person is not DEFINED by who puts who's penis where. . or how much you like your vagina licked by another woman.

Get out of the early 1900's. gay people are PEOPLE first.

the fact he's a gay character, is just that. a part of his make up, and that's it.

No, what you want, it seems, is a gay character that is featured in a gay-themed title, so my analogy is more apt.

you shouldn't try to figure out someone you a) don't know at all, and b) don't even attempt to see where they are coming from.

I READ a book about a gay character in a gay themed title. It's called "Sticky" and it's hardcore gay, cartoon Porn. I also read "Genus: Male" (which is anthropromorphic hardcore gay Porn.

I *also* read "Birds of Prey" - that has been featuring a gay character for the past year, "Gotham Central" that features TWO lesbian lead characters (who are not a couple!), and "Wonder Woman" -- lots of lesbian Amazons.

can you figure out which two on the above list have a Mature Reader's label?

You have no idea what I want. . . although it's very, VERY simple.

I want respect

and Quesada has just disrespected me as a person, a gay man, and a Human Being.

bert

02-08-2006, 06:30 PM

I would actually say it's being a homophobe-phobe. They don't have anything against gay people, they're just running scared from the fuckwits who do.

Which is only slightly less despicable, if at all.

Bert, I suggest you head on over to Newsarama and put the question directly to Joe for an upcoming Joe Fridays segment.

hmmm. . . perhaps a valid point.

but you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

those words, coming out of Quesada's mouth, to me (an important point, TO ME) are homphobic.

I tried signing up for Newsarama years ago, and have never gotten it to work.

feel free to pose the question in my stead, tho (I *did* fire off an email to Marvel. . but it's probably been deleted already).

bert

02-08-2006, 06:32 PM

From the start, even without reading the story, I already knew that bert was right... just because it's his doggone money and he's not obligated to spend it on THIS or THAT comic.

As far as what I believe to be the broader, implied question - he's STILL doing the right thing by speaking out with his wallet AND with his e-mouth. Dollars make'em pay attention. Speaking up gives'em something to pay attention TO.

thanks West, the vote of confidence is appreciated.

bert

02-08-2006, 06:34 PM

He'll be at the New York Con. And so will I.

oooo.. please ask him about the hypocricy and homophobia of his statement.

and feel free to mention that I dropped all Marvel books from my pull list.

bert

bert

02-08-2006, 06:40 PM

Joe is not a homophobe. Marvel comics feature a number of gay characters, Runaways, Young Avengers and Ultimate X-Men to name the most prominent. But he's saying he can't give a gay character a lead book. Not nowadays, anyway. American culture has changed, and he's beholden to shareholders, advertisers and directors.

Rich,

you obviously know the man much better than I (since I don't know him at all).

"defending" Quesada's statement of not being a homophobe because Marvel has some gay characters (or even because Marvel has some gay creators), is akin to saying someone is not racist, because they work with some black folks.

He's NOT saying that he can't give a gay character a lead book. He's saying he can't give a gay character a lead book--even if there is no sexual situations, nudity, or swearing.

that is demeaning to me as a gay man. Basically he's perpetuating the bullshit that because I'm gay, I'm not "normal", and don't deserve to be treated the same as any other person (or character).

is his statement Hypocritcal?

Absolutely (there are tons of examples, and I just posted three in this thread).

is his statement Idiotic?

Absolutely why alienate the gay fan-base (you should see how many gay/lesbians show up to the gay themed panel in San Deigo, or Dragon*con)

is his statement Homophobic?

in my eyes, Absolutely

hence my stance and outrage on this.

bert

bert

02-08-2006, 06:41 PM

I believe he regrets the publicity.

the publicity they (Marvel) courted you mean?

about how controversial the book was going to be?

bert

02-08-2006, 06:42 PM

Did the gay comics community really like the gay Rawhide Kid in the first place? I mean, the idea of it was one thing...but did they like the actual series?

And is declaring that having a gay main character automatically warrants a MR rating really less offensive than ret-conning the ret-con of Rawhide Kid being gay? I mean, ret-conning Northstar would be one thing but the RK series was seemingly just a wrong-headed publicity stunt.

Mike

I can't speak for the "gay comics" community. . but I didn't care for it.

Jay Figgs

02-08-2006, 06:42 PM

I tried signing up for Newsarama years ago, and have never gotten it to work.

feel free to pose the question in my stead, tho (I *did* fire off an email to Marvel. . but it's probably been deleted already).

Hello, Bert.
I signed up for NEwsarama specifically to ask Joe Quesada about this, and took the liberty of using your "Marvel Zombies" example.
I'm really, really curious if this is going to get some kind of answer (upon which rests the fate of all my Marvel purchases).

bert

02-08-2006, 06:44 PM

I understand and applaud Bert's stance. However, isn't boycotting all Marvel titles going to hurt the creators of those titles more so than Joe Q. or Marvel? Just seems like a rash decision, but maybe it's the only decision to make that could be noticed.

Yeah, It is a tough decision.

because I'm not dropping books I don't care for. . I LIKE Wheedon's Astonishing, I LIKE Generation M, and New X-Men. . I like Marvel Zombies (even tho I've been holding it up as an example of Quesada's hypocrisy).

however, as I've explained in the other thread, Quesada, as Marvel's EiC, is the VOICE of Marvel.

dropping just a few books would do nothing. I simply cannot support a company that views me as a "less than"

bert

02-08-2006, 06:49 PM

Hello, Bert.
I signed up for NEwsarama specifically to ask Joe Quesada about this, and took the liberty of using your "Marvel Zombies" example.
I'm really, really curious if this is going to get some kind of answer (upon which rests the fate of all my Marvel purchases).

cool Jay.

and welcome to CBR, a great site !

please let us know if you get an answer. I wouldn't hold my breath (he'll probably back-pedal rather than address it). . but thanks for asking.

bert

TAYLORMADE777

02-08-2006, 08:13 PM

bert

02-08-2006, 08:30 PM

How is looking out for his company make you a homophobe? And he never said they wont have comic book with a Gay as a lead, he just said if they did it would have a MR stamp on it.

Lemme give you an example. Say Marvel produces a book with a gay lead (regular rated). A someone buys it, and lets their kid read it. They have no problem with it. Yet the kid takes it to school and let one of his friends borrow it. Now this kids Parents are way different, and are shocked at what they see in the book. They cause a uproar with the shop and Marvel, at what they see as clear attempt by Marvel to brainwash their children to the Gay lifestyle. And thats when everything goes to hell.

And as much as I hate to see this example become reality. I would be stupid to think in wouldn't happen.

a comic with no expicit sex, no non-explicit kissing, and no gay agenda?

just a character that happens to be gay?

that's EXACTLY what Marvel says it won't publish without a MR label.

How can you not see that as treating Homosexuals as less than equal?

Spidey got Mary Jane pregnant, and he screwed around w/ the Black Cat a LOT before he ended up marrying Mary Jane. Pre-marital Sex ?

so where was the MR label for that?

or for the issue of Avengers, where it was heavily implied that Hank shrunk down and went spelunking in Jan's vagina? Nope, no MR label.

how about the recent Shanna book? yeah, the took it OUT of the solicited MR section, by forcing Cho to cover up all the nipple shots -- but she was still basically nude for the whole series. and yet it was rated T+, I believe

(notice I'm not using ANY violence examples).

if you can't see the glaring double standard here. . . well. . . anything I say won't convince you otherwise.

as for the example you stated?

The CBLDF would be all over it, and a lawsuit would never see court.

period.

geordiesteve

02-09-2006, 06:28 AM

RichJohnston

02-09-2006, 06:51 AM

It's done.

and with the money I'm saving, I perused the sale rack, where I picked up 3 DC hardcovers (Orbiter, Wonder Woman: the Hiketeia, and Green Lantern: Willworld) for just $12.50 each.

bert

DC being the company that had Paul Levitz demand that a panel of two men kissing (on the cheek) in Jenny Sparks be removed. Such action was only allowed when the book went Mature Readers.

RichJohnston

02-09-2006, 06:51 AM

Oh and Marvel Zombies is fantastic. Just read issue 3... it's amazing.

Joe Rice

02-09-2006, 06:53 AM

Jay Figgs

02-09-2006, 08:53 AM

DC being the company that had Paul Levitz demand that a panel of two men kissing (on the cheek) in Jenny Sparks be removed. Such action was only allowed when the book went Mature Readers.

I don't think this comparison is valid or fair nowadays.

Both Gotham Central and Manhunter have featured on-panel kissing of gay characters, and in the case of Gotham Central, the homosexuality of Montoya was integral to the (excelent, by the way) story being told, and that's just two examples of how DC's been treating their gay characters.

In my mind, DC's stance on depcting and treatment of gay characters in recent years have more than made up for the whole Authority controversy (at that time, I stopped buying most of their books, precisely for that reason), even more so in comparison to this latest development from Marvel.

I don't think Bert plans on never buying another Marvel comic again, ever, should their editorial mindset change.

west3man

02-09-2006, 09:08 AM

I'm not sure it's a fair comparison, either, but I couldn't support it too well until I read Jay's post.

I think the absence of anything romantically or sexually explicit in a "gay-lead" book is what makes the MAX label not just over-the-top, but WAY over-the-top, in the eyes of some.

That doesn't mean there aren't smaller things which are problematic. In fact, bert already mentioned that there are other things which bugged him, but that clearly weren't bothersome enough, at the time, for him to break ties.

So, basically, I think the internal logic of bert's postion remains intact.

Joe Rice

02-09-2006, 09:12 AM

Jay Figgs

02-09-2006, 09:33 AM

I don't think anyone's disputing that. We're just saying the same holds true for DC.

But that's what I meant - Today, it doesn't.

DC's treatment and depiction of gay characters for the past few years have been very different (and, IMO, improved) from what it was at the time the Authority book was first being published.

Joe Rice

02-09-2006, 09:34 AM

But bert isn't upset about the comics, its about the policy. And Marvel's comics have even more gay male characters than DC does.

west3man

02-09-2006, 09:57 AM

I don't think anyone's disputing that. We're just saying the same holds true for DC.
The example provided didn't demonstrate that. It's that example that I was referring to.

The rest was just opinion, but there's no way to respond to opinion-without-examples except with agreement, disagreement, or a neutral stance.

bert

02-09-2006, 10:07 AM

DC being the company that had Paul Levitz demand that a panel of two men kissing (on the cheek) in Jenny Sparks be removed. Such action was only allowed when the book went Mature Readers.

Rich,

I completely understand, that due to your job, it’s in your best interest not to “anger” any of the Comics Companies.

However, I do find it incredibly amusing, and just (more than) slightly hypocritical , that you take a swipe at DC using old information that is no longer valid to the comparison – as has been pointed out – when in the LitG column, you followed Quesada’s comments by pointing out the rumor that DC is about to launch Batwoman with a lesbian lead.

bert

Jay Figgs

02-09-2006, 10:48 AM

But bert isn't upset about the comics, its about the policy. And Marvel's comics have even more gay male characters than DC does.

That's the thing - It matters less how many gay characters each company has, than how those characters are treated/portrayed.

And the way they're treated/portrayed is the direct consequence of the policy each company has, regarding how to handle gay characters.

The fact that DC's been handling their gay characters better than Marvel (Montoya, Manhunter's assistant and Obsidian, Josiah Power, Terry Berg, Fatale and Knockout, Creote, some of the amazons at Paradise Island), therefore, shows that they have, IMO, a better policy regarding the portrayal of gay characters and subject.

Joe Rice

02-09-2006, 11:11 AM

I dunno, guys. I think Runaways and Young Avengers in particular are dealing with homosexual characters without being either exploitative or insensitive. The DC characters you list are generally supporting characters, the Marvel ones leads.

I think both E-I-C's are doing the weak way out, but in no way do I think DC is handling the material better.

Charles RB

02-09-2006, 11:40 AM

I dunno, guys. I think Runaways and Young Avengers in particular are dealing with homosexual characters without being either exploitative or insensitive.

Yeah, but Karolina's conviniently vanished into Skrull-space.

rogersuk

02-09-2006, 01:07 PM

It seems to me that the whole sorry situation is just a sign of the times.

Whenever there is a political shift towards the christian right, it will be reflected in the media. Despite the fact that in many ways there is more equality these days we are also living in times of heightened paranoia and a shift towards religious viewpoints and so-called family values as a safety net.

In the UK soap operas shown in the early evening have had gay characters since the 80s. This doesn't mean that the tabloids, especially the evil Daily Mail, don't still pick up on any gay characters on TV and say it is corrupting children so times don't really change.

The christian right is more powerful in the States, so I guess it stands to reason they can cause business decisions like this. Before christianity homosexuality wasn't seen as anything wrong (which of course it isn't), so like most prejudices our society has it all comes back to organised religion.

It's made Marvel go down in my estimations, but I can see from a purely financial perspective how their fears made them do it, I guess. Then again it's things like this which made Alan Moore so angry about the whole "mature readers only" thing in the first place. Freedom of speech for all, that's what I say.

dancj

02-10-2006, 04:47 AM

You're right, a character shouldn't be defined by their sexuality. Highlighting that the character was gay was not a good idea, just as I didn't pick up The Authority when it came out under Ellis, because I had heard it had two gay characters in.

You didn't pick up The Authority because two of the characters happened to be gay?

Why? You do realise that the rest of the characters weren't gay right?

dancj

02-10-2006, 04:50 AM

I don't think this comparison is valid or fair nowadays.

Both Gotham Central and Manhunter have featured on-panel kissing of gay characters, and in the case of Gotham Central, the homosexuality of Montoya was integral to the (excelent, by the way) story being told, and that's just two examples of how DC's been treating their gay characters.

For some reason, lesbians aren't considered as offensive as gay men, so for a true comparison, you'd need examples of gay men. They wouldn't need to kiss or anything. Just be the main character in a book which isn't mature readers.

As it happens, apparantly none of the new Wildstorm books are going to be 'mature readers' and there's a Midnighter solo book!

Jay Figgs

02-10-2006, 05:02 AM

For some reason, lesbians aren't considered as offensive as gay men, so for a true comparison, you'd need examples of gay men. They wouldn't need to kiss or anything. Just be the main character in a book which isn't mature readers.

In the case of the Manhunter comic, it was two males - One of them is Damon Matthews, the main character's assistant, the other is Todd Rice, aka Obsidian.

And the reason, IMO, lesbians aren't considered as ofensive as gay men is because many straight men have (or are taught to have) this fantasy about two women together. They have this stupid idea that two women together aren't "threatening", because they're not really gay, they're just passing time until a real man comes along.

As it happens, apparantly none of the new Wildstorm books are going to be 'mature readers' and there's a Midnighter solo book!

Yes, I'm looking forward to that. Although I have many doubts on how Garth Ennis would handle a gay leading character.

NormanB

02-10-2006, 07:02 AM

Yeah, but Karolina's conviniently vanished into Skrull-space.

That's where all the hotties are.

:)

west3man

02-10-2006, 07:16 AM

I agree with some of what you have said Bert. I think it is bizarre that graphic horror does not hold an adult warning on a comic, but a gay character does, simply for their sexuality, but I also think Marvel are playing it safe and didn't want to court controversy. Too late though!!

You're right, a character shouldn't be defined by their sexuality. Highlighting that the character was gay was not a good idea, just as I didn't pick up The Authority when it came out under Ellis, because I had heard it had two gay characters in. If RK had been pitched to me as a western book, I would be interested, as the genre is my kind of thing. Does it matter to me that the main character is gay? No. I think that, perhaps, is what JQ regrets, that the book drew attention and controversy because of this kind of hype, and not the writing and art.
I'm missing the fine line of distinction between not caring "that the main character is gay" and choosing not to pick up a comic because you "heard it had two gay characters in" it.

It sounds like it does matter, to you, that *any* character is gay. It matters so much that it'll stop you from buying a book you otherwise would've picked up.

If I'm missing something, please feel free to point it out, but if you're not passing on books because they have heterosexual characters, this seems pretty cut-and-dried. You're not just talking about marketing, from what I can tell.

You just don't want folks spilling any gay onto your comics. If that's how you feel, that's how you feel. None of us have to agree with it, but I'd at least like to be sure that is or isn't what's going on.

As of now, I'd say "is."

geordiesteve

02-10-2006, 07:38 AM

You didn't pick up The Authority because two of the characters happened to be gay?

Why? You do realise that the rest of the characters weren't gay right?

I'm saying I didn't go out of my way to get this book because I had heard there were two gay characters in it. I bought it because I had heard some good things about about the story, and writer. I didn't know about the sexuality of any characters in the book. But just as when I found that there were some gay characters, I wasn't put off and didn't stop reading it. Does that make sense?

geordiesteve

02-10-2006, 07:41 AM

I'm missing the fine line of distinction between not caring "that the main character is gay" and choosing not to pick up a comic because you "heard it had two gay characters in" it.

It sounds like it does matter, to you, that *any* character is gay. It matters so much that it'll stop you from buying a book you otherwise would've picked up.

If I'm missing something, please feel free to point it out, but if you're not passing on books because they have heterosexual characters, this seems pretty cut-and-dried. You're not just talking about marketing, from what I can tell.

You just don't want folks spilling any gay onto your comics. If that's how you feel, that's how you feel. None of us have to agree with it, but I'd at least like to be sure that is or isn't what's going on.

As of now, I'd say "is."

I think I was typing so quickly when I posted, I missed some words out! Hope my other post cleared this up. I got the Authority, enjoyed it, thought it was excellent, when the creative team changed I got bored and wandered away.

RichJohnston

02-10-2006, 11:17 AM

Rich,

I completely understand, that due to your job, it’s in your best interest not to “anger” any of the Comics Companies.

bert

What? I do nothing but!

You think Quesada wanted me to publish that article? You think Levitz wanted me to leak that Spectre and Creeper art with all those logos?

You're starting from a false premise.

Michael P

02-10-2006, 11:19 AM

You think Quesada wanted me to publish that article?
Honestly, I'm anxious for this week's Joe Fridays precisely to see what horrible things he says about you.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

02-10-2006, 03:44 PM

I think both E-I-C's are doing the weak way out, but in no way do I think DC is handling the material better.

I think you could say that either way about every desicion either comapny has made in the past 5 (hell lets go to 10) years.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

02-10-2006, 03:46 PM

DC being the company that had Paul Levitz demand that a panel of two men kissing (on the cheek) in Jenny Sparks be removed. Such action was only allowed when the book went Mature Readers.

That's what he chose to remove from that series?
That series (and Authority run) felt like a gratitous sex fantasy from start to finish and it was the kiss he took out?

How the heck did Moore get Hyde's revenge on The Invisible Man past Levitz in LoEG Vol.2?

bert

02-10-2006, 04:01 PM

What? I do nothing but!

You think Quesada wanted me to publish that article? You think Levitz wanted me to leak that Spectre and Creeper art with all those logos?

You're starting from a false premise.

Well. . I wasn't starting anything from a false premise. .

just trying to figure out why you took a swipe at DC in this thread w/a no longer valid "Levitz" example. . when in the same column, you pointed out the Batwoman book from DC is rumored to star a Lesbian.

but you didn't answer that question.

Jay Figgs

02-10-2006, 04:29 PM

I just read Quesada's reply over the whole thing at Newsarama - And I'm absolutely disgusted by it.

Does the man think we're stupid? He goes on and on about how ground-breaking the Rawhide mini was, how they were reinventing the cowboy genre, how his sexuality was so important to the story that it warranted a MAX label, and never once he explains why it was never actually shown, only implied, in that freaking series!

And then he goes and say that, basically, he would publish a Rawhide Kid story if it wasn't mentioned that he was gay!!!

I can't even begin to process how mad I am over this whole thing!

bert

02-10-2006, 04:39 PM

west3man

02-10-2006, 04:41 PM

Jay Figgs

02-10-2006, 04:46 PM

did he adress his comment that Marvel couldn't publish a comic starring a gay character unless it was labeled MR ?

Very poorly. Here's what he said about why the Rawhide Kid was labeled MAX:

Rawhide was labeled MAX because the major hook and focus of the project was the sexuality of the main character, a 50-plus year old established character. The reason the books featuring the characters you named in your question don't carry a MAX label is because that's not the focus of their books. The sexuality aspect of their lives is just one part of the whole that makes up their books, as opposed to Rawhide, where the fact that he was gay and his history was the major point of the book.

In comparing Rawhide to Brokeback Mountain, I was merely saying that it dealt with a Western icon motif that was gay. I do feel that that's a perfectly accurate comparison to make. Keep in mind that Brokeback was rated R, which means no one under 18 could see it unless accompanied by an adult, which is exactly what we are saying with MAX. Now, while I know that there is nudity in Brokeback, I don’t think it would have received a lower rating even if it that aspect was to be removed.

To read all of it, go here (http://www.newsarama.com/JoeFridays/JoeFridays37.html).

west3man

02-10-2006, 04:53 PM

Very poorly. Here's what he said about why the Rawhide Kid was labeled MAX:

To read all of it, go here (http://www.newsarama.com/JoeFridays/JoeFridays37.html).
Sounds like b.s.
If Brokeback hadn't had the kinda scenes it had, I really don't think it would've warranted an R-rating... which is kinda the point.

Thx for the link and quotes, btw.

Quarterwolf

02-10-2006, 05:25 PM

How is looking out for his company make you a homophobe? And he never said they wont have comic book with a Gay as a lead, he just said if they did it would have a MR stamp on it.

Lemme give you an example. Say Marvel produces a book with a gay lead (regular rated). A someone buys it, and lets their kid read it. They have no problem with it. Yet the kid takes it to school and let one of his friends borrow it. Now this kids Parents are way different, and are shocked at what they see in the book. They cause a uproar with the shop and Marvel, at what they see as clear attempt by Marvel to brainwash their children to the Gay lifestyle. And thats when everything goes to hell.

And as much as I hate to see this example become reality. I would be stupid to think in wouldn't happen.

Ok. Now make the kid Gay and the book about a straight character. Have that kid give the book to another gay kid "Now this kids Parents are way different, and are shocked at what they see in the book. They cause a uproar with the shop and Marvel, at what they see as clear attempt by Marvel to brainwash their children to the straight lifestyle. And thats when everything goes to hell."

Sounds kinda silly don't you think? And it is just as dumbassed when some parent thinks reading or seeing gay people will turn their child gay.

Gilda Dent

02-10-2006, 05:26 PM

Where is it written that homosexuality is an all or nothing thing?

Why does it have to be no mention whatsoever of the Kid's being gay or it has to be the focus of the story? Hellooooo, Mr. Quesada, you can have a character be gay and have that as an element of the story without it being the focus of the story, as in, to use your example, Young Avengers.

It's as if they're thinking that if they mention a character's homosexuality in anyway that makes it the focus of the story.

It's made pretty clear that Peter is heterosexual in just about every issue of Spider-Man, but it's very seldom the focus of the story and never the central attribute of the character.

Here's a hint: A character can be gay and it be just one facet of his character. He can be gay and the story can focus on western themes. It doesn't have to be Will and Grace; it can be Six Feet Under.

I'm getting so incredibly sick of the attitude that the depiction of a gay character in any medium has to be focused on the character's sexuality. It's almost as annoying as the reduction of transsexuals to always being a victim, prostitute, or psychotic.

Sorry, I just get irritated sometimes.

Gilda

FunkyGreenJerusalem

02-10-2006, 06:29 PM

Why didn't Quesada mention Rock Hudson when he listed the great Western actors of years past?

It’s just sad to me that once again Hollywood will have trumped us at our own game and managed to break ground where we couldn’t even though we dug out the first few shovel-fuls.

He compares a tounge in cheek book full of inneundo as breaking ground for a drama about two men in love?

That's an original take on the situation.

bert

02-10-2006, 08:04 PM

Why didn't Quesada mention Rock Hudson when he listed the great Western actors of years past?

He compares a tounge in cheek book full of inneundo as breaking ground for a drama about two men in love?

Maybe if it were tongue in butt-cheek.

that certainly would have explained why it was MR in the first place

FunkyGreenJerusalem

02-10-2006, 08:28 PM

Maybe if it were tongue in butt-cheek.

that certainly would have explained why it was MR in the first place

What the appeal was in the MAX book too anyone over the age of 18 is beyond me - heck, anyone over 15.

Joe's acting like it's new to tackle gay characters/themes in fiction, every other medium - Paintings, Movies, Novels (for a few centuries at least) and even television - have done it before, and only those that were sexually explicit have been rated Adults only - in the past 30 years (?) at least.

Working in television I know some of that some of the subtitlers try and help the classification people by listing scenes that contain anything of intrest, in case it is missed (I believe they only have one viewing), and some of the list "men kissing" or "women Kissing".
Which is absolutley useless as it's rated the same as a man and a woman kissing.

I really think Joe Q needs to get his head out of his arse. Both in terms of what's acceptable and what's not, and also in terms of marvel ever paving the way for anything.

By the by, what were those books about how great the war in Iraq is rated?

dancj

02-13-2006, 05:23 AM

I'm saying I didn't go out of my way to get this book because I had heard there were two gay characters in it. I bought it because I had heard some good things about about the story, and writer. I didn't know about the sexuality of any characters in the book. But just as when I found that there were some gay characters, I wasn't put off and didn't stop reading it. Does that make sense?

Gotcha - It seemed at odds with other things you've said. No I've reread the sentence I can see what you were saying

hokeybutt

02-13-2006, 07:31 AM

Responsible publisher?

Responsible to the stockholders? Yes, the cowardly ones.

Responsible to their readers? Only the ignorant ones.

Responsible to their creators? Hell, no... never gonna happen.

Responsible to modern pop culture? Don't make me laugh.

RichJohnston

02-14-2006, 02:28 AM

Well. . I wasn't starting anything from a false premise. .

just trying to figure out why you took a swipe at DC in this thread w/a no longer valid "Levitz" example. . when in the same column, you pointed out the Batwoman book from DC is rumored to star a Lesbian.

but you didn't answer that question.

I think it is still a valid Levitz example. If a company does one good thing and one bad thing, I'm only to mention one? No.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

02-14-2006, 04:00 AM

I think it is still a valid Levitz example. If a company does one good thing and one bad thing, I'm only to mention one? No.

But do you do it to stop comic creators/publishers from spitting on you/cursing your name, or because you want more of them to do it?

Iangould

02-15-2006, 08:37 PM

So a cover where Zombie-Spidey is marrying the Rawhide Kid would be completely out of the question?

bert

02-15-2006, 09:03 PM

So a cover where Zombie-Spidey is marrying the Rawhide Kid would be completely out of the question?

aparently not. . . as long as the guts being ripped out are above the waist.

(still boycotting Marvel. . found out my shop has added 2 more to the folks no longer buying due to my Stance in the shop last week. . and I'm still working on my letter to Marvel.

I'm trying to get it JUST right, before sending it).

bert

03-25-2006, 08:53 PM

west3man

03-26-2006, 04:35 AM

although I never got a response to my letter to Marvel, I *did* notice that in the current Previews solicits, there are quite a few Rawhide Kid books coming out (mostly tied to Two-gun Kid appearances).

still. . . I'm going to take a wait and see (as in, wait and see if they come out, and what the rating on the book is) before I even consider buying Marvel books again.

did anyone else notice in the new issue of the ALL AGES She-Hulk book, Starfox has a blatant one night stand with a woman.

sex is not shown, but heavily, heavily implied that he screwed her all night. . . and as I said, the book is "rated" "A". . .

so I'm just gonna wait and see before Marvel gets another penny from me.

just an update.

bertI haven't seen that, but I know that the first volume consisted of multiple post-coital She-Hulk images and references.

They're basically saying she's been humping around. So much so that she got kicked out of the mansion.

But don't sweat it. I'm SURE they'd show her cousin layin' up with some guy, and having Jarvis or somebody comment on just how MANY guys he's been humpin', lately.
Okay, maybe not... (certainly not in a nonMAX title, anyway).

EDIT: ...but I shudder to think what Ultimate Hulk would've done if he'd gotten ahold of Freddy Prinze Jr.