EW Reveals New Avengers NOW Team

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Robert Marrs:
Are these the characters they really wanted to create? Or are these the characters they were obligated to create in order to appease some PC checklist? If its the former more power to them. If its the latter that is not something we should be celebrating.

Couldn't you ask that for pretty much every character regardless of race, sexuality, or gender? I mean, did they really want to create another straight white guy for their story, or did they feel obligated to by their publishers/bosses/"the market"?

And, unless you've got some actual reason to believe that everyone is being forced to be inclusive, maybe you shouldn't just assume that every artist involved is only doing this to appease the PC crowd.

Robert Marrs:
Are these the characters they really wanted to create? Or are these the characters they were obligated to create in order to appease some PC checklist? If its the former more power to them. If its the latter that is not something we should be celebrating.

This is my problem with diversity advocaters too. I don't want to like a character because he " represents me" or to show how progressive he creators are. I just want a good game/movie/comic/book etc, where the protagonist happens to be white, black, asian, hispanic, gay, bisexual.

I don't mind diversity. But when it feels like they are doing it to appease people, then it rubs me the wrong way.

And before you guys say " I bet your a straight white male, and you have no problems since everything represents you anyway"! No, I'm black.

LifeCharacter:

Baresark:
After this... this literally feels like a Marvel version of Superfriends... Include just for the sake of inclusion.

Always funny how when another straight white male character comes out, you'll get a mass of people going on and on about how it's the artist's decision and we should respect that, but come out with a black or female character, and things like artistic vision and freedom completely disappear to be replaced by whining about how this is inclusion for inclusion's sake. Apparently, artists can't choose to make anything but straight white men for artistic reasons, only cynical ones.

I don't know about you, but I have never seen anyone complain about a new white character. Do people get attacked for that? I would love to see a bunch of new characters come along of all different ethnic backgrounds, but I will always take exception when they decide to just mess with characters for the sake of "diversity". Also, Bucky is the natural selection for Captain America since he has worn the suit before. Falcon was an existing character, but they decide to just abandon any development down that route in order to make him Captain America.

My main issue is that most of these are not new character. But I'm not here to debate over a comment taken out of the context it was clearly placed in. I was having a good laugh with someone about a joke about how "everyone needs to be included".

"Hey Phil, what's going on?" "Ah, nothing just trying to work a new Avengers series that won't piss anyone off." "Let me get the check list for you...Let's see, have you made a character that has been a male for the last fifty years or so a female?" "Yup." "What about a character that's white, have you changed their race?" "Uhuh." "Okay, have you made the character that's rich the villain and put an oh he's rich he must be a jerk stereotype on?" "You betcha." "We're going to be so rich!"

The Thor-Girl thing is meh, if I recall they did it in the seventies and it didn't work. Blacktain America works I guess since it was Falcon and assuming this is after the Civil War saga. But it does just seem like a giant publicity stunt to appease people.

Baresark:
I don't know about you, but I have never seen anyone complain about a new white character. Do people get attacked for that? I would love to see a bunch of new characters come along of all different ethnic backgrounds, but I will always take exception when they decide to just mess with characters for the sake of "diversity".

Well, look at the new Assassin's Creed. How many people defended Ubisoft's choice to have another white man with it being the artists' unassailable choice to do so? Notice how there doesn't seem to be any of that argument about artistic freedom and choice amongst people here?

And, once again, you've decided that this must only exist because "inclusion," disregarding any notion that maybe they thought it was a good idea by itself. Apparently, the idea of Thor's powers going to a woman this time instead of a different white man (or a frog, or a horse) can only exist if inclusion was the main reason, and the Falcon taking up the shield could never be a good idea on it's own, so it must be because he's black.

Did you take exception when every other change to the character that occurred, or is it only when they get a vagina or change skin tone, because then it's about inclusion and that's absolutely horrible?

LifeCharacter:

Baresark:
I don't know about you, but I have never seen anyone complain about a new white character. Do people get attacked for that? I would love to see a bunch of new characters come along of all different ethnic backgrounds, but I will always take exception when they decide to just mess with characters for the sake of "diversity".

Well, look at the new Assassin's Creed. How many people defended Ubisoft's choice to have another white man with it being the artists' unassailable choice to do so? Notice how there doesn't seem to be any of that argument about artistic freedom and choice amongst people here?

And, once again, you've decided that this must only exist because "inclusion," disregarding any notion that maybe they thought it was a good idea by itself. Apparently, the idea of Thor's powers going to a woman this time instead of a different white man (or a frog, or a horse) can only exist if inclusion was the main reason, and the Falcon taking up the shield could never be a good idea on it's own, so it must be because he's black.

Did you take exception when every other change to the character that occurred, or is it only when they get a vagina or change skin tone, because then it's about inclusion and that's absolutely horrible?

That is fair on the Assassin's Creed thing. I didn't see anyone defend them, I thought that was pretty much considered a universally stupid move by everyone.

I take exception when they decide to change existing characters rather than create new characters, just to try and retain their reader base. The thing is, my exception has zero to do with skin tone or sex. People just choose to see it that way. These conversations are always bullshit traps because race or sex is a part of the conversation, despite it not being the point of the conversation. But they do this because it will drive sales.

I would rather they killed Steve Rogers, then at least there is reason for there being a new Captain America. I just happen to adore Steve Rogers as a character, talking about the character going back to the 1940's, the one who fought Hitler. The one who sided with the Anti-Registration crowd during the Civil War because it was the right thing to do. And it does feel blasphemous to make someone else, pretty much any man or woman of any ethnic background, because he encompasses the characters so incredibly well.

I had no complaints about the new Ms Marvel, I don't care they passed the mantle of Spiderman onto Mile Morales. I was glad when Carol Danvers became the new Captain Marvel... and this is starting to make sense. It's as I either said to you or to someone else... humans are irrational. I don't have any bad feelings about any of it based on sex or race, I just really like Captain America, and now he isn't anymore. It's the equivalent of someone wearing the suit but not being the character for me. It might as well be permanent Halloween when it comes to that character and few others. My only issue with Thor is that they insist on calling the character Thor, when clearly that is not what the characters name is. Just another thing to try and retain the reader base of Thor.

Happyninja42:
Eh, I dunno. Considering the track record of homogenized heroes, deciding to shake up the roster for one story line in a major way doesn't seem "trying too hard" to me. It just seems like "meh, let's try something really different, and see how the reception is".

I mean, given the social chatter out there about "give us a more diverse hero lineup!" it seems they're like "ok then, here you go, diversity engaged! enjoy!"

I don't read comics anymore, thanks to working in a comic shop for 2 years in the 90's *shudder*, but I'm all for branching out the story material to give more people something to enjoy and aspire to.

True, but considering how fan reactions have been in the past to changing aspects of their favourite comics, making such huge changes so close together (statistically) won't bode well.

Okay, so...current incarnations of staple Avengers (Thor, Captain America, Iron Man), check.

Characters already introduced or about to be introduced in the Marvel cinematic universe for movie/TV show fans to be drawn to (Winter Soldier, Deathlok, Scarlet Witch, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, plus Sam Wilson while we're at it), check.

Character that has been on a team introduced in the cinematic universe that might join that team in the MCU in the future (Angela is/was a Guardian of the Galaxy), check.

Aaaaaand characters from a faction that might take the place of the mutants in the MCU, or at least play a major part in Agents of SHIELD (Medusa, Inferno), check.

Admittedly I'm not a comic book reader (don't have the money to get into it, mainly), but from what I can see, Marvel's mixing an attempt to appeal more to fans of the movies with a testing ground to see if other characters would draw enough interest as Avengers to introduce them to the MCU. What's the issue?

Looks like at least two separate Avengers teams to me. The mirroring of characters is way too logical and direct.

Though, I think I read somewhere that this isn't a single team line up, its more like a combination of the team line up and characters who will have a significant impact on storylines. As several previous posters have pointed out, most of this is bait for the MCU and elements that have appeared/will appear in it.

New Thor doesn't impress me, but I'm not all worked up about it. I'm annoyed at the destruction of Steve Rogers, but I've always liked the Falcon so no problem from me on that front. Angela is an aspect of the Spawn mythos I never cared too much about, and her retcon into a lost Asgardian kills what remaining interest I had. Everyone else is either cool or a zero sum, with the exception of Iron Man. Sorry, the Superior Iron Man, which is the cue that he's a colossal douche.

Although...funny observation here. The Legion of Diversity comments here reminded me that Tony, in fact, was wheelchair bound for a reasonably long period of time in the comics. He had an interface in the armor at the time that let him move, but outside of it he was a paraplegic. It wasn't a bad story set up, either, as we got to see it smash into his personal life on many levels. Not only was it reflected in his own personal difficulties, but his friends and co-workers started to treat him differently as well. Difficult to be a playboy when you can't walk independently.

Greymanelor:
This has got to be one of the weirdest damn casts I've seen in a long time.

I don't want to say that it reminds me of the Champions, but it totally reminds me of the Champions.

A Champions reference? You, miscellaneous individual on the Escapist forums, have earned my approval!

Baresark:

I would rather they killed Steve Rogers, then at least there is reason for there being a new Captain America. I just happen to adore Steve Rogers as a character, talking about the character going back to the 1940's, the one who fought Hitler. The one who sided with the Anti-Registration crowd during the Civil War because it was the right thing to do. And it does feel blasphemous to make someone else, pretty much any man or woman of any ethnic background, because he encompasses the characters so incredibly well.

Except they've replaced Captain America before without killing him. They've even retconned in that the Cap from the 50s wasn't Steve Rogers, and created a character based off that. Steve Rogers taking off the costume shouldn't be an issue then or now, because he's almost certainly going to come back. He came back every other time--including the period when Falcon took up the mantle before because Rogers was presumed dead. Killing him is really unnecessary.

But again, you're heavily assuming motives here. Marvel reinvents most of their characters like once every three years. They seem to do an event storyline almost yearly these days, they're heading on to phase three of Marvel NOW! any day now. While you say you take issue with any changes, there are a lot of changes and the ones I've seen you routinely complain about are Miles, Thor, and Sam Wilson as Cap. This is a genre aimed at reinventing itself, yet when it does that with the only real change being that it reinvents itself and there's now a black person or a woman involved, that seems to be the problem. More to the point, you seem to have an issue with it more often than not. Not just people as a whole, but you.

And it's possible that I missed you complaining about Captain/Ms Marvel. You say you don't have an issue with it, but you said you had no issue with Miles and that didn't stop you.

It seems more like you're being selective in your outrage, and it also seems like you're trying to plant motives firmly on others.

Zachary Amaranth:

Baresark:

I would rather they killed Steve Rogers, then at least there is reason for there being a new Captain America. I just happen to adore Steve Rogers as a character, talking about the character going back to the 1940's, the one who fought Hitler. The one who sided with the Anti-Registration crowd during the Civil War because it was the right thing to do. And it does feel blasphemous to make someone else, pretty much any man or woman of any ethnic background, because he encompasses the characters so incredibly well.

Except they've replaced Captain America before without killing him. They've even retconned in that the Cap from the 50s wasn't Steve Rogers, and created a character based off that. Steve Rogers taking off the costume shouldn't be an issue then or now, because he's almost certainly going to come back. He came back every other time--including the period when Falcon took up the mantle before because Rogers was presumed dead. Killing him is really unnecessary.

But again, you're heavily assuming motives here. Marvel reinvents most of their characters like once every three years. They seem to do an event storyline almost yearly these days, they're heading on to phase three of Marvel NOW! any day now. While you say you take issue with any changes, there are a lot of changes and the ones I've seen you routinely complain about are Miles, Thor, and Sam Wilson as Cap. This is a genre aimed at reinventing itself, yet when it does that with the only real change being that it reinvents itself and there's now a black person or a woman involved, that seems to be the problem. More to the point, you seem to have an issue with it more often than not. Not just people as a whole, but you.

And it's possible that I missed you complaining about Captain/Ms Marvel. You say you don't have an issue with it, but you said you had no issue with Miles and that didn't stop you.

It seems more like you're being selective in your outrage, and it also seems like you're trying to plant motives firmly on others.

If you even bothered to read what I said, I said I had no issue with those others. I said it doesn't make sense to call the female with the Mjolnir, Thor.

If the Miles Morales thing goes back to that article a little while back... You completely misread me. I said that I understand the dislike of them killing off Peter Parker and there would naturally be hostility to just about anyone else becoming Spider Man. I never said I disagreed with it, though I did completely disagree with some of the impetus behind the change (IE. It's more "realistic" if the character is poor and not white(clearly paraphrased)).

And once again, I said I have no issue with the new character who became Ms. Marvel, just like I am GLAD Carol Danvers became the new Captain Marvel. I'm just going to assume that you just like to accuse people of racism and sexism at the drop of a hat, because I have stated time and time again how the race or sex has little to do with how they are changing characters that I have liked for a really long time. It's my opinion that some the changes are not for the better, I could be proven wrong in the near future.

Also: Are you web stalking me? I should hope you don't know everything I have ever posted, that is actually very creepy if you do.

Count me in before FanService lipstick lesbian between new Thor and Angela.
there goes women depiction in comics...

Baresark:

If you even bothered to read what I said, I said I had no issue with those others. I said it doesn't make sense to call the female with the Mjolnir, Thor.

*ahem*

While you say you take issue with any changes, there are a lot of changes and the ones I've seen you routinely complain about are Miles, Thor, and Sam Wilson as Cap.

(admittedly, there is a "don't" missing here, but the structure of the phrase should have indicated as I was clearly comparing two things)

Who wasn't reading who, praytell?

I've read your complaints. Some of them are nonsense, like pretending Eric Masterson wasn't declared Thor. Some of them, however, belie your claim you have no issue.

But you did say it seemed blasphemous to put anyone else in Cap's suit. However, I notice this comes up with the black guy, not with the other white guys. Again, that was largely the point.

You completely misread me.

No, you're retconning yourself.

What I found even more telling with that one was the whole "I can't be critical of black people without being called a racist," but you wouldn't address that then and I don't expect it to be addressed here. It's just weird the way so many people can actually come with with rational criticisms of people who happen to be minorities without such allegations. I think it has less to do with criticising minorities and more with a pattern of specifically criticising them. This appears to be exactly what you've done with comic charavcters, even to the point of omission.

Also: Are you web stalking me? I should hope you don't know everything I have ever posted, that is actually very creepy if you do.

You stand out because you keep doing things like accusing me of not reading what you wrote after I addressed it, or making stalking accusations. No stalking necessary. I also have a pretty good memory. Though I can never remember where I put my keys.

But seriously, can you list an example where you were so incensed about changes that didn't involve the race or sex of a character? Preferably one where you can show what you said at the time? Hell, in the Miles Morales thread, you brought up being annoyed by them changing Heimdall (though you try and excuse or explain it). That's another example.

Zachary Amaranth:
Snip *you're a big racist/sexist* Snip

I can actually think of an example when I was younger that I hated that had to do with race. In the Spawn movie, Terry Fitzgerald was played by a white guy, which I hated because that character is supposed to be black. So I guess no matter what, I am going to have a problem with any racial or sex changes in comics that I loved since I was a boy. You can call it racist and sexist, that is fine, I don't really care what you think. No matter what reasoning I give about anything, you only see monsters hiding in shadows. That is more your problem than my problem.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here