Why didn't Marvel push Monica Rambeau as Captain Marvel

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

Just a warm-up when she takes on Thanos himself!

[DrNewGod]

If the only way to make Sam Wilson popular is to hijack Cap's fan base to do so, the fault is in the character Sam Wilson and those who write him.

Writer's fault? Yes. Falcon's fault? No. If the character the issue, Daredevil would have been on the ash heap in 1982, and Batman in 1968.

It is much easier to push a women be she black or white with the powerset of Captain Marvel than it is for someone with a powerset like Monica which is kind of ill defined to begin with. Being able to fly and punch someone with super strength is just more appealing than someone who can turn in energy.

I said it earlier in the thread...

I think it's the powers. Not their level, but their nature....Think carefully about the characters that have been able to maintain on-going solo titles over the years. Except for very special cases (Dr. Strange), all of them have had some kind of hand-to-hand technique as a central part of their schtick. Even DC's Green Lantern is rendered as punching with an extendable energy appendage in a lot of his fights.

I'm curious to see how Dr. Strange is received on the big screen.

[PhantomStranger]

The argument that Monica was held back because she disproves the idea that Marvel is bad at diversity is asinine.

Nope. Only explanation that fits the facts.

For one, why would they do that? If the company was under fire for lack of diversity and by your own logic they already had a wonderful, kickass black heroine, why wouldn't they promote her at all costs?

Because the outside agitators wanted a "bigger fish". Pushing Monica, or T'challa, etc did not satisfy the diversity lobby as the characters were not high-enough profile (leaving aside he circular nature of the reason why). Putting the existing well-diverse MU on full display would reduce the pressure to retire the real Nick Fury, de-power Steve Rogers, steal Thor's powers to give to a minor supporting character just because she's a woman, etc.

Underlying it all is a simple truth that the "diversity" lobby simply refuses to acknowledge: those characters didn't sell even when pushed because not enough people wanted to read tham. Never have. And that includes the very minorities/women who are so pissed off about Marvel's "lack of diversity".

People are trying to pass this off as Marvel seeking to serve a "underserved demographic".

Bull excrement.

Where were all these "under-served readers" when Black Panther's book needed support? Or the all-female Defenders?

They weren't there.

The reason is either: a) they simply weren't enough minority readers to make the book economically viable (which makes it a business decision, not a thoughtcrime on the part of Marvel), or, b) those people complaining about "lack of diversity" were working to a different agenda: to force their way into the "cool kids club" by forcing changes to A- and B-list characters with existing audiences the minority fans did not have the numbers to compete with. I suspect it's a little bit of both.

In a perfect world good writing is all it would take. But in the one we're in the bait and switch approach often is the best and only way to get people to give C list characters a chance. That's just how it is.

In other words: "read this diversity...it's good for you..."

What are we? Three-years old?

If I want to read about Sam Wilson, I will. Making me read about Sam Wilson by stealing Steve Rogers' hero identity is not going to make me want to read about Sam Wilson. In fact, I guarantee you it will only make me (and a shed-load of other readers) not want to read about Sam Wilson.

People are getting sick and tired of being continually poked at, prodded, assessed, measured, and praised/vilified for living or not living as someone else thinks they should. The more the pressure groups push, the more they're gonna dig in their heels.

And that is as it should be. Modern social interactions have been turned into one extended exercise is virtue signalling. And that's the charitable way to put it. Others would call it an exercise in thoughtcrime control.

[DrNewGod]

...the outside agitators wanted a "bigger fish". Pushing Monica, or T'challa, etc did not satisfy the diversity lobby as the characters were not high-enough profile (leaving aside he circular nature of the reason why). Putting the existing well-diverse MU on full display would reduce the pressure to retire the real Nick Fury, de-power Steve Rogers, steal Thor's powers to give to a minor supporting character just because she's a woman, etc.

Underlying it all is a simple truth that the "diversity" lobby simply refuses to acknowledge: those characters didn't sell even when pushed because not enough people wanted to read tham. Never have. And that includes the very minorities/women who are so pissed off about Marvel's "lack of diversity".

People are trying to pass this off as Marvel seeking to serve a "underserved demographic".

Bull excrement.

Where were all these "under-served readers" when Black Panther's book needed support? Or the all-female Defenders?

They weren't there.

The reason is either: a) they simply weren't enough minority readers to make the book economically viable (which makes it a business decision, not a thoughtcrime on the part of Marvel), or, b) those people complaining about "lack of diversity" were working to a different agenda: to force their way into the "cool kids club" by forcing changes to A- and B-list characters with existing audiences the minority fans did not have the numbers to compete with. I suspect it's a little bit of both.
...
If I want to read about Sam Wilson, I will. Making me read about Sam Wilson by stealing Steve Rogers' hero identity is not going to make me want to read about Sam Wilson....

There may be things you are right about; minority ethnic comics have struggled in comparison to some other characters. If your contention is correct (not saying buy all of it, or reject all of it), that would imply two things:
1) The race and/or gender changed characters are going to fail. But that really won't matter because...
2) The big two are doomed because their audience supports characters that reflect a shrinking percentage of the demographics in the market.

[aja_christopher]

Because the outside agitators wanted a "bigger fish".

Exactly who are the "outside agitators" here? There are many people here on this very thread who have been reading comics for decades (myself included) who want to see more diversity in our comics and other media.

What gives you the right to call us "outsiders" when many of us probably have dedicated just as much time and money to reading -- and even writing and illustrating comics -- as you have?

You are revealing a separatist -- and distinctly supremacist -- mentality that is at the very root of this problem: as if somehow our "outside" opinions and goals hold less value than yours just because we are not comfortable with the status quo and want to see more variations in both out superheroes and the stories surrounding them.

You selectively criticize (diverse) solos like "Black Panther" and "Luke Cage" while ignoring (non-diverse) books like "Moon Knight" and "Gambit" that have failed repeatedly.

You selectively ignore the overwhelming success of diverse books like "X-Men" and "Ms. Marvel" and choose to focus instead on titles that did not achieve that same success ("New Defenders").

The double standards in your arguments are both hypocritical and glaring.

"People" are not getting "sick" of anything -- you can't speak for "people" as if your opinion is the only one that has merit, especially when you are being anything but objective in formulating your viewpoint.

At the end of the day, if you don't want to read about Sam Wilson (or Bucky Barnes or Beta Ray Bill or Doc Ock or Hercules or Rick Jones or Thunderbolt Ross) because they "replaced" your favorite hero, then that is your choice.

But don't try to paint your own personal views as those of the "people"... because "people" includes those who don't share your opinion and it is both arrogant and condescending to those comic book fans who support this movement for you to suggest otherwise.

That said... maybe you can explain to those of us who are here supporting diversity at Marvel as to how we are "outsiders" -- I'd like to see exactly how you have come to this conclusion.

[aja_christopher]

The argument that Monica was held back because she disproves the idea that Marvel is bad at diversity is asinine.

Exactly -- that statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, especially given how long Monica was M.I.A. from the Avengers books.

[ed2962]

Nope. Only explanation that fits the facts.



Because the outside agitators wanted a "bigger fish". Pushing Monica, or T'challa, etc did not satisfy the diversity lobby as the characters were not high-enough profile (leaving aside he circular nature of the reason why). Putting the existing well-diverse MU on full display would reduce the pressure to retire the real Nick Fury, de-power Steve Rogers, steal Thor's powers to give to a minor supporting character just because she's a woman, etc.

Underlying it all is a simple truth that the "diversity" lobby simply refuses to acknowledge: those characters didn't sell even when pushed because not enough people wanted to read tham. Never have. And that includes the very minorities/women who are so pissed off about Marvel's "lack of diversity".

People are trying to pass this off as Marvel seeking to serve a "underserved demographic".

Bull excrement.

Where were all these "under-served readers" when Black Panther's book needed support? Or the all-female Defenders?

They weren't there.

The reason is either: a) they simply weren't enough minority readers to make the book economically viable (which makes it a business decision, not a thoughtcrime on the part of Marvel), or, b) those people complaining about "lack of diversity" were working to a different agenda: to force their way into the "cool kids club" by forcing changes to A- and B-list characters with existing audiences the minority fans did not have the numbers to compete with. I suspect it's a little bit of both.



In other words: "read this diversity...it's good for you..."

What are we? Three-years old?

If I want to read about Sam Wilson, I will. Making me read about Sam Wilson by stealing Steve Rogers' hero identity is not going to make me want to read about Sam Wilson. In fact, I guarantee you it will only make me (and a shed-load of other readers) not want to read about Sam Wilson.

People are getting sick and tired of being continually poked at, prodded, assessed, measured, and praised/vilified for living or not living as someone else thinks they should. The more the pressure groups push, the more they're gonna dig in their heels.

And that is as it should be. Modern social interactions have been turned into one extended exercise is virtue signalling. And that's the charitable way to put it. Others would call it an exercise in thoughtcrime control.

How is anything Marvel has been doing in the last couple of years "thought control"? Nobody can actually make you buy a female or minority led comic book if you don't want to.

[Holt]

Nope. Only explanation that fits the facts.

It actually doesn't. The facts being discussed are how she was a big deal for a few years in the 80's, including leading the Avengers, but then was written out and cast into limbo, where she languished until very recently. Unless someone at Marvel was clairvoyant, how was Monica being downgraded in the late 1980's related to a diversity initiative that began in the 2010's?

Because the outside agitators wanted a "bigger fish". Pushing Monica, or T'challa, etc did not satisfy the diversity lobby as the characters were not high-enough profile (leaving aside he circular nature of the reason why). Putting the existing well-diverse MU on full display would reduce the pressure to retire the real Nick Fury, de-power Steve Rogers, steal Thor's powers to give to a minor supporting character just because she's a woman, etc.

Once again, this argument makes absolutely no sense. You keep mentioning that they got rid of Monica to push the more recent crop of legacy heroes, but that's not what happened. Monica's fall from grace happened around 30 years ago at this point, when they wrote her out of the Avengers and temporarily depowered her. It is only recently that she was brought back, which coincides with the diversity push you're claiming sidelined her.

Did someone at Marvel travel back in time to sabotage Monica 3 decades before they planned to introduce Miles Morales or the Carol Danvers Captain Marvel?

Where were all these "under-served readers" when Black Panther's book needed support? Or the all-female Defenders?

They weren't there.

The reason is either: a) they simply weren't enough minority readers to make the book economically viable (which makes it a business decision, not a thoughtcrime on the part of Marvel), or, b) those people complaining about "lack of diversity" were working to a different agenda: to force their way into the "cool kids club" by forcing changes to A- and B-list characters with existing audiences the minority fans did not have the numbers to compete with. I suspect it's a little bit of both.

Or those books you cited just didn't connect with the readers or weren't very good. Fearless Defenders flopped and yet Ms. Marvel sells circles around it. Your argument is "this book about women failed so clearly women don't read comics" instead of "this book, like dozens of other ones Marvel puts out a year, failed to catch on."

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

Also, the glistening golden avenger Captain Marvel teaming up with the post SW Valkyrie, Captain Britain, Rogue and Vindicator is also terrific.The post SW Yellowjacket might be a supervillain like his MCU counterpart.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

image by EarthmanPrime with quote;
I dislike Carol. Her recent relaunch under Kelly Sue Deconnick with the costume you see above wasn't well written, illustrated, or proved why Carol was worthy of the Captain Marvel title. All the while Monica Rambeau who was the first female character to have the title Captain Marvel as well as being a leader of the Avengers not to mention she's a black woman, she gets pushed off into the corner. No one puts Monica in the corner.

[Mike82]

image by EarthmanPrime with quote;
I dislike Carol. Her recent relaunch under Kelly Sue Deconnick with the costume you see above wasn't well written, illustrated, or proved why Carol was worthy of the Captain Marvel title. All the while Monica Rambeau who was the first female character to have the title Captain Marvel as well as being a leader of the Avengers not to mention she's a black woman, she gets pushed off into the corner. No one puts Monica in the corner.

That was uncalled for. Carol's drinking days was almost 20 years ago and Monica Rambeau hasn't even been all that relevant in the comics in recent years. Heck, I didn't even know who Monica Rambeau was until like 5 or 6 people started bitching about it on Tumblr. FYI, Carol wasn't some nobody that Marvel decided to make Captain Marvel. She was a very popular hero that helped save the world countless times over. She also lead the Avengers. Monica's time has past. Stop being a child and move on. Carol Danvers is Captain Marvel. DEAL WITH IT!

[Carabas]

No one puts Monica in the corner.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

[Myetche]

Monica Rambeau is the Al Bundy of superheroes: forever stuck in mediocrity with a single personal achievement from decades ago that nobody cares about anymore (though it doesn't stop them from bragging about it). If anything, Monica should be the one who's drinking her sorrows away.

[Ken Ashcroft]

That was uncalled for. Carol's drinking days was almost 20 years ago.

That's true but saying that Tony Stark's drinking days were around 30 years ago and people still bring his drinking problems up from time to time. Does the fact that Carol was also an alcoholic gets mentioned nowadays?

[Holt]

Very rarely.