Marvel can't seem to do right by black characters

[Celgress]

That also makes sense. Nostalgia for when they themselves were young and single and fancy-free, as people used to say back in the day? And yes, the issue of milking old formulas to death out of an unwillingness to do and/or try new things and move forward . . . why we've been getting reboots, remakes, and years/decades-belated sequels out of franchises we enjoyed in our own younger days, come to think of it. They'd rather go with what they think is a sure thing with a guaranteed fandom than actually risk anything doing something new and different, although it's not like it helps that (almost) every time that gets tried, it gets punished by people whose only coherent answer for why is, "I wanted new and different, but not that kind of new and different!"

Another valid (and excellent) point.

[KurtW95]

IMO, the nostalgia argument is tired. There are tons of readers who first picked up a comic rather recently and and prefer the stories of the 90s at the latest. Smart creators also recognize that these are timeless characters that ought to remain intact so future readers can enjoy their stories in what can be a current continuity. And completely disagree about reviewers that praise books. It’s dishonest and glaring that the person writing said review wants to either get into comics or befriend comics creators. And an honest opinion that’s negative is going to shut those doors. Hence corruption.

[Agent Z]

Funny. Say what you want about Didio. I disagreed with a ton of what he did. But DC has gone downhill so bad since heÂ’s been gone with the new people approving moronic and short-sighted ideas in this year alone.



ThatÂ’s not why. HeÂ’s dull now because the most of the writers whoÂ’ve had him since write him as a loser who tells bad jokes refused to go back to basics at the Daily Bugle and shoehorning him into teams and splitting his villains with another Spider-Man who worked better in his own universe. And giving an alternate Gwen Stacy, who doesnÂ’t act like Gwen in the slightest, spider powers, which kind of blocks the real Gwen Stacy from returning. And yes. IÂ’m in favor of reviving 616 Gwen Stacy and having her be the prime love interest again. As people who know me on these forums already know. But even if that were to happen, I would opposed them getting married and having children in 616. These characters are timeless and pressing fast forward on their lives is not an option when you want to keep their essence intact so people in the future can enjoy the characters and their stories. Talented writers who arenÂ’t lazy donÂ’t have a problem with telling stories that preserve the characterÂ’s essence and make it stronger rather than the easy option of changing or aging the character.

There is no such thing as a timeless character. Any property that lasts longer than two decades will have to evolve and grow, and that means doing stuff like getting married and having kids. I got into Spider-Man through the Raimi movies and reruns of the 90s Fox show where his relationship with MJ was very prominent. I grew up watching shows were characters were either adults or grew into adults and got married. There are properties around Spider-Man's length which are still going strong despite massive changes and evolutions.

Aging up Peter and giving him a family is not robbing future readers of anything. People who say this sound like they're just afraid that newer audiences will like these changes that they hate, so they project their own biases onto them.

[Spiderfan001]

There is no such thing as a timeless character. Any property that lasts longer than two decades will have to evolve and grow, and that means doing stuff like getting married and having kids. I got into Spider-Man through the Raimi movies and reruns of the 90s Fox show where his relationship with MJ was very prominent. I grew up watching shows were characters were either adults or grew into adults and got married. There are properties around Spider-Man's length which are still going strong despite massive changes and evolutions.

Aging up Peter and giving him a family is not robbing future readers of anything. People who say this sound like they're just afraid that newer audiences will like these changes that they hate, so they project their own biases onto them.

Batman hasn't aged much.He keeps getting new sidekicks and allies but that's about it.

Same w/ Punisher.

[KurtW95]

You’re talking about depriving people the enjoyment of these characters. And replacing them with legacy replacement characters. How well has that gone lately? Like I’d really enjoy reading about character who are either reskins of classics or new character from our current crop of creators who don’t compare at all of the creators of the past’s talent and imagination. A character is more than a so-called mantle. Stan Lee understood that we care about the man under the mask rather than the mask itself. Getting rid of all of the characters that put the company on the map is like going skydiving after throwing your parachute from the plane. And there of course are timeless characters in fictions. If there weren’t, we wouldn’t be getting any new adaptions and nobody would care about Star Wars after a while. But of course we do because these characters are compelling. So compelling that the half-life of their greatness can keep Marvel and DC around even when they make really dumb moves.

[Spiderfan001]

You’re talking about depriving people the enjoyment of these characters. And replacing them with legacy replacement characters. How well has that gone lately? Like I’d really enjoy reading about character who are either reskins of classics or new character from our current crop of creators who don’t compare at all of the creators of the past’s talent and imagination. A character is more than a so-called mantle. Stan Lee understood that we care about the man under the mask rather than the mask itself. Getting rid of all of the characters that put the company on the map is like going skydiving after throwing your parachute from the plane. And there of course are timeless characters in fictions. If there weren’t, we wouldn’t be getting any new adaptions and nobody would care about Star Wars after a while. But of course we do because these characters are compelling. So compelling that the half-life of their greatness can keep Marvel and DC around even when they make really dumb moves.

It's weird because while I disagree w/ your take on characters never being grown up I agree that replacing them w/ legacy characters is taking them away from new generations.
"XYZ is the next generations superhero" doesn't make sense(Superhero here means a "mantle" that's being used by someone else, not an original hero).It worked for multiple generations, and no one is saying you can't have new heroes for the next generation.Just that don't take away/sideline the original ones.

So IG grow these characters up until they are still viable for both new and old, the moment you start pushing them for replacing is when you've gone too far.The originals stuck for a reason and they stuck on their own and didn't have the benefit of massive legacies to make them relevant (exceptions like Falcon who were characters before being legacies) and sidelining them for "the new" isn't the move to make.

The 2 can and do co-exist but too far in either direction is a no-no.Killing off all "new" heroes is bad same way sidelining/killing the original ones is

[Agent Z]

You’re talking about depriving people the enjoyment of these characters.

I'm doing no such thing. In fact, I'd say you're more guilty of this since it never occurs to you that people might like these changes that you hate.

And replacing them with legacy replacement characters. How well has that gone lately?

Miles, Kamala, Wally, Carol and Scott Lang are pretty popular last I checked. So I'd say not too badly.

Stan Lee understood that we care about the man under the mask rather than the mask itself.

Stan Lee didn't seem particularly bothered by legacy characters.

And there of course are timeless characters in fictions. If there weren’t, we wouldn’t be getting any new adaptions and nobody would care about Star Wars after a while.

Funny you should mention Star Wars since one of the biggest complaints about the recent movies was them telling the same story all over again.

Characters do not remain popular by merit. It takes work to keep them that way.

[Spiderfan001]

Characters do not remain popular by merit. It takes work to keep them that way.

Not taking sides since I'm very confused as to where I stand on all this rn, but doesn't this go for everything?The amount of work can differ but any character being/staying successful is by work.

It takes a lot of work/talent to make successful original characters hence why Marvel's have failed like Reptil's mini, it takes less effort to make legacy characters because they are feeding of an already existing fanbase, lore, etc.

And even though more than a decades of Spider-man comics were hated by a lot and Tom's Spidey wasn't exactly a fan fav for many the character survived extremely well.I think after some time a character becomes self sustaining to a degree that even a lot of mediocre or outright bad content of them can't take them out.A few reach this level and hence why Marvel/DC wants to feed of this existing fanbase because they can't cultivate new ones these days.

This isn't a criticism of legacy characters as a concept but the overuse of the concept in current comics.

Miles, Kamala, Wally, Carol and Scott Lang are pretty popular last I checked. So I'd say not too badly.

More than 50% of these a.k.a. Carol, Scott and Wally were created a long while before the current boom of legacy characters(as a crutch IMO).Kamala has no ongoing as of now and hasn't had one for a while.Miles is the only successful one here.Not to mention the legacy team book champions got cancelled w/ most of the characters in them in limbo.

So many/most legacy characters aren't exactly doing hot.

I'm still for legacy characters, I love Miguel and Mayday but the way Marvel handles legacies now isn't for me.DC's handling is far better imo, I actually still enjoy their legacy work like I am Batman, etc. and looking forward to Aquamen.

The main difference is while DC legacy characters feel like successors and organic at that Marvel feels like replacements or very separated. DC hits that great middle ground where both interact and exist together like Supermen rn while Marvels' either rarely interact(Peter and Miles) or Legacies are brought to remove/sideline the original characters(Like Ben Reilly in ASM rn).

Same way the Bat-family is organic and loved whereas the "Spider-fam"(a term used by Marvel themselves) isn't liked by most and seems inorganic and cash-graby.

DC feels like they are can give us both originals and legacies w/out diminishing either one whereas Marvel can't seem to do so.

[KurtW95]

I'm doing no such thing. In fact, I'd say you're more guilty of this since it never occurs to you that people might like these changes that you hate.

It’s a safe bet when you compare character that debuted the last twenty years versus the silver and bronze age.

Miles, Kamala, Wally, Carol and Scott Lang are pretty popular last I checked. So I'd say not too badly.

What Spiderfan001 said.

Stan Lee didn't seem particularly bothered by legacy characters.

You thinker he’d love seeing all of his characters retired?

Funny you should mention Star Wars since one of the biggest complaints about the recent movies was them telling the same story all over again.

I’m not saying stories should be retold. And the leading problem with the new movies is that they brought back the old story and characters only to lure in people who loved it only to destroy it and shill new characters that are awful.

Characters do not remain popular by merit. It takes work to keep them that way.

Partially, yes. But as I said earlier, there is a strong half-life on great characters’ popularity and if you’re arguing that the writers are unable to keep iconic characters popular can make new characters popular, then I don’t know what to tell you there.

In comics, we had a whole lot of years in which this question was simply ignored. The early Marvel books played around with something akin to ‘real time’, but once Stan and the Gang realized they were going to be around for a while, steps were taken to put the brakes on. Steps which later, less wise writers all too often ignored. -John Byrne

[ed2962]

Not taking sides since I'm very confused as to where I stand on all this rn, but doesn't this go for everything?The amount of work can differ but any character being/staying successful is by work.

It takes a lot of work/talent to make successful original characters hence why Marvel's have failed like Reptil's mini, it takes less effort to make legacy characters because they are feeding of an already existing fanbase, lore, etc.

And even though more than a decades of Spider-man comics were hated by a lot and Tom's Spidey wasn't exactly a fan fav for many the character survived extremely well.I think after some time a character becomes self sustaining to a degree that even a lot of mediocre or outright bad content of them can't take them out.A few reach this level and hence why Marvel/DC wants to feed of this existing fanbase because they can't cultivate new ones these days.

This isn't a criticism of legacy characters as a concept but the overuse of the concept in current comics.



More than 50% of these a.k.a. Carol, Scott and Wally were created a long while before the current boom of legacy characters(as a crutch IMO).Kamala has no ongoing as of now and hasn't had one for a while.Miles is the only successful one here.Not to mention the legacy team book champions got cancelled w/ most of the characters in them in limbo.

So many/most legacy characters aren't exactly doing hot.

I'm still for legacy characters, I love Miguel and Mayday but the way Marvel handles legacies now isn't for me.DC's handling is far better imo, I actually still enjoy their legacy work like I am Batman, etc. and looking forward to Aquamen.

The main difference is while DC legacy characters feel like successors and organic at that Marvel feels like replacements or very separated. DC hits that great middle ground where both interact and exist together like Supermen rn while Marvels' either rarely interact(Peter and Miles) or Legacies are brought to remove/sideline the original characters(Like Ben Reilly in ASM rn).

Same way the Bat-family is organic and loved whereas the "Spider-fam"(a term used by Marvel themselves) isn't liked by most and seems inorganic and cash-graby.

DC feels like they are can give us both originals and legacies w/out diminishing either one whereas Marvel can't seem to do so.

Their comics might have mediocre sales but many of them do better in either other markets or other media. Carol, mediocre direct market sales, but hit movie and hit in digital...Kamala, hit in digital and will have a movie coming soon...Jane/Thor did well for a while, will be the basis for the next Thor movie...Scott, poor comic sales but hit movie. Sam/Nova and Riri didn't do great in comics sales, but we'll see what the future holds for them.

[Spiderfan001]

Their comics might have mediocre sales but many of them do better in either other markets or other media. Carol, mediocre direct market sales, but hit movie and hit in digital...Kamala, hit in digital and will have a movie coming soon...Jane/Thor did well for a while, will be the basis for the next Thor movie...Scott, poor comic sales but hit movie. Sam/Nova and Ririr didn't do great in comics sales, but he'll see what the future holds for them.

Anything MCU will do great, that isn't a testament of the character.

As for digital could you provide sources?

[ed2962]

It’s a safe bet when you compare character that debuted the last twenty years versus the silver and bronze age.



What Spiderfan001 said.


You think he’d love seeing all of his characters retired?



I’m not saying stories should be retold. And the leading problem with the new movies is that they brought back the old story and characters only to lure in people who loved it only to destroy it and shill new characters that are awful.



Partially, yes. But as I said earlier, there is a strong half-life on great characters’ popularity and if you’re arguing that the writers are unable to keep iconic characters popular can make new characters popular, then I don’t know what to tell you there.

None of the popular characters are retired. And they've been doing the replacement/legacy storylines literally for decades. He got paid for his contributions so I'm sure Stan didn't care.

[ed2962]

Anything MCU will do great, that isn't a testament of the character.

As for digital could you provide sources?

Inhumans didn't do great, Eternals so far has been not a flop, but underwhelming.

They don't release the digital numbers, but both Marvel and DC have stated how some of their comics that do poorly in single issues they continue to publish cuz they make up for it in secondary markets ( digital and trades)

[Spiderfan001]

Inhumans didn't do great, Eternals so far has been not a flop, but underwhelming.

They don't release the digital numbers, but both Marvel and DC have stated how some of their comics that do poorly in single issues they continue to publish cuz they make up for it in secondary markets ( digital and trades)

Inhumans wasn't part of the MCU.And Eternals was not only took risks w/ both story and cast in both diversity and size they had to jam pack a massive story.Not to mention it's still pandemic era and many people won't watch it.

Also Ant-man and the Wasp is considered one of the worst Marvel movies.Captain Marvel isn't considered as top tier either, more like mediocre.

I'm aware, but if you don't have any sources then you can't just say they did great/hit digitally.

For e.x. Cap Marvel is kinda their prime Female lead hero atm, cancelling her solo gives a bad look so even if they aren't making much of a profit from her they can balance it out w/ other books.

I'm not saying it's not a possibility, but using this for specific books doesn't work.Also high sellers like Amazing Spider-man, etc. also sell in digital and trades so I don't see why this is a positive only for under-performing books

[skyvolt2000]

Anything MCU will do great, that isn't a testament of the character.

As for digital could you provide sources?

Amazon Kindle give you an idea.

However with digital the numbers flex due to what comes out.

The KEY thing to understand is with digital and trades is they are OPEN to everybody. There is no comic book store guy to say "I don't like Miles and I would rather go out of business than sell his book." Yes we got guys like that and their rage is not limited to POC-Archie, Supergirl and others have been victims of it.