If Steve Rogers were not a Caucasian, would he still be Cap?

[JohnLynch]

I love how anytime Marvel does something old time comic fans aren't comfortable with they claim it's pandering when the reverse would in fact be true. Marvel is a business and does what it thinks will be the best business decision. Fans demanded Captain America join the Avengers so Stan Lee pandered to them. Blaxploitation and Kung Fu mania were rampant in the 70s so Marvel pandered to those markets and created Luke Cage and Danny Rand. Everything Marvel does is pandering to someone, because giving the market what it wants is called capitalism. What people who don't like it are really saying is "Why isn't Marvel pandering to me? I need pandering too." Which is true. But if this change is deemed to not have as strong of a long term effect on Marvel's bottom dollar as big having it would, they will neglect you for the time being. Everything Marvel does is a gamble. Sometimes those gambles pay off (e.g. New Avengers) sometimes they don't (e.g. Avengers Assrmble).

As for creating new characters, it's been proven time and time again that this simply doesn't work (e.g. Gravity) while putting a new character into a pre-existing role has proven to work (e.g. She-Thor which outsold every Thor Odinson book since JMS). So expect Marvel to keep doing it. So if you can't handle that without chucking a hissy fit every time it happens you might as well take your buying dollar elsewhere. Because Marvel won't stop doing it until it's no longer profitable.

Whatever you do stop with the coded phrases like "pandering", "gimmick" or my favourite "it just feels wrong" while admitting a white sidekick felt right. We get it. You want to be catered to. Unfortunately it has been demonstrated that blindly catering to you means lost profits.

[jphamlore]

Mark Millar's Ultimates did have a character, Colonel Abdul Al-Rahman, field leader of the Liberators, who was basically an alternate Captain America since he was the first person post-Steve Rogers to successfully bond with the Super Soldier Serum.

[Username taken]

The irksome point to all this is Marvel's cowardice. Why not attempt to create a new minority character as great as Black Panther and Storm instead of all this pandering? Is it no wonder that, beyond a few nut jobs back in the day, the vast majority of the fanbase accepted both of those characters from the start? Could it have been because they were simply great characters, who stood on their own, and didn't need to fill in for the white guy while he was out?

Marvel had difficulty distributing Black Panther comics in the Southern part of America because of racism.

I can't speak about Storm but BP definitely wasn't all that well received when he was created.

[JoeWithoutFear]

As others have said, all these things (Cap is now African American, Thor is now female, Iceman is now gay, Wolverine is now female) are done for marketing and profit purposes. They manufacture a big fuss and it generates interest and people share the info online and it's all free advertising and it will generate sales. In that sense, it is no different than when Doc Ock took over Peter's body or when Thor became a frog.

However, the big difference is that with these recent changes, the effect is much more potent and it comes at the expense of many long-time fans' reputations. Fans whose money kept these writers in business for so many decades. What I mean is, if Thor becomes a frog and you hate it, you're allowed to say that and it's just an opinion. But if Thor becomes a woman and you hate it, if you say it, people get to call you a misogynist. And boy, do people love calling other people sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. on the internet. Everywhere you look on the internet it's one big find-the-bigot witch hunt. People love playing that game so much that it is a far more potent means of generating buzz and attention than just changing Thor into a frog ever was or could be.

So, the long-time fans complain, as they would about ANY big change, except now the debate is super-charged with the unbridled force of "social justice." The buzz/attention hits an all-time high, people do all kinds of free advertising, and many people will want to financially support a book simply because they think doing so propels moral progress. And there you have it, that's where we're at these days.

I would say that we could all ride it out and wait for the next big social trend to usher in a brand new wave of gimmicks, but, I don't see this trend ever going away. When you look at how equality is at odds with "social justice" in online debates, it's like trying to fill a bucket that has no bottom -- you can have an entire A-Force comic of nothing but female heroes and STILL people find a way to call it sexist. So, the efforts never have to end. And how can people get tired of something that has no end? In that way, this trend could continue indefinitely. The only hope is if the people who enjoy the trend eventually realize that Rosa Parks not surrendering her seat and Sam Wilson becoming Captain America do not have the same cultural effect.

This is just my assessment. I could be wrong, and hey, in many ways I hope I am because I find no joy in trying to read comics and instead being bombarded with "is this comic sexist?? is this writer racist?? is this audience homophobic?! why aren't there more _____ in comics?!?!" every single day. I am all for representation. I genuinely want to see that happen. Heck, in many ways I want to see even MORE inclusion. I think that if we are trying to make sure anyone can go to the comic shop and find someone they relate to on the shelves, then we can go a heck of a lot further than "black dude" "woman" "Muslim" or "gay." But, the witch hunts? The misplaced moral importance and superiority? That ain't gonna get us to the promised land... in my opinion.

[Username taken]

I love how anytime Marvel does something old time comic fans aren't comfortable with they claim it's pandering when the reverse would in fact be true. Marvel is a business and does what it thinks will be the best business decision. Fans demanded Captain America join the Avengers so Stan Lee pandered to them. Blaxploitation and Kung Fu mania were rampant in the 70s so Marvel pandered to those markets and created Luke Cage and Danny Rand. Everything Marvel does is pandering to someone, because giving the market what it wants is called capitalism. What people who don't like it are really saying is "Why isn't Marvel pandering to me? I need pandering too." Which is true. But if this change is deemed to not have as strong of a long term effect on Marvel's bottom dollar as big having it would, they will neglect you for the time being. Everything Marvel does is a gamble. Sometimes those gambles pay off (e.g. New Avengers) sometimes they don't (e.g. Avengers Assrmble).

As for creating new characters, it's been proven time and time again that this simply doesn't work (e.g. Gravity) while putting a new character into a pre-existing role has proven to work (e.g. She-Thor which outsold every Thor Odinson book since JMS). So expect Marvel to keep doing it. So if you can't handle that without chucking a hissy fit every time it happens you might as well take your buying dollar elsewhere. Because Marvel won't stop doing it until it's no longer profitable.

Whatever you do stop with the coded phrases like "pandering", "gimmick" or my favourite "it just feels wrong" while admitting a white sidekick felt right. We get it. You want to be catered to. Unfortunately it has been demonstrated that blindly catering to you means lost profits.

Quoted in agreement.

I was pretty indifferent about Sam Wilson becoming Captain America but not because it's "pandering". That to me is just nonsense.

Again, as you rightly pointed out, I don't remember anyone saying buckycap was an attempt at pandering when his becoming Cap was even less appropriate than Falcon.

The fact is that both Steve Rogers and Thor will return one day and be fully restored simply because it's not the first time Marvel has done stuff like this. The gimmick and pandering stuff is kind of unnecessary when we all know this is temporary.

[Jack Flag]

It's what they called Eric Masterson when he was Thor.

It's what Dargo was called when he was Thor.

Cecil MacAdam. Red Norville. Donal. Probably others I'm not thinking of.

They all used Thor as a title or alias at one time or another.

Eric Masterson was trying to pass as Thor (as in he was telling everyone he was the original Thor so he can help continue Thor's mission when Odin had punished Thor). In the current case we know for sure that is not Thor as a woman.

By keeping the name for the woman as "Thor" it distracts me from the story because I go back to me thinking of the "branding" of the characters rather than the story.

[t hedge coke]

If you've got an issue with Thor or Cap being someone other that the son of Odin or Steve Rogers, I have some questions:

Were you against it when they were replaced previously? And were you as vocal about that?

If you were, and are, does it not strike you that you're complaining about something that's happened repeatedly, then, and will undoubtedly happen again in five to ten years?

(And, please, if your answer is "I wasn't reading then," don't tell us you're a longtime fan representing longtime fans against noobs or something.)

Eric Masterson was trying to pass as Thor (as in he was telling everyone he was the original Thor so he can help continue Thor's mission when Odin had punished Thor). In the current case we know for sure that is not Thor as a woman.

By keeping the name for the woman as "Thor" it distracts me from the story because I go back to me thinking of the "branding" of the characters rather than the story.

I am sympathetic with that. I don't think it fits. We knew Norville wasn't Odin's son, but they called him Thor out of ceremony. Dargo used it as a title more than a name, so far as I can tell. The hang up seems to be a personal one, but that's cool, too, we all have personal hang ups, individual tastes and places we can suspend disbelief or not.

[Jack Flag]

I love how anytime Marvel does something old time comic fans aren't comfortable with they claim it's pandering when the reverse would in fact be true. Marvel is a business and does what it thinks will be the best business decision. Fans demanded Captain America join the Avengers so Stan Lee pandered to them. Blaxploitation and Kung Fu mania were rampant in the 70s so Marvel pandered to those markets and created Luke Cage and Danny Rand. Everything Marvel does is pandering to someone, because giving the market what it wants is called capitalism. What people who don't like it are really saying is "Why isn't Marvel pandering to me? I need pandering too." Which is true. But if this change is deemed to not have as strong of a long term effect on Marvel's bottom dollar as big having it would, they will neglect you for the time being. Everything Marvel does is a gamble. Sometimes those gambles pay off (e.g. New Avengers) sometimes they don't (e.g. Avengers Assrmble).

As for creating new characters, it's been proven time and time again that this simply doesn't work (e.g. Gravity) while putting a new character into a pre-existing role has proven to work (e.g. She-Thor which outsold every Thor Odinson book since JMS). So expect Marvel to keep doing it. So if you can't handle that without chucking a hissy fit every time it happens you might as well take your buying dollar elsewhere. Because Marvel won't stop doing it until it's no longer profitable.

Whatever you do stop with the coded phrases like "pandering", "gimmick" or my favourite "it just feels wrong" while admitting a white sidekick felt right. We get it. You want to be catered to. Unfortunately it has been demonstrated that blindly catering to you means lost profits.

Capitalism is not the "market" though I can see why many just assume that (capitalism is now commonly used to mean "profit driven enterprise" than what it really describes) but pandering is not the right word - the words I would use is unimaginative or derivative or blatant. A story line should feel that it is naturally evolving out of the plot even if it is not.

Cap handing over the shield to Sam? That is a smooth transition. Cap has actually quit being Cap a few times (even aged before) so Sam becoming the new Cap is withing the logical framework of Cap's continuity.

But where I can call "blatant" is taking Wolverine - making him a Wolverine from some What If? alternate reality and have him raise a derivative character X-23 who now becomes the new Wolverine. It's not even the original Wolverine in that one. That feels like homogenized corporate meeting shit right there. Like I could imagine the powers that be in a room planning this out so blatantly. And for you to reduce critics of this to being "racists or upset a white fictional guy is demoted" is just BS and wrong.

PS: Most of the people reading Thor now are still white guys over 30 and the gimmicky nature of the female Thor probably got people curious because of the mystery of who was under the mask. I actually for a moment put it out there that female Thor was Thor's feminine side that got split from Thor's male side and his female side held all the nobility and honor of Thor's personality. That would have made sense to me then calling her "Thor".

[Jack Flag]

Marvel had difficulty distributing Black Panther comics in the Southern part of America because of racism.

I can't speak about Storm but BP definitely wasn't all that well received when he was created.

Black Panther's shortcomings was he is not an American. He is a leader of an fake African shangri-la kind of kingdom. That may limit its appeal - sure out of racism but also it seems remote. It is like Aqua-man and Sub-Mariner comics in that our characters rule these distant and remote mythical kingdoms. It is not an easy premise to attract a wide range of readers I think - and the other foreigner royal from a mythic kingdom that was able to pull an American comic off was Thor because it was more mythic (Atlantis and Wakanda are on earth) and Thor spent all his time in the USA when not in Asgard. I say this as analysis - I am a huge old school Black Panther fan.

[Jack Flag]

If you've got an issue with Thor or Cap being someone other that the son of Odin or Steve Rogers, I have some questions:

Were you against it when they were replaced previously? And were you as vocal about that?

If you were, and are, does it not strike you that you're complaining about something that's happened repeatedly, then, and will undoubtedly happen again in five to ten years?

(And, please, if your answer is "I wasn't reading then," don't tell us you're a longtime fan representing longtime fans against noobs or something.)



I am sympathetic with that. I don't think it fits. We knew Norville wasn't Odin's son, but they called him Thor out of ceremony. Dargo used it as a title more than a name, so far as I can tell. The hang up seems to be a personal one, but that's cool, too, we all have personal hang ups, individual tastes and places we can suspend disbelief or not.

Also, the "keeping the identity secret", while an old trope, seemed gimmicky to me also.

[t hedge coke]

Also, the "keeping the identity secret", while an old trope, seemed gimmicky to me also.

Oh, it was. I'm with you there.

[Jack Flag]

Oh, it was. I'm with you there.

You can't argue with success. It sold well. But comics are a weird kind of hobby where torturing your readers leads to more readers.

[leo619]

I love how anytime Marvel does something old time comic fans aren't comfortable with they claim it's pandering when the reverse would in fact be true. Marvel is a business and does what it thinks will be the best business decision. Fans demanded Captain America join the Avengers so Stan Lee pandered to them. Blaxploitation and Kung Fu mania were rampant in the 70s so Marvel pandered to those markets and created Luke Cage and Danny Rand. Everything Marvel does is pandering to someone, because giving the market what it wants is called capitalism. What people who don't like it are really saying is "Why isn't Marvel pandering to me? I need pandering too." Which is true. But if this change is deemed to not have as strong of a long term effect on Marvel's bottom dollar as big having it would, they will neglect you for the time being. Everything Marvel does is a gamble. Sometimes those gambles pay off (e.g. New Avengers) sometimes they don't (e.g. Avengers Assrmble).

As for creating new characters, it's been proven time and time again that this simply doesn't work (e.g. Gravity) while putting a new character into a pre-existing role has proven to work (e.g. She-Thor which outsold every Thor Odinson book since JMS). So expect Marvel to keep doing it. So if you can't handle that without chucking a hissy fit every time it happens you might as well take your buying dollar elsewhere. Because Marvel won't stop doing it until it's no longer profitable.

Whatever you do stop with the coded phrases like "pandering", "gimmick" or my favourite "it just feels wrong" while admitting a white sidekick felt right. We get it. You want to be catered to. Unfortunately it has been demonstrated that blindly catering to you means lost profits.

Out of all of the posts in this thread, this by far is the closest to the truth.

[JohnLynch]

but pandering is not the right word

It is the word the detractors choose to use when they're complaining about the latest change they're uncomfortable with.

the words I would use is unimaginative or derivative or blatant.

Welcome to comics. You must be new here.

Cap handing over the shield to Sam? That is a smooth transition. Cap has actually quit being Cap a few times (even aged before) so Sam becoming the new Cap is withing the logical framework of Cap's continuity.

But where I can call "blatant" is taking Wolverine - making him a Wolverine from some What If? alternate reality and have him raise a derivative character X-23 who now becomes the new Wolverine. It's not even the original Wolverine in that one. That feels like homogenized corporate meeting shit right there.

Translation: I'm comfortable with a black Captain America, but I'm not comfortable with Wolverine being replaced. Let me trot out some new codewords to try to disguise my personal preference as some objective standard.

Like I could imagine the powers that be in a room planning this out so blatantly.

Wolverine died. This was a result of a storyline that evolved over time. You can say "it was foisted on us by editorial mandate" as much as you like. But until you have some evidence of this, such as was the case with One More Day, you're throwing around speculation as if it was fact. That's dishonest.

And for you to reduce critics of this to being "racists or upset a white fictional guy is demoted" is just BS and wrong.

1) I never said those words.
2) I did not suggest that all critics are racist. I've added in the word all because it's implicit in your quote but I wanted to make it explicit here.
3) You could claim that I suggested some fans are racist. After all, I did say

Whatever you do stop with the coded phrases like "pandering", "gimmick" or my favourite "it just feels wrong" while admitting a white sidekick felt right.

Now you could read into that to say I was suggesting these people are racist. After all, I did make direct mention of Bucky's race which certainly does strongly imply I'm viewing people's disgust with the change as race motivated. And I do think at least for some of the objectors the reaction has been race motivated. But I do not think that it makes people racist. As such I never said called them racist and nor do I feel I am in a position to suggest it for all fans who were okay with Bucky and aren't okay with Sam Wilson. How can a reaction be race motivated and not be racist? Simple. You can see it as trying to pander to a market that is currently not buying the Captain America comics. It's undeniable that African Americans play a strong part in shaping how modern culture is created and discussed in American society despite only making up 13.2% of the American population (according to Wikipedia). However I spent the bulk of my post responding to the complaints that I've seen throw against Sam Wilson Captain America. I spoke to the "it came out of nowhere" complaints and the "Bucky was Cap's sidekick so that makes it okay" statements. I spoke to the claims that Sam Wilson was doing just fine without the Captain America brand and doesn't need it.

You might want to say I was suggesting people are racist. But that's BS and disregards everything else I said. I spent the vast majority of my post addressing people's comments against the move and stated my rebuttals to those comments. I ended it on this note:

We get it. You want to be catered to

I didn't say white people want to be catered to. Or males want to be catered to. I said "you" as in "those who don't want Sam Wilson as Captain America". I do feel those detractors who were okay with Bucky and yet complain about Sam Wilson do need to examine why they hold their views and if they want to then discuss it further with me then I welcome that. But stop with the BS that says everyone who dares question you is calling you racist.

Most of the people reading Thor now are still white guys over 30

Yup. And I'm sure thousands of those readers were reading it before Thor Odinson changed to She-Thor. Which tells Marvel they've got the loyalty of at least thousands of fans so while they might lose a couple of thousand, they'll keep the vast majority of the readership and potentially gain even more with the change. After all, Marvel can always change things back if it doesn't work out. In the meantime we'll get a story that we otherwise would not have been able to get. If you don't like the story, sucks to be you. But it's great news for the people who like the story and it appears to have paid off for Marvel. But don't worry. Those who aren't comfortable with it will get their comfort food sooner or later. After all, nothing in comics is ever new.

and the gimmicky nature of the female Thor

Translation: I'm not comfortable with what Marvel's done so I'm dismissing the change to call it a gimmick and as such suggesting anyone who does genuinely like it are being suckered into a gimmick.

[JohnLynch]

But if Thor becomes a woman and you hate it, if you say it, people get to call you a misogynist. And boy, do people love calling other people sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. on the internet.

It is wrong for people to judge someone to be a racist/bigot/sexist/whatever based on a single opinion without a greater context in which to view the person's views. I'll defend anyone I see who is attacked in this way.

Everywhere you look on the internet it's one big find-the-bigot witch hunt.

Can we now stop with the BS that anyone who dares voice a criticism of you must be on a witch hunt? Because holding up yourself as a victim while simultaneously attacking the character of those who are critical of you is really getting tiring.

So, the long-time fans complain, as they would about ANY big change

If all fans do is complain about stuff that dares to change, maybe they should reexamine their hobbies and how they spend their free time? Because frankly it's ridiculous. You're embodying everything that is bad about the comicbook guy from Simpsons, most likely while trying to play the victim card about how people look down at you for being a geek. There's a reason the comicbook guy exists as a stereotype. He's not someone you should be seeking to emulate.

except now the debate is super-charged with the unbridled force of "social justice."

Yeah, I'm seeing blowback against people who are thinking progressively as social justice warriors. It's cute, but it's also equally harmful to the ongoing discussion and creates a toxic environment. We exist in a society where until recently it was not okay to be anything except a white heterosexual male. There are places in the world where not being a white heterosexual male makes it okay to lock you up, kill you or rape you. Some places within your own country. We're at a tipping point where things are changing and society is becoming more inclusive and accepting of those who are different. To complain about it and demonize those who are advocating such changes is short sighted frankly does make you look like you're not accepting of those types. Maybe if you could have a reasonable discussion as a reasonable person would, and not pull the victim card while simultaneously admitting you hate anything that's different and demoize those who disagree with you, you wouldn't be attacked so often. Now you could say I'm blaming the victim here. But on this point I don't see you as purely a victim and not an aggressor based on the viewpoints you have expressed in this post. If this is not an accurate picture to have gained from you then you should reexamine how you present yourself on the internet.

I don't see this trend ever going away.

Translation: I don't like how things are right now. They're different. I want them to be how they use to be. And I'm scared they won't be.

Here's a fact of life: Marvel will go wherever the money is. In the 60s this meant adopting the Comicbook Code Authority and ensuring their work adhered to their standards. Marvel has since abandoned this outdated model. If there's money in catering to people who are like you, they'll do so to whatever degree ensures they gain the maximum profits. Sometimes they'll get it. Sometimes they'll miss it. But they'll never stop trying. If you can't accept that, it's time to move on in your life.