The Ranger's Marvel's most diverse team?

[Star_Jammer]

Plus, this is simply an excuse to hide behind most of the time because the writers don't actually tell that story. They are writers. If they want to trot out that excuse, then they should tell THAT story. Nine times out of ten, they don't. They and their defenders just hide behind that convenient excuse. That IS lazy writing. Especially in Slott's case because he changes the sexuality of not one character BUT TWO and both times for the simple sake of delivering punch-lines, not to tell a real story. Now, I thought both jokes were actually very funny, but they could have worked just as well if he had created his own characters for the story instead of using others. So, yes, in this case, it is lazy writing.

The excuse "lazy writing" seems to be borderline internet meme.

Which is lazier:

Having the artist draw an insignificant character on one panel to be the "butt of a joke" (because hey, no background story is EVER going to be given for a "throwaway joke character")...

OR

Thinking about which currently available character you'd like to use to "recton" his/her sexuality for said "joke", and have the artist draw HIM/HER instead...?

Just sayin'. ;)

But both options can give way to future stories.

[Legion_Quest]

And again, if we go by those rules then a writer can and should be able to make any established gay/bi/lesbian characters straight and no one should complain about it.

Any writer could do that, a reason as to why they would want to do that would then be put forward, as on the whole, unless motivated by psychological issues, people are unlikely to come out as gay and then be straight later. It just doesn't work like that. Now, a gay character going bi, because heck, sex is sex and that's fun, that could be done. Or even a gay character deciding to be bi because they actually are bi could be done. Again, however, it would be questioned as to why.

The simple fact is that people to tend to come out, be it as a teen or later in life, but only very, very rarely do people who come out decide to go back in, so to speak. So, unlike a previously straight character coming out, which is believable, that way round is not so believable and just invites controversy.

The problems I have with that argument: Yes, there are gay people that dated the opposite sex before coming out. HOWEVER, if you're going to use the real world to support your argument then you have to also realize that most people that date the opposite sex are straight. Most people that marry the opposite sex and/or have children with their partner are straight. So, while it MAY happen some of the time that they are gay, these are actually very real indicators that the people are more than likely, straight. What this argument often really means is that any character, no matter the evidence stacked against it, can be gay and will be supported as such.

The other problem with bringing reality into it, comics and books aren't reality. We see characters' thoughts and motivations the way we don't in real life. We see what the writers and artists intended for us to see and thought was important for us to see. We expect them to play fair unless the teller of the story is an unreliable narrator (which should be a deliberate choice by the writer and not by someone else down the road). Retroactively making a character gay when no hint of it or of a person struggling with their identity or feelings before is retroactively making liars of everyone involved.

Plus, this is simply an excuse to hide behind most of the time because the writers don't actually tell that story. They are writers. If they want to trot out that excuse, then they should tell THAT story. Nine times out of ten, they don't. They and their defenders just hide behind that convenient excuse. That IS lazy writing. Especially in Slott's case because he changes the sexuality of not one character BUT TWO and both times for the simple sake of delivering punch-lines, not to tell a real story. Now, I thought both jokes were actually very funny, but they could have worked just as well if he had created his own characters for the story instead of using others. So, yes, in this case, it is lazy writing.

You admit it yourself, there are gay people who once tried to be straight. Living Lightning was one of those. Simple as that. That's because, yes, any character could be made gay, because in life, any person can be gay.

Stories and characters change. They have to else they become stale. While Slott's decision to make LL gay was done in a throw away mini and never touched on before or since, it was done. It's now canon. That character is now gay and has a story that is yet to be told. It could be told one day, if LL ever gets a chance to be in a book again, but seen as he wasnt then and isnt now, at least Slott did something with the character; at least he gave the character a new spin that might pay off for him eventually. LL hasn't been in a book permanently for decades, so the idea that he should be shown struggling, rather than accepting that happened off panel because he's never on panel is forgiveable, and sensible, given the time since he was last seen.

We have absolutely no idea whether Slott had some plans for the character, or if someone else at Marvel did that got nixed by the higher ups. Just this week an announced mini series about Thanos was cancelled. Whose to know how many plots and stories are thought up and presented, only to get knocked back and never told?

[Ed Love]

You admit it yourself, there are gay people who once tried to be straight. Living Lightning was one of those. Simple as that. That's because, yes, any character could be made gay, because in life, any person can be gay.

I also pointed out that as an excuse it doesn't wash because in real life, most people living as straight people really are straight. Regardless of it happening, it's still far stronger evidence of a character or person being straight than not. And, that comics aren't real life because we see their thoughts and motivations so it's a false comparison. And, the point of writers is to present relevant and significant information of the characters to the readers. We don't have that kind of access to the insides of people, even our best friends and family in real life. So, in such cases, we should be seeing that story unfold. And, the fact is, we generally don't (Avengers Academy gets props for actually telling us that story as did Alan Moore's Forty-Niners). It's too frequently used as an excuse to justify the change in characters without actually telling the story. That's basically lazy writing.

We have absolutely no idea whether Slott had some plans for the character, or if someone else at Marvel did that got nixed by the higher ups. Just this week an announced mini series about Thanos was cancelled. Whose to know how many plots and stories are thought up and presented, only to get knocked back and never told?

Doesn't matter what future plans he had for the characters. What matters is that in the story where the change is made, there's no story attached to the change, just a punchline each. It's making a significant change/revelations to those characters without actually exploring them. Sorry, that IS lazy writing.

[Star_Jammer]

I also pointed out that as an excuse it doesn't wash because in real life, most people living as straight people really are straight. Regardless of it happening, it's still far stronger evidence of a character or person being straight than not. And, that comics aren't real life because we see their thoughts and motivations so it's a false comparison. And, the point of writers is to present relevant and significant information of the characters to the readers. We don't have that kind of access to the insides of people, even our best friends and family in real life. So, in such cases, we should be seeing that story unfold. And, the fact is, we generally don't (Avengers Academy gets props for actually telling us that story as did Alan Moore's Forty-Niners). It's too frequently used as an excuse to justify the change in characters without actually telling the story. That's basically lazy writing.



Doesn't matter what future plans he had for the characters. What matters is that in the story where the change is made, there's no story attached to the change, just a punchline each. It's making a significant change/revelations to those characters without actually exploring them. Sorry, that IS lazy writing.

Still waiting for the "comics can't show everything, or are we to assume super heroes never use the bathroom" argument. Oh wait, I'll use it...

....comics cant show everything. Especially for a low grade character such as Living Lightning. Joke or no joke, if it had been Captain America instead, there'd be no escaping telling the background of his newfound homosexuality. LL is small time and can be ignored, yet something was added to his history that can be further written upon should someone so choose.

Kinda like what happens with EVERY comic character.

[Blade X]

The problems I have with that argument: Yes, there are gay people that dated the opposite sex before coming out. HOWEVER, if you're going to use the real world to support your argument then you have to also realize that most people that date the opposite sex are straight. Most people that marry the opposite sex and/or have children with their partner are straight. So, while it MAY happen some of the time that they are gay, these are actually very real indicators that the people are more than likely, straight. What this argument often really means is that any character, no matter the evidence stacked against it, can be gay and will be supported as such.

The other problem with bringing reality into it, comics and books aren't reality. We see characters' thoughts and motivations the way we don't in real life. We see what the writers and artists intended for us to see and thought was important for us to see. We expect them to play fair unless the teller of the story is an unreliable narrator (which should be a deliberate choice by the writer and not by someone else down the road). Retroactively making a character gay when no hint of it or of a person struggling with their identity or feelings before is retroactively making liars of everyone involved.

Plus, this is simply an excuse to hide behind most of the time because the writers don't actually tell that story. They are writers. If they want to trot out that excuse, then they should tell THAT story. Nine times out of ten, they don't. They and their defenders just hide behind that convenient excuse. That IS lazy writing. Especially in Slott's case because he changes the sexuality of not one character BUT TWO and both times for the simple sake of delivering punch-lines, not to tell a real story. Now, I thought both jokes were actually very funny, but they could have worked just as well if he had created his own characters for the story instead of using others. So, yes, in this case, it is lazy writing.

Quoted for the ever lovin blue eyed truth and because you did a hell of a lot better job then me at getting my point across.

[Blade X]

Any writer could do that, a reason as to why they would want to do that would then be put forward, as on the whole, unless motivated by psychological issues, people are unlikely to come out as gay and then be straight later. It just doesn't work like that. Now, a gay character going bi, because heck, sex is sex and that's fun, that could be done. Or even a gay character deciding to be bi because they actually are bi could be done. Again, however, it would be questioned as to why.

A writer could simply make the retcon because he/she felt that said character should be straight, which was the reason why Charles Huston gave for making Frenchie gay during his MOON KNIGHT run. And if you are looking for a more logical explanation (and one that I personally WOULD NOT ever want to see used), it could be revealed that said gay character was confused and believed him/herself to be gay because he/she was sexually abused by a gay person throughout there childhood and into their early teens. They could also reveal that said gay character was never gay and was only pretending to be gay for some unknown/mysterious reason.

The simple fact is that people to tend to come out, be it as a teen or later in life, but only very, very rarely do people who come out decide to go back in, so to speak. So, unlike a previously straight character coming out, which is believable, that way round is not so believable and just invites controversy.

Again, you (and many others) keep missing the point that these are fictional characters that have their thoughts and feelings revealed to the readers and have been shown NOT to be gay. Making characters who were clearly intended to be straight into gay characters is a flat out retcon. It seems to me that there are a number of pros and fans who are so desperate for more gay characters that they are willing to retcon straight characters in order to fill their quota. IMO, that is selfish and smacks of a social/political agenda masquerading as "character development".

You admit it yourself, there are gay people who once tried to be straight. Living Lightning was one of those. Simple as that. That's because, yes, any character could be made gay, because in life, any person can be gay.

And here's the part where the fans and pros start to believe that a character who was retconned into being gay has always been gay from day one. What's worse, they start to make up their own explanations as to why said character is no longer straight.

[Generic poster]

Will the Armadillo ever rejoin the team ? Lightning would have to be Firebirds fake boyfriend in order to keep him from hitting on her.

[Songbird/Diamondback]

...I keep mixing up Living Lightning and Living Laser.

[Legion_Quest]

A writer could simply make the retcon because he/she felt that said character should be straight, which was the reason why Charles Huston gave for making Frenchie gay during his MOON KNIGHT run. And if you are looking for a more logical explanation (and one that I personally WOULD NOT ever want to see used), it could be revealed that said gay character was confused and believed him/herself to be gay because he/she was sexually abused by a gay person throughout there childhood and into their early teens. They could also reveal that said gay character was never gay and was only pretending to be gay for some unknown/mysterious reason.
Again, you (and many others) keep missing the point that these are fictional characters that have their thoughts and feelings revealed to the readers and have been shown NOT to be gay. Making characters who were clearly intended to be straight into gay characters is a flat out retcon. It seems to me that there are a number of pros and fans who are so desperate for more gay characters that they are willing to retcon straight characters in order to fill their quota. IMO, that is selfish and smacks of a social/political agenda masquerading as "character development".
And here's the part where the fans and pros start to believe that a character who was retconned into being gay has always been gay from day one. What's worse, they start to make up their own explanations as to why said character is no longer straight.

But that is just it, if you dont read these characters as if they are real, what's the point? We become emotionally invested in these characters because we want to read about them both in strange and way out situation, but mainly, for me at least, because we want to watch and read how they deal with any situation in human way; to read about how these characters with massive powers still have to deal with all the crap we all have to deal with in terms of emotions and base humanity.

Characters HAVE to be changable, and beyond that, they have to be adaptable to fit with whatever the modern audience wants to read about. That is why Marvel have to make changes to origins or previous characterisations, in order to keep characters fresh and relatable for each modern audience that come through.

Changing the sexuality if a character makes no difference. It isn't selfish or agenda driven, it is simply adding something to a character to try and get that character to catch on. Making LL gay gives a new angle to a lost character, an angle that may one day allow him to shine. As writers, it is their job to make characters as interesting and as viable as possible, deciding to develop the character by having the character decide to be gay.

Once that character is gay, they have always been gay. That's the way it works, not just in reality, but within the realms comicdom as well, once a character is written in one way, that is their status quo until another writer picks that character up again.

I really do not see what you issue is here, unless you equally dislike the fact that since inception most every other character has had changes done to them. Do you dislike the development of Iron Man as an alcoholic? Were Michelinie and Layton taking pot shots at Lee for developing in that edge to his character?

While I will concede that this was a retcon, as it was an addition to the character, most every writer writing any character retcons that character when they give them the voice of that particular writer. No one emulates the person before them; every writer wants to make a mark.

Changing the sexuality of a character from straight to gay is simply mirroring the emotions and actions of the real world in the book, to ground superheroics in reality, which has always been one of the strengths of the Marvel characters - that they are people first and powered second.

[Hawk_fan]

The Rangers are very diverse and I can't wait to see them get their own mini-series.

Texas Twister
Shooting Star
Red Wolf
Firebird
Living Lightning
Fifty One

The team could use a seventh member...who would you like to see fill that spot?

[Hawk_fan]

Two-Gun Kid might be a good fit as a 7th member

Phantom Rider would still be my top choice if he's alive.

The Rangers could use a strong guy on the team, but I can't think of one that could work here.

[Dark Ben]

To the question are they the more diverse team the answer is NO
Young Avengers/ X-Factor & Avengers Academy are the most diverse outside with the main AA cast presenting no "white straight male" never-seen before.

What are Star-girl and Mr. Freeze doing in the page ?

For the Shield being part of Hydra stuff, I vastly recommend you read Secret Warriors, that's a really good spy comics with a lot of twists.

As for the whole gayness issue, I think most of the writers didn't thought about sexuality when they introduced a character, it's not something that should be actively shown one way or another (how bizarre would it be to introduce a character shouting " Hello, I'm X, I'm straight/hetero" with no real reason and for every new characters, some are and some aren't. Now, from my personal experience. I happened to know people who were gay from very early in their lives and people who were discrete about it, people who were bi turned straight or gay and huge womanizer/man-eater who turned out to be gays latter in their lives. And people who were always straight. I don't think sexuality evolving is necessary a "retcon" since sexuality evolves in real-life too. I agree super-hero comics are not reality and have stated many times we should not try and look to indentify ourselves to the super-heroes. However, they are based upon human people, with human interactions and human feelings. To have LL turned out to be gay didn't shock me that much though I didn't ask myself before. I know it's an internet meme, but I do think Johnny Storm is gay or bi. It doesn't take away he has been a womanizer for years but it wouldn't surprize me much, and I think Stan Lee wouldn't mind, if you take a look at most current comics, they have nothing to do with how they were created, look at Super-man, or Cyclops, or Wolverine, or even Spider-man. Layers have been posed by different writers on these characters making them more unique and more popular making a hero gay doesn't take anyone from him it just adds a layer.