R.I.P. Marvel's 'progressive' era, 2012-2017

[JKtheMac]

I think the situation's a bit more complex than it's recognized.

Diverse voices and characters are a good thing, but there are diminishing returns. It gets more expensive for the fans who want more diversity to follow every book that qualifies, so these groups get splintered. What worked for one franchise won't always work for another, and what elevated the profile of one title won't always work the second or third time.

I think you may be right. Again the articles seem to touch on this too. There is a recognition that they expanded their line after a broadly positive experience with diverse character take-up and then got caught out.

[Doc Sonic]

tl;dr Diversity isn't the problem, turning already well-established heroes into minorities instead of making new characters who happen to be non-white is.

In other words, female characters and non-white characters are fine as long as they stay in their lane and don't take the spotlight...
fuck that.

[Smoov-E]

As others have said before me, diversity is not the issue. I'm sure the majority of comic book readers don't mind the presence of female and minority heroes. I for one personally think adding some diversity to the Marvel Universe is great. My issue is they're going about it in such an in-your-face superficial way. Instead of trying to prop up characters like Miles Morales, Amadeus Cho, Jane Foster in fresh, interesting ways they just give have them take over the roles of pre-established heroes. That's not what anyone asked for. They should make Miles, Amadeus, and Jane into their own superheroes. With their own rogues gallery, their own lore, etc. Not only would that help Marvel's diversity but it would make them more iconic and noticeable in pop culture. People are not going to stop associating Hulk with Bruce Banner or Spider-Man with Peter Parker, regardless of how much they might try to force us to.

But, if Amadeus Cho for example was a character called Behemoth or something original people would only associate him with that character's identity. He would be much more iconic and stand out more. I think making Riri Williams Ironheart instead of another Iron Man & Kamala Khan Ms. Marvel instead of another Captain Marvel were steps in the right direction.

tl;dr Diversity isn't the problem, turning already well-established heroes into minorities instead of making new characters who happen to be non-white is.

Saying that creating new characters and people will buy them is also the problem since comic history has shown that people by and large STILL will not buy them, look at the mental gymnastics for Mosiac on why that is a lie and that isn't even getting into the many times people have cried on why does Black Panther keep getting chances

It's also funny you say people will always think of one hero with a alias as you have a Flash avatar where people associate that with TWO different people and it hasn't worked out well for DC trying to just use their chosen character over the other

In other words, female characters and non-white characters are fine as long as they stay in their lane and don't take the spotlight...
fuck that.

Pretty much, white heroes fail and it's no problem, female and minority heroes get popular and it's "STOP SHOVING THESE CHARACTERS DOWN OUR THROATS!!!!!!!"

[Mike_Murdock]

tl;dr Diversity isn't the problem, turning already well-established heroes into minorities instead of making new characters who happen to be non-white is.

Did you buy Mosaic?

If people believe this, they have to support Marvel when they don't do this.

[ed2962]

Marvel's progressive era started in the 60's.

[jpmst17]

i was sick of replacing characters i like with younger, less interesting versions. ms marvel, miles, and others are fine, i just don't want them anywhere near the avengers. they're high schoolers. i could give a crap about riri williams or sam alexander. i think it was too big of a push for these characters at one time, and on top of all of that, legendary comic characters are around for 60 years for a reason, people like them. things need to happen organically and not feel forced, and marvel definitely forced things

[kilderkin]

In fairness some of the new stories have been good - away from the events which I think have been fairly weak (some good starts ended weakly for me imo) but of course that's just my taste

In many ways I think they pushed too much too soon after some great changes

I think if they had brought in new characters in a team and allowed them to build up steam there would be less negativity ( which may not be justified and certainly isn't the only opinion nor is it more valid than any other)

Champions does do this somewhat of course

Let's remember when dc replaced barry with wally he was already very established from titans

And there was still negativity as one might expect

more importantly I feel as a publisher I think they have 2 problems dc don't seem too

I feel marvel cancel books more - I think they should use mini/maxi series to promote new ideas

And they do sell standard books for a dollar more than dc which limits my pick up of books in that I'm less likely to give a book time to grab me - it's easy for a writer or publisher to say see where they are going but books arnt free and 2.99 at dc feels a much better deal even if it's just 1 dollar

[a0040pc]

Don't forget that Mosaic is being cancelled due to low sales.

[ClanAskani]

I'm a female reader and I find many of Marvel's new, progressive and diverse characters incredibly annoying, not relatable and not interesting. They aren't targeting me but a younger audience, so maybe it's just a generational thing.

There's still the problem audience of teens to 20-somethings don't have unlimited income. There's a certain point where they can't spend more on comics each month. If those books don't appeal to a broader audience, there's going to be a point where that target audience drops off.

What it seems is that many writers want to do something different, not write the same old books with the same heroes that follow continuity. They want to do something groundbreaking and different. Marvel has lost many of their exclusive writers (for example Lemire, Brubaker, Fraction). The new writers replacing them tend to be "meh". That's also contributing to the lackluster sales.

[ishikabe]

Figured this would suck from the start, and yep no one's buying all the "change" at Marvel. Peter Parker isn't Tony Stark. Riri isn't Iron Man. Venom IS Eddie Brock. etc etc etc etc

[ishikabe]

In other words, female characters and non-white characters are fine as long as they stay in their lane and don't take the spotlight...
fuck that.

I think his/her point flew over your head.

[ishikabe]

Saying that creating new characters and people will buy them is also the problem since comic history has shown that people by and large STILL will not buy them, look at the mental gymnastics for Mosiac on why that is a lie and that isn't even getting into the many times people have cried on why does Black Panther keep getting chances

But this is how Top Cow/Image comics got started.

[penthotal]

Instead of trying to prop up characters like Miles Morales, Amadeus Cho, Jane Foster in fresh, interesting ways they just give have them take over the roles of pre-established heroes. They should make Miles, Amadeus, and Jane into their own superheroes. With their own rogues gallery, their own lore, etc. Not only would that help Marvel's diversity but it would make them more iconic and noticeable in pop culture.

Reality and history tell us the opposite though. New mantles and identities are a hyper hard sell in super hero comics. Probably 95% of the popular characters were invented before the 80s and 90% were created in the 60s. And it's not for lack of trying. Many new heroes have been created by many talented writers and artists, but they are usually ignored, forgotten or followed by a small niche of fans. Which Marvel characters not invented in the 60-70s are really popular? Probably only Deadpool and Ms. Marvel. Many people say it's Marvel and the creators fault, but even not counting the characters created in the last 20 years, are the characters invented or written for decades by Claremont really popular? Except Wolverine no one has ever been able to sustain an ongoing. It was not a mediocre creator. Byrne wasn't mediocre, who remembers characters created by him?

All the history of Marvel shows that almost impossibile to replicate what happened in the 60s, and it's not difficult to understand why. Those characters are Icons precisely because of when they have been created and the status that 60 years of existence grant to them. They are part of American popular culture, like Superman and Batman are. With super hero comics almost irrelevant to popular culture nowadays (the 60s and 70s sales assured millions of people knew those characters at the times, plus they were a novelty and they were relevant to their historic period, today other forms of entertainment and culture are relevant not comics), creating new icons it's not possible. Will Ms. Marvel be iconic 50 years from now? Who can say it? I don't think it will, but even if it will, which company in a capitalistic system could base it's strategy on the idea of creating properties that, if nurtured for half a century, maybe, one day, they will become as popular as the brands they posses today? And Ms. Marvel can't even be called an original character, it's a legacy itself.

Giving the (more or less) iconic mantles to characters like Jane Foster, Miles Morales, Kamala Khan was certainly instrumental in helping them succeed. They are characters that works, are known and sell today, not in 60 years, maybe, but probably not.

[ishikabe]

All the history of Marvel shows that almost impossibile to replicate what happened in the 60s, and it's not difficult to understand why. Those characters are Icons precisely because of when they have been created and the status that 60 years of existence grant to them. They are part of American popular culture, like Superman and Batman are. With super hero comics almost irrelevant to popular culture nowadays (the 60s and 70s sales assured millions of people knew those characters at the times, plus they were a novelty and they were relevant to their historic period, today other forms of entertainment and culture are relevant not comics), creating new icons it's not possible. Will Ms. Marvel be iconic 50 years from now? Who can say it? I don't think it will, but even if it will, which company in a capitalistic system could base it's strategy on the idea of creating properties that, if nurtured for half a century, maybe, one day, they will become as popular as the brands they posses today? And Ms. Marvel can't even be called an original character, it's a legacy itself.

Giving the (more or less) iconic mantles to characters like Jane Foster, Miles Morales, Kamala Khan was certainly instrumental in helping them succeed. They are characters that works, are known and sell today, not in 60 years, maybe, but probably not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_Comics

[penthotal]

I think his/her point flew over your head.

His point it's not sensible because it doesn't take into account the reality of comics and the comics market, at least as I believed it is and I have explained in my post above this.