Calculations in Marvel's Diversity

**Midnight_v** · 04-24-2015, 04:02 AM

I'm not sure where to start, but to try to be brief, 3 or so parts
1. Joewithoutfear's post; 2. Iceman 3. Diversity (Fighting against the long game)

Joe, i really applaud you and thank you. This forum really makes you feel alone if you're not in line with the hug-a-thon for LGBT, and or Feminist veiw. So even though you were pretty conservative in your points, you embolden others to discuss it when people really SEEM to want to shout you down. (oh the irony is not lost on me, No)
So again Thanks. I do feel the way they're going about is anger generating in fact there's a twitter post where one of the marvel guy says its intended to make people mad/ stir up controversy.

Iceman (and hypocrisy): People keep saying "I don't know any Iceman fans" well I'm on and it pissed me off.
I've always thought Bobby drake was awesome. I used to watch him on spider-man and his amazing friends. I later saw he was a founding X-man and saw in his attitude and a kinship. I read X-factor when I was a kid (thought I had no idea they were the original team at that time) cause apocalypse was scary and Iceman and Archangel were really mind blowing) I read xmen forever and bought both limited series (one in the 2000s) I really thought Robert Tanaka Was his kid by opal (spoiler: it wasn't).
In my opinion I view Iceman not spiderman as the ubiquitous everyman character, and I loved him for being brave and strong yet emotionally inept guy Not to mention blunt and honest. All of this, his character because of all the things that happened to him honestly, because his parent abandoned him to be a child solider. I really understood him having problems with women because there are a LOT of guys like that who do. Frankly, Bobby Drake is the poster child for PTSD, but even if not all those relationships he was in that I've read over the years? All the ignorance that people level at Booby, about their perceived notion of him? They never really gave a damn about the character. I started reading planetary because I felt like Elijah Snow would be the type of guy Bobby might grow into given time to mature. So instead of all the failed relationships, being about a man whose trying to understand people better, the generic guy who really doesnt' get why his girlfriend just up and left, the guy who doesn't get a Mary jane yet whos been through so much. Isn't about him figuring out how he's been failing at leadership or realizing that other people feelings matter, or hell that he has asperger's... It because he a closeted homosexual... "THATS IT! Yeaahhh!". Its a slap in the face.

There are a lot of people cheering but It seems to me they're just cheering because they feel they're getting some sort of comeuppance. Some "I'm putting you straight white males int your place" / "get with it grandpa"/ "How dare you say diversity ANY diversity is wrong!". Diversity for the sake of diversity is wrong, and hateful.

Here's the hypocrisy. . . this Bobby drake thing is NEARLY the equivalent of taking Northstar having him "find religion" and renounce his Homesexual life style as sin, praising that he was delivered from the madness that made him live his life of filth. Full Stop. for one sec.

Forget that I'm a guy saying things you don't like on the internet for a sec. Just for a sec. Digest the Northstar idea. They make Northstar straight.
...Northstar... straight.
Heteronormative, and with a dangerous message too for that matter... and then finally adding insult to injury. Large groups of people are applauding the move and telling YOU, how dare you be mad.

They take carol danvers... put her in a Personal non super relationship with a guy who's totally dominant, and a bit of an jerk to her some jock military type, who basically fits the stereotype of the mental abuser. He doesn't hit her, just makes her feel bad, so she's thinking about how he's gonna be mad if she doesn't call soon. So she really needs to beat the SuperSkrull quickly and get to her cell.
...and people say to you "its just an arc give the writers a chance to tell his story/"WHAT? This happens to girls everyday! You think there aren't powerful women who put up with and HIDE abuse?"/"It's character development, man." ...and they tell you its not okay to be mad.
Would that be okay?
No! Its stupid and it basically TAKES away from what the character's core personality. Yet, that's what people are telling me about Bobby drake. Don't be mad and basically "hahaha shut up". Again. No.
I got the development of this guy from the beginning and now he's lessened far lessened because they're saying all the things that he didn't get right weren't because he was didn't get it but because of refusal to accept his hidden gayness. W... T... H... Oh and they way she "Out's him?" confrontational and prying... I wish he'd have hurt jean gray. Just lashed out right there. Sigh. Oh well eiser award inbound bendis. *eyeroll.

I'm going to have to do another post after this. It got a bit longer that I wanted and I don't know how the spoiler tags work on this forum. sorry.

**aja_christopher** · 04-24-2015, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Midnight_v

There are a lot of people cheering but It seems to me they're just cheering because they feel they're getting some sort of comeuppance. Some "I'm putting you straight white males int your place" / "get with it grandpa"/ "How dare you say diversity ANY diversity is wrong!". Diversity for the sake of diversity is wrong, and hateful.

Which is why you're missing the point entirely.

This isn't about you: believe it or not, not everything is about "straight white males" which is exactly the point of a lot of these changes.

Asking for representation is not "hate" no matter how you try to spin it. "Hate" is burning crosses in people's yards or lynching them because they have a different skin color, assaulting or killing them because their sexuality is different from yours, putting them in gas ovens because they have different religious beliefs from you.

What it is not is having a character examine his own sexuality and decide that he is gay, or having a person of color take the mantle of a hero who is traditionally "straight, white, and male" because they were inspired by them to be a better person.

Experience has taught me that pointing out this simple fact might be a waste of time as it often falls on deaf ears, but it still needs to pointed out anyway.

Originally Posted by Silvermoth

I'm so disappointed that comic books have become increasingly diverse particularly in the last 15 years or so and people are still terrified of change.

There will never again be a time when only straight white guys love comics. It's time to get over it

I'm not sure if that time ever really existed given the fact that I had friends of all colors who loved comics growing up -- it just took "diverse" books and television shows like the X-Men, Static and Ms. Marvel to draw more of us into the fandom.

Adjudicator · 04-24-2015, 05:58 AM

Here is my two cents on this. I personally hate the changes to cap and Thor not because of the race or gender but because I like Thor and Steve Rogers. To me those are Thor and cap.

Why can't I have Steve as cap and a great written falcon or black panther book. Hey maybe another great female lead book instead of changing Thor for the cheap sales boast that will eventually go away, given the pattern of sales with replacement charter.

Diversity is possible without the cheap pop of replacement characters but marvel and dc are not willing to even try. The only exception is ms.marvel.

**shgs** · 04-24-2015, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by JoeWithoutFear

@shgs

Here's my theory in response to Marvel purposefully "turning off" their readers... bear with me =P

The in-fighting absolutely works for the websites, the blogs, the forums, the journalists, we know this. It's called Dependence Theory. "The second source of dependency is social stability. When social change and conflict are high, established institutions, beliefs, and practices are challenged, forcing you to reevaluate and make new choices. At such times your reliance on the media for information will increase."

I think all of that promotes the books, it just keeps it all in the public eye and spread the word, like any (viral) advertising. BUT, why tick off your original fans in the process? The reason why I believe is this: they know we ain't goin' no where!! I think it's really, really hard to get a fan to stop buying the book of the character they fell in love with. Even if things are downright miserable for them to read. I mean, look over the forums, how many people buy books month after month and then ask "why did I waste my money on this trash?" But they still keep doing it. Why? I'm not entirely sure. Why am I going to buy the next Uncanny X-Men and Daredevil the day the come out even though I've hated the last several months of both books? I guess it has something to do with how much I used to love them. I keep holding out hope that in some way shape or form the books will make me happy again. It doesn't have to be going back to how it was, it can be with something new, but, no matter how they get there, I hope they get there.

Again I agree in part with this. Marvel definitely want to create media and fan conversations around their books, to increase awareness and encourage people to pick up the books to see what the fuss is all about. I don't think that is the same as deliberately provoking or alienating a section of their readership, however, and I also think its wrong to pick out diversity examples as somehow different from any other Marvel story marketing.

How many times have we heard a variation of the phrase 'things will never be the same again!'? Marvel are constantly introducing these big controversial character changes. Just look at the fallout of Black Vortex: Kitty now has cosmic powers and is engaged to Star Lord. This is easily as much a volte-face as Iceman; it is well established that Kitty hates space but now she has cosmic powers and is married to the Emperor of Spartax. Clearly they will expect these events to generate discussion and media attention on comics sites at the least. And I'm sure Marvel knows there will be fans opposed to the change, especially so with a marriage given the prevalence of shipping. I for one think the marriage was incredibly rushed and forced and I think Kitty is a terrible candidate for cosmic level powers. But do I believe Marvel set out deliberately to annoy me and people like me? Not in the slightest. The writers are still obviously trying to write a good story and explore the characters in what they consider to be new, interesting ways. It is possible to not like a decision made by a writer without it being a deliberate attack on you as a reader. Sometimes you might even react negatively on an emotional level but recognise that the change is in the service of good storytelling (think when your favourite character dies in ASOIAF/Game of Thrones - but this just as easily applies to something like Thor where Odinson's personal suffering is making him all the more interesting as a character).

The only difference between cosmic kitty and the StarKat engagement on the one hand and FalCap, Thor or Bobby on the other is that in the case of the latter three Marvel have incorporated their diversity push into the usual manufactured character changes. We are constantly told that it is not prejudice that causes people to react so strongly to these diversity characters, but why then is the reaction to something like Black Vortex always so much less vitriolic? (Obviously your post wasn't vitriolic Joe, talking more generally here).

So yeh I think Marvel like to 'shake things up' just to get a conversation going, but I don't think they set out thinking 'how we can piss people off?'. They expect a certain amount of resistance, because even the most well received changes annoys someone, but as you rightly said, a lot of people will complain about a book but continue buying it anyway. It is very easy to settle into the new status quo and I honestly think Marvel expect the vast majority to at the very least accept and even start to enjoy the change sooner rather than later. For the most part I reckon people do.

Originally Posted by Sutekh

On the one hand, I do feel that there has been deliberate 'controversy to inflate enthusiasm' with stuff like the Civil War, AvX and Schism, in which segments of a fanbase are rallied against each other to create a false sense of enthusiasm and energy, even if it results in people who like Iron Man being told they have to hate Captain America, or people who like the X-Men being told that they have to hate the Avengers, or people who love Wolverine being told they have to hate Cyclops. That marketing push has been going on at least since Civil War, and every time makes me think of the Twilight movies trying to push TeamShirtlessWerewolf vs. TeamSparklyVampire. (And, as insulting as that may be, that's pretty much exactly what I think of the result when I read people online trashing the Avengers because they are X-Man fans, or trashing Namor because they are Black Panther fans, or whatever. Just a bunch of Twilight fans arguing about whichever supernatural pretty boy they prefer.)

I don't think this really applies in this case, because Marvel aren't setting Steve and FalCap or Odinson and Thor in competition with each other. Steve chose Sam to replace him; Odinson conceded Mjolnir and even gifted his name after his first encounter with Thor. You are meant to root for both antecedent and successor, not pick sides. Segmenting your fanbase and playing their tribal loyalties off each other only works if all the fans are still invested in your product. So in the Twilight example, some fans are Team Jacob, some fans are Team whatever the vampire is called, but they are all Team Twilight. The division that the OP suggests Marvel is fostering is people who like Thor/FalCap/Young Bobby vs those who don't like what is being done to Odinson/Steve/Old Bobby, but the latter are opposed not just to the former but to Marvel themselves, so that just wouldn't be beneficial for Marvel to actively pursue.

**Double 0** · 04-24-2015, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by Adjudicator

Why can't I have Steve as cap and a great written falcon or black panther book.

Every time I hear this, in the back of my mind I always hear "and promote the hell out of Thor and Cap, while Falcon and BP get cult status at best" right after.

That's business as usual. Sam as Cap is Marvel's way to break that status quo, because would a high number of readers really pick up a book featuring Falcon promoted over Thor or Cap?

Of course not, they'd be left wondering, "Him? He doesn't have the feats/popularity/blah blah blah Steve and Thor have. Why waste money on him when we have a certified draw in the Captain America brand?"

**Midnight_v** · 04-24-2015, 06:41 AM

Which is why you're missing the point entirely.

Sir, the tone of the responses, is often arrogant and sneering. It doesn't engage the talking points at all, but instead most often addresses the speakers.

This isn't about you: believe it or not, not everything is about "straight white males" which is exactly the point of a lot of these changes.
[/B]

Now you have that part right. It certainly isn't, "about" ME but it could easily become that way if people ignore the points and attack the poster. Its pretty common. Thats why everyone in the majority is afraid to talk.

No, you have that part right. It certainly isn't, "about" ME: But it certainly freaking affects me, it would seem I'm one of very few people on this board who give a half a blink about Bobby Drake, and yet I'm marginalized, despite supporting the character/company for years.

The problem is that the changes AREN"T about Bobby Drake, its at this point its barely about selling comics, what is about is pushing a quasi-political agenda.
What it is about is forcing the views of the few upon the many. Which I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "Thats WRONG!" ethically wrong.
Frankly if you look at the U.S. census data, if anyting Blacks and LGBT are OVER represented at marvel 13% African Descent; 3% LGBT. There are literally more than 3 parts of 100%.

Thats not even the issue, again people keep saying they have no problem with diversity, they just don't want this ham-fisted character replacment nonsense, as someone in the thread pointed out already. . . "Its about the long game" I agree and that is crap what they're doing.

Literally to "Force Diversity" they feel they have to Destroy all the old characters through hook or crook, so that 15 year from now this is all thats known. Which is a screw you to many people who've been reading this for awhile.

The major point people keep saying is: Stop tampering with OUR guys, make YOUR guys and coexist. The counter argument is "New intellectual properties, aren't as likely to succeed.

Yet...

Ms.MARVEL, is totally a new intellectual property, in all BUT name and by all reports on of the TOP grossing ..blah blah blah. So that argument? It reeks, of being either not well thought out or outright disingenuous, most of the time.

They can totally make new characters and make them stick if they hire good writers, and etc, but they're not going to get the MAJORITY pulled, unless they removal ALL other options.

However... there's something else to all of this also. The character choices they've made, are actually pretty terrible, and the decisions they made are really NOT GOOD from an avengers perspective.
Miles Morales, Ms.Khan and Kid Nova... are the perfect new warriors team. They might be Earths Most popular teens! They're not earths most powerful heroes. That's not actually a diversity issue that's a bad line up issue. I'm glad to get this out, because i'm not even mad about this, its just headshakingly bad design for the big cosmic stuff.

Next post. . . All different avengers.

**McRantington** · 04-24-2015, 06:47 AM

When Shuri became Black Panther, did T'challa become less of a hero? Was he diminished in anything other than stature? Steve Rogers was. He was turned into an old man, essentially forced into retirement. Jason Aaron not only diminished Thor Odinson's power, Aaron stripped him of his birth name as well. I've found these two examples to be the most divisive changes made recently. As a contrast, did Carol Danvers get depowered for Kamala Khan to become Ms. Marvel? Nope. Peter Parker didn't stop being spiderman just because Silk or Spider-Gwen started doing their things. None of these three books generate the kind of controversy the FalCap and femThor changes did. The idea that one side didn't lose anything is demonstrably false. The entire premise of both FalCap and femThor is the original males couldn't do the job anymore for reasons thus leaving a power vaccuum for their replacements to fill.

I find it pretty patronizing when people say stuff like old fans didn't lose anything. When the pendulum swing back the other way and the status quo comes back, will it be acceptable to say you didn't lose femThor? Can we point to Aaron's run and say, there's your story and you can keep reading it when you want to read about femThor?

As a second point, I think the controversies are related to each other but they shouldn't be conflated. The main commonality is legacy characters being changed. However, the how and the why I think are just as important. I've already talked about FalCap and femThor. Iceman is again, a different story. Many people are upset about the change because of two main reasons. Firstly, the change seems very out of the blue. As an X-men reader since the mid 90's I've never gotten the impression that Iceman was gay. People have been saying look at all his failed relationships. Well, you know who has even more failed relationships? Daredevil. But outside the realm of slash fiction, I don't see many people pushing for DD to come out. Secondly, my biggest issue with this reveal is in how it was done. Teen Jean basically violated Bobby's mind and outed him, even if it was to himself. No one should be forced into revealing their sexuality and this was probably the most invasive way to do so.

Bottom line, it's the how these changes that are happening that's upsetting people more than that it's happening. Sure, there are some people who are against these changes for the worst reasons. There are racists and sexists and homophobes in this world. But today, more than ever, they are the fringe and not the norm. People need to keep this in mind instead of using them a a straw man to paint people with legitimate gripes about the actual story themselves.

One more thing. Why are people still saying that new characters don't sell books and Marvel needs to use legacy characters for this diversity push? Ms Marvel, Silk, and Spider-Gwen are three of the hottest characters in Marvel's current lineup. All three are far, far less derivative than say a female Thor.

Adjudicator · 04-24-2015, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Double 0

Every time I hear this, in the back of my mind I always hear "and promote the hell out of Thor and Cap, while Falcon and BP get cult status at best" right after.

That's business as usual. Sam as Cap is Marvel's way to break that status quo, because would anyone really pick up a book featuring Falcon promoted over Thor or Cap?

Of course not, they'd be left wondering, "Him? He doesn't have the feats/popularity/blah blah blah Steve and Thor have. Why waste money on him when we have a certified draw in the Captain America brand?"

I would by a falcon or black panther comic.

And please I am sorry but the it can't work because cap an Thor sell better is a sad cope out. Put a good writer on black panther. Heck he is getting his own movie.

Also I feel it is insulting to say sorry unless you are playing off Thor or cap, etc.. A minority won't sell.

**shgs** · 04-24-2015, 07:44 AM