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.
Sorry...didn't see this as I was editing my previous comment to answer that very question. And sorry for the knee-jerk reaction. This topic is such a hyper-charged minefield of political sensibilities, it's hard not to be perceived you're either being attacked by...or actively attacking....another person just asking a question or looking for clarification. I apologize.
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 .
While I agree that there is a difference between the DC Silver Age characters being recreated and modern characters being recreated, I think the motivations behind those recreations are basically the same: to make the characters more relateable and interesting to a new readership. (Whether they have been successful is a separate argument, and should be looked at in a case-by-case manner.) The difference between the Silver Age recreations and the modern recreations is that today the changes are happening a month apart rather than years apart.
Look at Valiant for example, the current Valiant characters are pretty different from the Valiant characters of the ’90s, but no one is complaining about them. In fact, I hear nothing but rave reviews. Why is that? Is it simply because there was sufficient time in between the end of the characters’ last series and the relaunch? Or does the longer history of Marvel’s characters make a difference in people’s reactions? [Edit: Valiant isn't an ideal example, as the characters aren't that different. But I do wonder if time is a factor.]
Sorry...didn't see this as I was editing my previous comment to answer that very question. And sorry for the knee-jerk reaction. This topic is such a hyper-charged minefield of political sensibilities, it's hard not to be perceived you're either being attacked by...or actively attacking....another person just asking a question or looking for clarification. I apologize.
No worries, but thanks for the apology. It happens on the internet.
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...
They definitely did some marketing to non-comic news outlets around the middle of September when they put out that preview story for the character.
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...
They definitely did some marketing to non-comic news outlets around the middle of September when they put out that preview story for the character.
Evidently there was a free 10-page Mosaic comic distributed through Barnes & Noble stores back in August which I did not hear about. Did anyone pick it up?
Take Power Girl as a good example. I think she was originally conceived as the next Supergirl, or her Earth-2 counterpart. Although I think she later was retconned as Atlantean I think, and then New 52 took her back to being biological cousin of Superman. When they introduced Tanya Spears as the NEW Power Girl last year, should they have changed the original Kara Zor-L/Karen Starr moniker to Power Woman?
I remember Stan Lee going on record as being pretty pissed at DC Comics when they created Power Girl after Marvel had introduced Power Man,
"I'm pretty annoyed about that. ...I've got to ask the Marvel lawyer – she's supposed to be starting a lawsuit about that and I haven't heard anything. I don't like the idea. ... You know, years ago we brought out Wonder Man, and [DC Comics] sued us because they had Wonder Woman, and ... I said okay, I'll discontinue Wonder Man. And all of a sudden they've got Power Girl. Oh, boy. How unfair." - The Comics Journal #42, October 1978
Any thoughts on the new Power Girl? Does it warrant a name change for either character? Is the new girl even in Rebirth?
Look at Valiant for example, the current Valiant characters are pretty different from the Valiant characters of the ’90s, but no one is complaining about them. In fact, I hear nothing but rave reviews. Why is that? Is it simply because there was sufficient time in between the end of the characters’ last series and the relaunch? Or does the longer history of Marvel’s characters make a difference in people’s reactions?
The longer continual history is definitely a big factor, but also the huge iconic profile these characters have gained within the popular culture (which years of publishing history has something...but not necessarily everything...to do with). In other words, characters like Magnus Robot Fighter or Solar have been around almost as long as many as Marvel's A-listers, but certainly doesn't have their iconic cache....making it much less disruptive when yet another version is trotted out. But even with the diminished iconic power, it's still not quite the same, since those new versions are clean replacements, not prime versions pushed aside for demographic-targeting upstarts.
The longer continual history is definitely a big factor, but also the huge iconic profile these characters have gained within the popular culture (which years of publishing history has something...but not necessarily everything...to do with). In other words, characters like Magnus Robot Fighter or Solar have been around almost as long as many as Marvel's A-listers, but certainly doesn't have their iconic cache....making it much less disruptive when yet another version is trotted out. But even with the diminished iconic power, it's still not quite the same, since those new versions are clean replacements, not prime versions pushed aside for demographic-targeting upstarts.
I get that. Personally, it doesn’t bother me. But I'm not a typical Marvel reader. I’ve never really followed characters, even when I was young. I mean, I have characters I like more than others, but the runs in my collection are based on creative teams, not characters. That “iconic cache” doesn’t hold as much weight with me, I guess.
Maybe that’s the difference between the people who don't mind the subletting and people who do: How much hold that “iconic cache” has over how we individually view the characters.
It would be interesting to see a Marvel comics story in which all the current subletting heroes are together and someone's like "Wow....so I guess this is becoming a thing"...or some other phrase that (in a meta way) acknowledges the trendy weirdness of it all.
It would be interesting to see a Marvel comics story in which all the current subletting heroes are together and someone's like "Wow....so I guess this is becoming a thing"...or some other phrase that (in a meta way) acknowledges the trendy weirdness of it all.
The first arc of post-Secret Wars Deadpool was sort of a commentary on this, as Deadpool hired 5 other superheroes to also be Deadpool. And as we eventually learn, the whole Deadpool-is-a-hero status quo post-Secret Wars is too.
Red Sonja fans: they mentioned the new series on this episode, but @pants said the echo effect forced them to cut it from the show. Issue #1 has a new classic look from Carlos Gomez and a new writer, Amy Chu. Plus, the book is only a quarter (.12 on DCBS). Can't beat that price.
Take Power Girl as a good example. I think she was originally conceived as the next Supergirl, or her Earth-2 counterpart. Although I think she later was retconned as Atlantean I think, and then New 52 took her back to being biological cousin of Superman. When they introduced Tanya Spears as the NEW Power Girl last year, should they have changed the original Kara Zor-L/Karen Starr moniker to Power Woman?
I remember Stan Lee going on record as being pretty pissed at DC Comics when they created Power Girl after Marvel had introduced Power Man,
"I'm pretty annoyed about that. ...I've got to ask the Marvel lawyer – she's supposed to be starting a lawsuit about that and I haven't heard anything. I don't like the idea. ... You know, years ago we brought out Wonder Man, and [DC Comics] sued us because they had Wonder Woman, and ... I said okay, I'll discontinue Wonder Man. And all of a sudden they've got Power Girl. Oh, boy. How unfair." - The Comics Journal #42, October 1978
Any thoughts on the new Power Girl? Does it warrant a name change for either character? Is the new girl even in Rebirth?
Funnily enough, DC used the name Power Girl once back in 1958 in one of the many stories where Lois Lane gains superpowers. What if, instead, when Kara Zor-El emerged from her spacepod in 1958, she had emerged in a white costume wth red and blue features, and called herself Power Girl instead of Supergirl? And then in 1971, when she graduated from college, she changed her name to Power Woman? Would she still be as popular as she is now? Would she still have gotten a movie and a TV show? We’ll never know, of course, maybe it wouldn’t have made any difference at all, but it’s interesting to consider.
For a while it seemed like DC might be trying to replace Supergirl with Power Girl. Supergirl’s series was dead, and they gave PG three issues of Showcase. Maybe it was just bad timing—it was right around the time of the DC Implosion—but PG wasn’t able to really latch on as a major player. And then they gave Supergirl another series a couple of years later and relegated PG to the pages of Infinity Inc. They tried again in the late ’80s while Supergirl was “dead”. A miniseries, a featured role in Justice League Europe, guest appearances. But in the end they brought back Supergirl. That “S” crest will win out over a blank shirt every time.
As to your questions, yes, Power Girl was originally meant to be Earth-2’s version of Supergirl. According to Gerry Conway, Roy Thomas had convinced him to bring back the Justice Society, and Gerry didn’t want to do a book with just a bunch of old guys, so he decided to include Supergirl. But he didn't want there to be any confusion over who was who, so he came up with Power Girl—he even designed the costume. Of course, that created a problem after Crisis, because they couldn’t explain her origin, but they didn’t want to just dump the character either, hence the Atlantean retcon which never really seemed to fit her.
In regards to the New 52 Tanya Spears Power Girl, she became Earth-1’s Power Girl after Karen Starr Power Girl went back to Earth-2. Is it confusing? No more or less confusing than any of the other heroes with Earth-2 analogs. I think the Power Girl/Power Woman question goes beyond differenciating between two Power Girls. One could argue Power Girl should have been Power Woman from the very start.
As far as DC's new Power Girl causing Marvel heartburn, when's the last time they promoted Luke Cage as "Power Man" anyway (in a non-ironic, Meta-Bendis way)?
As far as DC's new Power Girl causing Marvel heartburn, when's the last time they promoted Luke Cage as "Power Man" anyway (in a non-ironic, Meta-Bendis way)?
The current PM&IF series even jokes about it. Fist keeps calling Luke “Power Man”, and Luke keeps saying, “Don’t call me that.”
As far as DC's new Power Girl causing Marvel heartburn, when's the last time they promoted Luke Cage as "Power Man" anyway (in a non-ironic, Meta-Bendis way)?
The current PM&IF series even jokes about it. Fist keeps calling Luke “Power Man”, and Luke keeps saying, “Don’t call me that.”
Yeah, unfortunately, that's part of the larger trend of superheroes no longer naming themselves and/or being embarrassed by the moniker given to them by the press. However, I think the pissy self-consciousness is more a function of too-cool-for-school writers trying to eradicate any hint of corniness from their "comics as screenplays" work.
As far as DC's new Power Girl causing Marvel heartburn, when's the last time they promoted Luke Cage as "Power Man" anyway (in a non-ironic, Meta-Bendis way)?
The current PM&IF series even jokes about it. Fist keeps calling Luke “Power Man”, and Luke keeps saying, “Don’t call me that.”
Yeah, unfortunately, that's part of the larger trend of superheroes no longer naming themselves and/or being embarrassed by the moniker given to them by the press. However, I think the pissy self-consciousness is more a function of too-cool-for-school writers trying to eradicate any hint of corniness from their "comics as screenplays" work.
I think the trend is at least partly due to there not being many cool names left. New characters tend to have codenames that only vaguely describe their powers, or like Deadpool, make no sense, or like Invincible, are adjectives instead of nouns. There are only so many words in the English language.
In the case of Power Man specifically, maybe it's just me, but I think Luke Cage is a better name than Power Man. “Cage” is a strong word in its own right, a reference to his origin, and a wink and nod to the exploitation films which inspired his creation. Plus it just sounds better to my ears.
Also, remember that Power Man was the original name for Erik Josten (Atlas), before Luke Cage had it.
Plus, there's a Power Man in Marvel comics at the moment, Victor Alvarez over in New Avengers (though where he ends up next I don't know, as he's not on the USAvengers cover, good fit for Champions maybe?).
Comments
Look at Valiant for example, the current Valiant characters are pretty different from the Valiant characters of the ’90s, but no one is complaining about them. In fact, I hear nothing but rave reviews. Why is that? Is it simply because there was sufficient time in between the end of the characters’ last series and the relaunch? Or does the longer history of Marvel’s characters make a difference in people’s reactions? [Edit: Valiant isn't an ideal example, as the characters aren't that different. But I do wonder if time is a factor.]
Take Power Girl as a good example. I think she was originally conceived as the next Supergirl, or her Earth-2 counterpart. Although I think she later was retconned as Atlantean I think, and then New 52 took her back to being biological cousin of Superman. When they introduced Tanya Spears as the NEW Power Girl last year, should they have changed the original Kara Zor-L/Karen Starr moniker to Power Woman?
I remember Stan Lee going on record as being pretty pissed at DC Comics when they created Power Girl after Marvel had introduced Power Man, Any thoughts on the new Power Girl? Does it warrant a name change for either character? Is the new girl even in Rebirth?
Maybe that’s the difference between the people who don't mind the subletting and people who do: How much hold that “iconic cache” has over how we individually view the characters.
For a while it seemed like DC might be trying to replace Supergirl with Power Girl. Supergirl’s series was dead, and they gave PG three issues of Showcase. Maybe it was just bad timing—it was right around the time of the DC Implosion—but PG wasn’t able to really latch on as a major player. And then they gave Supergirl another series a couple of years later and relegated PG to the pages of Infinity Inc. They tried again in the late ’80s while Supergirl was “dead”. A miniseries, a featured role in Justice League Europe, guest appearances. But in the end they brought back Supergirl. That “S” crest will win out over a blank shirt every time.
As to your questions, yes, Power Girl was originally meant to be Earth-2’s version of Supergirl. According to Gerry Conway, Roy Thomas had convinced him to bring back the Justice Society, and Gerry didn’t want to do a book with just a bunch of old guys, so he decided to include Supergirl. But he didn't want there to be any confusion over who was who, so he came up with Power Girl—he even designed the costume. Of course, that created a problem after Crisis, because they couldn’t explain her origin, but they didn’t want to just dump the character either, hence the Atlantean retcon which never really seemed to fit her.
In regards to the New 52 Tanya Spears Power Girl, she became Earth-1’s Power Girl after Karen Starr Power Girl went back to Earth-2. Is it confusing? No more or less confusing than any of the other heroes with Earth-2 analogs. I think the Power Girl/Power Woman question goes beyond differenciating between two Power Girls. One could argue Power Girl should have been Power Woman from the very start.
In the case of Power Man specifically, maybe it's just me, but I think Luke Cage is a better name than Power Man. “Cage” is a strong word in its own right, a reference to his origin, and a wink and nod to the exploitation films which inspired his creation. Plus it just sounds better to my ears.
Plus, there's a Power Man in Marvel comics at the moment, Victor Alvarez over in New Avengers (though where he ends up next I don't know, as he's not on the USAvengers cover, good fit for Champions maybe?).