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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

Isn't that what's currently going on with Peter Parker?

 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

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.

 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

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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 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.

 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.

Decided to look up Amadeus Cho... Was sorely disappointed

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.

 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.

 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!

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.