[Edit: I should clarify and say that the comics industry as we know it isn't going to survive on just younger or just older readers.]
It's probably not going to survive PERIOD. All signs point in that direction. We're just tap dancing until that time finally arrives.
I should probably clarify that more by dropping out the “as we know it,” because, yes, the industry is definitely in a period of evolution. I was trying to distinguish between comics the medium and comics the industry. I think comics as a medium will be around long after I'm gone. It’s the industry of comics that’s at risk. But I've become more optimistic about the health of the industry overall during the past few months. I'm not saying it's going to last forever, or that it will ever go back to boom times, but I don’t think it’s going to collapse any time soon either.
While the floppy is a large part of the current structure of the comics industry, I think the industry can survive the death of the floppy. Or at least, I believe it will be able to by the time we get to that point.
So why does there seem to be a difference between how people feel about Supergirl and how they feel about a black Captain America? Is it simply because Supergirl has been around since before we started reading comics? And if so, why should that matter?
If you're referring to Isaiah Bradley, was there a lot of backlash over that? If you meant Captain America: Sam Wilson I can only speak for myself, and I think it's daft Marvel decided not to have an honest-to-goodness 'Falcon' book when the MCU has proven that the Falcon has been a very well-received character to mainstream audiences. Anthony Mackie has entertained audiences in four blockbuster movies now and he's been a favorite character of mine as well as others, for years. The only time they've tried to give Falcon a solo book was when Christopher Priest wrote a mini-series for him in 1983 (a full 33 years ago).
Maybe the 2014 tpb Avengers: Falcon (reprints) didn't sell well enough for them to feel a Falcon series was warranted, but Marvel apparently thinks it's a good idea to give an ongoing book to Slapstick...other than just wanting to refresh / secure the 'Slapstick!' trademark - who was asking for that? And they certainly aren't helping fans of the MCU Falcon find the series on the shelves by calling it Captain America: Sam Wilson. Perhaps they're counting on nationwide friendly helpfulness at the LCS.
Marvel apparently thinks it's a good idea to give an ongoing book to Slapstick...other than just wanting to refresh / secure the 'Slapstick!' trademark - who was asking for that?
Slapstick, Solo and Foolkiller have all been appearing regularly in two comics (Deadpool, Deadpool & The Mercs for Money) over the last year. They likely won't be long running comics, but there is a recent existing audience for these characters, so it's not as big a risk as a Mosaic.
That said, Solo had horrible artwork, so they are not off to a good start. Slapstick has the much better Diego Olortegui on art duties so hopefully will be stronger.
If you meant Captain America: Sam Wilson I can only speak for myself, and I think it's daft Marvel decided not to have an honest-to-goodness 'Falcon' book when the MCU has proven that the Falcon has been a very well-received character to mainstream audiences. Anthony Mackie has entertained audiences in four blockbuster movies now and he's been a favorite character of mine as well as others, for years. The only time they've tried to give Falcon a solo book was when Christopher Priest wrote a mini-series for him in 1983 (a full 33 years ago).
Okay, I get that. What about the Supergirl part of the question? Any problems with that character, and why or why not? Also, to follow up with Cap, would you have had a problem with a completely new minority character—someone you had no investment in—becoming Captain America? [Edit: And I'm only specifying minority to keep it within the context of this wave of minority-swapping. If there is any other character you would be okay with becoming Cap, Bucky for instance, I'd be interested in hearing why as well.]
Can we keep single issues and just get rid of the term "floppy?"
As long as everyone knows what we're talking about, it doesn't really matter to me what they are referred to as. I don't take "floppy" as an insult to a format that was intended to be disposable entertainment.
What about the Supergirl part of the question? Any problems with that character, and why or why not? Also, to follow up with Cap, would you have had a problem with a completely new minority character—someone you had no investment in—becoming Captain America? [Edit: And I'm only specifying minority to keep it within the context of this wave of minority-swapping. If there is any other character you would be okay with becoming Cap, Bucky for instance, I'd be interested in hearing why as well.]
When Captain America dies or hands the shield to someone else, it will still be up for critique. Obviously the most likely candidate for the mantle is Sam Wilson, but I believe my perception that a Falcon series, with Sam Wilson using the name he made for himself (with wings from Black Panther), would have been more appropriate move and I hope Marvel makes that decision before the next Avengers film.
In fact, I'd like to see more Miles Morales’, Black Panthers, Storms, Al Simmons’, Blades, Misty Knights, Statics, Mr. Terrifics, Luke Cages, etc - diverse characters who are their own character and also the first of their own legacy, not merely the same character name just using a different gender or skin tone. It shouldn’t have to take the race-changing of established properties for people of color to be fully represented in comics.
And while I get that for many of those that disagree with me, it’s about the core values and beliefs of these characters, not about specific traits or the person. And that anyone can be and should be heroes like Spider-Man, Ms. Marvel, and Captain America because of what these characters represent and have come to represent in terms of values, and I can see that point, but I still would prefer a Falcon title than a second Captain America title with ":Sam Wilson." It almost makes the comics seem less diverse because why can't Sam be his own man?
I also agree with many others, including Stan Lee himself, who would like to see new characters making a name for themselves and not co-opting existing names. When Marvel makes a Lady Thor, or a teenage girl becomes Iron Man, it's usually more about media attention than good, original stories. When Marvel creates a new IP, the media at-large doesn’t usually care. Bleeding Cool or Newsarama will cover it, but the NYTimes isn’t going to give a rip. But when they turn Thor into a woman, or make Spider-Man black, Iceman gay, or have Superman suddenly revealed to be undergoing a Caitlyn Jenner-like transformation… (kryptonite scalpels) - then you will get the press clamoring. It doesn’t matter if it ends up failing commercially, because most people won’t ever know that. They’ll just remember the crazy story they heard about on the news. (And I know that technically these stories didn't happen that way, but the press presented it that way, just check that Stan Lee hyperlink if you don't believe me).
As for Supergirl, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Whether they should change her name so modern women wouldn't be offended by the word "girl?" Or are you asking if they should make a new Supergirl and have Kara become Superwoman in the comics? I'd be fine with the latter, but neither option for the CW show. It was the right decision to keep that name. But whatever they do, I'd prefer they not pass the Supergirl mantle on to a boy who identifies as a girl (as Miley Cyrus would prefer). Otherwise, they risk upseting a lot of girls and women who like their superhero cultural icons just they way they are.
In fact, I'd like to see more Miles Morales’, Black Panthers, Storms, Al Simmons’, Blades, Misty Knights, Statics, Mr. Terrifics, Luke Cages, etc - diverse characters who are their own character and also the first of their own legacy, not merely the same character name just using a different gender or skin tone. It shouldn’t have to take the race-changing of established properties for people of color to be fully represented in comics.
I’m actually with you on that. I also wish Marvel and DC didn’t produce 15 Avengers books and 20 Batman books. Maybe they’d have more room on the schedule to produce strong titles featuring new minority characters.
(I crossed out Mr. Terrific because he was a white male superhero in the Golden Age. But I know you’re a Marvel guy, not a DC guy.)
As for Supergirl, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Whether they should change her name so modern women wouldn't be offended by the word "girl?" Or are you asking if they should make a new Supergirl and have Kara become Superwoman in the comics? I'd be fine with the latter, but neither option for the CW show. It was the right decision to keep that name. But whatever they do, I'd prefer they not pass the Supergirl mantle on to a boy who identifies as a girl (as Miley Cyrus would prefer). Otherwise, they risk upseting a lot of girls and women who like their superhero cultural icons just they way they are.
This goes back to my original question in response to Mark’s post: “Imagine being attracted to a comic book character that resonates with you, your culture, your skin color, your gender, etc., then discovering that character is essentially just playing ‘dress up’ using someone else's M.O. The subtle (or not so subtle) message that ‘your kind can't make it unless we smuggle you in using this costume’ is counterproductive to achieving true equality and inclusiveness.”
I was wondering if you agree with Mark’s assessment, and whether or not you think it should be applied to older examples, like Supergirl, Batgirl, etc., and not just to the current gender-flipped characters like Thor.
Hmm. Well, (using Sam Wilson as a clumsy example), imagine being a young, black reader who is excited about Captain America who is black, but aren't familiar with Sam Wilson's long history of being his own man (along with his history with Black Panther), protecting common citizens on the streets of Harlem, and so on. Do you think potentially that when the reader discovers the switch had been made that they might wonder why Marvel didn't just keep him as the Falcon - especially with the impact the character has had in the Avengers: Age of Ulton, Captain America: Winter Soldier, and Ant-Man MCU films? I'll admit that Nick Spencer is doing a good job dealing with Sam Wilson's past in the book, so that is an unlikely scenario, but in a lesser writer's hands, who knows? Some young kids may only be looking at the pictures and skipping the words. That's how I first experienced comics after getting beyond Hot Stuff.
I don't think Mark was addressing any one specific character, but rather the general idea of changing the gender/race/cultural background/etc. of a character.
Time to throw in my two cents. I am more than ok to admit I was 100℅ wrong about my first feelings/postings about the new Ms. Marvel. I'm happy about that; the portions of her series I've on Marvel Unlimited have been fun.
I fell in love with Ghost Rider with Danny Ketch (GR 2.0) and loved that a Mexican kid from L.A. is the new GR. I'm Ghost Rider guy so it could be any one, but a woman (only 95℅ finding 5℅ knows Marvel tried and failed 2x already).
I'm on record I just want to read good comics dang it.
I wonder how many of the new fans of that Ms. Marvel had ever read any stories with any version of a Ms. Marvel in it."
Which makes the whole sub-letting practice even more ridiculous...not to mention potentially condescending and/or offensive to the very new audiences they're trying to attract. Imagine being attracted to a comic book character that resonates with you, your culture, your skin color, your gender, etc., then discovering that character is essentially just playing "dress up" using someone else's M.O. The subtle (or not so subtle) message that "your kind can't make it unless we smuggle you in using this costume" is counterproductive to achieving true equality and inclusiveness.
I think this is an interesting topic, so let me try a different tack. On paper the basic premise looks to be quite sound, but real life is telling me something different. Supergirl “sublets” Superman’s schtick, and Batgirl “sublets” Batman’s M.O., etc., yet it hasn’t seemed to hurt the longterm popularity or effectiveness of those characters. I know there are some who complain that it diminishes women in the superhero genre—and I'm only talking about Supergirl being a second banana knock-off of Superman, not the Supergirl vs. Superwoman debate—yet there are many others who look at the new Supergirl TV show as a great inspiration for young girls. There are obviously plusses and minuses that come with the character, but the plusses seem to be outweighing the minuses.
Introducing a new character under the name of an established one has been going on for years. The perception a lot of people have is that lately that has beome the ideal means for creating new characters rather than giving them a unique identity. It seems that for every Blue Marvel there are half a dozen characters that are "sublets."
Historically it seems this has been a discervice to the new character as they end up losing their "sublet" name as the original version of the character wins out. Captain Marvel becomes Photon, Thor is Thunderstrike...or they're sent to limbo so a nostalgic author can bring the original back fom the dead.
Someday will the curent Ms. Marvel be renamed The Stretch so Carol can retake the name because Mar-Vell is back from the dead? Would it have been better if this whole time she'd had a uniqe identity that would've been her's and always her's?
For me, the sub-letting that bugs me is when they don't change the name at all. Instead of calling Jane Foster "Lady Thor," they say she is Thor or Rory Williams being Iron Man instead of being called Iron Lady, and there are several other examples where the similar character has a different moniker, albeit minor. Supergirl and Batgirl are examples of this, as are Superboy (Kon-El) or Bat-Mite.
It looks like laziness or subterfuge to just keep the original name while putting in a whole different person with a different gender, race, motivation, etc. Why not change the name? It's a new character, not the old one. Why not change it just a little (i.e. Batgirl, Supergirl, etc.)
Even when they just alter the gender in the name, it's still unoriginal, wouldn't you agree? Even the latest She-Hulk book is titled "Hulk." Confused? Are all the good names already trademarked?
Historically it seems this has been a discervice to the new character as they end up losing their "sublet" name as the original version of the character wins out. Captain Marvel becomes Photon, Thor is Thunderstrike...or they're sent to limbo so a nostalgic author can bring the original back fom the dead.
It looks like laziness or subterfuge to just keep the original name while putting in a whole different person with a different gender, race, motivation, etc. Why not change the name? It's a new character, not the old one. Why not change it just a little (i.e. Batgirl, Supergirl, etc.)
Okay, so sub-letting a character’s power set and look isn’t the issue, only sub-letting a character’s exact name? Am I reading this correctly?
Marvel deciding to make Iron Man a teenage black girl means it's not really Iron Man anymore, That’s a different character. And Thor is a woman? That character dates back a few thousand years. The complaints were founded. Just make us some new characters with new monikers.
Of course, these are just fictional characters which are the property of the publishers. They can do what they want and the market will decide whether the character survives. We can be thrilled, outraged, or "meh?" if we like, but it’s all beyond our control. I just know I’m not Interested in going to see an MCU film where Thor’s portrayed by an actress.
In the previous cases of identity SHARING (Supergirl, Batgirl, War Machine, etc), it was often done without having to diminish or banish the original character. In the case of the identity SUBLETTING, the original or standard version of the character is most often banished or incapacitated, and effectively "replaced" by the new version. Yes, of course the originals usually return, but in today's sublet-crazy environment, that may no longer be a given. Add to the equation pop culture's rapidly-evolving obsession with identity politics, and we've got ourselves a game of race & gender "musical chairs" that I don't see ending anytime soon. After all, why introduce new characters of any given race and gender when you can cynically manipulate the zeitgeist in your favor by "evicting" symbolic icons of tradition (Boo! Hiss!) and status quo and replacing them with representatives of the Brave New World (and getting tons more publicity and sales in the process)?
I hope everyone complaining about sharing names, subletting names etc is reading Mosaic this week to show support for a brand new Marvel character with a brand new name :wink:
I hope everyone complaining about sharing names, subletting names etc is reading Mosaic this week to show support for a brand new Marvel character with a brand new name :wink:
I also hope Marvel has pushed Mosaic as much as they've spent pushing the "subs." USA Today and NYT articles..daytime talkshow exclusives..I'm sure...
In the previous cases of identity SHARING (Supergirl, Batgirl, War Machine, etc), it was often done without having to diminish or banish the original character. In the case of the identity SUBLETTING, the original or standard version of the character is most often banished or incapacitated, and effectively "replaced" by the new version. Yes, of course the originals usually return, but in today's sublet-crazy environment, that may no longer be a given. Add to the equation pop culture's rapidly-evolving obsession with identity politics, and we've got ourselves a game of race & gender "musical chairs" that I don't see ending anytime soon. After all, why introduce new characters of any given race and gender when you can cynically manipulate the zeitgeist in your favor by "evicting" symbolic icons of tradition (Boo! Hiss!) and status quo and replacing them with representatives of the Brave New World (and getting tons more publicity and sales in the process)?
Do you also have a problem with legacy characters like Barry Allen Flash, Wally West Flash, Ted Kord Blue Beetle, Hal Jordan Green Lantern, Kyle Rayner Green Lantern, Katar Hol Hawkman, Ray Palmer Atom, Jason Todd Robin, Tim Drake Robin, Damian Wayne Robin, et al? After all, they are the epitome of subletting.
Actually, I do....some more than others. Sorry to wreck your assumption (that it's merely a "don't replace the white guys" bit of nonsense...yes, your cherry-picked list is that obvious).
The Silver Age revivals of DC's Golden Age characters really can't be lumped into the same category as the latter-day "sublets". The comic book marketplace of the late 1950's and early 1960's was vastly different from the rapid-fire, controversy-fueled superhero comic book marketplace of the 1970's onward. The superhero was essentially being reintroduced to the public at the dawn of the Silver Age, with only a microscopic percentage of the reading population even AWARE OF (much less caring about) those previous versions published for five or six years a decade and a half earlier. Yes, technically Silver Age stars like Barry Allen were "sublet" characters (in that they assumed the name and often the powers of the earlier versions), but simply can't be included in the modern wave of "identity politics musical chairs" due to the historical conditions surrounding their creation. Making an equivalency between the comic book marketplace of the late 50's and the 20-teens is specious, at the very least .
Actually, I do. Sorry to wreck your assumption (that it's merely a "don't replace the white guys" bit of nonsense...yes, your cherry-picked list is that obvious).
Not an assumption, a question. I'm not trying to play “gotcha!” I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you're coming from. I cherry-picked those particular characters because you've been pretty laser-focused on Marvel and the recent race/gender-swapped characters. You haven't mentioned anything about DC’s legacy characters or even a character like Bucky Barnes as Captain America.
Comments
Maybe the 2014 tpb Avengers: Falcon (reprints) didn't sell well enough for them to feel a Falcon series was warranted, but Marvel apparently thinks it's a good idea to give an ongoing book to Slapstick...other than just wanting to refresh / secure the 'Slapstick!' trademark - who was asking for that? And they certainly aren't helping fans of the MCU Falcon find the series on the shelves by calling it Captain America: Sam Wilson. Perhaps they're counting on nationwide friendly helpfulness at the LCS.
That said, Solo had horrible artwork, so they are not off to a good start. Slapstick has the much better Diego Olortegui on art duties so hopefully will be stronger.
In fact, I'd like to see more Miles Morales’, Black Panthers, Storms, Al Simmons’, Blades, Misty Knights, Statics, Mr. Terrifics, Luke Cages, etc - diverse characters who are their own character and also the first of their own legacy, not merely the same character name just using a different gender or skin tone. It shouldn’t have to take the race-changing of established properties for people of color to be fully represented in comics.
And while I get that for many of those that disagree with me, it’s about the core values and beliefs of these characters, not about specific traits or the person. And that anyone can be and should be heroes like Spider-Man, Ms. Marvel, and Captain America because of what these characters represent and have come to represent in terms of values, and I can see that point, but I still would prefer a Falcon title than a second Captain America title with ":Sam Wilson." It almost makes the comics seem less diverse because why can't Sam be his own man?
I also agree with many others, including Stan Lee himself, who would like to see new characters making a name for themselves and not co-opting existing names. When Marvel makes a Lady Thor, or a teenage girl becomes Iron Man, it's usually more about media attention than good, original stories. When Marvel creates a new IP, the media at-large doesn’t usually care. Bleeding Cool or Newsarama will cover it, but the NYTimes isn’t going to give a rip. But when they turn Thor into a woman, or make Spider-Man black, Iceman gay, or have Superman suddenly revealed to be undergoing a Caitlyn Jenner-like transformation… (kryptonite scalpels) - then you will get the press clamoring. It doesn’t matter if it ends up failing commercially, because most people won’t ever know that. They’ll just remember the crazy story they heard about on the news. (And I know that technically these stories didn't happen that way, but the press presented it that way, just check that Stan Lee hyperlink if you don't believe me).
As for Supergirl, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Whether they should change her name so modern women wouldn't be offended by the word "girl?" Or are you asking if they should make a new Supergirl and have Kara become Superwoman in the comics? I'd be fine with the latter, but neither option for the CW show. It was the right decision to keep that name. But whatever they do, I'd prefer they not pass the Supergirl mantle on to a boy who identifies as a girl (as Miley Cyrus would prefer). Otherwise, they risk upseting a lot of girls and women who like their superhero cultural icons just they way they are.
(I crossed out Mr. Terrific because he was a white male superhero in the Golden Age. But I know you’re a Marvel guy, not a DC guy.) This goes back to my original question in response to Mark’s post: “Imagine being attracted to a comic book character that resonates with you, your culture, your skin color, your gender, etc., then discovering that character is essentially just playing ‘dress up’ using someone else's M.O. The subtle (or not so subtle) message that ‘your kind can't make it unless we smuggle you in using this costume’ is counterproductive to achieving true equality and inclusiveness.”
I was wondering if you agree with Mark’s assessment, and whether or not you think it should be applied to older examples, like Supergirl, Batgirl, etc., and not just to the current gender-flipped characters like Thor.
Time to throw in my two cents. I am more than ok to admit I was 100℅ wrong about my first feelings/postings about the new Ms. Marvel. I'm happy about that; the portions of her series I've on Marvel Unlimited have been fun.
I fell in love with Ghost Rider with Danny Ketch (GR 2.0) and loved that a Mexican kid from L.A. is the new GR. I'm Ghost Rider guy so it could be any one, but a woman (only 95℅ finding 5℅ knows Marvel tried and failed 2x already).
I'm on record I just want to read good comics dang it.
For me, personally, Ryder's death was the nail in the coffin to the great Marvel Cosmic revival. Soon Bendis took over GotG, DnA broke up, etc..
Thoughts?
Historically it seems this has been a discervice to the new character as they end up losing their "sublet" name as the original version of the character wins out. Captain Marvel becomes Photon, Thor is Thunderstrike...or they're sent to limbo so a nostalgic author can bring the original back fom the dead.
Someday will the curent Ms. Marvel be renamed The Stretch so Carol can retake the name because Mar-Vell is back from the dead? Would it have been better if this whole time she'd had a uniqe identity that would've been her's and always her's?
It looks like laziness or subterfuge to just keep the original name while putting in a whole different person with a different gender, race, motivation, etc. Why not change the name? It's a new character, not the old one. Why not change it just a little (i.e. Batgirl, Supergirl, etc.)
Even when they just alter the gender in the name, it's still unoriginal, wouldn't you agree? Even the latest She-Hulk book is titled "Hulk." Confused? Are all the good names already trademarked?
I think one could effectively argue that it is rapidly becoming the case judging by the new characters being created today.
Of course, these are just fictional characters which are the property of the publishers. They can do what they want and the market will decide whether the character survives. We can be thrilled, outraged, or "meh?" if we like, but it’s all beyond our control. I just know I’m not Interested in going to see an MCU film where Thor’s portrayed by an actress.
That’s a Rainbow Bridge too far
The Silver Age revivals of DC's Golden Age characters really can't be lumped into the same category as the latter-day "sublets". The comic book marketplace of the late 1950's and early 1960's was vastly different from the rapid-fire, controversy-fueled superhero comic book marketplace of the 1970's onward. The superhero was essentially being reintroduced to the public at the dawn of the Silver Age, with only a microscopic percentage of the reading population even AWARE OF (much less caring about) those previous versions published for five or six years a decade and a half earlier. Yes, technically Silver Age stars like Barry Allen were "sublet" characters (in that they assumed the name and often the powers of the earlier versions), but simply can't be included in the modern wave of "identity politics musical chairs" due to the historical conditions surrounding their creation. Making an equivalency between the comic book marketplace of the late 50's and the 20-teens is specious, at the very least .