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

[KurtW95]

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.

I don’t know if it’s acceptable on the forums to call out specific creators, but I’ll gladly PM you quotes of creators and high up people admitting that several of the new and reimagined characters are purely for purposes of “representation.” And when that’s the priority, it’s clear that purposes of storytelling and character development/integrity are impacted- because they’re not the most important thing to the creator.

[Raye]

As I said in my edit, because I guessed that was probably where you would go with it, since it usually is, creating a character with representation in mind is a) not a bad thing, imo. just read responsarbre's post to see a perfect example as to why. b) and relevant to the point being made, does not mean they just stopped caring about making the story good. Creators can care about representation and making a story good at the same time. It's not even hard to do. They don't cancel each other out. You are not proving anything about a creator not caring about their work by saying 'but representation'.

[KurtW95]

As I said in my edit, because I guessed that was probably where you would go with it, since it usually is, creating a character with representation in mind is a) not a bad thing, imo. just read responsarbre's post to see a perfect example as to why. b) and relevant to the point being made, does not mean they just stopped caring about making the story good. Creators can care about representation and making a story good at the same time. It's not even hard to do. They don't cancel each other out.

But it’s clearly the more important aspect to these people. And when that’s the most important aspect, it hampers everything else. The character’s identity then becomes the only important part of the character.

[Bossace]

Personally for me iconic means like been around for decades and still has lasting power but that’s absolutly not fair to put on these shoulders of these new characters. I’d need to see how things are 20-30 years from now and ask myself “are these characters still around and used on a regular basis or did they get shelves into limbo?”. Now this could be asked for even the current “iconic heroes” in 50 years Peter and tony etc might not appeal to readers then. Heck even Miles, Kamala, and Riri might not either. In 50 years we could have a whole new set of new superheroes or new people under the armor/mask yet to be introduced! Only time will tell.

[wubwub]

“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!”

Given that Peter hasn't taken on much responsibility over the years (exept for that short time during civil war), that quote doesn't really fit. The only constant character trait he has is his determination to help people.

Also Ms Marvel has had at least three recurring villains so far, that I can think of. That's more than I can say for the Punisher and Moon Knight, despite reading most of their comics over the last 20 years. How many does Deadpool have? T-Ray and maybe Butler, can't think of anyone else at the moment.

Why would representation interfere in creating a good character/story? Assuming the representation is not steretypical or generic, though in that case you would already have a bad character/story.

[Raye]

But it’s clearly the more important aspect to these people. And when that’s the most important aspect, it hampers everything else. The character’s identity then becomes the only important part of the character.

That is debatable. I am sure it is important to them, (and again, not a bad thing imo, I am all for creators valuing representation. That's a good thing to me, I am glad when I hear a creator cares about representaiton) but they are not some hive mind, there will be variance in how much they value it, and it may vary from one story to the next. So it's hard to say how important it is relative to everything else they put in the book. In any case, it still doesn't prove the point you say it does, because they are entirely capable of caring about representation AND crafting a good story. It's not hard, it really isn't. And what I said before is still true. If they value representation, they should also value making those stories good, because then the representation will be more impactful. It doesn't make sense for them to be like 'I care about representation of (insert minority).... but I'll just half-ass the story because all that matters is that they end up on page.' that makes no logical sense, if they really cared about providing meaningful representation, then they should also care about making those stories as good as they can, so that the representation actually matters.

And we have just gone round in circles explaining aspects of Kamala's personality which don't have anything to do with her being a Muslim Pakistani immigrant, but you just write them off as if they were nothing. So I dunno what else to say there.

[Jokerz79]

To be Iconic you need time and nostalgia so new heroes can't be iconic by default but you do have 80's and 90's characters already with legs and knocking on the Icon Door.

[Alan2099]

I don’t know if it’s acceptable on the forums to call out specific creators, but I’ll gladly PM you quotes of creators and high up people admitting that several of the new and reimagined characters are purely for purposes of “representation.” And when that’s the priority, it’s clear that purposes of storytelling and character development/integrity are impacted- because they’re not the most important thing to the creator.

If you're worried about calling people out, just post them and leave out the names.

[leo619]

You're asking many people on this forum who largely contribute to this problem to honestly explain why Marvel doesn't have iconic characters. Some people hit it on the head, Comic Book Fans are mostly older readers who primarily stick with the properties they read since a child.


That's why you can have success like manga where Naruto, Dragon Ball Z, etc can blow up almost instantaneously while we had to wait years just to get a Miles Morales animated movie. Manga Fans are just much more accepting to new characters than their comic book counterpart, and that's largely due to

1) Manga having a much more balance demographic reading it. It's regularly split between men and women reading it in comparison to comics which is mostly male,
you have a much more balance age group reading it. So when you have a diverse demographic reading your content, you have a much greater chance for success as you'll have different people with different interest wanting to see different things. And these new things have a greater chance of reaching since you have a broader demographic and broader interest.


2) Manga almost always have an ending. While some series definitely go longer than others. There's almost always end, even Dragon Ball Z took a very long hiatus before coming back as Dragon Ball Super. So the idea of ending means that manga readers will "have to try something new." And then suddenly they're introduced to a new series that they may not have considered if their favorite series did not end. Comics doesn't have that, classic comic book readers have the security blanket that as long as the market exist, their classic superheroes will be around in some readable form. And when they take away someone temporarily, such as Bucky or the ANAD wave, you get that backlash. Essentially, comics have fostered the status quo dilemma, which has been discussed about ad nauseam here on these forums and essentially playing a heavy role in killing comics.


Ultimately, the market/demographic makes it near impossible for new properties to succeed.

[KurtW95]

Why would representation interfere in creating a good character/story? Assuming the representation is not steretypical or generic, though in that case you would already have a bad character/story.

When you start from whatever identity when creating a character, it handicaps the creative process. They are now an (insert identity group here) character rather than a character that happens to be (insert identity group here). And often time, the fact that they belong to the identity group (if that was the main thing in mind when creating or reinventing the character) gives the writer a huge crutch because they no longer have to write anything creative. Certain people will praise them for their so-called commitment to “representation” that they don’t have to try. You can tell this from the letters in the books a lot of these characters headline. Almost all of them are about the character’s identity rather than the plot or any other aspect. It’s difficult to know how many of them even read the book in the first place.

[skyvolt2000]

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).

Since you asked.
Kamala Khan went to a party where a mysterious gas engulfed her and gave her shapeshifting powers. When trouble arrives, Khan becomes the super heroine Ms. Marvel-New Jersey’s first (only??) super heroine.

Since Static was bought up-here are the intros to his first solo series.

Virgil Hawkins went to Paris Island on the night of the Big Bang. Like most survivors, he found himself gifted with incredible powers, Now, when danger strikes, geeky Virgil adopts, the swashbuckling persona of Static, the electrically-supercharged hero!

Like any other awkward 15-year-old, Virgil Hawkins worries about sex, pocket money, sex, and getting beaten up. But since the Big Bang, he’s had even more on his mind: stuff like his electromagnetic powers, secret identity, and sex. Because, when innocents are in danger and Virgil can slip away from class, the awkward youth becomes Static, the dashing, adventurous superhero!

NOTICE one thing-we know of the event that gave him his powers.

Every other hero it is explained where those powers came from. Even Logan to a point. You would have to mention the Mutant loving cloud or revise her origin.

Now before anyone screams-SEE Static was doing without his race being mentioned-HOLD UP.

26 years ago no one knew about publishers who PURPOSELY hid the race of leads in books because certain stores would not buy or stock them if the lead was not straight & white.

Go ask Ben Aaronovitch-writer of Rivers of London. His lead is a black male-when that book was bought over to the USA-his race was hidden. Until backlash and the comic book version was published. I know of others that had that happen to them. It’s why with some novels you see 3-5 different covers.

Then you have the other side-folks who would throw a FIT when they discover the book is about a POC. Yes you would have folks see a Ms Marvel book with Khan ON THE COVER and they buy it. Only later to throw a fit screaming why is she Muslim? And that is why you have (or at least us in the schools) have a magazine that tells us the race of every lead in a book. So you KNOW what you are getting ahead of time.

As for those letter pages praise the representation over story. A lot of times those are letter BEFORE the book comes out or after issue one.
When it is NOT the normal-it will get attention and especially if it's the first or something in a long time.

She is at 50 issues-that means there is more to her than her race or religion. That book was not SUPPOSE to make it beyond issue 7-that's how little faith they had in it. Yet here she is. You can scream identity politics all you like but SOMEONE had to read the book for her to make it this far.

And the few that can have to many concepts that can be compared to an already existing hero that did well. ( Looking at you Sideways)

He is still different.

Superman & Supergirl have the same powers but not the same STORIES.

There is stuff Miles will deal with that Peter will never worry about.

[Michael Watkins]

I don't have time to sift through 4 pages. how are we defining "iconic?" Is it sales that we are looking at? there are a lot of A-List characters who don't sell well. Ghost Rider's look is iconic. but I wouldn't call him an icon; any of them.

[wubwub]

When you start from whatever identity when creating a character, it handicaps the creative process. They are now an (insert identity group here) character rather than a character that happens to be (insert identity group here). And often time, the fact that they belong to the identity group (if that was the main thing in mind when creating or reinventing the character) gives the writer a huge crutch because they no longer have to write anything creative. Certain people will praise them for their so-called commitment to “representation” that they don’t have to try. You can tell this from the letters in the books a lot of these characters headline. Almost all of them are about the character’s identity rather than the plot or any other aspect. It’s difficult to know how many of them even read the book in the first place.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Every character has a sexual/ethnic/gender/religious identity. How does the choice of one impact the choice of other character traits? And why only if it isn't straight/white/male/western Christian? What about other character traits, such as heroism or intelligence?

What do you mean by "main thing in mind"?

[_Feely_]

Because they don't get a chance due to 'fans' shitting all over them the second they're out the gate.

[WebLurker]

Well, when was the last "iconic" character created? It does take time for new characters to earn their stardom. Also, I wonder if the definition of "iconic" kinda changes over time. Today, it seems like movies and TV shows bring new (and older, lesser known) characters more fame then having multiple series to their name. (It's also worth noting that there are many characters who develop a good deal of staying power even if they don't really make it to superstar status.)

I don’t know if it’s acceptable on the forums to call out specific creators, but I’ll gladly PM you quotes of creators and high up people admitting that several of the new and reimagined characters are purely for purposes of “representation.” And when that’s the priority, it’s clear that purposes of storytelling and character development/integrity are impacted- because they’re not the most important thing to the creator.

You not well versed in the craft of creative writing, are you?