Originally Posted by DrCosmic
So? You were wrong. A picture made it funny. That's all that happened.
How can a single character be diverse? Since you can't add diversity to a character, I must be talking about story. All you have to do is imagine a "story" where everything is the same to see that diversity is desirable. Some people don't like certain types of diversity, sure, but the principle is sound.
Are you not referring to people in California when you say them changing the race of a character is stupid? I could have said Hollywood, for clarity, but I wanted to highlight how remote your idea of political correctness being involved in these decisions is. And it's true, those particular descriptions do imply support of a segregated society, however I do not pretend to know your motivation, it could be fear of change, it could be callous indifference, it could be any number of things, I just don't know. If I had to guess, I would suspect it involves a very strong vision of what these movies "should" be like. Regardless of why, your actions and statements are that you prefer some things the way they were in the 60s. That's simple fact. Why is up to you.
Oh, I understood the point, it's the same point that everyone who makes that suggestion has. My counterpoint, were the ideas of diversity and updating. With a principle of diversity, changing over-represented types to underreprsented types increases diversity, but not the other way around. So if racial diversity is a value, then it doesnt' go either way at all, does it?
For updating, many fans ignore the fact that these characters were originally intended to represent the sixties and seventies. That's not how we want them to be now. We want them to be updated... except for race. Don't update that, keep that the same, but it's okay to change everything else from what was originally intended. This of course draws the question of what exactly was originally intended, and that would actually be a great convo for this thread.
When someone mimics actions of those who I know to be ill motivated, I simply point out the similarities, for the benefit of all involved, and let those people decide what to do with that. I do not claim to know your character, even though you claim to know the character of others. So by your standard, you are the one without class.
Like you said, it's much easier to do a legacy character, especially if the original has run it's course, than to do a new character. Another issue is that companies are made up of people. One person at the top being interested in Deadpool doesn't make him appear in multiple titles in a way that makes people like him. A lot of people at Marvel love Deadpool, and that's why he's become what he's become, no one has undermined or questioned the character at all, even to the point where some were sick of him. "Why is Deadpool being crammed down my throat." No one says this of Spider-Man or Wolverine, because he's "supposed" to be everywhere. So I wouldn't describe what happened to Deadpool as "easy," nor would simply marketing do the same for Batwing. There's a lot of timing to it. You've got to have that small following to capitalize on.
Oddly, though, you do have to give them a new suit, but having the same name makes it easier to get other people on board. And while you might think it's stupid, Miles Morales' Spider-Man is one of the few consistently great books there are.
1. My opinion that a character sucks isn't wrong. In the mainstream universe, 616, Spiderman isn't a legacy character. Spiderman 2099 and Ultimate Spiderman are different canon, so I'm not necessarily wrong in that category either.
2. Ok so stories need to be diverse. I agree, but we have some of that already for a jumping off point. Captain America stories are diverse thanks to Falcon. Iron Man stories are diverse thanks to Rhodey. Spidey's got the Robinsons, Prowler ect. If your assuming I want all characters in each story to be a particular race, your once again making offensive assumptions. It also gives the option of not only creating new 'diverse' heroes, but new diverse supporting characters. That would solve that problem, not to mention there is already those characters as I've just mentioned.
3. The fact is I want the comic characters to be as close to the source material in film. Also, not every comic book character was created in the 1960's. Again, you worded it like that for a reason. I'm not stupid.
4. Sorry, but when someone seemingly implies I'm racist, I get a little pissed off. Also, comparing someone with 'ill motivated' people over something like this is extremely offensive. If when you were in school you wouldn't compare your teachers to Hitler because, like a dictator, they had ultimate authority, would you?
5. So we agree. Its EASIER for Marvel or DC or whoever to legacy characters or whatever. I think thats lazy. Nine times out of ten, the easiest way to do something in art, especially storytelling, is sloppy and weak. I don't want Marvel doing that. Do the hard thing and the hard work will be rewarded with some great characters.
But, the internet is a silly thing and emotions can't always be correlated, so perhaps I assumed too much on you implying I'm racist, but you clearly wrongly assumed a few things on my thoughts on the subject. Regardless, it doesn't matter. I apologize for being a bit hostile.