Shifting Identities, Expanding Diversity: The Superhero Tradition

[Brian from Canada]

In other words, you're saying the problem isn't that there's change, but that the change is specifically that the characters are no longer white men.

No, what I am saying is that the problem is being made specifically to make them not white men, not because the story requires change. Steve's loss of vitality and Thor's failing are sudden moments with quick changing resolutions — and that doesn't make the fans happy, because it smacks of event marketing, particularly when Marvel promotes the change as better (not just different) and that the new hero is inevitably equal to or better than the original (which, if that were the case, they would be a different hero in their own right).

I would say that that's correct, and that it's a sign of prejudice. The idea that Thor can be a frog and it's cool, but if he's a woman that's illegitimate — that's an ideological stance that women are illegitimate, right? Anti-anti-racism and anti-anti-sexism shade quickly into just plain old racism and sexism at that point, it seems like.

The difference is that when Thor became a frog, he was still Thor. Loki became a woman, but was still Loki. Replacing Thor Odinson with someone else who is automatically Thor with the same powers despite being a different character is not the same thing — and makes them an impostor and therefore illegitimate on the original character's legacy of heroism because it means that Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, Thor Odinson… they are not "heroes," they are people who are acting the role of hero and can be replaced when someone better comes along.

The desire to lean back on charges of "racism" and "sexism" in today's comics' social media circles is what fuels the publishers to work hard to prove they are progressive, but that's not what is happening with a lot of the criticisms — particularly with Thor. Thor fans want to see any of Asgard's existing women promoted and given the spotlight to stand as Thor's equal, not a replacement.

Superheroes are changes all the time for all sorts of reasons, mostly to provide narrative interest and get readers reading. Marvel is acknowledging that they have a diverse fan base, and that those fans (and others) would like to see a broader range of heroes. Why is that particular decision illegitimate? Why is it important to you that these corporate characters not address a certain audience? What's with that?

The problem with your position is you are not taking context into account — you are slamming past and present together to make an argument that is not supported by the evidence.

Superheroes did not make changes "all the time" in the pre-Quesada Marvel. When fundamental changes occurred — such as Steve Rogers' loss of faith causing him to quit and become Nomad instead, or Thor's transformation into a frog — the characters themselves remained the same at the core, a key part of the core Marvel, and were always able to communicate that this narrative change was most likely temporary and the character would be restored through an act of redemption once they had come to grips internally with the situation that caused the change.

More importantly, when pre-Quesada Marvel noted a diverse fan base, they responded by creating characters that reflected those individuals better. The rise of Blaxploitaiton in Hollywood and the associated awareness that American entertainment needed more African American heroes led to the creation of Luke Cage; the rising interest in martial arts culture, which was not predominantly white elsewhere, led to Shang-Chi and Colleen Wing. However, each character was created to be a unique identity that enhanced the Marvel universe.

The present Ms. Marvel is part of that second tradition. She represents the modern American Muslim community and some of its issues, but she is a hero in her own right who is building relationships with other heroes as she finds her place in the greater Marvel world.

The present Thor, however, is not part of either tradition. She represents a need to appeal to a particularly vocal segment of the online community that is critical of the mysoginist tendencies of comics — and she comes in at the expense of Thor. Similarly, making Sam Wilson the new Captain America delegitimizes the legacy of the super soldier program because it means anyone can be Captain America so long as it fits the image that government wants right now; when President Obama is replaced by Hillary Clinton, does this mean Carol Danvers will become the next Captain America?

You ask "Why is it important that these corporate characters not address a certain audience?" but the answer is simple: they already do. Superheroes are, by their very nature, oblivious to the differences in the human race. What matters is who the heroes are and what they stand for. No one, until recently, complained that Steve Rogers was the Nazi poster boy representing racist ideologies — what mattered was that Steve Rogers represented an innocence and simplified view of the world that we lost since the Second World War, and that he was a commander who dealt with people on a human level. When he was called out on it, it was by newer characters who noted the problem (like Night Thrasher did in The Avengers) or by the government (since Falcon was made an Avenger to fit quotas).

When it comes to Marvel Comics, the whole idea of the publisher being unable to respond to diverse audiences is simply inane. The X-Men dealt specifically with issues of race and gender. Dazzler dealt with gender. But not every hero has to deal with it in the way the online community is now demanding. The whole point of the shared universe is to present different approaches through different characters — not diverse characters, DIFFERENT ones who may be diverse but who definitely speak to issues that affect us all.

I turn the question around and ask you and everyone else who criticizes the defence of the core ideals why Thor can no longer be about the brash prince who must learn humility if he is to succeed in the role he is destined to play within the epic tapestry or history? Why can't Captain America be the idealized representation of a simpler time to remind us of when we used to care less about politics/gender/etc. and more about what's doing right? Why is Peter Parker's inability to have a really good day make him ineligible to connect to readers because he isn't of the right skin colour?

Since when does a changing statistic in demographic identification mean that a portion of the audience can no longer accept that the actions of a hero — any hero — speak to the greater good of us all?

And, most importantly: Why can't they seek out other heroes who have different views to help them, stand by them, expand the Marvel universe — why do they have to be replaced by someone who doesn't share the same idealism that defines the character identity and role in the MU?

[Brian from Canada]

I think we can all agree that Fox's Fantastic Four is going to be more "interpretation of source material" than "comics brought to life" -- in which case, according to your logic, there isn't much to complain about.

Not quite. Fox's Fantastic Four project was announced without the open acknowledgement that the source material is not going to be the launching point for this project, which means the fans will complain about the way the studio is trying to present something else as an equal possessor of the title. The Fantastic Four are a set property and not easily replaced, no matter how much the studio thinks it is.

[Mbast1]

I think most would prefer they create a brand new character for racial reasons. Rather than hijack an established character.

People say this all the time, but then won't buy the new thing either.

[Mbast1]

The worry I've often had about black, Asian, female and such super heroes though is that it seems like they have to take on the name of another to be popular, even if they are great characters themselves.

Legacy heroes have been around since the Silver Age, and they take the name of other heroes. But I don't hear anyone worrying about the racial aspects when it's another white character.

[Mbast1]

This opinion piece completely misses the point.
Patton's casting as Iris West matches Kreuk's on Smallville: both communicated at the beginning that they were an interpretation of the source material, .

ANY adaptation is an interpretation, that's how it works. Not even Sin City (which I think was TOO close to the source material) was an exact replication of the comics. What would be the point? I can just read the comics, I want something else from different media.
So, it's not really a matter of interpretation, but of which ones different people are accepting. And time and again, comics fans have largely not accepted changing from SWM to anything else.

Wally doesn't reflect any of the personality of the original character he's named after.

Just as with the modern Earth-2 GL, they're not the same. They keep the same names for copyright reasons (I'd also think so that fans might be more likely to accept them) but they're not the same, and no reason to think they would be.

The Marvel movies are designed to be the comics brought to life.

Says who? Sure, they're pretty close, but they're not the same, and they're interpreting also. Otherwise, why is Ultron not created by Dr. Pym? For one big instance. Or, where was Cap's extensive history in WW2? They touched on it in the film, but it's not the same.
They're pulling from the source material, clearly, but they're not just bringing them to life.

(1) an African American Human Torch has no basis in the comics whatsoever and is a lot harder to explain than an African American Nick Fury (this is the Ultimate version) or Hemdall (skin colour is human perception),

Because given the time of the creation of the characters, there was almost no chance of a black character being in the comics? But, it's not 1961 anymore.

single best candidate overall

Why is this almost always brought up? I never see it in the reverse, only when a white person isn't given a job do I see people go on about the "best candidate".

He didn't embrace the source material, he spit on it.

So what? Does that mean he won't do a good job acting? His job is to bring the character in the script to life, NOT to be a fan of the comics.

And that, more than anything else, is a sin to most comic readers.

Which is incredibly childish, IMO. Harrison Ford is known for wanting nothing to do with Blade Runner but he still did a fantastic job.

why does Marvel ignore another attempt at them in favour of replacing Thor himself?

Because it gets attention. That's what publishers do, try to get attention. Then you have to read the books to see if they do a good job of stroytelling.

it's because the characters are being changed to fit the diversity demand.

I grew ever more tired of this. There is every bit as much "agenda" behind keeping things as they are/were (or as we imagine them to have been) as in demanding diversity. The world doesn't live in the bubble it used to, we KNOW there are more people in the world than just SWMs, so why on earth should fiction not change? It will no matter what, as the article showed, but why it is that some chance is legitimate and some not?

[Mbast1]

In other words, you're saying the problem isn't that there's change, but that the change is specifically that the characters are no longer white men.

I see people try to rationalize this a lot, but yes, that does seem to be the issue at hand.

Anti-anti-racism and anti-anti-sexism shade quickly into just plain old racism and sexism at that point, it seems like.

Yes, no matter how you dress it up and pretend otherwise, it's the same thing.

Marvel is acknowledging that they have a diverse fan base, and that those fans (and others) would like to see a broader range of heroes. Why is that particular decision illegitimate? Why is it important to you that these corporate characters not address a certain audience? What's with that?

I AM a SWM and I want more diversity. I've seen people complain about "PC agendas" in the escapist fiction, and I just wonder what kind of world it is to which they want to escape. Seems a bit KKK-ish, to me.

[Mbast1]

As a Black reader I am not just going to pick up a comic book, or watch a movie, or a tv show just because it features a Black character.

I've seen a number of other minority readers say they would do just that, try something because it might reflect them.

[Mbast1]

but you cannot just go and dismiss every reason that someone might not like a change as being a product of racism.

But neither can you pretend that's never the case.

[Mbast1]

Fox's Fantastic Four project was announced without the open acknowledgement that the source material is not going to be the launching point for this project,

So now they need to be explicit about that? There needs to be a warning that this is not just like the comic, which a handful of people read, but is in fact a movie, which FAR more people might see.
Yeah, I'm going to go with no, that is an unreasonable thing to expect. Let them make the movie, you see it, and then decide if you like it. No other expectation makes sense.

[Brian from Canada]

So, it's not really a matter of interpretation, but of which ones different people are accepting. And time and again, comics fans have largely not accepted changing from SWM to anything else.

No, it's not. Every adaptation has a different relationship with the source material — but it's always one that is tacitly acknowledged at one point. The Flash television series does not once ask you to accept that this is based entirely on the comics; instead, it asks you to accept this as an expansion of the interpretation of DC Comics begun in Arrow, which is a heck of a lot like Agents Of SHIELD asking to accept it as a continuation of the Marvel movie universe rather than an adaptation of the Nick Fury-led S.H.I.E.L.D. comics. The movies, particularly Fantastic Four, ask you to accept this as based on the original source material.

Compare like looking at Ten Things I Hate About You and Taming Of The Shrew: enough changes were made in the former to avoid calling it the latter because they didn't want unfavourable comparisons, they wanted favourable ones that celebrated the differences — here, with Fantastic Four, just as in other failed cinematic adaptations, they go too far astray from the source material to be acceptable by the general public, not just the deeper fan base, because it runs opposite to what they know already about the characters.

Trank's film has to compete with the last one no matter how much they say they are different because the last was identified as a legitimate version just as Tim Burton's Batman had to compete with the TV series, or Man Of Steel has to compete against the Donner ones. The more each strayed, the more each had to justify those changes, and only Batman was semi-successful, mostly because of the change in performance style rather than anything specific to the character by that point.

Just as with the modern Earth-2 GL, they're not the same. They keep the same names for copyright reasons (I'd also think so that fans might be more likely to accept them) but they're not the same, and no reason to think they would be.

But with Earth-2, the series was promoted as being different from previous incarnations, not a modernized version of the previous incarnation. There's a difference. And fans of Alan Scott questioned the need to suddenly make one of the most important father figures in the DC universe a young gay man. Even then, though, the New 52 Alan Scott has a strength of will and heroism in his approach that makes him similar — whereas the New 52 Wally West, despite the same name, doesn't even share the optimism, sense of humour, relationship or even outlook of the character that is better known because of his TV appearances over the last few years than anything else. (Kid Flash's Teen Titans incarnation was also decried for its difference from one that succeeded.)

Otherwise, why is Ultron not created by Dr. Pym? For one big instance.

It's not one big instance: Hank Pym would have to be introduced before Ultron, and the Ant-Man film was not ready. Also, if you paid attention to what Marvel is doing, the second Marvel's Avengers movie is being set up by the associated animated series, where it turns out Howard Stark devised an android to be Tony's playmate and a counter for any threat at the same time, so the younger audiences will not blink about Tony making Ultron in the feature film.

Or, where was Cap's extensive history in WW2? They touched on it in the film, but it's not the same.

They don't need to show it all to reference it. The point is to communicate the bigger points in a way that maintains the same sense of structure as the comics in order for the viewer to have little obstacle in reading further adventures after they experience the feature film. In the case of Captain America, you could go into any Captain America comic and not have a problem — especially since it's easily explainable that Cap isn't a full S.H.I.E.L.D. agent. In the case of Ultron, all you need to know is he's a very dangerous foe for The Avengers and keep going from there.

With Iris West, there's less of a problem because her backstory is that she's a reporter. That's basically it. The Flash alters her course, explaining differently why she was attracted to it, but it goes the same way, which is a big step as to why there is far less objection to the character's casting: they are still stuck on the essential path in a way that works to appease the fans.

Because given the time of the creation of the characters, there was almost no chance of a black character being in the comics? But, it's not 1961 anymore.

First, there were black characters in the comics. Even in Marvel, where one of the Young Allies was African American back in 1944. And while The Fantastic Four may be all white — because they represented four different directions of that middle class America (the academic, the apple pie mom, the immigrant and the typical teen), they were not racist towards others and in fact welcomed in an aboriginal American (Wyatt Wingfoot) and befriended an African (T'Challa, The Black Panther) without comment.

Second, the defence that this isn't 1961 any more is a lazy one used to justify the fact that the creators can't be bothered to find any other way to modernize the surroundings of the heroes. There are plenty of examples of white protagonists surrounded by a diverse support staff, and The Fantastic Four could easily have followed the example of Rise Of The Silver Surfer and feature a prominent African American military leader. Heck, they could have even made Obama the President as a way of acknowledging today's society.

Why is this almost always brought up? I never see it in the reverse, only when a white person isn't given a job do I see people go on about the "best candidate".

If you don't see it in the reverse, you are truly colour blind. There have been accusations of Hollywood's inability to cast anyone other than a white person for decades — not to mention the accusation from the Hispanic community in Hollywood that they are being passed over or ignored simply because Hollywood can't see them beyond a stereotype.

I bring up Jordan's casting in The Fantastic Four because he is NOT the best candidate. There was no comparison process through auditions, and that doesn't sit will particularly when there are individuals who are equally if not more akin to Johnny's recognized personality traits that are working in Hollywood today that are being ignored because they are "white." Trank hired his buddy, not the best actor — there is no evidence so far that Jordan's acting has demonstrated he's a Johnny Storm-type role player. (In Chronicle, he's more the Reed Richards.)

Samuel L. Jackson is buyable as Nick Fury because it was always Ultimate Fury, which is based on Jackson himself — and Jackson's performance, like the Bond who inspired the original Fury, was a badass with cool toys, something Jackson can play with relish.

Idris Elba is buyable as Heimdall because (a) Americans are horrid at playing anything but cowboys on film and (b) in today's British acting circles, there are few who can play the stoic guardian better than Elba.

His job is to bring the character in the script to life, NOT to be a fan of the comics.

His job is to sell the project to all audiences in order to drum up interest. The Fantastic Four has very little support from the comic audience — be they reading the comic at the moment or not — which is traceable first to Jordan's comments about the characters and the readership and then progressed from there.

Trank's clearly trying to do the Nolan/Goyer thing of claiming relevance to the modern, harsh world in order to justify their film as art. It certainly worked with Chronicle, which is loosely based on The Fantastic Four concept. But it's not what The Fantastic Four is about. Unlike Batman, or Chronicle, the Fantastic Four is all about accepting the wild and crazy concepts as real rather than needing to link it to the real world.

Harrison Ford is known for wanting nothing to do with Blade Runner but he still did a fantastic job.

There's a HUGE difference between Blade Runner and The Fantastic Four! Blade Runner is an adaptation of a short story that wasn't widely read in 1982 except by devoted science fiction fans; "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" wasn't even promoted as part of the lead up or tie in to Blade Runner either — and there was no previous adaptation of Philip K. Dick's work that acted as standard as well.

More importantly, while Ford may have taken the role for the paycheque, much as (say) Bruce Boxleiter did with Tron, he didn't comment on the source material or the audience the film was aiming to attract like Jordan does. Jordan's calling out the fans who want to see a closer adaptation to the material that's over five decades old as "racists" because the old material is offensive is a major detraction for the fans of the source material; it's telling the fans of The Fantastic Four comic property that what they love is wrong and they should stay away from the real world if they prefer it.

[Brian from Canada]

Because it gets attention. That's what publishers do, try to get attention. Then you have to read the books to see if they do a good job of storytelling.

There are other ways to get attention to Thor than give his name to someone else. Heck, you could even punish Thor by making him into a woman for a while instead of making another, less prominent female character become him. When Thor got attention for the switch, it was polarizing to say the least: if you didn't like it, you were sexist and mysognist automatically — regardless of what potential storytelling there was being offered. When it comes to storytelling, this is actually a bad move because it disconnects from the Thor narrative progression in order to give a new character a boost that they can't otherwise give.

I grew ever more tired of this. There is every bit as much "agenda" behind keeping things as they are/were (or as we imagine them to have been) as in demanding diversity. The world doesn't live in the bubble it used to, we KNOW there are more people in the world than just SWMs, so why on earth should fiction not change? It will no matter what, as the article showed, but why it is that some chance is legitimate and some not?

Because there is a HUGE difference between changing the world around you and changing you at the core.

Superheroes are not interchangeable in their true identity because the superpowers are not transferable between people. There is only one person bit by a radioactive spider, there is only one person who crash lands in Kansas and embodies the Kent philosophy, there is only one son of Odin who needs to be tested to be worthy of inheriting the throne, there is only one Amazon who has the skills and personality to represent the best of her society every time, and so on.

The exceptions are Iron Man and Green Lantern because the power set is determined by technology rather than individual. And even then, the writers have traditionally sought replacements that bring a whole different perspective to the role so that when the technology is returned to its originator, the actions of the temporary replacement are strong enough to resonate with readers to give the replacement a new role in that framework.

Captain America might be considered the only other exception because he's viewable as the ultimate soldier rather than the superhero. But here is one example where the present story is most certainly pandering to try and woo a different segment of the audience rather than benefit the character itself: not only was Sam Wilson not a suitable candidate for replacing Steve Rogers when he had to leave the role in the last decade — that went to Bucky Barnes, who is still around as well — but there is another African American character who has the powers that isn't another hero being put under the costume. And, to top it off, Wilson has powers of his own that are now ignored (like the connection to Redwing).

It's very important to note that fans aren't decrying the change to Ms. Marvel, because the new Ms. Marvel is picking up the discarded identity and not trying to replace the original with it. Fans don't decry the change in Black Panthers because the book laid out in the beginning it was possible for the mantle to pass to a different member of the same bloodline if the totem felt it was necessary. Fans didn't decry Luke Cage's rise to leadership of The Avengers. To say that readers are refusing to accept changes to the "SWM" world of comics is not supported as well by the evidence.

Most readers want diversity — but they want the diversity to be added to the universe through new characters and new perspectives rather than replacement of the already important pillars of the universe that attracted them in the first place. If it doesn't sell in the numbers the publisher wants, then it's up to the publisher to keep trying. Marvel direct competition is accused of a lot of things, but they have already admitted they are willing to take the loss to keep books like Batwoman alive because the character is important to keep publishing to show different aspects of that universe.

[Brian from Canada]

I AM a SWM and I want more diversity. I've seen people complain about "PC agendas" in the escapist fiction, and I just wonder what kind of world it is to which they want to escape. Seems a bit KKK-ish, to me.

The very fact that you call it "escapist" fiction shows you need to step back and learn more about how fiction actually works. Fiction is, by its very nature, "escapist." It takes you to a different time and place, often putting you directly in the mind of someone else to understand their logic and perception.

When it comes to both comics and science fiction, the titles that have succeeded in staying with us beyond their original spurt of release(s) do so because there is something fundamental in their narrative that goes beyond the surface. In other words, it's not what is seen but what is said — at a level that somehow gets us to respond emotionally at a level that makes us want to invest in seeing that universe expanded further. It's why when you go to cons you see audiences debate the motives and finer points of the character performances: they want to understand the full facets of the narrative so they can immerse themselves further into it than just what the action is on the surface.

Thus, when comments are made about the need for diversity in the property, it's often done by those who aren't immersed in that world: instead, it's usually from those who have experience with the property but feel that can't be bothered to break the surface because they need the surface to reflect them. And in changing that surface, they are asking for deeper changes that will alter the relationship the property has for others who already can see beyond it. Or, in their asking for diversity, they ignore the reality of the surroundings within that property.

Captain America, the feature film, is a prime example of the latter. One of the Howling Commandos in the film — and television appearances — is Japanese. But as the source material reminds us, Japanese Americans were not given much chance to enlist, and were used in a specialized unit that was often distrusted by the US military because of the identity of the enemy. It was racism, but racism built out of a military logic. Having a Japanese American in the Commandos on film may show them to be above all racism but it is opposite to how the real WW2 units would be.

Another, stronger example from the world of science fiction is Doctor Who. There are critics and fans of the revived series who believe it's time the Doctor was more than just straight, white male — but they don't realize that a black human-looking Time Lord would not be able to function in England's historical period with ease until after the First World War, and even then not fully with society until the sixties. ("Revelation Of The Daleks" shows Ace clearly objecting to the 'no coloureds' sign in a window.) A woman wouldn't have the same authority either. And you would have to deal with Earth because the Doctor is fascinated with that planet. Other Time Lords — female, most notably — have had roles of power on Gallifrey but are not travelling about in Earth's history.

That's also not to say the PC card can't be played right in these worlds. Star Trek: Voyager had the problem of Tim Russ' casting as Tuvok because black Vulcans had not been shown on film to that point. The series' answer was that it was not a common skin colour and that they tended to stay away from the areas we've seen, which is a logic that's impossible to refute. (Had they said he had human blood, that would have been because Spock is supposed to be a rarity amongst Vulcans.)

But the whole point is that in the world of fiction that does not take place in today's society — worlds were people can defy physics and/or live on different planets — it's a deeper connection to the source material than surface that makes the fan base, and that fan base is objecting to changes in the surface to reflect a society that the fiction has to find its own way to reflecting rather than having the alterer say "We have a different world around us." You can't take today's world around you and force it elsewhere — something America, often the root of these PC efforts, is learning when it comes to foreign policy and the 'implementation of democracy' it so desires.

[ExcelsiorPrime]

I think detractors are missing the point. Comic book Audiences aren't general audiences. Television, Movies, Video game entertainment caters to a broader audience than comics. Comics are a niche--not as much in the 80's but as the speculator market imploded the industry--the diehards remained, while others went on to other forms of entertainment.

So while comic book readers are often shocked and/or dismayed at the changes made to content created primarily in the 60's which had a different sensibility younger audiences could careless. Times have changed.

We have had a Minority president for 6 plus years. Imagine voters balking at his selection--with the logic--someone changed the presidency from what i grew up with.

The bottom line is Marvel/DC/Image/etc. wants as broad an audience as possible for its media content.

Comic books are a different animal because of the refusal to try anything new. Notice how new characters become increasingly more popular in the mainstream first then comic book audiences follow suit. Men in Black. TMNT. Walking Dead, GoTG. Harley Quinn. Iron Man. Big Hero 6 ( all received boosts in popularity/notoriety from exposure outside comics)


I think its foolish to fight against change, because its gonna happen whether we like it or not. We can either be at the forefront or swept away by its inevitability.

[Conch22]

"Uncomfortable tradition!"

The tradition is only uncomfortable when its a caucasian iteration being presented and not the reverse, apparently.

Since the article brought up Vinnie Jones Arrow casting, lets look at that: Has alot more leeway than other franchises than most given its less established/ known how things should exist in this world for the general audience: So we get Walter Steele (who I assume is only recurring at a certain point due to the actors schedule), John Diggle for the non caucasian representation along with Shado/ Yao Fei. Olivers mother is kept alive and given alot of story, Olivers given a sister thats a pastiche of a pre-existing character to automatically elevate the character, Thea's relevance by creating a familial bond. And Laurel, who frequently stands against pervasive crime and has a strained relationship with the protagonist and her own family. And then there's Felicity, a white character who's charisma was instantly prevalent onscreen. Meant as a one off character, she became a series regular.

Definitely a show with an inclination towards diversity, so not too upset they cast Vinnie Jones as a character that seems rather well suited to him any more than I'm upset about Nyssa not being Israeli, which the original iteration of the character is a holocaust survivor so that seems like it would be an important detail but I can accept both the fact its an adaptation not recreation and the quality.

Now, I don't believe people like being pandered to in such an obvious and insensitive way. And when I say insensitive I'm talking about a modern equivalent of whitewashing, slotting POC into well known caucasian roles to celebrate the sameness, relegating any cultural identity as a skin tone on a white character. It may be well intentioned, but its not only devaluing culture, its having ethnicities aspire to be caucasian instead of standing beside, proud in being themselves.

Maybe T'challa should be Captain America next? Nothing remotely offensive with that concept. Should Mercy Graves be Chinese? Graves, as common a Chinese name as Anderson or Smith, right?

For the record, totally fine with the Falcon becoming Captain America as it actually fits the character and history. New female Thor seems like a lame stunt, but maybe the character will be spun off into a solo title with an actual identity.

I'm fine with updating characters culturally, not fond of a one size fits all mentality that seems more and more prevalent.

I honestly wish they would spend more time on characters like Shang-chi or Misty Knight, underused characters with a deep history in the MU that should be given a chance to shine. When I say a chance, I mean quality creators working on them, I don't, and I feel this is hopefully true of alot of people, make a habit of investing time in subpar work.

[Razor Tiara]

They should've made a mentioning to the BLACK Wally West in the comics now. I mean the Iris on the new Flash TV show is a great actress in a terrific role, but you would gain more ire of mentioning the Black Wally West

The only thing Black about that girl is her skin color. You could pick any Kardashian and they'd be Blacker culturally than tv's Iris West. That's the thing that makes me angry, we're only acceptable when packaged for maximum Caucasian consumption.