Why are they no new Iconic characters at Marvel?(or in comics)

[Raye]

So, in order to support your tired old notion that everything new sucks, you're just going to create a strawman version of the character by grossly simplifying her characterization and declaring that the personality traits she has don't matter, for..... reasons.... got it. Her fangirlism is not some goofy little quirk, it is a huge part of her character, which contributes to her very idealized outlook on how things should be. It is endearing, it's relatable, and something that can't be done with an older character. She doesn't just fangirl over superheroes, she fangirls over an idealized mental version of them, which is key, it means she has this view of how the world should be that isn't really grounded in reality, and when reality encroaches on her idealized version of those heroes, it can lead to some deep disappointment for her. But there is more to her than that, there is also a devotion to her community and family, and a rigid adherence to her ideals, she wants to live up to her idealized idea of what heroes should be, (which can be both a positive and a negative trait, depending on the situation. The ideals good, the rigidity, not so much) and need for ideal outcomes that just aren't always possible. No, her entire character can't be boiled down to a single mantra, like Spider-man's great power, great responsibility thing, but she is hardly alone in that, more characters lack that than have it, really, and it doesn't mean she lacks depth or driving character traits.

I think she has a far better chance of becoming iconic than any other character introduced in the past 10 years or so, but it's something we can't say for sure for another few years yet. If she does make an MCU appearance, i'd say it's a safe bet she made it though.

Anyway, I think a large part of why it is so hard is a combo of momentum and nostalgia. Unfortunately, they are both very difficult to overcome for a new character. Once you have latched on to a fave or two, (and given the ratio of old to new already out there, it's more than likely to be a character that goes back a long ways) you tend to stick with them, for the most part, and you will be less inclined to give new characters a look, especially if you are a particularly rigid type of fan who likes everything to stay the same. (see above)

[KurtW95]

I don’t think everything new sucks. I think a lot of things that are new happen to suck. And it’s not nostalgia. It’s that writers today care more about other things more than telling a good story and writing a good character.

[jump]

The goofy fangirl thing is really only a surface trait that doesn’t remotely compare to the depth Peter Parker had in the equivalent amount of time. Kamala Khan has nothing that motivates her. No underlying philosophy driving her do do good. Four years into Spider-Man’s creation, a majority of his biggest foes had already been created. Kamala has no significant enemies. No hardships. And she hasn’t developed as a character one iota. If you want to see a good contrast of Kamala’s Khan and Peter Parker, look at the brief descriptions on Comics Vine.

“A shape-shifting Muslim Pakistani-American teenager from New Jersey, who becomes the newest holder of the Ms. Marvel identity.”

“Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider as a teenager, granting him spider-like powers. After the death of his Uncle Ben, which he could have prevented, Peter learned that "with great power, comes great responsibility." Swearing to always protect the innocent from harm, Peter Parker became the Amazing Spider-Man!”

The Spider-Man quote could’ve been written after his first issue. Kamala has now had over 50 solo issues and several other appearances. Still can’t come up with a better descriptor than that.

That comparison of a random website descriptions is weak, you could bump up Ms Marvels' by including how she got her powers like the Spider-Man one and talking about her love of community to protect them.

I also don't think you should compare the pacing of 60s comics to the ones today, just look at how many issues it took Ultimate Spider-Man to tell the same story as the original.

TBH I'd think it would hurt the character to have a tragic origin, it has become so overplayed that it wouldn't actually add anything to her and become as generic as you think she is.

[KurtW95]

That comparison of a random website descriptions is weak, you could bump up Ms Marvels' by including how she got her powers like the Spider-Man one and talking about her love of community to protect them.

I also don't think you should compare the pacing of 60s comics to the ones today, just look at how many issues it took Ultimate Spider-Man to tell the same story as the original.

TBH I'd think it would hurt the character to have a tragic origin, it has become so overplayed that it wouldn't actually add anything to her and become as generic as you think she is.

I’m not saying she should have a tragic origin. In fact, far too many superheroes have tragic origins. What I’m saying is that she doesn’t have a purpose. There is no reasoning for her to do what she does. Seriously, I challenge you do write a descriptor the same length as the Spider-Man one that is the least bit informative, that doesn’t include A) her ethnicity and religion and B) other superheroes whom she’s riding coattails yet have little to no connection to (Carol Danvers, Inhumans).

[Killerbee911]

I’m not saying she should have a tragic origin. In fact, far too many superheroes have tragic origins. What I’m saying is that she doesn’t have a purpose. There is no reasoning for her to do what she does. Seriously, I challenge you do write a descriptor the same length as the Spider-Man one that is the least bit informative, that doesn’t include A) her ethnicity and religion and B) other superheroes whom she’s riding coattails yet have little to no connection to (Carol Danvers, Inhumans).

But her religion,fandom of heroes and Captain Marvel and family is the main things fuel her story I mean it is like saying write description about Spiderman without A.Uncle ben tragedy and B. him getting bite by a spider.

[Raye]

Did you just not read anything i said pas the 'everything new sucks' thing? (and yes, it is nostalgia whether you want to admit it or not. You constantly jump through absurd mental hoops to discredit any new development because it is new. And writers today certainly are trying to tell good stories, that you don't like them doesn't mean they don't care about creating good stories, it just means you don't agree with them on what a good story is.) I like JUST explained her reasoning for doing what she does, and it is the superhero fangirlism you wanted to write off as inconsequential. She believes heroes should behave a certain way because of her fangirling, and she tries her damndest to live up to those ideals, it's not complicated. You can't just say those things don't count for some bizarre reason, that is the core of her character.

[MyriVerse]

There are only ever a limited number of iconic seats at the table. We've reached the saturation point.

[KurtW95]

Did you just not read anything i said pas the 'everything new sucks' thing? (and yes, it is nostalgia whether you want to admit it or not. You constantly jump through absurd mental hoops to discredit any new development because it is new. And writers today certainly are trying to tell good stories, that you don't like them doesn't mean they don't care about creating good stories, it just means you don't agree with them on what a good story is.) I like JUST explained her reasoning for doing what she does, and it is the superhero fangirlism you wanted to write off as inconsequential. She believes heroes should behave a certain way because of her fangirling, and she tries her damndest to live up to those ideals, it's not complicated. You can't just say those things don't count for some bizarre reason, that is the core of her character.

The fangirling thing is a bit. The fact that it would be considered to be a core aspect of her character shows she holds no complexities whatsoever. And to writers today, a majority of them put other things over telling good stories and writing good characters. It’s far from their first priority. And when that is far from your first priority, you get a shoddy product with crummy characters.

[Raye]

The fangirling thing is a bit. The fact that it would be considered to be a core aspect of her character shows she holds no complexities whatsoever. And to writers today, a majority of them put other things over telling good stories and writing good characters. It’s far from their first priority. And when that is far from your first priority, you get a shoddy product with crummy characters.

It is not a 'bit' and it does have complexities, it contributes hugely to how she views the world and approaches situations, in particular the (sometimes unreasonable/unrealistic) idealism i keep bringing up. That you don't want to acknowledge this because it would spoil your narrative doesn't change the fact. It's there, and it's plainly obvious to anyone who reads the books. She has as much depth to her motivations as any other character out there, and that will only grow with time. We have already seen how things went when her idealized notion of Carol Danvers clashed with reality, and it led to a huge amount of turmoil for her, which led to growth in her character, she became more rigid in her ideals, wanting to be like the idealized version in her headcanon, because she felt Carol (and a lot of the other old guard heroes) had lost their way. (though the situation is more complex than she realizes, the world is a more complex place than she would like it to be, but the important thing here is what she personally thinks) And things like that will happen more as time goes on, as with any character.

Where are you getting this notion that writers have priorities they place ahead of writing stories, do you have any sources besides the fact that you don't like them, and are looking to put a reason to that beyond just.... not liking the stories? I have books that I don't like, some very much so, but I would never say that they aren't trying to tell a good story. They are trying, I am sure, I just don't agree with every decision put to page. Not liking a book doesn't need some conspiracy theory that, for some reason, most writers out there have forsaken trying to do a good job. That's absurd. Every writer, all the way back to the beginning, has always had multiple things that they balanced when writing a story, and they almost always had something to say, a message to convey, this is nothing new. But having a message doesn't mean you stop trying to tell a good story, because putting that message in a the best story you are able to make means your message will have more impact. If you have a message, it is to your best interest to put it in the best story you can. There is no reason to believe the writers are not even trying to tell a good story.

[kilderkin]

Double post sorry

Anyone else having trouble today on here

[kilderkin]

I've been mulling this over

New characters imo tend to be aimed at newer readers in may ways, that's fine

But my experience from working with younger people is that they tend to consume their entertainment in shorter bites

Even showing a huge blockbuster movie drags, they tell me to skip to the good bits

Comics, especially from the big 2, nowadays tend to be written in decompressed arcs for trades, I actually think a lot of floppies have fairly little story, Deeper story, but less going on than in prior ages

Of course those arcs for trades are then out every few months, story's take a lot longer to tell these days that then used too, a lot of prior ages had stuff done in 1 or 2 issues

That's not a good or bad thing

I wonder if, younger consumers just find them too slow burning

Certainly trade sales of newer characters seem better than monthly as do fast access of back issues in digital

But that requires an existing and hopefully rich back catalogue to read up on

Maybe the slower burn stories nowadays and the less material of new characters has a bigger impact on them

You like spiderman, here's 200 story's arcs on line to keep your interest till the next trade or comic

You like this new character, hers 5 to tide you over

Which is gonna feed your interest more

I know I like something, I want more, waiting a few weeks or months might lessen my interest, from my observations I think that lack of feeding the interest and less snappy stories generally might be having a big impact

[KurtW95]

It is not a 'bit' and it does have complexities, it contributes hugely to how she views the world and approaches situations, in particular the (sometimes unreasonable/unrealistic) idealism i keep bringing up. That you don't want to acknowledge this because it would spoil your narrative doesn't change the fact. It's there, and it's plainly obvious to anyone who reads the books. She has as much depth to her motivations as any other character out there, and that will only grow with time. We have already seen how things went when her idealized notion of Carol Danvers clashed with reality, and it led to a huge amount of turmoil for her, which led to growth in her character, she became more rigid in her ideals, wanting to be like the idealized version in her headcanon, because she felt Carol (and a lot of the other old guard heroes) had lost their way. (though the situation is more complex than she realizes, the world is a more complex place than she would like it to be, but the important thing here is what she personally thinks) And things like that will happen more as time goes on, as with any character.

Where are you getting this notion that writers have priorities they place ahead of writing stories, do you have any sources besides the fact that you don't like them, and are looking to put a reason to that beyond just.... not liking the stories? I have books that I don't like, some very much so, but I would never say that they aren't trying to tell a good story. They are trying, I am sure, I just don't agree with every decision put to page. Not liking a book doesn't need some conspiracy theory that, for some reason, most writers out there have forsaken trying to do a good job. That's absurd. Every writer, all the way back to the beginning, has always had multiple things that they balanced when writing a story, and they almost always had something to say, a message to convey, this is nothing new. But having a message doesn't mean you stop trying to tell a good story, because putting that message in a the best story you are able to make means your message will have more impact. If you have a message, it is to your best interest to put it in the best story you can. There is no reason to believe the writers are not even trying to tell a good story.

Because it’s obvious and they admit it it. And Kamala Khan instantly forgave Carol and pretended like nothing happened and never recognized her own faults. No growth. No evolution. She has no depth. Everything is just goofy, obnoxious, and pointless all the time.

[Raye]

Admit it? really? You are going to have to provide proof of that. You don't get to say that about someone without backing it up. Links, direct, verifiable quotes, right here and now, preferably from multiple creators since you seem to think this is widespread, or I won't buy it. You are the one making the outlandish claim that, as a group, modern writers don't care about the stories they are writing, now back it up. I find it hard to believe writers are going around saying they are half assing the books. Again, just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to go around assuming the worst about the creators and their intentions. *edit - and I have no doubt that there are quotes out there of creators saying things like providing diversity or social commentary or whatever else is important. And I'd agree with them on that in most cases. But the thing is, that doesn't mean they can't ALSO try their best to make the resulting story good. The two don't cancel each other out. It's not as if writers haven't been doing that since the day Cap debuted punching Hitler in the face.

And no, she did not instantly forgive her, it took months for a begrudging forgiveness, ( mean come on, the entire first few arcs of Champions centered around her and the others disillusionment with the old guard, Carol included) and she is also being confronted on her rigidity, she will more than likely learn she has to have a bit of give.

[9th.]

Double post sorry

Anyone else having trouble today on here

I've been having problems for the past 2 weeks, I think everyone has.

[responsarbre]

No. They try to pretend she is, but sales have been below cancellation levels for a long time. She has no recurring villains. And no real depth. If you try to describe her without mentioning her ethnicity and religion, she’s generic as can be. She’s hasn’t learned anything or evolved in any way since her introduction.

I don't want to contribute to this thread getting derailed, but I would say that arguing whether or not Kamala is iconic is besides the point, as a lot of the first posters in this thread showed. Iconic status is really proved by whether or not a character has staying power, and Kamala is too new to judge that. You have to wait and see whether or not she enters the public consciousness through other media, whether she can handle going through cycles of growth and extreme change under new writers and new circumstances, and whether she has the longevity to keep being a regular feature in comics.

I think other people have argued the other parts enough, but I would like to argue against the idea that it's somehow "cheating" to act like her ethnic and religious background is a worthwhile part of her character. I don't get that. It's not as if stories about being an immigrant with a specific background don't exist at all in literature or comics. I think Kamala's specific story of being a first-generation immigrant is actually really engaging and well-told, and it's a really important part of her stories. Compare her to other heroes like Jaime Reyes or even Miles Morales, and their ethnicity isn't really incorporated into the story like it is for Kamala.

Even with the other Muslim characters at Marvel, their background usually isn't important in the same way. Monet St. Croix's expat background just gave her an international air and they didn't confirm she was Muslim until long after she was established, and Faiza Hussein's religion isn't so much emphasized as it is visible, as her job and her outlook play a bigger role in her stories. Dust was the only other attempt to make the religion a memorable part of the character, but that was well and completely ruined from the first panel she showed up on, because Grant Morrison is absolutely clueless and refuses to do research about anything, resulting in Dust's first story being a weird, inaccurate mishmash of Orientalist stereotypes and nonsensical details.

But with Kamala, it's believable, it's accurate, and it's good. Speaking as a first-generation Muslim immigrant who was also in high school when Ms. Marvel was first released, I was kind of shocked at how well Ms. Marvel was telling an experience like mine, because that's really rare in all kinds of American media, not just superhero comics. Seeing the way she relates to her immediate family and her heritage overseas, the specific kind of obligations she has, the way she fits into different communities ... I dunno, that all clicked for me, because it all felt true, even on really subtle levels. It was really big for me to see the "Good isn't a thing you are, it's a thing you do" scene and the "Whoever has saved one life, it as if as he has saved all mankind" quote. (Contrary to some of your earlier arguments, Wilson has mentioned in interviews how her editors were deliberate in making her find the "great power = great responsibility" moment, and she very intentionally worked those moments in.)

And it's not like it's wrong for a superhero story to emphasize religion or heritage. Two of Daredevil's most iconic and well-remembered stories are about his Catholicism, with the climaxes taking place in a church.