Okay going off comics is one thing but changing a characters sexual orientation?
-
jakeconhale — 9 years ago(October 25, 2016 04:21 PM)
Because, as ever, the core essence of the character is what is important. Changes happen all the time.
Take the Riddler, for example. He never worked for the GCPD, until he did (in one of the Arkham games, I believe). Or Mr. Freeze - I don't believe the terminally ill wife angle existed until Batman The Animated Series, but then it became integral to the character. Alfred was Bruce Wayne's confidant and aide, until he was a villain, and then everyone decided "that never happened." Multiple origin angles there too - is Alfred ex-military or not? Here he is, but he wasn't always. Batman was always Bruce Wayne until it was Terry McGinnis.
Affects other franchises as well - Nick Fury was white (even leading to a TV pilot staring David Hasselhoff) until reimagined with Sam Jackson as inspiration, now that's the current version. Other series simply replace a position with a different character - how many different people have filled the role of the Green Lantern?
We have multiple incarnations of various characters.
The whole benefit of having multiple incarnations of this franchise is to explore different angles and aspects, different takes. Otherwise, things become stale and stagnant. Predictable.
Battlestar Galactica was one way. Then it was reimagined another, with different takes on the characters and terrific implementation. Does that mean any performance achievements by the newer series are inherently undercut because it differs from the original?
Sure, some things are cast in stone by concept alone. Bat
man
, for example, will likely never be a woman as that's a different character entirely. There will always be an Alfred and Bruce's parents will always die as an instigating event leading to Bruce's insatiable obsession with fighting crime - those are givens. But, in general, one should approach each version of the character as judging said character on how well they fit into the world they exist within. There's no point in comparing David Mazouz against Adam West or Michael Keaton or Christian Bale outside of enjoyment value because the characters are not the same (whereas comparing Keaton with Kilmer and Clooney may be acceptable as they ARE the same character). Does the actor, instead, materialize the character appropriate for the world?
So, approach each character with an open mind, see how well they fit into the general idea of the character, and judge the implementation with regards to how well it works internally.
This Penguin (still a misfit social-climber with mother issues) has feelings for this Riddler (still an arrogant criminal who gets a high from out-maneuvering less clever persons). Doesn't matter if that's how it was before or whether it will be cast in stone forever after, all that matters is how well it works for this story.
Jake Meridius Conhale, at your service!
"Old Man" of the BSG (RDM) boards. -
MisterCard — 9 years ago(October 25, 2016 05:17 PM)
If I make Catwoman a black bisexual man, in what beep way do I have Catwoman? Updating characters is one thing, changing things like their sexuality or their race crosses a line. Considering how open arms everyone gets when I gay character or a black character is changed I personally don't see a difference in my reaction. Saying one is OK but not another is straight up hypocrisy.
-
-
Jeorj Euler — 9 years ago(October 25, 2016 01:38 PM)
I don't think Penguin is sexually interested in Nygma. He might have romantic feelings towards him but not sexual.
Right. I'm thinking people in uproar are not really considering all the dynamics of love particularly in regards to "one true love", that maybe a straight man could fall in love with another straight man for their individual persons' sake. Thus far neither Cobblepot nor Nygma have exhibited a pervasive pattern of homosexuality or homosexual thought, so we couldn't be sure that either one is homosexual. -
ladycopine — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 04:55 PM)
Are you trying to 'no homo' this? lol Oswald clearly said that he's in love with Ed, sure it's more romantic feelings than sexual cuz Ed is the only close person that Oswald got but that doesn't mean that Oswald would mind having sex with him. AND that doesn't mean he's gay or not gay, that doesn't mean anything because Oswald never were interested in sex or anything like that but he can still fall in love with a PERSON! We don't know about Ed tho, he's quite a riddle, he seems to really care about Oswald tho, he may be clueless about his feelings or something but if he has a romance with a woman doesn't mean that he's straight, he may be bi or same as Oswald.. I don't know, those guys are psychopaths who don't care about anything why would such a thing as homosexuality be such a big deal?