Both Superman titles have been weak. Supergirl and Superboy have been terrible and dropped.
edit*** Are you talking about Andy Diggle taking over Action in #20?
My contention is that John/Marv's '86 Clark Kent/Superman did not need rebooting...
I would guess he's talking about Orson Scot Card.
Looks like he's writing the digital Adventures of Superman.
Funny thing, when I read the OP, for some reason I equated "penning" with "inking" and I thought "funny, people usually don't talk much about inkers."
They were stupid to hire him, but it's not like DC's been hitting it out of the park with good decisions of late, IMO.
I would guess he's talking about Orson Scot Card.
Ah, I don't keep up with anything beyond printed comics. The OP said Superman (which is supposed to be Scott Lobdell)I assumed he meant the regular "Superman" printed title, then I checked Action Comics which is changing to UK great Andy Diggle as of issue 20.
While I respect the Ender novels and not the writer, I still have no interest in digital comics.
I would guess he's talking about Orson Scot Card.
So what's the issue exactly?
He's a good writer, even if he is kind of a scumbag.
Are you afraid he's going to whip out "The Reign of the Homophobic Superman" or something?
|
I've met OSC. He's a very good guy, actually. Talked to him face to face, read a couple of his books, and enjoyed his fiction. He deals with homosexuality in two pieces of his fiction; and yes, he currently defends marriage.
If he's a scumbag for defending marriage, then as the Bard as written we live in an age where:
"Fair is foul, and foul is fair." -- Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 1.
As far as I am concerned, this is a civil rights issue for people calling him to be fired. He's not physically hurting anybody defending human reproduction rights. It may not be about the color of his skin, but it's the same principle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm happy the boards are quiet over who is penning superman.
You must not like being happy...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Baker v. Nelson, decided 9-0 that a state can define marriage.
"Your damn right it's a civil rights issue. Marriage equality and LGBT rights in general are very much civil rights issues."
Fair enough. I'd say two things then:
From a quick look, the SC did not decide the case 9-0, but dismissed it "for want of a substantial federal question." It's precedent, but no opinion was written. There is also a difference between "gay marriage is evil" and "can be handled by the states".More importantly: 1972. Things have changed over the last 40 years. Both in public opinion and in the legal arguments.
I'm a dead constitutionalist myself.
OT spoiler|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So... Jeff is calling Thurgood Marshal out for opposing civil rights? Ok then...So many homophobic nutcases, only so much paragraph space. And unless Marshal has suddenly changed careers into the comic book field, it's irrelevant anyway.
I am choosing to read that as you *not* accusing me of being homophobic. Because a) that would be a personal attack and b) laughably funny.
"And unless OSC is getting married to a guy, it's irrelevant anyway."
Re: Homosexuality. Here's a simple question: What would Superman do? I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.
|
If I were going to slag OSC in this context, it would be to point out that his last foray into comics was bad enough to be written out of continuity and passed off as the anime version of the character's background by later scripters. At least when Larry Niven broke established GL canon in a story it was entertaining (and I admit that I loved the part where Hal Jordan flew away from another GL fast enough that the color of his force blast was red-shifted to yellow. Science FTW!).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If I were going to slag OSC in this context, it would be to point out that his last foray into comics was bad enough to be written out of continuity and passed off as the anime version of the character's background by later scripters. At least when Larry Niven broke established GL canon in a story it was entertaining (and I admit that I loved the part where Hal Jordan flew away from another GL fast enough that the color of his force blast was red-shifted to yellow. Science FTW!).
My partner had that run, signed even. I've it downstairs in a box somewhere.
At least when Larry Niven broke established GL canon in a story it was entertaining (and I admit that I loved the part where Hal Jordan flew away from another GL fast enough that the color of his force blast was red-shifted to yellow. Science FTW!).
I would agree, except that it creates obvious problems. Why don't other GLs do the same? When Hal later went postal on his way to Oa, for instance, why didn't any of the other GLs take him out that way?
(I think that later story was called "Emerald Twilight", or something. Also, I'll confess I don't know much about canon, so I don't know how Niven broke it, exactly. Could someone please educate me?)
|
|
At least when Larry Niven broke established GL canon in a story it was entertaining (and I admit that I loved the part where Hal Jordan flew away from another GL fast enough that the color of his force blast was red-shifted to yellow. Science FTW!).I would agree, except that it creates obvious problems. Why don't other GLs do the same? When Hal later went postal on his way to Oa, for instance, why didn't any of the other GLs take him out that way? (I think that story was called "Emerald Twilight", or something. Also, I'll confess I don't know much about canon, so I don't know how Niven broke it, exactly.)
Part of the background for the Guardians of Oa and the Green Lantern Corps is that a member of the race that would become the Guardians was obsessed with seeing the beginning of the universe. His time viewer experiment, however, went...badly. He saw a great hand bringing the cosmos into being, but when he tried to look earlier not only did the time viewer explode, but the universe fractured into a myriad of different lines, and evil entered the new multiverse. It was all a bit too "some things are not meant for us to know" for Niven, so he retconned it away (and incidentally betrayed a rather significant misunderstanding of what the time viewer supposedly showed, but that's neither here nor there).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Save that Civil Rights have been established as a Federal issue, and when marriage rights cross over into civil rights, the Federal government has the power AND the obligation to rule on this matter. There are over 1000 legal issues that the state of marriage directly impacts, in areas from tax liabilities to patient rights. History from the 19th century on has proved that civil rights can not be left to the states, it is one area where this country, right or wrong, must speak with one voice.
And the government has ruled on the issue. "It's not a federal question."
Or if you prefer. The government has ruled on the issue, it's passed DOMA. (And that's my issue with the FL adoption law, it hasn't ruled on the question, they've just ignored it.)
That's why I said you change the Constitution.
Edit: I'm also unaware of laws preventing discrimination against handiness, but lefties have done quite well in a society designed against us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that the 14th Amendment makes it very much a Federal issue, as (left unchecked) there are a number of States that will institutionalize discrimination and unfair treatment under the law for their citizens, which is an absolute Constitutional No-No. Section One of Amendment 14 was created specifically to say "You cannot treat one group of citizens as inferior to another under the eyes of the law," so, yeah.
All that being said I thought OSC's run on Ultimate Iron Man was decent, but I have been unable to reconcile my disdain for a man who would see members of my family and friends locked up or killed simply for being who they were born as, with his ability as a writer. I don't wish him any ill will, but I cannot support his commerce, as it were.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One could argue that several states (and cities) do. For example I find Ohio's smoking ban provides unfair treatment to smokers. (Note, I don't think the law's unconstitutional, nor is it a Federal issue.)
Also, "You cannot treat one group of citizens as inferior to another under the eyes of the law," it's done all the time. 6 year olds can't drive, nor can the blind, for example.
Edit: I'm colour blind, so I can't pass state/military standards to be an electrician. Am I 'inferior'?
It was all a bit too "some things are not meant for us to know" for Niven, so he retconned it away...
Ah, he came up with EXPLICIT excuses to retcon it. Now I get it. For a moment there, I thought you meant that he simply ignored continuity.
I mean, the "things didn't happen the way they seemed to at the time" excuse is used all the time in comics.
I've never seen OSC's work on Superman, so my comprehension of this thread is limited.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've met OSC. He's a very good guy, actually. Talked to him face to face, read a couple of his books, and enjoyed his fiction. He deals with homosexuality in two pieces of his fiction; and yes, he currently defends marriage.
If he's a scumbag for defending marriage, then as the Bard as written we live in an age where:
"Fair is foul, and foul is fair." -- Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 1.As far as I am concerned, this is a civil rights issue for people calling him to be fired. He's not physically hurting anybody defending human reproduction rights. It may not be about the color of his skin, but it's the same principle.
On the matter of "defending marriage":
I defend marriage. I defend my church's right to marry same sex couples, even though until recently local law didn't acknowledge my church's ability to do so, even though we've been doing it for almost 20 years. I defend my right to believe, as many members of my religion do, that love between consenting adults is a sacred thing blessed by God, regardless of the consenting adults' gender. I defend the right of any two consenting adults to get married, regardless of the bits between their legs and whether they match or not. I defend marriage as an expression of love between these two adults, and defend it from those who would keep defining it so narrowly as to keep some couples from getting the legal and economic protections that marriage provides, just because of the bits between their legs.
I do not think Card "defends marriage." In my personal opinion, he defends hatred and fear, and a narrow, archaic view of things... much in the way as recently as a few decades ago some people said they were "defending marriage" when they meant to be saying interracial marriage was wrong and unnatural.
You may disagree, but I felt I needed to put out my thoughts on the use of that particular phrasing.
On the matter of Orson Scott Card and his being hired by DC
Card has absolutely the right to speak what he believes. Just as I do and did here.
DC has the right to hire Card or anyone as long as it is within legal hiring practices.
But if people choose not to buy Card's works because they disagree with what he has said and how he has said it, that is their right as well.
Just like I was reading on a blog today people saying they do not buy the works of Gail Simone because they dislike her feminist views. That's their right too.
I may personally support the former and disagree with the latter, but I'll assert that it is your average consumer's right to buy comic books based on their personal opinions and views both of the writer and their work regardless.
It is even the right of consumers to say they want a given writer fired (be it, say, Card or Simone)--it is just as much their speaking their personal opinion as it is when Orson Scott Card says, "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down." That's an issue of free speech more than it is of civil rights. Sure, in either case, things could be extrapolated into concerns about hate speech and discrimination, and that's a careful balancing act there. But just to speak one's opinion is a basic right, I hope we can agree.
If DC does end up firing Card, I doubt it will because of political or social discrimination. It will be because his issues didn't sell well, and they are not profiting from his working for them, which is kind of an essential requirement for someone working for a profit driven company. And maybe they will sell just fine--we'll have to wait and see what happens next.
And that's all I have to say about that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So... Jeff is calling Thurgood Marshal out for opposing civil rights? Ok then...Just out of curiosity, I assume you would also disagree with the poster I was replying to?
As far as I am concerned, this is a civil rights issue for people calling him to be fired. He's not physically hurting anybody defending human reproduction rights. It may not be about the color of his skin, but it's the same principle.I mean the real point of my mentioning "civil rights" in the first was to bounce those words back at him.
Oh no, I don't agree at all. It's like with Cory in 'that thread' OSC has the right to his opinions, advocate for them and redress congress for grievances. He doesn't have a 'right' to DC's Bullhorn. Nor does he have a right to employment.
I refuse to watch any Roman Polanski movie for his actions. If he makes a marketable item, and people buy it, then more power to him, but I'm not spending money on the child raping bastard. OTOH, as much as Ed Brubaker is a left winger, I enjoyed his work on Cap.Then again, I've a pretty strict definition of 'rights'. I *don't* see government recognition of marriage as a 'civil right'. At the same time, I don't feel the government should be able to invalidate contracts entered willingly between two individuals. i.e. you can get 'married' and enter into a contract with your partner(s). The government should only be involved in that contract when you or the other party(ies) argue over it and arbitration is needed.
As to the electrician analogy; If you rewired everything with bright primary colours, then it would be possible for me to be an electrician w/o burning down your house. Likewise, as the institution of marriage currently stands in 50 states, if you are a single person, you may enter into a marriage subject to all the rules and qualifiers the state requires for recognition.
I won't be reading Superman anyway. I dropped DC when they rebooted the universe and basically erased all the comics I grew up with from their history.
Then again, I've a pretty strict definition of 'rights'. I *don't* see government recognition of marriage as a 'civil right'. At the same time, I don't feel the government should be able to invalidate contracts entered willingly between two individuals. i.e. you can get 'married' and enter into a contract with your partner(s). The government should only be involved in that contract when you or the other party(ies) argue over it and arbitration is needed.
I think a notable difference here is that this particular contract (marriage) has a large impact on the two parties' taxability. I strongly suspect that the hard-coding of marital status into tax law greatly contributes to the muddying of these waters so much.
---
On the topic of OSC authoring Superman, I'm indifferent. DC failed to hook me with their reboot, and I'm perfectly happy reveling in the Superman stories from my youth. They were (and still are!) great and I've certainly got enough of them to keep re-reading them. If it turns out OSC writes some really compelling stories, then I might get them. If he doesn't, then I won't. /shrug
Gay marriage is a pointless debate...the demographics are ironclad. How about this thread goes back to talking about Superman?
I won't be reading Superman anyway. I dropped DC when they rebooted the universe and basically erased all the comics I grew up with from their history.Would that be in 1986 (Crisis)? Or sometime in the 60s (Silver Age)?
My thoughts exactly. Change is inevitable. Continuity resets have to happen eventually. DC continuity was a mess that needed to be fixed somehow. You don't have to like it; you may pick and choose what you accept.
Much as I enjoyed reading COIE, I never accepted the resulting universe. Long after COIE, I ordered from Mile High a bunch of pre-COIE "Superboy" issues. Yes, Superboy was Superman as a boy, and I never had to give up that notion. I also read old JSA stories, and related Earth-2 stuff. Yes, Earth-2 still existed for me. Thanks to reprints and to vintage comic book dealers, there's a wealth of material out there for whatever version you choose.
That didn't mean I had to reject new comics entirely. The 1999-2006 "JSA" run became my favorite comic book series. Maybe I'll get some "rebooted DC" stuff when I hear about a series in it that intrigues me.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re: Changing Marriage
Like I said, I'm a small government kind of guy. I'd rather it be changed through the legislative process, than by dudes in robes going "Aw, we don't like it." Demographics are not 'ironclad' if they were, nothing would change. CT and WA (and CA and OH and others) addressed it the right way. I've already voiced my concerns with the 9th circus' decision. As to infrastructure change, SSM does the same, both from a bureaucratic POV and from a legislative PoV. *shrug*
Aside, Donna and I talked about getting married 'for the bennies' but decided that our relationship didn't rise to the spiritual level of marriage.
Re: reboot
And it was the Flushpoint thing. I really got into Titans post crisis, and this latest reboot really messed up things. My 'peers' are gone or unrecognizable, (Dick, Babs, Wally, Garth, Roy, Donna, Kory, Raven, Gar, Vic) same thing for my 'kids' (Steph, Bart, Connor, Cass Cain, Tim, Static, M'gann, Rose etc.) Cassie Sandmark is now Sara Pezini, etc. When you add the half arsed nature of the reboot (Things happened! But not the way we published them and they don't make sense!) I got out.
I don't mind reboots that are elseworlds. (X-treme X-men, the Ultimate books, etc) I've been tradwaiting Earth 2 for just that reason. This Jay/Alan/Kendra/etc. clearly *aren't* the JSA originals, any more than Ultimate Kate Pryde is 616 Kitty Pryde. Their world is new and exciting, *and* familiar.
Of course, the problem was that each "fix" to DC continuity led to more problems, more confusion.
Yeah, that's why I thought that a complete, hard reboot was called for. NOTHING from the old continuity should be "kept". Instead, the popular elements should be COPIED to the new universe.
I was later disappointed to find out that the nature of the reboot was "half arsed" as Matthew Morris just put it. I guess a true hard reboot is a fantasy, destined never to happen.
And it was the Flushpoint thing.
Was that a deliberate satirical moniker? Or a typo? Or a Freudian slip?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And it was the Flushpoint thing.Was that a deliberate satirical moniker? Or a typo? Or a Freudian slip?
Deliberate. The only good things (to me) in Flushpoint was a) It seemed to be an elseworlds b) Thomas Wayne was awesome c) Watching Slade move heaven and hell for his daughter. Since I like Rose (ever since I first saw her ready to take on Big Barda in the Technis Imperative) and have no kids of my own, but would kill for my Godkids, I liked seeing that side of Slade.
Look at Batman. You could restart Batman from the beginning. Reintroduce Bruce, Alfred, Gordon, etc. Introduce a Robin in a year or two.
But then you can't have Nightwing. You can't have Batgirl. You can't have Red Robin...
Again, I acknowledge that this is a fantasy that will never happen. But in theory, DC could write a revised history, that includes "Batman began his hero career A number of years ago. B years ago, Dick Grayson became his protege, and C years ago, he became Nightwing. D years ago, Tim Drake became... and so on.
A reboot doesn't mean that there's no history, or that we must see ALL characters begin their careers.