Tweet
Apples and oranges. I didn't see casting Samuel Jackson as a cultural gimmick. These films are being made for the general public and casting Jackson in the role made good sense because his qualities lent themselves to that particular character. I thought that made for a good casting choice. But in the comics you had an established history with a specific audience. Of course in the ultimate universe, he started out black, which is fine with me, because that was the established parameters when they created that world. For myself, once you create the parameters you stay within that framework. You don't mix and match cultures to acquire a new audience. That's a transparent gimmick that most see through and very few respect.
-
-
Well, I'm give 'em this: doing something differnt *is* the point of the Ultimates continuity . . . although I think originally it was to do dry runs on movie takes on the characters (see Nick Fury) regardless of ehat they say the real reason is. And to be honest, I've never liked the Ultimates lines -- too much emphasis on "realistic" that always seems to a) make the stories less colorful and b) make the characters less likeable which leads to c) making them less superheroes and more troubled people in funny outfits. Which is a valid an interesting take (see Watchmen) but isn't much fun (see Alan Moore's regrets concerning the effect Watchmen has had on comic book storytelling).
But if they were really committed, and truly thought a gay biracial superhero could find a vast audience and smashing success, they'd launch in a hearbeat -- which means this is a stunt, and it cheapens all those qualities going in to the new character.Comment
-
>casting Jackson in the role made good sense because his qualities lent themselves to that particular character
....and name recognition.
>once you create the parameters you stay within that framework.
I think this is where you lose me. Not 'cos they've essentially reset the original parameters; but 'cos superhero comics have reset their frameworks since almost their inception. It's not that folks are bothered by a new Spidey that I can't wrap my head around; it's why they WEREN'T bothered by all the other alterations. Stuff like Rhodes Iron Man, Rachel Sommers Phoenix, Wolverine's a Canadian ninja, Madelyne's a clone, Carol Danvers has every power ever at some point, Betsy Braddoc is now a Japanese ninja, Storm the punk rock nature goddess, everyone's a Wraith, the Vision is the original Torch.... or maybe he isn't.... Back in the day folks just rolled with it; the same folks who now seem resentful of any change, no matter how big or small. I remember a freakout over Spidey's black costume way back when, and then it was pretty quiet until the mid 90's or so. That's why it seems to me the change in attitude has more to do with the fans than the stories.
Don C.Comment
-
Interesting thought. Ironically I think the comic industry failed to understand 'Watchmen' was a one shot conceptual study of what society would be like if people could acquire supernatural abilities. And what those social attitudes would be if they were permitted to run around in costume and apply "justice" by their own personal definition. It was taken a step further by suggesting how different world history would look if these figures were permitted to intervene in the normal course of events. It was a brilliant story because it took the traditional idea of the modern day hero and turned it on it's ear. It also revealed just how naive and idealized the story telling in comics truly is. It reinforces the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I was stunned the movie was completely mis-marketed as a straight superhero film. That's why people came in with their kids completely unprepared for what they were getting. Its sad the writers in the comic book industry failed to understand this was not a guide for them to follow. People don't read comics to "solve" social issues. They read them for escapism. Which means you check your disbelief barometer at the door before you come in.Comment
-
Rhodes taking over as Iron Man was a transition that everyone saw coming due to Stark's alcoholism. I was a steady collector of IM back then and I never considered that a social gimmick. Rhodes was already established as a close confidant to Stark who would naturally assume the role if Stark became incapacitated. But that was just one chapter in a bigger story arc which eventually saw Stark return to the armor. There was no leap of logic in the parameters set here.
I have those Avenger issues which cover the Vision's possible history as having Wonder Man's thought waves and possibly the Original Human Torch's body. But Torch and Vision are both androids (or synthezoids if you want to be technical). Your still working within the same parameters of what they are, so I don't see that as an example here either.
But Spider-man is a very personal journey about a geeky kid from Queens. It has a very defined premise about one man's journey to deal with this great power that comes from a freak accident. That costume is uniquely HIM. And his reasons for fighting crime are even MORE uniquely HIM. This is not some 'techno-wiz' who needs to figure out how to operate a power suit or an android that can be reprogrammed. Spider-man is the story of Peter Parker...PERIOD. To suggest anyone can BECOME Spider-man by just wearing the costume is missing the point. And that steps outside the parameters of that character.Last edited by MIB41; Aug 3, '11, 12:17 PM.Comment
-
Bendis has had daughters for a number of years. If they were such an influence, he would have tried this before Glover popped up. At best, it's a twist, but it's not creative. Replacing a white guy with a black guy is old and plays to soft bigotry. And of course Bendis is an opportunist. The very fact that he didn't start Ultimate Spidey with Morales, and saw an opportunity only after Glover to kill Parker, is insincere. If Morales bombs, then can just brush him under the rug.
Spidey of India and Japan exist because they are different cultures with different languages, reading styles, etc... Every main comic character that goes to India or Japan is culturally translated so it makes sense to that country. It happens in most non-English countries.
As for 2099 and Spider-Girl, it's called trademarks. Do you remember in the 90's when Marvel did that alternate X-reality which replaced the normal titles? That was all trademark driven. 2099 was supposed to be Ultimates before Ultimates. This tactic has been apart of the comic world since the golden age.
"Reaching out to a different audience" - you're implying anyone who is not a white heterosexual cannot relate to Peter Parker. If that's true, then Morales means the opposite is true - anyone who is not a white male will not be able to relate.
Ultimates is the basis for so much because it's the same reasoning behind DC52 - to modernize the characters for film and TV. If you're implying that's what Bendis is attempting, I agree. Marvel wants Morales to work so they have a new movie arc to work with down the road - killing Parker - and replacing him with Morales. Cynical opportunism dressed in social advocacy. That's become a Marvel hallmark under Quesada and Feige.Last edited by hedrap; Aug 3, '11, 1:31 PM.Comment
-
Well, you can rest assured that if this does not work out, there's a billion ways to bring Peter back. particularly since they revisited the clones... I'm suspecting this guy might have some relation to Ultimate Ben Reilly (introduced during the Carnage arc?)
They were pretty upfront about killing Peter in this one and replacing him with someone else. Most were predicting Spider Woman (female clone), Johnny Storm or even Kitty pryde seemed like a contender.Comment
-
Comment
-
NOT AGREEING ON the 'no-one's-interested-in-anything-new' argument.
New heroes have to start SOMEWHERE. Our Spidey and Fantastic Four all started at ground zero. Why can't the new folks come up with something grand...?
It's never too late, they started new stuff with Booster Gold in the 80s, Firestorm and Luke Cage in the 70s, even new stuff in the 90s and 00s.
Retooling/reimaging old heroes is simple laziness. Readers know this, hence why interest is so low. There's nothing NEW, plus you alienate the older crowd.
"New Stuff passed over"..?? Like Ninja Turtles in the 80s..? Granted they started in an underground comic, but it was new, and when it was marketed properly, mainstream people became interested.
Like 'Harry Potter' in the 00s..? You have to CREATE demand.
Even FF and Spiderman (just to name two..) were new at one point.. I say quit banking on the risk the Lee's, Ditko's and Kirby's took 50yrs ago. Be original.
Peace.. Through Superior Firepower. 
Comment
-
Which is the fallacy of your argument... No one is being "replaced" if Peter Parker is still around in twenty different titles published this month.
To me bigotry is displaying resentment that one single comic book out of thousands Marvel has published of Spiderman features him as a person of color. This doesn't magically erase those comics or the character of Ultimate Peter Parker who's still "in continuity" and like to stay in print for foreseeable decades... Particularly with digital. It doesn't take away or subtract fro four major hollywood productions, numerous animated series and live action incarnations. Dozens upon dozens of video games. Hundreds if not thousands of action figures and other countless other products.
I honestly think folks need to get a sense of the proportions here. No one is being deprived of anything. They are fictional characters... And the best ones mirror the bigger picture of our ongoing discussions in society.Last edited by samurainoir; Aug 3, '11, 2:21 PM.Comment
-
One of my all time favorite single issue of a superhero comic was Paul Jenkins and mark buckinham's spectacular Spiderman.
Well I could definitely relate to this particular comic as an adult. But when I read it, it struck my memories of how kids do like to see themselves in their favorite superheroes.Last edited by samurainoir; Aug 3, '11, 8:40 PM.Comment
-
Just to bring this back to the discussion at hand... If we are talking about the primary architects of the Ultimates comics here, these guys are on the front lines of creating popular new superhero comics.
Mark miller had the number one graphic novel last year... kick ***. Not to mention Wanted, Superior, Supercrooks and the upcoming Hitgirl.
Bendis has Powers of course. Plus a couple of creator owned titles just coming out... One in collaboration with Mark bagley.
Jonathon Hickman has a half dozen indie creator owned titles everyone should be checking out. Including red mass of mars and the nightly news.
These are all some of the best titles published currently IMHO.Comment
-
Exactly, well said. It's not my 'cup of tea', but I applaud the fact it's new and different.
I'm not happy with the lament that you need to change the race of a hero like Spidey to make it more 'relative' or entertaining. As mentioned, that's actually racist, that 'certain races' won't relate or buy the comic due to the race of the character. That disturbs me the most.
But, I simply look at this as another trite, absurd gesture at improving sales, like a superhero death, or undoing a marriage.
It's just as silly and pointless.., but add 'insulting' to the equation.Peace.. Through Superior Firepower. Comment
-
Creators won't "create" new characters for DC or Marvel because they can't own them. They get participation in their profits, but that's it. So if someone comes up with the redneck version of Shang-Chi, they get participation for it. And they don't have to give away their best ideas to Marvel and DC. They can create brand new characters that they own lock stock and barrel and take them pretty much anywhere else.
ChrisComment
Comment