Comic Vine News

174 Comments

Five Revelations About Starfire From RED HOOD AND THE OUTLAWS #6

Her first appearance in "The New 52" was a major controversy.

You can't judge a book by its cover and apparently you shouldn't judge a character by their first "New 52" appearance. When RED HOOD AND THE OUTLAWS debuted, Starfire was the center of major controversy. Her purpose, intelligence and...recreational habits were all called into question. It's easy to jump to conclusion but often the best route would be to sit back and be wait to see what happens.

Starfire fans were outraged over the character parading around in a skimpy outfit, having no recollection of Dick Grayson (the love of her life), and for spending some casual time with Roy Harper. Characters don't always wear their hearts on their sleeves. While some of Kori's actions seemed extreme, there was the impression that we weren't being given all the facts. And with issue #6, it turns out that was indeed the case.

Some characters in "The New 52" have gone through some changes but Starfire hasn't completely changed as many feared. We've been seeing more characterization being built throughout these first six issues and the chances are we still haven't seen everything. This issue does give some insight into who Starfire really is. If you haven't read RED HOOD AND THE OUTLAWS #6 yet, you should rush out and check it out because there will be some spoilers below.

== TEASER ==

Starfire Has a Brain

Some of the outrage was over Starfire being portrayed as a bit of a bimbo. She seemed a little shallow and uncaring when it came to what was going on around her in the first issue. She followed Jason's instructions and had no concern over anything else. She later asked Roy if he wanted to sleep with her when Roy was under the impression she was "with" Jason. She also mentioned not having any recollection to her former teammates, including Dick Grayson.

What we see is she is intelligent. She manages to save Jason's lives, indicating she has some knowledge in first aid or even human physiology. She's running some heavy duty alien technology which also shows that she has to have an understanding of how it all works. She later shows quite a bit of insight into the way people and the world work.

No Need to Validate her Existence

Often heroes feel the need to prove themselves to the world. As much as Jason would hate to admit it, he's still under the shadow of Batman. We even see a flashback scene between Jason and Dick where Jason clearly felt he was competing with Dick in becoming the next Robin.

Starfire is happy with who she is. She doesn't need to explain herself to others. This can easily give the impression that she doesn't care or is unaware of what's going on. She simply has her priorities straight and doesn't worry what others think or have to say.

This also goes along with what she chooses to wear. She's not really known for wearing a lot of clothing and that's because of the customs from her planet. She wears what's comfortable. Knowing that it's different for humans, she offers Jason some clothing that upset him. He objected to wearing them but she told him that they were just clothes. They couldn't hurt him and shouldn't define who he is.

Starfire Still Cares For Dick Grayson

In the first issue Jason mentions that her race, the Tamaraneans, see humans as sights and smells. He also says they have short attention spans about "all things Earth." We get the idea that she has forgotten everything that happened before and everyone she knew. Dick Grayson was a huge part of her life and we were left wondering if she forgot all about him or didn't care about their past relationship.

On Starfire's ship, she still has several of Dick's outfits. She would have absolutely no need for them but chose not to get rid of them. She may not remember Dick's name but she hasn't forgotten what he meant to her. If the race simply can't hold memories when it comes to Earth things, the fact that she does still have memories of Dick says a lot.

Starfire Doesn't Live in the Past

Too often characters sit around and brood over past events. Starfire has chosen to live in the present. When she explains this to Jason, he replies that it sounds familiar to something Batman had told him about "some sort of Buddhist philosophy."

Because she doesn't get worked up over things that have already happened, that doesn't mean she's an idiot. That doesn't mean that she doesn't care. She didn't have the greatest childhood and her experiences would be enough to drive others down a dark road but that's not her way. Starfire has always remained a positive person.

Jason Wasn't Really "With" Starfire

In the first issue, when Roy sees that Starfire is Jason's back up, he asks if she's with them. Jason replies, "With us, yeah. But yeah, she's been 'with' me." This brought confusion to readers as later she sleeps Roy while Jason is in the next room.

It turns out, Jason and Starfire didn't sleep together. They spent the night talking. You could say they bonded in a way that goes beyond a simple physical act. Jason's words describes her perfectly:

We don't choose our teachers in life. Sometimes they are crazed vigilantes pretending to love us like a son...and other times they take the form of a space kitty who is smarter than anyone gives her credit for.

A Final Note: What About the Kiss?

That's one of the ways Tamaraneans assimilate language and knowledge. When Jason mentioned he wanted to talk, she assumed that would be a way.This isn't the first time she's done it. Way back in 1980's NEW TEEN TITANS #2, that's how she learns English. Too much shouldn't be read into it.

The bigger question is why was Dick protesting so much in assisting her in learning the language?

174 Comments
  • 174 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Posted by Nightstar1
@GiveUpNed@GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

Comic books are a valid literary form? Also, in this case, that someone who wants meaningless sex isn't a woman. It's a man, who is speaking and acting for a woman,, or at least an "animal in a woman's body".

Comic books are very much a valid literary form. The man didn't speak for her, as you can see, Starfire does what she wants, when she wants. In Red Hood and The Outlaws #6 Starfire explicitly states clothing is meaningless and you shouldn't connote them to a past experience.


Scott Lobdell (a man) is the person who writes the words she speaks, and Kenneth Rockafort (a man) draws the actions which Scott Lobdell (man) wrote.  It wouldn't mean anything, except that she's claiming to speak for "liberated" women, all while acting like a frat boy's wet dream. 
 
Starfire states that past men/clothing don't mean anything to her as she's sniffing the gloves of a man from a past relationship. Irony is ironic, isn't it? 
Posted by Nightstar1
@telepathic666@telepathic666 said:

@Nightstar1 said:

Actually, Jason SAID she had a short attention span about Earth things, and Roy tested this by asking if she remembered people he knew that she should know. Kori was "evasive/sarcastic/"didn't remember the names. That's what the 'snap judgement" was based on. Lobdell wrote in issue one that she didn't remember Dick.

she didn't remember him as dick,she clearly remembers him as a person just not a name to go with it.

Ps to @Nightstar1 only my first comment part is at your previous comment thing

 
At the time the scene was written, it wasn't 'clearly' that she just didn't remember the name. In fact, at the time it was "reported" by a fan who said that Scott Lobdell told him (quite emotionally) at some fan event that Starfire was being Evasive or Sarcastic during the scene and that she just didn't want to talk about it, so she "changed the subject" by offering her body to Roy or someone  else if Roy wasn't up for it. (and that the fans were too stupid to catch the evasiveness/sarcasm in the comic). Now it seems she just doesn't remember names. 
Posted by Woerlan

I've read a friend's copy of this issue.

First, I don't think the rage and controversy made Lobdell deviate from his main plot. He's too confident in himself not to stick to his guns. However, I think it's not too much to guess that he made small alterations in the script and scenes of this reveal issue to make Kori's motives and being more clear and to ease up any remaining controversy. There were a lot of subtle and not so subtle touches that were directed at his critics in this issue that I could see.

Don't get me wrong, if he did make alterations even in indirect response at the criticism, it's a GOOD THING. This will mean a better book moving forward, better character portrayals, and, I hope, greater awareness on the side of Lobdell as to how something as simple as a comment from a character can change the perception of different demographics, especially female readers.

Second, I still think that if he spent more time making the first issue palatable for everyone, male and female, old fan and new, this controversy should never happened in the first place. There are so many small elements that he could have altered or done differently that would still result in the same slow reveal but without the animosity and divergence that the actual comic caused.

That said, I'm glad this is out. I still wish Rocafort would make female poses in this comic something a little less pandering to the lusty young male demographic, but I'm content with Starfire's nature and motivations. I have that at least.

Posted by Shotgun

@GiveUpNed said:

@Shotgun said:

As a girl who thoroughly enjoyed naked!Jason, I see no problems with letting Starfire be skimpy. She isn't human, and being fiery and free is what her character was originally all about.

Also, oh man, Rocafort's art is the sexiest. It is BEAST. Jason looks handsome with or without clothes. I think I might start liking fictional men more than real ones.

Comic book logic at its finest.

Starfire... *ahem* I found it hilarious when I saw the first blatant use of "comic book logic" in the Red Hood and the Outlaws series.

The thingamajiggy happened in the past/present/future and BAM! I overcame everything.

This is how comics work. Or writing in general, since I've seen this trope in books and movies too. Also, Kori's being experimented on was cannon before the reboot, so this panel was just a reference to it and confirming that it still happened.

Posted by SilverZeo

Hmmm... was this a intentional, or did they just made her the way the fans remember her under pressure?

Posted by MonkeyToe

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

Comic books are a valid literary form? Also, in this case, that someone who wants meaningless sex isn't a woman. It's a man, who is speaking and acting for a woman,, or at least an "animal in a woman's body".

Comic books are very much a valid literary form. The man didn't speak for her, as you can see, Starfire does what she wants, when she wants. In Red Hood and The Outlaws #6 Starfire explicitly states clothing is meaningless and you shouldn't connote them to a past experience.

Scott Lobdell (a man) is the person who writes the words she speaks, and Kenneth Rockafort (a man) draws the actions which Scott Lobdell (man) wrote. It wouldn't mean anything, except that she's claiming to speak for "liberated" women, all while acting like a frat boy's wet dream. Starfire states that past men/clothing don't mean anything to her as she's sniffing the gloves of a man from a past relationship. Irony is ironic, isn't it?

You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means!

Edited by Nightstar1
@MonkeyToe@MonkeyToe said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

Comic books are a valid literary form? Also, in this case, that someone who wants meaningless sex isn't a woman. It's a man, who is speaking and acting for a woman,, or at least an "animal in a woman's body".

Comic books are very much a valid literary form. The man didn't speak for her, as you can see, Starfire does what she wants, when she wants. In Red Hood and The Outlaws #6 Starfire explicitly states clothing is meaningless and you shouldn't connote them to a past experience.

Scott Lobdell (a man) is the person who writes the words she speaks, and Kenneth Rockafort (a man) draws the actions which Scott Lobdell (man) wrote. It wouldn't mean anything, except that she's claiming to speak for "liberated" women, all while acting like a frat boy's wet dream. Starfire states that past men/clothing don't mean anything to her as she's sniffing the gloves of a man from a past relationship. Irony is ironic, isn't it?

You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means!

Which word? Irony? Which is a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.   "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... "
Posted by X9

I'm expecting something to happen between her and Jason. If it doesn't, though, whatever.

She sucks. Maybe it's time for her to go back to Tamaran ¬¬

Posted by GiveUpNed

@Nightstar1 said:

@MonkeyToe: @MonkeyToe said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

Comic books are a valid literary form? Also, in this case, that someone who wants meaningless sex isn't a woman. It's a man, who is speaking and acting for a woman,, or at least an "animal in a woman's body".

Comic books are very much a valid literary form. The man didn't speak for her, as you can see, Starfire does what she wants, when she wants. In Red Hood and The Outlaws #6 Starfire explicitly states clothing is meaningless and you shouldn't connote them to a past experience.

Scott Lobdell (a man) is the person who writes the words she speaks, and Kenneth Rockafort (a man) draws the actions which Scott Lobdell (man) wrote. It wouldn't mean anything, except that she's claiming to speak for "liberated" women, all while acting like a frat boy's wet dream. Starfire states that past men/clothing don't mean anything to her as she's sniffing the gloves of a man from a past relationship. Irony is ironic, isn't it?

You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means!

Which word? Irony? Which is a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated. "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... "

Indeed. I'm impressed that this badboy is still trucking. WE NEED TO GO DEEPER!

Posted by Nightstar1
@GiveUpNed@GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@MonkeyToe: @MonkeyToe said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

Comic books are a valid literary form? Also, in this case, that someone who wants meaningless sex isn't a woman. It's a man, who is speaking and acting for a woman,, or at least an "animal in a woman's body".

Comic books are very much a valid literary form. The man didn't speak for her, as you can see, Starfire does what she wants, when she wants. In Red Hood and The Outlaws #6 Starfire explicitly states clothing is meaningless and you shouldn't connote them to a past experience.

Scott Lobdell (a man) is the person who writes the words she speaks, and Kenneth Rockafort (a man) draws the actions which Scott Lobdell (man) wrote. It wouldn't mean anything, except that she's claiming to speak for "liberated" women, all while acting like a frat boy's wet dream. Starfire states that past men/clothing don't mean anything to her as she's sniffing the gloves of a man from a past relationship. Irony is ironic, isn't it?

You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means!

Which word? Irony? Which is a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated. "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... "


Indeed. I'm impressed that this badboy is still trucking. WE NEED TO GO DEEPER!


 That gave me the CHUCKLES! 
Posted by GiveUpNed

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@MonkeyToe: @MonkeyToe said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

Comic books are a valid literary form? Also, in this case, that someone who wants meaningless sex isn't a woman. It's a man, who is speaking and acting for a woman,, or at least an "animal in a woman's body".

Comic books are very much a valid literary form. The man didn't speak for her, as you can see, Starfire does what she wants, when she wants. In Red Hood and The Outlaws #6 Starfire explicitly states clothing is meaningless and you shouldn't connote them to a past experience.

Scott Lobdell (a man) is the person who writes the words she speaks, and Kenneth Rockafort (a man) draws the actions which Scott Lobdell (man) wrote. It wouldn't mean anything, except that she's claiming to speak for "liberated" women, all while acting like a frat boy's wet dream. Starfire states that past men/clothing don't mean anything to her as she's sniffing the gloves of a man from a past relationship. Irony is ironic, isn't it?

You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means!

Which word? Irony? Which is a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated. "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... "

Indeed. I'm impressed that this badboy is still trucking. WE NEED TO GO DEEPER!

That gave me the CHUCKLES!

CHUCKLES, eh? Laughter doesn't break you from your slumber. Only music and gravity!

Posted by LB70145

Still a terrible comic/iteration of the character.

Posted by Nightstar1

@GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@MonkeyToe: @MonkeyToe said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

Comic books are a valid literary form? Also, in this case, that someone who wants meaningless sex isn't a woman. It's a man, who is speaking and acting for a woman,, or at least an "animal in a woman's body".

Comic books are very much a valid literary form. The man didn't speak for her, as you can see, Starfire does what she wants, when she wants. In Red Hood and The Outlaws #6 Starfire explicitly states clothing is meaningless and you shouldn't connote them to a past experience.

Scott Lobdell (a man) is the person who writes the words she speaks, and Kenneth Rockafort (a man) draws the actions which Scott Lobdell (man) wrote. It wouldn't mean anything, except that she's claiming to speak for "liberated" women, all while acting like a frat boy's wet dream. Starfire states that past men/clothing don't mean anything to her as she's sniffing the gloves of a man from a past relationship. Irony is ironic, isn't it?

You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means!

Which word? Irony? Which is a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated. "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... "

Indeed. I'm impressed that this badboy is still trucking. WE NEED TO GO DEEPER!

That gave me the CHUCKLES!

CHUCKLES, eh? Laughter doesn't break you from your slumber. Only music and gravity!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VVGnM1bIQE

Posted by TheWholeDamnShow

JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!

Posted by GiveUpNed

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@MonkeyToe: @MonkeyToe said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

Comic books are a valid literary form? Also, in this case, that someone who wants meaningless sex isn't a woman. It's a man, who is speaking and acting for a woman,, or at least an "animal in a woman's body".

Comic books are very much a valid literary form. The man didn't speak for her, as you can see, Starfire does what she wants, when she wants. In Red Hood and The Outlaws #6 Starfire explicitly states clothing is meaningless and you shouldn't connote them to a past experience.

Scott Lobdell (a man) is the person who writes the words she speaks, and Kenneth Rockafort (a man) draws the actions which Scott Lobdell (man) wrote. It wouldn't mean anything, except that she's claiming to speak for "liberated" women, all while acting like a frat boy's wet dream. Starfire states that past men/clothing don't mean anything to her as she's sniffing the gloves of a man from a past relationship. Irony is ironic, isn't it?

You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means!

Which word? Irony? Which is a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated. "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... "

Indeed. I'm impressed that this badboy is still trucking. WE NEED TO GO DEEPER!

That gave me the CHUCKLES!

CHUCKLES, eh? Laughter doesn't break you from your slumber. Only music and gravity!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VVGnM1bIQE

YES. Only if I get a bowtie.

Posted by JackFellontim

The problem is she slept with roy . . . over nothing. I don't mind her sleeping with someone other than dick, even though I totally miss them together. My problem is that given starfire's characterization since her creation, she would have been more likely to sleep with jason after that heart-to-heart they had. Instead she slept with roy . . . whom she had no connection with at all.

It's stupid really.

Posted by GiveUpNed

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@MonkeyToe: @MonkeyToe said:

@Nightstar1 said:

@GiveUpNed: @GiveUpNed said:

@Nightstar1 said:

Comic books are a valid literary form? Also, in this case, that someone who wants meaningless sex isn't a woman. It's a man, who is speaking and acting for a woman,, or at least an "animal in a woman's body".

Comic books are very much a valid literary form. The man didn't speak for her, as you can see, Starfire does what she wants, when she wants. In Red Hood and The Outlaws #6 Starfire explicitly states clothing is meaningless and you shouldn't connote them to a past experience.

Scott Lobdell (a man) is the person who writes the words she speaks, and Kenneth Rockafort (a man) draws the actions which Scott Lobdell (man) wrote. It wouldn't mean anything, except that she's claiming to speak for "liberated" women, all while acting like a frat boy's wet dream. Starfire states that past men/clothing don't mean anything to her as she's sniffing the gloves of a man from a past relationship. Irony is ironic, isn't it?

You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means!

Which word? Irony? Which is a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated. "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... "

Indeed. I'm impressed that this badboy is still trucking. WE NEED TO GO DEEPER!

That gave me the CHUCKLES!

I'm keeping the dream alive!

Posted by MonkeyToe

@GiveUpNed said:

I'm keeping the dream alive!

Honestly so much has happened in this series since this thread has gone up I think that people's views on Starfire should be completely different. This last arc was really Starfire heavy. We saw her in a new costume (do you think she'll go back to the old one when she returns to Earth?), we saw her go in depth into her past and present, and she even mentioned that she may be in love on Earth (I am assuming she means Roy). She seems like a completely different Starfire than the one we all debated 7 months ago.

Posted by BlackWind

@JackFellontim: I agree. I don't care who Kory sleeps with, so long as there is real, tight emotion on both sides and not just vapid, random sex.

Posted by GiveUpNed

@BlackWind said:

@JackFellontim: I agree. I don't care who Kory sleeps with, so long as there is real, tight emotion on both sides and not just vapid, random sex.

Who cares if she's a "slut". Sex is awesome and fun. I've never been called a slut because I slept around and had my fun when I felt like it. Why should we care what she does? Sex, relationships and life are complicated. As long as you are healthy and safe, nobody should care.

That said, Red Hoot and the Outlaws is my favorite DC series (along with Batman, Detective Comics, Aquaman and Swamp Thing). The rest I don't care about. When I got into comics waay back in January (super hero stuff, not graphic novels), I picked up a bunch and the above are the only ones I've cared enough about to stay with. Unfortunately while Flash is "good", I didn't enjoy the art style that much and didn't bother to stick with it. It just didn't do anything for me.

Posted by BlackWind

@GiveUpNed: Because its an ugly change on the character I don't like. Regardless, anyone who appreciates this version is completely free to do so.

Edited by Nightstar1

@MonkeyToe said:

I'm keeping the dream alive!

@GiveUpNed said:

Honestly so much has happened in this series since this thread has gone up I think that people's views on Starfire should be completely different. This last arc was really Starfire heavy. We saw her in a new costume (do you think she'll go back to the old one when she returns to Earth?), we saw her go in depth into her past and present, and she even mentioned that she may be in love on Earth (I am assuming she means Roy). She seems like a completely different Starfire than the one we all debated 7 months ago.

I can't say that I am impressed with the changes. The costume, though less ridiculous than the previous one, doesn't make sense if Kori is "solar powered" as the DCU character was. But I suppose it made some people happy.

The relationship between Kori and her people doesn't make sense, and the one between her and Kom makes even less. She claims that she doesn't care about her people because they didn't, somehow, rescue her, and yet she completely exonerates her sister who traded her into slavery on a prison planet and didn't lift a finger to try to save her, Kori hugs her and tells her she never doubted her? SHE DIDN'T LIFT A FINGER TO HELP HER AND SHE NEVER DOUBTED HER SISTER!??!

And, apparently, she might be in love with Roy...and wants to live on Earth. Why? When? How?

I mean, she sleeps with Roy, but when and how did she begin to have feelings for her (which we weren't shown, but are being told about.)

And why does she want to return to earth, which has not been kind to her, and she was 'trapped' on only a few issues ago.Because now she has friends? Didn't she have friends before? She was sleeping with Dick Grayson before.

And what about this? Kori is being shown as being bright and able to lead. Why isn't she looking for that man she can't remember? She has enough clues. She knows English, and has the ability to speak any human language. Why isn't she looking for him. And why isn't he looking for her? Why didn't Roy or Jason say anything? They are her friends (or at least her team mates.) They both know who her ex was.

And, last but not least, when was Koriand'r able to start differentiating between t humans? Again, according to her inner monolog, she wasn't able to. That hasn't been explained or changed.

DCU Komand'r was a better character with a dramatic backstory, and was an excellent foil for Starfire. DCnU Blackfire kinda reminds me of the cartoon version.

Posted by TheDarkestNight

I just had to post this lol

Posted by GiveUpNed

@Nightstar1: I think DC wants to develop Starfire as a character, but didn't see her to be known enough to be given her own storyline. I honestly have to re-read the series as I'm 7 months out of the loop and my memory is fuzzy on some of the details.