Calculations in Marvel's Diversity

[Venomous Mask]

History and tradition have nothing to do with. It's fans and store owners who are the issue.

What you bought up is the excuse many will try to use.

You will never know how popular a minority can be when you continue to LIMIT what you do with them and pander to straight white males who continue to have fits if you try.

I don't need nor WANT Ms Marvel, Static, Miles, Kevin Keller, Hulking, Teddy or WHOEVER to be more popular than Spider-Man. I don't care.

I care about that little black boy in the hood or that LGBT kid that only sees white straight males always saving the universe, getting movies, getting toys and thinking no one who looks like him or her can achieve that at Marvel DC.

I don't want to hear about tradition-when so many others have tossed it aside. I would think the prospect of a black guy being the hero of a Star Wars film and not related to Luke Skywalker is about as far as breaking tradition as you can get. As is doing 4 Star Trek tv shows without a Kirk or Spock.

When I say tradition, I mean that Marvel and DC have characters that have decades upon decades of history piled upon them and are practically at the level of mythic characters of old. New characters can rise to the top, but it takes time and energy. That is one reason why Spawn, a unique black character, was able to fly to top of the charts; he was in his own universe and was not pulled down by being in a sea of characters who had been around since the sixties, if not long before. Black Panther could become popular with the right stories and promotion, but I don't think that he will ever reach the level of Spider-Man which, in the money-driven world of comics, is important.

And as far as popularity goes, money talks. If Marvel has to pick between cancelling a Northstar series or a Wolverine series, which do you think will probably get the axe? It's not right but that's how the business works. Niche characters can succeed but they are always in danger of being shoved aside in favor of more established characters.

Now don't get me wrong; I want to see Marvel heavily promote minority characters as long as the stories are good. I do think, for example, that Black Panther does have the potential to become a heavy hitter in the MCU. That being said, we do have to be realistic in terms of business, and that newer and less well-established characters do have a massive uphill battle when it comes to having long term viability. Massive initial success is important, but it needs to be followed up with solid storytelling. Captain America could have several years of ass quality stories and he would still be given the same treatment as he always has, but if someone like Kamala began to lose quality and followers, her future would be in serious jeopardy. At the beginning of the 90s, Venom was everywhere and was almost A-list, but several years of aimless storytelling crippled the character's development and led to him being something of a lightweight until 2011. New characters, minority or not, need to seriously prove themselves, especially in the arena of the Big Two. Like I said, I want bold, new characters and stories, but if that is to become a trend, it needs to be on a base that emphasizes not only good storytelling but the reality of the business world.

[7thangel]

That last sentence sounds pretty subjective to me, and your comments about how "most people" feel about supporting "diversity" are what I have issue with -- not what you have stated in this post.

I agree 100% with your comments regarding needing to tackle the larger issues with regards to diversity (exploitation, token characters, etc) but when you make generalized statements regarding how "most people" feel about diversity and back it up with comments about how Obama didn't get the majority of the "white vote" I have to call it like I see it, even if what I saw might not have been exactly what you meant.

If your point is that we still have a lot of work to do with regards to doing diversity the right way, then we definitely walk on common ground in that regard. I just don't think that the measure of what "most people" want should be based on what some -- or even most -- "white people" are buying or who they are voting for.

Considering the fact that many entertainment mediums skew in many different directions through many different demographics (younger for cartoons such as "Hulk" or "The Avengers", older for dramas such as "Scandal" or "Empire", etc) I'd say that there is no way to really state with any definitive certainty what "most" [people] want to see, especially when a lot of people don't even know what they really want to see until they actually have the opportunity to see it (Ms. Marvel, Blade, Silk, Static, etc).

Overall, I'm simply stating that it doesn't make sense to speak about "white people" as if diversity is something that will only survive and prosper primarily based on their acceptance or rejection -- the whole point of diversity is to appeal to larger audiences (whether domestic or international), much of which is untapped by the sort of entertainment we see commonly offered at the present time.

When films like "Home" (with a black female lead character) help Dreamworks fend off bankruptcy, and shows "Empire" help Fox break television viewing records, and series like and "Fast and Furious" help push Universal into the top box office spot repeatedly, I'd say we've moved far beyond the point of needing to question whether "minority leads" are what "most people" want to see and into the realm of asking why more studios aren't recognizing what they are missing out on by not producing more "minority-led" productions.

here's the thing, my initial post was reacting to this accepted idea that most people want diversity. this isn't based on anything concrete. there's a significant number of people that want diversity. that is backed up by the limited successes. nothing about my posts are about questioning the need for more diversity. and except for not accepting the usual tokenism hailed as diversity, i'm not going on about 'the right way' to do it, since i've been hoping, wishing, and pushing for diversity my whole life. but we're not all on the same page and the quicker we acknowledge that the better. otherwise we will once again absolve fandom and allow them to be blameless

hollywood has been forced to recognize the consumer powers of various minorities, and they've made the necessary steps, to a degree, in order to maximize their profit margin. or more accurately, there are people that are members of those communities or are allies, that have given folks what they wanted. and they could do it with little to no white viewers (some of which came later due to the word of mouth). there are some that have given us multicultural casts that have a huge diverse fanbase. the audience is there, that's not the question, they've always been there, they've been underserved. but it's not based on this idea that most people want diversity, it's based on the fact that there's a significant number of people that want and can support more diversity and want to see themselves and their friends in the things they watch.

[ed2962]

The reality of business is that if you have a new product that you want people to buy, you have to advertise it. But it seems the act of advertising is what has offended some fans.

[aja_christopher]

here's the thing, my initial post was reacting to this accepted idea that most people want diversity. this isn't based on anything concrete. there's a significant number of people that want diversity. that is backed up by the limited successes. nothing about my posts are about questioning the need for more diversity. and except for not accepting the usual tokenism hailed as diversity, i'm not going on about 'the right way' to do it, since i've been hoping, wishing, and pushing for diversity my whole life. but we're not all on the same page and the quicker we acknowledge that the better. otherwise we will once again absolve fandom and allow them to be blameless

hollywood has been forced to recognize the consumer powers of various minorities, and they've made the necessary steps, to a degree, in order to maximize their profit margin. or more accurately, there are people that are members of those communities or are allies, that have given folks what they wanted. and they could do it with little to no white viewers (some of which came later due to the word of mouth). there are some that have given us multicultural casts that have a huge diverse fanbase. the audience is there, that's not the question, they've always been there, they've been underserved. but it's not based on this idea that most people want diversity, it's based on the fact that there's a significant number of people that want and can support more diversity and want to see themselves and their friends in the things they watch.

Agreed -- now that you've clarified I have a much better understanding of what you are saying.

My argument was simply that we can't just say that most people don't want diversity when so many "diverse" projects are successful, but likewise, despite the financial success of many "diverse" projects, I can't say that I have any solid evidence that most people do want diversity either -- I'm fully willing to admit my position on this is subjective and probably a bit idealistic as well, but I do think there is ample evidence to back it up.

Subjectively speaking, I'd say things seem to have already reached the point in modern society where "most people" are more concerned with quality and/or entertainment value than things like "race" (Fast and the Furious -- no pun intended, Bad Boys, Big Hero 6) or "gender" (Lucy, Hunger Games, Kill Bill) with regards to their lead character and the success of books such as Ms. Marvel and Silk only provide even more evidence that this is true.

Objectively speaking, demographics alone show that most companies should be investing in diverse projects at this point because many are already making a lot of money and -- as with the example of The Fast and Furious -- their profitability only seems to be increasing as time goes on.

Disney has been riding this wave for quite some time now (Mulan, Aladdin, Pocahantas) and it seems that other companies are just now catching up.

The reality of business is that if you have a new product that you want people to buy, you have to advertise it. But it seems the act of advertising is what has offended some fans.

If I have to hear about something getting "shoved down someone's throat" one more time...

[Wiccan615]

I'm so tired of heterosexual white men being shoved down my throat

[shgs]

Sure, pick the least nuanced of the original X-men...Cyclops would be better, as it would explain a lot more of his psyche...

Is it really a bad idea to pick the 'least nuanced' character for further development?

[shgs]

He retired from being Captain America. It seems as if you're being purposefully obtuse.

I see. Since you only said 'retirement' I took that to mean actual retirement, as in he has stopped 'working' as a superhero, which he hasn't really.

I'm not going to bother arguing this point. You obviously think what Thor Odinson lost is trivial.

I never said trivial - losing Mjolnir has obviously had a huge psychological impact - I refuted your statement that Thor's powers had been diminished significantly.

The fact that you're coming up with theories to excuse her abhorrent behavior.

If she cannot control her telepathy, how exactly is she meant to... control her telepathy? Would you get angry at an incontinent person for soiling themselves and criticise their 'abhorrent behaviour'?

Nevertheless, it has not been confirmed that she didn't read his mind on purpose, so I am once again going to post this sentence: 'Yes she was wrong to read his mind in his first place, she has spent this entire volume overstepping the boundaries of acceptable telepathy use, no one has ever endorsed it'

The only thing ridiculous is your Aaron can do no wrong attitude. Seven issues in, we still know next to nothing about her and she's still a secondary character in her own book. I don't use being progressive as a shield for bad writing.

By which are you suggesting I am objectively wrong to be enjoying the current volume of Thor? I am not using being progressive as a shield for bad writing, I like the writing. Just because you don't enjoy something, does not automatically mean the writing is bad.

But I don't think you want any more discussion. Your mocking use of my sentence structure clearly shows how open you are to a different viewpoint.

You try and assert your opinion of someone's writing as incontrovertible fact, yet I'm the one who isn't open to different viewpoints? There is only one adequate response to that: LOL.

[leo619]

Thanks for this post. I've seen so much of this jargon on CBR in the past few days and it's really disheartening.

Exactly, and than people expect for us to play patty cake with these individuals when they clearly have issues with us? No sir, I'm A-OK. I really hope these changes pushes these individuals out of comics. IMO, the comic book industry can't make the necessary changes needed to be susceptible to the modern american comics audience without removing the individuals in my previous post who hold comics back.

[Tiamatty]

Exactly, and than people expect for us to play patty cake with these individuals when they clearly have issues with us? No sir, I'm A-OK. I really hope these changes pushes these individuals out of comics. IMO, the comic book industry can't make the necessary changes needed to be susceptible to the modern american comics audience without removing the individuals in my previous post who hold comics back.

I do feel like overcoming nostalgia is an important step for superhero comics. The fact is, as long as superhero comics are ruled by nostalgia, it's going to remain damned near impossible for diversity to get any real foothold.

That's really what the opposition to things like Captain Falcon, Lady Thor and Out Iceman come down to: Nostalgia. These aren't the characters people are used to, not the characters people grew up with, so the people push back against it. It's the same reason why costume changes are almost always met with anger. People want things to stay the way they were when they were younger.



And here's a question for those who've talked about the "proper" way to do diversity: How often do you put your money where your mouth is? You say you'd rather Marvel create original characters, fine. So did you read Avengers Academy? You say you'd rather Marvel use existing characters, fine. So are you reading Mighty Avengers?

I have a hunch most of the people making those arguments still don't actually read the books that do what they say should be done. That a lot of the people who oppose Marvel's recent moves don't really care about diversity, they're more interested in preserving the status quo. An "I got mine, screw everyone else" mentality.

Maybe I'm wrong. But that's kinda why I'm posing the questions above. Maybe these people are making efforts to support diverse books. I just have a hunch that most of the people who get upset about this stuff - and especially the people who talk about "PC" and "pandering" and all that crap - only read the books that launched in the '60s.

[Kieran_Frost]

Honestly, I think at this point the best way to promote minority characters is to create them in universes/multiverses outside of the Big Two. Marvel and DC have the weight of history and tradition bearing down on them hard, and despite valiant efforts on their part, Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and Captain America will probably always been more popular then any up and coming minority characters.

I don't think the best way to promote minority characters is to ignore their development in the two biggest comic franchises around; that makes an already uphill battle near impossible. You want to change the game, you need to make sure those dominating the field are playing.

And here's a question for those who've talked about the "proper" way to do diversity: How often do you put your money where your mouth is? You say you'd rather Marvel create original characters, fine. So did you read Avengers Academy? You say you'd rather Marvel use existing characters, fine. So are you reading Mighty Avengers?

I have a hunch most of the people making those arguments still don't actually read the books that do what they say should be done. That a lot of the people who oppose Marvel's recent moves don't really care about diversity, they're more interested in preserving the status quo. An "I got mine, screw everyone else" mentality.

Excellent questions.

[leo619]

I do feel like overcoming nostalgia is an important step for superhero comics. The fact is, as long as superhero comics are ruled by nostalgia, it's going to remain damned near impossible for diversity to get any real foothold.

That's really what the opposition to things like Captain Falcon, Lady Thor and Out Iceman come down to: Nostalgia. These aren't the characters people are used to, not the characters people grew up with, so the people push back against it. It's the same reason why costume changes are almost always met with anger. People want things to stay the way they were when they were younger.



And here's a question for those who've talked about the "proper" way to do diversity: How often do you put your money where your mouth is? You say you'd rather Marvel create original characters, fine. So did you read Avengers Academy? You say you'd rather Marvel use existing characters, fine. So are you reading Mighty Avengers?

I have a hunch most of the people making those arguments still don't actually read the books that do what they say should be done. That a lot of the people who oppose Marvel's recent moves don't really care about diversity, they're more interested in preserving the status quo. An "I got mine, screw everyone else" mentality.

Maybe I'm wrong. But that's kinda why I'm posing the questions above. Maybe these people are making efforts to support diverse books. I just have a hunch that most of the people who get upset about this stuff - and especially the people who talk about "PC" and "pandering" and all that crap - only read the books that launched in the '60s.

Oh I completely agree with you. The reason is these same statements are made by individuals who doesn't even read comics. When you go to youtube and look at the comment section on something like the upcoming Fantastic Four, you see the exact same response. "Why don't they create new characters instead of changing characters black" and yet when you ask them the last time they read a comic, they would respond with "when they were children." It all stems from that exact same foundation. The majority of these individuals who say "create new characters" doesn't give a crap about diversity. They just want to keep their characters intact and since they don't support minority characters, new characters fall by the waste side. If they actually did cared about diversity and "creating new characters", well written books like the mighty avengers wouldn't be hovering slightly above the cancellation line like it is.

That's why I said these nostaglia, status quo fans are the method to their own madness. They say create new characters but they don't support it when new characters are created. Yet when characters that are changed actually show success, they suddenly throw a fit. It's like Hello, if you don't want these changes to happen, you start buying books with new minority characters. Marvel and DC won't make any changes if Marvel and DC see that new characters can become successful.

[Xalfrea]

The sad thing is that this nostalgia does not only apply to comics. I can name dozens of other long-running media franchises or incarnations that fall victim to the same thing or else have its share of nostalgic nuts who have a gut-reaction to hating everything new like a bunch of old geezers.

I can't personally chime into this diversity thing because I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough on the subject and I don't want to sound like jackass. But I do want to mention about how I encountered one guy on another forum who argued that "The companies don't have do all this diversity stuff as long as the stories based around the established characters are continuously well-written."

Agree or disagree?

[Kieran_Frost]

I can't personally chime into this diversity thing because I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough on the subject and I don't want to sound like jackass. But I do want to mention about how I encountered one guy on another forum who argued that "The companies don't have do all this diversity stuff as long as the stories based around the established characters are continuously well-written."
Agree or disagree?

Link? What did everyone in that forum say in response?

[Xalfrea]

Sadly the forum has been taken down a few months ago. Sorry.

[Kieran_Frost]

Sadly the forum has been taken down a few months ago. Sorry.

What forum was it?