thought on diversity in fiction

[Dark-Flux]

Its bad logic because youre failing to offer any evidence or reasoning to support your view.
Your entire argument is simply "it just is", "i cant explain", "just because" etc...

Nobody else is going to understand your view when you yourself cant offer any objective reasoning for why your view is valid.

[marvelguy25]

Its bad logic because youre failing to offer any evidence or reasoning to support your view.
Your entire argument is simply "it just is", "i cant explain", "just because" etc...

Nobody else is going to understand your view when you yourself cant offer any objective reasoning for why your view is valid.

well i just gotta make it less awkward and just trying to let you guys see where i'm coming from but you won't no matter how much thoughts i put into 1000 or 2000 honest words in every detail other than the fact that Peter needs to be the main everyman in a very simple manner.

[John Aston]

Chiming in on a few points:

I like Miles as Spider-Man just fine. He popped up shortly, it seemed, after creator interviews on DVD bonus materials claiming a part of Spider-Man's appeal was that anybody could be under the mask. I think that's partly was the basis to put a minority under the mask. The other, which had nothing to do with race, was to lower the age of Spider-Man considering the world through merchandise, films and animation knows him as a teen, young adult, single and socially a bit awkward and the comics at the time didn't reflect that as a whole. But, after Ultimate Spider-Man initially ended, editorially it would be redundant to go into another Peter Parker origin. So, three birds, one stone.

As large amounts of Marvel and DCU characters are entering the mainstream, it's weird as a long time comic reader that people want to campaign to have fundamental identity changes to the more iconic or well-known characters who have been marketed with the same identifiers since the 1940s or 60s. Is lobbying Disney or Warner Brothers on Twitter really going to persuade them to up and drastically change any character in a $100 million or larger investment which partly hinges on generations of people who are familiar with said character presented a certain way and will contribute to introducing said character to the next generation.

If we're talking print, there are plenty of diverse comics out there that are superior regardless if they were diverse or not to include the cape variety. That said, I personally don't have a problem with Marvel experimenting. They turned Thor into a frog and at one time replaced him with a horse alien. Rhodey became Iron Man. Hulk became Mr. Fixit. The second wave of X-Men. If the storytelling is compelling changing a character's identity is fine.

Marvel's changes seem to be superficial. It partly rests on how the stories are told over a short period of time usually with the original character making a comeback just in time for a film. Complete stories that show how a character grows by how they resolve problems is how a reader makes an emotional connection. With most mainstream comics having stories that resolve after five, six or ten issues, there ain't a whole of meat to digest. By the time I get used to the character being changed, it's time to go back.

There's plenty of diversity in entertainment. One has to simply seek it out and avoid the bottle-necking/lower denominator films/music/comics/games/whatever companies push.

I know I have to.

Also, straight white males can write people who aren't straight while males and the same goes for any combination of race/gender/sexuality/religion. The credibility of those voices presented in the work solely rests on the consumer. If you don't buy into what the project is selling because the bi-sexual Japanese female's dialogue or story didn't ring true, that's fine. Maybe it didn't for you. For others it may have. We may consume art in a vacuum but it isn't published that way.

Other than the comic artists I grew up with, very few of the current generation I'm familiar with what they look like. I don't need to generalize or marginalize any creator because what color they are, who they like to sleep with or what's in their underwear. I let their art speak to me. That's more important, at least, to me.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is art. There are people who connect with Michael Bay films just as much as there others who connect with Jane Austin books.

[Dark-Flux]

well i just gotta make it less awkward and just trying to let you guys see where i'm coming from but you won't no matter how much thoughts i put into 1000 or 2000 honest words in every detail other than the fact that Peter needs to be the main everyman in a very simple manner.

Its not about the number of words. Its the rationality of the reasoning. You have no reasoning or supporting evidence. Youre just making baseless claims.
You keep repeating that "Peter needs to be the main everyman" without explaining what you mean by that, why that is the case, or how Peter being gay would prevent that.

[marvelguy25]

Chiming in on a few points:

I like Miles as Spider-Man just fine. He popped up shortly, it seemed, after creator interviews on DVD bonus materials claiming a part of Spider-Man's appeal was that anybody could be under the mask. I think that's partly was the basis to put a minority under the mask. The other, which had nothing to do with race, was to lower the age of Spider-Man considering the world through merchandise, films and animation knows him as a teen, young adult, single and socially a bit awkward and the comics at the time didn't reflect that as a whole. But, after Ultimate Spider-Man initially ended, editorially it would be redundant to go into another Peter Parker origin. So, three birds, one stone.

As large amounts of Marvel and DCU characters are entering the mainstream, it's weird as a long time comic reader that people want to campaign to have fundamental identity changes to the more iconic or well-known characters who have been marketed with the same identifiers since the 1940s or 60s. Is lobbying Disney or Warner Brothers on Twitter really going to persuade them to up and drastically change any character in a $100 million or larger investment which partly hinges on generations of people who are familiar with said character presented a certain way and will contribute to introducing said character to the next generation.

If we're talking print, there are plenty of diverse comics out there that are superior regardless if they were diverse or not to include the cape variety. That said, I personally don't have a problem with Marvel experimenting. They turned Thor into a frog and at one time replaced him with a horse alien. Rhodey became Iron Man. Hulk became Mr. Fixit. The second wave of X-Men. If the storytelling is compelling changing a character's identity is fine.

Marvel's changes seem to be superficial. It partly rests on how the stories are told over a short period of time usually with the original character making a comeback just in time for a film. Complete stories that show how a character grows by how they resolve problems is how a reader makes an emotional connection. With most mainstream comics having stories that resolve after five, six or ten issues, there ain't a whole of meat to digest.

There's plenty of diversity in entertainment. One has to simply seek it out and avoid the bottle-necking/lower denominator films/music/comics/games/whatever companies push.

I know I have to.

Also, straight white males can write people who aren't straight while males and the same goes for any combination of race/gender/sexuality/religion. The credibility of those voices presented in the work solely rests on the consumer. If you don't buy into what the project is selling because the bi-sexual Japanese female's dialogue or story didn't ring true, that's fine. Maybe it didn't for you. For others it may have. We may consume art in a vacuum but it isn't published that way.

Other than the comic artists I grew up with, very few of the current generation I'm familiar with what they look like. I don't need to generalize or marginalize any creator because what color they are, who they like to sleep with or what's in their underwear. I let their art speak to me. That's more important, at least, to me.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is art. There are people who connect with Michael Bay films just as much as there others who connect with Jane Austin books.

well said. yeah, a creator doesn't mean you have to have color or have a different gender or sexual interest but more like the creation and understanding of the world around you. it's really annoying and unneccessary to try to change most characters' race and sexuality. i mean it's fine to change a character like say Rogue or Kitty Pryde or even Pietro and The Thing but overdoing alot of the characters(mostly in the 616 universe) is just ridiculous and really uncomfortable for any readers, viewers, and also people of those diversities. it was really terrible what they did to Iceman and how they did it so seeing that made me and anyone else afraid into how far they take this whole P.C. business.

[marvelguy25]

Its not about the number of words. Its the rationality of the reasoning. You have no reasoning or supporting evidence. Youre just making baseless claims.
You keep repeating that "Peter needs to be the main everyman" without explaining what you mean by that, why that is the case, or how Peter being gay would prevent that.

well it's really hard to explain and no matter how i say it would honestly offend you guys even if it was so simple.

[Dark-Flux]

well it's really hard to explain and no matter how i say it would honestly offend you guys even if it was so simple.

Then you shouldnt be surprised when so few agree with you.
And as a general rule, if you know your train of thought is likly to be offensive to people its probably not a very decent view to hold in the first place.

[John Aston]

well said. yeah, a creator doesn't mean you have to have color or have a different gender or sexual interest but more like the creation and understanding of the world around you. it's really annoying and unneccessary to try to change most characters' race and sexuality. i mean it's fine to change a character like say Rogue or Kitty Pryde or even Pietro and The Thing but overdoing alot of the characters(mostly in the 616 universe) is just ridiculous and really uncomfortable for any readers, viewers, and also people of those diversities. it was really terrible what they did to Iceman and how they did it so seeing that made me and anyone else afraid into how far they take this whole P.C. business.

But, isn't that Marvel? When something works for Marvel, they seem to just go crazy and beat it into the ground. Crossovers. The "All New" description in titles. Deaths. Costume changes. Etc.

Personally, I'd like to a black actress cast as the next (real) Catwoman.

[John Aston]

You keep repeating that "Peter needs to be the main everyman" without explaining what you mean by that, why that is the case, or how Peter being gay would prevent that.

Historically, "everyman" when applied to Spider-Man meant a middle-class male whose family, love and financial problems were relatable to the audience.

Being gay wouldn't necessarily prevent that, creatively. But, Spider-Man's original target audience was young, middle-class male children way back in the 1960s and his mythology grew from that and the character was presented as and is believed to be by the general public a straight white male.

[Dark-Flux]

616 Peter sure. But his audience, along with comics in general is no longer confined to young, middle-class males of the 60s.

Why should an alternative-universe Peter, who for all intents and purposes is a new character entirely be confined to the same characteristics (racial, sexual or otherwise) when the entire point of alternate characters is to differ in some way from the original and thus make the story worth telling?
Especially when something like Peters gender is not intrinsic to the core values of the character and that which made him so appealing in the first place.

[marvelguy25]

616 Peter sure. But his audience, along with comics in general is no longer confined to young, middle-class males of the 60s.

Why should an alternative-universe Peter, who for all intents and purposes is a new character entirely be confined to the same characteristics (racial, sexual or otherwise) when the entire point of alternate characters is to differ in some way from the original and thus make the story worth telling?
Especially when something like Peters gender is not intrinsic to the core values of the character and that which made him so appealing in the first place.

because the character has always been that even in this era. it's why you still see so many straight white male protagonists. it's why him being bisexual or pansexual works better than him being fully gay.

[Dark-Flux]

How has an alternative universe Peter always been straight?
This hypothetical character we're speaking of doesnt even exist.

[marvelguy25]

How has an alternative universe Peter always been straight?
This hypothetical character we're speaking of doesnt even exist.

because that's always been the importance of Peter Parker.

[Dark-Flux]

Seriously? The most important thing about Peter Parker is thats he's straight? Wow. Lol.

I mean maybe we've been reading a different character for decades because the Peter Parker I know is most definetly not defined by his sexuality.

[marvelguy25]

Seriously? The most important thing about Peter Parker is thats he's straight? Wow. Lol.

I mean maybe we've been reading a different character for decades because the Peter Parker I know is most definetly not defined by his sexuality.

it's also defined by that like we just said.