Reply With QuoteI do not disagree with the goal, intention or the positive feedback from it, but rather the lack of elegance on the twist of the character.
Same. But those are few and far between. I'd rather see something new, interesting, and minority-positive done with an old character concept than no new ideas at all, though.
I do not disagree with the goal, intention or the positive feedback from it, but rather the lack of elegance on the twist of the character.
Comics aren't known for their elegance or subtlety.
Also really you have to remember that superhero comics are modern mythology. Spider-Man is not a character any more than Zeus is. Spider-Man has been written and drawn by dozens, if not hundreds, of authors and artists for literally half a century. Different writers focus on different aspects of the character. I mean, for example, consider Spider-Man's intellect. Some Marvel writers like to play up the fact that in canon Peter Parker is one of the smartest men on Earth, others don't really make much of his intellect and have him as clever but not much smarter than any other comic genius. Some authors like to focus on the wise-cracking light-hearted Spidey, others like to deal with the burden of the responsibility his powers have given him and his struggles to live as both a good man and a happy one.
There is no real character Spider-Man. Not really. Same for most comic characters. Just really X as written by Y. Some characters, like Doctor Doom, are generally written pretty consistently, while others, like Batman, have wild variance in how the author approaches them.
That is one reason why you might want to reinvent a character rather than make a new one - because that's what superhero comics generally are - constantly reinventing and reinterpreting the same cast of characters.
Now keep all that in mind, and also consider that Marvel is running a business. Introducing a new character is always a risk, let alone a minority one. Frankly I'm damn proud that Marvel did this, and the butthurt of the racists has been hilarious.
Would it be nice if we could get new minority characters and have them be accepted readily and easily into the mainstream? Yes, that would be wonderful. But it is also unlikely, and given how corporations think, extremely unlikely to even be attempted.
Plus it's kind of nice that for once people of color and latinos have an A list Marvel character who they can on some level identify with. That's nice.
I can see why you might be slightly annoyed, but the more I think about the nature of the medium and the industry, the more I think this is the best sort of way to do things right now.
The part that annoys me is it seems more like an attempt to get minority fans than an actual attempt at promoting diversity.
That's just how it feels to me maybe they are actually trying to promote diversity.
^ "We're a business, not a LGBT rights group."
Originally Posted by Fenn
You forgot your F in Modesty.
who is northstar
kenshiro 2.0
Northstar has been gay for literally decades. All that's changing is he's getting married. It's not promoting diversity. And honestly given how he originated in X-Men, IIRC, and how much that comic dealt with minority rights and civil liberties, I don't know.
Normally I'd say yeah, but in this case? I dunno. And besides, it's promoting diversity. That's what matters. I don't care why. It's nice that people of color have a superhero to identify with, and it's nice that gay people do too.
It's nice to let children know that you don't need to be a straight white man or woman to be a superhero.
Being a half-black half-latino with spider-powers is fine.
Or being a gay guy with... uh... what the fuck are even Northstar's powers? I never was big on X-Men beyond the cartoon.
You know plenty more about this than I do.
So, the gay DC character is the original Green Lantern. In his Earth 2 incarnation anyway. They had to get rid of his son (a gay hero named Obsidian) as they aged down the GL, so they made him gay as a replacement.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks