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.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Why? Thor's a woman too and Iron Man is now very Silver Surfer in terms of color.

Why not??

Honestly.


In this way, Marvel is opening up new potential revenue streams, as well as simply having the cajones to do what DC will not. In case you missed it, Ms. Marvel is also a Muslim and not-white to boot. Ultimately, what does the color of Iron Man's armor have to do with the price of tea in China? He's still Iron Man, until someone else (generally speaking) is in the suit, then there's War Machine and that ghastly "Iron Patriot"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Why? Thor's a woman too and Iron Man is now very Silver Surfer in terms of color.

Why not??

Honestly.


In this way, Marvel is opening up new potential revenue streams, as well as simply having the cajones to do what DC will not. In case you missed it, Ms. Marvel is also a Muslim and not-white to boot. Ultimately, what does the color of Iron Man's armor have to do with the price of tea in China? He's still Iron Man, until someone else (generally speaking) is in the suit, then there's War Machine and that ghastly "Iron Patriot"

Because it feels like a PR stunt, same as when they made Amazing Spiderman gay for no reason. Is Marvel really at the point where they need to make cash grabs? Why not invent a character that's black instead of remaking existing characters?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Absolutely not. He was black in one series, the 2003 limited edition series. He's also my favorite superhero, so don't screw with me on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Bradley

IF you are going to look at wiki you need to look at all of it, especially the last part:

During a battle with an enemy called the Iron Nail, the Super-Soldier Serum within Rogers's body was neutralized, causing him to age rapidly to match his chronological age of over 90. No longer able to take part in field missions but retaining his sharp mind, Rogers decided to take on a role as mission co-ordinator, organizing the Avengers' plans of attack from the mansion, while appointing Sam Wilson as his official 'replacement' as Captain America.

And on The Falcon's entry:

After Rogers is aged into an old man, he appoints Falcon as his 'official' replacement as Captain America.

Steve Rogers is now essentially The Oracle from Batman.

He also got killed murdered and they retconned that. Why not throw Steve Rogers a Red Bull and have him back in action? Also, appreciate the elitist attitude.

As for complaining about Thor and Iron Man you are both months behind the time (we had a thread about it already) and informed as well as someone who doesn't read comics is but sees headlines on non-comic websites.

Oh geez, throw me on a stake and light me on fire. Sorry, after Disney bought Marvel, I pretty much checked out.

 Vermis wrote:
Rogers will be back.

Most likely, but it wasn't stated that Steve Rogers wasn't black it was said that Captain America wasn't. As it stands Captain America is, in fact, a black man.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Because it feels like a PR stunt, same as when they made Amazing Spiderman gay for no reason. Is Marvel really at the point where they need to make cash grabs? Why not invent a character that's black instead of remaking existing characters?

How many characters does Marvel legitimately have? IIRC, it's in the hundreds now. There is absolutely no need to create new characters.


And realistically, they are not "remaking" existing characters, they are providing progress for stories and characters alike. Why should Rogers' be unable to lose his Super Soldier status? How many times has Thor pissed off daddy and lost his powers? In the established timelines of many characters, different people have taken on the mantle of a character... so why shouldn't one of those people be gay or lesbian?

I love reading comic book debates. It makes me wish the medium wasn't so expensive per page- with my reading speed, it is just uneconomical.

./popcorn.

Has Thor ever been an undead frog? It seems like Mjolnir is just begging to be passed around.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Because it feels like a PR stunt, same as when they made Amazing Spiderman gay for no reason. Is Marvel really at the point where they need to make cash grabs? Why not invent a character that's black instead of remaking existing characters?

How many characters does Marvel legitimately have? IIRC, it's in the hundreds now. There is absolutely no need to create new characters.


And realistically, they are not "remaking" existing characters, they are providing progress for stories and characters alike. Why should Rogers' be unable to lose his Super Soldier status? How many times has Thor pissed off daddy and lost his powers? In the established timelines of many characters, different people have taken on the mantle of a character... so why shouldn't one of those people be gay or lesbian?

Because again, it seems like a cash grab. Any reason black Cap and girl Thor just happen to show up at the same time? Also, why not a female Punisher? And if they want to remake characters, fine, but don't do it for the sake of saying "Oh look! Hulk's Guatemalan!"

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I love reading comic book debates. It makes me wish the medium wasn't so expensive per page- with my reading speed, it is just uneconomical.

Personally, I dont buy individual issues, I wait till they are compiled into one volume (a la "Deadpool Classic; Vol. 1-9, or Complete Deadpool by Daniel Way; Vol. 1-4, Planet Hulk, World War Hulk, etc)

It is by no means cheap, but I think it's possible that it's cheaper than individual issues

 reds8n wrote:

I am also somewhat fed up with : Batman meeting a girl and deciding to stop being Batman and/or Batman revealing his identity to a girl for similar reasons.



He's Batman, he'll never be happy or stop.

This is why a proper Talia Al Ghul plotline could be so interesting for a film, ala Arkham City.

Really did not like the HL Joker at all. I agree with what has been said before that his joker was in fact not the joker at all, but some psychopath in Joker disguise.

I think you guys are not giving Nicholson enough credit for what he brought to the role. He brought a level of sinisterism that the HL psycho could not match. The JN Joker was bad and he knew it, the HL joker was just insane.

GG

 jreilly89 wrote:


K. Bravo Disney. Now how about make Yoda a woman and Han Solo black too?

I think there was the idea of him being black being thrown around at the time the film was being made...

**Edit: Yep- this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glynn_Turman

 generalgrog wrote:
Really did not like the HL Joker at all. I agree with what has been said before that his joker was in fact not the joker at all, but some psychopath in Joker disguise.

I think you guys are not giving Nicholson enough credit for what he brought to the role. He brought a level of sinisterism that the HL psycho could not match. The JN Joker was bad and he knew it, the HL joker was just insane.

GG

I don't agree with you... I understand that you don't like the HL Joker, but perhaps it's more the fault of the movie at large? I personally think that each would be severely out of place in the other's movie, and that is because each fits within his time and portrayal of the character.

Actually, I think that if HL had survived, we may have seen him in another Bat film. I personally think his brand of insanity is worse than JN's Joker because he knows what buttons to push, and he pushes them in his own way.

Personally, I never did like Jacko's use of the gas that kills everyone, giving them "his" face (the permanent grin), but to each his own.

 generalgrog wrote:
was in fact not the joker at all

I dislike this argument as there is no singular Joker: not in the comic, not it animated fare, and not in films. Like Batman the character has been around for decades and has seen changes throughout that time.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


K. Bravo Disney. Now how about make Yoda a woman and Han Solo black too?

I think there was the idea of him being black being thrown around at the time the film was being made...

**Edit: Yep- this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glynn_Turman

"Yo dawg, the force you must use."

I take it back. I will give Disney all of my money for black gangster Yoda

 Ahtman wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
was in fact not the joker at all

I dislike this argument as there is no singular Joker: not in the comic, not it animated fare, and not in films. Like Batman the character has been around for decades and has seen changes throughout that time.

I guess what I meant to say, was what I think is the "ideal" Joker for me.

GG

 jreilly89 wrote:


I take it back. I will give Disney all of my money for black gangster Yoda

We sort of DID have that, in those movies that some people seem to remember... They had Samuel L. Jackson in them, I think. I can't really be sure, because I can't recall a single ".....Melon Farmer....." line in the whole damn movie

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Why not??

Honestly.


In this way, Marvel is opening up new potential revenue streams

And then closing them again as fanboys (including the ones that ascended to word-monkeys) stay away in droves or pine for the status quo.

jreilly89 wrote:
Because it feels like a PR stunt, same as when they made Amazing Spiderman gay for no reason.

When did that happen?

Ahtman wrote:Most likely, but it wasn't stated that Steve Rogers wasn't black it was said that Captain America wasn't. As it stands Captain America is, in fact, a black man.

And then two minutes later Steve will be all serumed up again and retake the mantle from the pretender for the umpteenth time since the 40's and all the true fanboys will breathe a sigh of relief at the restoration of the, guess what, status quo and reminisce along the lines of "hey remember when Sam Wilson was Captain America me neither lololol"...

Like it or not, too many classic characters are too bound up for too long, with their alter egos or their particular shtick in the popular consciousness. Azrael or Dick Grayson can play at being Batman for a bit, but 'everyone knows' it's really Bruce Wayne who gets to be the real deal. The Bombastic Bag Man might be a larf for a few pages, but then he has to put away his grocery paraphernalia and put the webs back on. You're technically correct in that at this precise point in time, the man wearing the Captain America costume and starring in the Captain America comic is the aforementioned Sam Wilson, who just happens to be an african-american gentleman, but in the wider context we're kidding ourselves if this is going to have much lasting relevance other than Marvel pointing it out to shrill bloggers to say 'Look, we can do non-white leads! For all of er, five minutes..."

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
How many characters does Marvel legitimately have? IIRC, it's in the hundreds now. There is absolutely no need to create new characters.

How many of those hundreds do you actually see from month to month? How many have been seen, or remembered, in years? Sure they can create new characters, Whether any of them can stick, as more than hasty tokens, is another question.

But yeah, Marvel has their own back-catalogue of non-white characters, and sometimes they can be well written. I remember Luke Cage being great and popular as the caretaker of the Thunderbolts. (A series that also made good use of one of those ex-Caps, too) I have a feeling Marvel could use a few secondary minority characters as more than also-rans or wearers of Honky's hand-me-downs, but see my reply to your previous post, above...

And realistically, they are not "remaking" existing characters, they are providing progress for stories and characters alike.

Please.

Gitzbitah wrote:I love reading comic book debates. It makes me wish the medium wasn't so expensive per page- with my reading speed, it is just uneconomical.

Wouldn't worry about it. The nerd-fights are usually more entertaining than the comics these days.

It seems like Mjolnir is just begging to be passed around.

That's happened a few times too. I think Beta Ray Bill had a miniseries a couple of years ago, then away again. Who knows what 'Extraneous Wrung-Dry Superhero Retirement Home' Thunderstrike disappeared off to.

I'm not really a comic person, but I do like the universes and the films, naturally. Plus I've expanded out to the non-comic stuff (DC animated movies are great, grew up with BATS, the X-men and Spiderman cartoons)

I've got to admit, I've found this sort of thing quite interesting.

I men, yeah, to me, at least, the top characters, it seems weird to change them about. - So, the most recognisable Avengers, Batman and the like. It just always feels natural that Bruce Wayne is The Batman, for example.

However...

It also feels perfectly natural for me now, for example, to have absolutely no interest in bringing back Dick Grayson to be Robin in any sort of feature. I'm quite content for him to be Nightwing. In saying that, there doesn't feel any other 'natural' Robin to me. Thanks to 'Under the Red Hood' and the like, Jason Todd is also 'naturally' not an option.


I seem to remember there being quite a barmy about making Barbara Gordon be Batgirl again, because to many people, it was natural' that Babs = Batgirl. But, on the other hand, probably massively helped by the Arkham series, it was felt very natural to a lot of people that, just like Dick had become Nightwing now, that Babs was now Oracle. - So which was the 'status quo' in that case?

Just saying, 'whoever was first' doesn't really answer things. - I don't hear much clamouring to make Jay Garrick be The Flash when the TV show was announced. But, was there not some question about Wally West?

So, as I said, being on the periphery of the grand comic debates, it's all very interesting indeed.

 Vermis wrote:

And realistically, they are not "remaking" existing characters, they are providing progress for stories and characters alike.

Please.

It's true, whether you like it or not. Take just the Cap/Falcon thing. Since we generally all know/assume that Steve is going to get the power of the serum back at some point (as opposed to Bucky coming back and being Cap, again)... there comes the issues where the hand-off happens again, giving writers new stuff to write about.

There's been a story progression: Falcon has been Cap, even if it was briefly, so that can be remembered/flashed back to, or brought up. Cap will have even more faith in Falcon to follow orders.

I mean, Captain America has been around since what... the 30s or 40s? There's a gakload that he's done, some of the things he's done has been rehashed at least once. Writers eventually must come up with something "new" in order to keep the character's story moving, as well as keeping the comic books moving off shelves.

I liked both movies, Nolan's version is really dark while Burton's version is more a dark comedy IMHO, Liked Batman returns more can't beat penguins with rockets!

 Vermis wrote:

jreilly89 wrote:
Because it feels like a PR stunt, same as when they made Amazing Spiderman gay for no reason.

When did that happen?

Sorry, it was actually Ultimate Colossus. My brain autocorrected to Spiderman for some reason.