I know this is a nitpick, but I really don't like preview images they have put out for overall initiative. They look so generic and bland that take away from the "all new" aspect of the pitch.
ive never heard of him before... so he's like one of the most powerful Marvel super heroes right now?
he's like Marvel's Superman?? besides Hyperion and Sentry?
interesting, but kind of lame...
The introduction of The Blue Marvel in Kevin Grevioux's 2009 mini series "Adam: Legend of the Blue Marvel" was actually a pretty good read. If I remember correctly, it was a good concept... The world wasn't ready for a black "Superman", so the government asked Adam to "retire".
Terrible costume though.
His few appearances since then have also been fairly good. I liked the personality conflict with Luke Cage in the recent Mighty Avengers.
I like his first costume. Even if it was a bit Doctor Fate-ish.
This is a great "get". And, given the buzz around Coates, and his book these last few months, this is an announcement that is already getting mainstream press- and not just on some noteworthy new character, or version of a character, but rather on a name, new to comics talent on one of their established characters.
(I link to NYTimes, but there is already a number of other big outlets covering it)
Well, Marvel, regarding the earlier conversation, and concerns that people have been having about the current slate of writers at Marvel, that's a good start.
That last panel makes absolutely no sense. So few existing mutants are second generation mutants, why would sterilisation mean extinction?
The idea that Terrigan mists would cause mutants problems makes a lot more sense than House of M's "no more mutants", as Inhumans are caused by Kree genetic tampering with humans and mutants caused by Celestial genetic tampering.
I know the discussion around what publishers might do to have a more diverse talent pool has come up in a number of different places. I think it got talked about in the most detail, at least recently, in this discussion, so I thought I would put this here for those that are interested (even though the discussion is not at all limited to current Marvel).
Stephanie Foo, a radio producer for This American Life and other places, has written a piece to try to answer a question she is asked a lot as one of the few people of color on the various staffs and organizations she has worked for, 'How do you diversify public media?' She is usually asked it by people that are trying to do so, but hitting challenges.
There are, of course, a number of degrees of separation between public media and comics publishers. The most important one being the difference between not-for-profit and for profit. And I think Foo's piece has bigger implications for not-for-profit workplaces. But, knowing that some of these same questions have come up around comics, and with the criticism in particular that Marvel, DC, and in past years Image, has received about how they staff their books (or, in the case of Image, what creators they partner with to publish), I think it is an interesting think piece around the challenges and some potential approaches the finding talented staff that will also diversify your workplace to better reflect and grow your audience (or, in the case of comics, your readership).
So, for those interested in reading and thinking more about those questions, here is a link:
All-inclusive doesn't include conservatives, apparently. As demonstrated by Nick Spencer revealing his inner Anti-Trump by trolling people who are against people sneaking into the country illegally.
All-inclusive doesn't include conservatives, apparently. As demonstrated by Nick Spencer revealing his inner Anti-Trump by trolling people who are against people sneaking into the country illegally.
In that story, the Serpent Society are not simply "conservatives" as that reporter suggests. They are armed vigilantes acting outside the law. They are domestic terrorists. And the sorts of characters are nothing All-New or All-Different. We have seen in Captain America for decades (remember The Watchdogs?)
If that commentator from the think tank relates to the Serpent Society point of view, or brands them as conservatives and is offended on their behalf, then that is on him. I haven't read the issue yet, but doubt they self-identified as conservatives or Trump supporters in the story. (Though, if you have read it, please correct me if I am wrong).
In the pages shown, what I see are the kind of criminals and domestic terror groups that the original Cap was fighting when I was a kid.
EDIT- And, to be clear, I am not suggesting there aren't political zeitgeist things at play in this story. From what I see, of course there are. As there have been in Captain America stories from the very first cover he appeared on.
What I am saying is the premise that Cap fighting The Serpent Society = Cap is fighting Conservatives likely ignores the part where the former are armed criminals and the latter are, in the vast majority, law abiding people. Last I hear, Trump has not called on his supporters to put on hoods and head to the border themselves. He is suggesting what the government can do differently, lawfully. And that makes a huge distinction between the fictional super-terrorists of the story and "conservatives."
TLDR Version: That Think-Tank's attempt at some clickbait outrage? Yawn.
PS- And if people who actually support armed vigilantism feel excluded from All-New All-Different Marvel, don't worry. I'm sure a new Punisher book will be announced soon. ;)
If you don't think the writer is inserting any of his politics into this kind of story line, I disagree.
The writer of the new Cap comic is vocally pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and his writing reflects that. I generally like Mr. Spencer's books, but I'm not much of a fan of partisan politics in funny books as a general rule.
They aren't the Serpent Society, they are the Sons of the Serpent. Who have been racist American patriots since 1966 (Avengers #32). You should be mad at society for making them still relevant almost 50 years later rather than Spencer for using them.
If you don't think the writer is inserting any of his politics into this kind of story line, I disagree.
The writer of the new Cap comic is vocally pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and his writing reflects that. I generally like Mr. Spencer's books, but I'm not much of a fan of partisan politics in funny books as a general rule.
Then Cap might not be for you.
Kirby and Simon were expressing their politics through that character back in 1941.
My point is not that Spencer is not writing from a political point of view. All art is political, especially when you write a character meant to embody ideals that must be interpreted, and then there have to be bad guys to punch.
My point, though, is that the premise in the video that 'Cap is fighting Conservatives!' is clickbait rubbish. The common clickbait tactic of false equivalency. It ignores the history of who the SS are, and what they look to be actually doing in the story.
In terms of attacks on conservative figures in Captain America, it will be hard to beat Richard Nixon committing suicide after being discovered as the leader of the Secret Empire.
In terms of attacks on conservative figures in Captain America, it will be hard to beat Richard Nixon committing suicide after being discovered as the leader of the Secret Empire.
And don't forget snake headed Ronald Reagan.
By comparison with him stories this Nick Spencer stuff looks pretty tame.
Nick is absolutely writing from a political point of view in this. He used the SS to fulfill his narrative about how he feels politically. Can anyone recall the SS being fans of the Constitution? I don't. And the tweet I referenced was sent out the day of this comic's release. Do you really mean to dismiss the possibility that the current political landscape influences Nick's writing? Here's an unrelated tweet.
When you're writing about a Captain America who defends people breaking the law while opposing those who hold the US Constitution up as an important document for this country, then you aren't writing Lee or Kirby'sCaptain America. And you're right @David_D , they aren't writing a Captain America for me. It's clear that these SS strawmen are the far extreme of a current poltical position, but it's still a position the writer disagrees with, even with reasonable amnesty opposition.
My Captain America didn't normally touch on partisan, hot-button domestic issues. Nixon was a bit of a crook (and some would argue, so is Hillary). Instead, Cap focused on international fascists, communists, terrorists, and anarchists bent on world destruction. This new one is focused on a decidedly leftist meme, "social justice." But then again, Sam Wilson used to be a social worker before this (or a pimp, if you're old school).
Oh well. I'm only picking up one of two of these new Marvel titles anyways. Maybe this thread will serve to get the word out to those who prefer their funny books with a heavy dose of political posturing. Then they can support their LCS by picking up this month's issue if they missed it.
I think it would be fair to say that that conservative writers (and probably conservative readers) would be the minority in the comic industry as a whole.
The big 2 seem to want and encourge books to explore more liberal minded ideas (to a degree) to appeal to what "may" be the established customer base and to reach out to diverse groups of people who may have not have been represented by the industry in the past.
I do not think that the intention is blantantly "Cap is fighting Conservatives." It is a case of them being a liberal minded company who mostly hires liberal minded writers who given the right opportunity are going to espouse their worldview. They hope this appeals to what they think is their current liberal minded audience and draws in other liberal groups because they think that is an untapped market.
The margin of error for my comments ranges from 0 to 100%
Again, I'm not saying that Spencer is not writing a Cap that isn't political. I'm saying he is continuing a tradition from the very creation of the character of tackling hot button issues. (Remember, Captain America Comics #1 saw print months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. So depicting an American service member punching out Hitler was a political statement on the issue- contentious and divisive at the time- of whether or not the US should join the war). And does Spencer have outspoken political opinions? Yes. So did Kirby and Simon.
What I am dismissing as rubbish is the premise the think tank that made that video is running with that 'Captain America is fighting Conservatives.' If they see the violent lawlessness of the Sons of the Serpent as Conservatism rather than domestic terrorism, then they have a poor opinion of Conservatives.
They aren't the Serpent Society, they are the Sons of the Serpent. Who have been racist American patriots since 1966 (Avengers #32). You should be mad at society for making them still relevant almost 50 years later rather than Spencer for using them.
Boom. Well done!
Also, being Anti-Trump is a bad thing? :lol:
So much passive aggressive language in this thread. "Heavy dose of political posturing"? Funny how some can dish it out, but can't take it. Besides, isn't liberalism just 'a twitter-proof mental disorder'?
Comments
(I link to NYTimes, but there is already a number of other big outlets covering it)
Ta-Nehisi Coates to write Black Panther for Marvel.
Well, Marvel, regarding the earlier conversation, and concerns that people have been having about the current slate of writers at Marvel, that's a good start.
(If we are tracking recycled ideas)
The idea that Terrigan mists would cause mutants problems makes a lot more sense than House of M's "no more mutants", as Inhumans are caused by Kree genetic tampering with humans and mutants caused by Celestial genetic tampering.
But that panel is a dumb panel.
Crazy, I know, but call it a hunch.
Johnny Storm is an Inhuman now? or is he back with Crystal? WAIT.. he's with MEDUSA??
Stephanie Foo, a radio producer for This American Life and other places, has written a piece to try to answer a question she is asked a lot as one of the few people of color on the various staffs and organizations she has worked for, 'How do you diversify public media?' She is usually asked it by people that are trying to do so, but hitting challenges.
There are, of course, a number of degrees of separation between public media and comics publishers. The most important one being the difference between not-for-profit and for profit. And I think Foo's piece has bigger implications for not-for-profit workplaces. But, knowing that some of these same questions have come up around comics, and with the criticism in particular that Marvel, DC, and in past years Image, has received about how they staff their books (or, in the case of Image, what creators they partner with to publish), I think it is an interesting think piece around the challenges and some potential approaches the finding talented staff that will also diversify your workplace to better reflect and grow your audience (or, in the case of comics, your readership).
So, for those interested in reading and thinking more about those questions, here is a link:
What To Do If Your Workplace Is Too White by Stephanie Foo
Yawn.
If that commentator from the think tank relates to the Serpent Society point of view, or brands them as conservatives and is offended on their behalf, then that is on him. I haven't read the issue yet, but doubt they self-identified as conservatives or Trump supporters in the story. (Though, if you have read it, please correct me if I am wrong).
In the pages shown, what I see are the kind of criminals and domestic terror groups that the original Cap was fighting when I was a kid.
EDIT- And, to be clear, I am not suggesting there aren't political zeitgeist things at play in this story. From what I see, of course there are. As there have been in Captain America stories from the very first cover he appeared on.
What I am saying is the premise that Cap fighting The Serpent Society = Cap is fighting Conservatives likely ignores the part where the former are armed criminals and the latter are, in the vast majority, law abiding people. Last I hear, Trump has not called on his supporters to put on hoods and head to the border themselves. He is suggesting what the government can do differently, lawfully. And that makes a huge distinction between the fictional super-terrorists of the story and "conservatives."
TLDR Version: That Think-Tank's attempt at some clickbait outrage? Yawn.
The writer of the new Cap comic is vocally pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and his writing reflects that. I generally like Mr. Spencer's books, but I'm not much of a fan of partisan politics in funny books as a general rule.
Kirby and Simon were expressing their politics through that character back in 1941.
My point is not that Spencer is not writing from a political point of view. All art is political, especially when you write a character meant to embody ideals that must be interpreted, and then there have to be bad guys to punch.
My point, though, is that the premise in the video that 'Cap is fighting Conservatives!' is clickbait rubbish. The common clickbait tactic of false equivalency. It ignores the history of who the SS are, and what they look to be actually doing in the story.
By comparison with him stories this Nick Spencer stuff looks pretty tame.
Nick is absolutely writing from a political point of view in this. He used the SS to fulfill his narrative about how he feels politically. Can anyone recall the SS being fans of the Constitution? I don't. And the tweet I referenced was sent out the day of this comic's release. Do you really mean to dismiss the possibility that the current political landscape influences Nick's writing? Here's an unrelated tweet.
When you're writing about a Captain America who defends people breaking the law while opposing those who hold the US Constitution up as an important document for this country, then you aren't writing Lee or Kirby's Captain America. And you're right @David_D , they aren't writing a Captain America for me. It's clear that these SS strawmen are the far extreme of a current poltical position, but it's still a position the writer disagrees with, even with reasonable amnesty opposition.
My Captain America didn't normally touch on partisan, hot-button domestic issues. Nixon was a bit of a crook (and some would argue, so is Hillary). Instead, Cap focused on international fascists, communists, terrorists, and anarchists bent on world destruction. This new one is focused on a decidedly leftist meme, "social justice." But then again, Sam Wilson used to be a social worker before this (or a pimp, if you're old school).
Oh well. I'm only picking up one of two of these new Marvel titles anyways. Maybe this thread will serve to get the word out to those who prefer their funny books with a heavy dose of political posturing. Then they can support their LCS by picking up this month's issue if they missed it.
Hey, comics!
The big 2 seem to want and encourge books to explore more liberal minded ideas (to a degree) to appeal to what "may" be the established customer base and to reach out to diverse groups of people who may have not have been represented by the industry in the past.
I do not think that the intention is blantantly "Cap is fighting Conservatives." It is a case of them being a liberal minded company who mostly hires liberal minded writers who given the right opportunity are going to espouse their worldview. They hope this appeals to what they think is their current liberal minded audience and draws in other liberal groups because they think that is an untapped market.
The margin of error for my comments ranges from 0 to 100%
Again, I'm not saying that Spencer is not writing a Cap that isn't political. I'm saying he is continuing a tradition from the very creation of the character of tackling hot button issues. (Remember, Captain America Comics #1 saw print months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. So depicting an American service member punching out Hitler was a political statement on the issue- contentious and divisive at the time- of whether or not the US should join the war). And does Spencer have outspoken political opinions? Yes. So did Kirby and Simon.
What I am dismissing as rubbish is the premise the think tank that made that video is running with that 'Captain America is fighting Conservatives.' If they see the violent lawlessness of the Sons of the Serpent as Conservatism rather than domestic terrorism, then they have a poor opinion of Conservatives.
Also, being Anti-Trump is a bad thing? :lol:
So much passive aggressive language in this thread. "Heavy dose of political posturing"? Funny how some can dish it out, but can't take it. Besides, isn't liberalism just 'a twitter-proof mental disorder'?
And no, Falcon was not a pimp.
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2013/03/29/comic-book-legends-revealed-412/2/