marvel has a soft reboot?

[Chancey289]

What I find bizarre is that female comic fans are applauding this move...even though, one would think that they of all people would be the most offended. Marvel is literally telling them: "Yeah, we don't have any faith in a brand-new, stand-alone, female protagonist to be well-recieved or profitable. But, hey...the male ones are popular. How 'bout a female version of one of those?"

And yet no one seems the least bit bothered by this. It's almost laughable.

My friend Mariya feels the same way though. She liked Thor not because he was a man, but because he was Thor. They are trying so hard to be progressive, but are clearly too afraid to also take that risk. Just look at Miles Morales when it came to killing of Peter in Ultimate Spider-Man.

 

[Meg]

You want my honest opinion? It's quite possibly the laziest attempt Marvel has ever made to be progressive, and have more female superheroines. It's not the incentive behind the change...it's the EXECUTION.

I mean, it doesn't sound like a bad idea....on paper. The motive behind this change is perfectly reasonable. Comic books have been dominated by a majority of male, white protagonists for many years, with very little in variety in between. So, expanding the cast of superheroes with more varying options sounds promising and inclusive on paper, but this brings about a prominent problem with representation, one that can render it meaningless if conducted in such a way: bad execution.

This change irritates me for one simple reason: it's not creative. Marvel doesn't want to introduce a new empowered, interesting female character...they just take Thor, paint him with a thick coat of Rule 63, and call it a day.

The intent behind this kind of change isn't the problem, it's that the changes made won’t have the desired effect that the authors hope for. The comic industry doesn't NEED female swaps of already-existing characters...that wouldn’t only be an exercise in missing the point, but in uncreative laziness as well. These changes aren’t innovative because they aren’t brand-new, individual creations—they’re amendments to existing characters. Characters like Thor are already established characters in decades' worth of comics (and in Thor's case, ancient Norse MYTHOLOGY), and readers will almost always associate them with the original forms they’ve taken for years. This isn't like DmC, where you take a character that's only been in four games over a seven-year lifespan, and give him a make-over and reboot. These characters are icons, and have a well-established legacy not just in comics, but in pop culture.

To take the altered versions of them and toss them into the spotlight burdens them with living in the shadow of their predecessors, preventing them from having a strong presence on their own as characters. Every aspect about them, regardless of their new gender or skin color, will be constantly compared to their original counterparts, and thus rob them of any strengths or innovations they could’ve potentially brought to the table on their own. And what’s worse, is that most of these changes are never permanent. Superheroes and comic book characters have been subject to racial, gender, and sexual changes for years—the most notable examples being Miles Morales (the first black Spider-Man), and Batman passing his cowl to both male and female successors throughout his many comic book interpretations. But after only a few years and hastily-explained reboots later, these characters revert back to their original form, as if the changed interpretations of them had never even existed in the first place.

This kind of change for "including more female characters for the sake of diversity", by nature and execution, is the wrong type of change. Instead of creating new forms of equality and accessibility for a wider audience, they’re recycling characters and slapping a new coat of paint on them. Publishers should create new, individual characters that are not derived from an already-existing one: introduce strong female heroes, or openly gay or lesbian characters, or more racially-diverse ones…but above all, introduce original ones. They’ll have far more impact as stand-alone characters, and have their own story arcs and characteristics to put their own mark on the comics industry. Now, in fairness, this solution isn’t the easy one, and might be the reason publishers like Marvel are taking the quick and lazy route. Introducing new characters in comic books is a risky move, because their inclusion doesn’t always guarantee instant recognition and success. But it’s only with these drastic gambles that comic book icons are born. There was a lot of skepticism and doubt about Wonder Woman being successful in an environment of mostly male heroes, and now, she’s arguably the most recognizable super-heroine of all time.

In other, words: MARVEL, don't SWAP Thor's hammer for a bra, and then claim to be progressive...INVENT a new character! Invest a penny or two out of the truckloads of money your getting from MCAU, hire some talented artists, AND TRY BEING ****ING CREATIVE.

EXACTLY!!!! That's what I've been saying. Female Thor just reeks of laziness. I'm all for mixing things up, but the way they handled this is just.....bleh.

I do like Falcon taking over as Captain America though. Steve Rogers is my favorite character and all, so I'm sad to see him go (for now). But if anyone is worthy of picking up the shield, it's Sam Wilson. He's been Steve's best friend for years, and Steve really does need a break after everything that happened in Dimension Z. :'(

 

[V's patron]

I haven't read comics in a while but I've been meaning to catch up on Ms Marvel and some other gems. I tend to favor more character driven things that are more to the side so as long as those keep coming I'll be fine.

A reboot would only work if they actually learn from their mistakes(theirs and DC's) and I'd prefer a hard reboot since they tend to be cleaner and more manageable.

I guess a problem would be whether or not the new characters(the next generation like Ms Marvel, Young avengers the new new mutants etc etc) would make it since a hard reboot would start fresh but you can always bring them in earlier.

Hell if i had to bring Miles Morales in the 616 I would just make him an inhuman/mutant with a different power-set, superhero id. Most of his back-story and things that make him interesting in the ultimate Universe except the obvious differences would have brought over.

That's what I think the answer to the legacy character problem is. Legacy characters like Robin or War Machine etc aren't a bad thing because its inspiring seeing heroes teaching others and leading others but we can get more creative than a team of Flashes or Hulks etc.

A hard reboot would end up having to sit through the origins and first meeting again but if you can push forward the minority characters and make them equals from the get go, then it will be worth it to me.

 

[Meg]

I haven't read comics in a while but I've been meaning to catch up on Ms Marvel and some other gems. I tend to favor more character driven things that are more to the side so as long as those keep coming I'll be fine.

A reboot would only work if they actually learn from their mistakes(theirs and DC's) and I'd prefer a hard reboot since they tend to be cleaner and more manageable.

I guess a problem would be whether or not the new characters(the next generation like Ms Marvel, Young avengers the new new mutants etc etc) would make it since a hard reboot would start fresh but you can always bring them in earlier.

Hell if i had to bring Miles Morales in the 616 I would just make him an inhuman/mutant with a different power-set, superhero id. Most of his back-story and things that make him interesting in the ultimate Universe except the obvious differences would have brought over.

That's what I think the answer to the legacy character problem is. Legacy characters like Robin or War Machine etc aren't a bad thing because its inspiring seeing heroes teaching others and leading others but we can get more creative than a team of Flashes or Hulks etc.

A hard reboot would end up having to sit through the origins and first meeting again but if you can push forward the minority characters and make them equals from the get go, then it will be worth it to me.

You know, I wouldn't mind some WWII stories of Cap and Bucky. I feel like, if Marvel was to do a hard reboot, they'd basically have to start there. Although it would be awkward having modern day heroes doing their thing while Cap is doing his in the forties. Hmmm....hard reboots are definitely more difficult because you really have to think what stories you really want to go through again. Like, I love the Winter Soldier storyline, but I wouldn't want to see it happen again. But if they don't, what does that mean for Bucky's character? I guess that's why DC had Batman raise four Robins in five years. Easier to do that than to start with Dick Grayson's parents dying again and having to go through all that again.

 

[Jak]

I don't even know how FemThor ties in with the Marvel Universe---hell, I don't even know which universe she's supposed to be apart of.

The only Thor I kept up with back in the day was Ultimate Thor---not just because I have a biased fanaticism with the Ultimate universe, but because of how much he embraced his mythological origins and traditional essence. You know the look and persona that the MCU has adopted for the film version of Thor? You can thank Ultimate Thor for that...he provided many of the influences that came with crafting his on-screen counterpart.

oh, dude, i don't even think the MCU could get away with some of the things from the classic universe. like 616 ironman. if you put HIM on screen instead of using ultimate tony stark, people would HATE tony stark. the onl;y character they gave their classic personality to was captain america. even mariah hill was a tolerable character in the avengers ( dear god she's readful in the mainstream universe). i DO have a crazy bias for the ultimate universe. i grew up with it. i know it like the pope knows the bible. it seems like not just the marvel studios movies follow the ultimate universe but the fox movies and sony movies do as well. that's how successful it was.
but back to thor, aside from his ultimate comics: thor title and the short lived mighty thor title, what has he really had outside the avengers comics?

I still think garbage for the most part. (A handful of series aren't that bad though) For some reason, when DC decided to make New 52, they also decided it was the time to get really misogynistic.

Marvel, yea. I can appreciate diversity and representation in a medium like comics, but female Thor for example was nothing but nonsensical pandering.

fem thor i can tolerate. i haven't seen her in the avengers because regular thor is STILL there. but as long as the writing is good i'm on board (but from what i've been hearing it's kinda lack luster, but i'll give it a shot anyways and see for myself)
new 52 misogynistic? i didn't catch that. granted, i haven't really read that much of the new 52 outside of the books i already read (anything bat-family related, anything superman related, wonder woman, flash, suicide squad, JLD, and constantine). but if you caught something like that, yeeah, dude. that's messed up. where was it?

You know, I wouldn't mind some WWII stories of Cap and Bucky. I feel like, if Marvel was to do a hard reboot, they'd basically have to start there. Although it would be awkward having modern day heroes doing their thing while Cap is doing his in the forties. Hmmm....hard reboots are definitely more difficult because you really have to think what stories you really want to go through again. Like, I love the Winter Soldier storyline, but I wouldn't want to see it happen again. But if they don't, what does that mean for Bucky's character? I guess that's why DC had Batman raise four Robins in five years. Easier to do that than to start with Dick Grayson's parents dying again and having to go through all that again.

in these new posters it looks like cap is STILL active and he's no longer aging regularly, so he might be there still. but if marvel had a side book that took place in the 40's like "the adventures of captain america and his pal bucky" or something i'd love to see that.

 

[WolfOD64]

My friend Mariya feels the same way though. She liked Thor not because he was a man, but because he was Thor. They are trying so hard to be progressive, but are clearly too afraid to also take that risk.

And that's precisely what ****es me off about these changes. Marvel claims to be taking the progressive route, but the way they're approaching the changes is so half-assed, it's like watching a 4th-grader rip out a page from National Geographic and turn it in as his research assignment.

And your friend makes an excellent point about what makes Thor appealing. He's Thor. Thor is likeable because of everything that makes him a character: he's fierce, loyal, hot-blooded, regal, persistently-selfless, and often has to exchange his warrior's pride to do the right thing as a Leader. Female Thor is a lifeless try-hard reeking of bad-girl sass that would've felt forced back in the 90's, and doesn't have half the compelling character traits that made the original Thor worth reading.

It's almost like---oh, I dunno...taking DMC1 Dante's laid-back professionalism and emotional diversity and botching it down to make him a one-note, try-hard anime stereotype with the emotional variety of a brick. You know, something crazy like that. :shifty:

Just look at Miles Morales when it came to killing of Peter in Ultimate Spider-Man.

As a massive fan of Ultimate Spider-Man, I had nothing but disdain for the way that ordeal was handled. You don't have to kill of the original protagonist to make way for a new one. Did DC have to kill Batman to make room for the Robins? Did Superman have to die to make room for Supergirl, or Superboy? No, because the others had the confidence and competence to juggle multiple characters in one story arc, and give them all the necessary treatment and breathing room.

oh, dude, i don't even think the MCU could get away with some of the things from the classic universe. like 616 ironman. if you put HIM on screen instead of using ultimate tony stark, people would HATE tony stark. the onl;y character they gave their classic personality to was captain america. even mariah hill was a tolerable character in the avengers ( dear god she's readful in the mainstream universe). i DO have a crazy bias for the ultimate universe. i grew up with it. i know it like the pope knows the bible. it seems like not just the marvel studios movies follow the ultimate universe but the fox movies and sony movies do as well. that's how successful it was.

Many snobbish comic book fans really don't realize how much of the MCU is based off the Ultimate personas of each respective hero. A lot of them simply disregard the relevance of Ultimate because it wasn't penned by Stan Lee or Jack Kirby, but what they don't realize is how frequently writers like Bryan Michael Bendis (who penned most of the original Ultimate Spider-Man storylines) consulted Lee and Kirby's work. The very first panel to Ultimate Spider-Man even has the disclaimer: "based on the original Amazing Spider-Man run by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby."

But hardcore Marvel fans are impossible to reason with. I actually got into an argument once about how I preferred Thor with a beard, and how another fan preferred his OG beardless look. He called me a noob and a pleb, one with absolutely no respect for the original comics...even when my reasoning mostly had to do with Thor resembling his Norse Mythology counterpart more.

but back to thor, aside from his ultimate comics: thor title and the short lived mighty thor title, what has he really had outside the avengers comics?

Outside of Ultimates and Ultimates 2, I can say that Thor: Age of Thunder was a really good one. It's a great story with really nice artwork, that takes some of the grittiest liberties with both Thor's character and Asgard that I've seen in a while.

new 52 misogynistic? i didn't catch that. granted, i haven't really read that much of the new 52 outside of the books i already read (anything bat-family related, anything superman related, wonder woman, flash, suicide squad, JLD, and constantine). but if you caught something like that, yeeah, dude. that's messed up. where was it?

Starfire having all of the overblown hypersexualization of a Playboy model, Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy's half-assed lesbian relationship amounting to nothing but kissy-facing and ham-fisted sweet talk....PICK one.

It's not like most of these are predominantly misogynistic (well, in Starfire's case, that sure as hell is), but most of these additions add next to NOTHING to the characters themselves. I haven't found a single issue of New 52 where either of these things ever paid off in an actual narrative. It's pointless, it's grossly-mishandled, and it's a pointless contrast to the personalities and traits of the characters themselves.

I do like Falcon taking over as Captain America though. Steve Rogers is my favorite character and all, so I'm sad to see him go (for now). But if anyone is worthy of picking up the shield, it's Sam Wilson. He's been Steve's best friend for years, and Steve really does need a break after everything that happened in Dimension Z. :'(

See, I have absolutely NO problem with Falcon taking ahold of Cap's shield. Why? Because he's just being a necessary place-holder. He's a worthy substitute for Steve Rogers, and brings his own share of character elements to the role by himself. It's kind of like when Dick Grayson assumed Batman's cowl during the whole Infinite Crisis story. He wasn't just Batman part 2, he was Nightwing in the Batman suit...in other words, he kept ALL of his defining character traits...

...character traits that Female Thor hasn't brought since the first issue.

 

[DragonMaster2010]

Well, New 52 could be considered a soft reboot as they keep some things from the original canon in tact. New 52 is absolute garbage for the most part though so whatever.

This is just combining the Ultimate and original universes to create one, big cohesive one. I don't see them just forgetting about their current line up, just adding this new element for future stories.

I've seen great Earth 616 and Ultimate crossovers before. Spider-Men was freaking sweet.

Oh Jeez don't bring up NU 52.
I still can't forgive what it did to John Constantine -___-

 

[Jak]

Many snobbish comic book fans really don't realize how much of the MCU is based off the Ultimate personas of each respective hero. A lot of them simply disregard the relevance of Ultimate because it wasn't penned by Stan Lee or Jack Kirby, but what they don't realize is how frequently writers like Bryan Michael Bendis (who penned most of the original Ultimate Spider-Man storylines) consulted Lee and Kirby's work. The very first panel to Ultimate Spider-Man even has the disclaimer: "based on the original Amazing Spider-Man run by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby."

yeah. plus, notice how the main marvel universe has over time been turning into the ultimate universe? tony stark being written differently, sam jackson nick fury, a peter parker with a more cynical humor. those guys are just yammering about. don't take in too much of what they're selling

But hardcore Marvel fans are impossible to reason with. I actually got into an argument once about how I preferred Thor with a beard, and how another fan preferred his OG beardless look. He called me a noob and a pleb, one with absolutely no respect for the original comics...even when my reasoning mostly had to do with Thor resembling his Norse Mythology counterpart more.
i prefer ultimate thor for pretty much the same reasons you did. a

Outside of Ultimates and Ultimates 2, I can say that Thor: Age of Thunder was a really good one. It's a great story with really nice artwork, that takes some of the grittiest liberties with both Thor's character and Asgard that I've seen in a while.

couldn't agree with you more. just...yeah. totes agree.

age of thunder? haven't heard of that one. is this pre-siege or post-siege?

Starfire having all of the overblown hypersexualization of a Playboy model

Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy's half-assed lesbian relationship amounting to nothing but kissy-facing and ham-fisted sweet talk....PICK one.

It's not like most of these are predominantly misogynistic (well, in Starfire's case, that sure as hell is), but most of these additions add next to NOTHING to the characters themselves. I haven't found a single issue of New 52 where either of these things ever paid off in an actual narrative. It's pointless, it's grossly-mishandled, and it's a pointless contrast to the personalities and traits of the characters themselves.[/QUOTE]

starfire's always been a hyper sexualized character. only differnce is that NOW she's less naive about it. it's a huge change for the character, then again, one of my main issues with that is...she's been on earth for HOW MANY YEARS? and she still doesn't know that if she crouches down in a mini-skirt without wearing underwear people are gonna stare. or if she walks around in a see thru top with no bra and get's surprised that dudes are flocking to her. c'mon...gimme a break

as for harley, she has always been in implied sexual relationships with poison ivy and catwoman for fanservice. so in the harley quinn book where they kiss sometimes, i'm cool with it. she's bi-sexual. always has been. it was really something that bruce timm came up with (that old dirty bastard) and its just been expanded upon since.

Oh Jeez don't bring up NU 52.
I still can't forgive what it did to John Constantine -___-

but he's the best part of justice league dark. or are you talking about his solo comic? i haven't had a chance to read the first 8 issues of constantine (because people say it's bad). i feel like these guys understand the character of john constantine but can't write a good story around him. but look at it like this. at least it's not the carrey run. remeber that...i certainly try not to

 

[DragonMaster2010]

but he's the best part of justice league dark. or are you talking about his solo comic? i haven't had a chance to read the first 8 issues of constantine (because people say it's bad). i feel like these guys understand the character of john constantine but can't write a good story around him. but look at it like this. at least it's not the carrey run. remeber that...i certainly try not to

Justice League Dark is good but his solo comics are really cheap and half assed. It took a turn from HB John in a big way.
Mike Carey's run wasn't that bad. I'm just glad it's not Milligan working on it.

 

[Loopy]

Just realised, I've read this but forgot to comment. I'll be interested to see where the writers take this in the long run.

I'm staying optimistic, but I'm also not keeping my expectations really high. I had high hopes for New 52, and it's become disappointing lately due to where they are taking a few of my favourite characters. Hopefully the same won't happen for Marvel.

I am wondering how many versions of characters we will have running around though. I don't want it to be too complicated.

 

[Jak]

Just realised, I've read this but forgot to comment. I'll be interested to see where the writers take this in the long run.

I'm staying optimistic, but I'm also not keeping my expectations really high. I had high hopes for New 52, and it's become disappointing lately due to where they are taking a few of my favourite characters. Hopefully the same won't happen for Marvel.

I am wondering how many versions of characters we will have running around though. I don't want it to be too complicated.

after all the complicated explanations and contradictions, the ONE consistent thing that they've stated was that they were going to reboot after the battleworld/secret wars event. so like, tony stark might act like his ultimate counterpart and miles morales still became spider-man, just under different circumstances. so...i dunno. i'm with you but i'm cautiously optimistic

 

[V's patron]

You know, I wouldn't mind some WWII stories of Cap and Bucky. I feel like, if Marvel was to do a hard reboot, they'd basically have to start there. Although it would be awkward having modern day heroes doing their thing while Cap is doing his in the forties. Hmmm....hard reboots are definitely more difficult because you really have to think what stories you really want to go through again. Like, I love the Winter Soldier storyline, but I wouldn't want to see it happen again. But if they don't, what does that mean for Bucky's character? I guess that's why DC had Batman raise four Robins in five years. Easier to do that than to start with Dick Grayson's parents dying again and having to go through all that again.

Ive been thinking about this and the answer is it depends on the characters you wanna use and the universe your trying to build.

DC's problem was that they kept playing favorites with their soft reboots rather than treating everybody equally(Batman and GL were relatively untouched) so that created a sloppy end product as well as a ton of bad feelings because your favorite character was left out while all the robins get left untouched.

Im not against soft reboots but Marvel and DC are hard to soft reboot because everything is connected throught a messy web of highs and lows and sometimes its better to start fresh.

For example, I like Kyle Raynor who became a Green Lantern after Hal Jordan but his origin is really tied to a story where Hal goes insane/evil and blows up a city. Im pretty sure it be best to start fresh with that and characters are more important than storylines to me.

Granted im making it sound simple but it really isnt because Marvel and DC are built on generation gaps and tradition so a pure fresh start is hard to expect so i guess we just have to wait and see.