37231
Post by: d-usa
Via NPR:
COMICS
A Starkly Different Iron Man: Black, Female, And 15 Years Old
July 6, 201612:21 PM ET
Her name is Riri Williams. She reverse-engineered her own version of the Iron Man battlesuit in her MIT dorm room, got kicked out, and struck out on her own to do the superhero thing. Clumsily at first, but she's learning fast. So fast she's impressing Tony Stark, who's questioning his status as the Marvel Universe's go-to, super-powered Campbell's soup can. Readers first met her in the March issue of Invincible Iron Man.
And according to an interview in TIME with Brian Michael Bendis, who's writing both that Iron Man title and this summer's comics crossover event, Civil War II, she's about to take over for Tony Stark when Invincible Iron Man relaunches in the fall.
It's the latest in a series of moves that's slowly but steadily transforming the Avengers' roster from a team with more white dudes than a Harold Bloom syllabus into a super-group that more accurately reflects the world off of the comics page.
First came Miles Morales, a black Latino kid who stepped into the role of Spider-Man. Next came Kamala Khan, a teenage Muslim from New Jersey who assumed the title of Ms. Marvel, and America Chavez, a Latina lesbian who adopted the name of Golden Age hero Miss America. Recently Sam Wilson, the former Marvel hero The Falcon, took over as Captain America (not for the first time). Two years ago, Jane Foster, the girlfriend of Marvel's resident God of Thunder, replaced him, becoming the female Thor.
It's worth noting that in every one of these cases, the new character has simply assumed an existing hero's shtick. That's because it takes years for brand-new characters to establish themselves, if they ever do; there's certainly no guarantee readers will accept an original hero in a genre as steeped (read: wallowing) in history as mainstream superhero comics.
Having a new character take on the name and powers of a long-established hero offers an effective shortcut, and one that assures three different but coequal outcomes:
1. The sheer name-recognition of the superhero in question will generate coverage, like this blog post;
2. A subset of hardcore fans who believe superhero comics should be fixed in a permanent, "iconic" stasis (read: should always remain exactly the way they were when these fans were thirteen years old) will rise up in protest; and
3. Readers who have rarely seen themselves represented in superhero comics in such a high-profile way — people of color, LGBT people, people of different faiths — will at least investigate a new take on a character. Whether or not they stick with it depends, of course, entirely on the execution; representation does not guarantee readership, nor should it. But comics, like any medium, grow more interesting, more relevant, and more revelatory as they grow less monolithic. And that's what moves like this set out to do.
In that interview in TIME, Bendis was asked why it's taken so long for changes like this to occur in comics. He said:
Talking to any of the older creators, it's the thing they said they wish they'd done more of — reflecting the world around them. It just wasn't where the world was at at that time. Now, when you have a young woman come up to you at a signing and say how happy she is to be represented in his universe, you know you're moving in the right direction.
And the Time article:
There’s a new Iron Man. Well, Iron Man for now. She’s still working on the name. The events at the end of the comic book event series Civil War II will result in Tony Stark stepping out of the Iron Man suit and a new character, Riri Williams, taking over, Marvel tells TIME. (Note: Tony’s departure doesn’t mean you know the end to Civil War II yet.)
Riri is a science genius who enrolls in MIT at the age of 15. She comes to the attention of Tony when she builds her own Iron Man suit in her dorm. Creator and Iron Man writer Brian Michael Bendis spoke exclusively to TIME about the creation of Riri Williams with book artist Stefano Caselli and Marvel’s increasingly diverse cast of characters.
TIME: How did you come up with the character of Riri Williams?
Bendis: One of the things that stuck with me when I was working in Chicago a couple of years ago on a TV show that didn’t end up airing was the amount of chaos and violence. And this story of this brilliant, young woman whose life was marred by tragedy that could have easily ended her life—just random street violence—and went off to college was very inspiring to me. I thought that was the most modern version of a superhero or superheroine story I had ever heard. And I sat with it for awhile until I had the right character and the right place.
As we’ve been slowly and hopefully very organically adding all these new characters to the Marvel Universe, it just seemed that sort of violence inspiring a young hero to rise up and act, and using her science acumen, her natural born abilities that are still raw but so ahead of where even Tony Stark was at that age, was very exciting to me.
What have we seen of her so far in the Iron Man comics?
In the latest issue of Iron Man, Tony is in a lab talking to himself, and he’s already aware that there’s some student at M.I.T. that’s reverse-engineered one of his old armors all by herself in her dorm room. He’s aware of her immediately.
What’s been the reception of the character so far (before this announcement)?
Thankfully because of my involvement in the creation of Miles Morales and Jessica Jones and some other characters, it’s getting the benefit of the doubt from even the most surly fans. There are fans who say, “Show us the new stuff,” and then there are fans who say, “Don’t do anything different from when I was a kid.” So when you’re introducing new characters, you’re always going to have people getting paranoid about us ruining their childhood.
I’ve been down this road with Miles Morales, Jessica Jones, Maria Hill. I knew I was in good hands with Mike Deodato and other artists who are helping visualize Riri.
Marvel Comics’ diverse new cast has stirred some controversy among a subset of fans.
Some of the comments online, I don’t think people even realize how racist they sound. I’m not saying if you criticize you’re a racist, but if someone writes, “Why do we need Riri Williams we already have Miles?” that’s a weird thing to say. They’re individuals just like Captain America and Cyclops are individuals. All I can do is state my case for the character, and maybe they’ll realize over time that that’s not the most progressive thinking.
But increasingly we see less and less of that. Once Miles hit, and Kamala Khan hit and female Thor hit—there was a part of an audience crawling through the desert looking for an oasis when it came to representation, and now that it’s here, you’ll go online and be greeted with this wave of love.
I think what’s most important is that the character is created in an organic setting. We never had a meeting saying, “we need to create this character.” It’s inspired by the world around me and not seeing that represented enough in popular culture.
Why did it take so long to turn the Avengers from a team of mostly white dudes into a more diverse array of characters?
Talking to any of the older creators, it’s the thing they said they wish they’d done more of—reflecting the world around them. It just wasn’t where the world was at at that time. Now, when you have a young woman come up to you at a signing and say how happy she is to be represented in his universe, you know you’re moving in the right direction.
I don’t want to spoil anything for fans—
More people are going to be upset that they think they know the ending to Civil War II now than anything we just talked about. But I can tell you just because we’re hearing what we’re saying doesn’t know you mean how Civil War II ends. We’re not telling you the end, at all.
What led Tony Stark to a place where he’s stepping out of the suit?
We’re in the middle of a very big Tony Stark storyline—actually three storylines converging. His best friend died, his company is collapsing and he’s finding out who his biological parents were all at the same time. That’s stressful for a character who is wired the way Tony is wired and has dependency issues the way Tony does.
Tony is also a master at not paying attention to the thing that’s most important and distracting himself with Avengers stuff. How that all shakes out such that Tony is no longer in the armor? You’ll have to wait to find out for the end of Civil War II. But it does create a path or Riri Williams, who Tony will know and will be interacting with very shortly in the comics.
How do they meet?
One of the things Tony does to distract himself from all the things going on in his life is he goes to find this young woman who is flying around the middle of America in an armor that’s not completely made to try to find out what her deal is.
It’s hard to subtly fly around in Iron Man armor.
You imagine that Tony has Iron Man armor on his Google Alerts.
He’s also aware that this young woman is flying by him in terms of how quickly she’s doing it. Her brain is maybe a little better than his. She looks at things from a different perspective that makes the armor unique. He can’t help but go maybe I should buy her out.
73007
Post by: Grimskul
Eh. While diversity is not a bad thing, I don't like how they trumpet it every time in such a forced fashion of effectively telling naysayers "if you don't like it you're racist" or at the very least you're almost immediately dismissed for having no good basis for disliking them. If you want a character to stand on its own, it has to be more than just "I'm more Iron-Man than Iron Man, plus I'm a minority". Most of the strongest characters in fiction has less to do with their ethnicity/race and more to do with their personality or abilities, like Sherlock's wit and intellect or Frodo's bravery.The way the article seems to describe her also puts her into some kind of Mary-Sue light from how she's supposedly on par or above Tony. If you're going to pass the torch, make them work for it more IMO.
23
Post by: djones520
The diversity thing is certainly feeling a little forced to me, but I'm ok with this.
A number of years ago I played in a Marvel RPG group, and one of my characters was an Iron Man knock off. Basically a rich guy to smart for his own good decided to do exactly this, follow in Tony Starks foot steps. So this resounds well with me. I just wish it didn't feel like every time I was hearing about the comics now a days it was in some way we were getting "more diversity" shoehorned in.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
They left Amadeus Cho out, who replaced Banner as the Hulk. And X-23 replaced Logan as Wolverine.
Honestly, the Heroes we grew up with are being replaced. We didn't fall in love with them because they were WHITE, we fell in love with them because of the people inside. Bruce Banner transformed from his inner pain and rage, Cho transforms cuz he thinks it's cool. Tony Stark built the costume because it saved his life, Riri did it cuz she thinks it's cool. Thor had to be taught humility and didn't truly find himself until his power was taken away. Jane Foster is just a perfect human being who happened to become ill with cancer. The fact is, the heroes were heroes because they were human and overcame their failures to still protect others.
I don't give a damn about the color of the skin of any of them. I give a damn when the heroes who have proven themselves get replaced by uppity punks who think it's a cool thing. Khan, Cho and this new Riri are all examples of "oh, that looks cool; I should do that cuz I can!!"
Stan Lee had a PERFECT explanation of the heroes in the movie Mallrats. It seems Bendis should really go back and listen to Stan's words. Because he is undoing all the work Stan did before.
73007
Post by: Grimskul
 timetowaste85 wrote:They left Amadeus Cho out, who replaced Banner as the Hulk. And X-23 replaced Logan as Wolverine.
Honestly, the Heroes we grew up with are being replaced. We didn't fall in love with them because they were WHITE, we fell in love with them because of the people inside. Bruce Banner transformed from his inner pain and rage, Cho transforms cuz he thinks it's cool. Tony Stark built the costume because it saved his life, Riri did it cuz she thinks it's cool. Thor had to be taught humility and didn't truly find himself until his power was taken away. Jane Foster is just a perfect human being who happened to become ill with cancer. The fact is, the heroes were heroes because they were human and overcame their failures to still protect others.
I don't give a damn about the color of the skin of any of them. I give a damn when the heroes who have proven themselves get replaced by uppity punks who think it's a cool thing. Khan, Cho and this new Riri are all examples of "oh, that looks cool; I should do that cuz I can!!"
Stan Lee had a PERFECT explanation of the heroes in the movie Mallrats. It seems Bendis should really go back and listen to Stan's words. Because he is undoing all the work Stan did before.
Exalted! Took the words straight out of my mouth!
68674
Post by: The Grumpy Eldar
I thought they were returning the status quo... Not altering it further. I just hope that this is a few issues thing. If not I'll be dissapointed. This whole thing feels so forced with the Hulk, Thor, Spidey and now Iron-Man.
Same thing is happening with tv show adaptations and movie adaptations to... Ghost in the Shell, Attack on Titan (movie) and the upcoming Deathnote Netflix show.
It became way more noticeable with lots of SJW stuff going on lately to. So it's even harder not to notice or give a hoot.
72740
Post by: Kojiro
Perhaps the worst part of all this is the fact they are replacements, not additions, in many cases.
73007
Post by: Grimskul
 Kojiro wrote:
Perhaps the worst part of all this is the fact they are replacements, not additions, in many cases.
Indeed, it's not like the different Robins they have where each is distinct from the other while still being part of the Bat Family.
54233
Post by: AduroT
I like Miles, I like Kamala, She-Thor was stupid. Not seen enough of this new girl to have an opinion but I'll be sad if Tony is gone because I really like his snark and dialogue.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
I think ttw85 hit the nail on the head; Marvel seem to be working on the basis they can take unknown/new characters and instantly fill the shoes of iconic characters that are defined by in some cases up to 70-odd years of history. It works with things like BuckyCap and FalCap as those two characters have a history of their own, and it's there's a direct 'lineage' from the orignial Cap; they take on the job basically because they're the people he trusts to do it. Similarly, Morales as Spidey works, he's continuing the legacy of the hero that inspired him...
But with things like X-23 being Wolverine because.. well, she has claws, or Jane Foster being Thor because she's been in some Thor comics, there's much less significance to the change, there's no 'reason' for them to inherit these titles. Then with AmaHulkus Cho and now the new Iron (Wo)Man, they're just passing on the legacy to characters we have no real reason to care about or invest in.
That's not to say I'm against new characters, but I'd much rather they actually invent some new characters, rather than just putting new names to old suits. Seems like there's a lack of originality, or perhaps they just don't think new titles/characters will sell. Either way, the current MO seems counterproductive to me.
Come to think of it, the Young Avengers run from a while (well, about 10 years now) handled this kind of thing much better. New characters with ties to old mainstream ones, but not direct copies and all with something more to them than just 'I'm now Hero X because I want to be' ('Iron Lad' was a time travelling future villain, 'Asgardian' was more related to Scarlet Witch than Thor, 'Hulking' was in fact a Skrull, Patriot was no supersoldier, just using Mutant Growth Hormone ect)... That's much better than just 'here's a new Iron Man/Hulk/Whoever, same suit, different name...'
16387
Post by: Manchu
 djones520 wrote:I just wish it didn't feel like every time I was hearing about the comics now a days it was in some way we were getting "more diversity" shoehorned in.
Me too! But telling a story that earns critical acclaim from a circle beyond your peers is a lot harder than cooking up an angle sure to generate soundbytes/clickbait. Kojiro wrote:Perhaps the worst part of all this is the fact they are replacements, not additions, in many cases.
They are replacements only in the short term - they will just be additions in the long term. In order to become "permanent" (as much as anything can be in comics), a change has to earn a lot of money or else somehow become the wider public's default brand experience. After the novelty of this "news" wears off, only the tiny and shrinking demographic that reads comics will remember that Iron Man is anyone but Tony Stark (a.k.a., Robert Downey Jr).
72740
Post by: Kojiro
 Paradigm wrote:
That's not to say I'm against new characters, but I'd much rather they actually invent some new characters, rather than just putting new names to old suits. Seems like there's a lack of originality, or perhaps they just don't think new titles/characters will sell. Either way, the current MO seems counterproductive to me.
I think they know, deep down, that if you publish Wolverine alongside X-23, people who want the feral, claw wielder comic are already invested in Wolverine and will continue to do so. X-23 is redundant on those qualities. If people are going to pick up her book, she needs something more, or you need to take Wolverine off the shelf. Same for Thor, Iron Man etc.Make the new character the only option to force people into giving them a shot.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
I think the biggest travesty is the CGI crap they are trying to pass off as art.
196
Post by: cuda1179
Does anyone else feel like things would be significantly less tolerated if they got RID of a minority character. Personally I'd like to see a Hasidic Jew take over as the new Blade.
Please don't attach non wargaming images to dakka.
Reds8n
16387
Post by: Manchu
 cuda1179 wrote:Does anyone else feel like things would be significantly less tolerated if they got RID of a minority character.
Eh, it's all a storm in a teacup. When the New 52 rolled out, there were complaints about Barbara Gordon finally being allowed out of her wheelchair. The complainers felt that this was tantamount to getting rid of a handicapable character. You'd be hard pressed to find an "article" floating around about that "controversy" written lately.
84157
Post by: DutchWinsAll
 TheCustomLime wrote:I think the biggest travesty is the CGI crap they are trying to pass off as art.
Agreed. I haven't really enjoyed a Marvel series since the early issues of Exiles. I find myself reading more comics now than ever, but pretty much no Marvel. Can't say I ever bought an Iron-Man comic, so this changeup does nothing for me really.
Movies have gotten to the point for me where I don't need to shell out more money to read the same tight-suited fistfights on paper slathered with a thin veneer of do-goodery reasons.
I'll stick with Vertigo and Image to consistently push the boundaries of comics and entertain me immensely whilst doing it.
76278
Post by: Spinner
It's a major comic book universe. Status quo is pretty much king. Even if he gets replaced, Tony's going to be Iron Man again sooner or later. Otto Octavius didn't get to stay as Spider-Man. Dick Grayson sure as hell wasn't going to be Batman forever. Hal Jordan can murder his bosses and sooner or later, he's going to be Green Lantern again. Has a big-name superhero ever actually passed on the mantle for a solid length of time and not taken it up again later?
I can't think of one, but, y'know. Comics.
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
My word, marvel will completely lose me if they go down this road.
196
Post by: cuda1179
 Spinner wrote:It's a major comic book universe. Status quo is pretty much king. Even if he gets replaced, Tony's going to be Iron Man again sooner or later. Otto Octavius didn't get to stay as Spider-Man. Dick Grayson sure as hell wasn't going to be Batman forever. Hal Jordan can murder his bosses and sooner or later, he's going to be Green Lantern again. Has a big-name superhero ever actually passed on the mantle for a solid length of time and not taken it up again later?
I can't think of one, but, y'know. Comics.
Blue Beetle comes to mind...... or Ant Man. Other than that, no one I can recall.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
I dislike Miles because I didn't enjoy his shoehorned origin story. Had he shown up in earlier issues (Bendis has done the whole run and knew his goal; he could have easily done this) to either be following and watching Spidey, making us wonder who this kid was, or how he was able to trail Spidey so easily, it would have made the kid FIT. Instead, I can't get over "oh, I got bit by the same spider and have powers, but I was too scared to use them til my hero fell." I get that people like Miles. Had he been the original Spidey in Ultimates, and Peter never got bit, I'd probably love the character. But we got a new guy to replace Peter when he died before the first shovels of dirt hit his grave.
And X-23 is actually a clone of Wolverine, so I can kinda get her replacing him...but Wolverine was a tragic figure who knew nothing except loss and pain and he had to figure it all out himself, until he finally found the strength to let guys like Xavier and Nightcrawler in. As soon as he found Laura, and they sniffed out the clone-relationship, he began fixing her. She didn't have memory loss, no question who she was (granted, she was created to be a weapon which SUCKED for her), and she didn't go through quite the mental anguishes that Logan did.
I actually liked when Bucky and Falcon took up the mantle of Cap, as they were established characters who followed in his footsteps and helped the hero stand when he was laid low. And Rhodey taking over as Iron Man when Stark's demons needed him to take a hiatus. But that's not what we're getting. No established characters, we're getting the heroes who have established themselves being tossed out for a group of people who give us nothing to attach to. I know I sound bitter. I am. I'm very disappointed in Marvel here.
72740
Post by: Kojiro
Spinner wrote:. Has a big-name superhero ever actually passed on the mantle for a solid length of time and not taken it up again later?
What do you define as a 'solid length of time'. It's been two years since Thor lost.. everything (and then an arm!) and we still don't even know why, let alone witnessed him doing anything to rectify the situation.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Spinner wrote:It's a major comic book universe. Status quo is pretty much king. Even if he gets replaced, Tony's going to be Iron Man again sooner or later. Otto Octavius didn't get to stay as Spider-Man. Dick Grayson sure as hell wasn't going to be Batman forever. Hal Jordan can murder his bosses and sooner or later, he's going to be Green Lantern again. Has a big-name superhero ever actually passed on the mantle for a solid length of time and not taken it up again later? I can't think of one, but, y'know. Comics.
Every Green Lantern ever? EDIT: Well, they tend to come back in some form or another. Kyle Rayner is the White Lantern now, isn't he?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
I couldn't care less- they could literally turn Tony Stark into a trans-sexual black panda bear- it doesn't really matter. Every significant thing that ever happens in comics essentially gets retconned eventually.
12313
Post by: Ouze
My jimmies remain unrustled. After all, I remember when Rhodey was Iron Man in the comics (not War Machine, that came later).
Iron Man isn't inextricably entwined to Tony Stark, just as Thor (the office) is not inextricably entwined to Thor Odinson (the person). There have been other people in the office of Thor, there have been other people in the job/suit of Iron Man.
5394
Post by: reds8n
The above is just 4 years away remember !
Elon Musk better get busy.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
They should change the name of this character to "Mary Sue". It sounds like a teenager's fanfiction. I like the fact that they want to add more diversity to comics, but please do it with well-written characters. Not with something that sounds like the very definition of mary sue. Also, we desperately need more superheroes that are Russian. Why do Russians always need to be villains? I feel discriminated against.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Iron_Captain wrote:They should change the name of this character to "Mary Sue". It sounds like a teenager's fanfiction. I like the fact that they want to add more diversity to comics, but please do it with well-written characters. Not with something that sounds like the very definition of mary sue. Also, we desperately need more superheroes that are Russian. Why do Russians always need to be villains? I feel discriminated against.
Indeed but they should do it old school style: We need Katrina, Super Tractor Factory Manager! (from tractor factory #427). She can carry a multibarreled rocket launcher and say things like "Say hello to little Kate!" while firing away. 
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Iron_Captain wrote:They should change the name of this character to "Mary Sue". It sounds like a teenager's fanfiction. I like the fact that they want to add more diversity to comics, but please do it with well-written characters. Not with something that sounds like the very definition of mary sue. Also, we desperately need more superheroes that are Russian. Why do Russians always need to be villains? I feel discriminated against.
Natasha Romanov, Piotr Nikoliavic Rasputin and Illyana Rasputin aren't Russian enough?
Black widow, Colossus and his sister Magik, for anyone who is unfamiliar.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
timetowaste85 wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:They should change the name of this character to "Mary Sue". It sounds like a teenager's fanfiction. I like the fact that they want to add more diversity to comics, but please do it with well-written characters. Not with something that sounds like the very definition of mary sue. Also, we desperately need more superheroes that are Russian. Why do Russians always need to be villains? I feel discriminated against.
Natasha Romanov, Piotr Nikoliavic Rasputin and Illyana Rasputin aren't Russian enough?
Black widow, Colossus and his sister Magik, for anyone who is unfamiliar.
No. Those are overused stereotypes that don't even get played by real Russians in movies. It is like a white guy in blackface playing an overly stereotypical black character 
Black Widow is an especially bad example. Apparently Russians can only be good guys if they betray their own people...
I don't need to see any Russian superheroes in American comics and movies, but it'd be really nice if they'd stop casting Russians in such a stereotpyical and negative light. Russians are already plenty good at making themselves look bad, we really don't need popular culture reinforcing and worsening that. Not to mention it is annoying as hell when people only think of Russians as being walking stereotypes.
18698
Post by: kronk
Kojiro wrote: Perhaps the worst part of all this is the fact they are replacements, not additions, in many cases.
Do you really think Tony Stark won't come back as or won't always be Iron Man?
72740
Post by: Kojiro
 kronk wrote: Kojiro wrote:
Perhaps the worst part of all this is the fact they are replacements, not additions, in many cases.
Do you really think Tony Stark won't come back as or won't always be Iron Man?
Whether he does or not, if you're a fan of Tony Stark as Iron Man for a while, you're going to be SoL. Just as if you were a fan of Steve Rogers, Thor or Banner.
But seriously, there's a real chance this could stick. Not just because of diversity agendas, but because comic book heroes are now mainstream. The MCU is where the real money is and it's no secret the cast is getting a) more expensive b) tired of the work and c) just older. RDJ is 55. By the time the Infinity Wars wrap-up hell be pushing sixty. Likewise both Evans and Hemworth are getting fed up with maintaining literally super human physiques. And they've got years to go. It actually makes a lot of sense for Marvel to start phasing out the older charters as it's inevitable they'll lose the actors in time.
Look at where Tony finds this girl. At MIT. Last we saw him he was talent scouting (Spidey) and funding MIT projects. The door for her to be discovered and have the resources to impress Stark has already been done.
For many RDJ will always be IM. But I doubt it remains true on the big screen.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Honestly, I'm more upset at the gak they pulled with Captain America being a Hydra member. Anything they do after that won't surprise me.
2548
Post by: jmurph
Still waiting to see if anyone feels this will LITERALLY RUIN LIVES and undoes history or something like the Cap America thing. Or maybe people realized, you know, comics.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Iron_Captain wrote: timetowaste85 wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:They should change the name of this character to "Mary Sue". It sounds like a teenager's fanfiction. I like the fact that they want to add more diversity to comics, but please do it with well-written characters. Not with something that sounds like the very definition of mary sue. Also, we desperately need more superheroes that are Russian. Why do Russians always need to be villains? I feel discriminated against.
Natasha Romanov, Piotr Nikoliavic Rasputin and Illyana Rasputin aren't Russian enough?
Black widow, Colossus and his sister Magik, for anyone who is unfamiliar.
No. Those are overused stereotypes that don't even get played by real Russians in movies. It is like a white guy in blackface playing an overly stereotypical black character
Black Widow is an especially bad example. Apparently Russians can only be good guys if they betray their own people...
I don't need to see any Russian superheroes in American comics and movies, but it'd be really nice if they'd stop casting Russians in such a stereotpyical and negative light. Russians are already plenty good at making themselves look bad, we really don't need popular culture reinforcing and worsening that. Not to mention it is annoying as hell when people only think of Russians as being walking stereotypes.
Comic books are full of stereotypes and tropes. At least Marvel created the Soviet Super Soldiers and the Winter Guard.
http://marvel.com/universe/Soviet_Super-Soldiers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Guard
And there was the People's Protectorate too.
Granted it was just churning over what was essentially the Russian version of the Avengers but that's comic books. Different super teams from different places but all with similar numbers of members who fit into the same archtypes/stereotypes. Every single super team that Marvel and Image were publishing back in the 1990s all had the same characters, just different versions.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
 jmurph wrote:Still waiting to see if anyone feels this will LITERALLY RUIN LIVES and undoes history or something like the Cap America thing. Or maybe people realized, you know, comics.
So, people altering things you love is okay? Please tell us what movies you enjoy and then how you'd feel about long time characters being altered.
100870
Post by: Commodus Leitdorf
OMG! I have that comic...two actually....not sure why.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
 jreilly89 wrote: jmurph wrote:Still waiting to see if anyone feels this will LITERALLY RUIN LIVES and undoes history or something like the Cap America thing. Or maybe people realized, you know, comics.
So, people altering things you love is okay? Please tell us what movies you enjoy and then how you'd feel about long time characters being altered.
Chris Claremont wrote great stories for Xmen back in the day. Now, very little of what he wrote is still applicable to the current Marvel universe. That's just comics, they have great story arcs, then they retcon them or ignore them or reboot them. The only instances where stories don't get retconned or rebooted are when a title stops being published at the conclusion of a given plotline.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I don't really care about the ethnicity/gender swap so much as the age. At the moment I just am not sure how to feel about them making a teen constantly being shot at and physically assaulted.
The whole thing of her being the superest bestest thing evar and even more Tony Stark than Tony Stark in practically every way is silly but also somewhat status quo for Marvel.
94482
Post by: Lord Corellia
It definitely feel a little forced, especially that it's happened to basically EVERY. SINGLE. CHARACTER. A few, cool. All of them? Almost smacks of insincerity.
My biggest gripe is why does she have to be 15? Besides turning her into a Mary-Sue, what does it add to the character or the story? She's reverse engineering a robotic armoured suit for crying out loud. She doesn't need to be prepubescent for that to be impressive!
67097
Post by: angelofvengeance
Indeed. Plus, how's she going to fit that MASSIVE 'fro in that helmet? Bad hair days ahoy .
They should stop trying to be so PC and just stick to the formulas that work. Or ya know, invent some new characters instead of re-hashing the old ones over and over and over.
73007
Post by: Grimskul
 angelofvengeance wrote:Indeed. Plus, how's she going to fit that MASSIVE 'fro in that helmet? Bad hair days ahoy .
They should stop trying to be so PC and just stick to the formulas that work. Or ya know, invent some new characters instead of re-hashing the old ones over and over and over.
Preettty much.
It saddens me that they go the easy route instead of trying to take a chance and allow a character to stand on its own two feet. It's like how they ditched Toxin's origins entirely and just threw him onto Eddie Brock (who lost his anti-venom stuff for some reason), even though it was interesting to see the dynamic between a symbiote and ordinary joe cop Pat Mulligan having relatively equal say in their relationship vs. the insanity/instability both Carnage and Venom have with their respective symbiotes.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
jmurph wrote:Still waiting to see if anyone feels this will LITERALLY RUIN LIVES and undoes history or something like the Cap America thing. Or maybe people realized, you know, comics.
Great cartoon on BoingBoing about that.
http://boingboing.net/2016/06/01/tom-the-dancing-bug-super-fun-22.html
241
Post by: Ahtman
Changing a hero to a villain, by warping reality no less, isn't the same as a character getting a replacement but I understand the general point.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
It has been revealed that Red Skull is screwing with Steve Rogers. Again. Steve is not ACTUALLY Hydra, and the Steve Rogers we all knew and loved is still legit. He's just currently been warped. He'll be back to the good side soon enough.
86211
Post by: Asterios
personally ever since Stan Lee left Marvel(retired) the company has gone down hill in the comics department, it seems like anyone with a wild haired idea can get it published there.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Wow, witty. Again, changing established characters is cool? So this is totally okay?
https://www.amazon.com/YOLO-Juliet-OMG-Shakespeare-William/dp/0553535390 Automatically Appended Next Post: timetowaste85 wrote:It has been revealed that Red Skull is screwing with Steve Rogers. Again. Steve is not ACTUALLY Hydra, and the Steve Rogers we all knew and loved is still legit. He's just currently been warped. He'll be back to the good side soon enough.
Yeah, through magic wish bullgak. Seriously one of the stupidest comic plotlines I've ever seen. Give me squirrel girl over this.
18698
Post by: kronk
Worse than a magical ring created by immortal blue aliens that doesn't work against the color yellow? Or wood (Golden Age version)?
87291
Post by: jreilly89
kronk wrote:Worse than a magical ring created by immortal blue aliens that doesn't work against the color yellow? Or wood (Golden Age version)?
Yes. I'm totally okay with stupid bullgak, but don't try to feed it to me 30 years after an established character. That'd be like taking Frodo and saying "Oh yeah, by the way, he could throw fireballs this whole time. He was actually a hobbit sorceror!"
18698
Post by: kronk
That would have made destroying the ring a bit easier, though.
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
 Manchu wrote:When the New 52 rolled out, there were complaints about Barbara Gordon finally being allowed out of her wheelchair. The complainers felt that this was tantamount to getting rid of a handicapable character. You'd be hard pressed to find an "article" floating around about that "controversy" written lately.
For me the problem with how DC handled Barbara Gordon isn't that they had her recover from her injuries, it's that (1) they undid everything she achieved while injured and (2) the new stories they wrote were idiotic schlock. Barbara Gordon as Oracle commanded her own superhero team; when she regained the use of her legs, she should still have been that woman. If she returned to fieldwork, it should have been as a seasoned leader.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
kronk wrote:That would have made destroying the ring a bit easier, though.
Not really, unless Frodo's fireballs somehow were hotter than the fires of Ancalagon the Black...
4802
Post by: Mario
Yes, totally. The only difference is that Romeo and Juliet is in the public domain so anybody can make their own version/remix while Iron Man is in copyright hell so only a selected few can make money of it (the rest of us can try the fan fiction approach if we really wanted to). This Henry Jenkins quote describes my attitude towards this type of work (from here): “Fan fiction is a way of the culture repairing the damage done in a system where contemporary myths are owned by corporations instead of by the folk.”
The same goes for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, I think it also led to an increase in sales of the original because it made people curious.
The new doesn't destroy the old. It's still there and stuff from it can be used and reimagined all the time. If I remember correctly stagnation was one of the reasons for the comic book crash of the 90s as stories got reissued, rereleased, and rehashed because they started targeting collectors. Art/creativity/fiction is not a limited recourse that evaporates if you create more or combine bits to create something new. A remix or change just gives you more options to chose from and to explore. Here's a longer video on the topic of remixes, our culture, and how these two topics interact (if somebody is interested): Everything is a Remix
The Time article/interview mentioned that he was inspired by a real woman to write that story and being a 15 year old genius at MIT, reverse engineering one of Tony's old suits, and ending up on his radar doesn't sound that outlandish (for a superhero comic). It seems he has a lot on his plate and she will end up helping him out, somehow. You could take most superheroes, just list a few positive attributes, and leave out the rest of the character to make them look like a Mary Sue (we know like one sentence about her).
Read the comic when it's released and if you like it keep reading, and if you don't like it just wait for anther storyline, reboot, or parallel universe, (like one would with in any other case).
39995
Post by: Maniac_nmt
 Grimskul wrote:Eh. While diversity is not a bad thing, I don't like how they trumpet it every time in such a forced fashion of effectively telling naysayers "if you don't like it you're racist" or at the very least you're almost immediately dismissed for having no good basis for disliking them. If you want a character to stand on its own, it has to be more than just "I'm more Iron-Man than Iron Man, plus I'm a minority". Most of the strongest characters in fiction has less to do with their ethnicity/race and more to do with their personality or abilities, like Sherlock's wit and intellect or Frodo's bravery.The way the article seems to describe her also puts her into some kind of Mary-Sue light from how she's supposedly on par or above Tony. If you're going to pass the torch, make them work for it more IMO.
Eh, Iron Man is actually not a bad hero to use to pass on the mantle if you want to do it. Falcon as Cap for a while was okay too, not my cup of tea, but actually logical in a way that resurrecting Bucky wasn't.
Thor, however, was just plain stupid. The whole 'this isn't Thor girl, it's Thor' was idiotic. Thor is his name, not a code name or title. It'd be like the next president coming in and saying 'I'm Barrack Obama because I'm now president'. Having a woman run around in his place wasn't so bad, it was the 'in your face this is Thor even though it cannot be because Thor is his name and he is still around'.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Maniac_nmt wrote: Grimskul wrote:Eh. While diversity is not a bad thing, I don't like how they trumpet it every time in such a forced fashion of effectively telling naysayers "if you don't like it you're racist" or at the very least you're almost immediately dismissed for having no good basis for disliking them. If you want a character to stand on its own, it has to be more than just "I'm more Iron-Man than Iron Man, plus I'm a minority". Most of the strongest characters in fiction has less to do with their ethnicity/race and more to do with their personality or abilities, like Sherlock's wit and intellect or Frodo's bravery.The way the article seems to describe her also puts her into some kind of Mary-Sue light from how she's supposedly on par or above Tony. If you're going to pass the torch, make them work for it more IMO.
Eh, Iron Man is actually not a bad hero to use to pass on the mantle if you want to do it. Falcon as Cap for a while was okay too, not my cup of tea, but actually logical in a way that resurrecting Bucky wasn't.
Thor, however, was just plain stupid. The whole 'this isn't Thor girl, it's Thor' was idiotic. Thor is his name, not a code name or title. It'd be like the next president coming in and saying 'I'm Barrack Obama because I'm now president'. Having a woman run around in his place wasn't so bad, it was the 'in your face this is Thor even though it cannot be because Thor is his name and he is still around'.
You were so close with your argument, and then you completely missed that President is both a title for the current office holder and also a title for former office holders. It can also be a name.
If Bill President becomes President, then he will be President President. President is his current title, and it's also his name. Now, we wouldn't argue that now there can never be another President because this one President's name is President. Instead, just like we have now, we have President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, and President Bush. Only one of them has the Power of President and the Office of President. Yet all of them still have the name President.
And that's all that really happened in the comic. Hell, it's such an easy concept that it was even the main concept of the first movie. Guy Thor made daddy mad and no longer got to be God Thor. Eventually Guy Thor became worthy again and got the title of God Thor back. Name =/= Title =/= Office.
16387
Post by: Manchu
 AlexHolker wrote:If she returned to fieldwork, it should have been as a seasoned leader.
Disagree. As Oracle, I felt Babs became so "overpowered" (writers doing their best to portray super-handicapablity) as to transcend relatability. I think Gail Simone understood that she had put Babs on this ultimately boring arc (not that she invented it of course) and so, when DC let the poor woman get out of the chair - something that would never be withheld from Bruce Wayne or Dick Grayson, by the way - Simone tried to correct this and show the character actually struggling, as opposed to the cynical, hyper competent "no wheelchair will slow me" (but actually glorified secretary/dispatcher) caricature she had become. Trouble was, the well was already poisoned. Simone took a lot a flak from former fans who now screamed TRAITOR at her on forums and twitter and who knows where else. The solution was to go even lighter and that has been going well. While I don't buy comics anymore, I still keep an eye on my favorite characters (Dick and Babs) - and it's nice that the Batgirl is once again free to have adventures, rather than having to bear the yoke of being DC's token wheelchair hero, whether she's stuck in it or not.
39995
Post by: Maniac_nmt
 d-usa wrote: Maniac_nmt wrote: Grimskul wrote:Eh. While diversity is not a bad thing, I don't like how they trumpet it every time in such a forced fashion of effectively telling naysayers "if you don't like it you're racist" or at the very least you're almost immediately dismissed for having no good basis for disliking them. If you want a character to stand on its own, it has to be more than just "I'm more Iron-Man than Iron Man, plus I'm a minority". Most of the strongest characters in fiction has less to do with their ethnicity/race and more to do with their personality or abilities, like Sherlock's wit and intellect or Frodo's bravery.The way the article seems to describe her also puts her into some kind of Mary-Sue light from how she's supposedly on par or above Tony. If you're going to pass the torch, make them work for it more IMO.
Eh, Iron Man is actually not a bad hero to use to pass on the mantle if you want to do it. Falcon as Cap for a while was okay too, not my cup of tea, but actually logical in a way that resurrecting Bucky wasn't.
Thor, however, was just plain stupid. The whole 'this isn't Thor girl, it's Thor' was idiotic. Thor is his name, not a code name or title. It'd be like the next president coming in and saying 'I'm Barrack Obama because I'm now president'. Having a woman run around in his place wasn't so bad, it was the 'in your face this is Thor even though it cannot be because Thor is his name and he is still around'.
You were so close with your argument, and then you completely missed that President is both a title for the current office holder and also a title for former office holders. It can also be a name.
If Bill President becomes President, then he will be President President. President is his current title, and it's also his name. Now, we wouldn't argue that now there can never be another President because this one President's name is President. Instead, just like we have now, we have President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, and President Bush. Only one of them has the Power of President and the Office of President. Yet all of them still have the name President.
And that's all that really happened in the comic. Hell, it's such an easy concept that it was even the main concept of the first movie. Guy Thor made daddy mad and no longer got to be God Thor. Eventually Guy Thor became worthy again and got the title of God Thor back. Name =/= Title =/= Office.
Thor was still Thor, even without the hammer. The power of Thor is up for grabs, and the title of 'god of thunder and lightning' is up for grabs, but Thor isn't his title, it's his name like John or Sue or Steve Rogers or Tony Stark. He's lost the hammer or not held it many times, he's still Thor, the one Thor, and only Thor. When he was a kid he was still Thor, he wasn't 'The god one day known as Thor'. You can pass on the mantle, but the name is just silly.
Want to put a female 'Thor' in, okay. It's already been done and done better in What If and Earth X, but call them something else. Eric Masterson Thor was similarly a dumb idea, not in having another worthy, but calling him Thor was.
Beta Ray Bill didn't become Thor after all, he's still Beta Ray Bill (and a damn cool character despite his goofy looks), even when he held Mjolnir or its duplicate in Stormbreaker. Steve Rogers didn't become Thor when he wielded the hammer, Superman didn't become Thor when he wielded the hammer, yadda yadda yadda.
Again, Thor didn't become Odin in any of the stories he had the power (or even greater power), he was still called Thor. Because Odin is Odin's name, like Joe Montana's name is Joe Montana. King of the Asgardians would be his title like Quarterback would be Joe's.
"Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor", not the name Thor....calling Jane Foster 'Thor' is just bad writing. President is a title, like King or god of thunder, Ronald Reagan is not.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Iron_Captain wrote:They should change the name of this character to "Mary Sue". It sounds like a teenager's fanfiction.
I honestly think that sums up the bulk of super hero comic books, which shouldn't be surprising since the overwhelming majority of comic book writers now were fans of the characters as kids. On the other hand though I'm kind of torn cause one of the things I hate most about comics is how averse they are from stepping outside established formula. Most of these new characters will probably step down in a few years and the oldies will return. Miles Morales was only saved from the Secret Wars because of his popularity with readers, and he's still be sidelined (and the plot line of it all was really bizarre too). Still. I never imagined I'd see a black girl take over as Iron Man, or a woman as Thor. Even if Marvel throws them all on a bus someday in the future it's all a lot ballsier than anything they've done in years.
72740
Post by: Kojiro
d-usa wrote:And that's all that really happened in the comic. Hell, it's such an easy concept that it was even the main concept of the first movie. Guy Thor made daddy mad and no longer got to be God Thor. Eventually Guy Thor became worthy again and got the title of God Thor back. Name =/= Title =/= Office.
The basic line of reasoning with this nonsense is that whoever wields Mjolnir is Thor. Which begs the questions- what was Thor's name when he was a child? When he wielded Jarnbjorn (his axe, prior to receiving Mjolnir)? What would his name be if Mjolnir was destroyed? What would his name be if he handed Mjolnir down to his child? What would his child's name be?
39995
Post by: Maniac_nmt
The current writer forgot that when he was a teen he proved worthy and was wielding Mjolnir, as explored in past Thor series (Thor:Son of Asgard). Jarnbjorn is a retcon, a mediocre one that gets looked over due to some of the other good stuff in the early issues of that series.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Maniac_nmt wrote:"Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor", not the name Thor....calling Jane Foster 'Thor' is just bad writing. President is a title, like King or god of thunder, Ronald Reagan is not.
I see what you mean, but I think along with the power of Thor comes the title of Thor, even if your name is not Thor Odinson. I will say that I see your point - I think I've seen other people in other threads feel around for it, but I think you described your concerns most precisely. If they re-titled it as Jane Foster: THOR I'd be good with it, though I still feel that with the powers come the title.
Which segues back to Iron Man, where the role is even more clearly transferable: after all, other people have been Iron Man, some even for quite extended periods like Rhodey. I stopped reading long ago, but wasn't Pepper Potts also Iron Man before she became whatever she is now?
Kojiro wrote:
But seriously, there's a real chance this could stick. Not just because of diversity agendas, but because comic book heroes are now mainstream. The MCU is where the real money is and it's no secret the cast is getting a) more expensive b) tired of the work and c) just older. RDJ is 55. By the time the Infinity Wars wrap-up hell be pushing sixty. Likewise both Evans and Hemworth are getting fed up with maintaining literally super human physiques. And they've got years to go. It actually makes a lot of sense for Marvel to start phasing out the older charters as it's inevitable they'll lose the actors in time.
Really good points. At this point I imagine they make more money from the movies than they do from the comics; the comics should probably start being more malleable to fit with the movies than vice versa.
On the other hand, I think they might regret killing the golden goose when the inevitable comic book movie crash happens...
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Ouze wrote: Maniac_nmt wrote:"Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor", not the name Thor....calling Jane Foster 'Thor' is just bad writing. President is a title, like King or god of thunder, Ronald Reagan is not.
I see what you mean, but I think along with the power of Thor comes the title of Thor, even if your name is not Thor Odinson. I will say that I see your point - I think I've seen other people in other threads feel around for it, but I think you described your concerns most precisely. If they re-titled it as Jane Foster: THOR I'd be good with it, though I still feel that with the powers come the title.
Which segues back to Iron Man, where the role is even more clearly transferable: after all, other people have been Iron Man, some even for quite extended periods like Rhodey. I stopped reading long ago, but wasn't Pepper Potts also Iron Man before she became whatever she is now?
Or maybe even similar to Julius Caesar being Caesar? With the Title also serving as name, so Thor Odinson was Thor, and when Jane Foster became Thor maybe have her become Thor Foster? Something along that line?
Although we may be getting a bit OT.
72740
Post by: Kojiro
Ouze wrote:I see what you mean, but I think along with the power of Thor comes the title of Thor, even if your name is not Thor Odinson.
Except Thor was never a title.
Put it this way. If I manage to pull Excalibur from the stone, that makes me King, but it doesn't make me King Arthur. Likewise if I pick up Mjolnir that makes me the God of Thunder, but it doesn't make me Thor, God of Thunder.
It's moot anyway, since the only reason she got the 'name/title' of Thor had nothing to do with Mjolnir. She was literally handed the name by Thor, who claimed he was no longer worthy of it. He was discarding his name, she was gaining a title. Because she's still Jane Foster.
But I think we're hitting the nail on the head here. Putting on an Iron Man suit doesn't make one Iron Man. You may have all the tech and abilities of the armour, but you're not the hero Iron Man. Being a hero, or carrying on a heroes legacy, is more than just picking up the same equipment and dressing like them. He's more than the suit, just as Thor is more than the hammer or Cap is more than the shield.
12313
Post by: Ouze
See, now we definitely disagree again  Wearing the suit and operating in that capacity definitely makes you Iron Man, at least historically in the comics. The title of the comics isn't Tony Stark, after all. The in-universe public is aware that there have been different suit operators: at one point during Armor Wars, Tony Stark held a press conference "firing" Iron Man after he did... something I don't remember. There is absolutely not an inseparable link between Tony Stark and Iron Man historically. Tony Stark can die - has died, in fact - and Iron Man carried on with another operator who is now Iron Man both in deed and title. Thor is a little iffy as discussed, but I think Iron man is utterly unambiguous in that regard.
Again, this is pre-Variable Response blah blah War Machine - I'm referring to at least twice I'm aware of, once around the Secret Wars era for an extended time, and again when Tony Stark "died" and Rhodey became Iron Man again for a few months. I think the War Machine suit came out right after this and eventually Rhodey picked that up permanently.
39995
Post by: Maniac_nmt
Which is where I kind of agree. I like Tony, I collected Iron Man for years, but he is Marvel's best choice for a character under the mask change. Shoot, you do not even have to have him step out of the suit either. He has so many of the darn things he can put it on occasionally if you want him to and still have someone else acting as the day to day Iron Man.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Isn't that what's currently going on with Peter Parker?
4001
Post by: Compel
Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't need to see any Russian superheroes in American comics and movies, but it'd be really nice if they'd stop casting Russians in such a stereotpyical and negative light. Russians are already plenty good at making themselves look bad, we really don't need popular culture reinforcing and worsening that. Not to mention it is annoying as hell when people only think of Russians as being walking stereotypes.
Legitimate, honest, not-trying-to-be-a-jerk question. - What is Magik / Ilyana a stereotype of? I thought she was a pretty unique character.
I also kind of have the same question about Colossus. I mean, sure, "small town good-natured farmer goes to New York, gets amazed by the sights" is a stereotype / trope but... It's kind of independent of it being specifically Russian, if that makes sense. EG, it's kind of the same deal with Sam Guthrie / Cannonball or Rogue. Heck, I'm pretty sure there's a film that was recently in the cinemas that had the same sort of thing but was a romantic comedy about an Irish girl.
Ok, sure, I'll grant you that the new Colossus from Deadpool isn't Russian, but at least (according to IMDB anyhow), he speaks fluent Russian, which is a helluva lot better than Hollywood usually gets. Not that I'm complaining, after all, I'm pretty pleased that Professor Xavier of Westchester New York is Scottish. :p
752
Post by: Polonius
What I find odd about this is that so many people assume this is some aspect of the all encompassing PC/SJW agenda. Which it almost certainly isn't. I'm guessing Marvel sees a moment when comic book characters are incredibly popular to try to get new readers, and I think they're skewing young and multi-ethnic to reach more readers.
Best case scenario, the new books succeed, they bring in new readers, and the industry grows its demo.
Worst case: they fold, bring back the original characters, and double down on the same fans they've had for a generation.
To grow beyond a niche collectible for geeky adults, they need to bring in kids. And kids today are both more ethnically diverse than ever, and more accepting of other races. Seems like a plan worth trying.
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
 Compel wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't need to see any Russian superheroes in American comics and movies, but it'd be really nice if they'd stop casting Russians in such a stereotpyical and negative light. Russians are already plenty good at making themselves look bad, we really don't need popular culture reinforcing and worsening that. Not to mention it is annoying as hell when people only think of Russians as being walking stereotypes.
Legitimate, honest, not-trying-to-be-a-jerk question. - What is Magik / Ilyana a stereotype of? I thought she was a pretty unique character.
I also kind of have the same question about Colossus. I mean, sure, "small town good-natured farmer goes to New York, gets amazed by the sights" is a stereotype / trope but... It's kind of independent of it being specifically Russian, if that makes sense. EG, it's kind of the same deal with Sam Guthrie / Cannonball or Rogue. Heck, I'm pretty sure there's a film that was recently in the cinemas that had the same sort of thing but was a romantic comedy about an Irish girl.
Ok, sure, I'll grant you that the new Colossus from Deadpool isn't Russian, but at least (according to IMDB anyhow), he speaks fluent Russian, which is a helluva lot better than Hollywood usually gets. Not that I'm complaining, after all, I'm pretty pleased that Professor Xavier of Westchester New York is Scottish. :p
Titanium Man is technically a Russian Superhero... but only in Russia
16387
Post by: Manchu
 Polonius wrote:What I find odd about this is that so many people assume this is some aspect of the all encompassing PC/SJW agenda. Which it almost certainly isn't.
I'd agree with you if we were talking DC, which has always been more transparently cynical about this kind of thing IMO. But I think the Marvel people are more genuinely idealistic/ideological. For example, DC makes a black Batman - but he's off in Africa somewhere and the title doesn't get much support and ultimately goes nowhere. By contrast, Marvel makes a Black Spider-Man, initially as a kind of What If thing, sure, but they give it a lot more support and it becomes successful enough that they bring the idea over into the main continuity and the title is ongoing.
752
Post by: Polonius
Manchu wrote: Polonius wrote:What I find odd about this is that so many people assume this is some aspect of the all encompassing PC/SJW agenda. Which it almost certainly isn't.
I'd agree with you if we were talking DC, which has always been more transparently cynical about this kind of thing IMO. But I think the Marvel people are more genuinely idealistic/ideological. For example, DC makes a black Batman - but he's off in Africa somewhere and the title doesn't get much support and ultimately goes nowhere. By contrast, Marvel makes a Black Spider-Man, initially as a kind of What If thing, sure, but they give it a lot more support and it becomes successful enough that they bring the idea over into the main continuity and the title is ongoing.
See, I see it the opposite. DC including minority characters just to make them is quota filling. That Marvel is writing quality stories for a black Spiderman, and that book sells, that's not PC. That's business, or possibly even art.
In the end, people won't read about crappy characters, no matter the agenda.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Wanting to make money and being genuinely ideological are not mutually exclusive. My argument is that Marvel is more genuine about it than DC because Marvel actually shells out the support while DC lets their tokens wither.
752
Post by: Polonius
Manchu wrote:Wanting to make money and being genuinely ideological are not mutually exclusive. My argument is that Marvel is more genuine about it than DC because Marvel actually shells out the support while DC lets their tokens wither.
I think I get where you are coming from. I guess I draw a distinction between simple PC decision making from making a character a minority, creating interesting stories, supporting them, and writing them because that's the type of character you want to create. Being open to diverse options isn't simply a PC or SJW concern. What bugs me a bit is that rate of new heroes, all of whom check one (or more) protected class boxes, which I think does send a pretty overt ideological message.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Yep - If I am committed to conveying an ideology through my business then I know I need to do so in a way that sells - or I'm not going to get to do it, or at least continue to do it. But if I am not really committed to that goal, then whatever, I will pay lipservice to a CYA extent but focus my efforts on other things. That said, I don't think Marvel's main goal is to propagandize SJW-type politics (sentiments really) - it's just so much easier to grab attention for a book by syncing into the SJW scene than it is to publish a good book.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I think the percieved notion of it being a SJW/PC agenda comes from the number of changes to characters in a short time:
Steve Rogers (white) => Sam Wilson (black)
Bruce Banner (white) => Amadeus Cho (asain)
Thor Odinson (male) => Thor Foster (female)
Wolverine (male ie Logan) => Wolverine (female ie X-23)
There are others but I don't remember the changes. Now they did bring back one White Guy with Steve Rogers but also made him (temporarily) a bad guy. It creates the illusion of wanting to get rid of all white guys as heroes or make them villains. Really all it is is the chance to get free publicity and make some money.
Also I decided this is all Manchu's fault, so there is that.
752
Post by: Polonius
Manchu wrote:Yep - If I am committed to conveying an ideology through my business then I know I need to do so in a way that sells - or I'm not going to get to do it, or at least continue to do it. But if I am not really committed to that goal, then whatever, I will pay lipservice to a CYA extent but focus my efforts on other things. That said, I don't think Marvel's main goal is to propagandize SJW-type politics (sentiments really) - it's just so much easier to grab attention for a book by syncing into the SJW scene than it is to publish a good book.
I'd agree with that.
I also wonder if the SJW sentiment is also just a convenient boogieman for people that just don't like their favorite characters being changed? I think that's what I find so fascinating about this: the kneejerk anger towards some vague lefty idea. So visceral, so immediate.
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
Decided to look up Amadeus Cho... Was sorely disappointed
54233
Post by: AduroT
Eh, I think a book being SJWish is less Marvel and more the individual author. The initial eight issues of She Thor was pandering schlock. The big scene there was the female super villain knocking out her boyfriend (husband?) and partner and turning herself in because us girls gotta stick together. Other books like Kamala/Miles don't push the issue so bad or feel so forced to me. Waiting to see how this new girls shapes up still as I said before. She's only has a few short scenes so far.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Polonius wrote: Manchu wrote:Yep - If I am committed to conveying an ideology through my business then I know I need to do so in a way that sells - or I'm not going to get to do it, or at least continue to do it. But if I am not really committed to that goal, then whatever, I will pay lipservice to a CYA extent but focus my efforts on other things. That said, I don't think Marvel's main goal is to propagandize SJW-type politics (sentiments really) - it's just so much easier to grab attention for a book by syncing into the SJW scene than it is to publish a good book.
I'd agree with that.
I also wonder if the SJW sentiment is also just a convenient boogieman for people that just don't like their favorite characters being changed? I think that's what I find so fascinating about this: the kneejerk anger towards some vague lefty idea. So visceral, so immediate.
Why? People usually don't react well to change to beloved characters/stories/universes. Look at what's going on with Sulu in the new Star Trek movie. Even George Takei, the actor who played Sulu, isn't happy about it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
 AduroT wrote:Eh, I think a book being SJWish is less Marvel and more the individual author.
It's about an alignment of interests between SJW sentiments, usually on the part of the creators, and business acumen on the part of editors/publishers. Polonius wrote:I also wonder if the SJW sentiment is also just a convenient boogieman for people that just don't like their favorite characters being changed? I think that's what I find so fascinating about this: the kneejerk anger towards some vague lefty idea. So visceral, so immediate.
It's the logic of representationalism: being represented powerfully translates into being powerful. So if you buy into this, seeing "yourself" being marginalized is the equivalent of being marginalized. Plus, as Ahtman mentioned, it's so frequent. jreilly89 wrote:Even George Takei, the actor who played Sulu, isn't happy about it.
Yeah but that guy is notoriously homophob - oh wait, that one won't work here! 
752
Post by: Polonius
jreilly89 wrote: Polonius wrote: Manchu wrote:Yep - If I am committed to conveying an ideology through my business then I know I need to do so in a way that sells - or I'm not going to get to do it, or at least continue to do it. But if I am not really committed to that goal, then whatever, I will pay lipservice to a CYA extent but focus my efforts on other things. That said, I don't think Marvel's main goal is to propagandize SJW-type politics (sentiments really) - it's just so much easier to grab attention for a book by syncing into the SJW scene than it is to publish a good book.
I'd agree with that.
I also wonder if the SJW sentiment is also just a convenient boogieman for people that just don't like their favorite characters being changed? I think that's what I find so fascinating about this: the kneejerk anger towards some vague lefty idea. So visceral, so immediate.
Why? People usually don't react well to change to beloved characters/stories/universes. Look at what's going on with Sulu in the new Star Trek movie. Even George Takei, the actor who played Sulu, isn't happy about it.
I understand the anger, I'm not as clear why it gets linked to a not particularly coherent system of thought. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:It's the logic of representationalism: being represented powerfully translates into being powerful. So if you buy into this, seeing "yourself" being marginalized is the equivalent of being marginalized. Plus, as Ahtman mentioned, it's so frequent.
That's fair. I'll be honest, it does seem like a lot at once, which gives a purge like vibe.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Just to be clear - I don't personally buy into representationalism. It constitutes no "violence" (using SJW lingo) to me that a black girl is wearing the Iron Man suit. But I also don't think Tony Stark wearing it constitutes violence to anyone, either.
4001
Post by: Compel
As for the actual topic...
Let me preface it all that I'm actually relatively new to reading the actual, you know, comics. Where I'm at: I just finished Civil War and am about a third of the way through Secret Invasion thanks to Marvel Unlimited.
So, all the other more recent stuff, I pretty much just know things from various news articles. So, overall, yeah, my opinions are kind of mixed, depending on the characters.
So, starting off with Kamala Khan / Ms Marvel / Captain Marvel thing. In the comics I've read so far, the original Captain Marvel has turned up a few times. And, overall, his appearances have very much felt like, "yeah, it's this guy from decades ago, his storylines done, he's pretty much finished, we've moved on from him." - So he kind of has a bit of a "Jay Garrick" feel to him. He's sort of done. So, Carol Danvers becoming Captain Marvel really feels like a natural story progression. The concept then of a teenager who has always looked up to Carol, then choosing to inherit the moniker also feels natural. - To use a DC analogy, there's kind of a "Dick Greyson becoming Nightwing" feel of this concept, then someone else becoming Robin. - It feels natural. I know I, for example, wouldn't want to see Dick Greyson reverting to just be Robin again. Sometimes there is natural story progression.
On the other hand, the Thor Foster thing, just feels really weird for, well, all the reasons the internet has argued about it. Especially since, in the comics I'm currently reading, Thor is still, well, dead. - What's the deal there, Marvel, have they just ran out of Thor storyline ideas that it's not possible to write them for more than 5 years in a row?
X-23 as Wolverine. You know what. I'm good with that. Logan's still out there, Loganning it up, as far as I know. From what little I know of X-23, she seems pretty cool. Go for it, let her have the yellow spandex. It's not like Logan needs it.
Miles Morales. Yeah, this one just seems really unfortunate. He seems like a hit character, but so is Peter (naturally). - Aren't they doing a sort of compromise right now? Miles is Spiderman, but Peter is also Spiderman, each with their own comic series. - Seems like a fair compromise to me.
Amadeus Cho. - Gotta admit, I don't know much about this one, it wouldn't surprise me if it's kinda a weird one though. I only know him as the kid that hangs out with Hercules. Don't know enough of this to really pass comment on. He doesn't seem to fill the right 'Hulk' niche though, from what little I know of him.
So, this new Iron Man. Here's the thing, through the various comics I've been reading, they've kept on trying to have Tony be Director of SHIELD, the Secretary of Defence, a Senator, a whatever it is and also be Iron Man. It's tended to be rather eyerolling. However, have Tony retiring from the suit, taking up one of those roles full time and being a mentor to the new Iron Man. Providing it's written well and logically, yeah I'd go for it. - I've got to admit, reverse engineering your own Iron Man suit isn't good first impressions on "written well" though. Heck, I'd prefer just something like Spider-man's intro in the civil war film to that.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Compel wrote:Legitimate, honest, not-trying-to-be-a-jerk question. - What is Magik / Ilyana a stereotype of? I thought she was a pretty unique character.
I imagine he's referring more to Colossus and characters like KGBeast. Both are very stereotypical, but on the bright side I Colossus is a pretty cool guy, and has a lot of depth of character for someone first introduced to show how mean those communists were. Magik is a bit more obscure as a character. She bounces in and out of existence (literally and metaphorically) frequently. Automatically Appended Next Post: Compel wrote:
Miles Morales. Yeah, this one just seems really unfortunate. He seems like a hit character, but so is Peter (naturally). - Aren't they doing a sort of compromise right now? Miles is Spiderman, but Peter is also Spiderman, each with their own comic series. - Seems like a fair compromise to me.
Miles is essentially the New York Spider-man, freeing up Peter to become more involved with the Avengers.
752
Post by: Polonius
 LordofHats wrote: Compel wrote:
Miles Morales. Yeah, this one just seems really unfortunate. He seems like a hit character, but so is Peter (naturally). - Aren't they doing a sort of compromise right now? Miles is Spiderman, but Peter is also Spiderman, each with their own comic series. - Seems like a fair compromise to me.
Miles is essentially the New York Spider-man, freeing up Peter to become more involved with the Avengers.
That actually sounds pretty cool. It's neat to have characters doing epic, earthshattering stuff, but it's also neat to see characters playing small ball, dealing with street crime and low level villains. Especially a character like Spiderman, who can literally be a high school student. It seems a bit silly to have him teaming up with the Hulk, while it's equally a waste to have young adult Spidey stopping purse snatchers.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Hey they gotta do what they can. It's not easy to keep folks looking at ink smeared on dead trees these days. I making a Iron Man a black child ships issues it's probably a good call.
72740
Post by: Kojiro
Ouze wrote:See, now we definitely disagree again Wearing the suit and operating in that capacity definitely makes you Iron Man, at least historically in the comics.
Gah, go to bed and there's 20 responses.
What I meant there is more to the readers. Officially, in the comics you can have a hand over for sure. But there's this attempt it seems to elevate new characters by attaching them to established, loved ones that I think many people (including myself) see as disingenuous. It feels gratuitous, opportunistic and especially contrived when the character they're being attached to (replacing) is removed.
Riri has made her own suit. What's to stop her running about as her own hero and doing stuff? Miles Morales has his own powers, why can't he go off and be Spider something else? X-23 is already running about being a damned hero, who had her own fanbase, as does Falcon! Taking the name 'Wolverine' doesn't give her anything. It just makes it look like a young brat is claiming the title of a legend and in the real world Marvel some publicity. At least Sam got the shield, though it still boggles me that someone who is already an Avenger would need to change his name because he picked up his buddies gear.
Rambling a bit but my point overall was that just because a character is renamed in the comics, doesn't mean the fanbase accepts it for one moment. Captain America will always be Steve Rogers- some others just pretended for a while. If/when Stark or the real Wolverine return to duty are they are going to reclaim their names. Riri and X-23 will be shown to be placeholders. Same thing will happen to Jane Foster when Thor finally gets off his ass and does something about whatever it was that made him unworthy (though that's a deep hole for Marvel to crawl out of). None of these characters are the legends they're replacing. No one says 'Do you remember when Odinson, Rogers and Stark stopped Ultron's mad rampage?' 'Oh and Odinson was all like 'Ultron, we would have words with thee!'. No, that was Thor, Cap and Iron Man. It most certainly wasn't Jane, Sam and Riri.
Here's a hypothetical. Let's say that, in the next SW movie Kylo Ren is wounded and decides, because he's Kylo Ren, he's gonna go all black life support suit style and renames himself Darth Vader. Yeah ok, it's in the film, it happened. But he's not Darth Vader- not really. He's a pretender to an iconic name and look. Hell just imitating Vader has already earned him (right or wrong) mockery and dislike.
Dr Who is another good example. If you ask my wife, David Tennant is the Doctor. Matt Smith is ok, but he's not her Doctor. Capaldi might as well not exist if you ask her. Naturally that's entirely at odds with reality- Capaldi is the Doctor- but like X-23, Foster etc and now Riri fans will always see them as nothing more than placeholders. People do after all constantly assert that these 'changes are temporary' and we'll have our old heroes back sooner or later. Worse yet, they'll be seen as characters who couldn't make it big on their own.
Thor is perhaps the most egregious of these but Riri has the potential to be a close contender. Personally the most 'offensive' thing about making her Iron Man is the thrusting of a fifteen year old into the role. If she's as good as implied bu all means recruit her, give her a lab and resources but putting her in the field is just absurd. Not only is she a minor, she's a teenager. Even if she had the technical knowledge to replace Stark she can't possibly have the life experience. It'd be like Batman deciding a 15 year old Robin could replace him because he was a brilliant detective. 'Here's the Batsuit, go get'em BATMAN!'.
TL/DR - Fans will pick and choose their own cannon if the official one is stupid enough.
76278
Post by: Spinner
Kojiro wrote:
Thor is perhaps the most egregious of these but Riri has the potential to be a close contender. Personally the most 'offensive' thing about making her Iron Man is the thrusting of a fifteen year old into the role. If she's as good as implied bu all means recruit her, give her a lab and resources but putting her in the field is just absurd. Not only is she a minor, she's a teenager. Even if she had the technical knowledge to replace Stark she can't possibly have the life experience. It'd be like Batman deciding a 15 year old Robin could replace him because he was a brilliant detective. 'Here's the Batsuit, go get'em BATMAN!'.
I dunno; teenagers do stupid/heroic things all the time in comic books. Robin might not be Batman, but he still gets to go out and fight the Joker. Peter Parker was in high school when he started wall-crawling. I'm not 100%, but wasn't Johnny Storm a teenager at the beginning of Fantastic Four? He got to go to space in an untested spacecraft. A preteen picked a fight with Frank Castle in Runaways and nearly punched his kidney out. The X-Men's mansion/school has been a battleground how many times?
Now, of course, you're right, that's technically putting minors in harm's way, and it's great when it's recognized as such or has consequences (the Civil War movie and Spider-Girl leap to mind; I particularly like the latter's "that excuse isn't going to work on me because that's EXACTLY what I used to tell my Aunt, the costume goes back in the attic and you're grounded!" moments), but a pretty significant chunk of superheroics involves putting teenagers into roles they really aren't prepared for.
72740
Post by: Kojiro
Spinner wrote:I dunno; teenagers do stupid/heroic things all the time in comic books.
Absolutely. But there's three real 'divisions' there. 1) the minor goes out of his own free will (such as Spiderman) where it's ok because the character is doing it. Also teens aren't bastions of logic and reason and often make stupid decisions. 2) The characters have no choice (such as with Xavier's School). The X-Men should be comprised of adults- graduates of the school- who have decided to take up the job. Now if the school is attacked that's unfortunate but the school serves a legitimate purpose, and anyone at the school is right to fight back if they can. There is an argument though for separating the school and the X-Men base I could get behind (which is probably countered by claiming the X-Men are there to protect the students). That's arguably putting the kids at risk, since one of the narrative themes of X-Men is a world that hates and fears them, ie they were already targets. And 3) where the minor is legitimately put in harms way by an adult (such as Robin with Batman) which I think is just wrong. Adults should never be putting kids in that situation and while it has occurred historically I don't see that as a valid reason to continue it. Riri feels like a 3 and there's no good reason to be doing it. I believe in their eagerness to push the character they've forgotten that putting children in weaponised armour and sending them out to fight and kill is really not something anyone should be doing. It is, as they say, the current year after all.
76278
Post by: Spinner
Kojiro wrote:And 3) where the minor is legitimately put in harms way by an adult (such as Robin with Batman) which I think is just wrong. Adults should never be putting kids in that situation and while it has occurred historically I don't see that as a valid reason to continue it. Riri feels like a 3 and there's no good reason to be doing it. I believe in their eagerness to push the character they've forgotten that putting children in weaponised armour and sending them out to fight and kill is really not something anyone should be doing. It is, as they say, the current year after all.
It might be wrong, but the character doesn't have to be right. Some superheroes have a long and storied tradition of making terrible choices, and as far as I understand it (way more familiar with Movie Stark than Comics Stark, but I haven't seen anyone yelling about him being out of character...) Tony's one of them. Heck, in the movie Civil War
So is it necessarily the 'right' course of action? Maybe not. Far more importantly, is it in character? Someone who follows Iron Man would probably be able to clarify, but I don't think it's out of character. Tony Stark isn't Superman.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
 Ahtman wrote:I think the percieved notion of it being a SJW/ PC agenda comes from the number of changes to characters in a short time:
Steve Rogers (white) => Sam Wilson (black)
Bruce Banner (white) => Amadeus Cho (asain)
Thor Odinson (male) => Thor Foster (female)
Wolverine (male ie Logan) => Wolverine (female ie X-23)
There are others but I don't remember the changes. Now they did bring back one White Guy with Steve Rogers but also made him (temporarily) a bad guy. It creates the illusion of wanting to get rid of all white guys as heroes or make them villains. Really all it is is the chance to get free publicity and make some money.
Also I decided this is all Manchu's fault, so there is that.
Ugh, X-23 is not a replacement for Wolverine, she has been around a long time. Not even sure why people are complaining about that one.
72740
Post by: Kojiro
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Ugh, X-23 is not a replacement for Wolverine, she has been around a long time. Not even sure why people are complaining about that one.
If she put on his uniform and takes his name after he's killed off, that's pretty much a replacement.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Again, with Laura (X-23), she IS actually a clone of Logan. So she's still technically him. But as a younger female version. Of the current changes...I'm most okay with her. But Cho, Lady-Thor, Kahn and Riri need to get their asses thrown out.
Miles I personally dislike [his backstory], but I understand that others like him. And he is alternate universe, after all.
54233
Post by: AduroT
Polonius wrote: LordofHats wrote: Compel wrote:
Miles Morales. Yeah, this one just seems really unfortunate. He seems like a hit character, but so is Peter (naturally). - Aren't they doing a sort of compromise right now? Miles is Spiderman, but Peter is also Spiderman, each with their own comic series. - Seems like a fair compromise to me.
Miles is essentially the New York Spider-man, freeing up Peter to become more involved with the Avengers.
That actually sounds pretty cool. It's neat to have characters doing epic, earthshattering stuff, but it's also neat to see characters playing small ball, dealing with street crime and low level villains. Especially a character like Spiderman, who can literally be a high school student. It seems a bit silly to have him teaming up with the Hulk, while it's equally a waste to have young adult Spidey stopping purse snatchers.
Miles recently put down a top level demon who had just beaten the rest of the Avengers before he showed up. Turns out the demon had a weakness to Miles' venom blast power. Sounds contrived, but it came across alright at the time. Automatically Appended Next Post: timetowaste85 wrote:Again, with Laura (X-23), she IS actually a clone of Logan. So she's still technically him. But as a younger female version. Of the current changes...I'm most okay with her. But Cho, Lady-Thor, Kahn and Riri need to get their asses thrown out.
Miles I personally dislike [his backstory], but I understand that others like him. And he is alternate universe, after all.
Only seen Cho in Moon Girl where he was a well meaning antagonist, and I did not care for him there. Seemed to sort of cheapen the Hulk brand with his rational demenior and changing at will. She Thor I've gone over why I don't like her. Kamala I like and think she's largely done well, though I can accept that people might not like her with the often silly tone of her book. Don't know Riri? What little I've read of Miles I've liked, mostly him, Kamala, and Nova as the younger more inexperienced members of the new Avengers.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Kojiro wrote: It'd be like Batman deciding a 15 year old Robin could replace him because he was a brilliant detective. 'Here's the Batsuit, go get'em BATMAN!'.
.
Come to think of it, I'd be much more interested in this change if, rather than getting a new Iron Man, we were actually getting a Bat Family/Batman Inc. approach; a bunch of heroes with broadly similar themes/tech/ideals, but each distinct. Rather than replace Stark, why not make this newcomer Iron Girl? We've already had Iron Lad in the Young Avengers after all. Back to the Batman example, you have at the start of the N52 Batman, Robin (Damien Wayne), Nightwing, Red Robin, Red Hood and Batgirl and Batwoman, later you get Batwing as well and some others through Batman Inc...
Marvel needn't go that far, but I'd much rather see a group of heroes in Iron Man-esque armour (working alone mostly but with frequent crossover) than just replacing Stark. With IM himself, Riri as Iron Girl, Rhodey as War Machine, hell, even dust of Norman Osborne's Iron Patriot armour and had it down to someone willing to do the right thing with it, you have the makings of a pretty cool new team, that gives each character room to breathe without needing to recast an A-list Marvel icon.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Compel wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: I don't need to see any Russian superheroes in American comics and movies, but it'd be really nice if they'd stop casting Russians in such a stereotpyical and negative light. Russians are already plenty good at making themselves look bad, we really don't need popular culture reinforcing and worsening that. Not to mention it is annoying as hell when people only think of Russians as being walking stereotypes.
Legitimiteit, honest, not-trying-to-be-a-jerk question. - What is Magik / Ilyana a stereotype of? I thought she was a pretty unique character.
Ilyana is a nice character from what I have read about her (I normally avoid comics that have "Russian" characters in them, but her I like). The fact that the Russian government tried to kidnap and murder her? Not so much. That is the kind of thing I mean with negative stereotyping of Russians. Also, the fact that her name isn't even Russian shows that the writers did not even put any actual thought in it. Her being Russian doesn't have any actual meaning (apart from making the character seem more exotic I guess?) She is not really Russian in any way, and that is the main problem I have with her. "Russian" characters in comics are either ridiculous stereotypes or they are Americans that just happen to have Slavic-sounding names it seems. I'd like to see a believable Russian character for once. Otherwise I'd rather have no Russians at all (and really, I'd be fine with that. I don't need to have Russians in every story, I identify just fine with people regardless of ehnicity.) Compel wrote: I also kind of have the same question about Colossus. I mean, sure, "small town good-natured farmer goes to New York, gets amazed by the sights" is a stereotype / trope but... It's kind of independent of it being specifically Russian, if that makes sense. EG, it's kind of the same deal with Sam Guthrie / Cannonball or Rogue. Heck, I'm pretty sure there's a film that was recently in the cinemas that had the same sort of thing but was a romantic comedy about an Irish girl.
Well, apart from being a farmer, he is also the very epitome of the "big, hardy Siberian man" stereotype. Apart from that he is okay though. I mean, at least he is about the only Russian guy who doesn't attempt to slaughter innocent people or rule the world all the time. That really is a rarity in comics.
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
timetowaste85 wrote:Again, with Laura (X-23), she IS actually a clone of Logan. So she's still technically him.
No, she's technically his twin sister.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Kojiro wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:
Ugh, X-23 is not a replacement for Wolverine, she has been around a long time. Not even sure why people are complaining about that one.
If she put on his uniform and takes his name after he's killed off, that's pretty much a replacement.
No, replacement is not the right word. The word you are looking for is successor.
72740
Post by: Kojiro
Dreadwinter wrote:
No, replacement is not the right word. The word you are looking for is successor.
In a comic setting this is true. In the comic book world she is indeed inheriting his name.
But in a 'real world' context, someone decided to kill Wolverine off and decided to have her claim the name and uniform. If you were reading about Logan, aka Wolverine because you liked him, too bad. He's dead. She has literally replaced him on the shelf and in universe.
10920
Post by: Goliath
Kojiro wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:
No, replacement is not the right word. The word you are looking for is successor.
In a comic setting this is true. In the comic book world she is indeed inheriting his name.
But in a 'real world' context, someone decided to kill Wolverine off and decided to have her claim the name and uniform. If you were reading about Logan, aka Wolverine because you liked him, too bad. He's dead. She has literally replaced him on the shelf and in universe.
No, because "replaced" implies that he died and she immediately took over.
There was a gap of more than a year between him dying and her taking up the mantle. That's not replacing, that's being his successor.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Kojiro wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:
No, replacement is not the right word. The word you are looking for is successor.
In a comic setting this is true. In the comic book world she is indeed inheriting his name.
But in a 'real world' context, someone decided to kill Wolverine off and decided to have her claim the name and uniform. If you were reading about Logan, aka Wolverine because you liked him, too bad. He's dead. She has literally replaced him on the shelf and in universe.
Still no. This character was not made to replace Logan as the Wolverine. She was made for other reasons, long before Wolverine was slated to die. Now the writers have decided they like the idea of having a "Wolverine" character in the Marvel universe and since his son is dead, she is clearly the best option. She has succeeded Logan and taken up the Wolverine mantle, both in universe and in the real world.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 Goliath wrote: Kojiro wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:
No, replacement is not the right word. The word you are looking for is successor.
In a comic setting this is true. In the comic book world she is indeed inheriting his name.
But in a 'real world' context, someone decided to kill Wolverine off and decided to have her claim the name and uniform. If you were reading about Logan, aka Wolverine because you liked him, too bad. He's dead. She has literally replaced him on the shelf and in universe.
No, because "replaced" implies that he died and she immediately took over.
There was a gap of more than a year between him dying and her taking up the mantle. That's not replacing, that's being his successor.
And as a fan of the X23 character since her first appearance in X-Men Evolution, this is a big turning point for Laura's character. She's one of the few characters in the Marvel universe to have a consistent and coherent line of character development (and they' managed to pull it off for over a decade!). Laura stepping out of the background to be Wolverine is huge for her as a person.
So yeah, while as an editing decision someone probably sat down and thought "wouldn't it be cool to have someone else be Wolverine" there's a lot of good places writers can go with X23 under that mantle. A lot of bad places but Like I said a page or so ago I like that they're taking some risks.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I think outside the comics replacement fits Wolverine as there is probably a 0% chance Logan is staying dead. In universe successor is more accurate, though.
It still doesn't change that recently (last few years) Marvel has changed a lot of their mainstays with different characters which is going to rub some people the wrong way. Individually a lot of it is fine but holistically it is seems problematic. It creates the illusion, if nothing, that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
4001
Post by: Compel
Well, the current branding is, "All New, All Different Marvel" - so it's kinda to be expected.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Compel wrote:Well, the current branding is, "All New, All Different Marvel" - so it's kinda to be expected.
Marvel has been saying that, or a variant of it, for decades so it doesn't necessarily mean much, tbh; it is just more marketing jargon most of the time.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Daken isn't actually still dead though, right?
And as previously noted, I'm sure Logan will be back eventually too.
And not just in Old Man Logan version, as is currently happening!
Tony will eventually be Iron Man again too - no worries there...
Change is necessary in comics, but stability is often craved too.
It is a weird dynamic, and even more so now as they're struggling to maintain readers - and grow that user base too!
4001
Post by: Compel
I do have myself wondering, what decides acceptable change from readers and what is unacceptable.
EG, going back to DC. I don't think any notable portion of readers want Dick Greyson to go back to being Robin.
And yet, have any of the other Robins really lasted for any length of time? Are any of the other Robins really seen as 'acceptable' to carry on the mantle?
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Compel wrote:I do have myself wondering, what decides acceptable change from readers and what is unacceptable.
EG, going back to DC. I don't think any notable portion of readers want Dick Greyson to go back to being Robin.
And yet, have any of the other Robins really lasted for any length of time? Are any of the other Robins really seen as 'acceptable' to carry on the mantle?
I think the Robin we've had for the last decade or so in Damien Wayne is the definitive one, I actually prefer him to Dick who I enjoy much more as Nightwing. Tim I can't stand as Robin or Red Robin, Jason was almost deliberately a poor Robin (or at least, reframed as such) so he could become the Red Hood, in Damien we have a Robin who embodies the role better than anyone; he's not overshadowed by a post-Robin version of himself, he's got the best dynamic/relationship with Batman and has definitely come a long way as a character...
In 10 years' time, I could see (and would be more than happy with) Damien taking on the role of Batman, temporarily or even semi-permanently, I think he's capable and worthy of growing into that. There's a clear 'line of succession' there, father to son, teacher to student, and they have an established relationship, which, to bring things back to the topic, is exactly what's lacking in this Iron Man replacement.
I guess the deciding factor in what the readers deem 'acceptable' comes down to a) the nature of the transition (does it make sense, it is in character, is it necessary for a narrative?) and b) how well it's done (a well-written arc can make a pointless change compelling, equally the opposite is true, a great concept might be let down by shoddy execution). Get those right and it'll stick, mess up either and it won't go down well.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but it's a bummer they probably can't call her Iron Maiden.......
72740
Post by: Kojiro
Dreadwinter wrote:Still no. This character was not made to replace Logan as the Wolverine. She was made for other reasons, long before Wolverine was slated to die.
Oh no doubt. But that doesn't stop her being a replacement anymore than Sam Wilson being Cap's replacement or Jane Foster being Thor's.
I think there's a trend to turn super hero names into titles. Thor is whoever wields Mjolnir, Captain America is anyone who has the shield, Iron Man is anyone who wears the suit. This is distinct from super hero names being aliases of alter egos. As if to say if T'challa decided to just give Sam a vibranium shield, he could also be a Captain America. Or if X-23 just decided one day to call herself Wolverine. Stark hands out a suit to each of the Avengers and now they're all Iron Men? It strips the uniqueness out of the heroes. Worse yet, it puts the focus on their costumes and gear rather than the actual heroism of the characters. It is to imply that the powers of being a hero are what make you a hero, rather than who you actually are. At least that's how it feels to me. Riri gets an Iron Man suit and is suddenly Iron Man? Well sure, but you've just massively devalued the name of Iron Man in my opinion.
I suppose it's also different for characters who have a secret identity. Batman for example is a symbol and the world at large doesn't know who he is. That is the kind of 'title' I wouldn't object to someone qualified taking over because the symbol needs to be present. This is one reason the Cap/Falcon swap falls flat- everyone knows Sam isn't Cap. But it's not gonna hold true for X-23 or FemThor.
Compel wrote:I do have myself wondering, what decides acceptable change from readers and what is unacceptable.
It's all about how you do it. Not every replacement/successor is a bad thing (I certainly hope no one thinks I'm arguing that) nor is having the new character be a non white male. The X-23 one isn't so bad as it wasn't rushed, she has a connection to Logan and her character needs to grow. It's still bad in that she's stepping into Logan's shadow where she could have gone off and been her own person. Instead his iconic name and suit have now been pressed onto her. But it's still not horrible. Conversely FemThor was about as hamfisted as you can get. In that case it's also the number of 'coincidences' or 'alterations' required to make it work that gets people upset. X-23 just has to put on the suit and claim the title. Jane Foster had somehow get to the moon, somehow become worthy, somehow Odin lost control of his own enchantment and of course somehow Thor became unworthy. Could all this happen? Sure, but it's been almost two years since Thor lost Mjolnir with no explanations forthcoming. That's the very definition of forced and there's good reason for people to not like it, regardless of the quality of the character that follows. But that's where it gets sticky- people dislike the transition so much that it taints what comes after it even if what comes next is actually good. And in the case of FemThor it was terrible. Had it been an amazing series that was just a damn fine read people would mellow and look back with softer eyes on the swap at the least.
Hopefully Riri will turn out well. Hopefully we're given a good reason why Stark wants to push this child into his role. Because it we're not given a good reason, people will start to assume reasons.
4001
Post by: Compel
The main reason I keep on going back to Nightwing / Robin is because I kind of don't really know any other real character changes that have stuck.
For example, there is a vocal group complaining about Carol Danvers now being Captain Marvel.
A significant portion of people are extremely upset that Cyborg has been 'promoted' to Justice League member rather than Teen Titan.
People still see Rogue as a villain... Does anyone really think that Emma Frost / Cyclops is going to stay as a thing?
Literally, the whole Greyson is now Nightwing is the only exception to the 'status quo is God' rule I know of.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Rogue is still seen as a villain? She ran with the Brotherhood for all of two issues, then joined the X-Men. She's about as villainous as Howard the Duck.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Superheroes often go from being alter egos to being symbols. Captain America is a symbol, there will always be a Captain America, even if Steve Rogers dies. Kind of like how there is always a Black Panther. Iron Man is one of the most famous Avengers in the Marvel universe, he has become a symbol for the people there, so there must always be an Iron Man. There must always be a Wolverine, because of what it means to the X-Men and their enemies, the name instills fear in enemies.
It makes perfect sense to keep them going with new people after the originals have passed.
5394
Post by: reds8n
http://io9.gizmodo.com/damn-now-doctor-doom-is-becoming-iron-man-too-1783375955
skies are going to be very full in the marvel universe.
With regards to the earlier conversation :
For me one of the issues with the new 52 reboot was that Tim Drake wasn't Robin and, apparently, had never been.
DC has/had , generally, done quite with the concept of legacy heroes or mantles being passed on.
Prime example being The Flash and Wally West's growth both as a hero and a character.
Tim was the 1st Robin to hold down his own solo series , for a good few years, and had seen and done a hell of a lot even by Batman standards.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Interesting about this " Infamous Iron Man" twist - the two characters have some interesting history.
4001
Post by: Compel
timetowaste85 wrote:Rogue is still seen as a villain? She ran with the Brotherhood for all of two issues, then joined the X-Men. She's about as villainous as Howard the Duck.
Yeah, I legitimately don't understand it either but there's quite a chorus of people complaining in the Marvel Universe miniatures game that, "Rogue shouldn't be good, she should be neutral! She was in the Brotherhood!"
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Compel wrote: timetowaste85 wrote:Rogue is still seen as a villain? She ran with the Brotherhood for all of two issues, then joined the X-Men. She's about as villainous as Howard the Duck.
Yeah, I legitimately don't understand it either but there's quite a chorus of people complaining in the Marvel Universe miniatures game that, "Rogue shouldn't be good, she should be neutral! She was in the Brotherhood!"
Fandom has this weird trait where tiny in the long run insignificant details become "integral to the character." Especially if it happened in a popular run.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Though admittedly, I don't see a lot of people asking for that, or complaining about Cyborg in the JL either.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Eh, I started with the Justice League cartoon where Martian Manhunter was in the league. I kinda liked him more than Cyborg. But Cyborg has shown he has the chops, and I was never as attached to DC as Marvel. I've kind of gone with the flow for DC, but certain changes have annoyed me with Marvel because "that's not how it is".
Every time I see the "totally awesome" Hulk's a-hole gak-smear grin, I want to punch him in the face with a chainsaw. That scumbag isn't hulk. Hulk is the comic personification of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. That was the whole point of the character.
Meanwhile Laura being a clone of Logan I'm okay with, because she had TONS of time to build herself up into her own person, then take over for the man who was her brother, father, teacher, whatever. She also has a fling with young Cyclops, which is just hysterical given the usual hate that exists between Cyclops and Wolverine.
I also sincerely doubt I'll be willing to give Riri a chance either. Now, if she was Rhodey's long lost daughter and she took his place as War Machine, fighting alongside Iron Man because Rhodey was injured? Okay. I'm okay with that. But just Tony going "eh, she's smart, I'll hand the suit over to her"-no. feth that.
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
Compel wrote: timetowaste85 wrote:Rogue is still seen as a villain? She ran with the Brotherhood for all of two issues, then joined the X-Men. She's about as villainous as Howard the Duck.
Yeah, I legitimately don't understand it either but there's quite a chorus of people complaining in the Marvel Universe miniatures game that, "Rogue shouldn't be good, she should be neutral! She was in the Brotherhood!"
That sounds less like somebody claiming Rogue is evil than arguing that they should be allowed to field pre-X-Men Rogue in their Brotherhood of Mutants list but can't because of alignment restrictions.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Some people have been saying the comic for this is made by posed 3d models run through a cellshade/posterise filter.
Does anyone know any more about this?
4802
Post by: Mario
The comics industry is known for very tight schedules and looking for any way to save time and increase output. It could work if they have a solid pipeline for it but that type of process can end up looking really sterile (and harsh deadlines probably won't help in that case).
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 MrDwhitey wrote:Some people have been saying the comic for this is made by posed 3d models run through a cellshade/posterise filter.
Does anyone know any more about this?
Depends on the artists. They're given a lot of leeway on how they create their work, and so long as deadlines are met and the quality is good it's alright. Some artists I know use 3D programs to create reference models, but what you receive at the comic book store will more often than not be drawn with a stylus pad in something like Photoshop or Manga 5. You can usually tell how much computer work is done just by looking at the artwork. There's a certain depth perception that can be achieved with 3D imaging impossible with 2D drawing. An example if you can find them would be X-23 Vol. 3 No. 10, which I'm fairly sure was made with 3D imaging, then colored as opposed to X-23 Vol. 3 No. 4, which is more traditional.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Well it appears not to be the first time then. But also this is fairly special, if only related via the 3d models part. https://graphicpolicy.com/2016/04/28/is-that-tau-in-venom-space-knight-paging-gw-lawyers/
105530
Post by: SNAAAAKE
Personally- this ruins the point of Iron Man as a character.
Tony Stark was a war-profiteer billionaire playboy ladies man who preferred a party to actually helping anyone, then when he was captured (Afghanistan or Vietnam, depending on if you count Extremis as canon) he realised that life was too short to be propagating war, so he decided to turn the battlesuit he was demonstrating in 'Nam into a superhero costume.
Remove billionaire white man, I hate to say it, you remove Iron Man. Add the girl as an extra character, sure, make it like Scarlet Spider, or Miles Morales, so they complement the actual source material, rather than replace it entirely.
4001
Post by: Compel
So, as I understand it, it's ended up being much ado about nothing. She's effectively just a new character, "Iron Heart."
Meanwhile, the actual new Iron Man is none other than...
DOOM.
46277
Post by: squidhills
 reds8n wrote:
IIRC the Punisher is no longer a Vietnam veteran either.
I had not heard this. All during Garth Ennis' run, it was very clear the Big Pun was a 'Nam veteran. It makes him, Captain America, and Dr Strange the only three characters in Marvel comics who aren't affected by the sliding time-scale that has everyone else's backstory happening "just a few years ago".
4001
Post by: Compel
Isn't Magneto always a holocaust survivor too?
123
Post by: Alpharius
Compel wrote:So, as I understand it, it's ended up being much ado about nothing. She's effectively just a new character, "Iron Heart."
Meanwhile, the actual new Iron Man is none other than...
DOOM.
Now that is something I can get behind!
46277
Post by: squidhills
Oh yeah, how did I forget him? So that's four characters who are tied to specific periods/eras.
10356
Post by: Bran Dawri
I think the whole business off gender/raceswapping characters is silly.
However, there is only one Wolverine; a short, hairy Canuck with a temper (and is also mostly unaffected by Marvel's sliding timescale).
A female Wolverine however, is scary as f*ck!
...
Wolverine with PMS - the Hulk would, by comparison, be slightly miffed at worst  ...
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Compel wrote:So, as I understand it, it's ended up being much ado about nothing. She's effectively just a new character, "Iron Heart."
Meanwhile, the actual new Iron Man is none other than...
DOOM.
Doom's suit is honestly pretty goddamn badass.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Bran Dawri wrote:I think the whole business off gender/raceswapping characters is silly. However, there is only one Wolverine; a short, hairy Canuck with a temper (and is also mostly unaffected by Marvel's sliding timescale). A female Wolverine however, is scary as f*ck! ... Wolverine with PMS - the Hulk would, by comparison, be slightly miffed at worst ...
....you mean, X-23? She's literally a clone of Wolverine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-23 Automatically Appended Next Post:  Laughing Man wrote: Compel wrote:So, as I understand it, it's ended up being much ado about nothing. She's effectively just a new character, "Iron Heart." Meanwhile, the actual new Iron Man is none other than... DOOM.
Doom's suit is honestly pretty goddamn badass.
Is it? That's just War Machine with a cloak on.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Kind of. Even the article mentions that they couldn't make a full on clone because they lacked DNA that wasn't damaged. If it X-23 were a full on clone she would be a he, shorter, hirsute, have three claws on her hands instead of two, and such.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Ahtman wrote:
Kind of. Even the article mentions that they couldn't make a full on clone because they lacked DNA that wasn't damaged. If it X-23 were a full on clone she would be a he, shorter, hirsute, have three claws on her hands instead of two, and such.
Okay, she's still basically a female Wolverine. Also, Lady Deathstrike? Basically a female Wolverine too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Deathstrike
105530
Post by: SNAAAAKE
squidhills wrote: reds8n wrote:
IIRC the Punisher is no longer a Vietnam veteran either.
I had not heard this. All during Garth Ennis' run, it was very clear the Big Pun was a 'Nam veteran. It makes him, Captain America, and Dr Strange the only three characters in Marvel comics who aren't affected by the sliding time-scale that has everyone else's backstory happening "just a few years ago".
Nick Fury was a WWII Veteran, was he not?
46277
Post by: squidhills
I believe he was, yes (Nick Fury and the Howling Commandos). But at some point (I think it was in the mid-late 70s), our current Nick Fury became merged into the sliding timescale. A few years back, Garth Ennis portrayed him as a veteran of CIA operations in Vietnam (so not a *military* veteran, but still someone involved with military conflicts). While some WWII veterans could (and did) serve in Vietnam (mostly higher-ranking officers) it is unlikely that Fury could have been a WWII veteran and be able to kung-fu chop bad guys in the current MCU timeline, given that the only reason Cap can do it is he spent 30+ years frozen in a block of ice. And that whole super-soldier serum business. Also, I am of course referring to the classic, Hasslehoff version of Fury here... the newer, Sam Jackson version has been implied to have cut his teeth in the first Desert Storm and hasn't been around long enough for the sliding timescale to be an issue for him.
76278
Post by: Spinner
So, is everyone who was horrified at the thought of Riri as Iron Man okay with
DOOM
taking up the mantle? Just out of curiosity.
For however long it lasts, anyway.
At the very least, this sets Peter Parker up with something to tease Tony about! "At least I was dead when a megalomaniac was running around in my costume trying to be a good guy."
4001
Post by: Compel
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that thought cross their mind, Spinner...
123
Post by: Alpharius
I'm 100% OK with it - in fact, I love it!
As you note, it probably won't last long, but I love what Marvel's been doing with Doom leading up to, into and after SECRET WARS.
54233
Post by: AduroT
Doom's "I'm a good guy now!" routine in Invincible Iron Man has been pretty good. Will be interested to see where they go with it.
|
|
