Page 57 of 113 FirstFirst ... 74753545556575859606167107 ... LastLast
Results 841 to 855 of 1688
  1. #841
    Fantastic Member Sundown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Strong Girl Daken View Post
    Since nothing I wrote was compelling to you, I'm sure you're used to having Marvel's opinion on what is compelling align with yours.
    Not at all. I'm not, nor have I ever been in Marvel's target market and I learned to accept that a long time ago. If something doesn't interest me, I don't read it. If it does, I do.
    Last edited by Sundown; 08-18-2018 at 05:20 PM.

  2. #842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sundown View Post
    Not at all. I'm not, nor have I ever been Marvel's target market and I learned to accept that a long time ago. If something doesn't interest me, I don't read it. If it does, I do.
    The X-men interest me because I am queer and the IP uses metaphors for queerness and difference. All I want is for them to give back to the communities they have taken stories and inspiration from through compelling representation now that the world is allegedly much less homophobic and racist. This also includes more racialized characters and queer people of colour.
    Last edited by Strong Girl Daken; 08-18-2018 at 05:25 PM.

  3. #843
    Fantastic Member Sundown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Strong Girl Daken View Post
    The X-men interest me because I am queer and the IP uses metaphors for queerness and difference. All I want is for them to give back to the communities they have taken stories and inspiration from through compelling representation now that the world is allegedly much less homophobic. This also includes more racialized characters and queer people of colour.
    I think Marvel has taken in part from the queer community, in part from the non-white community, in part from the non-Christian community, in part from the foreigner in a strange country community, in part from any outsider community. That's what makes the theme so universal....so many people can relate to feeling "other" at some level or some time in their lives.

    I very much agree with inclusiveness, but it should be done in way that makes sense and based on current populations. If 13% of America is African American (per 2010 US census), then about 13% of X-Men characters should reflect that (for example). That's roughly 1 in 10 or a little more, and Marvel needs to work on it. If roughly 5% of the US population is queer, then that would be 1 in 20 of the X-Men. Given that Iceman is one of the top 20 X-Men and has gotten steady focus since being outed, that's about right.

    What I don't like seeing is tokenism, which is the most common result of placating a particular group. Editorial wants to try and get a group to ease off so compels a writer to use a character the he (or occasionally she) has little or no interest in. That leads to lousy story telling, imo. (Refer to Bloodstorm and her recent fate.)

  4. #844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sundown View Post
    I think Marvel has taken in part from the queer community, in part from the non-white community, in part from the non-Christian community, in part from the foreigner in a strange country community, in part from any outsider community. That's what makes the theme so universal....so many people can relate to feeling "other" at some level or some time in their lives.

    I very much agree with inclusiveness, but it should be done in way that makes sense and based on current populations. If 13% of America is African American (per 2010 US census), then about 13% of X-Men characters should reflect that (for example). That's roughly 1 in 10 or a little more, and Marvel needs to work on it. If roughly 5% of the US population is queer, then that would be 1 in 20 of the X-Men. Given that Iceman is one of the top 20 X-Men and has gotten steady focus since being outed, that's about right.

    What I don't like seeing is tokenism, which is the most common result of placating a particular group. Editorial wants to try and get a group to ease off so compels a writer to use a character the he (or occasionally she) has little or no interest in. That leads to lousy story telling, imo. (Refer to Bloodstorm and her recent fate.)
    The X-men have taken from many different communities in very specific ways (i.e not universal at all, rather situated quite specifically). The stories Marvel has told about Mutants being closeted, getting bashed, having their reproduction legislated, etc are stories drawn from the specific experiences of queer people. Marvel has also done this, like you said, with other minority groups in ways specific to those groups. Since this is true, characters from these groups should be centred and integral to the X-men (aka not tokens). African Americans might make up 13% of the general American population but that percentage is way higher in quantifying peoples who have faced oppression and marginalization in America, which means they should also be represented more in the X-men because oppression and marginalization are integral to X-men stories.

  5. #845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sundown View Post
    Of the ones you listed, there's almost zero interest in them, aside from a few obvious ones -- Iceman, Northstar and Gabby, as an attachment supporting to Laura. Daken and Mystique have their place on the villain side.

    I expect that's why they chose to go the route they did with Iceman, and still, look at his former solo sales.

    In short, in a franchise where they desperately need to be getting rid of some of the excess characters, why drag some back out because of their orientation and try to make them happen? I think characters should get development and use because they're interesting,not to fulfill a quota of some sort.

    Laura has been the only break out of newer mutant characters created within the last 20 years, and that's largely because of who she is based on. Why should we expect any of these guys to be relevant in that atmosphere? I mean, should it be another Quinton Quire, where editorial has been trying to force that to happen forever (and it still hasn't)?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sundown View Post
    But you haven't listed out any reason why any of these guys are more compelling than a character like Quire, or Oya, or GoldBalls or Ziggy or any one of the plethora of little used characters in the X-Men stable. What makes you think there's any more interest in them, verses any of the others? New characters are a hard sell, almost impossible in an established franchise like X-Men. Very few would rather pay to read about Anole or Mercury rather than more established characters, and I expect that's why Marvel went the route they did with Iceman -- that and trying to make the o5 more diverse seeming.
    Any and all characters can be interesting. The deciding factor is if they're used the right way. Saying some should get more use over others because they're interesting is essentially saying any not used are uninteresting, when the reality is that the "uninteresting" ones haven't had a proper chance. They need more than just a book. They also need promotion, good writing, said writing done by a writer that really cares and tries to understand, a supportive editor, etc. You're treating these characters like whether or not they can appeal to people is set in stone with no way of changing it, when it's way more complex than that.

    If you're saying X-23 is breakout because she has many traits in common with Wolverine, I could agree there. But if you're saying it's only cause she's associated with Wolverine as his clone, then I'd have to disagree. She's a little interesting to me (not enough to buy stuff of her, of course, same as all the other characters right now), but what makes her that little bit interesting to me isn't Wolverine. It's her nature, her background, and what she has to deal with as a young woman.
    I can also be reached on BlueSky and Tumblr. Avatar by kahlart.

    Ghosts of Genosha minicomic focused on Polaris, written by me and drawn by Fin_NoMore.

    Polaris 50th anniversary minicomic written by me and drawn by Mlad!

    Gallery of Polaris commissions (without NSFW or minicomics)

  6. #846
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    6,666

    Default

    People of color and queer people must align exactly with what the census says but it's fine that half the X-Men are redheads (2-6% of Americans).

  7. #847
    Astonishing Member Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sundown View Post
    I think Marvel has taken in part from the queer community, in part from the non-white community, in part from the non-Christian community, in part from the foreigner in a strange country community, in part from any outsider community. That's what makes the theme so universal....so many people can relate to feeling "other" at some level or some time in their lives.

    I very much agree with inclusiveness, but it should be done in way that makes sense and based on current populations. If 13% of America is African American (per 2010 US census), then about 13% of X-Men characters should reflect that (for example). That's roughly 1 in 10 or a little more, and Marvel needs to work on it. If roughly 5% of the US population is queer, then that would be 1 in 20 of the X-Men. Given that Iceman is one of the top 20 X-Men and has gotten steady focus since being outed, that's about right.

    What I don't like seeing is tokenism, which is the most common result of placating a particular group. Editorial wants to try and get a group to ease off so compels a writer to use a character the he (or occasionally she) has little or no interest in. That leads to lousy story telling, imo. (Refer to Bloodstorm and her recent fate.)
    Your post makes sense until the iceman thing.

    How does him being a top 20 xmen mean marvel is representing lgbt by having a 5% representation? The only way they’d be representing proportionately would be if 1 in 20 xmen were lgbt... not “one in the top 20 most popular”
    Being lgbt.

    (Of course this is all assuming 5% of the pop is lgbt and that using % population representation is the way to go- im just rolling with it for the sake of discussion)

    I apologies if I misunderstood your post.
    Last edited by Grey; 08-18-2018 at 06:05 PM.
    Your favorite superhero- the one you visit these forums to talk about. Would they talk to others the way you do on this message board?

  8. #848
    Invincible Member Havok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    27,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maestroneto View Post
    People of color and queer people must align exactly with what the census says but it's fine that half the X-Men are redheads (2-6% of Americans).
    half? Even in this teaser there's only 4. What an exageration

  9. #849
    Fantastic Member Sundown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Strong Girl Daken View Post
    The X-men have taken from many different communities in very specific ways (i.e not universal at all, rather situated quite specifically). The stories Marvel has told about Mutants being closeted, getting bashed, having their reproduction legislated, etc are stories drawn from the specific experiences of queer people. Marvel has also done this, like you said, with other minority groups in ways specific to those groups. Since this is true, characters from these groups should be centred and integral to the X-men (aka not tokens). African Americans might make up 13% of the general American population but that percentage is way higher in quantifying peoples who have faced oppression and marginalization in America, which means they should also be represented more in the X-men because oppression and marginalization are integral to X-men stories.
    Disagree completely. Then you start losing the fact that this is meant to be a fictional metaphor that any reader could relate to. It becomes exclusive, rather than inclusive.

    The X-Men are meant to represent a slice of the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Your post makes sense until the iceman thing.

    How does him being a top 20 xmen mean marvel is representing lgbt by having a 5% representation? The only way they’d be representing proportionately would be if 1 in 20 xmen were lgbt... not “one in the top 20 most popular”
    Being lgbt.

    I apologies if I misunderstood your post.
    I'm sorry, I worded it poorly, I think.

    In more detail, you have the X-Men as a whole, like on the big teaser with characters that haven't gotten used in years except as background, then you have maybe 20-ish that are the mainstays and almost always in use somewhere. It's a combination of the O5, ANAD and 90's mostly.
    Off the top of my head:
    1.Cyclops
    2.Jean
    3.Beast
    4. Iceman
    5. Angel
    6. Storm
    7. Nightcrawler
    8. Rogue
    9. Kitty
    10. Wolverine
    11. Colossus
    12. Gambit
    13. Jubilee
    14. Emma (maybe, maybe not)
    15. Psylocke

    Okay, so 15 that show up more often than not. If we're looking at a 5% population that may be queer, then one of these mainstays out of 15 seems like a balance. The larger stable of characters has quite a few more that are LGBTQ.


    Does that make any more sense? Bringing Bishop to the forefront will balance things out a bit more racially, and I foresee them taking a mid-line popular female character and outing her as bi in the near future, as well, to be honest. Or, they could just pick back up the already established fact with Betsy.

    Quote Originally Posted by salarta View Post
    Any and all characters can be interesting. The deciding factor is if they're used the right way. Saying some should get more use over others because they're interesting is essentially saying any not used are uninteresting, when the reality is that the "uninteresting" ones haven't had a proper chance. They need more than just a book. They also need promotion, good writing, said writing done by a writer that really cares and tries to understand, a supportive editor, etc. You're treating these characters like whether or not they can appeal to people is set in stone with no way of changing it, when it's way more complex than that.

    If you're saying X-23 is breakout because she has many traits in common with Wolverine, I could agree there. But if you're saying it's only cause she's associated with Wolverine as his clone, then I'd have to disagree. She's a little interesting to me (not enough to buy stuff of her, of course, same as all the other characters right now), but what makes her that little bit interesting to me isn't Wolverine. It's her nature, her background, and what she has to deal with as a young woman.

    I'm saying it's because she's based on the Wolverine concept, not because she's a clone of him. I happen to like the character and think she's been established as separate from Logan very well.

    On interesting or not, when there are SO many underused characters taking up space, how do you decide who to push and who not to? Why on earth would Marvel ditch a guaranteed sell from an established character to give a maybe or maybe not sell from one of these guys? It makes no business sense.

    I mean, they've tried pushing Quire for ages, and it still hasn't happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maestroneto View Post
    People of color and queer people must align exactly with what the census says but it's fine that half the X-Men are redheads (2-6% of Americans).
    Does seem to be a significant proportion of red heads. :P
    Last edited by Sundown; 08-18-2018 at 06:29 PM.

  10. #850
    Astonishing Member Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sundown View Post
    Disagree completely. Then you start losing the fact that this is meant to be a fictional metaphor that any reader could relate to. It becomes exclusive, rather than inclusive.

    The X-Men are meant to represent a slice of the world.



    I'm sorry, I worded it poorly, I think.

    In more detail, you have the X-Men as a whole, like on the big teaser with characters that haven't gotten used in years except as background, then you have maybe 20-ish that are the mainstays and almost always in use somewhere. It's a combination of the O5, ANAD and 90's mostly.
    Off the top of my head:
    1.Cyclops
    2.Jean
    3.Beast
    4. Iceman
    5. Angel
    6. Storm
    7. Nightcrawler
    8. Rogue
    9. Kitty
    10. Wolverine
    11. Colossus
    12. Gambit
    13. Jubilee
    14. Emma (maybe, maybe not)
    15. Psylocke

    Okay, so 15 that show up more often than not. If we're looking at a 5% population that may be queer, then one of these mainstays out of 15 seems like a balance. The larger stable of characters has quite a few more that are LGBTQ.

    Does that make any more sense?




    I'm saying it's because she's based on the Wolverine concept, not because she's a clone of him. I happen to like the character and think she's been established as separate from Logan very well.

    On interesting or not, when there are SO many underused characters taking up space, how do you decide who to push and who not to? Why on earth would Marvel ditch a guaranteed sell from an established character to give a maybe or maybe not sell from one of these guys? It makes no business sense.

    I mean, they've tried pushing Quire for ages, and it still hasn't happened.



    Does seem to be a significant proportion of red heads. :P
    Yes I see your point now, thank you
    Your favorite superhero- the one you visit these forums to talk about. Would they talk to others the way you do on this message board?

  11. #851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sundown View Post
    On interesting or not, when there are SO many underused characters taking up space, how do you decide who to push and who not to? Why on earth would Marvel ditch a guaranteed sell from an established character to give a maybe or maybe not sell from one of these guys? It makes no business sense.

    I mean, they've tried pushing Quire for ages, and it still hasn't happened.
    I have two answers to that.

    Marvel had no problem making solos, minis and oneshots for characters like Lockjaw, Longshot, Multiple Man, X-Man, etc. If they can make such things for those characters, why not for any other underused characters? As far as sales, Marvel doesn't seem to genuinely care there, either. That Lockjaw mini sold like 10k per issue. The Scarlet Witch solo had sales at "cancellation" level starting with issue #2 and they kept it going for 20 issues with heavy promotion. There seem to be only two criteria people at Marvel really follow: who they think is so popular they can't not do stuff for them, and who they're personally huge fans of. Sales appear to be a complete afterthought.

    My second answer: use those underused characters on team books, to fill some (not all) slots. It gives them an opening. Rotate who fills those team slots, too. It gives them some use and at least a little chance to gauge interest, which is better than nothing.
    I can also be reached on BlueSky and Tumblr. Avatar by kahlart.

    Ghosts of Genosha minicomic focused on Polaris, written by me and drawn by Fin_NoMore.

    Polaris 50th anniversary minicomic written by me and drawn by Mlad!

    Gallery of Polaris commissions (without NSFW or minicomics)

  12. #852
    Fantastic Member Sundown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by salarta View Post
    I have two answers to that.

    Marvel had no problem making solos, minis and oneshots for characters like Lockjaw, Longshot, Multiple Man, X-Man, etc. If they can make such things for those characters, why not for any other underused characters? As far as sales, Marvel doesn't seem to genuinely care there, either. That Lockjaw mini sold like 10k per issue. The Scarlet Witch solo had sales at "cancellation" level starting with issue #2 and they kept it going for 20 issues with heavy promotion. There seem to be only two criteria people at Marvel really follow: who they think is so popular they can't not do stuff for them, and who they're personally huge fans of. Sales appear to be a complete afterthought.

    My second answer: use those underused characters on team books, to fill some (not all) slots. It gives them an opening. Rotate who fills those team slots, too. It gives them some use and at least a little chance to gauge interest, which is better than nothing.
    Yeah, I can't fathom Marvel's criteria for solos, to be honest. I don't see any reason not to do minis, though, if a writer comes up with an idea for a character he or she likes.

    I agree on the underused. I think the best formula is to have an established core team of maybe 5 or 6, then use rotating floaters, so readers are exposed to them. If they show any real promise, use them more. If not, pass them on.

    I do, however, think some need to be limbo'd or culled. The underused stable has gotten pretty massive, and has many similar characters in it.

  13. #853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maestroneto View Post
    People of color and queer people must align exactly with what the census says but it's fine that half the X-Men are redheads (2-6% of Americans).
    Hahahaha I wonder why...

  14. #854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sundown View Post
    Yeah, I can't fathom Marvel's criteria for solos, to be honest. I don't see any reason not to do minis, though, if a writer comes up with an idea for a character he or she likes.

    I agree on the underused. I think the best formula is to have an established core team of maybe 5 or 6, then use rotating floaters, so readers are exposed to them. If they show any real promise, use them more. If not, pass them on.

    I do, however, think some need to be limbo'd or culled. The underused stable has gotten pretty massive, and has many similar characters in it.
    I think we're in agreement on the team roster approach.

    If it's absolutely necessary to not use a large swath of characters (I don't think it is), then I'd go for limbo. Killing them off, nope. At least leave an opening for them to potentially be used again someday without having to explain why they're suddenly back from the dead. Plus most of these kind of comics suck at character death, following a blasé attitude that's a decade or two out of date.
    I can also be reached on BlueSky and Tumblr. Avatar by kahlart.

    Ghosts of Genosha minicomic focused on Polaris, written by me and drawn by Fin_NoMore.

    Polaris 50th anniversary minicomic written by me and drawn by Mlad!

    Gallery of Polaris commissions (without NSFW or minicomics)

  15. #855
    Uncanny Member Digifiend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by salarta View Post
    I have two answers to that.

    Marvel had no problem making solos, minis and oneshots for characters like Lockjaw, Longshot, Multiple Man, X-Man, etc. If they can make such things for those characters, why not for any other underused characters? As far as sales, Marvel doesn't seem to genuinely care there, either. That Lockjaw mini sold like 10k per issue. The Scarlet Witch solo had sales at "cancellation" level starting with issue #2 and they kept it going for 20 issues with heavy promotion. There seem to be only two criteria people at Marvel really follow: who they think is so popular they can't not do stuff for them, and who they're personally huge fans of. Sales appear to be a complete afterthought.
    Or maybe the direct market sales numbers are misleading because digital sales were good? How often do we see people complaining that Moon Girl is still running with less than 10k sales in DM? There's a reason Iceman got another mini and Wasp got uncancelled.
    Appreciation Thread Indexes
    Marvel | Spider-Man | X-Men | NEW!! DC Comics | Batman | Superman | Wonder Woman

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •