[Comics] Are We in the New 90s?

[Kalmarvho]

Your new 90s is, in many ways, the total opposite of 90% of the problems of the old 90s

Uh, yeah? Hence the quotation marks.

The major difference between the modern era of comics and the dark age of comics is that the entire market isn't likely to crash thanks to idiots like Bob Harras... yet both the big two are coasting by on life support from their movie deals and other properties. Independent creators like Kirkman get more out of their TV deals than the comic books that inspired them. The future of comics - whether mainstream or independent - is almost entirely onscreen.

[Jayngfet]

Uh, yeah? Hence the quotation marks.

The major difference between the modern era of comics and the dark age of comics is that the entire market isn't likely to crash thanks to idiots like Bob Harras... yet both the big two are coasting by on life support from their movie deals and other properties. Independent creators like Kirkman get more out of their TV deals than the comic books that inspired them. The future of comics - whether mainstream or independent - is almost entirely onscreen.

Traditional comics maybe. I mean, they've gotten themselves into a corner with the overpriced singles and being sold almost exclusively in specialty shops, everyone catering to the same audience that's probably under one million.

I'm thinking that, pretty soon, there's gonna be a shift away from what we see as "comics" entirely. That life support is going to run out and with the backlog of comics that already exist people are going to realise they don't actually need new comics. Not to mention with all the worthwhile talent that's leaving the big two fast.

Stuff like webcomics though? That is probably where things are going to progress to. In the last five years or so webcomics have pretty much gone to a whole new level in terms of technical ability, reader following, and technical ability. It's the kind of environment now where a decent number of professionals are working on stuff and have been and some of it has been reasonably successful. Heck, even people from way back in the early days who were basically just screwing around in their spare time have managed to make a decent amount of fame and money starting with their web work. It's a place where a creator doesn't have to answer to anyone unless they feel like it, and can do whatever they want. Obviously this means we get a lot of crap but there's also a lot of good stuff coming out.

[Kalmarvho]

Stuff like webcomics though? That is probably where things are going to progress to. In the last five years or so webcomics have pretty much gone to a whole new level in terms of technical ability, reader following, and technical ability. It's the kind of environment now where a decent number of professionals are working on stuff and have been and some of it has been reasonably successful. Heck, even people from way back in the early days who were basically just screwing around in their spare time have managed to make a decent amount of fame and money starting with their web work. It's a place where a creator doesn't have to answer to anyone unless they feel like it, and can do whatever they want. Obviously this means we get a lot of crap but there's also a lot of good stuff coming out.

Definitely, but the 'big names' are pretty well entrenched right now. Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik are extremely powerful in their spheres of influence, Tom Siddell is a critical darling, and Andrew Hussie presides over the juggernaut that is MSPA - not to mention the Giant, whose success we're all aware of. It's difficult to attain those levels of success, though. The contrast between the traditional format comics industry and the webcomic industry is more of an artificial barrier to entry - traditional comics has a much higher barrier to entry, but a chance at personal (if not industry) stability, whereas like many forms of entrepreneurship, the webcomics barrier to entry is extremely low, but the attrition rate is extremely high. And unlike in traditional comics, in webcomics there's less chance for a lateral entry - all motion must be upwards. A stable plateau has to be reached before it can start supporting itself.

Hence why for most people, webcomics -if they have one - are merely a hobby.

[Jayngfet]

Definitely, but the 'big names' are pretty well entrenched right now. Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik are extremely powerful in their spheres of influence, Tom Siddell is a critical darling, and Andrew Hussie presides over the juggernaut that is MSPA - not to mention the Giant, whose success we're all aware of. It's difficult to attain those levels of success, though. The contrast between the traditional format comics industry and the webcomic industry is more of an artificial barrier to entry - traditional comics has a much higher barrier to entry, but a chance at personal (if not industry) stability, whereas like many forms of entrepreneurship, the webcomics barrier to entry is extremely low, but the attrition rate is extremely high. And unlike in traditional comics, in webcomics there's less chance for a lateral entry - all motion must be upwards. A stable plateau has to be reached before it can start supporting itself.

Hence why for most people, webcomics -if they have one - are merely a hobby.

Yeah, but the thing is sturgeons law applies to web-comics and related media more aggressive than perhaps any other creative medium, and for good reason.

Lets be honest here, 99.9% of web-comics suck. If they're lucky they're only badly written OR horribly drawn OR update so rarely remembering to follow them is a chore. Getting two of the three is relatively rare and that shows you how bad things are in web-comics. Getting art on the level of even a mid tier big two produced comic can be hard for a lot of people simply because they aren't as good as the people there.

As well, if we're going by entrepreneurship we need to keep in mind that a lot of businesses take upwards of two years to actually turn any kind of profit. It's not a practice for the faint of heart no matter what you're investing into.

[Man on Fire]

On the second. Look at Alan Scott. Hell, to use an example from this week, look at Shining Knight. This wasn't DC trying to be progressive and brave and making a new character with issues being tackled in real life. This was DC screwing over fans of a specific character with a lazy retcon, in a way that has no in story consequences but is expected to generate some kind of media buzz.

I'm not up with last 1 or 2 issues of Demon Knights, what they did? You mean those refferences to her possibly being homosexual?

[Jayngfet]

I'm not up with last 1 or 2 issues of Demon Knights, what they did? You mean those refferences to her possibly being homosexual?

Spoiler

Show

Shining Knight is full on transsexual and possibly intersexed now.

[Metahuman1]

Spoiler

Show

Shining Knight is full on transsexual and possibly intersexed now.

Spoiler

Show

Why, dear god, WHY!!!!????

[Avilan the Grey]

Spoiler

Show

Shining Knight is full on transsexual and possibly intersexed now.

I have never understood why they have to change existic characters with existing fanbases.

Spoiler

Show

I see absolutely no problem with a transexual superhero. But it should be a new character.

[Metahuman1]

I have never understood why they have to change existic characters with existing fanbases.

Spoiler

Show

I see absolutely no problem with a transexual superhero. But it should be a new character.

Spoiler

Show

And Ideally not one who, if memory serves, has the back story of being one of King Arthur's Knights of the round table. The idea that it's acceptable now is fine, the idea that it would have been acceptable in the dark ages isn't.

[Avilan the Grey]

Spoiler

Show

And Ideally not one who, if memory serves, has the back story of being one of King Arthur's Knights of the round table. The idea that it's acceptable now is fine, the idea that it would have been acceptable in the dark ages isn't.

Unless it's Camelot 3000 of course.

[Zrak]

I really don't get the hate for the Shining Knight move. I actually thought it was kind of cool.

Spoiler

Show

I think it helps expand on the mythical sort of image Grant Morrison gave into the more eternal/timeless framework that Demon Knights has been going for. The character's gender ambiguity has been a recurring element since the start of Demon Knights, at least. Also, I'm not sure it would've been as much of a problem in the dark ages as people seem to think it would've been. Or, honestly, what is even meant by that.

[Tiki Snakes]

Shining Knight

Spoiler

Show

Not knowing anything about the character at all, I read up on the Wiki.
The way the wiki describes the situation, it seems a lot less sensationalist and wtf than simply going from the discussion here in the thread. Given that it's explicitely a different person from a different time period than the other and/or previous Shining Knights, I don't think it sounds like such a major problem. I'm also not sure how accurate or not the description of Shining Knight being transexual is. The Wiki suggests that the character is doing the whole passing for a man to get away with having a man's job thing that you sometimes get characters doing (and in order to be with her true love, initially wasn't it?) rather than actually identifying as anything other than what they were born as.
But that's a very complex subject and I've never read a single issue, so I'll just leave it at this.

[Jayngfet]

I really don't get the hate for the Shining Knight move. I actually thought it was kind of cool.

Spoiler

Show

I think it helps expand on the mythical sort of image Grant Morrison gave into the more eternal/timeless framework that Demon Knights has been going for. The character's gender ambiguity has been a recurring element since the start of Demon Knights, at least. Also, I'm not sure it would've been as much of a problem in the dark ages as people seem to think it would've been. Or, honestly, what is even meant by that.

Spoiler

Show

The problem isn't the move itself so much as the fact that the move is awkward and really badly done. I mean, there's no real finesse or good context for it. It was pretty much just dropped in the middle of a scenario in which big, important other things were happening, wound up being badly explained, and then glossed over to get back to important things.

Weather or not it should be, this is a big, weighty kind of issue that pretty much got hucked in at a random spot then glossed over. It's like if you're baking a cake and stick the eggs in first. Good cakes can have eggs and they can add a lot, but you need to stick them in at the appropriate time and consider how many eggs, if any you should use, and what kind of eggs. To extend the metaphor, they just jammed an ostrich egg into the bowl without care, and we all wound up getting a bit of shell on our plate.

[Zrak]

Shining Knight

Spoiler

Show

Not knowing anything about the character at all, I read up on the Wiki.
The way the wiki describes the situation, it seems a lot less sensationalist and wtf than simply going from the discussion here in the thread. Given that it's explicitely a different person from a different time period than the other and/or previous Shining Knights, I don't think it sounds like such a major problem. I'm also not sure how accurate or not the description of Shining Knight being transexual is. The Wiki suggests that the character is doing the whole passing for a man to get away with having a man's job thing that you sometimes get characters doing (and in order to be with her true love, initially wasn't it?) rather than actually identifying as anything other than what they were born as.
But that's a very complex subject and I've never read a single issue, so I'll just leave it at this.

Spoiler

Show

That was under the last writer's run. The current writer revealed things are a little more complex than Ystina simply dressing the part. I think the relevant panels are up on a few blogs, but the gist is that the character says "I'm not just a man or a woman. I'm both" when another character mentions them settling down after the big epic battle is all said and done. The ambiguity has been present for the whole run, and I feel it's been hinted at pretty clearly, so I didn't really feel it came as much of a shock.

Spoiler

Show

The problem isn't the move itself so much as the fact that the move is awkward and really badly done. I mean, there's no real finesse or good context for it. It was pretty much just dropped in the middle of a scenario in which big, important other things were happening, wound up being badly explained, and then glossed over to get back to important things.

Weather or not it should be, this is a big, weighty kind of issue that pretty much got hucked in at a random spot then glossed over. It's like if you're baking a cake and stick the eggs in first. Good cakes can have eggs and they can add a lot, but you need to stick them in at the appropriate time and consider how many eggs, if any you should use, and what kind of eggs. To extend the metaphor, they just jammed an ostrich egg into the bowl without care, and we all wound up getting a bit of shell on our plate.

Spoiler

Show

See, I think the whole point was that this isn't a big, weighty issue. This is the way Shining Knight is, and that's all there is to it. I think the fact that a big deal wasn't really made of it was one of the best parts. A "very special episode" issue would have been hackneyed and trite, at best. What happened was all that was really needed; Shining Knight brought up what was relevant to whom it was relevant, when it was relevant.

I don't really understand what you're going for with the cake metaphor, both with regard to its application here and what you're literally talking about. Like, I don't know what you mean "stick the eggs in first." Stick the eggs in what? A bowl? That's fine, you can totally put the eggs in a bowl first. Baking specifics aside, I'm assuming "eggs" are the stand in for "weighty issues" or whatever? If so, I don't see this as an ostrich egg, and I think part of the point was that it isn't; Shining Knight is the same character, doing the same big, important things, just as effectively as ever. Regardless of the egg's size, I didn't really feel like I got any shell on my plate, while I'm pretty sure a "very special issue" would've basically been a plate full of shell.

[Jayngfet]

Spoiler

Show

See, I think the whole point was that this isn't a big, weighty issue. This is the way Shining Knight is, and that's all there is to it. I think the fact that a big deal wasn't really made of it was one of the best parts. A "very special episode" issue would have been hackneyed and trite, at best. What happened was all that was really needed; Shining Knight brought up what was relevant to whom it was relevant, when it was relevant.

I don't really understand what you're going for with the cake metaphor, both with regard to its application here and what you're literally talking about. Like, I don't know what you mean "stick the eggs in first." Stick the eggs in what? A bowl? That's fine, you can totally put the eggs in a bowl first. Baking specifics aside, I'm assuming "eggs" are the stand in for "weighty issues" or whatever? If so, I don't see this as an ostrich egg, and I think part of the point was that it isn't; Shining Knight is the same character, doing the same big, important things, just as effectively as ever. Regardless of the egg's size, I didn't really feel like I got any shell on my plate, while I'm pretty sure a "very special issue" would've basically been a plate full of shell.

Ok. Lets break this down piece by piece for you hear.

First, it shouldn't be a weighty issue. It shouldn't need a very special episode. In an ideal world, it's just a detail that could exist and we'd be done with it. We don't live in that world. We live in a world where this is a hot button issue and DC comics has already gotten flak from the New 52 and character's sexual orientation. We live in a world where this kind of thing is debated about and not exactly readily excepted in even more cosmopolitan areas. A Very Special Episode would have been terrible, but the way it was handled here was also terrible. You unfortunately can't just claim something isn't a big deal when, in context, it's a big deal that'll get overblown. The only reason you can say there wasn't a controversy is really because Demon Knights tends to be one of DC's lowest selling books out of the New 52. If you handled the situation like this in like, Batman or Green Lantern things would be very different, because people would be actually paying attention.



As well, you seem to miss the entire point of "coming out". When someone comes out, they don't go through some kind of mystical change that alters their entire being. It alters the way this person is perceived, even if this was obvious to anyone looking. It's something that can change a whole lot of someone's life even if they themselves don't change. It can, if done clumsily, pretty much supercede everything else involved. I mean for example, this was a half a page thing. Nothing else in the issue is being discussed.

[Zrak]

Spoiler

Show

So, wait, I'm confused. You contend that it's a topic which will necessarily create controversy because, in context, it's a big deal and it's bound to get overblown. Your evidence for this is that, in its context, it didn't really create a controversy or get blown particularly out of proportion? Forgive me if I'm unconvinced.

More seriously, it happened in Demon Knights, not in Green Lantern. I don't see how what would have happened in Green Lantern is really relevant, at all. The decision was made for the plot, tone, and audience of Demon Knights. Maybe you're right about the controversy that would've ensued from something similar in Green Lantern or Batman, maybe not, but either way, it's not really relevant, here.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with the last part; I specifically noted that the character wasn't fundamentally, mystically changed. In fact, part of my argument was that the method chosen showed that Shining Knight hadn't undergone any sort of "mystical change," and was still the timeless, sword-swinging smartass from Camelot from we all know and love. Sure, the reader's perception has very probably changed, but right after changing the readers' perception, the writers give a reminder that, first and foremost, Shining Knight is still Shining Knight. Again, maybe not the same Shining Knight we knew before, exactly, or at least not the Shining Knight as we understood her, but still the Shining Knight in every way that counts.

I don't really think it's fair to argue that we aren't discussing anything else in the issue, since I'm responding to a specific criticism about the issue.

[Jayngfet]

Spoiler

Show

So, wait, I'm confused. You contend that it's a topic which will necessarily create controversy because, in context, it's a big deal and it's bound to get overblown. Your evidence for this is that, in its context, it didn't really create a controversy or get blown particularly out of proportion? Forgive me if I'm unconvinced.

Spoiler

Show

Look, this topic is literally the first time I've seen a Demon Knights discussion on GITP. I've Tried talking about it a few times but this is the first time the discussion has actually taken root and gone anywhere.

Look over in the webcomics section to the Questionable Content thread for another example, then check out the rate of posts going on before and after the character in question came out.

This isn't a huge issue because nobody reads Demon Knights. The fact that it's an issue at all when nobody bothers actually talking about Demon Knights before hand shows exactly how this has gone over.

Spoiler

Show

More seriously, it happened in Demon Knights, not in Green Lantern. I don't see how what would have happened in Green Lantern is really relevant, at all. The decision was made for the plot, tone, and audience of Demon Knights. Maybe you're right about the controversy that would've ensued from something similar in Green Lantern or Batman, maybe not, but either way, it's not really relevant, here.

Spoiler

Show

On it's own, sure. But Demon Knights comes from the same company using the same editorial as a part of the same relaunch. You can't ignore context. This comes off as a clumsy attempt, among half a dozen other very recent clumsy attempts, to look progressive without needing to go to the work of making an entirely new character from scratch without a fanbase. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, but a large number of terrible writing decisions from DC in a very short amount of time(many of which were forced down by Editorial) have stripped away any kind of benefit of the doubt. DC has become, rather blatantly in the last few years, a mercenary endeavor they'll rather clearly tear itself apart for slightly higher numbers, and Demon Knights is governed by DC.

Spoiler

Show

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with the last part; I specifically noted that the character wasn't fundamentally, mystically changed. In fact, part of my argument was that the method chosen showed that Shining Knight hadn't undergone any sort of "mystical change," and was still the timeless, sword-swinging smartass from Camelot from we all know and love. Sure, the reader's perception has very probably changed, but right after changing the readers' perception, the writers give a reminder that, first and foremost, Shining Knight is still Shining Knight. Again, maybe not the same Shining Knight we knew before, exactly, or at least not the Shining Knight as we understood her, but still the Shining Knight in every way that counts.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, but again, readers perception is absolutely what's being discussed first and foremost, along with the actual motivation for writing it that way. We aren't discussing an actual person who can leave and go about buisness as usual where nothing has changed applies quite so fully. We're talking about a character who exists entirely in their perception by the readers. You can't separate the two except by artificial means.

Spoiler

Show

I don't really think it's fair to argue that we aren't discussing anything else in the issue, since I'm responding to a specific criticism about the issue.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah. Because no matter how many comic book threads come up nobody has discussed anything going on in demon knights. This entire thing came up due to one offhanded remark by me. Demon Knights may be a generally good book, but going by history this is pretty much the longest discussion I've ever seen on it. This is terrible, but true. Check yourself.

If you didn't want this to be the only thing discussed about Demon Knights, then discussing it in literally any other way at any other time before now would have been a good idea.

[Zrak]

Spoiler

Show

Look over in the webcomics section to the Questionable Content thread for another example, then check out the rate of posts going on before and after the character in question came out.

Spoiler

Show

Again, that's something entirely different. Firstly Questionable Content has been pretty much entirely based around the romantic and sexual politics of its characters since it stopped making music jokes. Secondly, it's been a while since I've read it, but if it's like it was when I gave up, I'm pretty sure any actual break in the status quo of any kind is pretty huge news in QC, at this point.

Spoiler

Show

This isn't a huge issue because nobody reads Demon Knights. The fact that it's an issue at all when nobody bothers actually talking about Demon Knights before hand shows exactly how this has gone over.

Spoiler

Show

Eeh, maybe. For one, I don't think that's much of a sample size to base your conclusion on, all things considered. Similarly, it's not as though this is the only thing anyone, anywhere is talking about with regard to Demon Knights. If you mean here, specifically, with the exception of me disagreeing with your assessment, people have mostly been asking for clarification about what, exactly, happened.

Spoiler

Show

On it's own, sure. But Demon Knights comes from the same company using the same editorial as a part of the same relaunch. You can't ignore context. This comes off as a clumsy attempt, among half a dozen other very recent clumsy attempts, to look progressive without needing to go to the work of making an entirely new character from scratch without a fanbase. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, but a large number of terrible writing decisions from DC in a very short amount of time(many of which were forced down by Editorial) have stripped away any kind of benefit of the doubt. DC has become, rather blatantly in the last few years, a mercenary endeavor they'll rather clearly tear itself apart for slightly higher numbers, and Demon Knights is governed by DC.

Spoiler

Show

It's just as erroneous to assume it's a mercenary decision forced on the writers by Editorial as to assume it's not, therefore I'd judge it without presuming either to be the case. Taken in isolation, it's something which has been foreshadowed for pretty much the entire run, generally fits with the character design, arose at a sensible enough time in the story, and was handled appropriately enough, given the character in question. I mean, it would be one thing if it came out of nowhere, but this has been hinted at pretty much since Shining Knight was introduced in Demon Knights.
In other words, I'd read the decision for what it is, on its own, not with "benefit of the doubt" or through the lens of a certainly-justified dissatisfaction with DC's current editorial policy.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, but again, readers perception is absolutely what's being discussed first and foremost, along with the actual motivation for writing it that way. We aren't discussing an actual person who can leave and go about buisness as usual where nothing has changed applies quite so fully. We're talking about a character who exists entirely in their perception by the readers. You can't separate the two except by artificial means.

Spoiler

Show

Well, without the author's word on the subject, we can't really be certain about the actual motivation. What I was saying was that I think it had the desired effect on readers' perception — if a reader's perception of the character was really shaken up, the shake-up was immediately followed with a reminder that, whatever pronoun is preferred, this is the same, awesome Shining Knight as before. In other words, Shining Knight says "I'm a man and a woman," and immediately afterwards acts like the Shining Knight, man and/or woman.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah. Because no matter how many comic book threads come up nobody has discussed anything going on in demon knights. This entire thing came up due to one offhanded remark by me. Demon Knights may be a generally good book, but going by history this is pretty much the longest discussion I've ever seen on it. This is terrible, but true. Check yourself.

If you didn't want this to be the only thing discussed about Demon Knights, then discussing it in literally any other way at any other time before now would have been a good idea.

Spoiler

Show

I'm a pretty new poster on these boards, and have yet to participate in any discussion about comic books on them with the exception of this thread. That point of order aside, I think that this, more generally, goes back to what I was saying at a little earlier, regarding the fact that several of the responses have been to ask for clarification. Keep in mind that your initial post on the subject didn't mention what happened in Demon Knights, just that it was "a lazy retcon" attempting to generate "fake controversy." Since, as you've said, not a lot of people read Demon Knights, compared to other titles, a lot of people aren't familiar with recent events in the book. Thus, in order to fully understand your argument, they would have to ask you to what events you were referring. In other words, it's not really that people in this thread have been making a big deal out of Shining Knight coming out, for the most part, but rather that they were asking what had happened in Demon Knights that you were making a big deal about.

As for people not talking about it more generally, that's kind of a bummer. Demon Knights has been one of the better things to come out of the New 52. I would totally talk about Demon Knights if I ever left the top two forums for anywhere but the online campaign boards.

[Man on Fire]

tl;dr version: People are so scared of having some serious issues in comics that they attack even a slight hint of some and throw the names at it, accusing the comic of "trying to be edgy" or "attention whorying for mainstream media".

First, it shouldn't be a weighty issue. It shouldn't need a very special episode. In an ideal world, it's just a detail that could exist and we'd be done with it. We don't live in that world. We live in a world where this is a hot button issue and DC comics has already gotten flak from the New 52 and character's sexual orientation. We live in a world where this kind of thing is debated about and not exactly readily excepted in even more cosmopolitan areas. A Very Special Episode would have been terrible, but the way it was handled here was also terrible. You unfortunately can't just claim something isn't a big deal when, in context, it's a big deal that'll get overblown. The only reason you can say there wasn't a controversy is really because Demon Knights tends to be one of DC's lowest selling books out of the New 52.

So you're saying that people shouldn't even try to handle topic like that, because no matter what they'll do, audience will react negatively, and even when they don't it's only because of "insert lame excuse here".

Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's pure bull@#$%. As I said many times, comics aren't just fluffy kittens and rainbows, there is a place for serious things there. Second, if no matter what you do somebody WILL be offended, then there is really no reason to not do it.

Also, the thing you're whining about can be seen really as a consequence, or rather, a part in a subplot that has been going through entire series, since the very first issue - how about you wait ti'll it's done, because right now we don't even know what that scene really meant. It would be pretty akward if, after all you said in this thread, it would turn out she meant something completely different, wouldn't it?

This discussion reminds me of a ****storm that exploded few years ago, when Paul Cornell, the same man who writes Demon Knights, was writing Captain Britain & MI:13 and wrote Muslim woman picking up Excalibur. He handed that pretty well and, despite fandoms initial reaction, made the character fan favorite, so maybe have a little faith in him?

@Metahuman1:

Spoiler

Show

And Ideally not one who, if memory serves, has the back story of being one of King Arthur's Knights of the round table. The idea that it's acceptable now is fine, the idea that it would have been acceptable in the dark ages isn't.

Well ,considering that this is a comics where two princesses declare that once their capital city gets declared by Merlin New Camelot, they'll get married and even if it won't happen they will rule together and have no intention of marrying a man, and nobody even bats and eyelash (aside from madame Xanadu offhand comment she hopes regular women will get the ame rights) I don't think this comics is or ever was trying to even pretend it potrays dark ages accuratelly.

Also, Shining Knight in this version was a part of Camelot founded by Merlin and Arthur The Bear thousands year BC, so that's not even Dark Ages.

Merlin in this comics is founding Camelot over and over, there are multiple versions in different time pieroids, why are you asking?

[Jayngfet]

Ok. Let me clarify things. Comics, in general, can do this sort of thing and it could concievably be done way better.


DC, modern DC in particular, doesn't do this well. At all. You'd need to ignore a whole lot of stuff they've done to even get them to zero on the "have we been good about social issues?" meter. You'd pretty much need to ignore everything we've heard about what's going on behind the scenes recently and how everything before this has been handled.

DC comics specifically, not comics in general, cares more about spectacle and pulling short term numbers than anything else out there. They were pretty much willing to mess up their entire continuity with the New 52's very poorly thought out reboot; retconned Alan Scott into being gay, despite the fact that his only real recent impact on the book he started in through the last 20 years came from the fact that he was married and had children; and about a hundred other retcons that have either removed or completely changed characters that used to get involved in social issues in the last few years.

DC doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because DC burned through that a looooong time ago. Anything DC does is by default to be considered a stunt simply because literally every other example from the last few years has been treated as a stunt even if the original concept MIGHT have been brought up with good intentions.

[Man on Fire]

I would like you to read my psot again and consider many parts and points you ignored, starting with "we don't even know what she really meant yet"* and "Paul Cornell can pull out stuff like that well".

Consider that Marvel isn't really any better with hackling on gender, race, religion or sex issues. Consider that, as I said, there was the same reaction on Fraiza Hussein picking up Excalibur. Yet Cornell handled things very well and turned her into fan favorite. I'm not asking you to give DC benefit of doubt, I'm asking you to give benefit of doubt to this man and thi man alone.

Also, considering that I don't see DC blowing up the news about the thing, maybe it's not a publicity stunt? Have you ever heard of publicity stunt that doesn't get media coverage? Think hard, that's very philosophical question.


*

Spoiler

Show

She could just mean that soul of original, male SK lives in her or hundred more things

[Zrak]

DC doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because DC burned through that a looooong time ago. Anything DC does is by default to be considered a stunt simply because literally every other example from the last few years has been treated as a stunt even if the original concept MIGHT have been brought up with good intentions.

I haven't been saying anything about giving DC the benefit of the doubt, I've been saying that the decision and its writing be judged on their own merits. On their own merits, I see nothing wrong with the decision and thought it was handled pretty well, really.

[Man on Fire]

Pretty much what Zrak said - I know that DC and Marvel both can handle stuff like that pretty badly and I know they did in the past. But that doesn't justify condemning every attempt at handlng that stuff from people at either one by default. Epecially when it's done by completely different people that the ones who screwed up previous times. And especially if those people proved they can handle thing like that with care before.

Also, Cornell will leave after next issue anyway, I'm more worried what new writer will bring. Anybody here had read The Surrogates or X-O Manowar?

[Zrak]

Also worth noting that Cornell tweeted that he was pleased about the lack of controversy.

[Yora]

DC, modern DC in particular, doesn't do this well. At all. You'd need to ignore a whole lot of stuff they've done to even get them to zero on the "have we been good about social issues?" meter. You'd pretty much need to ignore everything we've heard about what's going on behind the scenes recently and how everything before this has been handled.

I think in current western society, the problem with discrimination is not outright and hostile discrimination, but internalized and unspoken one.
It might have been a very different thing in the 60s and up to the 80s, but these days adressing social issues well is not done by telling people "look how these people have to suffer because of your hateful predjudices". Todays issues of discrimination are not about tollerance, but about acceptance. Which is much better handled not by pleading "don't lynch them, they have done nothing wrong", but by gradually making people see that minorities are not really that different from themselves and there's no need to feel uncomfortable around them.

There may very well have been a time in which it was progressive to have female superheroes in skimpy outfits. It's a symbolic example to show that women are able to do the same things that man can do, that they can take care of problems without supervision or guidance by men, and even that they can decide what outfits are appropriate for them or not.
But that was generations ago and now we have the social issue that women in fiction are always designed for fanservice and maximum eye candy. And such an issue is not adressed by giving speeches about treating women respectfully. This would be done by portraying women in a way that is both capable and competent and without the need of fan serivce. And you are not adressing the acceptance of gays by introducing storylines about homophobia, you introduce gay characters that are portrayed just like any other characters and show that the people around them also treat them like regular people and not make the issue an issue.

And admitedly, most times I hear about something in superhero comics it's about things that even the fans are outraged about. But it seems that the superhero comic world still works with big speeches and just isn't capable of subtle portrayals of normalcy. The genre seems to be all about overblown drama and with that you simply can't adress social issues well in the modern day.

[Zrak]

Well, in this case,

Spoiler

Show

Shining Knight comes out and everything goes on as it normally would

, which is part of what I liked about it.

[Man on Fire]

Yora, I generally agree with your sentimes here, strongly even, but...have you read Demon Knights? because I have a feeling you didn't and try to stamp this pretty general describtion to that one specific comics. Comics that, quite frankly, avoids all you talked about. Hell, it's not even superhero comics, it's a fantasy comics with DC characters.

Also, as Zrak said:

Spoiler

Show

Shinign Knight just comes out and really only because she wanted to be honest with teammate who was making moves on her and then story continues, it's not bought up as some very special episode and excuse for giving very special speeches. If anything, that scene served to show her more emotionally mature side and, that she respect Exoristos as a person.

[Jayngfet]

Yora, I generally agree with your sentimes here, strongly even, but...have you read Demon Knights? because I have a feeling you didn't and try to stamp this pretty general describtion to that one specific comics. Comics that, quite frankly, avoids all you talked about. Hell, it's not even superhero comics, it's a fantasy comics with DC characters.

Also, as Zrak said:

Spoiler

Show

Shinign Knight just comes out and really only because she wanted to be honest with teammate who was making moves on her and then story continues, it's not bought up as some very special episode and excuse for giving very special speeches. If anything, that scene served to show her more emotionally mature side and, that she respect Exoristos as a person.

Yeah, but the moment chosen was completely inappropriate. It was a scene where everybody is running around and the stakes are high and important things just happened and were about to happen and everyone was about to do even more important things.

For two characters to just kinda stop moving for a bit and have a conversation is rather jarring, don't you think? I mean, they weren't just sitting around. They were in hell they were trying very hard to escape. This wasn't the time nor the place for that discussion.

If this was done before or after, when things were a little slower, with a couple more lines, that'd probably have been much, much better. Right now, it was just jammed between two much more plot relevant scenes and sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Zrak]

See, I think the moment chosen was entirely appropriate:

Spoiler

Show

Exoristos gives a typical "if we make it out of here" speech not in spite of but because they are in a very dire situation; if Exoristos didn't say something then, she might never get the chance. It's a pretty common trope that appears in a huge variety of media. Shining Knight just responded as was necessary.

[Man on Fire]

As Zrak said, it was "If we get out of this alive" moment, those happens in situations like the one DK were then and Shinning Knights response was also appriorate.

And turning back to say few words to other person during the march* - nothing innpriorate at it at all.

* - And no, they weren't running. At that point they weren't even attacked or anything.

Sorry Jayngfet, no offense, but I get the impression that you just simply dislike this idea and try to hammer some excuse for hating it into the comics, even if things you talk about are clearly not there.