Batwoman is a lesbian

[BigChiefFan]

Batwoman Is Back as a Lesbian
By LARRY McSHANE
AP

AP/DC Comics
"We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family," explained a VP at DC Comics on Batwoman's new direction.

Watch Video:
Batwoman a Lipstick Lesbian?

Talk: Post Thoughts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK (May 31) - Years after she first emerged from the Batcave, Batwoman is coming out of the closet. DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series that began this year.


The 5-foot-10 superhero comes with flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a form-fitting black outfit.


"We decided to give her a different point of view," explained Dan DiDio, vice president and executive editor at DC. "We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That's one of the reasons we went in this direction."


The original Batwoman was started in 1956, and killed off in 1979. The new character will share the same name as her original alter ego, Kathy Kane. And the new Batwoman arrives with ties to others in the Gotham City world.


"She's a socialite from Gotham high society," DiDio said. "She has some past connection with Bruce Wayne. And she's also had a past love affair with one of our lead characters, Renee Montoya."


Montoya, in the "52" comic book series, is a former police detective. Wayne, of course, is Batman's true identity - but he has disappeared, along with Superman and Wonder Woman, leaving Gotham a more dangerous place.


The "52" series is a collaboration of four acclaimed writers, with one episode per week for one year. The comics will introduce other diverse characters as the story plays out.


"This is not just about having a gay character," DiDio said. "We're trying for overall diversity in the DC universe. We have strong African-American, Hispanic and Asian characters. We're trying to get a better cross-section of our readership and the world."


The outing of Batwoman created a furor of opinions on Web sites devoted to DC Comics. Opinions ranged from outrage to approval. Others took a more tongue-in-cheek approach to the announcement.


"Wouldn't ugly people as heroes be more groundbreaking?" asked one poster. "You know, 200-pound woman, man with horseshoe hair loss pattern, people with cold sores, etc.?"


DiDio asked that people wait until the new Batwoman's appearance in the series before they pass judgment.


"You know what? Judge us by the story and character we create," he said. "We are confident that we are telling a great story with a strong, complex character."


DiDio spent most of the morning fielding phone calls from media intrigued by the Batwoman reinvention.


"It's kind of weird," he said. "We had a feeling it would attract some attention, but we're a little surprised it did this much."


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2006-05-31 17:07:13

[fan4ever]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

This has very little to do with Hollywood. This is about comics which have seen decades of declining sales. The movies are mostly in line with the history of the characters because they want the nostalgia dollar and don't need to appeal to more specific demographics. The movies are much more one size fits all. The actual monthly issues, however, have always sought to find more niche markets. In this case it's trying to draw in readers that would have usually dismissed comics as fantasies for 12 year old boys. They have to change with the times or risk becoming irrelevant and folding altogether.

I'm confused. So are you saying that in today's comic book realm existing superhero personas are being changed but in cinema they are keeping original personas? As far as dismissing comics as a 12 year old boy's interest, that wasn't a quip...that's when I stopped collecting comics. I've realize that the comic book (graphic novel) world has changed greatly and come up with some really cool characters (Watchmen)...liked that movie a great deal...and that's where they should cultivate their niche market IMO...in new characters, not redefining the old. In a weird way it's like a taking a hostage emotionally. "I'm taking Superman and making him bisexual...and if you really loved him, you'll be on board...or you're just a homophobe. You should be cool with him making out with Jimmy Olsen AND Lois Lane"

To maybe explain where I stand when I saw the first Superman movie with Christopher Reeves I was aghast at him floating around. I'm like WTF? Superman's not Casper the friendly ghost...he can fly because he can propel himself off the ground with great force...took me forever to get used to that...still bugs me. Give me George Reeves jumping out of a window to the sound effect of a bullet being fired treatment.

I know these people own the rights to these characters and can do with them what they like. I just don't like being told I'm wrong for not liking it.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Promoting?
This character was always homosexual in the comics. It has nothing to do with "sales" and everything to do with reflecting upon today's society.

always? hmmm never got that growing up.

Yes. Promoting. especially from 14 years ago....& whatever makes you feel better Dane.

It's still a very very, very small percentage.

[KChiefs1]

Originally Posted by redbrian

Batwoman eats Catwoman

I’d watch that!

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

Dude, the only agenda is selling comics. Diversifying helps them reach a broader audience. Just because comics spent almost a century only catering to straight white males doesn't mean it has to continue and in fact it can't if they hope to maintain any relevance or marketability.

So making Batgirl lesbian isn't catering to straight white males? I think this is a win-win for both straight white males and the LGBT community.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

I’d watch that!

Yes.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by stevieray

It's still a very very, very small percentage.

All art, whether it's photography, painting, poetry, short stories, novels, drawing, animation, short films, television, feature films or music, are a reflection of who we are as a people and as a society.

Fortunately, these voices can and are being heard loudly and clearly, unlike the past, when those voices where stifled, muffled, shut down, mangled, tortured and murdered.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by stevieray

Yes. Promoting. especially from 14 years ago....& whatever makes you feel better Dane

You know what makes me feel better? That people like you are becoming less and less common in America.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by fan4ever

I'm confused. So are you saying that in today's comic book realm existing superhero personas are being changed but in cinema they are keeping original personas?

Yes, for the most part. None of these high profile changes I can think of have been carried into the movies. There might be a couple but they're the exception.

Originally Posted by fan4ever

As far as dismissing comics as a 12 year old boy's interest, that wasn't a quip...that's when I stopped collecting comics. I've realize that the comic book (graphic novel) world has changed greatly and come up with some really cool characters (Watchmen)...liked that movie a great deal...and that's where they should cultivate their niche market IMO...in new characters, not redefining the old. In a weird way it's like a taking a hostage emotionally. "I'm taking Superman and making him bisexual...and if you really loved him, you'll be on board...or you're just a homophobe. You should be cool with him making out with Jimmy Olsen AND Lois Lane"

Please give an example of this happening with a character anywhere near to the profile of Superman. Batwoman is off the scrap heap of comics history. She wouldn't be coming back at all if it weren't for this new take. In fact bringing her back is likely a move to avoid messing with a character that anyone gives a **** about.

Originally Posted by fan4ever

To maybe explain where I stand when I saw the first Superman movie with Christopher Reeves I was aghast at him floating around. I'm like WTF? Superman's not Casper the friendly ghost...he can fly because he can propel himself off the ground with great force...took me forever to get used to that...still bugs me. Give me George Reeves jumping out of a window to the sound effect of a bullet being fired treatment.

You're entitled to your opinion, but for god's sake, Superman gained the ability to fly (not just leap) in 1941. I mean if you just prefer the character that way, that's cool, but these characters have to be able to evolve or they should just be retired. That IS an option, but I think it's cool that you have these decades old characters that reflect the time in which they lived and the viewpoints of the storytellers that wrote them.

Originally Posted by fan4ever

I know these people own the rights to these characters and can do with them what they like. I just don't like being told I'm wrong for not liking it.

I didn't say you are wrong. I was kidding you about suddenly caring about a character that hasn't been in existence for so long. It's when people who seem to have little to no interest in these characters suddenly have strong opinions about changes as soon as it relates to sexuality, gender, or race. Makes it seem like it's less about the sanctity of the character and more about a distaste for people that are different than you.

I'm not accusing you of that but that's how it often comes off when people complain about this stuff.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You know what makes me feel better? That people like you are becoming less and less common in America.

....thanks for sharing, Dane.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

All art, whether it's photography, painting, poetry, short stories, novels, drawing, animation, short films, television, feature films or music, are a reflection of who we are as a people and as a society.

Fortunately, these voices can and are being heard loudly and clearly, unlike the past, when those voices where stifled, muffled, shut down, mangled, tortured and murdered.

sometimes.. but not always.

mmm you mean like Oscar Wilde?

And Liberace?

Little Richard?

Freddie Mercury?

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by fan4ever

I'm confused. So are you saying that in today's comic book realm existing superhero personas are being changed but in cinema they are keeping original personas?

Comics are unique in that they're not finite. So they constantly change but ultimately never change. Stan Lee said the secret of writing comics is the illusion of change, meaning that whatever happens, eventually you circle back and put the toys back roughly where you found them. Remember that time they destroyed Tony Stark's life and replaced him a black Iron Man? No, not Riri Williams, she was never really Iron Man. I mean in the mid-80s when Rhodey was Iron Man for two years. Anybody still mad about that?

As far as dismissing comics as a 12 year old boy's interest, that wasn't a quip...that's when I stopped collecting comics.

So you don't read comics, but you believe they should stay the same as when you were 12... why? The comics you read when you were 12 still exist, they didn't go back change them. So if you're not actually reading the comics, what difference does it make to you?

The other thing you have to understand is continuity is an illusion. It doesn't make any sense and never did. They can change something now, and pretend it changes something from 40 years ago, but it doesn't. There was a Spider-Man story 15 years ago or so, where it was reveled that years previously Gwen Stacy had an affair with Norman Osborn, got knocked up, and secretly gave birth to twins. The twins aging was accelerated for reasons, and they fought Spider-Man. This is stone cold Marvel Comics canon. Except it's ****ing stupid, and has mostly been ignored. My point is, did that story ruin the original Lee/Ditko? Did it ruin everything that came after it? Does it matter at all?

that's where they should cultivate their niche market IMO...in new characters, not redefining the old.

Again, the original Batwoman was beyond obscure and hadn't appeared in a comic book for 30 years. She predates Batgirl and is a completely different character. I followed comics pretty closely growing up, and I still only really knew about her as trivia. "Did you know there used to be a Batwoman?"

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Again, the original Batwoman was beyond obscure and hadn't appeared in a comic book for 30 years. She predates Batgirl and is a completely different character. I followed comics pretty closely growing up, and I still only really knew about her as trivia. "Did you know there used to be a Batwoman?"

I think this is the relevant point. I still get Batwoman/Batgirl confused and Batman is one of my favorite superheroes (along with Wolverine). The only reason I remember the character at all is from a very dramatic piece of cover art on some issue a long time ago that caught my eye. So, honestly, I couldn't give any less of a shit if somebody wants to do a cool new reimagining of the hero. The problem I have with the show is what I expect it to be from the description...because I won't even give this lump of shit a chance.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

All art, whether it's photography, painting, poetry, short stories, novels, drawing, animation, short films, television, feature films or music, are a reflection of who we are as a people and as a society.

Fortunately, these voices can and are being heard loudly and clearly, unlike the past, when those voices where stifled, muffled, shut down, mangled, tortured and murdered.

I get where you are coming from and I don't disagree with you. However, I'm sick of 'entertainment' that pushes an agenda rather than telling a story. It gets in the way. If that aspect of the character is woven organically into a good story, told in an interesting way, by compelling characters, then I'm on board. If social justice themes are used in place of good storytelling to generate hype and guarantee politically correct approval through groupthink...**** that. I'm out.

[fan4ever]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

I'm not accusing you of that but that's how it often comes off when people complain about this stuff.

It's been an enjoyable conversation and you're definitely more into the comic genre than I ever was. As you get older in life you see traditions fall by the wayside, sometimes a good thing; sometimes not, and so this leaks into your feelings about other things "changing".

Here's a another example of something I took offense to. Superman II I think he gives up his power to be with Lois Lane...and he gets his ass kicked in a diner by a redneck. At the end of the movie he goes back to the diner, now that he's got his powers back and humiliates the bully. The Superman I KNOW would have never been that petty and wouldn't have gotten himself into that situation in the first place.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Again, the original Batwoman was beyond obscure and hadn't appeared in a comic book for 30 years. She predates Batgirl and is a completely different character. I followed comics pretty closely growing up, and I still only really knew about her as trivia. "Did you know there used to be a Batwoman?"

Wait, if Batwoman is lesbian then how was Batgirl born? Was Batwoman bi in college or something?

Or are they not related and they just happen to share the same first name?