Katee Sackhoff is and always will be Carol Danvers in my mind.
thespis's forum posts
Different isn't necessarily a bad thing. I was really fond of the Ms Marvel costume - I still am - but Wacker and others are right when they say that while it's a striking and sexy look, it's not at all practical. And personally, I think they've done a fantastic job with the new costume; it's gorgeous and functional and I love both Dodson and Soy's takes on it.
After reading Captain Marvel #1, I'm already hooked. Soy's artwork in the first issue is beautiful and I'm really enjoying DeConnick's take on Carol. Love it!
Uh...huh. Because having a fauxhawk necessarily equals lesbian?
Personally, I'd have no problem with Carol coming out if it was done well, but I don't think that's the direction they're going.
As it is, I love all the interior artwork that I've seen, both in Avenging Spiderman and in the previews for Captain Marvel #1. I was a fan of her Ms Marvel costume, but I think that the new one looks bloody awesome. And I'm perfectly happy with the name change.
But mostly, I'm just looking forward to seeing Carol kicking a whole lot of ass.
Also the "sexualised violence" as what you call it, is simply a case where they're trying to show how sick and corrupted man can be and with Selina doing these things to stop the guy that did that.
When I say "sexualised violence", I'm referring to the way in which female characters are presented in a way that is intended to be sexually appealing while being subjected to violent acts (like Stephanie Brown in War Games, or Harley's new origin in Suicide Squad). And I do find that sickening. I'm not necessarily against graphic violence if there's a point to it and if it's done well, but I've got absolutely no time for artwork that revels in attractive young women being brutalised.
Over the months Catwoman has been praised to be one of the best books. Many women are reading the title that shows how strong and powerful Selina Kyle can be and how she can kick these horrible men's ass. These horrible man who abuses women.
All of which is very nice, and if new readers do start to take an interest in Selina through this title, then that's great. But the fact that it's received praise doesn't negate the book's problematic aspects.
Personally, I'll be giving Catwoman another go when Ann Nocenti takes the reins. I'm interested to see where she'll take it.
Oh so people can come back to life from the dead, people can break backs and still regain movement, but no.... When Babs take over your favourite character's position as Batgirl oh no..... its sin.
I think you have more of a bee in your bonnet about Stephanie than I allegedly do.
For the record, Babs was one of my favourite heroines long before I even knew Steph existed. She still is. In fact, the reason I was so disappointed when I heard that Babs would be returning to the role of Batgirl in the reboot was that I knew it would be depriving me of two of my favourite characters in one fell swoop - benching Steph as Batgirl and undoing so much of the character development I'd loved in Barbara. The loss of Oracle is incredibly frustrating to me.
Also, the reason why Dick is Nightwing is because Tim and Jason are both characters that have been ingrained in the public's eye. Tim was shown in several medium to be robin and Jason had a hit storyline, death of the family and a hit animated movie. Whereas Cass and Steph never did.
Just remind me again, how many TV shows and animated movies have Steph and Cass appeared in?
You're right, as much as BQM's Batgirl was a critical success, it failed to perform commercially. But a character can only become "ingrained in the public eye" if there's a real effort to place them in the public eye through major storylines, crossovers and appearances in other media. Tim and Jason have benefited from that; Cass and Steph, not so much.
The idea that DC or upper management are out to get Stephanie Brown and her fans are complete rubbish and it is what that is giving you stephanie brown fans a bad rep.
Did I say DC was out to get Steph? Don't think I did.
I do think that the decision to replace Steph as Nightwing in Smallville is suss because a) it takes place outside the main DCU and has no effect on any other comics either way, b) it wasn't an idle choice by BQM but rather a deliberate pick as a bright and upbeat foil for Bruce, c) the Smallville universe has never restricted itself to what is "iconic" and d) the reaction to Nighwing!Steph was very positive. It seems bizarre, given all that, that they'd decide to switch her out for Babs at the last minute. And that does lead me to think that there's some bias towards Babs or against Steph, and it did feel like a kick in the face.
But that is different from saying that DC has a vendetta.
And yeah, I think DC is more interested in appealing to their 18-35 male target, sometimes to the exclusion of women like me. It rankles, but it doesn't mean I think they're "out to get me", and I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth.
Its silly to think that DC is sexist or out to get you just because your favourite character is being benched. So what if there are 4 robins? Batgirl isnt the only sidekick that got some of its characters benched deal with it.
...what is this I don't even. I don't know if you're even bothering to read what I'm saying or if you're just seeing what you want to see. I did not say DC was sexist because Steph was benched. I did not say DC was out to get me because Steph was benched. In fact, I wasn't even talking about Steph. I was talking about what's been done to Barbara Gordon's character. Because I adore Babs, and I hate that so much of what made her an amazing character has been stripped away.
And... if you can't see the unfortunate implications in four Robins/three Batgirls being reduced to four Robins/one (de-aged and diminished) Batgirl, I really can't help you there.
And no. I do not care if Diana is the Diana you come to love. I could not give a shit. The fact that you tried to perverse the conversation that DC is treating their women unfairly and being sexist and using Diana as an excuse cos of your favourite character is disgusting. It makes me sick.
Er, what? Diana is one of my favourite characters. Just as much as Babs and Steph. And... again, Stephanie Brown doesn't even figure into my feelings on Wonder Woman. My feelings on Azzarello's Wondy are, I adore Cliff Chiang's artwork and was curious after hearing Azzarello describe his approach to the series, but after reading it I'm troubled by the numerous gender issues in the book and infuriated by the changes to an origin story I genuinely love. (There are also some nitpicky things that annoy me a tiny bit as a mythology geek, but I know that's just me. And the fact that Azzarello's seeking to explore the mythological element of Wondy's story I actually think is awesome, even if I'm not necessarily fond of the execution.)
Look, I think you're approaching this conversation with the assumption that I'm some rabid Stephanie Brown fan whose sole interest and agenda is yelling at DC until they take Steph off the bench. I think you're viewing everything I say through that lens, because I happened to post in here initially to voice my annoyance at the crappy way people were talking about Kyrax2. Who would, I suspect, also be bemused to be characterised as an insane fan who cares about nothing but Steph - her questions at last year's SDCC, which attracted so much attention, had nothing to do with Stephanie Brown at all.
I also like how you've decided to derail the conversation by attacking me and calling me disgusting rather than actually addressing what I was saying, but let's move on, shall we?
you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Superman mythology so don't give me that crap. Have you ever read War on Krypton? Kryptonians were waging war on humans.
While I'd prefer it if you didn't insult me, you are right, I'm not so familiar with my Superman mythology - I'm more a Batfamily/Wonders person, though I've got some Superman titles on my to-read list.
So let's stick with the Batman analogy, then. The changes made to Diana's origin are as drastic and ridiculous as it would be to suddenly reveal that Martha and Thomas Wayne are alive and living in witness protection.
Helena B was introduced as Earth 1 version of Helena W. They may have differences in their background but they are pretty much the same character and Helena B was only created due to crisis where it wiped out all other dimensions.
Same goes to Powergirl, she was reintroduced as the same Powergirl with the same name but a different origin. She became atlantean. Yes and it was revised several years ago. What Levitz did was just to merge both Helenas together with the background of Helena W but the personality very much like Helena B. Saying we should get rid of Supergirl since Powergirl is back is like saying we should get rid of Batgirl cos Huntress is back. Because Powergirl and Huntress were created to have an Earth 2 version of Supergirl and Batgirl.
I am aware of the history. I acknowledged that Helena B was intended as an Earth 1 version of Helena W after Earth 2 was wiped out, and I know that Peege was given a new set of Atlantean origins post-Crisis. But while Peege was ultimately returned to her original origins as Earth 2's version of Supergirl, Helena B grew further and further apart from Helena W, developing a history and personality and relationships that were uniquely her own.
My point was that just as there is room for both Kara Zor-El and Kara Zor-L in the DCU, I think there is room for both Helena W and Helena B. And I hope very much that we haven't seen the last of the latter.
Also Kara and Karen have much much lesser in common than Helena B and Helena W. and by this statement alone it just furher proves how immature you are and how much you would go to all the extent to rip other characters off just to serve your agenda.
They're absolutely separate characters. But whereas Helena B and Helena W have dramatically different histories, and ultimately share largely superficial similarities, Kara and Karen share similar origins.
And... again, you're assigning me an agenda that I simply don't have.
I'm just not even going to reply to the rest of your statements because I could not be bothered. So what if Stephanie Brown is being benched. You don't have to bring down all of DC's good female characters just because you think DC is an evil corporation.
I am a fan of all of these characters. Babs. Diana. Selina. Peege. Helena. And, yes, Steph.
I'm not trying to bring any of them down. I'm not thrilled by the way some of them are being portrayed currently, but I want to see them all succeed and if I find a book featuring them - ongoing or in trades - that I like, I will get it in a heartbeat.
And as for the "DC is evil" line you keep pushing, I think I've already addressed that. I don't think they're evil. That would be silly and simplistic.
You know what enjoy hating and don't bother replying.
At the end of the day I win because all my favourite characters are here and your favourite Stephanie Brown is dead and gone. PEACE OUT. HAHAHA
You know, you're right. I apologise. Of the two of us, I'm clearly the immature hater in this conversation.
OH PS.And how the Amazons, the largest group of queer women in comics,
This made me laugh so hard. Go read more comics.
Themyscira is an island of women who have lived there in isolation and immortality for thousands of years. Even back in the days of Perez we saw Amazons depicted in lesbian relationships, and while not every woman on Themyscira is necessarily attracted to other women, it's been pretty clear that a large number of them haven't stayed celibate for all that time. Various writers have included gay Amazons in stories, or detailed Amazon courting rituals.
So, yes. The Amazons of Themyscira constitute a large group of queer women. And Azzarello wrote them off as a society savage man-hating rapists and murderers. You see how that might play as offensive to some?
I'm perfectly happy to have a discussion if that's what you're interested in, although I somehow suspect that you're not.
I'm happy to have an intelligent discussion on this, but if all you're planning on doing is insulting me and throwing around hyperbolic accusations because you prefer to make ignorant assumptions rather than respond to what I'm actually saying - then I'm out.
Marvel has just as many titles that have women looking like they are orgasmic and doing sexual posts.
Yes, there is a lot of problematic material in Marvel titles as well. I don't recall saying they didn't. But we're talking about DC right now, and as I said, "everybody's doing it" and "at least we're not as bad as those other guys" aren't valid excuses.
Catwoman has always been a sensual character, similar to Emma Frost. The difference? DC knows their female character sells so they are push their female characers.
There's a difference between portraying a character as a sexually liberated woman and portraying her as a sexual object. Winick and March's Selina is decidedly the latter. The sexualised violence is pretty sickening, too.
Batgirl? Reduced to this parody of her former self? says who? thats hilarious actually. Batgirl is one of the best books on the stand right now. Also Cass will be back and she has not been playing a big role in DC before the reboot while all 4 robins are big players in Gotham. Why? Because they got more fans to support their books. The only person benched is Stephanie Brown.
You're entitled to your opinion. If you're enjoying Batgirl, then good for you. But I find it hard to reconcile this de-aged, diminished version of Barbara Gordon with the woman she was before the reboot - a woman who had the wits and strength and intelligence and tenacity to forge the Batgirl identity and become a heroine in her own right when nobody was prepared to give her a chance; and who, when it was all taken away from her, fought through her depression, realising that while she would never regain the use of her legs, what she hadn't lost was the intelligence, technology savvy, strategic thinking and sheer courage and determination that had allowed her to succeed as Batgirl in the first place. Who reinvented herself as Oracle and took on an entirely unique role as an information broker and master hacker, serving alongside the Suicide Squad and the Justice League, forming her own crime-fighting team in the Birds of Prey, becoming a leader and a mentor and an invaluable ally to other heroes.
And I'm not necessarily against Barbara regaining the use of her legs and taking on a (more) active role in the field, if it's done well (and in this case, much as I usually love Gail Simone's writing, I feel it's been done very poorly). But I find it hard to believe that Babs, having forged a new path for herself, having grown into a new role which she would ultimately find to be even more rewarding and fulfilling than the one she held before, would ever return to being Batgirl. Because she's no longer the woman who wore that costume.
And the idea that Babs needed to be returned to a role she long ago outgrew because it's "iconic" is utter nonsense. If the New 52 is really all about returning characters to their most "iconic" forms, then why isn't Dick Robin? Why do we have all four male Robins, despite the condensed timeline, and yet they could only find room for one Batgirl?
As for Cass, DC's had "big plans" for her for a long time. They had "big plans" for her back when she was replaced by Steph as Batgirl. So far, nothing's eventuated. I'd love to see her in the New 52, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Wonder Woman? No freaking way. WW is the most critically acclaimed books on the stand right now. And PS, Amazons have always been shown to not be the nicest person. New Frontier, Amazon Attack and etc. So your analogy is flawed and misguided.
Again, you're entitled to your opinion. As I said, Azzarello is a skilled writer who's exploring some interesting concepts, but his Diana is not the Diana I've come to love and his rewriting of her origin is nothing short of awful, not to mention problematic (Wondy's lived her whole life blindly accepting that she was born from clay, never questioning where all these Amazon children were coming from? Please.)
And no, I don't think my analogy is flawed. Nor do I think that the single worst Wonder Woman event (the critically panned Amazons Attack) or an AU story set in pre-Crisis world (New Frontier) paint an accurate image of the way in which the Amazons of Themyscira have been typically portrayed.
Descriptions of the Amazons in Ancient Greek literature were coloured by misogyny, but even they didn't go so far as to present them as man-hating lesbian feminazi rapists who prey on and murder unsuspecting sailors and were prepared to slaughter their male offspring before being offered the opportunity to profit from them instead by selling them into slavery. Not cool. Seriously not cool.
Harley Quinn managed to get outta that side kick character and became a character in her own right. Prior to that she was always shown to be this sexual character offering herself to Mr J on a pie, treating Mr J as if he is a god and Mr J would treat her badly and dump her aside. Now Harley Quinn is one of the most iconic female character in DC. She had her own expansion pack in arkham city, she is in the front and cover of Injustice and managed to be the top character in Suicide Squad.
Dude. Harley shook the sidekick role years ago, when she got her own ongoing series in 2001. And she most certainly wasn't merely a helpless love interest for the Joker in that book - on the contrary, while she retained her fixation, Harley showed herself to be deftly able to outsmart "Mister J" and wasn't afraid of hanging him out to dry when he tried to ditch her.
And frankly, the idea that Harley used to be a purely sexual character and that now she's been redeemed? Is utterly ridiculous. That's not to say that she was never handled poorly previously (Gotham City Sirens, blegh), but with the reboot the harlequin trickster I love is well and truly gone, replaced by pure fetish fuel who uses sex as a tool and compares own own private parts to a clown car.
Also Helena Bertinelli is just another version of huntress which DC has brought back Helena Wayne who is non existence pre reboot to replace her, its a one for one.
Er, not really. Yes, Helena B was initially introduced as an Earth 1 version of Helena W, but the reality is the two of them have very little in common beyond their names, costumes and hair colour. And if there's no reason for Helena B to exist now that Helena W is back - well, surely by that reasoning we should get rid of Supergirl since Power Girl's back in the picture. And Kara and Karen have a lot more in common than Helena B and Helena W.
yeah just because you named a few characters that are missing in the reboot its somehow sexist?
No, DC aren't sexist because they've sidelined female characters in the reboot. As you said, numerous male characters have been benched as well, and I'm disappointed about the loss of them as well. But I do think there's been a lot more hostility towards disappointed fans of female characters, as was exemplified by Kyrax2's reception at SDCC last year, and the reaction to others who asked about female characters and creators.
Moral of the story is, DC has been putting out their female characters and making them the top priority. There are many types of female characters in DC. Some are more sensual like Catwoman, others are less sensual like Batgirl and Batwoman. Just like how some men in DC are more flirtatious and promiscuous like Batman and Green Arrow, while others like Superman and Flash are not.
Dude... no. Just no. You show me the comic that is visually obsessed with capturing shots of Bruce's ass, of his bulging crotch and his naked chest, of depicting him in the most revealing outfits possible with clothes that are this close to bursting off him and catching him in sexy states of undress. This is just... so very not a valid comparison.
Just because these characters are different from what they were before doesn't make DC sexist or whatever. To call DC's women poorly treated is just your judgements being clouded by anger and hate that your favourite character is being left out from the reboot. Garth is one of my favourite character, but I dealt with it and focus to read good stories like Wonder Woman, Batgirl, Suicide Squad and etc.
Okay, perhaps you were confused by my post, because I don't think the benching of Stephanie Brown is evidence of the gender issues in current DC comics. I think it's a good example of how little DC cares about members of its fan base that fall outside their 18-35 male target, yes, but it's not sexist.
What is problematic is the continuing low percentage of female writers and artists working for DC. What is problematic is that they were able to fit in four of four male Robins but only one of three female Batgirls. What is problematic is the way in which characters like Catwoman, Starfire and Harley Quinn continue to be presented as sex objects. And how the Amazons, the largest group of queer women in comics, have been turned into savage feminazi rapists. And how Diana, a character who has from her very beginnings been seen to exemplify feminism, is no longer the daughter of Hippolyta (and in a sense all the Amazons of Themyscira, as well as the creation of the Olympian goddesses) but rather the demigod child of a deity who symbolises masculine power. And how Barbara Gordon was regressed to a less powerful and less experienced version of her character, while her peers like Dick were allowed to retain the same level of experience. The list goes on.
With regards to Steph and what not, please try again next yeah. Everyone all over the internet are laughing at you obsessive stephanie brown fans. Including me. LOL.
You know, I think I'm allowed to be disappointed that a number of my favourite characters are absent from the reboot. And I think I'm allowed to be angry when, a month after it's been announced that one of my favourite characters is returning and is to be written by a writer I know will do her justice, she is suddenly and inexplicably replaced by another character. I think I'm entitled to feel pissed off about that.
Even the females in team books play a huge role in them, Engineer, Zatanna, Xanadu, Amanda Waller. So its not really fair to jump on DC for that. Even last year when new 52 started, there were MORE female books than preflashpoint.
PS. Female characters poorly treated and under-represented? You have got to be kidding me. Try going to marvel and see how many female solos you can find.
It's true, DC has more female-led titles than Marvel. But quality doesn't necessarily equal quantity, and a lot of DC's women have been poorly treated in the reboot. And "hey, we may not be great, but at least we're not as bad as those other guys" really isn't a defence.
Catwoman? I think Guillem March's hilariously awful #0 cover says it all. I'm hoping the new team will be able to turn things around, but we'll see.
Batgirl? Utter disaster. DC was somehow able to shoehorn all four Robins into the new condensed timeline of the reboot, and yet we only have space for one of the three Batgirls - and even then, only in a vastly diminished form. Barbara Gordon is one of my favourite DC characters, and it's utterly depressing to see her reduced to this parody of her former self.
Wonder Woman? Diana's supposedly one of the big three DC heroes, alongside Superman and Batman, but she's had the guts ripped out of her origin story in a way that no writer would ever dare to do with Supes or Bats. It's the equivalent of suddenly deciding that Bruce's parents have been alive all this time in Witness Protection, or that Krypton was actually a planet of super villains. Azzarello is a talented writer, but the story he's trying to tell isn't a Wonder Woman story and his portrayal of the Amazons is even more misogynistic than the Ancient Greek legends.
And oh my god, what the hell have they done to Harley Quinn?
Not to mention all the popular female characters who were completely sidelined by the reboot - Cassandra Cain, Stephanie Brown, Renee Montoya, Helena Bertinelli, Donna Troy, Kate Spencer, Big Barda, Mia Dearden, Zinda Blake, and more.
That's not to say there aren't any well-written female characters around. Batwoman is consistently good, and while I'm not particularly happy with the treatment of Bette - Kate, Maggie and Chase continue to be awesome. Demon Knights also has some excellent female characters, and while I'm a bit meh about Birds of Prey, it's got a really strong female cast.
But there's an upsetting trend in DC's treatment of female characters, their small percentage of female creators and their utter disregard for female fans. And that is something they need to be challenged on.
Theres a difference between her and a normal person.
She asks this question at EVERY PANEL. First and foremost.
Secondly, the digital first books are handled by a totally seperate team.
So it just seems like she is a disgruntled individual jumping on DC for everything.
Also, if you have heard the audio clips or went to the con you would know that she didn't just ask two questions and say thank you. She would ask the question and if she doesn't get the answer, get really pissed and flips out and what not.
I think this is a mischaracterisation. Last year, Kyrax2 asked about the lack of female creators in maybe three or four panels, and the reason she continued to ask is that she just kept being met with hostility and non-answers. She was never rude, but she wasn't content to let Didio get away with avoiding her question. So when, for instance, Didio tried to dodge making a commitment to hire more women by saying that he was committed to hiring the best writers and artist, she challenged him on that, observing the all-male panel and asking him whether he was saying he couldn't find any great female writers or artists. Which earned her a lot of abuse from the crowd and some flippant answer to the tune of, "hey, if you're a woman and you want to write for DC, send your stuff in!" (which meant absolutely nothing because DC doesn't accept unsolicited manuscripts).
She stood her ground. She refused to be cowed into silence, and she challenged Didio on an issue he'd been continually trying to dodge (he'd responded quite aggressively to other people, male and female, who'd tried to ask similar questions on female characters and creators). Does that constitute "getting really pissed and flipping out and whatnot?" Because I don't think it does.
Now, her question on Steph in Smallville this year, that's a slightly different matter because it was more a case of the people on the panel genuinely not knowing the answer to the question. That doesn't mean it wasn't okay for her to ask it. Brian Q Miller, who actually would have been able to answer the question, was supposed to be on that panel. And while you're right that digital comics are a totally different area, it wasn't entirely unreasonable for her to imagine that - Smallville being a Superman comics - somebody there might have known something about it.
And you've got to remember, this came a day after the rumours emerged that Babs would be replacing Steph in Smallville. A lot of people had been very excited by the news that Steph would be returning to comics (writer Brian Q Miller included). There were a lot of people who were planning on buying Smallville for the first time, purely on the basis that Steph was going to be in it, and they were keen to read about her and to show their support for the character and BQM. After months and months of nothing, Steph was back, and even if it wasn't in the main DC universe - it was encouraging.
And then DC ripped it out from under us. It was the ultimate fuck you, to dangle the promise of a much-missed and oft-mistreated (remember Robin!Steph's sexualised torture and death?) character before yanking it away. To me, and to a lot of others, it was really symbolic (as were Didio's answers to Kyrax2 at last year's SDCC) of how little regard DC have for their female fan base.
At the point when Kyrax2 asked the question it was still a rumour - but an all-too-believable rumour, a rumour that had upset a lot of people. She, like a lot of us, wanted official confirmation or denial. And she wasn't rude about it at all. She asked the question, but they didn't know the answer; in fact, they hadn't heard Steph was supposed to be Nightwing so they assumed it was a rumour as well. She -perhaps confused by their calling the previously-confirmed news a rumour - said that some art had been released, but they really didn't know anything so they made a joke and moved on. She wasn't rude. She didn't flip out. And she certainly didn't say anything to deserve inferiorego's shitty remarks.
Oh no, my least favorite question person ever... Why isn't Stephanie Brown isn't in the new 52? They say they don't know about anything like that. She gets snappy. She does this every year.
Wow, way to be a prick.
For the record, her question was not why Steph isn't in the New 52, but whether Steph would still be appearing in Smallville as Nightwing (as had been previously announced, with artwork and comments from Bryan Q Miller) or if there was any truth to the rumour that she was being replaced in the comic by Barbara Gordon. It wasn't an unreasonable question to ask, given that Smallville is a Superman title, and it's a question a lot of fans would like answered - Steph's announced appearance in Smallville #5 had been met with a lot of enthusiasm, especially among fans of BQM's Batgirl run, and the rumours that DC was again sidelining her in favour of Babs have made a lot of people angry and upset.
And if by "she does this every year" you mean "last year she asked a number of pertinent questions about female creators and characters in DC comics", well then, yeah. And a lot of us are are grateful to her for it, because DC are continually marginalising their female fans, a number of their female characters (Stephanie Brown included) have been very poorly treated, and women continue to be underrepresented among their writers and artists. And they should be challenged on that.
You don't have to agree with her, but to deride her for asking questions on a subject she cares about - and asking them perfectly politely, without being rude or abusive or angry - is totally uncalled for.