|
|
Post by kurrgomaul on Jul 17, 2014 20:16:37 GMT -5
so maybe you've heard this lately, Marvel is doing revamp version of its characters Captain America & Thor, except now Captain is black, and Thor is a woman. to me this seems like a publicity stunt, and, obvously its workin because I made a thread about this so the publicity is doing its job, but I'm here to tell you why I have an issue with this....
instead of changing these characters, why not make NEW characters? We need more mainstream black superheroes...we need more mainstream female superheroes. They've done with we Green Lantern, but as far as original black superheroes, there's pretty much Falcon, Black Panther, and Static(but I don't really consider that last one mainstream). female super heroes, there's more of them than black heroes but there still underrepresented compared to white male superheroes and there's no shortage of those.
so it might it seems like marvel is being noble or pro-equal rights by doing this....to me it seems like a big advertising stunt, and its working. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 17, 2014 20:27:02 GMT -5
Right. Marvel has correctly gambled that messing with an established character will draw more attention than creating a new one. After all, twenty years ago, the comics pages were overflowing of first appearances of new characters that went nowhere. Readers got burnt out by it.
It's sad, too, because you know that female Thor and Black Captain America aren't going to stick around for long. Eventually, it will all go back to the norm (probably in time to coincide with Avengers 2).
That being said, Marvel has it's share of strong, well done female and black heroes. It's too bad we don't see Black Panther, Falcon, or Wasp elevated to the kind of status that Captain America and Thor enjoy. And, if Marvel can ever get its X-Men license back from Fox, I think a Storm film could have serious potential. That character has been ready to explode in her own right for decades now.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Jul 17, 2014 20:32:05 GMT -5
The problem with creating new characters, as I see it, is two fold:
1) You're developing properties for companies who could possibly make millions off them through various media and merchandising, but you're going to see a very small fraction of that income(if you're lucky). Marvel, in particular, has historically been awful about compensation for people's creations. (Len Wein making more from Lucius Fox, a supporting character with relatively few appearances, than Wolverine, for example.) There is a reason that creators use their best ideas in their creator-owned books-- they then control the media rights, merchandising rights, etc, and can negotiate their own deal, which can be far more lucrative in the long run that royalites from a high-selling Marvel book. This is the lesson learned from creators like Jack Kirby, Jerry Siegal, Steve Gerber, and Marv Wolfman.
2) Comics fans in general are a very conservative lot. They don't like new things. They like things that are familiar, which is why you get the same stories over and over again. The last truly successful character introduction was probably the Punisher in the mid-70s. Since then, we some fleeting popularity for characters like Spawn, Hellboy, etc, but eventually they die down to the fans the creators already had.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 20:33:50 GMT -5
instead of changing these characters, why not make NEW characters? Easy, the fanfare/controvery and hype associated with changing a character is likely to generate more sales than a new character that no one heard of. Especially in these times when many comics sell below 30,000 copies (especially where a NEW character is involved). Cap isn't new...Miles Morales has already been there. |
|
|
|
Post by travishedgecoke on Jul 17, 2014 20:40:42 GMT -5
When it overtakes the reverse, or total erasure, I might start to get worried.
Marvel swapped Tchalla out with a white hero in the kitty ears, before. (Captain America, of all guys, too. And, then wrote actual BP - Ultimate BP - as a mute who plays with lions all day, because he's animally.)
The Green Lantern movie raceswapped Pie Face, because being called Pie isn't bad enough, let's make sure none of those guys get in a movie.
Billy Dee Williams was bought out of his contract to avoid having a black Two Face, because... really there's never a good reason to pay Williams not to be in your movie.
They racebent Silver Fox for the Wolverine movie and made her Emma Frost's sister.
Ryan Murphy and a few other early Turtles talent have joked about how April went from darker skin and fros to a nice commercial white, not to mention Baxter Stockman. (Heck, there's a white Shredder coming up.)
Thor's been a woman before. He's been a frog before. A frog. He's been many different white men. Storm swung his hammer around a bit, but I think she just had the power, she wasn't calling herself Thor or anything.
Cap's been replaced before. We've seen other white blondies replace him. We've seen Bucky replace him. Is replacing him with a black man more of a stunt than replacing him without another white guy? The execution may fall flat, but in concept, I can't see it as more or less of a stunt than any other time they've replaced Steve with another guy in the mask and little head-wings.
X-has-changed has to be marketed, but it doesn't mean it's callously a stunt, just that, in order to present exciting stories, change or the appearance of new things has to be a factor you push to the front. "Nothing Ever Changes" or "No New Developments" aren't good ad copy.
Personally, I was glad Bendis used Kitty to own her ethnicity, even though she's easily read as white, not too long ago, especially as it was used in response to Remender's Havok and "I can pass! Let's me pass!" That kinda was a stunt, but it was a good stunt. Stunt's make you look.
And, how is Static not mainstream? He had a very successful cartoon. There were toys of him actual kids played with, as opposed to collectible figures for adults. He was more mainstream than Falcon, who nobody but comics readers knew about until the recent movie hit. I love Panther. Love him. But, did his cartoon even actually air on TV, or did it get dropped a few episodes in and just released on DVD?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 20:42:50 GMT -5
The reason they're doing it is to make front page news. They can't really afford commercials for comics, so they do this, and all the sudden they're talking about it on The View. I don't know if they think the audience of The View is going to run out and buy comics or not, but I bet they're counting on a little of that "Death Of Superman" mainstream speculation.
Also, generating buzz in the media may increase the value of the intellectual property. I don't think it will change their actual revenue, but may make their stock worth more, make their assets worth more to borrow against, whatever.
Also, because comic fans like us will all talk about it, and a good portion of them will buy it to see if it's good, to see if it's bad, or in hopes that it will be worth money on eBay next week.
But if there's anything I've learned from Marvel and DC, it's that the status quo never changes long term. Thor will be Thor within 15 issues. Captain America will be Captain America within 20 issues.
The thing I don't get with the Cap change is, lets say you're a superpowered crime fighter. You chose your name and your costume and you've been kicking crime's butt on your own as well as with teammates for quite a while now. One of your partners dies. Why would you assume his identity instead of continuing to be you and continuing to kick crime's butt? Because Captain America sells more units than The Falcon, that's why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jul 17, 2014 20:56:45 GMT -5
I can't blame comic readers for being so conservative. At $3.99 an issue of 20 slim pages who wouldn't be? If books cost half that amount then you would see people trying out new characters.At least I hope they would
But I agree with most here and already went on a rant on this topic today so I'm kinda spent. Marvel is very cynical and manipulative.If they truly wanted to diversify their universe they would create new characters to do it and stand behind them for the long run.They could afford it. Right now all they are doing is renting out the skin of their established characters
|
|
|
|
Post by benday-dot on Jul 17, 2014 21:06:28 GMT -5
Yeah the whole Cap thing just sort of demeans the Falcon as a great character in his own right. The suggestion is that once the big guy is out of the way, you may as well throw out your Falcon identity, because you never amounted to as much as your senior partner. When Sam Wilson goes back to being the Falcon it will really come across as a demotion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 17, 2014 21:07:39 GMT -5
Who's going to create the new characters? There's no incentive for writers or artists to create characters for multi-national corporations to exploit and get no part of the economic largesse. If you have a good idea for a character you're much better off to see if you can publish through Image, Dark Horse, etc. and reap any profits from other media.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jul 17, 2014 21:10:14 GMT -5
They're doing it as a PR stunt. Why else would they go out of their way to advertise it on The View on the Colbert Report?
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 17, 2014 21:17:10 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind seeing a new or an existing female Asgardian take over Thor's role, but don't understand the whole idea of calling her "Thor", as if that were a title rather than a personal name. That part of it just sounds silly to me. I wasn't around for the Eric Masterson or Beta Ray Bill versions, but I've never liked those either, as story ideas. Also, I've always disliked all She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel, Spiderwoman, etc characters, and I see this as more of the same, so it isn't something I'm ever likely to read.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jul 17, 2014 21:22:42 GMT -5
I can't blame comic readers for being so conservative. At $3.99 an issue of 20 slim pages who wouldn't be? If books cost half that amount then you would see people trying out new characters.At least I hope they would But I agree with most here and already went on a rant on this topic today so I'm kinda spent. Marvel is very cynical and manipulative.If they truly wanted to diversify their universe they would create new characters to do it and stand behind them for the long run.They could afford it. Right now all they are doing is renting out the skin of their established characters This is a very good point. Back when we got nice original characters like Dreadstar, Grimjack, Nexus, Captain Victory, Aztec Ace, the Elementals, etc, you could take a little more risk because the price point was more palatable and I might be wrong, but I don't think there was as much product on the market.
Fans and collectors tend to want to follow Captain Cornflakes like they always have, even if it's not so great, because they're invested in the character and the continuing storyline, and to a lesser extent than what it used to be, I think saying they have an unbroken run is a big thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 17, 2014 21:32:04 GMT -5
After all, twenty years ago, the comics pages were overflowing of first appearances of new characters that went nowhere. Readers got burnt out by it. That is true but occasionally some of those characters like the Milestone ones are actually quite good. Unfortunately nothing is being done with them. And, how is Static not mainstream? He had a very successful cartoon. There were toys of him actual kids played with, as opposed to collectible figures for adults. Yeah I would consider Static Shock mainstream. I'm pretty sure they made Happy Meals toys. I love Panther. Love him. But, did his cartoon even actually air on TV, or did it get dropped a few episodes in and just released on DVD? I think there were only six episodes of the Black Panther cartoon. The voice talent was impressive. However I was only able to watch it on BET at 3AM.  They can't really afford commercials for comics Not the same company but DC was doing TV ads for the New 52. I don't see why Marvel couldn't other than ad campaigns are expensive. It's much cheaper for Marvel to just do the talk show circuit though. But if there's anything I've learned from Marvel and DC, it's that the status quo never changes long term. Thor will be Thor within 15 issues. Captain America will be Captain America within 20 issues. Yeah Cap, Iron Man and Thor will all be back to status quo by the time Avengers 2 comes out. I've always disliked all She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel, Spiderwoman, etc characters, and I see this as more of the same, so it isn't something I'm ever likely to read. You are missing out by not reading the new volume of Ms. Marvel. Kamala Khan is easily one of the most genuinely endearing characters Marvel ever created and it's a fun book. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Jul 17, 2014 21:42:40 GMT -5
You are missing out by not reading the new volume of Ms. Marvel. Kamala Khan is easily one of the most genuinely endearing characters Marvel ever created and it's a fun book. It really is good. You can tell its a labor of love for the editor since it's essentially her life story used as the background for the character. G Willow Wilson, the writer, is just underappreciated in general. |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Jul 17, 2014 21:50:30 GMT -5
I think the issues around creator rights is a major reason more major new characters aren't being created. This isn't entirely a new thing. As far back as the late 60's, Jack Kirby was saving his good ideas for himself (only to blow them on a befuddled DC crowd), while Roy Thomas has said before that one reason he kept revamping old characters or tying new characters to established properties wasn't so much his famous love of continuity but rather that he didn't want to create anything new that other people would have control of. If you think about how many major characters have been created at DC and Marvel since the inception of Image, it's pretty stark.
Also, another factor is simply that these types of stories have worked before. Cap, Iron Man and Thor were all replaced in the late 80's and early 90's, one right after the other. And those stories were all popular and successful. Which means they will do it again.
I don't really have a problem with them doing this sort of story. At it's best, like with Gruenwald's Cap storyline, these stories exist as a way to show why, for instance, Captain America isn't about the suit or the powers, it's about Steve Rogers, the man in the suit. It's a way of examining what it means to be that specific superhero. What does it mean to be Thor? Does that meaning change if someone else is Thor? If it's a woman? How do people respond differently? These sorts of things can be interesting to play around with, especially in response to 50+ years of the previous version.
(Though I'm tired of it with Cap - he's been replaced so much, and recent stories with Cap have been so bizarre, that it really feels like they are just tired of the character and don't have anywhere left to go with him)
Still, I'm with kurrgomaul - I'd really love to see some high profile new superhero creations from the big two, especially when it comes to female and minority heroes. The new Ms. Marvel series is a good step in the right direction (it's excellent - good enough for me to buy a Marvel comic!), but I'd rather see something new and bold like Icon that wasn't a legacy character, but rather something fresh and different. I just don't get the feeling we're going to get something like that from DC or Marvel - it will probably have to come from an indie publisher at this point.
|
|
