|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 21, 2012 13:25:20 GMT -5
I was raised Roman Catholic, but throughout much if not most of my adult life I have been more agnostic than anything. However, when I look at the crap like this that’s going on in this country, and how our moral core just continues to disintegrate, I have to wonder if the hand of God is going to strike us all dead due to the extent to which we have obviously lost our way. And the sad thing is we’re not done losing our way yet even. Things are just going to continue to slide all the more toward Sodom and Gomorrah as time goes on.
Over at Blastr:DC Comics is about to turn a major character gay. But which one? Nine months ago, DC Comics completely rebooted its superhero universe, generating plenty of controversy along the way and even driving up sales. But it's not done changing things yet, and it seems that the next change the company's ready to make is in the sexual orientation of one of its characters. But who?
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 21, 2012 13:35:02 GMT -5
Maybe this is why DC can't make a good movie. They're all about turning the DC universe into some left wing extremist haven, even to the extent of sacrificing its major characters' origins.
Dan Didio is a bigger villain in DC than any fictional character they have.
I stopped buying comics with this reboot. Glad I did.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 21, 2012 15:40:53 GMT -5
I'm really not sure what's to be gained by this anyway. The personal relationships of superheroes has always been secondary to their primary missions of heroism and maintaining their secret identities. There could be interesting stories told with gay superheroes (or better, if their alter ego was gay and the hero persona wasn't; which is real? helps hide the identity). But its bad enough to constantly be adding gay characters to seem "relevant". To CHANGE existing characters is just foolish. We know they aren't doing it for the dramatic purposes (unlike doing "the drug issue" or "the alcohol issue") but are just pandering to the LGBT community.
I'm with you guys. Even with something like Glee, where you knew there would be a gay component from the beginning, it's gotten exponentially gayer. Santana was rewritten as a lesbian, which I consider a betrayal of her character. I get tired of the soapbox mentality.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 21, 2012 18:05:40 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more.
DC, like Hollywood, is run by left wing extremists. Unfortunately, because of that, the comics are no longer entertaining.
You see it with Superman too, when they had him renounce his American citizenship, and took away the American Way part of truth, justice and the American Way.
In short, they're assholes.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on May 21, 2012 18:31:52 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more. DC, like Hollywood, is run by left wing extremists. Unfortunately, because of that, the comics are no longer entertaining. You see it with Superman too, when they had him renounce his American citizenship, and took away the American Way part of truth, justice and the American Way. In short, they're assholes. Well said. I couldn't agree more. I just rented Captain America and really enjoyed it. But all I could think of as I was watching it was how did a patriotic flick like this get made in Lefty Hollywood ? |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 21, 2012 18:51:01 GMT -5
Well said. I couldn't agree more. I just rented Captain America and really enjoyed it. But all I could think of as I was watching it was how did a patriotic flick like this get made in Lefty Hollywood ? |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 21, 2012 19:25:05 GMT -5
This is true. If they could have, they would have changed the name and costume. Of course, internationally, they DID. Outside the US, they dropped the Captain America part and called the movie The First Avenger.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 21, 2012 21:23:46 GMT -5
I think Captain America also gets away with it because it's a period piece. One can almost see it as a send-up of the kind of jingoistic American propaganda of the WWII era, the Rosie the Riveter, buy more war bonds stuff. A lot harder to pull off in a modern movie, which is why they keep trucking out General Zod for Superman; a global threat from an alien rather than a local American issue. Heck, even the Avengers was a global threat, which for some reason is always focused on New York.
And yet Avengers did have that moment where Colson told Cap that maybe we could use some old-fashioned patriotism. I don't see why it so hard for this country to promote a simple sensible patriotism that exists between the left-wing extreme and the farcical post-911 "put a flag on everything" mentality which started to border on self-parody.
The renunciation of Superman's citizenship is indicative of the idea that the world is shifting toward globalization; as a commentary on our times it's significant, but it is detrimental to the character. As it is, this "we have to think globally now!" ideology troubles and annoys me anyway.
I'm very interested in what they will do with a second Captain America movie.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 22, 2012 8:02:05 GMT -5
Globalization or not has nothing to do with Superman losing his identity.
Superman is an American. Just because it's a global economy doesn't make any of us any less nationalistic.
The American way doesn't mean Americans only.
There's nothing wrong with pride in America.
I think the last movie to truly do that was ID4.
|
|
