# New Captain America will be black



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 17, 2014)

Seems Marvel is making a few more changes to its characters. The comic Captain America will be black, but not the one in the movies... yet. Something tells me Will Smith is already getting fitted for the suit.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 17, 2014)

I can't wait for the reboot of Iron Man. White male privilege begone! 

She'll be a Native American transgender pansexual midget who is poor and made the suit out of recycled garbage found in the landfill she lives in.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 17, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I can't wait for the reboot of Iron Man. White male privilege begone!
> 
> She'll be a Native American transgender pansexual midget who is poor and made the suit out of recycled garbage found in the landfill she lives in.



I hope Michael Bay directs that one.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 17, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I hope Michael Bay directs that one.



Oy! That guy can only make racist stereotypes. And esplosions. 

It will make 2 billion dollars at the box office.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 17, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Oy! That guy can only make racist stereotypes. And esplosions.
> 
> It will make 2 billion dollars at the box office.



On opening weekend.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 17, 2014)

Bayhem for the win!


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2014)

goldomark said:


> She'll be a Native American transgender pansexual midget who is poor and made the suit out of recycled garbage found in the landfill she lives in.




You're basically describing Alpha Flight.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 17, 2014)

Umbran said:


> You're basically describing Alpha Flight.




Damn Canadians.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 17, 2014)

Canada is a landfill, that is true.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 17, 2014)

They are doing this to iconic characters because it seems no one can create new iconic characters!  The last iconic character created was Wolverine and after that, little or nothing, kind of sad.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2014)

Hand of Evil said:


> They are doing this to iconic characters because it seems no one can create new iconic characters!  The last iconic character created was Wolverine and after that, little or nothing, kind of sad.




It isn't like new characters haven't been introduced.  They've thrown loads out to the audience, some of them quite good.  The new Ms Marvel seems to be gaining some traction...

One major reason why they creating new icons is difficult is that print comics are kinda dyin'.  The new characters don't get exposure to the masses on the newsstands nearly as much as they used to, making it difficult for a character to break out into broader appeal.

Luckily, there are already a ton of iconic characters that the market like - so it works well to slightly alter existing icons.  Superheroes are modern mythology, and they change with retelling and the times, and that's okay.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 17, 2014)

Let's see - Wolverine was created in 1974. That gives us 40 years to find other iconic characters. 
Kitty Pride (1980)
Emma Frost (1980)
Puck (1983)
Captain Britain (1976)
Psylocke (1976)
Rogue (1981)
Elektra (1981)
Deadpool (1991)
Gambit (1990)
Cable (1986)
Nova (1976)
She-Hulk (1980)


Ultimately, it depends on what you call "iconic". If iconic means at the pinnacle of comic character popularity, then I think that's too restrictive a definition. That pretty much limits you to Batman, Superman, Spider Man, and Wolverine. Captain America and Iron Man themselves really only get there because of recent popular movies.

That said, I do think there's a point to be made that there is a relative dearth of really well known and popular characters that don't have a long (at least 30 years) history. I think that may be one reason why they're so popular - multiple generations have read them and remember them. 

I also think it takes time for characters to hit their stride. According to John Byrne, Wolverine was in danger of being cut from the X-Men when he joined the team. His advocacy for a fellow Canadian helped keep him around and they were ultimately able to find a voice for him that worked with the fans. Without that, he may easily have faded into obscurity (which probably also would have led to Sabretooth drifting into obscurity too).


----------



## Crothian (Jul 17, 2014)

As long as they are changing things I want a comic that places captain America with Martin Luther King Jr set in the 60's.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 17, 2014)

Hand of Evil said:


> They are doing this to iconic characters because it seems no one can create new iconic characters!  The last iconic character created was Wolverine and after that, little or nothing, kind of sad.




Truly iconic characters are very rare. After you get past Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and Spider-Man, the field becomes very, very thin.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 17, 2014)

billd91 said:


> Let's see - Wolverine was created in 1974. That gives us 40 years to find other iconic characters.
> Kitty Pride (1980)
> Emma Frost (1980)
> Puck (1983)
> ...




Don't see them as iconic, some are close and sure they are great characters in the list but not top tier.  DC is horrid on it breakout characters.  The youngest on the list (Deadpool) is 23 years old.  

This is just a shortcut for them.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 17, 2014)

billd91 said:


> Kitty Pride (1980)
> Emma Frost (1980)
> Puck (1983)
> Captain Britain (1976)
> ...




To me, iconic means "When I say a ____ type superhero, people picture _____".  The only one of these characters I would consider at all iconic is Deadpool.  

But how about...
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Blade
The Crow
Hellboy
Judge Dredd
Men in Black
Sailor Moon

All based on comics that are 30 years old or younger.


----------



## The_Silversword (Jul 18, 2014)

Black Captain America isnt really anything new.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 18, 2014)

Crothian said:


> As long as they are changing things I want a comic that places captain America with Martin Luther King Jr set in the 60's.




Sadly, I think the time for that has passed. Back in the 1960s, when Cap was revived, it would have made great sense and I think the Cap of that timeline came to really reflect a lot of the values of 1960s liberal America. While he was occasionally written with a view toward reflexive patriotism and national security, in the main he did come to stand for a more liberal view of freedom and justice. But then, he was being written through America's experiences of the 1960s, civil rights movements, a disillusioning Vietnam War, the growth of legal protection for civil liberties, and written in a city that's a bulwark of liberal politics. It would be totally in character.

The trouble with doing something like that again and writing a comic putting Cap with MLK is it looks like some kind of revisionism to do that with the main timeline Cap. It might fit, but it would look awkward. Also, doing so would draw attention to the contrast between main timeline Cap and the Cap of the current movies. In the movies, he's been in suspended animation and out of action for 70 years. He's a *real* man out of time, far more than the main timeline Cap ever was despite attempts to really portray him as one in the 1960s. He was only out of action 20 years.

I just don't see them doing something along those lines. I'm not even sure the current writers would feel they had the same credibility to do it as the bullpen from the 1960s would have had (had they thought of it).


----------



## JRoss (Jul 19, 2014)

Will Smith is too old. He's pretty much dead in Hollywood, anyway.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 19, 2014)

The_Silversword said:


> Black Captain America isnt really anything new.




Or, more accurately (and as mentioned in the article):

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth:_Red,_White_&_Black


----------



## The_Silversword (Jul 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Or, more accurately (and as mentioned in the article):
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth:_Red,_White_&_Black




Yeah, i was kinda making a joke, nevermind.

In other news, a female Thor isnt reallly new either...


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 20, 2014)

When was the last time a new character tapped into a deep psychic need in society? One that everyone can relate to (or even against)? "Cool" tends to have a limited shelf-life. It has to go deeper, and be more important, than that.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2014)

Kaodi said:


> When was the last time a new character tapped into a deep psychic need in society?




Well, many of the old characters still do so, which is part of why they are still around and popular after decades.  Once you have a good stock of characters you don't *need* to add more.  And the comic had characters go through a pretty solid selection process for what folks really wanted.


----------



## Richards (Jul 20, 2014)

I understand why Steve Rogers, in the situation described above, would offer the title of Captain America to his good friend Sam Wilson, who was his partner and fellow Avengers for years.  That part makes perfect sense.

What I don't get is why Sam - who has spent his superhero career airborne as the Falcon - would decide that it would be a good move to stop flying, remain on foot, and throw a shield around without the benefit of Steve's super soldier serum (and decades of training).  I could see Sam Wilson giving his Falcon costume a red-white-and-blue color scheme and the new Captain America flying through the air, playing to Sam's strengths as a superhero.  I don't really see the advantages of him dressing up in Cap's old uniform and being a relative sucky "old school" Captain America who can't handle the shield at Steve's level of proficiency.

There's even some precedent with Marvel's versions of Captain Marvel (not the "Shazam!" guy).  While the original (and some subsequent) Captain Marvels were Kree-based, for a while there we had a black lady whose costume and powers were nothing like the original Captain Marvel's: she could turn herself into all sorts of types of energy.  She didn't try casting herself into the original Captain Marvel mold and wear his old uniform and try to mimic his powers; she used her own abilities to her best advantage, and only the name was the same between the two.  I would think having the Falcon do something similar would make a bit more sense.

Hopefully there's more to this story than what we've heard thus far.  I guess we'll find out this fall.

Johnathan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2014)

> I could see Sam Wilson giving his Falcon costume a red-white-and-blue color scheme and the new Captain America flying through the air, playing to Sam's strengths as a superhero.




Why be Cap at all?  Why not become "American Eagle"?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why be Cap at all?  Why not become "American Eagle"?




Because "American Eagle" is the hero name of James Strongbow, a Native American hero who was active in a recent Captain America focused storyline "Fear Itself".

As to why be Cap at all?  Simple - America is bigger than one man.  Part of the very point of the hero is that he steps up when someone has to.  If there's nobody willing to step up as Captain America, what does that say?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Because "American Eagle" is the hero name of James Strongbow, a Native American hero who was active in a recent Captain America focused storyline "Fear Itself".




Fair enough!



> As to why be Cap at all?  Simple - America is bigger than one man.  Part of the very point of the hero is that he steps up when someone has to.  If there's nobody willing to step up as Captain America, what does that say?




Sometimes, if there's nobody properly trained to do the job, you don't fill the position.  No knock on Falcon, but as pointed out, he has a very different skillset.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sometimes, if there's nobody properly trained to do the job, you don't fill the position.  No knock on Falcon, but as pointed out, he has a very different skillset.




On the other hand, Falcon's been knocking around with Cap since 1969.  While comic book years are hazy, they've worked together a long, long time.  The idea that Falcon's's picked up a few things isn't far fetched.  He won't be as good as Steve Rogers, but then *nobody* can be as good at it as Rogers, kind of by definition.  

And, in a meta-notion, Falcon/Sam Wilson was mainstream comic's first African American superhero*.  If someone has to pick up the mantle for a while, having it be Falcon seems only fitting.


*Black Panther technically predates Falcon, but is a citizen of the fictional African nation of Wakanda - he's not an African American.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 21, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sometimes, if there's nobody properly trained to do the job, you don't fill the position.  No knock on Falcon, but as pointed out, he has a very different skillset.



Well, they are keeping Steve Rogers as a kind of a mentor for Falcon while Falcon plays the role of Captain America. I think it will be an interesting take on the character. It's not your regular Captain America, but that's why it'll be interesting.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2014)

Umbran said:


> On the other hand, Falcon's been knocking around with Cap since 1969.  While comic book years are hazy, they've worked together a long, long time.  The idea that Falcon's's picked up a few things isn't far fetched.  He won't be as good as Steve Rogers, but then *nobody* can be as good at it as Rogers, kind of by definition.
> 
> And, in a meta-notion, Falcon/Sam Wilson was mainstream comic's first African American superhero*.  If someone has to pick up the mantle for a while, having it be Falcon seems only fitting.
> 
> ...






Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well, they are keeping Steve Rogers as a kind of a mentor for Falcon while Falcon plays the role of Captain America. I think it will be an interesting take on the character. It's not your regular Captain America, but that's why it'll be interesting.



Good points.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well, they are keeping Steve Rogers as a kind of a mentor for Falcon while Falcon plays the role of Captain America. I think it will be an interesting take on the character. It's not your regular Captain America, but that's why it'll be interesting.




And, if they stay true to form, the switch will last a while, but they'll eventually have Rogers suit up again.  Same for the Thor switch.  All things are temporary in comics.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2014)

I was thinking that would be more like the Tony Stark/James Rhodes story arc.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I was thinking that would be more like the Tony Stark/James Rhodes story arc.




Similar, I expect.  The major difference will be that they are unlikely to have Sam step down because being Captain America is bad or too hard for him.  I suspect there will be some circumstance where Sam is out of action or the picture, and Steve will be forced to do something risky to regain the super soldier serum in his system, and take up the mantle again.  Sam will then step down out of respect to his long-time friend.

I mean, really, this is Steve Rogers we are talking about.  One busload of kids in danger, and he's not going to be able to stand by and let them be killed...


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 21, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Similar, I expect.  The major difference will be that they are unlikely to have Sam step down because being Captain America is bad or too hard for him.  I suspect there will be some circumstance where Sam is out of action or the picture, and Steve will be forced to do something risky to regain the super soldier serum in his system, and take up the mantle again.  Sam will then step down out of respect to his long-time friend.



Yeah, pretty much, except I wonder how they would give him his steroid serum again, seeing as the guy that made it died and no one knows how to make it. I'm guessing they will come up with some other way of him getting his powers back. In any case, I'm hoping this isn't some quick turn-around type thing. I'd like to see the Falcon character have enough time to develop into his own Captain America. 



> I mean, really, this is Steve Rogers we are talking about.  One busload of kids in danger, and he's not going to be able to stand by and let them be killed...



I'm betting they will have at least one situation where Rogers will come up on such a situation and not be able to do anything about it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 21, 2014)

Bringing up American Eagle made me flash back to this episode of Harvey Birdman.

[video=youtube_share;wKbGnzmidsw]http://youtu.be/wKbGnzmidsw?t=23s[/video]


----------



## was (Jul 22, 2014)

-I don't think making the new Captain America black is really going to cause a problem.  It's just another guy filling the position.  I'd read it and watch it at the theaters.

-What I don't get, is making Thor female.  I understand their logic that he gets his powers from his hammer Mjolnir granted to him by Odin.  But Thor is the actual guy.  It's not a superhero persona and it feels like the company was really just too lazy to come up with a complete, complex female character.  Instead, they just gave the guy a sex change.  Not something that I'd be interested in reading about or watching.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 22, 2014)

was said:


> -I don't think making the new Captain America black is really going to cause a problem.  It's just another guy filling the position.  I'd read it and watch it at the theaters.
> 
> -What I don't get, is making Thor female.  I understand their logic that he gets his powers from his hammer Mjolnir granted to him by Odin.  But Thor is the actual guy.  It's not a superhero persona and it feels like the company was really just too lazy to come up with a complete, complex female character.  Instead, they just gave the guy a sex change.  Not something that I'd be interested in reading about or watching.



From my understanding, Thor, the guy, does something that makes him unworthy of Mjolnir. Thor, the female character, is a completely different person that is deemed worthy of Mjolnir. So it isn't really a sex change like female horse Loki. It's kind of like the Captain America title being given to Falcon. It's a different character, with her own play on Thor.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 22, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> From my understanding, Thor, the guy, does something that makes him unworthy of Mjolnir. Thor, the female character, is a completely different person that is deemed worthy of Mjolnir. So it isn't really a sex change like female horse Loki. It's kind of like the Captain America title being given to Falcon. It's a different character, with her own play on Thor.




Yes.  From my understanding Thor, the person, is still going to be around, possibly still with the Avengers, but sans the power of his hammer - there have been some images floating around with him using an axe...

Then, the woman fills the role of Thor, God of Thunder, wielding Mjollnir.


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 22, 2014)

was said:


> -I don't think making the new Captain America black is really going to cause a problem.  It's just another guy filling the position.  I'd read it and watch it at the theaters.
> 
> -What I don't get, is making Thor female.  I understand their logic that he gets his powers from his hammer Mjolnir granted to him by Odin.  But Thor is the actual guy.  It's not a superhero persona and it feels like the company was really just too lazy to come up with a complete, complex female character.  Instead, they just gave the guy a sex change.  Not something that I'd be interested in reading about or watching.




Something about the news is causing a lot of people to think this.

From what I've read, it like [MENTION=6750031]Homicidal_Squirrel[/MENTION] said.  This new female get's the old Thor's hammer, with all the power and responsibility that comes with it.  

And the previous Thor picks up a battle axe from somewhere...so he will be sticking around, theoretically a lot less "superpowered".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 22, 2014)

Cool. He's not Sikh, but maybe Marvel can't be as ballsy as Vishavjit Singh.

Still would rather see Donald Glover as Spiderman, though.  



			
				was said:
			
		

> Instead, they just gave the guy a sex change. Not something that I'd be interested in reading about or watching.




Having just seen NPH doing Hedwig on stage last night, I've gotta say that the sex change of a larger-than-life germanic man can be _super_ entertaining in the right contexts. Maybe you're selling it short! 

That aside, it's not exactly like the comic-book Thor is really at _all_ faithful to much of the myth. What's one more change?


----------



## was (Jul 22, 2014)

I have no problem with a female becoming the wielder of Mjolnir and thus goddess of thunder.  The problem is that, despite their statement, they are essentially producing a female clone of an existing superhero.  Marvel's own past experiences should show them that that is doomed to fail.  They need to create a new and unique figure not just a feminine version of Thor Odinson...and Thor is his name whether or not he is the God of Thunder..also the Odinson..note the son, not dottir 

I may be wrong but, from the article, it appears that the artists behind this move are all male.  Maybe it's just me, but they might want to hire some female comic designers in their attempt to build popular female superheros.  I'm sure there are plenty of female comic designers out there who would jump at the chance.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 22, 2014)

was said:


> I have no problem with a female becoming the wielder of Mjolnir and thus goddess of thunder.  The problem is that, despite their statement, they are essentially producing a female clone of an existing superhero.  Marvel's own past experiences should show them that that is doomed to fail.  They need to create a new and unique figure not just a feminine version of Thor Odinson...



I don't think comics are as popular as they once were. not enough people are interested in them that it is worth to try and create a new character. Marvel is using the popularity of Thor to try to bring in some new readers. Thor comics already have a built in audience, so they are sure to sell a certain amount of comics. They may get a few more people interested with the advertised changes. I don't think it is profitable for Marvel to invest in a whole new character that has to be built up an audience and may fail. I don't think comic companies are willing to invest the money and time it takes to get a new character up and running, especially if there is no guarantee it will succeed. 


> and Thor is his name whether or not he is the God of Thunder..



The female Thor is keeping the name Thor. 


> also the Odinson..note the son, not dottir



The Oddinson title can stay with the regular male Thor without the female Thor needing that part of the title. She is taking the title of god of thunder, not son of Oddin. 



> I may be wrong but, from the article, it appears that the artists behind this move are all male.  Maybe it's just me, but they might want to hire some female comic designers in their attempt to build popular female superheros.  I'm sure there are plenty of female comic designers out there who would jump at the chance.



Interesting. What gives you that idea?


----------



## calronmoonflower (Jul 22, 2014)

I feel compelled to bring up the Mighty Throg.


----------



## was (Jul 22, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I don't think comics are as popular as they once were. not enough people are interested in them that it is worth to try and create a new character




...I think the money is out there.  It's just far cheaper, and cost effective, to recycle old ideas then to try out new ones.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Marvel is using the popularity of Thor to try to bring in some new readers. Thor comics already have a built in audience, so they are sure to sell a certain amount




...Unless they further alienate their traditonal readers with another unsuccessful female superhero 
clone.  Maybe it's just me, butI think people are hungry for new characters.I am just not a fan of simply recycling old superhero concepts.  I don't think it's nearly as creative and don't spend my money on it.

Please bear in mind that I'm not going off on rant.  I just don't think it's a good move.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Interesting. What gives you that idea?



comments by:
Marvel's Chief Creative Officer Joe Quesada 
The new Thor writer Jason Aaron
The new Thor artist Russell Dauterman
Marvel Editor Wil Moss

...I am not 100% certain that this creative team is all male, but it's a pretty good bet they are. It's just illogical for companies to continue to lament a lack of popular female superheros and not include female artists in their creation.  

http://time.com/#3001241/marvel-captain-america-black/
http://www.wired.com/2014/07/captain-america-announcement/
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=54083
http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/ma...ale-thor-in-new-comicbook-series-1201262561/#
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...ion-of-superhero-in-comic-series-9608661.html


----------



## delericho (Jul 22, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Seems Marvel is making a few more changes to its characters. The comic Captain America will be black...




If Captain America is to stop being Steve Rodgers, then the new guy might as well be black as not. However...



> but not the one in the movies...




This does seem to be a somewhat odd move - to a certain extent the comics and the movies now feed back into one another, which means that Marvel should really be seeking to keep the character identities in sync - Captain America should be Steve Rodgers (and should look pretty much like Chris Evans), it needs to be Tony Stark in the Iron Man suit, and so on.

Unless...



> yet.




We do know that Chris Evans is under contract for 'only' three more movies (Cap 3 and Avengers 2 and 3). And, unlike in the comic universe, he's not immortal and unaging. So, if Marvel want to continue their movie universe indefinitely and avoid reboots, they'll need some sort of succession plan - either new actors take over as Steve Rodgers, Tony Stark, et al or (perhaps better) they retire the original superhero and bring in a successor.

So perhaps this is them starting down that road - use the comics as a test-bed for a new Cap (and Thor), and if it gains traction then they can make the same change in the movie universe. And if it doesn't work out, they can do something else instead.


----------



## Fátima Little (Jul 22, 2014)

Why not? That would be cool


----------



## Umbran (Jul 22, 2014)

was said:


> I have no problem with a female becoming the wielder of Mjolnir and thus goddess of thunder.  The problem is that, despite their statement, they are essentially producing a female clone of an existing superhero.




For the moment.

Mayhaps you are not aware of this has turned out in the past?  I suspect the female Thor storyline is merely the origin story for a new female superhero.  Thor falls from grace, she picks up the mantle.  Thor eventually cleans up, and she continues on as a hero of some form or other afterwards.  Beta Ray Bill and Thunderstrike were both granted their own weapons after beign worthy of Mjollnir, so I expect this to be the pattern here as well.  She'll be the thunder goddess for a while, then she'll be her own hero.




delericho said:


> This does seem to be a somewhat odd move - to a certain extent the comics and the movies now feed back into one another, which means that Marvel should really be seeking to keep the character identities in sync - Captain America should be Steve Rodgers (and should look pretty much like Chris Evans), it needs to be Tony Stark in the Iron Man suit, and so on.




I don't think it matters that much.  Comic fans understand that the two universes are different.  Non-fans won't care.  



> We do know that Chris Evans is under contract for 'only' three more movies (Cap 3 and Avengers 2 and 3). And, unlike in the comic universe, he's not immortal and unaging.




Chris Hemsworth is on record as saying that, keeping up the Thor physique through Avengers 3 is *not* going to be easy.  He'll be in his mid-30s when Avengers 3 comes out, and keeping up that build into his 40s?  Unlikely.



> So, if Marvel want to continue their movie universe indefinitely and avoid reboots, they'll need some sort of succession plan - either new actors take over as Steve Rodgers, Tony Stark, et al or (perhaps better) they retire the original superhero and bring in a successor.
> 
> So perhaps this is them starting down that road - use the comics as a test-bed for a new Cap (and Thor), and if it gains traction then they can make the same change in the movie universe. And if it doesn't work out, they can do something else instead.




I don't think so.  The current plan has Avengers 3 out in 2017.  Tests today won't mean much by, say, 2020 when they'd be really trying to recast.  At least, not any more than the tests they've already doe in the past - Cap, Thor, and Iron Man have *all* been other people in the comics in the past.  

I think this is where the "Phases" of the Marvel strategy come in.  The first Phases amount to "Take some of our most iconic heroes, make really good movies".  Now, they start to play off the accumulated good opinion - with things like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant Man.  Broaden the stable, use more Marvel IP, but try to keep the movies good.  Soon, the word becomes "If it is a Marvel movie, see it!"  Marvel has so much IP to play with, they can then take their time with recasting / revisiting the Avengers.

I think the things happening in the current comics continuity are far more simple - response to public desire to see superhero universes show more diversity.  After a run as Thor, the new female hero may have some traction.  After a run as Cap, Falcon will get a boost when he returns to his more normal duties.  By that time, the Netflix shows will hopefully be running (with Jessica Jones and Luke Cage), Agent Carter, and so on.


----------



## delericho (Jul 22, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I don't think it matters that much.  Comic fans understand that the two universes are different.  Non-fans won't care.




I presume, though, that Marvel will want to recruit _new_ fans for the comics. Those are most likely to be people who have first seen the movies. And if they pick up a copy of Thor and Captain America, they'll expect the character they encounter there to match what they're used to.

Every issue is _somebody's_ issue #1.



> Chris Hemsworth is on record as saying that, keeping up the Thor physique through Avengers 3 is *not* going to be easy.  He'll be in his mid-30s when Avengers 3 comes out, and keeping up that build into his 40s?  Unlikely.




Exactly.



> I think this is where the "Phases" of the Marvel strategy come in.  The first Phases amount to "Take some of our most iconic heroes, make really good movies".  Now, they start to play off the accumulated good opinion - with things like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant Man.  Broaden the stable, use more Marvel IP, but try to keep the movies good.  Soon, the word becomes "If it is a Marvel movie, see it!"




Eh. That may be the strategy, but I suspect they're in for a rude awakening on that one.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 22, 2014)

delericho said:


> I presume, though, that Marvel will want to recruit _new_ fans for the comics.




Sure, but as a distant third or fourth place priority.  Think, for a moment - worldwide, the Avengers movie made something like $1.1 billion.  Meanwhile, in the month of August, 2012, Marvel's gross overall comics sales was estimated at about $10 million.  So, we might say that an entire year of comic sales - of *all* Marvel titles, and gross, not net profit, is about 10% of the profit from just one of these movies.

So, while getting folks to transit from movies to comics is nice, these thigns are really playing on two different fields, economically.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 22, 2014)

was said:


> ...I think the money is out there.  It's just far cheaper, and cost effective, to recycle old ideas then to try out new ones.



I completely agree with you. My guess is that Marvel doesn't want to take the gamble and lose out on a new character. How much does it cost to set up a new character with it's own comic line?


> ...Unless they further alienate their traditonal readers with another unsuccessful female superhero
> clone.



That's always a possibility, but I think, at the moment, Marvel is seeing bigger profits and more popularity from its movies than it sees from it's comics. I may be wrong. It's just a guess on my part, but I think that's what's guiding some of these changes. It's possible that in the future we'll see a movie where Thor is deemed unworthy of Mjolnir, and a female character becomes the new Thor. Women are becoming more interested in comic character movies, especially since they end up putting guys that look like Chris Hemsworth to play the lead roles. The way comic characters are being consumed by the public has changed. I think from a profitability stand point, comics are not as profitable as TV or movies. What works in comics doesn't necessarily work in the other two, and as comics decrease in popularity, so does the way in which characters are introduced and promoted. 


> Maybe it's just me, butI think people are hungry for new characters.I am just not a fan of simply recycling old superhero concepts.  I don't think it's nearly as creative and don't spend my money on it.
> 
> Please bear in mind that I'm not going off on rant.  I just don't think it's a good move.



I'm sure people are hungry for new characters, but are there enough people hungry for new characters to make it financially lucrative for Marvel, or other comic companies, to create a new character?



> comments by:
> Marvel's Chief Creative Officer Joe Quesada
> The new Thor writer Jason Aaron
> The new Thor artist Russell Dauterman
> ...



Maybe there just aren't as many female artist or writers in the comic industry, or even interested in writing or drawing comics.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 22, 2014)

delericho said:


> If Captain America is to stop being Steve Rodgers, then the new guy might as well be black as not. However...



Very true. It could be anyone. I don't know, but it's possible that they just figured Falcon would be the guy Rogers would trust with the Captain America title. He just happens to be black. 


> This does seem to be a somewhat odd move - to a certain extent the comics and the movies now feed back into one another, which means that Marvel should really be seeking to keep the character identities in sync - Captain America should be Steve Rodgers (and should look pretty much like Chris Evans), it needs to be Tony Stark in the Iron Man suit, and so on.
> 
> Unless...
> 
> ...



I think you have far more faith in the creativity of movie writers than I do. I doubt they'll get that creative. In fact, even if they did make Captain America black or Thor a woman in the movies, I think they'd still do a terrible re-boot while doing it.


----------



## was (Jul 22, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Maybe there just aren't as many female artist or writers in the comic industry, or even interested in writing or drawing comics.




While there are undoubtedly far more male artists out there, a trip to any comic convention wil convince you that there are plenty of talented female artists out there hungry for an opportunity.  I've only been to three in my life, but I was impressed by the quality of their work.  Unfortunately, most work for the independent companies.  The big two don't seem to present female artists many opportunities.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 22, 2014)

calronmoonflower said:


> I feel compelled to bring up the Mighty Throg.



Why do you hate Mighthor?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 22, 2014)

was said:


> While there are undoubtedly far more male artists out there, a trip to any comic convention wil convince you that there are plenty of talented female artists out there hungry for an opportunity.  I've only been to three in my life, but I was impressed by the quality of their work.  Unfortunately, most work for the independent companies.  The big two don't seem to present female artists many opportunities.



I completely agree with you. In fact, I'd go a bit further and say that the big comic companies are partially responsible for the lack of female writers and artists. Comics weren't really geared towards attracting a female audience - at least not the super hero comics. Really, how many female characters have their own line? Wonder Woman? Who else would the general public know?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 22, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Why do you hate Mighthor?



Because Calron is racist.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 22, 2014)

Seems legit.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 22, 2014)

Truth... it hurts. Ask ZB... after he finishes cleaning the toilets on the 5th floor.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 23, 2014)

5th!? Since when did he get a promotion?


----------



## was (Jul 23, 2014)

I wonder if the new female Thor character will be similar to Brunnhilde.
http://www.comicvine.com/valkyrie/4005-6809/


----------



## Henry (Jul 23, 2014)

I understand why they do these transitions for a while, but re-designing an established character still makes me uneasy on a meta-level.

It's one thing to re-cast due to age or fitness for a movie part, but if Marvel decided to cast the new Spectrum/Captain Marvel in an Avengers movie as a caucasian lesbian because they wanted to take the character in a new direction, i'd be as annoyed by it. Let the character speak and stand on its own merits, not just riding on the cachet of an existing name. I didn't like Bucky Barnes becoming cap in the 70's, nomad in the 80's, nor freaking Thunder Frog in the whenevers (I gave up on comics in the 90s) and it doesn't strike me as the correct move now either.

(And for the pedantic, yes I know Monica Rambeau was using Captain Marvel when there were other Captain Marvels - I was glad to hear she changed the name to something of her own, too.)


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 23, 2014)

Henry said:


> I understand why they do these transitions for a while, but re-designing an established character still makes me uneasy on a meta-level.
> 
> It's one thing to re-cast due to age or fitness for a movie part, but if Marvel decided to cast the new Spectrum/Captain Marvel in an Avengers movie as a caucasian lesbian because they wanted to take the character in a new direction, i'd be as annoyed by it.



I'd like to see this movie... especially with an XXX rating.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Really, how many female characters have their own line? Wonder Woman? Who else would the general public know?




Well, it isn't like the general public can really identify that many comic book characters to begin with.  Before certain recent movies?  Batman (Robin and Batgirl by extension) thanks to Adam West.  Superman.  Spider Man.  Wonder Woman.  Who else?  With the start of the superhero movie boom, we can add Wolverine and X-Men to that list.  Now, the Avengers. But still, the stock of characters that folks that aren't comic fans can name is probably pretty small overall, so it isn't all that strange that the public knows next to no female comics characters.

For a long time, there was a vicious cycle - comics were originally drawn for a male audience, so they got a male audience.  Once your audience is male, if you think about how you should serve your audience, you come up doing more of the same.

Breaking that cycle is the right thing to do, morally speaking.  It can be, however, difficult to manage in a business sense.   It isn't a sure thing that a new, female character will be a commercial success.  What does it help to break that cycle, if it cuts into the ever-thinning profits of a print publishing business?  I think Marvel is trying to make good, more slowly than many would like, but they see the writing on the wall, and are taking at least some steps.

If the public responds favorably, maybe those openings for female artists might start showing up...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Really, how many female characters have their own line? Wonder Woman? Who else would the general public know?




Currently?  No earthly idea.  Historically?  Double digits.  Recognizable to the general public?  WW & Batgirl, and probably not many besides that.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 23, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Currently?  No earthly idea.  Historically?  Double digits.  Recognizable to the general public?  WW & Batgirl, and probably not many besides that.



Exactly.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 23, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Breaking that cycle is the right thing to do, morally speaking.  It can be, however, difficult to manage in a business sense.   It isn't a sure thing that a new, female character will be a commercial success.  What does it help to break that cycle, if it cuts into the ever-thinning profits of a print publishing business?  I think Marvel is trying to make good, more slowly than many would like, but they see the writing on the wall, and are taking at least some steps.



Exactly. Screw morals. We're talking business here. Morals isn't going to make Marvel a billion dollars. They're probably not willing to spend the money required to try out a new character and bring in female artists and writers to create those characters. 



> If the public responds favorably, maybe those openings for female artists might start showing up...



Maybe.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I completely agree with you. In fact, I'd go a bit further and say that the big comic companies are partially responsible for the lack of female writers and artists. Comics weren't really geared towards attracting a female audience - at least not the super hero comics. Really, how many female characters have their own line? Wonder Woman? Who else would the general public know?




I think it's probably not much of an issue of the big comic companies not providing opportunities to female artists and writers. I doubt they would only look at male artists and writers or otherwise keep women out of those roles. I think it probably has more to do with momentum in the medium. The artists and writers have been predominantly male, making comics for predominantly male audiences, so naturally they have been drawing and writing what they like or what appeals to themselves and their audience. Thus you get balloon-body heroines and dead girlfriends giving male characters a chance to get our their angst. That style and subject matter is kind of a juggernaut so it's totally understandable why women would not be moved by it and choose not to get involved in the industry. The big publishers have been responsible for creating that juggernaut, but I'd have a hard time saying that it restricts opportunity rather than undermines the attraction of the career.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Exactly. Screw morals. We're talking business here. Morals isn't going to make Marvel a billion dollars.




Well, that will ultimately depend upon whether the folks who are agitating for diversity put their money where their mouths are.



> They're probably not willing to spend the money required to try out a new character and bring in female artists and writers to create those characters.




In Thor, it looks like they are trying out a new character, using an old one to build the origin story.  And there is a new Ms. Marvel as well, who is using an old name, but is otherwise an entirely new character, written by G. Willow Wilson, who was not regularly working for Marvel before this.  That series so far seems to be doing well.

Not fast, but some motion in the right direction.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 23, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Well, that will ultimately depend upon whether the folks who are agitating for diversity put their money where their mouths are.



They won't, or at least not enough of them will. 


> In Thor, it looks like they are trying out a new character, using an old one to build the origin story.  And there is a new Ms. Marvel as well, who is using an old name, but is otherwise an entirely new character, written by G. Willow Wilson, who was not regularly working for Marvel before this.  That series so far seems to be doing well.
> 
> Not fast, but some motion in the right direction.



Yeah, but it's still piggybacking on an established character. If they had any faith in the character, they'd allow it to be a new character.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 23, 2014)

billd91 said:


> I think it's probably not much of an issue of the big comic companies not providing opportunities to female artists and writers. I doubt they would only look at male artists and writers or otherwise keep women out of those roles.



I wouldn't say they purposefully alienated female writers and artist. They did, however, foster an environment that wasn't female friendly. 







> I think it probably has more to do with momentum in the medium. The artists and writers have been predominantly male, making comics for predominantly male audiences, so naturally they have been drawing and writing what they like or what appeals to themselves and their audience. Thus you get balloon-body heroines and dead girlfriends giving male characters a chance to get our their angst. That style and subject matter is kind of a juggernaut so it's totally understandable why women would not be moved by it and choose not to get involved in the industry. The big publishers have been responsible for creating that juggernaut, but I'd have a hard time saying that it restricts opportunity rather than undermines the attraction of the career.



Exactly. Marvel, DC, and the other companies did nothing to bring in women. Sure, now they are starting to try to attract female writers, artists, and fans, but that has not always been the case.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> If they had any faith in the character, they'd allow it to be a new character.




Right.  In the same post, you say that folks wouldn't buy, but suggest Marvel should have "faith in the character".  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I'm afraid.

If the public is unlikely to buy, then they either need to not try at all, or to use every trick in the book to encourage buying.

And, for Ms. Marvel, the plan seems to be working - Ms. Marvel seems to be outselling Iron Man, Wonder Woman, and Captain America, for example.  I'll take the critical acclaim and reports of decent sales over your judgments.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 23, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Right.  In the same post, you say that folks wouldn't buy, but suggest Marvel should have "faith in the character".  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I'm afraid.



It doesn't make sense to you because you misunderstood me. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough. Marvel doesn't have any faith that a brand spanking new character is going to be profitable. at least it won't be profitable enough to justify the expense of putting a new character out. That character can be of any gender, race, or sexual orientation. It doesn't really matter. It's just a new character that has a big chance of failing financially for the company. So they bring out a "new" character by piggybacking on an established character. When I say they don't have faith in new characters, I mean that in the sense that they don't have 

As to the public's willingness to fork over their cash for comics, that comment was in reference to your comment about people who are calling for diversity.







Umbran said:


> Well, that will ultimately depend upon whether the folks who are agitating for diversity put their money where their mouths are.



Yes, there are people calling for diversity, but that doesn't mean they are going to do anything else besides talk about it. If they wanted to, they could have made their wishes known with their wallets years ago. If there were enough people willing to do so, this type of change could have occurred previously. It hasn't. I don't think it will. At least not through comics. Movies on the other hand? Maybe.

So... two different points, not really related to each other. At least not in the way I am talking about it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 23, 2014)

Umbran said:


> And, for Ms. Marvel, the plan seems to be working - Ms. Marvel seems to be outselling Iron Man, Wonder Woman, and Captain America, for example.  I'll take the critical acclaim and reports of decent sales over your judgments.



Critical acclaim and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Critical acclaim and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.




As already noted - outselling Captain America, Iron Man, and Wonder Woman.  The acclaim is merely icing on the cake of sales.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 23, 2014)

Umbran said:


> As already noted - outselling Captain America, Iron Man, and Wonder Woman.  The acclaim is merely icing on the cake of sales.



Meh... those are all comics that have been around for a long time and have become stagnant. Why else would they be changing up Captain America? It isn't because the comic is selling like awesome sauce. Wonder Woman has been around for years doing the same thing. My guess, they'll change her up into a Chinese transexual to get some attention. As for Ironman, I think Downey ruined the comic. He is far more entertaining than the comic Stark.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Marvel doesn't have any faith that a brand spanking new character is going to be profitable.




If they have buying pattern data to support that brand spanking new won't be profitable (and if anyone has the data, they do) then of course they wont' have faith in it.  You, of all people, would likely call them fools if they had faith that went against the data, would you not?  Hm?

So, this isn't a flaw, and not a criticism. It is knowing the market, and working with reality.  So, they find a way to do a character that is new, sharing just the name of the previous hero.  Not the set of powers, not the personality.  Not the background. Nothing but the name.  



> So... two different points, not really related to each other.




How is the public's willingness to fork over cash *not* related to the profitability of a new character?  Unless the cash is going to... I dunno, animal shelters or something... then the points must be pretty strongly linked together.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 23, 2014)

Umbran said:


> If they have buying pattern data to support that brand spanking new won't be profitable (and if anyone has the data, they do) then of course they wont' have faith in it.  You, of all people, would likely call them fools if they had faith that went against the data, would you not?  Hm?



Nope. I'd probably use far more colorful language that would make ENworld's word filter crash. 



> So, this isn't a flaw, and not a criticism. It is knowing the market, and working with reality.



Right. I wasn't saying it was a flaw or criticism them for it. It was just a statement of what is. 







> So, they find a way to do a character that is new, sharing just the name of the previous hero.  Not the set of powers, not the personality.  Not the background. Nothing but the name.



To me, at least, it feels like a crappy reboot. Nothing really new. If you want a new character, make a new character. If you want a reboot, reboot the character. 



> How is the public's willingness to fork over cash *not* related to the profitability of a new character?  Unless the cash is going to... I dunno, animal shelters or something... then the points must be pretty strongly linked together.



As I mentioned, one statement was about new characters. The other was about people asking for 'diversity.' What's confusing you? I'm not sure I can explain it any clearer without knowing what it is that you aren't understanding.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 27, 2014)

Food for thought:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/26/opinion/yang-comics-superheroes/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Food for thought:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/26/opinion/yang-comics-superheroes/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7




I can't argue with the general point - sure, superheroes (and well beyond that - genre novels, movies, TV, and so on) would do well to represent the breadth of American culture.  But there's still that business issue - there's two ways to get these things to be commercially viable.  1) have a current audience that does not care about the color of the hero's skin (or gender, or whatever demographic difference is being represented), or 2) have members of that demographic buying the comics to make them a success.

This may be an area where indie comics are useful.  The big companies have the issue of not being able to change quickly, and being generally risk-averse.  Smaller indie companies, willing to take more risks, can help create a market that doesn't exist.

That is, of course, if they solve the problem of how the print end of the business is problematic for everyone.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 27, 2014)

Changing demographics will probably alter the bottom line of the biz...but that will take a long time.

However, there's another issue he's raising.  If you keep giving people in your target audience what they ask for and taking it away, or in some way fail to commit to a path, you make them gunshy.  Why spend your time, your money and emotionally invest in a character with an obvious virtual expiration date on it?

My cousin went through this in a different arena.  Post-Katrina, he was working here doing the same job he did in New Orleans.  However, all the time he was here, he talked about moving home.  He also complained about not getting raises at the same rate as other new hires, despite working just as hard.  The problem was that his pining for NOLA got back to his supervisors: they had no reason give raises to someone who was vocally talking about leaving when they could promote those more committed to the job...or at least, less obviously working with one foot out the door.

So when you have characters recast with different genders, races, or species, history tells us that those changes will be temporary.  You're catering to a portion of your audience, yes, but with a gimped concept.  That's going to temper the fanbase's reaction.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> However, there's another issue he's raising.  If you keep giving people in your target audience what they ask for and taking it away, or in some way fail to commit to a path, you make them gunshy.  Why spend your time, your money and emotionally invest in a character with an obvious virtual expiration date on it?




When, other than in comics, does any character not have an obvious expiration date?  In movies, you get maybe a trilogy - six hours of the character's adventures.  In novels, the same - the short story genre you may get 20 pages of a character!  TV series typically run for seven seasons or less, but often only one or two seasons.  In no medium other than comics does time get so stretched such that the character can be the same, basically forever.  So, the idea that people cannot commit to short-run characters is a bit weak.

This is not to say that the gender or race swap is preferable to having a full-fledged hero of another race or gender.  

But, let us be clear about something else - it isn't like Marvel doesn't have female characters, or characters of other races.  Asian, Hispanic, Indian, and Asian characters all exist, and have for decades.  Female characters exist, and have for decades.  Depiction and use of these heroes have been imperfect, I grant you - females have been depicted as eye-candy, members of various races have been stereotyped, and so on.  But, as the times have changed, so have the depictions of the heroes.  And, arguably, Marvel has generally been slightly ahead of the culture curve in their use - not *far* ahead, but slightly.

There is an issue, that these characters do tend to be "B-list".  But Marvel's only partially in control of who is on the A-list.  It is, for the most part, a popularity contest.  Wolverine, for example was never supposed to be a big deal*.  But, the readers loved him, so he got more and more spotlight, until he became a commercial driving force for the X-Men.  Marvel is always in hot competition with others - they listen to their sales numbers, and they adapt.  If they are sluggish to put such characters to the fore, it is at least in part because the audience doesn't respond to them.

So, how much risk is the company supposed to take on moral grounds?  How much are they supposed to respond to critics when the audience isn't buying?




* "It was just one of those secondary or tertiary characters, actually, that we were using in that particular book with no particular notion of it going anywhere." - Herb Trimpe.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 27, 2014)

Showing my age here, but I got this when it came out many years ago... What If Jane Foster found the Hammer of Thor?  From 1978,  She dubbed herself Thordis.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 27, 2014)

Umbran said:


> When, other than in comics, does any character not have an obvious expiration date?  In movies, you get maybe a trilogy - six hours of the character's adventures.  In novels, the same - the short story genre you may get 20 pages of a character!  TV series typically run for seven seasons or less, but often only one or two seasons.  In no medium other than comics does time get so stretched such that the character can be the same, basically forever.  So, the idea that people cannot commit to short-run characters is a bit weak.




Though there ARE exceptions, you're right in general.  But I- and the writer of that CNN piece to which I linked- are only talking about the context of the comic book market in particular.  And the history is clear: heroic mantles get passed in a cycle, not in a line.  The general rule in comics is that the originator of the heroic ID almost invariably winds up taking it back from whomever it was passed to, regardless of whom it was passed to.

So, when a woman or minority character takes up the ID of Iron Man, Captain America, etc., you, as a reader, know that this is temporary 99% of the time.  And because it is so probably temporary! it becomes a bit of a self-fufilling prophecy that this character will not succeed.  At least, not in terms of generating a significant uptick of female or minority interest in the character. 



> This is not to say that the gender or race swap is preferable to having a full-fledged hero of another race or gender.
> 
> But, let us be clear about something else - it isn't like Marvel doesn't have female characters, or characters of other races.  Asian, Hispanic, Indian, and Asian characters all exist, and have for decades.  Female characters exist, and have for decades.  Depiction and use of these heroes have been imperfect, I grant you - females have been depicted as eye-candy, members of various races have been stereotyped, and so on.  But, as the times have changed, so have the depictions of the heroes.  And, arguably, Marvel has generally been slightly ahead of the culture curve in their use - not *far* ahead, but slightly.




Change takes time.  It took a long time for Thomas Kalmaku to tell Hal Jordan to stop calling him "Pieface", but he did do so.

But personally, I always appreciated it more when minority and female characters were presented with their own identities, and allowed to fail or succeed on their own merits.  I loved Luke Cage, Tyroc, Falcon, etc., and was disappointed that James Rhodes had to give up being Iron Man...then cheered when he became War Machine.  (Even though it meant he was wearing the "obsolete" stuff...)

The young black woman from Louisiana who became Captain Marvel was another disappointment.  I liked her backstory and the character, but she was merely renting the name.  We (other minority comic book buyers I was buddies with) knew it wouldn't last.  It was a sore point- why couldn't she have her own name, one more appropriate to her power suite?  (Eventually, she got it.)



> There is an issue, that these characters do tend to be "B-list".  But Marvel's only partially in control of who is on the A-list.  It is, for the most part, a popularity contest.  Wolverine, for example was never supposed to be a big deal*.  But, the readers loved him, so he got more and more spotlight, until he became a commercial driving force for the X-Men.  Marvel is always in hot competition with others - they listen to their sales numbers, and they adapt.  If they are sluggish to put such characters to the fore, it is at least in part because the audience doesn't respond to them.




I'm perfectly cool with characters being introduced and failing or succeeding.  What I'm not cool with is the whole second-hand nature of so many of the more recent attempts.

It's like our heroes come from the thrift shop.



> So, how much risk is the company supposed to take on moral grounds?  How much are they supposed to respond to critics when the audience isn't buying?




Again, the borrowed glory issue arises.

If publishers want to make female/minority characters, I'm all for it.  But why must their origins be inextricably tied to having a white male predecessor?  Stereotypes or not, the ones who have always been female or minority at least have their own identity.

Sink or swim, there's an intrinsic value there.

Besides, it kind of begs the question: those female and minority characters who fail...is it because of their minority status, or a lack of compelling storylines and/or art?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 28, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm perfectly cool with characters being introduced and failing or succeeding.  What I'm not cool with is the whole second-hand nature of so many of the more recent attempts.
> 
> It's like our heroes come from the thrift shop.
> 
> If publishers want to make female/minority characters, I'm all for it.  But why must their origins be inextricably tied to having a white male predecessor?




I think, if you take a real look at Marvel over history, you'll find far more female and minority characters starting out with their own identities than borrowed ones.  Marvel has tried, many times over, presenting characters who were not inextricably tied to a white male predecessor.  But, historically, they didn't generally take off enough to be A-listers.

You can ask if the stories were bad.  You can ask if the art was bad.  You can also ask whether those who were agitating for minority characters took the always-negative route.  If you want to see minority characters, there must be action to support *sales* of those characters when they are presented.  It isn't enough to say, "It is bad that they don't have enough minority representation."  That must be coupled with, "Hey, folks!  Here's some minority representation - let them know you want to see more by BUYING!"  Moral change comes most quickly when it is also good business.

In the meantime, Marvel does what it can - if the current minority buying patterns are not sufficient to carry a hero on their own, they'll loop in majority fans by linking to a title that already has good sales.  The run of Sam Wilson as Captain America will sell.  And lots of white boys will see a patriotic black hero.  And they'll see a strong female hero in Thor.  And those are good things.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 28, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I think, if you take a real look at Marvel over history, you'll find far more female and minority characters starting out with their own identities than borrowed ones.




I'm not asserting otherwise.  What I'm asserting is that those that DO start off with borrowed glory face a different, and I think harder, path to success.



> Marvel has tried, many times over, presenting characters who were not inextricably tied to a white male predecessor.  But, historically, they didn't generally take off enough to be A-listers.




Again, I have no problem with characters that sink or swim on their own merits.  I personally would rather see a slew of B-Listers- short lived or long lasting- that had their own identity as opposed to a parade of "successors" to established heroes whom history tells us won't hold that position long-term.  They're gimped characters from the get-go.



> If you want to see minority characters, there must be action to support *sales* of those characters when they are presented.




Minority comics fans DO vote with their dollars.  There just aren't as many of us out there.  Even if we ALL bought a title featuring The Falcon, it wouldn't be a top-tier comic book without some number of white readership.

To illustrate the point with history from another field:  Rap- as minority-centric a genre of music as there is in the USA- didn't start raking in big numbers until young white teenagers discovered it.  Industry surveys I saw back in 2006 or so indicated between 70-80% of all rap consumers were Caucasian.



> It isn't enough to say, "It is bad that they don't have enough minority representation."  That must be coupled with, "Hey, folks!  Here's some minority representation - let them know you want to see more by BUYING!"  Moral change comes most quickly when it is also good business.




Right, but what I'm saying is that there is a non-trivial number of minority readers who _don't/won't_ buy derivative minority/female characters precisely because those characters' run in that ID will be temporary at best.  They're voting "no" with their dollars because, from their perspective, the comic book company is pandering.

(FWIW, that wasn't me- when I bought Marvel & DC comics, I bought them _all..._or as close to it as made no difference.)



> In the meantime, Marvel does what it can - if the current minority buying patterns are not sufficient to carry a hero on their own, they'll loop in majority fans by linking to a title that already has good sales.  The run of Sam Wilson as Captain America will sell.  And lots of white boys will see a patriotic black hero.  And they'll see a strong female hero in Thor.  And those are good things.




Launching a minority/female character by linking into a successful title is entirely possible without having said character actually take on the titular role in an obviously temporary stint.


----------

