Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
With regards to the changing winds, remember Vixen? Gypsy? How they were Justice Leaguers? And now Cyborg's a Leaguer. It's arbitrary. They can slot any old POC onto the League to appear progressive and forget them after a couple of years.
It's a band-aid. It prevents you from making any real lasting change because promoting new minority characters means you have an excuse when it fails, and you can stop trying, because what're you gonna do, right? We tried! And so Mr. Terrific gets his own book every few years, or Falcon, or whoever, for just long enough to get the press's attention before the book is quietly axed.
And it feeds the problem because it means you can get away with not trying because it's not like you're reworking the reputation of any real character. Can you imagine if we got a black Batman, or Spider-Man, and either company quietly axed it after a while? Or let the book fall by the wayside? People write books about this stuff. They make videos. Shit like All-Star Batman and One More Day turns them into a laughing stock. But if the Falcon has a bad book and it gets low sales and gets cancelled, who notices?
Granted, I do think we should make new characters. But you can make any approach look negative if you spin it the right way.
edited 5th Dec '14 10:05:36 AM by Wackd
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.
Which is why the solution is actual development and focus, and a change in the way writers think, not doing it just for the sake of doing it.
The "its easy to just do about it and forget about it" part is important, as it shows writers regard those characters as usable to fill a quota or make a point and then forget about them, then just go back to characters they feel are actually "worth" giving real establishment to. That's the issue.
edited 5th Dec '14 10:18:47 AM by KnownUnknown
![]()
Which can take many forms, and is not exclusive to just creating old characters.
Because pop culture has trained us to think of diversity as an afterthought in concept rather than execution in the hopes of creating that exact confusion.
edited 5th Dec '14 10:18:06 AM by Wackd
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.
x5 Thank you, established is probably the better word for it.
Marvel recently posted an article about black super heroes in comics.
edited 5th Dec '14 10:18:41 AM by LordofLore
![]()
Its certainly not going to be accomplished by continuing to use only white characters, just coloring them brown occasionally, and thus reinforcing the idea that actual black characters are not worthy of real focuS.
Making a Black Batman isn't going to change that, because writers aren't going to consider him the real one in the long run and will just cast the idea aside after its made its point - they have even more incentive to do it, because that would be the outlier and the standard for the character is well established. It would accomplish almost nothing in the long run, it would just look impressive.
edited 5th Dec '14 10:25:26 AM by KnownUnknown
Which is why the solution is actual development and focus, and a change in the way writers think, not doing it just for the sake of doing it.
![]()
if you were giving your minority characters development and focus, why would you need to also turn x other character that race to back it up (unless you were doing it with no faith in the idea). On the flip side, why totally redevelop x character as x race if you could presumably already have an array of possible other characters of that race already getting focus?
I think fans want Pedro Pascal as Strange for that reason, at any rate.
edited 5th Dec '14 10:30:35 AM by KnownUnknown
![]()
Because a new character actually selling, and thus finding their way into the hands of those who need diversity, is a one-in-a-million chance?
Or because you can change character's backgrounds as needed to suit their new ethnicity, and find interesting inroads that way?
Or because it prevents you from adding "x character but a minority" to the character roster?
edited 5th Dec '14 10:32:25 AM by Wackd
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.
Which would make the reason for diversity would be not actual diversity, but a token that would bring in that diverse dollar. Easily swept away once the impact has been made - focus on what's made money in the past being the reason why many of those characters you mentioned were phased out.
Like I've said several times, you would get what looked like diversity but it would only expose how racially biased the system is, not fix it in the slightest.
edited 5th Dec '14 10:40:59 AM by KnownUnknown
In the end, it just takes time...just look at gender equality in comics. But I am convinced that the right attitude (at this point in history) is to encourage positive change instead of complaining about the negative. As broken up as I am about the lack of a Black Widow movie, I'll look forward to what they will do with the character, and with Gamora, and the Captain Marvel movie.
Not sure if already posted here or in another thread, but this discussion reminds me of this article I came across, regarding the new Thor in the comics and Sam Wilson as Captain America
.
The author calls it fake progress, and I think the are on to something, although I'm not sure I get their ultimate argument.
I think the problem with those cases and why they were right to compare them with the "Superior" Spider-Man, as these are changes made which while represented as permanent (to troll the audience) are obviously temporary, and in fact seem to be written around an arc in which the Replacement Scrappy eventually steps down and the real hero takes back the mantle.
This arc works for "Superior", but it's a problem when done in a situation where diversity is being added (note, I'm not sure to what extent it is deliberate here, although it seems to be, given that right after taking over as Cap, Sam was forcibly Inverted into a fascist nut).
Because of the likelihood that fans will want the "real" hero back and/or disguise racism under that premise, I think Affirmative-Action Legacy works best where the original hero isn't coming back. I mean while he actually did come back recently (unless it is a clone), it worked to introduce Miles Morales as the Ultimate Spider-Man not just because Miles is a great character, but also because Peter was (apparently) dead for good.
And similarly, besides being a great character, Kamala works as Ms. Marvel in part because Carol Danvers is presumably never going to call herself that again.
One area where I somewhat disagree with the author is that I don't think it's a bad thing in itself that (for example) Sam will be Captain America 3(?) rather than Captain America. Legacy characters are a thing in comics as is characters changing their super hero identities. What I think is a bad thing is if Sam is only thought of as the "Black Captain America" or worse, "An illegitimate Captain America".
edited 5th Dec '14 10:42:05 AM by Hodor
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wikiNow Captain America Legacy Character is something I find acceptable because, while Rogers will always return to being the character one way or another, it's a running trend to show other characters taking up the mantle of "guardian of the American dream" (namely, because it shows different interpretations of what that can be), and it usually produces really good storylines (in my opinion).
"All you Fascists bound to lose."![]()
The reasoning makes sense, if in an extremely depressing way - comicdom has long been willing to trade in on diversity for impact and abandon it for their "real" moneymakers, which they are traditionalist enough to want to keep the same (if deviating only temporarily) lest that cut into their profits. They're not willing to really focus on change if it impacts their business.
Race Lifting in adaptations feeds into this model, because it allows them to present a minority character for the audience to lap up with no additional effort that comes with actually building up a character (because that would be risk/reward, not safe), and which isn't "real" and can thus always be changed back when they're done with it. Its an easy way to keep the status quo while looking like they're not.
edited 5th Dec '14 10:50:02 AM by KnownUnknown
The Affirmative-Action Legacy trope is interesting in regards to movies because the #1 challenge those characters face is bitterness from fans of the original, which is something that isn't an issue in the movies or TV shows.
For instance the Jaime Reyes version of Blue Beetle struggled in the sales and had himself a very vocal Hatedom (despite having a cult following) because people were still mad about the fact that the previous BB had fallen victim to Dropped a Bridge on Him, but when they included him in Batman The Brave And The Bold and season 2 of Young Justice, he became a fan favorite who a lot of viewers liked.
I think it's something worth noting simply because as the Guardians (who up until recently have all had pretty shitty sales records) proved, an unsuccessful comic book or property can still translate into a successful adaptation because it's being introduced to a wider audience.
That the overall film-going public is significantly more diverse than the current comic audience is another thing characters like that have in their favor. A lot of the inflammatory sentiments the fandom has aren't necessarily shared by a mass audience.
Considering how new Sam Cap was, they probably should have left him out of Axis. Because, wow.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersYeah, there's an in-universe reason, but it's a bit hard to believe the writers didn't want the audience to hate the idea of Sam as Cap given that they almost immediately gave him a forced Face–Heel Turn.
Luke Cage was also Inverted btw.
edited 5th Dec '14 11:02:34 AM by Hodor
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki

Unless they grew up in the sixties, the general public didn't really know about Thor before the movie, which was recent.
Established beats new every time, and Marvel has the potential to establish any number of their preexisting nonwhite characters now in film due to how comparatively obscure near all of their library is to theml public. They chose not to.
Contrast Black Panther, who is getting a major film in the MCU that's being developed to embody who he is, not just the fact that he's black. Luke Cage, likewise, isn't just there to be a black superhero either. The fact of the matter is, a Hispanic Strange done for no reason other than to have a Hispanic Strange, for instance, would boil down to "he's a white hero, but we made him black Hispanic this time because we needed one of those." It would be a minority character on screen, yeah, but it would just be exposing how bad the system is, not really fixing it.
edited 5th Dec '14 10:12:20 AM by KnownUnknown