Grant Morrison thinks Batman is gay!

[the G-man]

And its also possible for an interpretation to be the wrong one, even if someone is a good writer.

Again, to use Lorenzo Semple Jr as an example:

In addition to the Batman TV show, the man wrote the screenplays for Papillon, The Drowning Pool , the Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor. Any one of those movies alone would seem to qualify him as a "great writer."

But does that mean he "understood" Batman?

For that matter he wrote the widely-reviled 70s "King Kong" remake. Since he's a "great writer," do we have to assume he "understood" King Kong?

Of course not.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Morrison's a smart guy, and of course he's right.

But man, talking about Batman being gay makes the fanboise nervous.

 

[Professor Zoom]

And its also possible for an interpretation to be the wrong one, even if someone is a good writer.

Again, to use Lorenzo Semple Jr as an example:

In addition to the Batman TV show, the man wrote the screenplays for Papillon, The Drowning Pool , the Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor. Any one of those movies alone would seem to qualify him as a "great writer."

But does that mean he "understood" Batman?

For that matter he wrote the widely-reviled 70s "King Kong" remake. Since he's a "great writer," do we have to assume he "understood" King Kong?

Of course not.

Actually, I would say Semple understood Batman. He understood Batman for the time that he was writing him in. As did Kane... (lol, Kane writing Batman...) in the time he was writing Batman, as did Miller, Morrison, for the times they were writing Batman.

There is no one singular "understanding" of Batman. That's why as a character he has been successful for so long. Because he can be reimagined and reinterperted for each present.

So, yeah. Semple got Batman. As does Morrison. As will the next "successful" writer.

 

[JD]

^Scott Snyder? Most people seem pretty happy with what he's been doing in "Batman".

 

[Professor Zoom]

^Scott Snyder? Most people seem pretty happy with what he's been doing in "Batman".

Sure, why not... I don't have a strong opinion about him specifically.

I guess what I'm challenging is this idea of "getting Batman." What and who Batman is changes with time. There is no singular "getting Batman."

 

[Set Harth]

Drug dealers don't sell to kids.

You know why?

Because KIDS DON'T HAVE MONEY.

"Mommy, mommy, on the way back from Toys-R-Us, can we stop and get some crack?"

 

[Aeolusdallas]

Didn't he date Talia for a while in the comics and Diana in the DCAU?

He is not saying the characters are gay. He is saying the whole concept is.

 

[the G-man]

So, yeah. Semple got Batman. As does Morrison. As will the next "successful" writer.

So financial success now equals creative quality here? I guess the writers of "the World According to Jim" "got" comedy and the writers of "Arrested Development" did not.

 

[iguana_tonante]

What he actually said was

“I got interested in the class element of Batman: He’s a rich man who beats up poor people. It’s quite a bizarre mission to go out at night dressed as a bat and punch the hell out of junkies. And then he goes home and lives in this mansion. There’s an aspirational quality to him—he’s an outlaw and he can buy anything. He has a new Batmobile every movie. He’s very plutonian in the sense that he’s wealthy and also in the sense that he’s sexually deviant.

Gayness is built into Batman. I’m not using gay in the pejorative sense, but Batman is very, very gay. There’s just no denying it. Obviously as a fictional character he’s intended to be heterosexual, but the basis of the whole concept is utterly gay. I think that’s why people like it. All these women fancy him and they all wear fetish clothes and jump around rooftops to get to him. He doesn’t care—he’s more interested in hanging out with the old guy and the kid.”

which is a bit more nuanced than "Batman is a homosexual!!!!"

So basically Grant Morrison doesn't like Batman. Another reason he is a bad Batman writer.

How you get "Grant Morrison doesn't like Batman" from that is beyond me.

Well, it works only if you don't like "gay" and you think it's a bad thing. At least, this is what I get from G-man's comment.

It seems to me that it's clear he's not trying to claim that the character of Batman or of Bruce Wayne is of homosexual orientation. He's saying that the construction of the character has much in common with what otherwise might be seen as stereotypical (and rather outdated) traits of the homosexual man.

His life is built on a dual identity - one face for the daytime corporate business world, and another for the nighttime where he dresses up in weird outfits and prowls the streets looking for other unsavoury characters. He has an older mentor who he relies on to keep his secret. He has a younger protege who came from a similar difficult family background, and who he teaches in the ways of the night-people.

That's the kind of stuff Morrison is talking about, to my mind. Not saying that the character is an actual homosexual.

It's like Raj from the Big Bang Theory. People say he's gay because he likes chick-flicks and pot pourri. Those are incidental things. Yes, he may be playing the "gay role" (again, defined in hugely and rather offensively stereotypical terms) but he is doing so while not being an actual homosexual.

That's the way comics were written back in the day, the way all sci-fi and fantasy works. You cloak the issue you actually want to address in tights and a cape, so that people are distracted by the outer covering while the internal issues creep in unnoticed. The X-Men was a totally gay metaphor story decades before any actual homosexual character appeared in its pages.

Yeah, but all this interpretation is based on people actually thinking about stuff, instead of just having a fit at the word "gay".

 

[Lonemagpie]

This *is* a character who used to dress a teenage boy in tights and occasionally spank him...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And its also possible for an interpretation to be the wrong one, even if someone is a good writer.

Again, to use Lorenzo Semple Jr as an example:

In addition to the Batman TV show, the man wrote the screenplays for Papillon, The Drowning Pool , the Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor. Any one of those movies alone would seem to qualify him as a "great writer."

But does that mean he "understood" Batman?

For that matter he wrote the widely-reviled 70s "King Kong" remake. Since he's a "great writer," do we have to assume he "understood" King Kong?

Of course not.

Actually, I would say Semple understood Batman. He understood Batman for the time that he was writing him in. As did Kane... (lol, Kane writing Batman...) in the time he was writing Batman, as did Miller, Morrison, for the times they were writing Batman.

There is no one singular "understanding" of Batman. That's why as a character he has been successful for so long. Because he can be reimagined and reinterperted for each present.

So, yeah. Semple got Batman. As does Morrison. As will the next "successful" writer.

Exactly so.

 

[Professor Zoom]

So, yeah. Semple got Batman. As does Morrison. As will the next "successful" writer.

So financial success now equals creative quality here? I guess the writers of "the World According to Jim" "got" comedy and the writers of "Arrested Development" did not.

I didn't say anything about financial success. That's YOUR measure.

His Batman, West's Batman STILL figures into the culture. People still talk about it, think about it, want to own it. Just as NO one talks about The World According to Jim, but EVERYONE still talks about Arrested Development.

It CONNECTED and still does. Semple's Batman may not be YOUR Batman, but, AGAIN, that's what's great about the CHARACTER, he can BE reinvented for the time that he's being written in and it can still work.

Don't like Semple's Batman, fine, there are other equally valid interpretations of the character. But his Batman, West's Batman was perfect for the TIME THAT IT WAS CREATED IN.

Just as Miller's was right for the 80s, O'Neil's for the 70s.

It's the same for Superman, for Spiderman. There is no one singular "getting the character." Great characters, great stories last because we can see new things in them. And then a new generation comes a long.

Or would you prefer a fixed interpretation? Then which one? Miller's? Kane's? Synder's? Which fossilized version do you want to choose?

The same for Superman. Which Superman do you want for all time? Byrne's? Swan's? Who?

 

[Admiral2]

Ya keep a little boy in a cave, people are gonna talk.

 

[Mr Light]

Hey now, the boy is free to escape!

 

[Admiral2]

But he don't try to. What kind of deviltry is goin' on that makes him stay, hmmmmmm?

 

[Ultramann]

Must we make everyone and everything gay?? What the heck is wrong with either liking women or just being not interested?

 

[iguana_tonante]

Did you actually read the thread, or you just dropped from orbit to grace us with your comment? Nobody is saying that Batman the character is gay. (Well, nobody who actually matters, that's it.)

 

[Silvercrest]

But he don't try to. What kind of deviltry is goin' on that makes him stay, hmmmmmm?

Bat Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Aeolusdallas]

Must we make everyone and everything gay?? What the heck is wrong with either liking women or just being not interested?

He never said the character was homosexual, just the concept.

 

[Set Harth]

Must we make everyone and everything gay??

Yes.