[Movie/TV/Comic] Marvel Cinematic Universe: A place to talk all things Marvel

[InfiniteCharger]

At least there's something worth that you'll get from your post: you will understand why comic does what it does.

Legacy is both a blessing and a curse for Marvel ( an DC and any other editorial).

On one side is a blessing because you have acumulated literal decades of stories and have grown a colossal fanbase and many of them have been following those stories for as long as they can remember.

On another side is a curse because you have acumulated literal decades of stories and that exhaust the characters....what can you really tell us that haven't been told before? How can you really create fresh stories about a character with 15000 pages on its back?

You decide to create a new editorial with new characters and ....you expect they can compete with Spiderman and Batman and Hulk? Really? Tell us, without the movies: how many people would know Spawn or Hellboy?

So how can this puzzle be solved? How can I keep the atachment that the fanbase have for the characters and at the same time give them new things?

The solution is the one that DC and Marvel has been using for decades: alternative versions ( and this is nothing new: Jennifer Walters,Carol Danvers, Monica Rambeau....they weren't created yesterday,they were created 40 years ago).

The alternative version still has the buzz of the original character (Miles Morales is still a Spiderman , X-23 is still a wolverine...) but present some aspect that reflect the moment they were created ( as the originals presented theirs) , introduce freshness in the narrative and let the original rest for a bit that prevents exhaustation and give them a new impulse when reintroduced and the problem is that you guys rage when the alternate is not exactly the same as the original as in making a blond Peter Parker would mean shit.

Someone already told you but worry not because sooner or later ( usually sooner) they all get back to the root: Iron Man gets back to Tony, Cpt.America to Steve, Hulk to Bruce....worry not: no single of the stars of Marvel has ever been substituted by anyone ( with the exception of Mar-Vell and that has pretty good reason) but put in hibernation.

Some times the variant works and gets added to the pool of characters, sometimes it doesn't and get back to the deep , really deep, desk drawer.

But if you have a better solution just go ahead mate, create a new character and let them compete with Spiderman and Hulk. Let's see the results or let's see the results of keep telling the same stories of the same characters over and over and over again and see the results...but wait... we have already seen the results of this: it's the 90's and the bigger finnancial and creative crisis of Marvel and DC that risked their very own existence.

Let's hear you magical solution that nor Marvel nor DC has found.

I didn't say that I had a magical solution other than hiring the best talent and giving them more freedom to create. Meaning you cannot simply dictate that you will draw me an x version of spiderman and they have to be of this skin color or ethnic group. That isn't diversity is my point. Diversity is diversity in artists, creators, ideas, stories, concepts and characters. And you could absolutely have all of this if they actually put in the effort. It isn't that hard. Indie comics do it. Web comics do it so Marvel and DC could do it if they wanted. But they would rather be lazy and just slap brown or tan paint on an existing character and call it a day.

And to your other point, it isn't a 'problem' that they have these old characters, it is that they want to make money off those old characters and those old white men but at the same time swap them with new variants that are diverse. The two aren't the same and aren't going to have the same impact. But as mentioned, a lot of these changes are done for the purpose of not having to pay royalties to the old artists. So doing a slightly different version of the X-Men with different origins and powers means they don't have to pay the Chris Claremont, Jim Lee, the Stan Lee estate and others any royalties. They are not doing this just for altruistic reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

You don’t actually keep up with comics at all do you?

Miles and khan still have on going series, multiple in miles case. Jane not staying thor was set up before she even became thor, her thor run also kept steady sales form start to finish and when it ended she got a new series and has shown up all over the place as Valkyrie. Cho was never meant to stay the hulk his series was all about setup for immortal hulk.

Nova and Riri I didn’t follow at all but I’d be willing to bet there series also had heavy set up for there name sakes returning from the start.

The actual facts are that none of theses characters (baring Mabye nova/riri) failed they either had set story lines set up before they even got there tiles or are still ongoing as of now.

Not to mention the nonsense narrative falls apart when you actually look at how marvel has been making character swaps like this as far back as the 70’S and had been dealing with character and creator copy right for just as long and it wasn’t some new pop up in 2010.

No you are changing the point. These characters aren't popular enough to be expected to be as profitable in the MCU as the originals. And there is no reason to do it. The MCU hasn't been around for over 60 years like the comics and some of these characters. The OG Avengers haven't been in the MCU for more than 15 years. There is a lot of classic stories with these characters that haven't been done with them. Arguing for the sake of arguing doesn't make these characters as popular as the originals is all I am saying. They weren't as popular in the comics and they likely wont be as popular in film. And yes they have been experimenting with variants of characters, and that happened in the 80s and 90s with all the different versions of Mar' vell aka Captain Marvel, aka Ms Marvel. But each time they actually replaced the old one with the new one as a new person literally took on the title in universe. So it wasn't a swap where they took a character who was one way in the comic and just changed their appearance and background for a movie. That is a totally different thing. Also the multiverse was not used in Marvel the same as DC where they constantly tried to reboot the entire universe. In Marvel the multiverse versions of characters were always secondary and unimportant always basically becoming canon fodder and being killed off in any epic cosmic events. Miles Morales and Spider Gwen being the exception in this case and overall the only examples where this has worked so any reasonable degree. And that epic event called Secret Wars didn't happen until relatively recently in 2015. Before that the multiverse was just there and various teams had stories in it but it wasn't a big part of the comics in general. And the only reason they did that story is to reboot the comic universe in Marvel because now they seem to be running out of ideas an it hasn't worked even though the event itself was somewhat popular.

[Shadowferal]

They argue lack of diversity but can't show us any new characters and stories created by "diverse" talent that are not tied to these old white men.

Almost true.
Up until 1980 there were original titles and characters, such as Ms. Marvel, Brother Voodoo, Shang-chi, and Luke Cage. Afterwards almost every new character not part of a group dynamic was connected to a popular original earlier character. Beta-ray Bill (Thor), She-hulk (Hulk), even the earlier Ms. Marvel had that. (Marvell)
I'd argue that this had less to do about some message and more about a business decision to create interest in such characters.

[Kathandira]

One problem about creating new fresh marvel heroes is, the same problem most creators encounter. It has already been done.

There was a thread a long time ago that challenged posters to create a new super power that hasn't been done already.

There was barely a fresh idea. This was a think tank as well, not just asking 1 creator. Marvel has been creating super powers for nearly 100 years ( I know......that is a scary thought in regards to our disregard for our own limited mortality.) It is quite difficult to create a new hero without comparing it to previously created heroes.

You can dress up a character to look different, but if their main defining feature is the same as a previously established hero, then it isn't fresh.

We kind of have to accept this, as it is the harsh reality.
@InfiniteCharger I invite you to try your hand at it. Come up with a totally original and not derived, super power that a new hero could possess.


Ooooh, my google-fu is strong today. Found the old thread I was referencing.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ue-super-power

[PrimiOne]

I didn't say that I had a magical solution other than hiring the best talent and giving them more freedom to create. Meaning you cannot simply dictate that you will draw me an x version of spiderman and they have to be of this skin color or ethnic group. That isn't diversity is my point. Diversity is diversity in artists, creators, ideas, stories, concepts and characters. And you could absolutely have all of this if they actually put in the effort. It isn't that hard. Indie comics do it. Web comics do it so Marvel and DC could do it if they wanted. But they would rather be lazy and just slap brown or tan paint on an existing character and call it a day.

As expected once we go through an specific skin pantone or gender you get nervous. No single "this is the same character but brown" has ever worked. Never.

There's not a single instance of them: they all have their own idenditity. Miles Morales is not just the brown spiderman but his own thing....X-23 is not just the Wolverine girl.....Miss Marvel is not just the pakistani Richards or the pakistani Danvers.

The idea that they just change gender/race/culture and be done with it makes me wonder if you actually read this comics or since "they are trash" you dont' even know them and let me tell you the most baffling issue: you are not criticizing anything but gender and race.

You are not telling us : hey , the idea of Miles having Venom Blasts does not work for me. It's not spidey for me...I don't like it in the character. No, the only thing that you seem to care about the updating of the character is that he is not white.

G...
r...
e...
a....
t....

And to your other point, it isn't a 'problem' that they have these old characters, it is that they want to make money off those old characters and those old white men but at the same time swap them with new variants that are diverse. The two aren't the same and aren't going to have the same impact. But as mentioned, a lot of these changes are done for the purpose of not having to pay royalties to the old artists. So doing a slightly different version of the X-Men with different origins and powers means they don't have to pay the Chris Claremont, Jim Lee, the Stan Lee estate and others any royalties. They are not doing this just for altruistic reasons.

I'm not going back to my previous post.I'm noy the kind that repeats myself so for the last time: these changes are made for the purpose of keep the atachment of the fans with the character and at the same time present a fresh modern day version and if you think that "fresh" is doing a Bruce Banner that don't wear glasses...you do you.

[Endus]

One problem about creating new fresh marvel heroes is, the same problem most creators encounter. It has already been done.

There was a thread a long time ago that challenged posters to create a new super power that hasn't been done already.

There was barely a fresh idea. This was a think tank as well, not just asking 1 creator. Marvel has been creating super powers for nearly 100 years ( I know......that is a scary thought in regards to our disregard for our own limited mortality.) It is quite difficult to create a new hero without comparing it to previously created heroes.

You can dress up a character to look different, but if their main defining feature is the same as a previously established hero, then it isn't fresh.

We kind of have to accept this, as it is the harsh reality.

It's not even that harsh. You can go a lot deeper. In some textual analysis frameworks, there's only 7 actual stories that can be told, everything else is just how you dress those stories up to make them your own. The usual framework is

1> Overcoming the Monster
2> Rags to Riches
3> The Quest
4> Voyage and Return
5> Rebirth
6> Comedy
7> Tragedy.

Some boil that down even further. For instance, in the MCU, Iron Man is a Rebirth story (many origin stories are), Infinity War is Tragedy, and Endgame is Overcoming the Monster. You can apply this to basically any stories told. Literature is all recycling ideas, and re-using the same structures, and hoping to do something just a little bit "new" each time.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...

[Syegfryed]

One problem about creating new fresh marvel heroes is, the same problem most creators encounter. It has already been done.

There was a thread a long time ago that challenged posters to create a new super power that hasn't been done already.

There was barely a fresh idea. This was a think tank as well, not just asking 1 creator. Marvel has been creating super powers for nearly 100 years ( I know......that is a scary thought in regards to our disregard for our own limited mortality.) It is quite difficult to create a new hero without comparing it to previously created heroes.

You can dress up a character to look different, but if their main defining feature is the same as a previously established hero, then it isn't fresh.

We kind of have to accept this, as it is the harsh reality.
@InfiniteCharger I invite you to try your hand at it. Come up with a totally original and not derived, super power that a new hero could possess.


Ooooh, my google-fu is strong today. Found the old thread I was referencing.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ue-super-power

I think the problem is more about creating a compelling character, with a personality that was not being done already, using the same powers imo is fine if you do it different, or from another origin, instead of just tying then with the ones already famous. But then again, its easier to make one character popular if he rides the popularity of another, and creators don't like to gamble with their work.

Nowadays is hard to come up with fresh ideas that hasn't not being done in some way or form

[Makabreska]

clickbaity drivel clip

Nothing like putting a "woke" judgement on a movies we know nothing about. But hey, it is his shtick he has been doing for some time and negativity simply sells better. Also, figures you are the one that follows him.

[Kathandira]

It's not even that harsh. You can go a lot deeper. In some textual analysis frameworks, there's only 7 actual stories that can be told, everything else is just how you dress those stories up to make them your own. The usual framework is

1> Overcoming the Monster
2> Rags to Riches
3> The Quest
4> Voyage and Return
5> Rebirth
6> Comedy
7> Tragedy.

Some boil that down even further. For instance, in the MCU, Iron Man is a Rebirth story (many origin stories are), Infinity War is Tragedy, and Endgame is Overcoming the Monster. You can apply this to basically any stories told. Literature is all recycling ideas, and re-using the same structures, and hoping to do something just a little bit "new" each time.

Absolutely. Music, TV/Movies, Video Games, Literature, or any form of story based media boils down to a hand full of categories at their core.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

No you are changing the point. These characters aren't popular enough to be expected to be as profitable in the MCU as the originals.

I’m not changing any point you said these characters were failures and objectively none of them (again baring Mabye nova and Riri) were failures they are either still going strong (miles, khan) or had set story lines that sold steadily all the way through and set up there name sales return from the start (Jane cho).

If you want to say they aren’t as popular as there name sakes sure that’s true but that doesn’t make them failures as they still beat out 99% of other marvel characters even if they don’t disthrone the all time most popular ones who they take after.

And yes they have been experimenting with variants of characters, and that happened in the 80s and 90s with all the different versions of Mar' vell aka Captain Marvel, aka Ms Marvel. But each time they actually replaced the old one with the new one as a new person literally took on the title in universe. So it wasn't a swap where they took a character who was one way in the comic and just changed their appearance and background for a movie.

ok and none of the characters in question are taking one character and changing there apprehended and background in the movie all of them are there own characters unless you want to try and swap gears to talk about movie mar vell.

Riri miles Jane, ect all just did what Eddie March did in the 70’s when he became iron man for a time literally nothing has changed since then when it comes to characters taking up a mantle for a time before the original returns, the movies and lawsuits around 2010 didn’t change a thing.

In Marvel the multiverse versions of characters were always secondary and unimportant always basically becoming canon fodder and being killed off in any epic cosmic events.

the multiverse is irrelevant to
The topic at hand miles us the only character under discussion that came from outside the 616, mantles being passed around in the 70’s-2010’s wasn’t a multiverse thing it alll happens in 616.

[Ghost of Cow]

No, the only thing that you seem to care about the updating of the character is that he is not white.

Which is also the driving reason behind the creation of a lot of these characters, so hey.

[InfiniteCharger]

One problem about creating new fresh marvel heroes is, the same problem most creators encounter. It has already been done.

There was a thread a long time ago that challenged posters to create a new super power that hasn't been done already.

There was barely a fresh idea. This was a think tank as well, not just asking 1 creator. Marvel has been creating super powers for nearly 100 years ( I know......that is a scary thought in regards to our disregard for our own limited mortality.) It is quite difficult to create a new hero without comparing it to previously created heroes.

You can dress up a character to look different, but if their main defining feature is the same as a previously established hero, then it isn't fresh.

We kind of have to accept this, as it is the harsh reality.
@InfiniteCharger I invite you to try your hand at it. Come up with a totally original and not derived, super power that a new hero could possess.


Ooooh, my google-fu is strong today. Found the old thread I was referencing.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ue-super-power

It isn't impossible and new indie characters and web comic characters are created all the time.

As expected once we go through an specific skin pantone or gender you get nervous. No single "this is the same character but brown" has ever worked. Never.

There's not a single instance of them: they all have their own idenditity. Miles Morales is not just the brown spiderman but his own thing....X-23 is not just the Wolverine girl.....Miss Marvel is not just the pakistani Richards or the pakistani Danvers.

The idea that they just change gender/race/culture and be done with it makes me wonder if you actually read this comics or since "they are trash" you dont' even know them and let me tell you the most baffling issue: you are not criticizing anything but gender and race.

You are not telling us : hey , the idea of Miles having Venom Blasts does not work for me. It's not spidey for me...I don't like it in the character. No, the only thing that you seem to care about the updating of the character is that he is not white.

G...
r...
e...
a....
t....



I'm not going back to my previous post.I'm noy the kind that repeats myself so for the last time: these changes are made for the purpose of keep the atachment of the fans with the character and at the same time present a fresh modern day version and if you think that "fresh" is doing a Bruce Banner that don't wear glasses...you do you.

No you are trying to make this sound like a successful strategy and it isn't. Not only that you admit that isn't about creating something new as opposed to just creating derivatives to piggyback off the popularity of existing characters. So you are basically saying it is better to NOT put the effort into creating something literally brand new because that is too hard and it is easier to just redo an existing one. None of that is creativity as creativity and imagination means something new from scratch not being told "make new version of x character with this skin color and ethnic origin". That isn't even an argument. You just accept that this is the only way they can do this while the results show they are failing at it but apparently going back to the drawing board isn't an option.... That isn't diversity either. Diversity is giving artists and creators of all backgrounds the freedom to create something new. But according to you the only diversity that matters is taking an existing character and just putting a new wrapper on it. LOL. Painters, writers and other kinds of artists don't get trained to only know how to create, draw or write one group of people. If an artist claims to only be able to draw women or only be able to draw men, then they aren't that good of an artist. Artists, especially character artists should be able to draw any type of human. Diversity is about employment of real life people of diverse backgrounds and allowing them to create. It is not just about fictional characters.

Almost true.
Up until 1980 there were original titles and characters, such as Ms. Marvel, Brother Voodoo, Shang-chi, and Luke Cage. Afterwards almost every new character not part of a group dynamic was connected to a popular original earlier character. Beta-ray Bill (Thor), She-hulk (Hulk), even the earlier Ms. Marvel had that. (Marvell)
I'd argue that this had less to do about some message and more about a business decision to create interest in such characters.

All of whom were created by old white men....

[Ghost of Cow]

It's not even that harsh. You can go a lot deeper. In some textual analysis frameworks, there's only 7 actual stories that can be told, everything else is just how you dress those stories up to make them your own. The usual framework is

1> Overcoming the Monster
2> Rags to Riches
3> The Quest
4> Voyage and Return
5> Rebirth
6> Comedy
7> Tragedy.

Some boil that down even further. For instance, in the MCU, Iron Man is a Rebirth story (many origin stories are), Infinity War is Tragedy, and Endgame is Overcoming the Monster. You can apply this to basically any stories told. Literature is all recycling ideas, and re-using the same structures, and hoping to do something just a little bit "new" each time.

I always found this stuff to be overly reductionist and (mostly) the domain of overzealous "thinkers".

The categories are broad enough that you can stuff just about any story into one of them without said categorization having much meaning or explaining anything about the story itself. Said stuffing usually also involves stripping away any nuance or depth to the story in the pursuit of getting it to fit nicely into the box you desire it in.

To be specific to Booker - who I believe presented those seven categories - he would even go so far as to claim that works that he couldn't fit into one of those boxes neatly were somehow inherently perverse or wrong in some way.

Don't get me wrong, of course there are common story archetypes, tropes, and so on. But trying to boil them down to a very small list of incredibly broad/vague categories into which all works must neatly fit is folly.

[Endus]

No you are trying to make this sound like a successful strategy and it isn't. Not only that you admit that isn't about creating something new as opposed to just creating derivatives to piggyback off the popularity of existing characters.

IT's flatly not possible to have new characters in Marvel not piggyback off existing characters. Strictly by virtue of being in the Marvel Universe and sold under the Marvel label, they're tied in to a whole mess of canon history and plotlines and setting. No Marvel character is created in a void, unique unto themselves and without connection to their greater universe. It's a ridiculous standard to ask.

Deadpool is wildly popular, and he's a cheap Wolverine clone who ripped some stuff off She-Hulk and Deathstroke in DC.

Every character, literally [i]every character, is a ripoff of and reworking of prior character concepts. It's unavoidable.

[Ghost of Cow]

All of whom were created by old white men....

Gosh, what an awful thing.

[InfiniteCharger]

I’m not changing any point you said these characters were failures and objectively none of them (again baring Mabye nova and Riri) were failures they are either still going strong (miles, khan) or had set story lines that sold steadily all the way through and set up there name sales return from the start (Jane cho).

If you want to say they aren’t as popular as there name sakes sure that’s true but that doesn’t make them failures as they still beat out 99% of other marvel characters even if they don’t disthrone the all time most popular ones who they take after.

ok and none of the characters in question are taking one character and changing there apprehended and background in the movie all of them are there own characters unless you want to try and swap gears to talk about movie mar vell.

Riri miles Jane, ect all just did what Eddie March did in the 70’s when he became iron man for a time literally nothing has changed since then when it comes to characters taking up a mantle for a time before the original returns, the movies and lawsuits around 2010 didn’t change a thing.

the multiverse is irrelevant to
The topic at hand miles us the only character under discussion that came from outside the 616, mantles being passed around in the 70’s-2010’s wasn’t a multiverse thing it alll happens in 616.

You are just arguing just to argue because you already admitted they aren't as popular as the original but you keep going. The point being why replace Iron Man in the MCU with Ri Ri Williams and expect that she will somehow be as popular as Iron Man? Most likely she won't be. There is no real argument here. And this is about more than diversity because the character isn't even 10 years old. Just like the idea that Ms Marvel is going to be popular as a character in the MCU when she wasn't in the comics is also nonsensical. If you have Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, Thor and so forth already established in the MCU then why replace them with these other characters that have never been as popular. There isn't even a logical argument here. And then they argue that somehow people are supposed to like them just because. Please. It doesn't work like that. And people aren't bad or evil for being fans of those OG characters, regardless if there have been changes along the way.

[Ghost of Cow]

IT's flatly not possible to have new characters in Marvel not piggyback off existing characters. Strictly by virtue of being in the Marvel Universe and sold under the Marvel label, they're tied in to a whole mess of canon history and plotlines and setting. No Marvel character is created in a void, unique unto themselves and without connection to their greater universe. It's a ridiculous standard to ask.

Deadpool is wildly popular, and he's a cheap Wolverine clone who ripped some stuff off She-Hulk and Deathstroke in DC.

Every character, literally [i]every character, is a ripoff of and reworking of prior character concepts. It's unavoidable.

That is true, of course. Characters placed into an existing setting will need to deal with some baggage.

Of course, there's a line there. "We made a new character but they have to fit into existing narrative." isn't the same as, "Hey, here's a new character named Bob. Bob flies around in an Iron Man suit. We call him Iron Bob."

[Endus]

I always found this stuff to be overly reductionist and (mostly) the domain of overzealous "thinkers".

The categories are broad enough that you can stuff just about any story into one of them without said categorization having much meaning or explaining anything about the story itself. Said stuffing usually also involves stripping away any nuance or depth to the story in the pursuit of getting it to fit nicely into the box you desire it in.

To be specific to Booker - who I believe presented those seven categories - he would even go so far as to claim that works that he couldn't fit into one of those boxes neatly were somehow inherently perverse or wrong in some way.

Don't get me wrong, of course there are common story archetypes, tropes, and so on. But trying to boil them down to a very small list of incredibly broad/vague categories into which all works must neatly fit is folly.

Except they do fit. Perhaps not neatly, in the sense that a single story may include two or more of those archetypal stories within it, but they sum up the body of literature.

It's reductionist by design. Because literature is reductive. It's like Lego. Creativity is found in how you put the pieces together, not in the creation of new pieces.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

That is true, of course. Characters placed into an existing setting will need to deal with some baggage.

Of course, there's a line there. "We made a new character but they have to fit into existing narrative." isn't the same as, "Hey, here's a new character named Bob. Bob flies around in an Iron Man suit. We call him Iron Bob."

Iron Man is not a character. Iron Man is just a mantle.

Tony Stark is a character. So, when someone like James Rhodes comes along and assumes the mantle of Iron Man...he's still James Rhodes....who is a different character than Tony Stark.

[Endus]

You are just arguing just to argue because you already admitted they aren't as popular as the original but you keep going. The point being why replace Iron Man in the MCU with Ri Ri Williams and expect that she will somehow be as popular as Iron Man. Most likely she won't be. There is no real argument here.

Who said that's the expectation? As for "Why replace"; Tony Stark died, dude. That's why.

Just like the idea that Ms Marvel is going to be popular as a character in the MCU when she wasn't in the comics is also nonsensical.

Kamala Khan is wildly popular in the comics. She's one of Marvel's best digitally-selling comics and her print sales are no joke, either;

https://bleedingcool.com/comics/ms-m...de-paperbacks/

If you have Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, Thor and so forth already established in the MCU then why replace them with these other characters that have never been as popular. There isn't even a logical argument here.

Again, Tony Stark died. Also, these characters aren't being "replaced". That's a non-argument that's never been true.