Who complains about all of this exactly? I see far more complaints about expected complaints about changes than actual complaints about changes.
Poll: Why are comic book readers so averse to change?
- Thread starter Captain Marvelous_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I dont read comics personally but I can see why people are so adverse to change. Female Thor and some of the newer Wonder Woman stuff really does seem like an intentional slap to the face to anyone who isn't down with these changes. The people who have supported comics for years and probably got shit as a kid for liking them are now being told by people that they suck because they have the nerve to be born with white skin and a penis. Obviously not all comic book fans are white males but its probably not a stretch to say most are. So they have their own hobby CLEARLY mocking them in some of these newer issues. That would piss me off as well.
I personally don't have a problem with this in regards to Thor specifically, becuase they've set up a long standing precedent of other people getting Thor's powers and taking up Mjolnir. Seriously this isn't a new thing people. FemThor is like what, the 5th person to do this over the decades? The way they set up the inscription on the hammer, it states that if you can wield the hammer, you've got Thor's powers. Period. It's been like that since the inception. This is so far from actual mythology that it's not even funny, but nobody seems to mind that part, so I don't really see where the justification for the outrage is. Currently Thor the guy is unworthy of Mjolnir's power, and so it has found another avatar for it's might, to wield it in defense of the cosmos. Eventually Thor will get his groove back, and reclaim it, and be all awesome and it will be epic and all that jazz, yeah yeah. But for now, he's still unworthy. So I don't even bat an eyelash at the whole FemThor thing. I picked it up because it looked interesting, I stopped following it because I found to not be interesting. :/Saetha said:
As for other forms of change in comics, on a personal level, no I've never had a problem with changing the stories up over the years. I've said on most of these comic related threads, that I'm a huge fan of Legacy stories. I personally find the idea of a mantle of power/authority, being passed on from person to person, as others carry on the good work of the previous person to be a very satisfying story. Some of my favorite books from my youth involved these kind of plot elements, I remember liking the 2099 series of comics they put out back in the 90's, which included a new Spider-man. And I was fine with them. In fact I thought the Spider-man one was pretty cool as far as "new origin stories" go, and his motivations. The other titles were total crap, but the Spidey 2099 was pretty good. Hell from what I hear, the Superior Spiderman series is pretty popular, and that's got the fucking Doc Octopus inhabiting Parker's body like some crazy pod person clone, and deciding that his fight was a good fight, and that he wanted to continue it for him. People don't seem to mind that title too much from what I've heard. I sure as hell haven't seen dozens of threads about it on this site like I have about Miles Morales, bitching about Doc Oc being Spidey.
I personally have no problem with changing up the title character, as I don't see it as a "sell out" to the SJW's, and I also don't see it as a "Not letting a minority get his own spotlight, and instead riding the coattails of a white guy before him" either. I see it as something that is forever missing from comics, the advancement of time. They always have to exist in this nebulous time bubble, to keep things from falling apart after 50+ years of writing comics about a guy who is forever 25 years old. If time passes, then people age and die, and if they die, then that means that Peter Parker will one day not be Spidey, and one day Bruce Wayne will not be Batman. But those two personas have become something larger than that in the in-verse world. They are now icons, symbols in their own right, and they are larger than the two men who started them.
So to have someone else come along, and say "No, it will not end here. His death will not mean that the people will be without a protector. I will protect them, because I can, and I will, and because I will honor his struggle, a struggle greater than he was, and continue his fight on his behalf. Because who is under the mask isn't important, it's the fight, the struggle to protect that which needs protecting, and to stop those who would destroy it, is bigger than him, bigger than me, bigger than the enemies I fight." For me, that's fucking awesome! I...eat that shit...up! So yeah, bring it on! Change out the lineup all you want! I don't give a fuck! Make the stories good, and I can handle pretty much any change you make. xD
capcha: toe-curling ....no, I don't like Legacy stories that much capcha, but I think they're pretty awesome.
Whenever I read an article that has to do with Miles, Sam, or Lady Thor and I go to the comments, 'cause that's where the fun is. It all boils down to, "This isn't the real Spider-man!" or "This isn't the real Captain America!" There can only be one! Highlander style and all that.Spaceman Spiff said:
I specify online because that's where I find it. Isn't it safe to assume most comic book fans are online anyway?Scarim Coral said:
This! I want time to move forward without resetting whenever the heroes age 10 years. I want Bruce Wayne to either retire or go up in flames likewise with Superman, Captain America, and Spider-Man, but I don't want their symbols to die with them. Those symbols need to be passed on, especially when their work still needs to be done. Gotham still needs it's Dark Knight. The world still needs Superman.Happyninja42 said:
It gets hard to read comics when the characters are more than 60 years old and are constantly dumped into the Lazarus Pit of Stupidity. Constantly coming back from the Land of the Damned because people are too scared to let them go.
Oh god...that issue. Yeah, that's pretty much when I stopped reading it. Shame, I had high hopes for that particular run, sadly, it didn't live up to those hopes.Johnisback said:As another user pointed out, the only reboot I've seen much dislike for is Lady Thor, and that's mainly because the dialogue is so awful it goes beyond cheesy and into the realm of sad.
It reads like it was written by a 13 year old tumblrite.
Change happens in comics all the bloody time. Many know this but for those who don't, they are just blind or just can't accept a new path for a character and stuck in nostalgia. Its like those who scream "Why don't they just stick to the source material!!", when they don't realise that there has been thousands of different versions of any single character and I have to shout "WHICH ONE?!"
Batman was once a Nazi, Superman was raised in Russia, Thor was a frog and Spider-man weren't crying over a girlfriend all the fucking time. I like a different variation of a character or group in comics from time to time because having the same story told over and over and over and over and over and over and over again for 60-70 odd years is boooooooooooooooooring.
Change good. Repetition boring.
Batman was once a Nazi, Superman was raised in Russia, Thor was a frog and Spider-man weren't crying over a girlfriend all the fucking time. I like a different variation of a character or group in comics from time to time because having the same story told over and over and over and over and over and over and over again for 60-70 odd years is boooooooooooooooooring.
Change good. Repetition boring.
There are a few answers, but can I start with the blatantly obvious:
People will be adverse to change if they happen to like what is being changed.
This isn't rocket science. If I like Thor, his adventures, his supporting cast, and other elements of his story, I'm going to be pissed if now the things I liked go away because someone wants to write about a new character with a new supporting cast, and different adventures. There was a drastic one that hit me some years ago with the first run of Thunderbolts: a book about villains trying to be heroes. Late in its life it changed into a super villain fight club premise. I and everyone else had no interest and dropped the book, as Marvel did six months later. Think to your own life and ask would you particularly like your favorite pizza to change its recipe, your favorite book series to be about a whole new cast and premise, or that comfy blanket you use replaced.
Comic characters are not their super hero identities, but the people underneath, so it isn't hard at all to get why someone might get upset when Jim Rhodes takes over an Iron man book, Doc Ock becomes Spider-Man, a new Green Lantern replaces Hal Jordan, Falcon becomes Cap, and yes, a whole new character runs off with a Thor or Nova title. Even if we don't read those ourselves, it's an uncomfortable precedent.
In my experience, the guy complaining about aversion to change is the asshole trying to tell others what they should like.
This ties into the other main reason which is anger at the reason of the change. Ignoring editorial mandate failures too numerous to mention, let's spell out how this can come off: we want to be more diverse, but instead of creating something, we're going to take something. Sorry Thor fans, we don't care about you enough to keep Thor in his own title while we make a female Thor for more diversity. You have to lose Thor so these other people can be happy. I try to keep an open mind, but yeah, Captain Falcon does leave me kind of miffed they changed the character instead of giving say, Luke Cage, Black Panther, Night Thrasher the prowler, or even just an unchanged Falcon another kick at a book. Then again, I do get why they do this: those efforts fail miserably (jim Rhodes kick at an iron patriot book lasted a whole 5 issues )as what I say above is me being in a minority: name recognition sells more than diversity or originality alone regardless of who's in the suit.
People will be adverse to change if they happen to like what is being changed.
This isn't rocket science. If I like Thor, his adventures, his supporting cast, and other elements of his story, I'm going to be pissed if now the things I liked go away because someone wants to write about a new character with a new supporting cast, and different adventures. There was a drastic one that hit me some years ago with the first run of Thunderbolts: a book about villains trying to be heroes. Late in its life it changed into a super villain fight club premise. I and everyone else had no interest and dropped the book, as Marvel did six months later. Think to your own life and ask would you particularly like your favorite pizza to change its recipe, your favorite book series to be about a whole new cast and premise, or that comfy blanket you use replaced.
Comic characters are not their super hero identities, but the people underneath, so it isn't hard at all to get why someone might get upset when Jim Rhodes takes over an Iron man book, Doc Ock becomes Spider-Man, a new Green Lantern replaces Hal Jordan, Falcon becomes Cap, and yes, a whole new character runs off with a Thor or Nova title. Even if we don't read those ourselves, it's an uncomfortable precedent.
In my experience, the guy complaining about aversion to change is the asshole trying to tell others what they should like.
This ties into the other main reason which is anger at the reason of the change. Ignoring editorial mandate failures too numerous to mention, let's spell out how this can come off: we want to be more diverse, but instead of creating something, we're going to take something. Sorry Thor fans, we don't care about you enough to keep Thor in his own title while we make a female Thor for more diversity. You have to lose Thor so these other people can be happy. I try to keep an open mind, but yeah, Captain Falcon does leave me kind of miffed they changed the character instead of giving say, Luke Cage, Black Panther, Night Thrasher the prowler, or even just an unchanged Falcon another kick at a book. Then again, I do get why they do this: those efforts fail miserably (jim Rhodes kick at an iron patriot book lasted a whole 5 issues )as what I say above is me being in a minority: name recognition sells more than diversity or originality alone regardless of who's in the suit.
I'm not into comics books as much as many people, but my thoughts on change involving them are thus:
1. Is the change to the hero/villain identity or the person under the mask? (If there is a mask) If it's the former, I'm far more accepting of it. The exception to this is characters like Thor, where their hero/villain identity is who they are.
2. How is the writing involved? If it's like FemThor, then I really don't care how good the change is, because atrocious writing ruins even the best changes.
And lastly and most importantly:
3. Is the "change" a resurrection of an ended series/character/etc. that ended on a good, final note? Because I oppose such things completely and utterly. One in particular that really pissed me off was the Green Lantern series. It was wrapped up in a final, succinct ending.
And then they continued it.
And it is terrible.
1. Is the change to the hero/villain identity or the person under the mask? (If there is a mask) If it's the former, I'm far more accepting of it. The exception to this is characters like Thor, where their hero/villain identity is who they are.
2. How is the writing involved? If it's like FemThor, then I really don't care how good the change is, because atrocious writing ruins even the best changes.
And lastly and most importantly:
3. Is the "change" a resurrection of an ended series/character/etc. that ended on a good, final note? Because I oppose such things completely and utterly. One in particular that really pissed me off was the Green Lantern series. It was wrapped up in a final, succinct ending.
And then they continued it.
And it is terrible.
Averse to change.. not so much.. but when the CHanges start stacking up over 50 or so years... we kinda just get sick of change. The problem with CHange is that most of the time they're not about adding character development they instead undo character development.
That's the problem, right now Western Comics and MAnga are at opposing ends and sadly it seems more and more readers are drifting towards Manga because there are actually story arcs that have some lasting impact on the characters. And most importantly the stories end. Jesus christ how long can we tell and retell the story about the same Whiney ntitled rich guy with a nocturnal flying rodent fetish?
It'd gotten somewhere interesting when Dick Grayson/Nightwing took up the mantle of Batman but no they had to go and retcon that with the new 52.
That's the problem, right now Western Comics and MAnga are at opposing ends and sadly it seems more and more readers are drifting towards Manga because there are actually story arcs that have some lasting impact on the characters. And most importantly the stories end. Jesus christ how long can we tell and retell the story about the same Whiney ntitled rich guy with a nocturnal flying rodent fetish?
It'd gotten somewhere interesting when Dick Grayson/Nightwing took up the mantle of Batman but no they had to go and retcon that with the new 52.
I guess because of how quickly everything has changed, the fans are trying to latch onto the last things that looked like stability. Like, they followed something for so long for it to change in a major way. I mean, that's a huge fucking leap, especially if you're invested in a story. If they, for example, suddenly turned Batman into a killer (Extreme, I know, but it's one in the morning where I am), whilst the writers could make it work, that's such a major change to the character of course you'll decry it. It's like Conservatism vs Liberalism I suppose. One side is averse to change and up holds what they see as tradition, whilst the other is willing to accept and respect changes. The major issues with the conservative stance is that it eventually, if they can't accept progression, the comic starts to stagnate. I mean Jesus Christ, who even gives a shit about Batman anymore. He never really moved past 'punch kick' and the only thing worth note to happen recently was he had a son after getting raped and that son is now dead or something.
Then you get that the Movies are using the initial idea of the character, such as how Spiderman is Peter Parker and a student, and that Thor is a dude and has a penis, and the new fans don't recognize these changes to Miles Morales being Spider Man and Thor being a chick because they aren't the characters they're interested in. It'd be like if a restaurant played an outdated add, then you went there to buy the meal but the meal hasn't be sold in years, but there is an equally nice meal but that's not what you came for. It's also familiar, a nice constant. I suppose if the creators allowed Peter to GROW THE FUCK UP then this issue wouldn't occur as bad as it is, but you know.
Finally, I guess people also see these as being unnecessary. They see Miles becoming Spiderman (Peter still exists guys, Miles is a different Spiderman) and Thor becoming a girl as unnecessary and ask why it had to happen, seeing it as innovation for innovations sake. And whilst I sympathies, I also see that change must happen. In a continuing story, change will happen, people will die, identity will change. And I'm writing this at one in the morning so, you know, cut me some slack.
Then you get that the Movies are using the initial idea of the character, such as how Spiderman is Peter Parker and a student, and that Thor is a dude and has a penis, and the new fans don't recognize these changes to Miles Morales being Spider Man and Thor being a chick because they aren't the characters they're interested in. It'd be like if a restaurant played an outdated add, then you went there to buy the meal but the meal hasn't be sold in years, but there is an equally nice meal but that's not what you came for. It's also familiar, a nice constant. I suppose if the creators allowed Peter to GROW THE FUCK UP then this issue wouldn't occur as bad as it is, but you know.
Finally, I guess people also see these as being unnecessary. They see Miles becoming Spiderman (Peter still exists guys, Miles is a different Spiderman) and Thor becoming a girl as unnecessary and ask why it had to happen, seeing it as innovation for innovations sake. And whilst I sympathies, I also see that change must happen. In a continuing story, change will happen, people will die, identity will change. And I'm writing this at one in the morning so, you know, cut me some slack.
The question you should be asking is why are people adverse to change. Because people are, change means greater uncertainty and risk.
Now, regarding your specific question on comics. Let's consider the fact that marvel isn't establishing new heroes, they're appropriating existing super heroes to finish some unknown checklist.
This not only pisses off existing fans of those heroes but it deprives legitimate female super heroes from having their shot.
Let's take a look at Thor (Thorina if you will, so that we can actually tell who I'm talking about). Not only is the name ambiguous now, but it is literally Thor Odinson's first name. It'd be like saying that the next Spider Woman will be the new Peter Parker. Just doesn't make sense from that status. So it frustrates fans of the series.
Then I think about another asgaurdian who is already established and totally badass. Sif. Why not elevate someone like Sif to the position?
http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww173/Nightcraw1er/tumblr_lmmdp0PROK1qzppiio1_500.png
This shows a complete lack of confidence in their ability to write a legitimate female character as well as a lack of confidence in their entire roster. Instead the have to appropriate from a male superhero that's popular to try and hijack their popularity for the boost. At least heroines like Spider Woman have their own name. They didn't even give this Thor a unique monicker. She's forever stuck with another character's name until that changes. It's the same problem Miles Morales faces. If they could just give them their own names they'd have a better shot at longevity. If you really think about it. Naming the girl the same name as the male super hero is even worse than slapping "woman" or "girl" on the end.
Now, me personally? Not a fan of Thor. Never have been. I am a fan of Sif.
Now, regarding your specific question on comics. Let's consider the fact that marvel isn't establishing new heroes, they're appropriating existing super heroes to finish some unknown checklist.
This not only pisses off existing fans of those heroes but it deprives legitimate female super heroes from having their shot.
Let's take a look at Thor (Thorina if you will, so that we can actually tell who I'm talking about). Not only is the name ambiguous now, but it is literally Thor Odinson's first name. It'd be like saying that the next Spider Woman will be the new Peter Parker. Just doesn't make sense from that status. So it frustrates fans of the series.
Then I think about another asgaurdian who is already established and totally badass. Sif. Why not elevate someone like Sif to the position?
http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww173/Nightcraw1er/tumblr_lmmdp0PROK1qzppiio1_500.png
This shows a complete lack of confidence in their ability to write a legitimate female character as well as a lack of confidence in their entire roster. Instead the have to appropriate from a male superhero that's popular to try and hijack their popularity for the boost. At least heroines like Spider Woman have their own name. They didn't even give this Thor a unique monicker. She's forever stuck with another character's name until that changes. It's the same problem Miles Morales faces. If they could just give them their own names they'd have a better shot at longevity. If you really think about it. Naming the girl the same name as the male super hero is even worse than slapping "woman" or "girl" on the end.
Now, me personally? Not a fan of Thor. Never have been. I am a fan of Sif.
Yeah, I can understand that, but I'm the kind of guy that needs closure. I can't stand not finishing something I'm already invested in, but getting invested in comics is a pain because the story never truly ends. Batman is constantly fighting to protect Gotham and we'll never see him move on from that. We'll never get Bruce Wayne's official canon ending. The Book of Barry Allen can never be closed because someone wants to add another chapter to his life. Peter Parker can never get married and move on with his life. All comic book characters must return to the status quo and that leaves me feeling empty because there's no real feeling of conclusion. It just keeps going and going and going.Redd the Sock said:
I wouldn't say Miles Morales has that problem. Miles took over after Peter Parker died. The whole point of taking on the Spider-Man name was to keep it alive. Thor, on the other hand, still lives. Calling her Thor was a mistake. Unlike the death of Parker, Thor's rut is temporary. He's going to get his hammer back and their can't be two Thor's running about. They will have to change her name eventually. I don't see a problem with some no name taking up Thor's hammer. It wouldn't be the first time worthier is passed over.Lightknight said:
Except... Thor isn't going to get his hammer back. He's dead. And by dead, I mean dead dead. As in not coming back for no reason dead. In the latest issue of New avengers but him and Hyperion were slaughtered by a wave of The Beyonders/Ivory Kings. These guys killed the Tribunal/Celestials/Eternity--every single cosmic being that had unstoppable power barring the One Above All. Thor Odinson is gone beyond a point of returning alive even though right before his death he found out her could no longer life the hammer of Thorr--which made him worthy of his own hammer again.
This is cemented as he is not in the Thor Corp in secret wars.
You're just describing the basic premise of the Ultimate Universe (which is going to end in a month with Secret Wars). Except for the real-time thing.Fappy said:
I'm glad the UU is ending, it lost it's way a long time ago, though it was a great success at the beginning.
@the OP:
I'm with you, I want more change, but only if it makes sense. Not just change for change's sake.
As for the characters you mention:
Miles Morales: I like him as a concept. He has a nice personality and a cool costume. And I like the diversity he brings. Though I must admit I haven't read anything Ultimate Universe-related in a long time, since I lost my interest in it after Ultimatum. I only read 3 or 4 issues of Miles Morales plus some crossovers with the main 616 universe.
Captain Falcon: He is a worthy successor to the mantle of Cap. And the diversity, again, is a plus. I never cared much about Captain America, though. Except in Avengers books.
Lady Thor: Lacks characterization (although I recognize they can't give her too much character without actually revealing her secret identity, which would ruin the mystery around her). I like the concept of her, though. Again, bonus points for diversity. And the story being told around her is pretty good stuff (amazing art too).
Though the writing can become a little too preachy at times. An example of this is the massive character derailment that has taken place in order for the author to make a stance about social issues (Odin and Titania being the most notorious victims). Not that I disagree with the points he's trying to make, but I dislike the author turning one of my favorite characters into a massive jackass (Odin) in order to have me being preached to about stuff I already know and isn't as controverted as the author thinks.
As for the name controversy. at first I rolled my eyes and thought "meh, I guess it's good for brand recognition". Then reading
Yes. Well more the secret made him unworthy of Mjolnir. He's still hero-ing as Odinson. I agree the secret and the reveal of She-Thor needs to be good for any positive pay off.The Madman said:
I can understand where you're coming from. I don't read DC anymore. The New 52 has been bleh. Still marvel is making some real good stuff right at the moment Daredevil, thenew Ms Marvel, Silver Surfer, Loki : Agent of Asgard etc.
Even though this Marvel universe seems to be heading to a (really soft) reboot, the stories leading up to it, Avengers and New Avengers have been really hitting it out of park. That "Thorr" thing I mentioned seems silly but it was actually a pretty good moment.
It's usually easier with comics, not to try and look at the big pictures and just read the specific runs with the positive acclaim.
No worries I love talking about comics.
I wonder if a lot the people who are don't like the tendency of superhero comics return status quo eventually would like the post siege Loki stuff (Journey into Mystery-Loki run, Agent of Asgard) as it very much about that.WolfThomas said: