Major change for original X-Man

[COI]

Do not fear the PC boogyman.

 

I think political correctness can get silly and illogical at times, to the detriment of everyone. So if someone can explain to me how making one c-list character out of thousands gay is more detrimental or less logical than not having any established character represent 10% of the population, I'm all ears.

[faster friends]

 

What does it mean "completely underrepresented"? This already implies an ideologic stance, as there is nothing to give for granted about the very concept itself of "gay people".

These are not themes you can/should hand lightly, and this is precisely what they are doing. You have at least to admit their controversial nature, and they do not care the least: that is precisely political correctness or an ideologic stance, which is even worse (like Neil Gaiman did with his anti-catholic stances in 1602, for example).

 

I just mean with the thousands of characters in the Marvel universe, it statistically makes sense that a percentage of those characters should be homosexual to reflect real world demographics, and if a character like Iceman turns out to be gay, and from what I have read it seems he was closeted, that is actually a realistic scenario that some people experience in real life. I think that's an important aspect of what has made Marvel so important to it's fans over the decades, that it has made superheroes have human experiences that readers can relate to

 

This makes a huge amount of sense and works perfectly both realistically and in the setting of the Marvel Universe.

 

Granted, I think Marvel did this for other reasons completely but still.

 

Does not make sense at all. Comics do not have to reflect the demographic of the real world. It's a fake universe people...

 

So why do people get so upset about changes to fake characters in a fake universe?

 

If comic publishers don't reflect the demographic I would think that their sales would suffer.

 

I really don't know that anyone is upset, but I do know that this is what I love about Democracy and living in a free country. People can disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.

Try that in some other countries and see what happens to you.

[Gatchaman]

He started out by having a crush on Jean. Later he had relationships with Polaris and Psylocke.<----That was Archangel…never mind!

 

He was also with Zelda in the original X-Men around issues #25-30.

 

But, I really hate when they keep changing existing characters. Introduce new character, but leave the ones we have been reading for years alone.

[Park]

 

What does it mean "completely underrepresented"? This already implies an ideologic stance, as there is nothing to give for granted about the very concept itself of "gay people".

These are not themes you can/should hand lightly, and this is precisely what they are doing. You have at least to admit their controversial nature, and they do not care the least: that is precisely political correctness or an ideologic stance, which is even worse (like Neil Gaiman did with his anti-catholic stances in 1602, for example).

 

I just mean with the thousands of characters in the Marvel universe, it statistically makes sense that a percentage of those characters should be homosexual to reflect real world demographics, and if a character like Iceman turns out to be gay, and from what I have read it seems he was closeted, that is actually a realistic scenario that some people experience in real life. I think that's an important aspect of what has made Marvel so important to it's fans over the decades, that it has made superheroes have human experiences that readers can relate to

 

This makes a huge amount of sense and works perfectly both realistically and in the setting of the Marvel Universe.

 

Granted, I think Marvel did this for other reasons completely but still.

 

Does not make sense at all. Comics do not have to reflect the demographic of the real world. It's a fake universe people...

 

Except for the fact that it's the "real world" buying the books.

 

And Marvel has excelled specifically because they related to real world people and their superheroes have real world problems and real world relationships and real world drama.

[Comicopolis]

 

What does it mean "completely underrepresented"? This already implies an ideologic stance, as there is nothing to give for granted about the very concept itself of "gay people".

These are not themes you can/should hand lightly, and this is precisely what they are doing. You have at least to admit their controversial nature, and they do not care the least: that is precisely political correctness or an ideologic stance, which is even worse (like Neil Gaiman did with his anti-catholic stances in 1602, for example).

 

I just mean with the thousands of characters in the Marvel universe, it statistically makes sense that a percentage of those characters should be homosexual to reflect real world demographics, and if a character like Iceman turns out to be gay, and from what I have read it seems he was closeted, that is actually a realistic scenario that some people experience in real life. I think that's an important aspect of what has made Marvel so important to it's fans over the decades, that it has made superheroes have human experiences that readers can relate to

 

This makes a huge amount of sense and works perfectly both realistically and in the setting of the Marvel Universe.

 

Granted, I think Marvel did this for other reasons completely but still.

 

Does not make sense at all. Comics do not have to reflect the demographic of the real world. It's a fake universe people...

 

So why do people get so upset about changes to fake characters in a fake universe?

 

If comic publishers don't reflect the demographic I would think that their sales would suffer.

 

I really don't know that anyone is upset, but I do know that this is what I love about Democracy and living in a free country. People can disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.

Try that in some other countries and see what happens to you.

 

I've been to many other countries and disagreed with many, many people.

 

I survived.

[faster friends]

 

What does it mean "completely underrepresented"? This already implies an ideologic stance, as there is nothing to give for granted about the very concept itself of "gay people".

These are not themes you can/should hand lightly, and this is precisely what they are doing. You have at least to admit their controversial nature, and they do not care the least: that is precisely political correctness or an ideologic stance, which is even worse (like Neil Gaiman did with his anti-catholic stances in 1602, for example).

 

I just mean with the thousands of characters in the Marvel universe, it statistically makes sense that a percentage of those characters should be homosexual to reflect real world demographics, and if a character like Iceman turns out to be gay, and from what I have read it seems he was closeted, that is actually a realistic scenario that some people experience in real life. I think that's an important aspect of what has made Marvel so important to it's fans over the decades, that it has made superheroes have human experiences that readers can relate to

 

This makes a huge amount of sense and works perfectly both realistically and in the setting of the Marvel Universe.

 

Granted, I think Marvel did this for other reasons completely but still.

 

Does not make sense at all. Comics do not have to reflect the demographic of the real world. It's a fake universe people...

 

So why do people get so upset about changes to fake characters in a fake universe?

 

If comic publishers don't reflect the demographic I would think that their sales would suffer.

 

I really don't know that anyone is upset, but I do know that this is what I love about Democracy and living in a free country. People can disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.

Try that in some other countries and see what happens to you.

 

I've been to many other countries and disagreed with many, many people.

 

I survived.

 

Come on now. You know what I meant. Disagreeing about alternative lifestyles.

[dyelan]

Lets flip it around. Why do people who have been following and identifying with an established characters experiences for 50 years now have to be alienated?

 

Make a new character.

 

Alienated how?

 

Right, focus on a word instead of discussing the whole statement. Buh bye.

[Revol]

 

What does it mean "completely underrepresented"? This already implies an ideologic stance, as there is nothing to give for granted about the very concept itself of "gay people".

These are not themes you can/should hand lightly, and this is precisely what they are doing. You have at least to admit their controversial nature, and they do not care the least: that is precisely political correctness or an ideologic stance, which is even worse (like Neil Gaiman did with his anti-catholic stances in 1602, for example).

 

I just mean with the thousands of characters in the Marvel universe, it statistically makes sense that a percentage of those characters should be homosexual to reflect real world demographics, and if a character like Iceman turns out to be gay, and from what I have read it seems he was closeted, that is actually a realistic scenario that some people experience in real life. I think that's an important aspect of what has made Marvel so important to it's fans over the decades, that it has made superheroes have human experiences that readers can relate to

 

This makes a huge amount of sense and works perfectly both realistically and in the setting of the Marvel Universe.

 

Granted, I think Marvel did this for other reasons completely but still.

 

Does not make sense at all. Comics do not have to reflect the demographic of the real world. It's a fake universe people...

 

It's a fictional universe built with fictional characters that need to be written with personalities, emotions and motivations. Jean Grey and Cyclops were partly defined by their heterosexual romance with each other. The personal lives of these characters does matter, again it's what made the Marvel universe so successful.

[faster friends]

 

What does it mean "completely underrepresented"? This already implies an ideologic stance, as there is nothing to give for granted about the very concept itself of "gay people".

These are not themes you can/should hand lightly, and this is precisely what they are doing. You have at least to admit their controversial nature, and they do not care the least: that is precisely political correctness or an ideologic stance, which is even worse (like Neil Gaiman did with his anti-catholic stances in 1602, for example).

 

I just mean with the thousands of characters in the Marvel universe, it statistically makes sense that a percentage of those characters should be homosexual to reflect real world demographics, and if a character like Iceman turns out to be gay, and from what I have read it seems he was closeted, that is actually a realistic scenario that some people experience in real life. I think that's an important aspect of what has made Marvel so important to it's fans over the decades, that it has made superheroes have human experiences that readers can relate to

 

This makes a huge amount of sense and works perfectly both realistically and in the setting of the Marvel Universe.

 

Granted, I think Marvel did this for other reasons completely but still.

 

Does not make sense at all. Comics do not have to reflect the demographic of the real world. It's a fake universe people...

 

It's a fictional universe built with fictional characters that need to be written with personalities, emotions and motivations. Jean Grey and Cyclops were partly defined by their heterosexual romance with each other. The personal lives of these characters does matter, again it's what made the Marvel universe so successful.

 

And Iceman had his own personality for 50 years. Why change it now. I have to go with the others that said if you want more diversity, create a new character.

[comix4fun]

Lets flip it around. Why do people who have been following and identifying with an established characters experiences for 50 years now have to be alienated?

 

Make a new character.

 

Alienated how?

 

Right, focus on a word instead of discussing the whole statement. Buh bye.

 

 

I think he didn't understand your usage of that word and asked you what you meant by it. Perhaps the context was clear to you and unclear to your audience. Instead of dismissing his query, perhaps fleshing out your comment with an example or clarification would get your point across more clearly.

[COI]

Lets flip it around. Why do people who have been following and identifying with an established characters experiences for 50 years now have to be alienated?

 

Make a new character.

 

Alienated how?

 

Right, focus on a word instead of discussing the whole statement. Buh bye.

 

 

You just did the exact same thing - focusing on a word instead of answering his question and elaborating your position.

 

Buh bye.

[COI]

Lets flip it around. Why do people who have been following and identifying with an established characters experiences for 50 years now have to be alienated?

 

Make a new character.

 

Alienated how?

 

Right, focus on a word instead of discussing the whole statement. Buh bye.

 

 

I think he didn't understand your usage of that word and asked you what you meant by it. Perhaps the context was clear to you and unclear to your audience. Instead of dismissing his query, perhaps fleshing out your comment with an example or clarification would get your point across more clearly.

 

This is an inappropriately logical response.

 

Buh bye.

[Park]

Lets flip it around. Why do people who have been following and identifying with an established characters experiences for 50 years now have to be alienated?

 

Make a new character.

 

Alienated how?

 

Right, focus on a word instead of discussing the whole statement. Buh bye.

 

It's two words.

 

I asked you to expand on what you meant so I could be clear as to, you know, what you meant being that those two words essentially define your entire statement.

 

Or you can go with what you went with.

[Buzzetta]

If the current time line version of iceman is gay then cool whatever. If the one pulled from the past is gay but the older one isn't - this causes too many proems and not because one is gay and one is not. The problem is that once again I've got no idea what is going on with XMen with all the screwing around with space time continuum thing. If the one pulled from the past is gay, let the one in the modern time period be gay as well.

 

To me it's another marvel timeline issue / storyline that is not well thought out. If modern iceman is not gay and the one ripped from the past is gay then as far as storyline purposes go are these really the same X-Men. Being gay is not something you forget or all of a sudden remember.

 

Which leads to another problem - who really are these XMen and where are they from?

 

Secret Wars cannot come quick enough.

[Park]

Lets flip it around. Why do people who have been following and identifying with an established characters experiences for 50 years now have to be alienated?

 

Make a new character.

 

Alienated how?

 

Right, focus on a word instead of discussing the whole statement. Buh bye.

 

 

I think he didn't understand your usage of that word and asked you what you meant by it. Perhaps the context was clear to you and unclear to your audience. Instead of dismissing his query, perhaps fleshing out your comment with an example or clarification would get your point across more clearly.

 

Yours is better than mine.

 

I hate you.

[Revol]

 

What does it mean "completely underrepresented"? This already implies an ideologic stance, as there is nothing to give for granted about the very concept itself of "gay people".

These are not themes you can/should hand lightly, and this is precisely what they are doing. You have at least to admit their controversial nature, and they do not care the least: that is precisely political correctness or an ideologic stance, which is even worse (like Neil Gaiman did with his anti-catholic stances in 1602, for example).

 

I just mean with the thousands of characters in the Marvel universe, it statistically makes sense that a percentage of those characters should be homosexual to reflect real world demographics, and if a character like Iceman turns out to be gay, and from what I have read it seems he was closeted, that is actually a realistic scenario that some people experience in real life. I think that's an important aspect of what has made Marvel so important to it's fans over the decades, that it has made superheroes have human experiences that readers can relate to

 

This makes a huge amount of sense and works perfectly both realistically and in the setting of the Marvel Universe.

 

Granted, I think Marvel did this for other reasons completely but still.

 

Does not make sense at all. Comics do not have to reflect the demographic of the real world. It's a fake universe people...

 

It's a fictional universe built with fictional characters that need to be written with personalities, emotions and motivations. Jean Grey and Cyclops were partly defined by their heterosexual romance with each other. The personal lives of these characters does matter, again it's what made the Marvel universe so successful.

 

And Iceman had his own personality for 50 years. Why change it now. I have to go with the others that said if you want more diversity, create a new character.

 

But he's not in his 50's, he's a perpetual young adult. Refreshing these characters is actually healthy for the creative development of comic books, otherwise these characters are forever stuck in the era they were created. Relevancy to contemporary life is the only way superheroes that were created 50 years ago will survive into the future, if not, they will just become relics of a bygone era.

[Park]

Lets flip it around. Why do people who have been following and identifying with an established characters experiences for 50 years now have to be alienated?

 

Make a new character.

 

Alienated how?

 

 

Psssshhhhh.

 

Brevity.

 

If he answers you first I will be upset.

 

You can have him back.

[Comicopolis]

If the current time line version of iceman is gay then cool whatever. If the one pulled from the past is gay but the older one isn't - this causes too many proems and not because one is gay and one is not. The problem is that once again I've got no idea what is going on with XMen with all the screwing around with space time continuum thing. If the one pulled from the past is gay, let the one in the modern time period be gay as well.

 

To me it's another marvel timeline issue / storyline that is not well thought out. If modern iceman is not gay and the one ripped from the past is gay then as far as storyline purposes go are these really the same X-Men. Being gay is not something you forget or all of a sudden remember.

 

Which leads to another problem - who really are these XMen and where are they from?

 

Secret Wars cannot come quick enough.

 

People were gay, then they weren't.

 

People were straight, married with kids. Then they weren't.

[Comicopolis]

Lets flip it around. Why do people who have been following and identifying with an established characters experiences for 50 years now have to be alienated?

 

Make a new character.

 

Alienated how?

 

 

Psssshhhhh.

 

Brevity.

 

If he answers you first I will be upset.

 

You can have him back.

 

Too late, he just ignored me.

[Park]

 

What does it mean "completely underrepresented"? This already implies an ideologic stance, as there is nothing to give for granted about the very concept itself of "gay people".

These are not themes you can/should hand lightly, and this is precisely what they are doing. You have at least to admit their controversial nature, and they do not care the least: that is precisely political correctness or an ideologic stance, which is even worse (like Neil Gaiman did with his anti-catholic stances in 1602, for example).

 

I just mean with the thousands of characters in the Marvel universe, it statistically makes sense that a percentage of those characters should be homosexual to reflect real world demographics, and if a character like Iceman turns out to be gay, and from what I have read it seems he was closeted, that is actually a realistic scenario that some people experience in real life. I think that's an important aspect of what has made Marvel so important to it's fans over the decades, that it has made superheroes have human experiences that readers can relate to

 

This makes a huge amount of sense and works perfectly both realistically and in the setting of the Marvel Universe.

 

Granted, I think Marvel did this for other reasons completely but still.

 

Does not make sense at all. Comics do not have to reflect the demographic of the real world. It's a fake universe people...

 

It's a fictional universe built with fictional characters that need to be written with personalities, emotions and motivations. Jean Grey and Cyclops were partly defined by their heterosexual romance with each other. The personal lives of these characters does matter, again it's what made the Marvel universe so successful.

 

And Iceman had his own personality for 50 years. Why change it now. I have to go with the others that said if you want more diversity, create a new character.

 

But he's not in his 50's, he's a perpetual young adult. Refreshing these characters is actually healthy for the creative development of comic books, otherwise these characters are forever stuck in the era they were created. Relevancy to contemporary life is the only way superheroes that were created 50 years ago will survive into the future, if not, they will just become relics of a bygone era.

 

You got this.

 

I have to say that I used to be hesitant when comics/books whatever made changes to long standing existing characters but this post sums it up pretty nicely.