love or hate new alan scott?

[Kal of Krypton]

It bugs me a little that they made him gay. And I'll tell you why. It's not cuz I'm homophobic. It just seems like such a gimmic to please a specific group of people. I have no issue with creating a new character and making them gay but it just rubs me the wrong way to reinvent a known character to make them gay. Theres no other logical reason to do something like that other than to please a group. It's the same reason making spiderman some black Hispanic kid bothered me.


However that's my only gripe. Because other than that, he's awesome. I like the introduction to his powers. I like the motive. I like how everything in that universe is familiar yet independent. Earth 2 is one of my fav books.

I agree! A better move from DC would be to put Batwoman in the spotlight somehow. Maybe do a storyarc on her fighting oppression against the prejudice, in my opinion.

[Crisis]

I have no problem with DC Comics making him gay. I just wish they had fleshed out the character more. It screams gimmick.

Flesh him out in just 2 issues???? The writer chose to let us know he was gay and was about to get engaged when the train crash happened. He made some of us invested in Sam so that we would feel for Alan when the crash happend. How can you further flesh him out when you're setting that up?

[Crisis]

Some of us grew up with him that way. (On Earth 2, not being gay.)

Some of us did the same and are ok with it.

[Crisis]

see but.... batwoman also bothers me. i get a lot of people love her arcs and its well written or the art is really cool but i dont like her either. its like they needed to get a lesbain into the mix. and batman was popular. lets put her there.

that only slightly bothers me. what bothers me most about her character is that batman doesnt let ANYONE run in gotham without his blessing and his guidance. and here she comes taking the bat name and doing her own thing getting her own gadgets from her own sources like a "strong independant woman" would. it doesnt make sense. batman would never let her do what she does.

i know that there has been an issue or 2 where they show them getting along but its so unlike batmans character to allow her to do that. it bugs me.

I don't know the new history of Batwoman in the new 52 but when she became Batwoman he was outta town with Dick and Tim rebuilding the Batman after Infinite Crisis was over. So she neither got his approval or disapproval. And wasn't required.

[Fate's Faith]

That was me that said if you had a problem with Batwoman not asking permission you should with Batgirl. She didn't ask and Batman didn't know it was Barbara though I believe he figured it out but let her keep her secret till she felt comfortable.

This thing about Alan sounds like people would have liked it better had he come out of the closet then having always been gay. Don't believe that would have gone over any better. Making the character gay is a gimmick in the sense that its a quick way to establish diversity without going through the steps of coming out. Doesn't mean it was a bad thing given we are seeing basically these characters rebuilt from the ground up. Old Alan Scott is gone. What he should or shouldn't be terms of sexuality doesn't factor in. This isn't old Alan Scott. Has lots of similiarities but not old Alan. There seems to be enough of his previous incarnation to recognize the character to older readers. I mean, no one should be confused if he's a Earth Prime Green Lantern or the reboot of the Earth 2 one.

[MajorHoy]

I dont thin his(her?) argument has anythng to do with her being a woman, and everyhing to do with batman being a fucking paranoid control freak

It may also be the "Bat" thing. He seemed to almost have a trademark on that concept from longetivity. Chosing a name and identity like, say "Rubber Chicken Woman" may have been a different story.
(As long as she stayed out of his way . . . it is HIS city )

[Sk8maven]

How about those of us who don't accept either change, because changing a character's age, history and sexuality totally destroys the original character?

That's a slight overstatement of the case IMHO. What DC has done is more like changing the channel to a new, similar-but-different program featuring new, similar-but different characters, and locking the channel control so you can't change back. They haven't overwritten every appearance of the old character with their new version - but they're only going to show the new one from now on. And yes, you can squawk about that - just don't expect any results.

[HawkBoy]

I think the new Alan Scott is okay

[Imraith Nimphais]

I have absolutely no reading history with the original Alan Scott. I really like the new E:2 Alan Scott. Going by Robinson's interview I do not think that Alan being gay was a gimmick in the making...it came across as a decided choice the writer made in developing the character for the new 52 premise. That's my take on it.
Either way...it's a non-issue. I am loving wot he is doing with the Earth:2 so far.

[Mat001]

Really, what is so different about Alan other than he's gay? Nothing. I like that it's called a gimmick which proves that comic book fans are afraid of change.

[tony ingram]

I have absolutely no reading history with the original Alan Scott.

Which makes the rest of your post rather irrelevant.

[tony ingram]

Really, what is so different about Alan other than he's gay? Nothing.

Apart from the fact that he's lost 70 years of published history, his original look and his entire supporting cast? Yeah, that's "nothing"...

[Imraith Nimphais]

Which makes the rest of your post rather irrelevant.

It makes it absolutely relevant because this is not the same Alan Scott of JLA circa 1912. He is not meant to be. He is meant to be a different incarnation. Re-invented for this particular Nu 52 time-line/story-line.
How some of you don't understand that is quite beyond me.

If anything, from my perspective...even if I was very familiar with the previous Alan Scott, the constant need to compare the one with the other is actually quite pointless to whether or not I liked this version.

[MajorHoy]

It makes it absolutely relevant because this is not the same Alan Scott of JLA circa 1912. He is not meant to be. He is meant to be a different incarnation.

If anything, from my perspective...even if I was very familiar with the previous Alan Scott, the constant need to compare the one with the other is actually quite pointless to whether or not I liked this version.

"Alan Scott of JLA circa 1912"?!?

I didn't think Alan was quite THAT old!

[Imraith Nimphais]

"Alan Scott of JLA circa 1912"?!?

I didn't think Alan was quite THAT old!

LOL...or when-ever...

I just cannot understand the singleminded-ness of some people.
It's like Wonder Woman...some readers expect Nu52 Diana to be Marston's Diana, or Perez's, or some other by-gone writer's Diana...but she is not meant to be. Yes, she will share the basic, fundamental characteristics...but for the most part this is an entirely NEW, re-interpretation, re-invention of the character...which for all intents and purposes don't really have much to do with any previous writers' pov on the character.

The same goes for Alan Scott.