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

  • 174 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#151 Posted by Nightstar1 (48 posts) - - Show Bio
@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? 
#152 Posted by Nightstar1 (48 posts) - - Show Bio
@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. 
#153 Posted by Woerlan (17 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#154 Posted by Shotgun (900 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#155 Posted by SilverZeo (2748 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#156 Posted by MonkeyToe (386 posts) - - Show Bio

@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!

#157 Edited by Nightstar1 (48 posts) - - Show Bio
@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... "
#158 Posted by X9 (757 posts) - - Show Bio

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 ¬¬

#159 Posted by GiveUpNed (73 posts) - - Show Bio

@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!

#160 Posted by Nightstar1 (48 posts) - - Show Bio
@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! 
#161 Posted by GiveUpNed (73 posts) - - Show Bio

@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!

#162 Posted by LB70145 (191 posts) - - Show Bio

Still a terrible comic/iteration of the character.

#163 Posted by Nightstar1 (48 posts) - - Show Bio

@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

#164 Posted by TheWholeDamnShow (758 posts) - - Show Bio

JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!

#165 Posted by GiveUpNed (73 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#166 Posted by JackFellontim (6 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#167 Posted by GiveUpNed (73 posts) - - Show Bio

@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!

#168 Posted by MonkeyToe (386 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#169 Posted by BlackWind (6073 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

Online
#170 Posted by GiveUpNed (73 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#171 Posted by BlackWind (6073 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

Online
#172 Edited by Nightstar1 (48 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#173 Posted by TheDarkestNight (88 posts) - - Show Bio

I just had to post this lol

#174 Posted by GiveUpNed (73 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.