InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "What are we, twelve?"

colonel_green (colonel_green) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-10-16 20:20:00

Entry tags:

char: amadeus cho, char: hercules/marvel, creator: dan slott, creator: sean chen, group: dark avengers, group: new avengers, group: young avengers, publisher: marvel comics, title: mighty avengers

Avengers Assemble
Two unlettered pages from Mighty Avengers #30.

Last issue, Stature finally managed to recover the ability to tell the rest of the group about the Unspoken's rampage in China, which necessitates bringing in everybody and their dog.

Sean Chen's Cho is either ten years old, a pygmy, or both, but otherwise it's nice art (Jarvis's obvious enjoyment at having so many old hands around in particular).

The interview with Dan Slott from whence these (and more) came is here. I do like the mention in the interview of the first meeting between New Cap and USAgent being in this issue.

Edit: Actually, there's a lettered preview for this issue out too now.

(Post a new comment)

	manofbats 2009-10-17 12:34 am UTC (link)
	Does Marvel have a big name LGBT character anymore? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	colonel_green 2009-10-17 12:38 am UTC (link)
	Huh? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	manofbats 2009-10-17 12:43 am UTC (link)
	Every time I see Wiccan and Hulkling in the background I get annoyed. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	xlineartx 2009-10-17 12:41 am UTC (link)
	Did they recently kill someone off or something? All the old ones are still around, I think, although I can't remember the last time I saw Mystique and Northstar is onbly nominally with the X-Men. But, uh. Billy and Teddy are right there. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	manofbats 2009-10-17 12:45 am UTC (link)
	Well I mean do they have an LGBT character they're putting in the spotlight like DC is with Batwoman or the Question? Or are they still doing that annoying thing where their LGBT characters can only hint at their orientation and touch each other sensually on the shoulder? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	long_silence 2009-10-17 12:57 am UTC (link)
	The slightly annoying recap by Stature for Mighty Avengers 30 makes a bit of a reference to Billy and Teddy's relationship. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	silver_paired 2009-10-17 02:08 am UTC (link)
	Since Cassie seems to love emoticons, I have one for that little tidbit: :/ (Reply to this) (Parent)

	xlineartx 2009-10-17 01:02 am UTC (link)
	Rictor and Shatterstar kissed. Twice. And held hands. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	stolisomancer 2009-10-17 01:11 am UTC (link)
	They haven't done that for years. They don't have many makeouts on panel, but Marvel's LGB characters all cop to it openly and discuss it when the situation demands. Witness Billy's reaction to the Enchantress chick hitting on him in Paul Cornell's Young Avengers book, or Northstar's boyfriend in Uncanny X-Men. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	manofbats 2009-10-17 01:12 am UTC (link)
	Just seems like most of the time they rather dance around the subject. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	stolisomancer 2009-10-17 01:27 am UTC (link)
	Most of the time, it's not incredibly relevant so it doesn't come up. For at least the last ten years, it's been mentioned unequivocally on panel whenever it's germane. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	afghanant.wordpress.com 2009-10-17 04:04 pm UTC (link)
	As a gay man I'm offended that you feel that gays have to gay-out or they are not relevant. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

va1tyr
2009-10-17 04:13 pm UTC (link)

I think it's just that gay sexuality is much lower-key in comics than straight - like, in Runaways, the straight couples were always making out or making sexual references, but it took aaaages for the lesbian couple to get so much as an on-panel kiss. And Cassie has kissed several guys, but Billy and Teddy have never kissed on-panel. Wasn't there a running joke that Deadpool had kissed more guys than all Marvel's gay males put together? (This was before the Ric/Shatterstar kiss)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	stolisomancer 2009-10-17 06:47 pm UTC (link)
	Every time a gay subplot or scene rears its head in a Marvel book that is not typically given over to such things, such as the Rictor/Shatterstar kiss, read the book's next few letter columns. Keep in mind that what they print is what was suitable for print. Then ask yourself again why they play gay sexuality in such a subtle fashion. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	va1tyr 2009-10-17 06:52 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, I'm aware they don't want homophobes to drop their books. However, I'm not a fan of catering to homophobes. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	stolisomancer 2009-10-17 06:55 pm UTC (link)
	You don't have to be. You're not the one depending on a vanishingly small, startlingly conservative, steadily shrinking fanbase in order to maintain your job. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

va1tyr
2009-10-17 07:09 pm UTC (link)

What's your point? Marvel is trying to have its cake and eat it - having gay couples, but not showing much of the scary gay on-panel. It's the Will & Grace effect - gays are fine as long as they don't have the icky gay sex.

It's also possible Marvel wouldn't have to depend on its steadily shrinking conservative fanbase if it made an effort to reach out to more people. Girls and gays have money too, y'know. A hell of a lot of women went to see Spider-Man and The Dark Knight.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-17 07:43 pm UTC (link)

Manhunter had rather a lot of scary gay on panel and it didn't do that book's sales any good at all. It got them a few pats on the back, but the book still got canceled twice.

It's a fair point to make, that they could maybe expand their readership by broadening their demographic appeal, but the sales data doesn't seem to bear that out. What sells in superhero comics are A) huge crossovers, B) hot artists, and C) old franchises.

I'd argue that they've come a long way in demographic representation in even the last ten years, by introducing Billy, Teddy, Karolina, and Xavin, and allowing Northstar to be peacefully out of the closet nowadays. They're moving forward bit by bit, but looking at the sales data, I can't blame them for doing so extremely slowly.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

va1tyr
2009-10-17 07:53 pm UTC (link)

All new characters are risky, and gay characters tend to be new characters. It takes a lot of work to have established characters come out of the closet believably, and yeah, I can see them not wanting to risk their established properties in such a way.

but the sales data doesn't seem to bear that out.

They're trying to appeal to women by publishing comics with names like Diva and </i>Minx</i>, while writing Jan out of every continuity in ridiculous ways. (Still bitter about Giant Girl.) Really, it's no wonder they're having trouble. Have you seen the debacle that is the treatment of women and minorities over in Spider-Man? Unbelievable. Women do buy comics. They bought the crap out of Sandman, and they buy the crap out of manga. If Marvel could start out with not actively insulting women, it'd be a grand start. Ditto treating gay kissing like Kryptonite.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-17 08:17 pm UTC (link)

It's a shame that they bungled Ultimate X-Men as badly as they did, but that's mostly down to the wrong writers. The whole Ultimate Colossus thing could've been a watershed moment if a decent writer had followed Vaughan. Roberto Aguirre-Sarcasa would've been pretty awesome.

Wasn't Minx a DC line of comics aimed at girls? I didn't think Divas was a good idea, no, especially with the covers they put on it. I don't blame them for the basic idea, but the marketing is bungled pretty hard, the same way they fucked up the old Emma Frost book with the Greg Horn cheesecake covers.

It's kind of a two steps forward, one step back thing, really. On the one hand, they're bringing back just about every character they've ever used and are getting tons of mileage out of the back catalogue, while they're paying a lot of really good independent artists and writers to do quick fun superhero stuff.

They're also working on their racial balance fairly well, with Luke Cage hitting the A-list, Amadeus Cho, Jimmy Woo, Greg Pak's War Machine, the inexplicable decision to make the post-Ellis American Eagle a total badass (the dude used to look ridiculous), more women on the Avengers even if they did kill Jan, and a higher-profile role for Black Panther.

On the other hand, yeah, their attempts to market things specifically to women have largely been embarrassing to watch, I really wish they'd put long pants on Carol Danvers, and I can't stand to read Amazing Spider-Man at the moment.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

va1tyr
2009-10-17 08:39 pm UTC (link)

Oh, God, Emma Frost! I looove Emma Frost, she's fabulous, and apparently her series was aimed at teenage girls! With THOSE covers? Such a wasted opportunity. The new Nomad looks promising, though, and she has clothes on. Fingers crossed.

They're definitely doing better on race at the moment - love the move of Luke Cage into the A-List, and I love Cho. Of course, it's easier as they do have long-established characters of colour, so it's often an issue of promoting them rather than creating new characters - but yes, they've created some pretty cool new ones. There have been some mis-steps - the black Young Avenger was the one on drugs? Oh dear. And yeah, Black Panther... well. Um. There's a lot to be said about that, but at least Marvel made an effort.

Weirdly, I don't mind so much about Carol - she doesn't need the protection and she's sensibly high-necked so no risk of falling out. My main complaint is the side-boob - have it cover all of her breasts! Kate Bishop, on the other hand, should cover up that midriff. And I'm liking Bobbi's more sensible costume. At least they showed more restraint with fifteen-year-old Cassie than DC do with Supergirl. But yeah, DC and Marvel seem to just... not understand that female comic readers are really very similar to male comic readers. Or, indeed, that women are quite similar to men.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	manofbats 2009-10-17 04:44 pm UTC (link)
	If you have two characters in a relationship why not show that in the same way as they would a straight couple? How often do we see Cyclops and Emma Frost in bed with each other? And to my knowledge the last high-profile gay character Marvel had was Freedom Ring. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-17 06:39 pm UTC (link)

Freedom Ring lasted two or three issues in a book that was promptly canceled due to a lack of sales. If your primary exposure to comic book communities is S_D, then you may have an inflated idea of his impact.

Billy and Teddy's relationship is treated almost identically to Kate and Eli's, except theirs is more stable. Generally, their panel time is more concerned with actual plot or superheroics. They're also teenagers who don't live with one another, so you can't show them together in bed as often as you'd see Scott and Emma, even if it was desirable to do so.

It's also probably useful to note here that the only reason that either Batwoman or Question mk. II are as high-profile as they are is Greg Rucka, he's put up with a lot of controversy to get them that far, and it took him, what, three years after the end of 52? Were it not for Rucka, the highest-profile gay character in DC's superhero line would be Kate Spencer's assistant.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-17 06:50 pm UTC (link)

To clarify my statement: showing gay sexuality in a mainstream comic book is a good way to ignite controversy to begin with. Showing gay characters in flagrante delicto in a mainstream comic book is a good way to drive your editor up the wall.

Showing teenage gay characters being sexually active? They don't even show straight teenagers having sex lives, unless you count noted idiot Chase Stein intimating that such things had happened.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

va1tyr
2009-10-17 06:56 pm UTC (link)

And Nico and Victor in bed, and Cassie kissing her guys, and Chase and Gert kissing and referencing oral sex.

Kate and Eli are in a will they/won't they relationship, and last I heard Kate had given him the just-friends speech. Billy and Teddy are a solid established couple, and have been for well over a year - Bily's parents consider Teddy a member of the family.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	stolisomancer 2009-10-17 07:01 pm UTC (link)
	I bow to your superior knowledge of Runaways. I thought I remembered Chase's "power vacuum" line as being shot down by Gert, but I'm probably mistaken. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	va1tyr 2009-10-17 07:07 pm UTC (link)
	As I recall, she said 'you're disgusting' while grinning and Molly made a disapproving remark. I didn't read it as shooting down. (Reply to this) (Parent)

manofbats
2009-10-17 07:44 pm UTC (link)

I haven't read any controversy over Batwoman or the Question. And you're forgetting Obsidian, Thunder, and Grace they're more well known than Kate Spencer's assistant. They never got the media exposure Batwoman has, but most of them have been featured in on-going titles

Freedom Ring was championed by Marvel as their leading gay hero. Then they killed him and made any comic with gay couples a mature title.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-17 07:49 pm UTC (link)

Over the course of the last few years, there were quite a few newspaper articles talking about this brand-new lesbian superheroine Batwoman. Most of them show up readily over the course of a Google for "Batwoman." The Question hasn't gotten anywhere near as much coverage, although I remain surprised that Renee's drunken hookups in the early issues of 52 didn't get more press.

Thunder got put on a bus, Grace barely shows up at all anymore, and Obsidian is currently mostly being written by Bill Willingham, isn't he?

Finally, yes. Young Avengers is a mature title.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

manofbats
2009-10-17 07:56 pm UTC (link)

Batwoman got press because they were giving a lesbian character a high-profile name like Batwoman. That's a very good thing. It's that touting thing Joe Quesada was trying to do with Freedom Ring, only this time it worked because they didn't kill her.

Young Avengers is a mature title only because Wiccan and Hulkling are gay. They don't do anything physical ever to warrant the mature rating.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-17 08:19 pm UTC (link)

Looking it up, the Freedom Ring issue seems to be that Quesada leapt on it as a source of potentially good press, then wound up with egg on his face when Kirkman killed the character. There's a bit from Kirkman on the topic on Freedom Ring's Wikipedia page.

The Dark Reign: Young Avengers miniseries is rated "T+"; I'm looking at it right now. Given the high violence level and some of the language inside, I'd call it an apt rating.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	va1tyr 2009-10-17 09:46 pm UTC (link)
	What, Young Avengers was mature? All the time? Wasn't Ultimates was all-ages? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	auggie18 2009-10-17 12:47 am UTC (link)
	Huh. Really like the new art, though Cho looks kinda young. Wow, Billy. Not shoved into the background. Go you. Usually it seems like he gets the short end of the stick in group shots. Is Hulkling really big or is the perspective just weird there? 'cause, Luke is tall. Teddy shouldn't tower over him, especially if he's behind him. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	manofbats 2009-10-17 12:48 am UTC (link)
	Well he is a shapeshifter. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	auggie18 2009-10-17 12:50 am UTC (link)
	True. It's just kinda weird seeing him Stature-level big, particularly among friends. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	manofbats 2009-10-17 12:51 am UTC (link)
	The weird part for me is Clint being the only one with ripped clothing and surrounded by women. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	auggie18 2009-10-17 12:53 am UTC (link)
	Oops, that's not Luke Cage, it's Gauntlet. Who's apparently being hit on by Justice. And liking it. That's new and exciting. (Reply to this) (Parent)

long_silence
2009-10-17 01:07 am UTC (link)

Kate just does not look injured, I don't even remember seeing her get hurt last issue. It kinda sucks that she and Tommy are being sidelined, but I guess having every single Avenger would be too much.

Did Herc use one of the PymDoors just to go yell at Osborn?

I don't really care for the Unspoken. Slott keeps saying that it's not a retcon, and that it's just history that was left out. But I just don't see the difference. I mean it really makes the Inhumans look bad, and they really don't need that after taking over the Kree the way they did.

(Reply to this)

shadowpsykie
2009-10-17 02:32 am UTC (link)

anyone think Marvel's gay characters need more exposure, i mean for all the faults of the execution at least Batwoman is both an interesting character, and well, shes in play. same with Renee. i mean aside from the non use of Obsidian, which i think is pretty annoying, the gay characters in DC are being well used, i mean look even Tim an Conner had a moment this week:)

tired of seeing Marvels gay characters used as window dressing

(Reply to this) (Thread)

long_silence
2009-10-17 03:42 am UTC (link)

Well I think it's all about the circumstances of the titles they're in. And none of them have solo titles because Marvel doesn't feel that they have the fanbases to support their own ongoing books.

The Young Avengers don't have an ongoing book but they do constantly get miniserieses (I think the next one was recently announced. Avengers: Children's Crusade with Heinberg and Cheung).

Runaways was put on hiatus because of low sales.

Northstar is a part of this "revolving cast" in Uncanny. But he is very much the definition of window dressing, but that's par for the course with Matt Fraction on Uncanny, Northstar gets about as much focus as any character who isn't Cyclops, Beast, Emma, Pixie or the X-Club. But at least Karma is on New Mutants, and Shatterstar and Rictor are in X-Factor.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	stolisomancer 2009-10-17 04:28 am UTC (link)
	Jennifer Kale just got a starring role in Marvel Zombies 4, and she's canonically if quietly bisexual (cf. Witches). Every other gay character I can think of shows up in team books with reasonable frequency. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	nezchan 2009-10-17 04:00 am UTC (link)
	I can't be the first one to see that as Cho feeling up Herc's butt... (Reply to this) (Thread)

	requiem2adream 2009-10-17 10:05 am UTC (link)
	You may have been the first but you certainly weren't the last XD (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mania21 2009-10-17 04:36 am UTC (link)
	Maybe i'm just too used to how he's drawn over in Incredible Hercules, but seeing Herc look this serious just seems weird to me. (Reply to this)

	bariman1987 2009-10-17 06:03 am UTC (link)
	First page: From Herc's hand gesture and the shocked faces of Norman and the crew, I'm guessing Herc is explaining how to perform the Elven Tickler. Second page: I kind of love Jarvis's "Ah, just like old times" expression when he's bringing the Avengers their refreshments. (Reply to this)

	flipbeter 2009-10-17 06:47 am UTC (link)
	Heh. Cassie's blog is cute. (Reply to this)