No Love For Rawhide Kid

[dazzler_slave]

So apparently (according to this week's LITG) Marvel is not including the Rawhide Kid in their Western Specials specifically because he is gay. What crap is that? Quesada says it is because a gay hero would require a MAX label. You know, the label where they have comics filled with nudity, depraved violence and swearing? What kind of a sick world is this where an expression of love is considered as shocking and evil as those other MAX qualities?

I was going to buy the Western homage but now I'm not. They can kiss my butt.

And this is on the heels of DC announcing that their new Batwoman title will feature a lesbian as the title character. Marvel isn't the House of Ideas anymore. They are just a bunch of stodgy oldtimers. DC is the visionary company these days in all aspects!

[Expletive Deleted]

And yet YOUNG AVENGERS prominently features a gay couple.

I could understand if Quesada had said that they were scrapping the gay version of the character because the RAWHIDE KID series was a creative and commercial failure, but to out and out say what he said to Rich . . . man, that's an unpleasant, disingenuous stance.

I mean, DDM's next post practically writes itself.

[ednemo]

Marvel has to look out for its own self-interests. I personally don't care if people are gay, it doesn't bother me in the least...because it doesn't affect me in any way. However, my dad would have something else to say. When the Simpsons had a gay character in season 2, he wouldn't allow my little brothers to watch it anymore. Marvel doesn't want to alienate any parents who would boycot or stop the sales of their comics. And right or wrong, homosexuality is a hot issue.

Now, I do have a question. I never read The Rawhide Kid. I would assume that the stories were straightforward heroes and villains and the character's sexuality was secondary. One thing I can't stand is any person or character that focuses on an agenda. I don't read comics with heavy Christian overtones, nor sexuality specific stories, or even race specific stories. A perfect example of gay characters that I like, The Midnighter and Apollo from The Authority. They kiss, they hug, but their sexuality is completely secondary to the story. And I read it because I like the characters and I find it humerous that they mirror Batman and Superman. Characters trying to get the word out about the righteousness of whatever issue, non-crime related irritate the Hell out of me. I know quite a few homosexuals. (I bounce in a club.) And some of them are kewl and some are idiots, just like anybody else. But, the ones that try to make a statement about their sexuality irritates me. Everything to them is about their sexual preference and nothing else in the world matters. I even have relatives, Cherokee-Americans, that will tell anyone who will listen how they don't get a fair shake due to being repressed. That also irritates the Hell out of me.

My point is, comics should be based on the exploits of the characters and not on any hot-button issues.

[Expletive Deleted]

I would assume that the stories were straightforward heroes and villains and the character's sexuality was secondary.Nah, it was pretty much five issues of bad gay cowboy jokes.

[Booster Golden]

What kind of a sick world is this where an expression of love is considered as shocking and evil as those other MAX qualities?


Sexual acts whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals has nothing to do with love expressions at all, hence the MAX label.

[Sean Whitmore]

Quesada says it is because a gay hero would require a MAX label.


That's a pretty disgustingly offensive thing for him to say. And blaming it on the marketplace later seems a bit like backtracking.


SEAN

[bert]

I started a thread on it earlier on the LitG forums

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=107107

(I was afraid if I posted in the Marvel board, I'd get flamed for attacking them).

[bert]

Sexual acts whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals has nothing to do with love expressions at all, hence the MAX label.


You don't think a kiss is an expression of love?

[The Shadow]

DDM's next post practically writes itself.
LMAO :D

Where is he anyway?

[lordlad]

I mean, what's the deal with Rawhide kid anyway ?? Sure he's a gay western character but that's all he has................

[tricksterpup]

And yet YOUNG AVENGERS prominently features a gay couple.

I could understand if Quesada had said that they were scrapping the gay version of the character because the RAWHIDE KID series was a creative and commercial failure, but to out and out say what he said to Rich . . . man, that's an unpleasant, disingenuous stance.

I mean, DDM's next post practically writes itself.
I am glad they will not bring that crap that came out after Apache Skies or do anything with it. Apache Skies was by far the best western comic marvel has done in years.
http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/04128923033.1.GIF

[StoneGold]

And yet YOUNG AVENGERS prominently features a gay couple.
.
And Ultimate X-Men. And Runaways. And X-Factor. And Cable/Deadpool.




But seriously, the statement doesn't seem to make much sense. Just because there are not just gay characters, but so many gay issues happening in the books.

[tricksterpup]

For those who never saw the original Apache Skies. here is a piece of art from it.
http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/pages/04128440175.1.P1.GIF

[StoneGold]

I am glad they will not bring that crap that came out after Apache Skies or do anything with it. Apache Skies was by far the best western comic marvel has done in years.

I liked Blaze of Glory better.

[Expletive Deleted]

Same here. APACHE SKIES was all right, but it seemed unnecessary after the "final word" that was BLAZE OF GLORY.

[Will.S]

I liked Blaze of Glory better.
Yeah that was really awesome.

I wonder if I can still get that one collected.

[Expletive Deleted]

I wonder if I can still get that one collected.It's long out of print, but I'm sure I've seen some on eBay and the like.

[tricksterpup]

Damn, this must've came out when I was outa work..
I gotta hunt down the trade paper back, Ostrandler and Manco are one hellava team. Thanks StoneGold, when you do correct me, Its always with something better that I need to find.
http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/11316271806.1.GIF

[Will.S]

Yeah I know, I hate resorting to eBay.

[dazzler_slave]

Sexual acts whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals has nothing to do with love expressions at all, hence the MAX label.
But there wasn't sex. It was the very idea of a gay character that warranted the MAX label. That's like saying that Spider Man deserved a MAX label in the 60's because he got crushes on girls. Ridiculous!

[StoneGold]

But there wasn't sex. It was the very idea of a gay character that warranted the MAX label. That's like saying that Spider Man deserved a MAX label in the 60's because he got crushes on girls. Ridiculous!
Which again, doesn't make much sense, because you have things far more... explicit isn't the right word, but there's some actual hint of sex in stuff like Young Avengers and UXM. The only thing I can think of is because, despite nothing happening in the book, sex actually was the theme of Rawhide.


But I'm just trying to rationalize two seemingly different statements coming out of the same company.

[mattbib]

...because the RAWHIDE KID series was a creative and commercial failure...Was it a creative failure? Or are you just hypothesizing?

While most posters bitched about it (what else is new?) I remember a group of us really liking the mini-series.

[Expletive Deleted]

Or are you just hypothesizing?Pretty much. The whole "I could understand if he had said . . ." thing.

[ChildOfTheDarkholde]

Sexual acts whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals has nothing to do with love expressions at all, hence the MAX label.

U serious?
Millions of people of either persuasion have sex every day, sex motivated by love;an expression and an extension of love,

[Joe Rice]

U serious?
Millions of people of either persuasion have sex every day, sex motivated by love;an expression and an extension of love,

NO. INCORRECT. IT IS A METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING MY GENETIC INFORMATION TO AS MANY POSSIBLE BREEDING RECEPTICLES AS POSSIBLE. NOTHING MORE.

[ChildOfTheDarkholde]

NO. INCORRECT. IT IS A METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING MY GENETIC INFORMATION TO AS MANY POSSIBLE BREEDING RECEPTICLES AS POSSIBLE. NOTHING MORE.

LOL! :D :eek: :D

[Dermie]

Which again, doesn't make much sense, because you have things far more... explicit isn't the right word, but there's some actual hint of sex in stuff like Young Avengers and UXM. The only thing I can think of is because, despite nothing happening in the book, sex actually was the theme of Rawhide.

But I'm just trying to rationalize two seemingly different statements coming out of the same company.

The difference is that those are team books, whereas Rawhide Kid was a solo title starring a gay lead character. In a team book, Marvel can say they're giving the kids a bunch of different characters, and it is just one or two members of a much larger cast who happen to be gay. But with a solo series, the book is starring a gay man (or woman) and it apparently becomes more of an issue.

[Neolucifer]

I dunno the whole Rawhide Kid affair , sounds like bad wording on his part , i bet he'll explain in the next joe's Friday like he now constantly do :p . Its only a theory , but maybe the fact that Rawhide would need a max serie got nothing to do with him being gay , but rather the content of the comics he got in mind .

[tricksterpup]

Actually, I would love to see Ostrandler and Manco do a Max series with the Rawhide Kid. I am sure that would be one hell of a read.

IT would almost be as fun as Truman's Jonah Hex mini series that came out.

[dazzler_slave]

I dunno the whole Rawhide Kid affair , sounds like bad wording on his part , i bet he'll explain in the next joe's Friday like he now constantly do :p . Its only a theory , but maybe the fact that Rawhide would need a max serie got nothing to do with him being gay , but rather the content of the comics he got in mind .
But then wouldn't all the one shots be MAX if it was due to the content? ie if they all had graphic violence then they would all be MAXed or if they had graphic sex, same thing. No, what he is saying is that a starring character just being gay is the same as graphic gorey violence and explicit sex and the f-word. It is something kids should not be exposed to and therefore gets the adult label. This is offensive. He can say that hedoesn't want to risk outraged parents, but how are opinions going to change unless public organizations like Marvel show that there is nothing wrong with being gay?

Also, really, how many people will even remember that Rawhde Kid IS gay? I'm talking about the average parent. Why would RK getting a one shot even cause a ruckus? My other thought is why would being gay neccessarily even come up to a great extent? These aren't the I Heart Marvel one shots, these are western comics. Are the Two Gun Kid, Apache Kid and Kid Colt one shots going to be full of them being in heterosexual relationships and kissy kissy stuff? Of course not! At the most, Kid Colt will save a damsel in distress. Rawhide Kid could have a book where being gay isn't the focus at all. In fact, by not focusing on his sexuality and just telling a great Western Story where the lead just happens to be gay would be a great way to show that we aren't any different than anyone else! And hey, with Brokeback Mountain getting all those Oscar noms, this is the perfect opportunity for a gay cowboy comic! :)

[tricksterpup]

But then wouldn't all the one shots be MAX if it was due to the content? ie if they all had graphic violence then they would all be MAXed or if they had graphic sex, same thing. No, what he is saying is that a starring character just being gay is the same as graphic gorey violence and explicit sex and the f-word. It is something kids should not be exposed to and therefore gets the adult label. This is offensive. He can say that hedoesn't want to risk outraged parents, but how are opinions going to change unless public organizations like Marvel show that there is nothing wrong with being gay?

Also, really, how many people will even remember that Rawhde Kid IS gay? I'm talking about the average parent. Why would RK getting a one shot even cause a ruckus? My other thought is why would being gay neccessarily even come up to a great extent? These aren't the I Heart Marvel one shots, these are western comics. Are the Two Gun Kid, Apache Kid and Kid Colt one shots going to be full of them being in heterosexual relationships and kissy kissy stuff? Of course not! At the most, Kid Colt will save a damsel in distress. Rawhide Kid could have a book where being gay isn't the focus at all. In fact, by not focusing on his sexuality and just telling a great Western Story where the lead just happens to be gay would be a great way to show that we aren't any different than anyone else! And hey, with Brokeback Mountain getting all those Oscar noms, this is the perfect opportunity for a gay cowboy comic! :)
Its the same reason why the will not let Peter Parker become a Parent. They are afraid to loose any merchandising franchise.

[DDM]

And yet YOUNG AVENGERS prominently features a gay couple.

I could understand if Quesada had said that they were scrapping the gay version of the character because the RAWHIDE KID series was a creative and commercial failure, but to out and out say what he said to Rich . . . man, that's an unpleasant, disingenuous stance.

I mean, DDM's next post practically writes itself.


What did he say to Rich exactly?