How well has Marvel handled hero mantles?

[TheRay]

Mantles are usually bad.
Hence why most, if not all, of the people you've listed have developed their own identity over time.

[Electricmastro]

General thoughts on Kamala Khan as Ms. Marvel?

[skyvolt2000]

General thoughts on Kamala Khan as Ms. Marvel?

She took over a new that was not being used.

Much like Aqualad and Nightwing did at that other company.

Excluding the trolls who hate her for her race and religion (and ESPECIALLY the hate towards her brother).

I would say it has been handled decently.

[JudicatorPrime]

I think somehow taking over a mantle and using an existing name has been confused as one and the same thing. They're not.

I never saw Kamala as taking over Ms. Marvel's mantle. Maybe if Kamala had Ultragirl's powers and origin and then took up the name Ms. Marvel I'd feel differently.

Same with Monica Rambeau when she had the name Captain Marvel. She wasn't trying to be Mar-vell, or supplant him, or carry forward his personal legacy in any way. (I mean these were the reasons why they stripped her of the name, right?)

On the other hand, Carol Danvers did take on the Captain Marvel mantle. Ditto with Captain Falcon-America, Jane Thor, Cho Hulk, etc.

[Digifiend]

Yeah, Carol abandoned the Ms. Marvel name to take on Mar-Vell's old name Captain Marvel. A couple of years later, fangirl Kamala got her powers and chose to use the vacant name, becoming the new Ms. Marvel. She's not a direct replacement, she has a completely different powerset. The name just wasn't being used so she grabbed it (in real life, probably to renew the trademark - she was only expected to last six issues). In fact, had Carol still been Ms. Marvel, Kamala might have been called Ms. Fantastic, as her powers are much closer to Reed's.

[TheRay]

It's hard to handle mantles well when it's usually a temporary thing.

Because it should be a temporary thing, it should not really be done at all, but if it has to be done then it should be temporary.

[XPac]

Because it should be a temporary thing, it should not really be done at all, but if it has to be done then it should be temporary.

It's a good way to build up another hero though.

Characters like War Machine or Shuri really benefitted from their temporary period holding their mantles. It helped establish them.

I think its arguably done too often, but I don't agree it shouldn't be done. Stuff like Winter Soldier worked pretty well.

[Will Evans]

At least Foggy never temporarily became Daredevil.

[Gaastra]

Because it should be a temporary thing, it should not really be done at all, but if it has to be done then it should be temporary.

So vision. torch, black widow, dr doom, the thing, hulk, ghost rider, angel and others have to rename? None of them are the originals!

[JudicatorPrime]

Hmmm....question for the group.

There has been a debate of sorts raging for years among old farts like myself surrounding the first appearance of the mighty Thor. While most people believe that Thor first appeared in Journey Into Mystery #83, there are an increasing number of individuals who think that Thor first appeared in Venus Comics #12 (circa 1951), which was published by Atlas, a company that later became Marvel. If you somehow happened to have a copy of Venus #12, you'd notice right away that the image of Thor was vastly different than his appearance in Journey Into Mystery. One could argue that the Thors were actually two different people. Stan Lee's origin story furthers that perception by virtue of Mjolnir's inscription.

I won't ask anyone to settle the first appearance debate, but I am curious to know if anyone else sees Thor as a mantle swap.

[Gaastra]

Didn't know about that one. Plus venus is canon. Has loki also! (but he can change his looks)

However marvel says it's main thors first app so guess he just got a face change later or loki changed his looks as a joke as marvel says it's the same thor.

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[JudicatorPrime]

Didn't know about that one. Plus venus is canon. Has loki also! (but he can change his looks)

However marvel says it's main thors first app so guess he just got a face change later or loki changed his looks as a joke as marvel says it's the same thor.

Thanks for posting the images!

OHOTMU establishing it to be the same Thor is what fueled the debate. Is that really the same Thor? Could OHOTMU have gotten it wrong? I mean we don't need to go into OHOTMU's disturbingly frequent penchant for misrepresenting narrative facts.

That first panel of Thor definitely makes you wonder. Loki being a mischievous shapeshifter (and here depicted looking very much like Old Scratch himself, pointy tail and all) makes sense. But Thor was never a shapeshifter by any definition. Odin was, Loki was, any number of Norse gods, giants, dwarves, witches and warlocks were, but never Thor ...

...unless you bring Mjolnir and Odin's spell into the discussion. Then and only then does Thor's appearance change to mirror the physical appearance of Mjolnir's wielder, albeit greatly augmented to Asgardian specifications. That, after all, was one of the earliest explanations as to why Thor had blond hair. He was basically an Asgardian version of Donald Blake.

At the end of the day we can only speculate. I find it amusing, mainly because a friend of mine can't stand it whenever I tell him that blondie Thor is a specious mantle pirate who needs to give the hammer back to the original. Ha, he's so easily provoked. Think I'll text him now.

[Electricmastro]

Hmmm....question for the group.

There has been a debate of sorts raging for years among old farts like myself surrounding the first appearance of the mighty Thor. While most people believe that Thor first appeared in Journey Into Mystery #83, there are an increasing number of individuals who think that Thor first appeared in Venus Comics #12 (circa 1951), which was published by Atlas, a company that later became Marvel. If you somehow happened to have a copy of Venus #12, you'd notice right away that the image of Thor was vastly different than his appearance in Journey Into Mystery. One could argue that the Thors were actually two different people. Stan Lee's origin story furthers that perception by virtue of Mjolnir's inscription.

I won't ask anyone to settle the first appearance debate, but I am curious to know if anyone else sees Thor as a mantle swap.

We don’t know all the names of the staff who worked on Venus #12, so I think it makes it less likely if that Thor was intended to have some connection with Thor Odinson, which I think is what it ultimately boils down to.

It’s probably not too different from identifying whether Marvel’s Dracula first appeared appeared in Suspense #7 (1951) or Tomb of Dracula #1 (1972):

[TheRay]

It's a good way to build up another hero though. I agree. Which is why when it is done I can forgive it, even though I think it would be far more legitimate to start the character out with their own name. I can see it aiding a character, even if it would not be the path I would take when writing them.

I think its arguably done too often, but I don't agree it shouldn't be done. Stuff like Winter Soldier worked pretty well.

I think in the case of Winter Soldier you have multiple different characters introduced at the same time carrying the name. However, you know most of them are going to get killed as red shirts and there will only really be one main guy who is known by that title anyway; Bucky in this case. I think if you want to do that, then okay, but that isn't really a mantle at that point. Unless you're referring to something else entirely here.

[pageturner]

I only consider a few of the really hand off most were lent at best.

Scott as antman is great
Carol is doing well as cap marvel although there was not much of a hand off.
Ms Marvel is great but again that was more of just grabbing an existing name.
Hawkeye was more a bestowed name. Once Clint came back it was great they had her keep the name.
Power man is working ok last I saw.

the Cap mantle has been passed around the most I would guess. But they all seemed temporary.