Jim Lee, Geoff Johns Discuss DC Comics' Diversity, Television

[CBR News]

At DC Entertainment's "Darkness & Light" charity art event, DC Co-Publisher Jim Lee and CCO Geoff Johns spoke about the publisher's as yet unidentified gay character and the importance TV has had on the comics.


Full article here.

[nightwing1982]

I don't mind gay characters but this feel very forced on. And I think telling the world that there is going to be a "new" gay character hurts the storytelling because you already know half the story.

[gwangung]

I don't mind gay characters but this feel very forced on. And I think telling the world that there is going to be a "new" gay character hurts the storytelling because you already know half the story.

Um, how can you tell? You haven't read the story.

ANYTHING can look forced if you summarize it strictly enough.

[Mr. Holmes]

I don't mind gay characters but this feel very forced on. And I think telling the world that there is going to be a "new" gay character hurts the storytelling because you already know half the story.

Seriously, "half the story" is introducing a gay character?

Oh also, there was speculation that they're bringing back JLDetroit. I just remembered from this interview, Johns is from Detroit.

[CaptainLiberty76]

I don't mind gay characters but this feel very forced on. And I think telling the world that there is going to be a "new" gay character hurts the storytelling because you already know half the story.

I agree NW1982; this DOES feel 'forced'--just like Marvel's Northstar 'marriage.' And YES, i can that reasonable before the story is published simply based on the available data. Within weeks of President Obama's politically-driven (IMHO)decision to support same-sex marriage both DC and Marvel jump on the proverbial bandwagon.That's a good 'business' decision for a temporary spike in sales but in the long run will avail to naught.

Comics have always been influenced by social ideals--for good or ill--but I prefer a good story over social comment any day of the week.

[falcon1]

And this, dear fans, is the reason that DC Entertainment and DC Comics is in the situation they are in. Because DC's leadership considers what they do as a form of "high art", suitable for museums and art galleries, where Marvel looks at their products as an entertainment form as a whole. DC's leadership needs to get off its high-horse, stop trying to be socailly relevant, stop trying to make a social commentary with every issue released, and start (get back to?) producing stories and graphics which work hand-in-hand to create an overall entertainment experience.

As far as the whole gay character issue, in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? Regardless of who its going to wind up being, the point shouldn't be the character's sexuality, it should be whether the story being told is good or not. Why does Batwoman work? Is it solely because the character is lesbian? No, it's because the stories being told are entertaining. The creators don't throw the character's sexuality in your face, they treat it in a matter-of-a-fact manner. I have a feeling this is NOT going to be the case with this newly gay character that's going to be re-introduced. I believe they are going to go out of their way to remind the reader that the character is gay, and, in doing so, make the overall story suffer. My prediction, especially if the character is given his own title, it'll be cancelled in less than 12 issues.

Good luck, DC Entertainment, you're gonna need it for the next few years. BTW, did you see the latest box-office returns on "The Avengers"?

[Jadenewt]

I agree NW1982; this DOES feel 'forced'--just like Marvel's Northstar 'marriage.' And YES, i can that reasonable before the story is published simply based on the available data. Within weeks of President Obama's politically-driven (IMHO)decision to support same-sex marriage both DC and Marvel jump on the proverbial bandwagon.That's a good 'business' decision for a temporary spike in sales but in the long run will avail to naught.

Comics have always been influenced by social ideals--for good or ill--but I prefer a good story over social comment any day of the week.

The Marvel story was planned LONG before President Obama made his announcement. Marvel began hinting at this coming wedding months ago.

[gwangung]

The Marvel story was planned LONG before President Obama made his announcement. Marvel began hinting at this coming wedding months ago.

Seriously.

People should get off this political correctness crap and just plain think.

[El Sombrero]

BTW, did you see the latest box-office returns on "The Avengers"?

NO DURR PLZ INFORM US

capsfilter

[ryokowerx]

NO DURR PLZ INFORM US

capsfilter

Let me add to that. I'd also like him to explain how much money Marvel COMICS is getting out of all that movie money. I mean look at how much DC was rolling in it after all that Batman movie money...

[Mat001]

The Marvel story was planned LONG before President Obama made his announcement. Marvel began hinting at this coming wedding months ago.

Yep. Fun fact, comic books are planned out months in advance. They just don't do it on the fly.

1. The writer, artist and editor sit down to discuss future plans for a six month period.

2. After agreeing to a story, the writer sits down and writes up the story which is then approved by editorial.

3. Then the artist takes the script and works with it, before handing it over to the inker, the colorist and the letterer. If the artist is the inker, then it's done right then and there.

4. The editors take one final look at it before sending it to press.


It's not like DC and Marvel started working on this a couple of weeks ago. Very rarely is a comic rushed in advance. I mean, "Flashpoint" took a whole year to get six issues in the can. The Johns/Lee Justice League arc was being worked on even further back.

And this, dear fans, is the reason that DC Entertainment and DC Comics is in the situation they are in. Because DC's leadership considers what they do as a form of "high art", suitable for museums and art galleries, where Marvel looks at their products as an entertainment form as a whole. DC's leadership needs to get off its high-horse, stop trying to be socailly relevant, stop trying to make a social commentary with every issue released, and start (get back to?) producing stories and graphics which work hand-in-hand to create an overall entertainment experience.

I hate to tell you, but Marvel treats their comics the same way and always have. What the hell do you think the X-Men have been doing all these years?

As far as the whole gay character issue, in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? Regardless of who its going to wind up being, the point shouldn't be the character's sexuality, it should be whether the story being told is good or not. Why does Batwoman work? Is it solely because the character is lesbian? No, it's because the stories being told are entertaining. The creators don't throw the character's sexuality in your face, they treat it in a matter-of-a-fact manner. I have a feeling this is NOT going to be the case with this newly gay character that's going to be re-introduced. I believe they are going to go out of their way to remind the reader that the character is gay, and, in doing so, make the overall story suffer. My prediction, especially if the character is given his own title, it'll be cancelled in less than 12 issues.

Batwoman had the same publicity back in 2005-06, when it got out that she was going to be lesbian. Whoever the character is going to be and the creative team, it will probably be just as well written. DC is publicizing this because they're trying to attract all kinds of demographs, which is important in trying to appeal to all types of minorities since superhero comics are mostly made up of white, male and often hetrosexual readers.

Oh and when it comes to money, the comic book companies don't really profit. Sales have ever only gone up once and that was when the 89 Batman film came out. "The Avengers" isn't going to translate into higher sales for all the Avenger and Avenger related books. Just like "The Dark Knight" didn't affect Batman and all spinoff titles when it made a billion. It's the movie studios that profit. Warner Brothers, Columbia, Sony, Fox, New Line Cinema, Paramount, Universal and Disney are the ones who rake in the cash. Not DC Comics and not Marvel Comics.

[Mr. Holmes]

Yep. Fun fact, comic books are planned out months in advance. They just don't do it on the fly.

1. The writer, artist and editor sit down to discuss future plans for a six month period.

2. After agreeing to a story, the writer sits down and writes up the story which is then approved by editorial.

Not to mention, DC has been introducing gay characters for years now. I don't see how all of a sudden it's because of Marvel/Obama.

[Shinomune]

And I don't know how this can spoil an story... because, well, we don't know in which June DC Comic will be the revelation. We have hints, but not bigger than the March's tease "Weeding in Antonishing X-Men #51".

[Captain Planet]

Yep. Fun fact, comic books are planned out months in advance. They just don't do it on the fly.

1. The writer, artist and editor sit down to discuss future plans for a six month period.

2. After agreeing to a story, the writer sits down and writes up the story which is then approved by editorial.

3. Then the artist takes the script and works with it, before handing it over to the inker, the colorist and the letterer. If the artist is the inker, then it's done right then and there.

4. The editors take one final look at it before sending it to press.


It's not like DC and Marvel started working on this a couple of weeks ago. Very rarely is a comic rushed in advance. I mean, "Flashpoint" took a whole year to get six issues in the can. The Johns/Lee Justice League arc was being worked on even further back.



I hate to tell you, but Marvel treats their comics the same way and always have. What the hell do you think the X-Men have been doing all these years?



Batwoman had the same publicity back in 2005-06, when it got out that she was going to be lesbian. Whoever the character is going to be and the creative team, it will probably be just as well written. DC is publicizing this because they're trying to attract all kinds of demographs, which is important in trying to appeal to all types of minorities since superhero comics are mostly made up of white, male and often hetrosexual readers.

Oh and when it comes to money, the comic book companies don't really profit. Sales have ever only gone up once and that was when the 89 Batman film came out. "The Avengers" isn't going to translate into higher sales for all the Avenger and Avenger related books. Just like "The Dark Knight" didn't affect Batman and all spinoff titles when it made a billion. It's the movie studios that profit. Warner Brothers, Columbia, Sony, Fox, New Line Cinema, Paramount, Universal and Disney are the ones who rake in the cash. Not DC Comics and not Marvel Comics.

That is not true. Infinity Gauntlet spiked in sales since Avengers came out and is continuing to rise. Books and collections are often released to coincide with movie releases. The reason, because they sell as a result of the movie. This may not mean the avengers ongoing will see a spike in sales but the comic side will see a bump in related sales.

[FIFTY-TWO (52)]

And this, dear fans, is the reason that DC Entertainment and DC Comics is in the situation they are in.

What situation are they in, exactly?

Because DC's leadership considers what they do as a form of "high art", suitable for museums and art galleries, where Marvel looks at their products as an entertainment form as a whole. DC's leadership needs to get off its high-horse, stop trying to be socailly relevant, stop trying to make a social commentary with every issue released, and start (get back to?) producing stories and graphics which work hand-in-hand to create an overall entertainment experience.

Yeah, that's what Marvel's doing, alright; producing stories and graphics to create an overall entertainment experience. LOL.

As far as the whole gay character issue, in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? Regardless of who its going to wind up being, the point shouldn't be the character's sexuality, it should be whether the story being told is good or not. Why does Batwoman work? Is it solely because the character is lesbian? No, it's because the stories being told are entertaining.

Oh, so DC's doing something right. What's Marvel's angle?

The creators don't throw the character's sexuality in your face, they treat it in a matter-of-a-fact manner. I have a feeling this is NOT going to be the case with this newly gay character that's going to be re-introduced.

Chances are you've already met the character. And DC wasn't making a big deal out of this. Somebody asked them one question across the pond in London, and the response took a life of it's own, even outshining the showtune spectacular Marvel was throwing around Northstar and his nobody of a boyfriend.

I believe they are going to go out of their way to remind the reader that the character is gay, and, in doing so, make the overall story suffer.

Give me 3 instances where this has been the case in the New 52.

My prediction, especially if the character is given his own title, it'll be cancelled in less than 12 issues.

Who said anything about the character getting his/her own comic? What if he/she is at the forefront of the Justice League or Justice Society. You're saying the book will be dead by issue 12?

Good luck, DC Entertainment, you're gonna need it for the next few years. BTW, did you see the latest box-office returns on "The Avengers"?

What about them?