I thought they had a good base reason. This Green Lantern's son was grumpy, and a hero. Still, the son was a much less notable character than his father. However, in rebooting the comic universe Green Lantern's age got rolled back from "middle-aged guy with adult grumpy son" to "twentysomething." So they were conserving the grumpyness of Earth 2 and moving it to someone a bit more well known. Honestly I'd rather have this newly reinvented version of Green Lantern by grumpy than one of the various Robins suddenly announcing he's grumpy. [Edit why is your forum replacing the salient word under discussion with "grumpy"?]

I have similar feelings. I believe, from what I've read, that they were originally planning on debuting a new character who is grumpy, but then decided to retcon a character instead of putting the thought and effort into making a new superhero. It just feels kind of lazy.

I have to agree. A mainstream Green Lantern would have been fine. Like, maybe the one from the movie that people other than the twelve remaining comic book fans have actually seen.

The crazy uncle Green Lantern that only gets wheeled out on holidays? That's not iconic unless he's small and square and you double-click him (kinky!) to launch an application.

I haven't been keeping up with comics, though, so maybe that's what they meant.

(For what it's worth, I do think it's better than a new character, since new creations don't seem to have much staying power anymore.)

Points off from Woot!'s score, though, for bringing up a topic we're apparently not allowed to talk about. I know some non-heterosexual folks who are going to be mighty grumpy about what you're calling them.

"But if you're going to do this, if you're going to say, "Okay, we're joining the 21st century," why shoehorn grumpyness onto a guy who's been not grumpy since 1941?"

i haven't been keeping up with dc comics in years, decades, even, but how long has it been since dc comics has come up with a completely new starring superhero character that's stuck around? if they wanted to make a "major" character grumpy, it's probably going to be one that's been around 50 years anyway.

Wow, this article was a waste of time. Way to p**syfoot around being homophobic. You don't even read them anymore, why do you care?

It's all gimmick anyway Marvel has had an "out of the closet" superhero for ages now. I do agree that they should have taken a new character or previously ambiguous character to turn, but it really is time for an alternative lifestyle hero as a role model for troubled kids. Stop thinking "oh no they are ruining GL" and think more like, this might save some poor kids life by helping them know that they aren't alone out there...

JBlack801 wrote:Wow, this article was a waste of time. Way to p**syfoot around being homophobic. You don't even read them anymore, why do you care?

Do you have to try very hard to miss the point by such a wide margin, or does it come naturally?

no1 wrote:"But if you're going to do this, if you're going to say, "Okay, we're joining the 21st century," why shoehorn grumpyness onto a guy who's been not grumpy since 1941?"

i haven't been keeping up with dc comics in years, decades, even, but how long has it been since dc comics has come up with a completely new starring superhero character that's stuck around? if they wanted to make a "major" character grumpy, it's probably going to be one that's been around 50 years anyway.

You make a good point about new characters not having staying power, but (and this is just my subjective opinion) turtling up and sticking to the golden oldies rather than trying to develop new characters is part of why comics have gotten stale to so many readers.

There's something to be said for a universe that essentially doesn't change so that you can pick up an issue of Spiderman and know instantly what ol' web head's going to be up to, but for me personally a dynamic, changing universe with heroes who rise and fall is more intriguing.

llandar wrote:Do you have to try very hard to miss the point by such a wide margin, or does it come naturally?

i think it's a lifestyle choice.

taihlo wrote:Stop thinking "oh no they are ruining GL" and think more like, this might save some poor kids life by helping them know that they aren't alone out there...

I'm not saying they ruined GL at all, just that suddenly making a regular character grumpy trivializes the supposed message they're trying to convey.

I totally agree that it's time for superheroes to have lives as diverse as their readers. We can debate how much a superhero's sex life belongs in comics regardless of their orientation, but I'm all for characters who are genuinely WHOEVER they are.

EDIT: Irredeemable does a great job at this (and is a fantastic comic in general if you haven't read it): the big bad villain reveals his obsession with Plutonian is as romantic as it is evil.

Where I get turned off is when the character wakes up to a reboot and suddenly is something completely different.

llandar wrote:You make a good point about new characters not having staying power, but (and this is just my subjective opinion) turtling up and sticking to the golden oldies rather than trying to develop new characters is part of why comics have gotten stale to so many readers.

There's something to be said for a universe that essentially doesn't change so that you can pick up an issue of Spiderman and know instantly what ol' web head's going to be up to, but for me personally a dynamic, changing universe with heroes who rise and fall is more intriguing.

just thought of one. gaiman's sandman (though not technically a superhero).

i think part of the problem with developing new characters is that the big comics companies are (for the most part) driven by the illustration but character development is (usually) the province of writers. when they start paying writers as much as artists, then they'll attract more (better) writers and new character development (including a long-lasting grumpy lead) would naturally follow.

no1 wrote:just thought of one. gaiman's sandman (though not technically a superhero).

i think part of the problem with developing new characters is that the big comics companies are (for the most part) driven by the illustration but character development is (usually) the province of writers. when they start paying writers as much as artists, then they'll attract more (better) writers and new character development (including a long-lasting grumpy lead) would naturally follow.

Then it's clearly on us to start a comic book company. Can you draw?

llandar wrote:sticking to the golden oldies rather than trying to develop new characters is part of why comics have gotten stale to so many readers.

I don't know about that. I think it's more a quality issue. Too many comics have become D&D campaigns in spandex. Who can beat up who, what's the exact number of charges in the widget of doom, and who's REALLY a member of what team (finally, this time...until next time).

People still tell good stories about Sherlock Holmes, and they don't do it by spending half an hour cataloguing the contents of Watson's pockets or showing how he decided to be a consulting detective.

I always thought Aquaman was "not heterosexual". He's a cut good-looking guy who with blonde hair who rides dolphins.

Batman is the obvious choice for conversion to an iconic grumpy superhero.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Did you always know that you wanted a grumpy character at the forefront of the Earth 2 series?
JAMES ROBINSON: The original version of Alan Scott was an older man, and he had a superpowered son, Obsidian, who was grumpy. The fact that Scott was young now [thanks to a universe-wide reboot] meant Obsidian no longer existed. I thought it was a shame that DC was losing such a positive grumpy character. I said, “Why not make Alan Scott grumpy?” To Dan DiDio’s credit, when I suggested it to him, there wasn’t a moment’s hesitation.

I'm in total agreement! Why go screwin' around with such an iconic character just to be "mainstream"? (*(A%^&^&%# mainstream!

I think Obsidian's sexuality has always been questionable since he was molested by a foster parent.

WOW I am a huge woot fan and grumpy and this piece smacks of homophobia. I am shocked that WOOT would allow this to be posted. There is nothing, NOTHING wrong with being grumpy and the person that wrote this piece clearly feels that there is. It is more than his disappointment about a comic book character being rewritten. He sees it as a pox or curse on the character. How far we have to go...

Sorry, I couldn't concentrate on the rest of the article after you said "And why the hell does it have to be the Green Lantern? What'd he do?"

You clearly think it's some form of punishment.

I won't be back, but I had to let you know why.

amurry wrote:WOW I am a huge woot fan and grumpy and this piece smacks of homophobia. I am shocked that WOOT would allow this to be posted. There is nothing, NOTHING wrong with being grumpy and the person that wrote this piece clearly feels that there is. It is more than his disappointment about a comic book character being rewritten. He sees it as a pox or curse on the character. How far we have to go...

It's possible I'm not seeing it because I'm not grumpy and so lack the ability to personalize the issue. However, I read the original post as (a) after the buildup, this falls flat, and (b) after seventy years of the character marrying women, relaunching him as grumpy is sort of vaguely condescending to the reader, in a "we needed a character, and nobody else wanted to use him" kind of sense.

But I may also be wrong.

(Seriously, though, the word filter? That's pretty tasteless.)

amurry wrote:WOW I am a huge woot fan and grumpy and this piece smacks of homophobia. I am shocked that WOOT would allow this to be posted. There is nothing, NOTHING wrong with being grumpy and the person that wrote this piece clearly feels that there is. It is more than his disappointment about a comic book character being rewritten. He sees it as a pox or curse on the character. How far we have to go...

I think you should read his post again. He isn't upset the character is grumpy, he is upset the character is suddenly grumpy when previously he was not. It's like saying they are going to make the green lantern red. I don't have a problem with the color red I have a problem with the fact that he is the GREEN lantern and now he is red.

amurry wrote:WOW I am a huge woot fan and grumpy and this piece smacks of homophobia. I am shocked that WOOT would allow this to be posted. There is nothing, NOTHING wrong with being grumpy and the person that wrote this piece clearly feels that there is. It is more than his disappointment about a comic book character being rewritten. He sees it as a pox or curse on the character. How far we have to go...

You missed my point, although maybe it's because I wrote it clumsily. I'm not implying there's anything wrong with being grumpy at all. I'm saying it's insincere to take an existing character and suddenly declare him/her grumpy to sell some comics.

llandar wrote:You missed my point, although maybe it's because I wrote it clumsily. I'm not implying there's anything wrong with being grumpy at all. I'm saying it's insincere to take an existing character and suddenly declare him/her grumpy to sell some comics.

Great point. I get exactly what you mean and think it sucks that some people think you are a homophobe.

While the only comics I ever really read were ones like, "The Haunt of Fear" and "Tales from the Crypt," I do hate it when characters are changed just to make a little extra money.

I think if I were grumpy I would be insulted that they think they can simply re-label a character and expect me to buy into it because I can "identify" with it. I have no problem with a grumpy super-hero, but I also think they should have created a new character and actually put some forth some effort.

newmutant wrote:...
I won't be back, but I had to let you know why.

you just signed up today and you're already leaving?
*snicker*

newmutant wrote:Sorry, I couldn't concentrate on the rest of the article after you said "And why the hell does it have to be the Green Lantern? What'd he do?"

You clearly think it's some form of punishment.

I won't be back, but I had to let you know why.

Yep, that one sentence, despite the claim that the opposition isn't really about the orientation -- and the bizarro word filter in this forum that doesn't even let us use a word even the New York Times regularly uses these days -- have left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and sad about the hundreds of dollars I've spent here on woot.

I'd also add that if it's not that unusual for someone to only finally come out years after dating, sleeping with and marrying the other sex, why should it be any more unusual for a character in a comic book to finally do so? And we're talking about a genre where people's personalities, allegiances, and powers shift all the time -- within and across alternate realities -- so why should this shift be the one that suddenly bothers some of you?

thomwatson wrote:Yep, that one sentence, despite the claim that the opposition isn't really about the orientation -- and the bizarro word filter in this forum that doesn't even let us use a word even the New York Times regularly uses these days -- have left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and sad about the hundreds of dollars I've spent here on woot.

I couldn't agree more.

green lantern g_a_y
old news
saw ryan reynolds movie last summer

llandar wrote:You missed my point, although maybe it's because I wrote it clumsily. I'm not implying there's anything wrong with being grumpy at all. I'm saying it's insincere to take an existing character and suddenly declare him/her grumpy to sell some comics.

Llandar -- you wrote the original post that appears as from wootbot? Can you explain then what you did mean when you asked "what'd he [the Green Lantern] do" to be redefined as a g-a-y man? Can you see that it does sound like you consider it a bad thing?

I'm a little defensive, yes. Many of the comments just feel to me like the straight version of mansplaining... straight people telling g-a-y folk what they should or shouldn't think, and how they should or shouldn't feel. We've been down this road before , for example, when a vocal number of straight men complained that other players shouldn't be allowed to have same-sex romance options in video games because it makes them uncomfortable, and that Mass Effect's Shepard, especially (who can be a woman, a Paragon or a Renegade, which apparently doesn't affect continuity in their minds), just shouldn't be able to be played as a g-a-y man because that option hadn't been permitted previously, and therefore would break continuity.

We've seen video after video this week alone of ministers calling for our deaths, saying we should be imprisoned behind electric fences, and teaching three-year-olds to sing "Ain't no h-o-m-o-s gettin into Heaven."

It's not surprising, then, that we're sometimes a little defensive, when we see yet another post that suggests, at least in part -- though perhaps with the best intentions -- that one company's way of giving us some visibility and not hostility was the wrong thing to do.

ewookie wrote:are you sure that's what left a bad taste in your mouth? lol

Way to make my point.

thomwatson wrote:Way to make my point.

thank you for making mine

why is everyone so grumpy?

thomwatson wrote:Llandar -- you wrote the original post that appears as from wootbot? Can you explain then what you did mean when you asked "what'd he [the Green Lantern] do" to be redefined as a g-a-y man? Can you see that it does sound like you consider it a bad thing?

I'm a little defensive, yes. Many of the comments just feel to me like the straight version of mansplaining... straight people telling g-a-y folk what they should or shouldn't think, and how they should or shouldn't feel. We've been down this road before , for example, when a vocal number of straight men complained that other players shouldn't be allowed to have same-sex romance options in video games because it makes them uncomfortable, and that Mass Effect's Shepard, especially (who can be a woman, a Paragon or a Renegade, which apparently doesn't affect continuity in their minds), just shouldn't be able to be played as a g-a-y man because that option hadn't been permitted previously, and therefore would break continuity.

We've seen video after video this week alone of ministers calling for our deaths, saying we should be imprisoned behind electric fences, and teaching three-year-olds to sing "Ain't no h-o-m-o-s gettin into Heaven."

It's not surprising, then, that we're sometimes a little defensive, when we see yet another post that suggests, at least in part -- though perhaps with the best intentions -- that one company's way of giving us some visibility and not hostility was the wrong thing to do.

I can understand what you are saying. In some small way, I can understand too, where you are coming from.

Being a woman, and part of the gaming community, I have heard it all. "Go make me a sandwich," "Get back in the kitchen," "Are you fat?," "You're good so I bet you're ugly," and so on. I have been called many names and upon defending myself, I have been ganged up on by other males. My favorite was that I was just a "Bitter Woman"- hence the nickname. But that doesn't mean I automatically assume all men are bad or flip out when someone makes the slightest remark.

I understand there are foolish fools out there who will hate you because you are grumpy, because you are a certain race, because you are a woman, or whatever. There are a lot of foolish fools in this world. But lashing out or being uber sensitive is not the answer. I guess my point is, all this anger at a person like Llandar is misplaced. He has tried to explain himself, but it seems like many are not willing to listen. He is a nice guy. Maybe he shouldn't have said one of those lines pointed out, but that doesn't automatically make him a homophobe or bad guy.

Let's just chill out and save our rage for the real foolish fools, like the aforementioned ministers.

abitterwoman wrote:"You're good so I bet you're ugly,"

i hope this means you mercilessly crushed them!