Superman and Batman to join forces with Islamic superheroes

[theenglish]

Yes, since being one does not exclude the other.

If you really beleive that, there's no point arguing with you.

You don't think gay atheists believe in truth, justice, and the American way (not that they necessarily do, of course, but it hardly precludes it)?

Unlike Darkwing Duck, Superman believes that being radical, gay, and atheist (and Supes is arguably two out of the three himself) is not incompatible with T, J, and the AW.

(Of course, Superman's core character has been changed over the years because he was originally fond of spotting racist WWII slogans on a few comic book covers.)

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Yes, since being one does not exclude the other.

If you really beleive that, there's no point arguing with you.

You don't think gay atheists believe in truth, justice, and the American way (not that they necessarily do, of course, but it hardly precludes it)?

I think changing those things changes the character from a solidly "middle American" person to a member of a fringe element of society and that the writing of said character would have to reflect that. Otherwise why bother?

Take the old Ellen Degeneres show. Once she "came out" (actor and character) the show went from being a mildly amusing character comedy to being a lesbian polemic every week.

David Gerrald's "Blood and Fire" script has the same problem, as produced by Phase II. Not only does he insert gay characters, but he writes extended scenes around them to push it right up in the viewers' face: "LOOK!!! GAY CHARACTERS!!!"

 

[Misfit Toy]

So what CORE character has been changed?

So far, none, but that isn't stopping Galactus and his ilk from pushing for it.

What precisely do you mean by "his ilk"?

 

[CaptainCanada]

Well, on the subject of making Superman gay (I'm...still not sure how this thread arrived at this discussion), that would, on a more practical level, impede some fairly important stuff in his mythos, like Lois Lane.

As for 'atheist', writers have always avoided ascribing religion to him like the plague lest it diminish his universality; if it's ever brought up, it's usually stated that he's big on Rao, the Kryptonians' god.

On the earlier discussion of Nick Fury, most comics appearances of his that I've seen have been of the old-model Nick. Apart from The Ultimates (and its DTV adaptations) (and also the films, where they jumped at the chance to get Samuel L. Jackson), he made a one-shot appearance in Wolverine and the X-Men where he was sort of a cross between the two (black, but with 616 Nick's hairstyle, etc). Given the choice between different versions of the character (choices all adaptations have to make with characters who have a lot of iterations), there's a certain preference for putting in a prominent person of colour (see also the current Spectacular Spider-Man, where they've changed up a few characters' race, probably most notably Liz).

 

[theenglish]

As for 'atheist', writers have always avoided ascribing religion to him like the plague lest it diminish his universality; if it's ever brought up, it's usually stated that he's big on Rao, the Kryptonians' god.

In fact, if one had to assign a religion to Superman, wouldn't he be jewish?

 

[CaptainCanada]

As for 'atheist', writers have always avoided ascribing religion to him like the plague lest it diminish his universality; if it's ever brought up, it's usually stated that he's big on Rao, the Kryptonians' god.

In fact, if one had to assign a religion to Superman, wouldn't he be jewish?

No; if he's a member of an earthbound religion, it'd come from the Kents, who pretty much scream small-town American Protestant.

There really aren't that many Jewish characters in comics, compared with what you'd expect given that Jews basically ran the show from the late '30s until the late '60s. Of course, that was a different atmosphere, when 'Stanley Martin Lieber' had to go by 'Stan Lee'. Nowadays there's a couple: the Thing (who was always ambiguously Jewish, though they only recently confirmed it), Kitty Pryde (whose creators weren't Jewish), Magneto (who is usually more ethnically Jewish than religiously).

Religion in comics tends to focus either on various Christian denominations or madeup/mythological ones that nobody (or few people) can take issue with (like Wonder Woman's Graeco-Roman pantheon, the various magic religions, etc.). Since most writers come from a generically Christian background, they tend to avoid religions they aren't as familiar with lest they get it wrong. As stated, Jews are thin on the ground (ironically, the Jewish near-monopoly on the Big Two broke up just when it became permissible to write about such things), there are only a handful of Muslims (Dust and Excalibur at Marvel are the only two that I can think of to have recently been on a main cast), even fewer easterners (Green Arrow II is a Buddhist, that's about all that comes easily to mind).

 

[Galactus]

So what CORE character has been changed?

So far, none, but that isn't stopping Galactus and his ilk from pushing for it.

What precisely do you mean by "his ilk"?

Can't wait for this answer. I am still trying to see where I said that was what I wanted to do. Take for instance GI Joe and Ripcord. Don't get that change at all especially since GI Joe was one of the most diverse groups in the 80's and there were plenty of black characters to chose from as a friend.

What I said was that you could make changes and it would not take away from anything. But just like this group of heroes, creating orginal characters is my preferred method.

 

[theenglish]

As for 'atheist', writers have always avoided ascribing religion to him like the plague lest it diminish his universality; if it's ever brought up, it's usually stated that he's big on Rao, the Kryptonians' god.

In fact, if one had to assign a religion to Superman, wouldn't he be jewish?

No; if he's a member of an earthbound religion, it'd come from the Kents, who pretty much scream small-town American Protestant.

That would be yet another change to the core character though. The Kents didn't come along until afterward. Prior to that he would definitely have been jewish like Peter Parker and the Fantastic Four.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

So far, none, but that isn't stopping Galactus and his ilk from pushing for it.

What precisely do you mean by "his ilk"?

Can't wait for this answer. I am still trying to see where I said that was what I wanted to do. Take for instance GI Joe and Ripcord. Don't get that change at all especially since GI Joe was one of the most diverse groups in the 80's and there were plenty of black characters to chose from as a friend.

What I said was that you could make changes and it would not take away from anything. But just like this group of heroes, creating orginal characters is my preferred method.

By ilk I mean those sharing is misguided philosophy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yes, a gay, atheist, radical Superman is 100% interchangeable with the traditional values "truth, justice, and the American Way" Superman....:rolleyes

Yes, since being one does not exclude the other.

If you really beleive that, there's no point arguing with you.

The America I believe in was found on the proposition that all men are created equal. Therefore a radical, gay, atheist Superman could stand for truth, justice and the American way. These are not the sole purview of straights, the religious and reactionaries.

He was a sensitive swashbuckler/circus performer raise by a gypsy sorceress. No hint of any religious affilation out side of the occasional "Gott En Himmel!!!"

Explain how that PRECLUDES said affiliation.

Seems odd that a man raised by gypsy sorceress, who takes the Lords name in vain would be a devout Christian. It was pretty much out of the blue. Sort of like Bruce Wayne saying he was gay

That is the tragic "end state" Magneto. Without the life experiences of his youth (in the camp) and early adult life (with Magda), he would not have become that man.

Thats Magneto from X-Men #1. And pretty much every appearence till Claremmont decided to give him a "tragic" backstory.

1602 was years ago. Contemporarily, only the 616 universe's Nick is white. All the other Nicks are portrayed as black.

Again where are all these Black Furys? I mentioned 1602 becuse that was the first Alternate Fury I could recall,

Hey you brought up Ultimate Nick as an example of a character being changed. IIRC Ultimate Nick has been black from the get go and 616 Nick is still white. So like I said, what else you got? Do you also onject to Ultimate Wasp beeing Asian? The Ultimate line is an alternate-universe. And Ultimate Nick isn't a legacy. Neither was the E-1 Hawkman, when first created. He was a re-engineered take on the concept, jut as Ulitmate Nick is.

No, because that is AU, WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT...get that through your head. We are talking about changing CORE characters.

All caps? Do you really think that helps you make your point? Or lends it more weight? Or does it make you look like a child throwing a tantrum?

Again you brought up Ultimate Nick as an example of changing a "core character." If you wnat to back way from that feel free.

So what CORE character has been changed?

So far, none, but that isn't stopping Galactus and his ilk from pushing for it.

His "ilk"? Dude, its just comic books.

 

[Nerys Myk]

As for 'atheist', writers have always avoided ascribing religion to him like the plague lest it diminish his universality; if it's ever brought up, it's usually stated that he's big on Rao, the Kryptonians' god.

In fact, if one had to assign a religion to Superman, wouldn't he be jewish?

Why would he be Jewish? Because his creators were? Where's the logic in that?

 

[Nerys Myk]

What precisely do you mean by "his ilk"?

Can't wait for this answer. I am still trying to see where I said that was what I wanted to do. Take for instance GI Joe and Ripcord. Don't get that change at all especially since GI Joe was one of the most diverse groups in the 80's and there were plenty of black characters to chose from as a friend.

What I said was that you could make changes and it would not take away from anything. But just like this group of heroes, creating orginal characters is my preferred method.

By ilk I mean those sharing is misguided philosophy.

Aren't you responding to him?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

You know there are two major factors that should be considered when thinking about changing the ethnicity, sex, and or sexuality of comicbook characters

1) The comic fans

Now the audience reaction or possible reaction can decide what changes are made to characters and if these changes are premanent

example 1: Hal Jordan

In the 1990s DC decided to change Green Lanterns by replacing Hal with Kyle Rayner and to implement this change Hal should go insane and destroy the Green Lantern Corps and become the villian Parallax and then he redeemed himself and died, oh and they blew up Coast City. This did not go over well with Hal's fans so they brought him back to life, made him a Green Lantern again, and reconted the whole thing as Hal being the meat puppet bitch of a giant yellow grasshopper named Parallax to make said fans happy again.

example 2: Jason Todd

Jason was brought in to replace Dick Grayson as Robin since Dick had become Nightwing, at first Jason was basically a clone of Dick and then after Crisis On Infinite Earths he was reconted to have a different backstory, long story short the audience didn't take on to him DC had a poll Jason was beaten half to death by the Joker and finished off with a bomb, though Jason was brought back later as a bad guy then good guy then bad guy again.

2) How changes in the guys running the comic company affect the changes in the characters.

Sometimes when the head guys are changed out the new guys will either make changes or reset changes until other new guys come and do the same.

Example: The Multiverse

At first the guys who came up with it used it to differentiate the Silver ang Golden Ages ut grew to tell stories without affecting the main continuity and introducing new characters and such. The next guys thought it was too confusing and merged the multiverse into one universe in Crisis on Infinite Earths. The next guys after that decided to recreate the multiverse in Infinite Crisis.

So as you can see there are major factors that must be considered before proposing that a comic book company make major changes to their characters.

Now getting back to what we ARE ACTUALLY DISCUSSING!

I think they should go for it and anyone who doesn't like the idea just remember YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

 

[theenglish]

As for 'atheist', writers have always avoided ascribing religion to him like the plague lest it diminish his universality; if it's ever brought up, it's usually stated that he's big on Rao, the Kryptonians' god.

In fact, if one had to assign a religion to Superman, wouldn't he be jewish?

Why would he be Jewish? Because his creators were? Where's the logic in that?

My point being, in reaction to those who automatically assume that Supes and other major heroes are apparently Christian/Protestant and in accordance with American values, that that does not necessarily have to be the case. It is an opinion, not a canonical fact. To them I say please prove that Supes, in his original raised in an orphanage form (because apparently altering aspects of canonical characters is heresy), is not jewish.

 

[Nerys Myk]

[

I think changing those things changes the character from a solidly "middle American" person to a member of a fringe element of society and that the writing of said character would have to reflect that. Otherwise why bother?

YOu do realise that the character started as a "Super-Roosevelt". A very liberal and radical character (for it's time). He's also a reporter for East Coast newspaper. His "orgins" are hardly "Middle America"
Though He's not the first character to be sanitized after success.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In fact, if one had to assign a religion to Superman, wouldn't he be jewish?

Why would he be Jewish? Because his creators were? Where's the logic in that?

My point being, in reaction to those who automatically assume that Supes and other major heroes are apparently Christian/Protestant and in accordance with American values, that that does not necessarily have to be the case. It is an opinion, not a canonical fact. To them I say please prove that Supes, in his original raised in an orphanage form (because apparently altering aspects of canonical characters is heresy), is not jewish.

insufficient data.

 

[theenglish]

Why would he be Jewish? Because his creators were? Where's the logic in that?

My point being, in reaction to those who automatically assume that Supes and other major heroes are apparently Christian/Protestant and in accordance with American values, that that does not necessarily have to be the case. It is an opinion, not a canonical fact. To them I say please prove that Supes, in his original raised in an orphanage form (because apparently altering aspects of canonical characters is heresy), is not jewish.

insufficient data.

Right, and therefore we cannot conclude that he (or any other heroes) are Christian unless it is specifically stated somewhere in their character profile.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Thats Magneto from X-Men #1. And pretty much every appearence till Claremmont decided to give him a "tragic" backstory.

Who, chronologically, had already had all those things happen to him. It isn't as if he were a nice guy and then turned evil AFTER some writer wrote the backstory. The backstory simply explains how the character got to be who we see in the comics.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you, if you understand basic writing concepts at all.

Again where are all these Black Furys? I mentioned 1602 becuse that was the first Alternate Fury I could recall,

Ultimate Nick Fury (comics)
Ultimate Avengers Nick Fury (dvds)
Wolverine and the X-men Nick Fury (show)
Live Action Movie Nick Fury (movies)

"Black Fury" is surplanting the original Nick Fury in the eyes and minds of the viewer/readership. Do you honestly expect the original Nick to show up ANYWHERE outside the 616 comics going forward?

All caps? Do you really think that helps you make your point? Or lends it more weight? Or does it make you look like a child throwing a tantrum?

No, it draws your attention to something you are obviously NOT reading because you keep trying to compare the re-engineering of core characters, which Galactus and his supporters favor with AUs and legacy characters.

Again you brought up Ultimate Nick as an example of changing a "core character." If you wnat to back way from that feel free.

See above.

 

[theenglish]

Are not all those Nick Fury's you mention Alternate Universe versions of the character, which as you state earlier, is not what you are talking about?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Thats Magneto from X-Men #1. And pretty much every appearence till Claremmont decided to give him a "tragic" backstory.

Who, chronologically, had already had all those things happen to him. It isn't as if he were a nice guy and then turned evil AFTER some writer wrote the backstory. The backstory simply explains how the character got to be who we see in the comics.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you, if you understand basic writing concepts at all.

In the biz those are called "retcons". THings shoe horned in after the fact. "Chronological" is a meaningless term when dealing with retcons. When X-Men #1 was written none of those had ever happened to Magneto. He was written as racist, megalomaniac terrorist. And that a writter would make such a character a Jewish Holocaust survivor bugs me. It strikes me a disrespectful

Again where are all these Black Furys? I mentioned 1602 becuse that was the first Alternate Fury I could recall,

Ultimate Nick Fury (comics)
Ultimate Avengers Nick Fury (dvds)

Based on the Ultimates. Having White Nick show up would be like Alan Scott being the GL in Super friends.

Wolverine and the X-men Nick Fury (show)
Live Action Movie Nick Fury (movies)

[/QUOTE]

I mention Movie Nick already.

"Black Fury" is surplanting the original Nick Fury in the eyes and minds of the viewer/readership. Do you honestly expect the original Nick to show up ANYWHERE outside the 616 comics going forward?

Sounds like what happen oin the Silver Age. the E-1 characters supplanted the Golden Age versions. Change happens.

All caps? Do you really think that helps you make your point? Or lends it more weight? Or does it make you look like a child throwing a tantrum?

No, it draws your attention to something you are obviously NOT reading because you keep trying to compare the re-engineering of core characters, which Galactus and his supporters favor with AUs and legacy characters

No I'm reading it, I just don't by your Chicken Little rant. "Shouting" it won't change that. Presenting a logical cognative arguement might though.

AUs? Alternate Universe? AUs are a great way of re-engineering characters while keeping the "core" version. DCs Silver age exploited that with great success. Ultimate Nick is from and Alternate Universe. So is Movie Nick and Animated Nick. When 616 Nick goes Black let me know. Better yet let me know when 616 Nick teams up with Ultimate Nick. I love those types of stories.

Again you brought up Ultimate Nick as an example of changing a "core character." If you wnat to back way from that feel free.

See above.

[/QUOTE]
The question remains.