Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

Well, the current branding is, "All New, All Different Marvel" - so it's kinda to be expected.

 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.

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!

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?

 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.

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but it's a bummer they probably can't call her Iron Maiden.......

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting about this " Infamous Iron Man" twist - the two characters have some interesting history.

 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!"

 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.

Though admittedly, I don't see a lot of people asking for that, or complaining about Cyborg in the JL either.

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.

 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.

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?