love or hate new alan scott?

[CaptCleghorn]

I can see that. Depends on what you see as important about the characters. If what you like about the character is them dashing around using powers and/or awesome martial arts battles having spectacular action-oriented adventures in their colorful costumes, then it really doesn't matter what Green Lantern does in his free time, but it does matter when Batgirl can't walk any more.

Let me see if I understand you here. If someone liked Alan's age, his history, or his heterosexuality, they're a "grumpy old man". If they think a person becoming paraplegic completely changes them into another thing altogether, you're cool with that.

I'm one of the most insensitive people I know but I'd NEVER consider telling someone in a wheelchair they had been completely changes into something else altogether. Just like you'd probably never tell someone "You're gay? That makes you a totally different person."

[tony ingram]

Let me see if I understand you here. Making an 80 yr old straight man, married with children into a family-free gay twenty-something isn't changing the character. Add to that making a character known for being part of an older generation contemporary. No change.

But removing a characters ability to move her legs is "completely changing a character into another thing altogether."

Yes, there's something a little off, there, isn't there?

I can see that. Depends on what you see as important about the characters. If what you like about the character is them dashing around using powers and/or awesome martial arts battles having spectacular action-oriented adventures in their colorful costumes, then it really doesn't matter what Green Lantern does in his free time, but it does matter when Batgirl can't walk any more.

In other words, whether you actually care about characters as characters, or simply see them as plot devices.

[glennsim]

Let me see if I understand you here. If someone liked Alan's age, his history, or his heterosexuality, they're a "grumpy old man". If they think a person becoming paraplegic completely changes them into another thing altogether, you're cool with that.

I'm one of the most insensitive people I know but I'd NEVER consider telling someone in a wheelchair they had been completely changes into something else altogether. Just like you'd probably never tell someone "You're gay? That makes you a totally different person."

I'd certainly never tell a real live person that. We're not talking about a real person. We're talking about a fictional character.

[glennsim]

Yes, there's something a little off, there, isn't there?

In other words, whether you actually care about characters as characters, or simply see them as plot devices.

No, I realistically understand we're talking about funnybook characters. Characters in adolescent power fantasies that just happen to continue to appeal to me into adulthood. I don't get too involved in them because they are just ink on paper.

I didn't personally have a problem with either change, but I can see where someone else might see the Oracle thing as a bigger change than the Alan Scott one.

[ShaggyB]

Because I don't just visit this site.It doesn't have to be. But it is.

Any site you visit that allows sign ups / uses internet handles is subject to cross over. You dont believe you are the only one who frequents multiple sites right?

[CaptCleghorn]

Any site you visit that allows sign ups / uses internet handles is subject to cross over. You dont believe you are the only one who frequents multiple sites right?

If he visits another site and sees someone else with his view, he wouldn't be the only one with that viewpoint.

[batGRRRl4ever]

I can see that. Depends on what you see as important about the characters. If what you like about the character is them dashing around using powers and/or awesome martial arts battles having spectacular action-oriented adventures in their colorful costumes, then it really doesn't matter what Green Lantern does in his free time, but it does matter when Batgirl can't walk any more.

Exactly, Alan is simply back to his beginning to have his stories retold with more contemporary updates & what he does in his down time really hasn't changed his character. Remember this character STILL is a left-handed 'A' type personality super hero who uses a magic fashion accessory to fight crime all the while he leads a team of super heroes called the JSA. It's all the bloody same. He may even still have had a previous marriage (albeit same-sex one) to a guy named Thorn

But again, these aren't real people, they are meant to be simple archetypes. Bab's is a different story altogether as I've pointed out before; in the real world of course she would be the same person but in comics she was made to be Batgirl the sassy superhero jumping from rooftops & then was changed into the grumpy backroom general sitting alone in a room, etc. In terms of the archetype that was a total change in the character. But Alan is still Alan, he simply prefers stubble over lipstick and his history will unfold AGAIN but just more contemporarily. People who get hung up on continuity with spandex wearing ink and paper people to the extent of seeing them as "real" need to get out more frankly (IMO).

Alan's still Alan, just better than ever as reboots are SUPPOSED to happen with longterm comic characters to refresh their stories again to make them exciting for old and new readers alike. Can't wait to pick up issue #4 at my LCS tomorrow (I only make one trip a month as it's a bit far from me).

[CaptCleghorn]

Exactly, Alan is simply back to his beginning to have his stories retold with more contemporary updates & what he does in his down time really hasn't changed his character. Remember this character STILL is a left-handed 'A' type personality super hero who uses a magic fashion accessory to fight crime all the while he leads a team of super heroes called the JSA. It's all the bloody same. He may even still have had a previous marriage (albeit same-sex one) to a guy named Thorn

But again, these aren't real people, they are meant to be simple archetypes. Bab's is a different story altogether as I've pointed out before; in the real world of course she would be the same person but in comics she was made to be Batgirl the sassy superhero jumping from rooftops & then was changed into the grumpy backroom general sitting alone in a room, etc. In terms of the archetype that was a total change in the character. But Alan is still Alan, he simply prefers stubble over lipstick and his history will unfold AGAIN but just more contemporarily. People who get hung up on continuity with spandex wearing ink and paper people to the extent of seeing them as "real" need to get out more frankly (IMO).

As I've told you before, you should heed your own advice. You got so upset about a DC editor saying "cripple the B!+c#".

Also, it's not only the character, it's the quality that needs to be treated respectfully. You're not doing that. Barbara Gordon and Alan Scott were both changed considerably. However, you've reacted much differently to Barbara than Alan. That's all good. But, your blind accusations of homophobia tied in with insensitive language about the handicapped really upsets me.

Alan's still Alan, just better than ever as reboots are SUPPOSED to happen with longterm comic characters to refresh their stories again to make them exciting for old and new readers alike. Can't wait to pick up issue #4 at my LCS tomorrow (I only make one trip a month as it's a bit far from me).

I'm sorry that's the case. However the handicapped space in front of your LCS is a help and that extra 10 yards shouldn't be that hard for you to walk.

[tony ingram]

Exactly, Alan is simply back to his beginning to have his stories retold with more contemporary updates & what he does in his down time really hasn't changed his character. Remember this character STILL is a left-handed 'A' type personality super hero who uses a magic fashion accessory to fight crime all the while he leads a team of super heroes called the JSA. It's all the bloody same.

But none of that defines the character! The character's history defines the character, not being left handed.

He may even still have had a previous marriage (albeit same-sex one) to a guy named Thorn

But again, these aren't real people, they are meant to be simple archetypes. Bab's is a different story altogether as I've pointed out before; in the real world of course she would be the same person but in comics she was made to be Batgirl the sassy superhero jumping from rooftops & then was changed into the grumpy backroom general sitting alone in a room, etc. In terms of the archetype that was a total change in the character. But Alan is still Alan, he simply prefers stubble over lipstick and his history will unfold AGAIN but just more contemporarily. People who get hung up on continuity with spandex wearing ink and paper people to the extent of seeing them as "real" need to get out more frankly (IMO).

Alan's still Alan, just better than ever as reboots are SUPPOSED to happen with longterm comic characters to refresh their stories again to make them exciting for old and new readers alike. Can't wait to pick up issue #4 at my LCS tomorrow (I only make one trip a month as it's a bit far from me).

OK, I get it. You don't care about the characters at all, you simply want superficial stories about people punching each other and anyone who is any more invested than that is a sad loser with no life.

I don't think there's really any point in talking to you anymore.

[batGRRRl4ever]

As I've told you before, you should heed your own advice. You got so upset about a DC editor saying "cripple the B!+c#".

I'm sorry that's the case. However the handicapped space in front of your LCS is a help and that extra 10 yards shouldn't be that hard for you to walk.

It wasn't because I thought Barbara Gordon was "real", it was because the editors of the time were being callous in general to female character properties outside of the WW comic, and to be so eager to do something so nasty to a female character put out a very negative message to both the male and female readership alike. That's a very different reasoning than the issues some are having to the Alan Scott character property right now.

Also that comment at the end was borderline in it's nastiness and the one previous with all the insult comment towards various minorities I flagged for innappropriateness. Just because your obviously upset doesn't mean you should skirt rules in how to treat fellow posters, nor gives you carte blanche to make terms like "jungle bunny" etc. acceptable to toss out, they aren't, PERIOD.

But none of that defines the character! The character's history defines the character

These are comic books not Praust. Comic characters were meant to originally appeal to children and are meant to be basic archetypes in personality. If you expect that you want to have weekly tea with ink and paper people to discuss "the good ol' days" of previous continuity that is meant to be done with back issues but nothing stays static in comics in terms of continuity forever, and it simply isn't meant to in this particular medium. If you expect this then you are in the wrong hobby and that's all that can really be said.

[ShaggyB]

If he visits another site and sees someone else with his view, he wouldn't be the only one with that viewpoint.

Sure but that doesnt mean its a wide spread thing, which seems to be what he was implying and why I responded. Does it need to be more than just one person to validate it? Does more people agreeing justify it? Is it not valid if its just him? Seems an odd standard to me. Why should it matter? (Which was my original point to him, it doesnt matter.)

[tony ingram]

These are comic books not Praust. Comic characters were meant to originally appeal to children and are meant to be basic archetypes in personality. If you expect that you want to have weekly tea with ink and paper people to discuss "the good ol' days" of previous continuity that is meant to be done with back issues but nothing stays static in comics in terms of continuity forever, and it simply isn't meant to in this particular medium. If you expect this then you are in the wrong hobby and that's all that can really be said.

In fact, comics originated (in Britain, and later continental Europe) in the late 1800s as satire aimed at an adult audience, often mocking politicians of the time. They didn't become aimed principally at kids until decades later, and though I realize that they were always regarded as essentially for children when the US comics industry got going in the thirties, even during WWII they sold in large numbers to adults; they were sent across the Atlantic as ballast in troop ships to be later sold to G.I's stationed in Britain. But either way, comics as a medium have evolved over the years to the point where they are, or can be, far more than just disposable literature for the under tens and if you don't realize that, you have a very narrow view of comics.

[CaptCleghorn]

It wasn't because I thought Barbara Gordon was "real", it was because the editors of the time were being callous in general to female character properties outside of the WW comic, and to be so eager to do something so nasty to a female character put out a very negative message to both the male and female readership alike. That's a very different reasoning than the issues some are having to the Alan Scott character property right now.

Also that comment at the end was borderline in it's nastiness and the one previous with all the insult comment towards various minorities I flagged for innappropriateness. Just because your obviously upset doesn't mean you should skirt rules in how to treat fellow posters, nor gives you carte blanche to make terms like "jungle bunny" etc. acceptable to toss out, they aren't, PERIOD.



These are comic books not Praust. Comic characters were meant to originally appeal to children and are meant to be basic archetypes in personality. If you expect that you want to have weekly tea with ink and paper people to discuss "the good ol' days" of previous continuity that is meant to be done with back issues but nothing stays static in comics in terms of continuity forever, and it simply isn't meant to in this particular medium. If you expect this then you are in the wrong hobby and that's all that can really be said.

Selective indignation. Oh, no, can't offend races or sexual orientations, but when it comes to ageism, and prejudice against the handicapped, you're not only OK with it, you participate in it. You still don't get it. You may take offense at racial insults, but it's OK to say paraplegic are totally changed, effectively bearing no resemblance to their walking selves.

Batgirl was one of DC's two female figures in the late 60's. The character held a very important role in the development of women in regards the comic industry.

Oracle did the same for the handicapped and the JSA did the same for older generations. However they were a lot more alone than Batgirl was. Instead of feeling empathy for the groups being affected, you and others throw insults.

If you want to be open minded, you need to accept different opinions. That's diversity.

[ShaggyB]

I think it may be best if we go back to discussing Alan Scott. Keep in mind insulting terms are not permitted regardless of who they are aimed at.

[glennsim]

But none of that defines the character! The character's history defines the character, not being left handed.

The Batman in the Dark Knight Rises, and the Batman in Batman: The Brave and the Bold have different histories. Are they different characters?