Quote:
Originally Posted by sum1
(Post 89517286)
There seems to be a practice of replacing or duplicating male or white superheroes with female or minority ones with the same or similar names, roles and powers. Apart from sidelining the original, classic heroes, this insults minorities and women because it seems to be done on the assumption that minority or female characters can't make it on their own without a boost from a successful white male hero. Comic book companies should have the courage to create brand new female and minority superheroes, not based on on white male ones, and have the faith in those new female and minority characters to carry them to success.
|
sum1, I've been saying this for years. DC's most prominent black male characters are Black Lightning and Cyborg. Black Lightning is even getting his own CW show, and Cyborg will be in the Justice League movie. So why was it necessary to have Hal Jordan share the spotlight with John Stewart? Not to mention Kyle Raynor and Guy Gardner for that matter. Why can't Hal get to secure his legacy? Why does John have to exist off of Hal's legacy? I kind of understand replacing Ronnie Raymond's Firestorm with a black character, since Ronnie died, but again, it's still having a black character exist on the back of an established white character instead of standing on their own merit, like you said. It's insulting to have a minority character have to exist on the back of a previously established white character's legacy, and it's not fair for that established character to have their legacy compromised, like Hal Jordan or Peter Parker, or now Steve Rogers and Tony Stark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sum1
(Post 89517286)
I think it needs to be asked why Marvel thinks new female characters have to carbon copies of older male ones. Jane Foster Thor, Ironheart ("heart"?! Why not Iron Care Bear if they're going to stereotype that much?), X-23, the female Hawkeye, etc. Admittedly, Marvel has created some good characters by basing female characters on male ones (I'm a fan of She Hulk, for example), but still, it's not the best method and it does imply a lack of faith in female characters.
|
Wait, there's a female Hawkeye? :facepalm: Yeah, that's original. When did they come up with that one? Was Mockingbird not enough for them? And Ironheart is just ridiculous. No one's gonna care about Ri-Ri Williams(like that's not a stereotypical name, Brian Bendis) in 50 years, they're gonna remember Tony Stark. At least when James Rhodes became War Machine there was an actual narrative reason for it having to do with Tony's alcoholism and Tony needing someone to pass the War Machine armor to after he was finished with it. Ri-Ri just seems like Marvel deciding they needed to fill a quota. And Jane Foster as the female Thor? Haven't we done this before with Eric Masterson and Beta Ray Bill? :facepalm: Seriously, it's like anyone can lift that hammer these days.
Now, I don't have a problem with X-23 or She-Hulk for the same reason I don't have a problem with Jessica Drew/Spider-Woman. Sure, She-Hulk has the same power as her cousin, Bruce Banner. But she's always brought something unique to the table, whether it's her being able to retain her intelligence, or her storyline as a lawyer, or her breaking the fourth wall long before Deadpool ever did(I loved her stand alone series), Jennifer Walters has established herself as Marvel's answer to Wonder Woman, so I have always been a fan of hers. And let's face it, she's drop-dead gorgeous and sexy as well. :lol: She's a comic book geek's ultimate fantasy. As for Laura Kinney/X-23, I think she's got a really good storyline that sets her apart from just being a female version of Wolverine. Sure, she's James Logan Howlett's clone, but I think they really established her as her own character, and she's got a depth and identity all her own. And yeah, her relationship with Cyclops has a bit of inspired irony to it. :lol:
Jessica Drew as Spider-Woman is a character I love because she's established herself without having anything to do with Peter Parker's storyline. Her origin is with the High Evolutionary and Wundagore Mountain, as one of his genetic engineering experiments. That links her more with Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver's storyline. But except for having the name Spider-Woman she is totally separate from Peter's storyline aside from the occasional team up with him. :nod: So in those three instances I make exceptions. Well, also with Carol Danvers as Mr. Marvel, now Captain Marvel, which I'll get to later. But why doesn't Marvel use their established female characters more, like Monica Rambeau, or Tigra, or She-Hulk, or Spider-Woman, or The Wasp? You're right, it's like they don't have much faith in female superheroes unless they take on the mantle of more masculine characters like Iron Man and Thor. :facepalm: God forbid a superhero be feminine, but again, these are male writers who don't really know how to write female characters that well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sum1
(Post 89517286)
As for Monica Rambeau using the Captain Marvel name, the name does not otherwise belong exclusively to Mar-Vell and his successors. Long before Mar-Vell was invented, the name began as that of a Fawcett comics superhero of the 1940s Golden Age of comics and he was the most successful superhero of the era, in terms of sales. So he had to be in the minds of Marvel writers when they invented Mar Vell. That considered, I think it's fair for Monica to use the name. Danvers didn't use it until the 21st century. She used to be Ms. Marvel before she was Binary.
|
Well, again, I have no problem with Monica Rambeau being a superhero, but I still think the Captain Marvel name should be used by someone connected to the Captain Marvel narrative and storyline involving Eon, the Kree, the nega-bands, and the mantle of "Protector of the Universe." You're right in that the name Captain Marvel doesn't belong exclusively to Mar-Vell(at least did initially didn't), but Marvel Comics actually does now own the rights to that name. The Fawcett comics Captain Marvel which was bought by DC and published under the title 'SHAZAM' now goes by the name 'SHAZAM,' after his wizard mentor, and is no longer Captain Marvel, since DC lost the rights to the name. But to me, it's more like situation with the Alan Scott Green Lantern. Was Alan Scott the first to have the name Green Lantern, long before Hal Jordan? Yes. But Alan Scott had nothing to do with the Green Lantern Corps. storyline involving the Guardians and the planet Oa, or the Lantern Corps. Alan's power was mystical, not cosmic like Hal's. His power ring and lantern were magical artifacts, not extraterrestrial mechanisms like Hal's. Alan was more supernaturally-based, while Hal was more science fiction-based. So that's why I consider Hal to be the first of the modern Green Lanterns and having a legacy completely separate from Alan's.
And that's also why I prefer Carol having the Captain Marvel name instead of Monica, as Monica really has nothing to do with the Captain Marvel storyline. Even her black & white costume is totally different aside from the eight pointed star in the center. And since Carol has been wearing the Captain Marvel red & blue even longer than Mar-Vell has, and has been going by Ms. Marvel since the 1970's as the female equivalent of Mar-Vell, I feel she's more worthy of the name. But I would still like to see Monica Rambeau return to the comics as Photon, or perhaps be given a better name.