New Captain America will be black

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Right. In the same post, you say that folks wouldn't buy, but suggest Marvel should have "faith in the character". That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I'm afraid.

It doesn't make sense to you because you misunderstood me. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough. Marvel doesn't have any faith that a brand spanking new character is going to be profitable. at least it won't be profitable enough to justify the expense of putting a new character out. That character can be of any gender, race, or sexual orientation. It doesn't really matter. It's just a new character that has a big chance of failing financially for the company. So they bring out a "new" character by piggybacking on an established character. When I say they don't have faith in new characters, I mean that in the sense that they don't have

As to the public's willingness to fork over their cash for comics, that comment was in reference to your comment about people who are calling for diversity.

Well, that will ultimately depend upon whether the folks who are agitating for diversity put their money where their mouths are.

Yes, there are people calling for diversity, but that doesn't mean they are going to do anything else besides talk about it. If they wanted to, they could have made their wishes known with their wallets years ago. If there were enough people willing to do so, this type of change could have occurred previously. It hasn't. I don't think it will. At least not through comics. Movies on the other hand? Maybe.

So... two different points, not really related to each other. At least not in the way I am talking about it.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

And, for Ms. Marvel, the plan seems to be working - Ms. Marvel seems to be outselling Iron Man, Wonder Woman, and Captain America, for example. I'll take the critical acclaim and reports of decent sales over your judgments.

Critical acclaim and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.

 

[Umbran]

Critical acclaim and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.

As already noted - outselling Captain America, Iron Man, and Wonder Woman. The acclaim is merely icing on the cake of sales.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

As already noted - outselling Captain America, Iron Man, and Wonder Woman. The acclaim is merely icing on the cake of sales.

Meh... those are all comics that have been around for a long time and have become stagnant. Why else would they be changing up Captain America? It isn't because the comic is selling like awesome sauce. Wonder Woman has been around for years doing the same thing. My guess, they'll change her up into a Chinese transexual to get some attention. As for Ironman, I think Downey ruined the comic. He is far more entertaining than the comic Stark.

 

[Umbran]

Marvel doesn't have any faith that a brand spanking new character is going to be profitable.

If they have buying pattern data to support that brand spanking new won't be profitable (and if anyone has the data, they do) then of course they wont' have faith in it. You, of all people, would likely call them fools if they had faith that went against the data, would you not? Hm?

So, this isn't a flaw, and not a criticism. It is knowing the market, and working with reality. So, they find a way to do a character that is new, sharing just the name of the previous hero. Not the set of powers, not the personality. Not the background. Nothing but the name.

So... two different points, not really related to each other.

How is the public's willingness to fork over cash *not* related to the profitability of a new character? Unless the cash is going to... I dunno, animal shelters or something... then the points must be pretty strongly linked together.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

If they have buying pattern data to support that brand spanking new won't be profitable (and if anyone has the data, they do) then of course they wont' have faith in it. You, of all people, would likely call them fools if they had faith that went against the data, would you not? Hm?

Nope. I'd probably use far more colorful language that would make ENworld's word filter crash.

So, this isn't a flaw, and not a criticism. It is knowing the market, and working with reality.

Right. I wasn't saying it was a flaw or criticism them for it. It was just a statement of what is.

So, they find a way to do a character that is new, sharing just the name of the previous hero. Not the set of powers, not the personality. Not the background. Nothing but the name.

To me, at least, it feels like a crappy reboot. Nothing really new. If you want a new character, make a new character. If you want a reboot, reboot the character.

How is the public's willingness to fork over cash *not* related to the profitability of a new character? Unless the cash is going to... I dunno, animal shelters or something... then the points must be pretty strongly linked together.

As I mentioned, one statement was about new characters. The other was about people asking for 'diversity.' What's confusing you? I'm not sure I can explain it any clearer without knowing what it is that you aren't understanding.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Food for thought:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/26/opinion/yang-comics-superheroes/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

 

[Umbran]

Food for thought:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/26/opinion/yang-comics-superheroes/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

I can't argue with the general point - sure, superheroes (and well beyond that - genre novels, movies, TV, and so on) would do well to represent the breadth of American culture. But there's still that business issue - there's two ways to get these things to be commercially viable. 1) have a current audience that does not care about the color of the hero's skin (or gender, or whatever demographic difference is being represented), or 2) have members of that demographic buying the comics to make them a success.

This may be an area where indie comics are useful. The big companies have the issue of not being able to change quickly, and being generally risk-averse. Smaller indie companies, willing to take more risks, can help create a market that doesn't exist.

That is, of course, if they solve the problem of how the print end of the business is problematic for everyone.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Changing demographics will probably alter the bottom line of the biz...but that will take a long time.

However, there's another issue he's raising. If you keep giving people in your target audience what they ask for and taking it away, or in some way fail to commit to a path, you make them gunshy. Why spend your time, your money and emotionally invest in a character with an obvious virtual expiration date on it?

My cousin went through this in a different arena. Post-Katrina, he was working here doing the same job he did in New Orleans. However, all the time he was here, he talked about moving home. He also complained about not getting raises at the same rate as other new hires, despite working just as hard. The problem was that his pining for NOLA got back to his supervisors: they had no reason give raises to someone who was vocally talking about leaving when they could promote those more committed to the job...or at least, less obviously working with one foot out the door.

So when you have characters recast with different genders, races, or species, history tells us that those changes will be temporary. You're catering to a portion of your audience, yes, but with a gimped concept. That's going to temper the fanbase's reaction.

 

[Umbran]

However, there's another issue he's raising. If you keep giving people in your target audience what they ask for and taking it away, or in some way fail to commit to a path, you make them gunshy. Why spend your time, your money and emotionally invest in a character with an obvious virtual expiration date on it?

When, other than in comics, does any character not have an obvious expiration date? In movies, you get maybe a trilogy - six hours of the character's adventures. In novels, the same - the short story genre you may get 20 pages of a character! TV series typically run for seven seasons or less, but often only one or two seasons. In no medium other than comics does time get so stretched such that the character can be the same, basically forever. So, the idea that people cannot commit to short-run characters is a bit weak.

This is not to say that the gender or race swap is preferable to having a full-fledged hero of another race or gender.

But, let us be clear about something else - it isn't like Marvel doesn't have female characters, or characters of other races. Asian, Hispanic, Indian, and Asian characters all exist, and have for decades. Female characters exist, and have for decades. Depiction and use of these heroes have been imperfect, I grant you - females have been depicted as eye-candy, members of various races have been stereotyped, and so on. But, as the times have changed, so have the depictions of the heroes. And, arguably, Marvel has generally been slightly ahead of the culture curve in their use - not *far* ahead, but slightly.

There is an issue, that these characters do tend to be "B-list". But Marvel's only partially in control of who is on the A-list. It is, for the most part, a popularity contest. Wolverine, for example was never supposed to be a big deal*. But, the readers loved him, so he got more and more spotlight, until he became a commercial driving force for the X-Men. Marvel is always in hot competition with others - they listen to their sales numbers, and they adapt. If they are sluggish to put such characters to the fore, it is at least in part because the audience doesn't respond to them.

So, how much risk is the company supposed to take on moral grounds? How much are they supposed to respond to critics when the audience isn't buying?




* "It was just one of those secondary or tertiary characters, actually, that we were using in that particular book with no particular notion of it going anywhere." - Herb Trimpe.