I was randomly watching movie trailers, came across the Green Lantern trailer.

Youtube comments are great.

So, yeah... that kinda backfired on DC.

DC's fault, really.

Anyone who hasn't read the comics won't know a damn thing aside from movies.

Who did everyone else think it was gonna be who came out?

I heard Tim Drake, Jason Todd, hell I heard Wally West once.

How do you think would idiots have reacted to that?

DC 'iconic character'

Everybody in the entire world who isn't well-sourced in the GL mythology 'who the fck is Alan Scott'

DC overhyped it and took the easy way out by not only choosing the least popular of the what...five Earth GLs that are currently appearing in comics, but they chose the one that takes place outside of main continuity.

@Mercy_ said:

DC 'iconic character'

Everybody in the entire world who isn't well-sourced in the GL mythology 'who the fck is Alan Scott'

DC overhyped it and took the easy way out by not only choosing the least popular of the what...five Earth GLs that are currently appearing in comics, but they chose the one that takes place outside of main continuity.

Pretty much.

it's youtube, for every intelligent comment there are a thousand incredibly stupid and ignorant comments.

@Aiden Cross said:

it's youtube, for every intelligent comment there are a thousand incredibly stupid and ignorant comments.

Exactly.

Which is why it's full of idiots.

No, seriously...why is Alan Scott gay?

I hate the 'make this character gay' trend. If it's a character who's been ambiguous or undefined in the past, then it's whatever. But by making previously established and 'iconic' characters gay, comic companies are basically saying that they don't believe a new character that is gay can stand on their own two feet, so to speak. It's a blatant response to Marvel's wedding, which in turn, is a blatant response to boost sales to Obama publicly declaring to be in favor. It's disingenuous and annoying.

If DC wanted to shock us with someone coming out of the closet...it should have been 

@Vance Astro: lmmfao

If DC wanted to shock us with someone coming out of the closet...it should have been 

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

Egg Fu

@Vance Astro: LMAO.

@Dernman said:

@Vance Astro said:

If DC wanted to shock us with someone coming out of the closet...it should have been

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

Egg Fu

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

I don't know isn't Egg Fu too Yung to be gay?

Honestly, the fact that Alan Scott is now young again bothers me far, far more than this entire mess.

Also, what Mercy said.

I just love how people who don't read comics try to have an opinion on something they have no knowledge of. It's not gonna affect sales before they don't even read comics in the first place based on their comments. In fact, it could generate interest for some to check out the comic just to see what the hype is all about. When they say iconic, I was hoping for Wally, Alan Scott is a character from an alternative universe that no one has ever heard of. It's a big cop-out for me.

I just look at the trailer, and the fact that a commenter gets the top comment for calling someone the "f" word is just sad... Why do homophobic people actively seek gay stuffs even though they have no interest in the material itself just to bash on them? Why are they so obsessed over gay stuffs? It's just seem very ridiculous.

To be fair, there probably would be a riot if they made Batman gay. At least at Comic-Con... if it had just happened a day before... okay, maybe not.

Making Alan Scott gay is definitely a cop out, though. Seriously, I think I saw him in two issues of Checkmate a few years ago. Oh, also an issue of Justice League from the seventies where the JL and Justice Society meet. Nothing else. I didn't even know he was still alive.

EDIT: Whoops, looks like that issue was from 1969, not the seventies. How embarrassing. Although looking at that issue, there's another instance of DC copping out. They promised one of the characters was going to die (for reals), then it ended up being Black Canary's husband. Some joker named Larry Lance.

@AtPhantom said:

Honestly, the fact that Alan Scott is now young again bothers me far, far more than this entire mess.

Agreed.

And I still want Jade.

@ReVamp said:

@AtPhantom said:

Honestly, the fact that Alan Scott is now young again bothers me far, far more than this entire mess.

Agreed.

And I still want Jade.

And I want Obsidian. He was awesome. :(

@Redberry: I liked Jade more, but he was pretty dope too.

@Redberry said:

@ReVamp said:

@AtPhantom said:

Honestly, the fact that Alan Scott is now young again bothers me far, far more than this entire mess.

Agreed.

And I still want Jade.

And I want Obsidian. He was awesome. :(

Ironically Obsidian was a better executed gay character, solely for the fact that they didn't make a big freaking deal about it.

@AtPhantom: And if he does appear, its going to cause hysteria. Either he's gay and people will be pissed at the whole "Gay in genetics" thing, or he's not gay and people will be pissed because that's what comic book fans do.

@Mercy_ said:

DC 'iconic character'

Everybody in the entire world who isn't well-sourced in the GL mythology 'who the fck is Alan Scott'

DC overhyped it and took the easy way out by not only choosing the least popular of the what...five Earth GLs that are currently appearing in comics, but they chose the one that takes place outside of main continuity.

Everyone seems to think it's Hal Jordan or Jon Stewart. Feel like such a nerd when that gets on my nerves.

@aztek_the_lost said:

I'm sure those are the same people complaining about them making Green Lantern white, the problem with Green Lantern being qualified an an "iconic character" is unlike all the other iconic characters, none of the individual's who've worn the mantle are iconic

Admittedly at first I felt this was a publicity stunt (and I still think it was spun for publicity in the wake of the whole Obama/Marvel thing which has no actual excuse) but this makes perfect story sense. I mean Earth-2 is supposed to be different from previous stuff, that's the entire point, it's not just James but DC not wanting people to be confused so it's supposed to be a clean slate and everything and if that's the case, there's no reason Alan Scott shouldn't be gay. I mean the Trinity were killed in Earth-2 and nobody has a problem with that, why can't Alan Scott be gay? Earth-2 is no different from any other book that's ever been published featuring DC characters in drastically different fashions (many of which are considered DC"s greatest classics). Now if they had changed someone who was otherwise the same as their previous counterpart (which Alan is not) then I think it'd be stupid, especially if it was someone who was previously introduced in the New 52. Really this is no different then them making Batwoman gay and nobody cares about that.

Because lesbians are hot, apparently.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GirlOnGirlIsHot

No one has a problem with lesbian relationship in Mass Effect 2, but all Hell breaks loose when gay relationship is introduced.

@aztek_the_lost said:

Really this is no different then them making Batwoman gay and nobody cares about that.

It's a little different, assuming Kate Kane isn't the same character as the silver age Batwoman, which this site seems to agree on. Frankly, making an existing character gay, especially one who's kind of obscure, just seems kind of condescending to me. It's like DC is saying, "Hey, gay people, here's a character for you... you don't get any good ones, though!"

@Jotham said:

@aztek_the_lost said:

Really this is no different then them making Batwoman gay and nobody cares about that.

It's a little different, assuming Kate Kane isn't the same character as the silver age Batwoman, which this site seems to agree on. Frankly, making an existing character gay, especially one who's kind of obscure, just seems kind of condescending to me. It's like DC is saying, "Hey, gay people, here's a character for you... you don't get any good ones, though!"

I agree with this. I would be totally fine if they didn't make a big deal with throwing the word iconic around when introducing Alan Scott as gay.

@Redberry: i always found that weird. lesbians are ok but gay men no? its the same thing. my theory is because they dont have a ding-dong. or the fact that jesus was a man and god is portraied as a man. or it could be the ding-dong thing.

@KainScion said:

@Redberry: i always found that weird. lesbians are ok but gay men no? its the same thing. my theory is because they dont have a ding-dong. or the fact that jesus was a man and god is portraied as a man. or it could be the ding-dong thing.

It's because straight guys find lesbians hot and gays disgusting. They're more vocal on the internet, and they're often the majority consumers for video games and comics. I'm fine with them liking one but not the other, but do they really need to seek out gay stuffs just to bash it? Something about their obsession with gay stuffs bothers me.

Everyone knows Green Lantern can't be gay. Maybe bisexual, but not gay.

hey yeah i wonder how people would react if a character was bisexual. are there any out there?

@KainScion said:

hey yeah i wonder how people would react if a character was bisexual. are there any out there?

Shatterstar will hit anything that moves. He suggests a three way with Rahne and Rictor then another one with Layla and Rictor, he finds the pregnant body of Rahna fascinating, he can't stop staring at Monet's boobs, he hits on Thor and Northstar, he's currently in a relationship with Rictor. Rictor himself has/had a relationship with both Rahne and Shatterstar.

I'm not really bothered by the fact they made Alan Scott "gay", but more so that DC is constantly trying to appeal to further audiences who will NEVER read their comics. Sure a small minority might be interested and read an issue or two, but if they never liked comics in the first place, one minuscule change in a character's sexual preference isn't going to draw them in completely. It's just simple fact. They've tried the same thing with the films, and as much as people love the Nolan Bat films, they still won't even pick up a comic.

Comic book companies, I'm looking at you Marvel/DC, have been far too desperate this past decade. They've been trying everything to draw in new readers and honestly care very little about their dedicated readers. Now, I'm not hating on the New 52 since I'm somewhat enjoying it, but this is exactly what I'm talking about.

@Redberry: This also suggests he's a furry, so it really doesn't count.

@aztek_the_lost: So is main continuity Alan Scott still around? If so, then I guess you're right. I thought the whole reason they were making a big deal about this was it was supposed to be a pre-existing character, though.

@sesquipedalophobe said:

@Redberry: This also suggests he's a furry, so it really doesn't count.

I don't remember him hitting on anyone with animal parts. Rahne was human when Shatterstar was hitting on her.

@KainScion said:

@Redberry: i always found that weird. lesbians are ok but gay men no? its the same thing. my theory is because they dont have a ding-dong. or the fact that jesus was a man and god is portraied as a man. or it could be the ding-dong thing.

No, the truth is far less complicated: This is a male dominated society and men's interests and desires take precedent over social norms.

@aztek_the_lost said:

Admittedly at first I felt this was a publicity stunt (and I still think it was spun for publicity in the wake of the whole Obama/Marvel thing which has no actual excuse) but this makes perfect story sense. I mean Earth-2 is supposed to be different from previous stuff, that's the entire point, it's not just James but DC not wanting people to be confused so it's supposed to be a clean slate and everything and if that's the case, there's no reason Alan Scott shouldn't be gay.

My problem is that the fact that is makes story sense doesn't mean it wasn't still done only for pandering purposes. If it was done by Robinson and DC because they felt they could make better stories with it, then great, more power to them, but honestly I'm not convinced it still wasn't just a publicity stunt forced from the top.

@Redberry: PLEASE TELL ME YOU KNOW THE COMIC AND ISSUE WHERE SHATTERSTAR HIT ON THOR!!! thats gotta be epic

There are idiots on Youtube who constantly argue that Hulk always wins in a fight against Superman no matter what. I don't really give a toss about what the majority of idiotic Youtubers think especially in this case when they have no knowledge on the issue at hand.

@AtPhantom said:

@KainScion said:

@Redberry: i always found that weird. lesbians are ok but gay men no? its the same thing. my theory is because they dont have a ding-dong. or the fact that jesus was a man and god is portraied as a man. or it could be the ding-dong thing.

No, the truth is far less complicated: This is a male dominated society and men's interests and desires take precedent over social norms.

@aztek_the_lost said:

Admittedly at first I felt this was a publicity stunt (and I still think it was spun for publicity in the wake of the whole Obama/Marvel thing which has no actual excuse) but this makes perfect story sense. I mean Earth-2 is supposed to be different from previous stuff, that's the entire point, it's not just James but DC not wanting people to be confused so it's supposed to be a clean slate and everything and if that's the case, there's no reason Alan Scott shouldn't be gay.

My problem is that the fact that is makes story sense doesn't mean it wasn't still done only for pandering purposes. If it was done by Robinson and DC because they felt they could make better stories with it, then great, more power to them, but honestly I'm not convinced it still wasn't just a publicity stunt forced from the top.

I'm pretty sure James stated that he wants a gay character in his next book even before working on Earth-2, so I give him the benefit of the doubt that it's just a coincidence. He even had his gay characters kiss back in 1998 where "dem queers" would get beaten to death.

I'm calling it. Obsidian will be straight.

@KainScion said:

@Redberry: PLEASE TELL ME YOU KNOW THE COMIC AND ISSUE WHERE SHATTERSTAR HIT ON THOR!!! thats gotta be epic

Ask and you shall receive. I love X-factor. lol

@Redberry: LMAO, i was right it was epic. 'moody god' priceless. thank you very much.

@KainScion said:

@Redberry: LMAO, i was right it was epic. 'moody god' priceless. thank you very much.

I hate Jamie Maddrox for cock-blocking. XD

@sesquipedalophobe said:

I'm calling it. Obsidian will be straight.

good call. but i think they'll go even further. they'll make jade a lesbian with a really hot girlfriend and plenty of PDAs to calm the waters.

It wasn't DC that was doing the over-hypeding, it was the media and idiot fans 

@spiderbat87 said:

It wasn't DC that was doing the over-hypeding, it was the media and idiot fans

I would say the uninformed homophobes as well since they keep referring to Alan Scott as Hal. They obsess with gay topics for some reasons and just look for these gay topics just to bash it.

@sesquipedalophobe: I love Obsidian, it pisses me off they may not have him show up, and if he does, he will probably pale to what he was like before.