Lothic, chill. Please. I gotta go commute, so call this a two hour break.

aaaand we're back!

Lothic wrote:

Can you seriously not see that forcing a character like Supergirl to change their sex, race etc. just for the sake of SJWing is JUST AS BAD as minority characters not being allowed to exist at all? Is it justice to replace one form of discrimination with a new form of anti-white discrimination

It's not "just as bad" at all.

Reducing a large number of things to then increase a smaller number of things.

It's anti white discrimination to have them have one less thing and give it to those who have less to begin with?

So anti white. It's not like they have hundreds of other white heroes. Oh wait. They do.

And also to use SJW like it's a bad thing when talking about Superheroes who are pretty much all SJWs is laughable.

Let me see if I can paraphrase Project Hero's argument in a way that isn't as inflammatory. Project Hero, let me know if I get it somewhat correctly:

The comics industry is saturated. Unfortunately the big marquee stars characters are primarily caucasion. Why doesn't matter. They are. So in order for minorities to be represented on the marquee as big name characters, either an/some existing character(s) need to depart the stage to make room for new stars or they need to become minorities themselves.

and it seems like the counterarguments to that are:
1) the market is not saturated. Proofs and debate to follow
2) changing an existing character will not result in a minority on the marquee, it will end up making that character unpopular. proofs and debate to follow
3) there is room for new minority character, but like any new character they have to find that special sumthin' sumthin' that will make them popular amongst the dozens of new characters that appear every year. proofs and debate to follow.

Did I summarize it correctly?

it tanked due to poor editing and story choices and followed a very badly received superman 3 and the character was gone for 30 years....

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw0215706/?ref_=rw_urv

Now the character has come back, has a following... and if the movie version doesnt visually line up with the current version people know... the tickets wont sell.
Lady Thor didnt sell because it doesnt look like movie thor
Riri doesnt sell because its not Tony
Hulk doesnt sell when its not Banner

PH, just stop quoting me. You dont read sources, you dont site sources, and you only address 1 point in a post with multiple.

The proof is in the pudding, diversity for diversity sake tanks sales and kills characters, which kills the diverse character and original.
Diverse original characters who build their own following have done well since the 70's

When Supergirl was introduced a bunch of folks probably thought she was just diversity for diversity's sake.

Like it's literally just like, girl Superman.

Damn SJWs pushing their agenda. If people like Superman they could just read Superman they didn't have to make a Superman specifically for girls.

And what's with the Lois Lane comics? Damn DC's just trying to cater to the SJW crowd.

Probably what the internet would have been like if they had it back in the day.

Like if you all SJW haters were around reading comics back then you'd probably be making the same arguments about them making girl super heroes.

Hero's got a point. Riri is no different from Rhodey. Tony vanishes for a bit, someone picks up the armor. Riri gets the 'rub' to use a wrestling term, and then becomes her own character - she's Iron Man-Girl. I don't really have a problem with a spinoff like that. I mean, so she's a youngish girl - it's still better than Teen Tony, remember that?
Brand X: What bout Betsy Braddock, a character with years of history in Marvel UK and X-Men, being turned into a japanese ninja?

This is comics. Everything has happened before, and it will all happen again.
(Patsy Walker, a forgotten Golden Age character, picking up Greer Grant's costume, while Greer becomes a weretiger)

Well, didn't Tony-AI basically take her as a ward?

First of all I think there is room for at least one black Kryptonian as a part of the main DC universe and not as some kind of "alternate Earth/history" story. The fact that Krypton was multi-racial is canon. The only thing left is to come up with a plausible story as to why he/she/zhe hasn't shown up before is the main problem. Kara El in the TV series had that time warp thing to account for it but I suspect that horse has gone and died. Swapping out the existing characters is a really, really bad idea for so many reasons (retcons in general are usually problematic). Project_Hero gave me this idea I'll admit. Anybody else have any solutions to the origins story problem?
Did he escape as an adult or a child? How'd he come to Earth? Why hasn't he show up before/nobody's heard of him (I'm just using "he" for simplicity. There is no restriction on the character's gender, etc.)?
Does zhe have any special abilities/powers/equipment? (I can live with "zhe" for now).
Anything I'm missing here?

Well, yeah, but it's a way to give her some standalone time, build her up. I didn't like the character in the first few issues, but she got a lot better towards the end of her Iron Man run, and now she's got a pretty defined personality. I'm looking forwards to her comic.
Plus I like the author.

One problem with more Kryptonians and the reasoning why they tend to try to retcon them away and such is that they want Superman to be the Last Son of Krypton™©®. The more Kryptonians there are the more it detracts from Superman's, for lack of a better word, specialness. Don't know if they're still doing that though, I had heard for a while they were way back when.

That said there's Argo and Daxam for a Kryptonian in all but name.

If I were DC and seeing that their best movie was Wonder Woman and Marvel's biggest hit (other than The Avengers) was Black Panther I wouldn't put it past them to try and capitalize on both crowds.

I mean, there's a pretty good chance that no matter who they cast as Supergirl the movie will probably suck given DC's recent track record.

And I would never say shouldn't be Supergirl. Superheroes die all the time, get rebooted, changed, ect. Even if they did make Supergirl black (as Kara or otherwise) then it'd likely get reversed eventually. Unless it turns out to be popular.

Thats why i linked that article.
The whole Nazi Captain America was timed so poorly (And in general a bad idea for what is the character that represents pure Americana) to the cinematic universe that the comics didnt pick up any additional fans.
It would be like after watching Black Panther you go to buy a Black Panther Comic because he seems cool and instead Frodo is in charge of Wakanda.

Oh, and I have to say, they COULD have used Michael B. Jordan and Kate Mara in Fantastic 4 to further the family metaphor by working in the whole 'blended family' thing and it would have made the movie even better.
Sadly, that wasn't the biggest flaw in the movie - or even close.
(The first problem was that it was based on Ultimate F4, of course.)

Does make me wonder who they'll cast as the MCU Torch - remember who the first non-Corman one was?
New-Torch will have _big_ boots to fill.
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g3PyHWen338/Uvc6ZOOSOOI/AAAAAAAACBA/FSNjsToN1ZQ/s1600/Blog412_Lois+Lane_+I+Am+Curious+Black_12.jpg[/img]
I still say it's not diversity they're trying for - it's relevance. Not the first time, won't be the last time.

... honestly, the skin tones there are enough to be _almost_ glad everyone was white till color printing improved. I'm pretty sure the Hawks are supposed to be Egyptian and Wonder Woman's greek. Green Arrow there looks more sunburnt than Native American.
(Earth-D did not survive the Crisis on Infinite Earths)
(The round S is probably a tribute to Sunshine Superman, and I'm pretty sure a descendant of the concept became President Superman)
[img]https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/4/44/Sunshine_Superman_001.jpg[/img]

Earth-D looks neat. I'll have to look into that one.

[Img]https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/screen_kubrick/5/52086/1650703-alternate_supermen.jpg[/img]

I also want to know more about the black alternate universe Superman here.

Steamtank wrote:

Thats why a lot of people have been really frustrated in this thread. Supergirl is when you boil her down, a blonde haired, blue eyed midwestern homecoming queen kinda look, like it or hate it. She is allowed to BE that. Many (I would argue most) viewers of a future Supergirl movie won't be convinced that the character is Supergirl if the look is significantly changed. They won't buy the tickets, wont convince their friends to buy the tickets, and the character will get retired again as a failure.

Supergirl when you boil her down is... Her appearance.

Wow.

Superheroes are more than just looks and powers, you know.

warcabbit wrote:

Oh, that's Tangent Superman, he's based on the original novel before the comic, really. There's a knight Superman from an elseworlds, Superman Red and Blue, Red Son, and I recognize Rao Superman but I can't remember from where.

Yes, I mean the novel before Action Comics.

I think we've run this topic into the ground, though.

IN CONCLUSION, like Fantastic 4 (2015), based on the last DC movies, Supergirl will be good or bad for reasons ENTIRELY beyond whoever they cast as the main character.

Neat.

And yeah, it'll not end up mattering who they cast if the rest of it is garbage.

And some good has come out of the thread. I now know there -has- been some black Supermen and at least one black Supergirl.

Now all we need is for DC to reboot Earth-D and start putting out comics.

It seems neat, but then most Superhero AUs do.

Static, Rocket, and Icon come from there? Hot damn.

I'll have to see about tracking down some graphic novels when I have the money.

From reading the wikipedia it was originally a seperate company who's comics were published by DC comics.

So the characters were originally from the Dakotaverse but did some crossovers with DC.

Then later in 2008 the Dakotaverse was merged into the main DC universe.

ivanhedgehog wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

One problem with more Kryptonians and the reasoning why they tend to try to retcon them away and such is that they want Superman to be the Last Son of Krypton™©®. The more Kryptonians there are the more it detracts from Superman's, for lack of a better word, specialness. Don't know if they're still doing that though, I had heard for a while they were way back when.

That said there's Argo and Daxam for a Kryptonian in all but name.

If I were DC and seeing that their best movie was Wonder Woman and Marvel's biggest hit (other than The Avengers) was Black Panther I wouldn't put it past them to try and capitalize on both crowds.

I mean, there's a pretty good chance that no matter who they cast as Supergirl the movie will probably suck given DC's recent track record.

And I would never say shouldn't be Supergirl. Superheroes die all the time, get rebooted, changed, ect. Even if they did make Supergirl black (as Kara or otherwise) then it'd likely get reversed eventually. Unless it turns out to be popular.

My feeling is that black panther didnt do well just because he was black. He did well because he has kick ass style, kick ass presentation, and kick ass writing. He was win win right from the start. write that kind of story and style and a lot of superhero stories would take off and fly. Instead of looking at the character, look at the author. Get one of the better authors/writers in on a project and add a good artist..you might be surprised what a new hero can do.

Yeah, but from a corporate stand point they won't see that. A ton of movies borrow the superficial stuff from other movies and when they do something like that it really shows.

Like I honestly hope DC/Warner Bros doesn't screw up the Supergirl movie. I mean that's been my hope for ever DC movie that's been out. I want them to be good, so they'll make more, and maybe put some more obscure characters in there.

And yeah, good writers and artists make good work, with like pretty much anything. But sometimes that's not enough. You can have well written, critically well received stuff that just doesn't sell. And unfortunately a product just being good isn't good enough, it had to be good and profitable for a company to keep supporting it.

ivanhedgehog wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

One problem with more Kryptonians and the reasoning why they tend to try to retcon them away and such is that they want Superman to be the Last Son of Krypton™©®. The more Kryptonians there are the more it detracts from Superman's, for lack of a better word, specialness. Don't know if they're still doing that though, I had heard for a while they were way back when.

That said there's Argo and Daxam for a Kryptonian in all but name.

If I were DC and seeing that their best movie was Wonder Woman and Marvel's biggest hit (other than The Avengers) was Black Panther I wouldn't put it past them to try and capitalize on both crowds.

I mean, there's a pretty good chance that no matter who they cast as Supergirl the movie will probably suck given DC's recent track record.

And I would never say shouldn't be Supergirl. Superheroes die all the time, get rebooted, changed, ect. Even if they did make Supergirl black (as Kara or otherwise) then it'd likely get reversed eventually. Unless it turns out to be popular.

My feeling is that black panther didnt do well just because he was black. He did well because he has kick ass style, kick ass presentation, and kick ass writing. He was win win right from the start. write that kind of story and style and a lot of superhero stories would take off and fly. Instead of looking at the character, look at the author. Get one of the better authors/writers in on a project and add a good artist..you might be surprised what a new hero can do.

Which is what many of us have been saying. Get a good artist and a good writer going on the book, and it will sell.

I loved Gen-13 (book with only 1 white male on the team and he wasn't the leader) but when it got to Gary Frank period, I quit the book. The art and writing just got that bad, I couldn't keep justifying buying it. :p Then a new artist and writer came on, and I was back on it :)

Well, Spawn sold well and it wasn't advertised outside of it's niche audience.

Got a movie, a series and is still going.

It doesn't take as much as you think it does, to become a success, other than luck.

Yes, advertising helps. It's not the be all and end all and really, any adult can use google and buy comics online if they have such a fear of going into a store. :p

Project_Hero wrote:

Niche audience? It was the edgiest 90'sest thing to be out when edgy 90's stuff was in. Hell, if it didn't start the edgy 90's comic trend it was definitely a front runner.

Also it was the flagship product of an entirely new comic company made up of a lot of good talent people already knew about.

Honestly there's not much reason why it shouldn't have been successful.

Project Hero, I think you just made Brand X's point for him or her. When you've got a good product in the comics industry (with a minority main character, no less), you don't need advertising.

The founders of it were exceedingly public about leaving their companies and starting their own. So much so that the announcement of that made marvel stock drop.

And I have to assume they were advertised within comic book stores to boot.

And they released during the speculatior boom... Where pretty much all new comics were doing well as everyone wanted to get on the next big thing.

And "mainstream attention returned to the comic book industry in 1989 with the success of the movie Batman and again in 1992 with "The Death of Superman" storyline."

So they had a perfect storm of events in which to make it big, and they seized it.

Again if it -didn't- do well that would be surprising.

Now you compare that to some not well known author and artist making a good product that's not super well advertised because it's self published or something? There's a really good chance it'll just pass under most people's notice.

warcabbit wrote:

So where and how would you suggest we advertise City of Titans?
(There were posters a-plenty. And articles in Wizard Magazine! So many articles!)

That should be its own thread

Brand X wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

The founders of it were exceedingly public about leaving their companies and starting their own. So much so that the announcement of that made marvel stock drop.

And I have to assume they were advertised within comic book stores to boot.

And they released during the speculatior boom... Where pretty much all new comics were doing well as everyone wanted to get on the next big thing.

And "mainstream attention returned to the comic book industry in 1989 with the success of the movie Batman and again in 1992 with "The Death of Superman" storyline."

So they had a perfect storm of events in which to make it big, and they seized it.

Again if it -didn't- do well that would be surprising.

Now you compare that to some not well known author and artist making a good product that's not super well advertised because it's self published or something? There's a really good chance it'll just pass under most people's notice.

Only stock holders of Marvel and DC would know. Why would the general public, who likely has no interest in the stock or stock markets known?

As for the Death of Superman. So, news coverage on a comic beats out all the news coverage and billions of dollars superhero movies make?

If you think a news report on a comic is enough to get people up in arms for comics, then billion dollar movies would be as well, which make even more news and all say "Based on the comic..."

The stock dropping wasn't the important bit. It was that famous creators were very vocal about it.

Yes. Because they talked about the comic, showed comic book stores, and talked to people in the comics industry about a current huge comic event that was happening right at that time to which people could go down and buy tge same comic that was being talked about.

Based on the comic means nothing. Current comic? Past comic? Based on the characters and events from marvel comics, are they still around? Can you buy new comics? These are things that the movies don't mention. A new Titanic movie would be based on a real event but that doesn't mean that that event was recent or happening right now.

Do the comics that the movies are based on have a little thing like books do? The ones that say "Now a major motion picture"? And if they do how many movie fans pick up the comic flip through and notice that other than the broadest strokes it has nothing to do with the movie? Hell movie tie-in comics probably sell more. Actually I saw one of those, graphic novel format, in a book store. Which doesn't usually translate into single issue sales especially when the characters that are currently in comics are almost nothing like their movie counterparts.