Say hello to the new Iron Woman

[9tailedflame]

Ugh, another stop on the "let's change the gender/sexuality/race of an already established character and change not much else to avoid having to actually be creative while deflecting any criticism as prejudice" train, choo choo.

 

[Vykrel]

Not denying it's lazy but how many noteworthy ORIGNIAL male superheros have they come up with in recent years?

my point wasnt in regards to originality in general, just about the gender-bending. though, they do also need to come up with more new character in general that arent derivative of existing ones.

 

[Necrozius]

Comic artists that just trace over poser models can go straight to hell. That's insulting.

 

[vallorn]

I agree, the art style for the new Iron Woman is just terrible.

Spoiler

Honestly, I don't care anymore. Marvel want a fuss about this for free publicity but they've done this so much that I just don't care. Hell, I like Agents of Shield more than I like most of their recent comics and that show is laughably bad at times.

 

[Naldan]

How is that any different from the teenage versions of Peter Parker? A young genius who can't drink, smoke, or lose a limp, whatever that means. How many Spiderman stories focused on the woes of him being underage for drinking and smoking? (not counting any PSA specific comics they did that break continuity). I'm willing to bet not many, if at all. Yet they somehow came up with compelling stories for Peter Parker to take part in, despite his crippling state of being a minor. I'm confident they can do it with Riri, just like they did with Miles Morales.

I meant limb.

I think you didn't mean to, but that's strawmanning. This Spiderman story of yours not only sounds like a spin-off, but also like complete shit to me. I wouldn't enjoy that, either.

 

[happyninja42]

How is that any different from the teenage versions of Peter Parker? A young genius who can't drink, smoke, or lose a limp, whatever that means. How many Spiderman stories focused on the woes of him being underage for drinking and smoking? (not counting any PSA specific comics they did that break continuity). I'm willing to bet not many, if at all. Yet they somehow came up with compelling stories for Peter Parker to take part in, despite his crippling state of being a minor. I'm confident they can do it with Riri, just like they did with Miles Morales.

I meant limb.

I think you didn't mean to, but that's strawmanning. This Spiderman story of yours not only sounds like a spin-off, but also like complete shit to me. I wouldn't enjoy that, either.

It's not strawmanning to say your reason for why her story will suck: which boiled down to "She's a teenage minor that nobody could relate to, because she's only 15. Citing that she can't drink or smoke or lose a limb...though I have no idea what being a teenager has to do with losing a limb as you put it. Seriously that makes zero sense.

I mean unless your entire post was sarcastic, then if so, nevermind. But if you were serious, I was pointing out that she's hardly the first teenage superhero they've published, and she's not even the youngest one they've done. Miles Morales was 13 when he first got his powers in the Spiderman series. And the Peter Parker he took the place of in that reality was a teenager in highschool. I don't know his official age, but given the time the comic line lasted, I'm pretty sure he was probably also a minor when he started fighting crime. And those stories were good and compelling.

So again, how is it any different for her, compared to at least 2 other examples of the same concept, that have both been received well by readers, and been at least moderately successful financially?

And seriously:

15 years MIT student gets pampered by a rich macho for being super intelligent. How relatable is that? 15 motherfucking years. She can't even drink alcohol. Smoke. Lose a limp.

I know you mean limb there, but what in the 9 hells does that have to do with being 15?

 

[EyeReaper]

Sometimes I miss the snark, passive-aggressiveness and thinly veiled potshots at "them people who disagree with me" that I associate with the Escapist Community so thoroughly. Then I click on any topic thread involving fictional women or fictional black people. This one's a double whammy, and it certainly didn't disappoint. Or maybe it did. I dunno anymore.

As much as I find the whole "let's take an actual character and change it for no other reason than to make more money" kinda silly... As far as I can tell, the literal problem people are having with this thread is that this new character is named the same. Also that a comic book character as an (admittedly incredibly) stupid background.

"No matter who wins, We lose"

 

[Naldan]

Snip

OK, gotta be clear. I meant that I doubt there could be violence when she's involved. Could you imagine her in something where people are getting murdered and mutilated rather violently?

Now, people may suggest that I mean mass-murdering. But just one graphic scene and the committee who nods off panels for a comic would deny it its release. Especially nowadays, where PG-13 really means "for people up to the age 13".

To the rest what you've said: Was it a spin-off? Did it hold anything back, like an ongoing story arc? When was the last time those underage Super-Heroes appeared? Were they even involved with the Avengers?

I mean; This is Iron Woman replacing Iron Man, right?

It simply isn't my taste, I hope you understand that.

 

[DementedSheep]

Not denying it's lazy but how many noteworthy ORIGNIAL male superheros have they come up with in recent years?

my point wasnt in regards to originality in general, just about the gender-bending. though, they do also need to come up with more new character in general that arent derivative of existing ones.

What the difference? derivative of another hero and derivative of another hero that just happens to be a different gender. This is somehow worse?
You sidestepped the point about them not really being gender bends in the first place. Tony has not become a woman and we don't know much about this character yet.

 

[Tanis]

I can't wait till the Trump-tards see this.
The tears, the amazing tears.

Seriously?
I don't mind nor care.

Until recently the character sucked, with only, like, three decent story lines.

Considering how well it's worked out for Spider-Man, Ms. Marvel, and She-Thor, and (I guess) Spider-Gwen...

Fucking, bring it on!

 

[Cicada 5]

For the record, that villain you're talking about actually does have a history of being sexist.

No, he doesn't. He only behaved the way he did to attack straight, white men in general and me in particular. If he had a history of behaving like a sexist prick, then my narrative would fall apart, so he definitely has never made sexist comments about female heroes before.

He once held hostage and tried to gaslight a woman into falling in love with him. And there's an issue in Kelly Sue DeConnick's Captain Marvel run where he uses sexist slurs to push Carol Danvers' buttons.

 

[Vykrel]

What the difference? derivative of another hero and derivative of another hero that just happens to be a different gender. This is somehow worse?
You sidestepped the point about them not really being gender bends in the first place. Tony has not become a woman and we don't know much about this character yet.

you are greatly misunderstanding me, Sheep. firstly, by "gender-bending", i dont mean that the characters themselves literally became female, i mean that the superhero persona was taken up by a new female character after originally being made famous by a male character.

second, it is worse for these comic entities to recognize that society is clamoring for them to be more inclusive toward women, yet their response is to simply have female characters take over the mantle of well-known male superhero personas. there are plenty of characters that are derivative of their predecessors (Miles Morales, Bucky Barnes, etc.), but at least there were plenty of original male superheroes to begin with that were the stars of their own comics.

have you noticed how the reverse doesnt seem to happen? there has never been a Wasp-Man, or Black Widowmaker, or Invisible Man, or Scarlet Wizard, etc. the problem is that these comic writers are looking at the social climate and thinking "we need more female superheroes... screw it, lets just replace Thor and Iron Man with women."

these half-assed efforts to be inclusive have persisted for decades, and they are probably the reason why the MCU and DCU film franchises are severely lacking in female heroes, and will continue to be lacking for some time. more than half of the current male Avengers in the film series have had female versions in the comics. those female versions all represent a missed opportunity to create a completely new female character with her own persona and her own unique story and abilities.

the only other way i can try to put this is that as far as the Avengers and DC comics are concerned, women are often stuck riding the coattails of the men. theyre stuck following in the footsteps of the men. the women tend to either be sidekicks/side characters, or they simply take over for the men after the men die or otherwise leave their superhero persona behind. while it is perfectly fine that characters are replaced by others after death or retirement, and while it is fine that their replacements are sometimes female, it sucks that there are so few worthwhile original female superheroes in these comics. we need more characters like Wonder Woman, Black Canary, Black Widow, Invisible Woman, etc. that are not derivative of male superheroes.

basically, these comics would be a lot more genuinely inclusive if they were more like the X-Men comics. those comics are extremely diverse, and the mutation aspect of that series forced the writers to come up with completely original female heroes and villains instead of just making characters like Professor Charlotte Xavier or Magneta or Icewoman. this resulted in gender diversity in the comics and the films without the women having to replace the men. you know what i mean?

 

[Overhead]

you are greatly misunderstanding me, Sheep. firstly, by "gender-bending", i dont mean that the characters themselves literally became female, i mean that the superhero persona was taken up by a new female character after originally being made famous by a male character.

second, it is worse for these comic entities to recognize that society is clamoring for them to be more inclusive toward women, yet their response is to simply have female characters take over the mantle of well-known male superhero personas. there are plenty of characters that are derivative of their predecessors (Miles Morales, Bucky Barnes, etc.), but at least there were plenty of original male superheroes to begin with that were the stars of their own comics.

Name one successful original male Marvel superhero that was created in the last 10 years. No-one.

Name one successful original male Marvel superhero that was created in the last 20 years. No-one.

As far as I'm concerned, the last original male Marvel superhero that was a success was Deadpool and he was created 25 years ago.

There have been plenty of other original superheroes created in the interim (I was a fan of Gravity for instance) but to my recollection none have been able to carry an ongoing.

And the problem here is that the entire concept is very much rooted in the fact that comics readers themselves do very much care about legacies and connections. If all comic readers cared about was the quality of the writing then the sales numbers of big books starring Batman and Spider-man would vary massively when they change writer. Similarly when those same writers end their tenure on the book and move on to write their own original character or some more minor character, the writer on the new book should do the big numbers that were achieved just prior on Batman/Spider-man. After all, the quality of writing by a single writer should be the same regardless of which character is being written, right?

Of course the problem is that the paragraph above in no way represents reality and how comic fans react. Amazing Spider-man and Detective comics and similar titles are massive hits no matter what what writer they put on it because fans care about the characters themselves. They're invested. When the writers who achieve these big numbers move on to other new or less known characters, they don't hit the same numbers even though they can write with the same quality as they did just previously for the big famous character.

To be successful a comic character needs to sell enough comics to make publishing them worthwhile. When they have a limited amount of money to spend, a Spider-man fan is more likely to shell out the extra few bucks to buy an issue of Silk the woman whose story-line and background is inextricably linked with Spider-man than they are Random woman with no connection to Spider-man. They're already invested in that portion of the Marvel Universe so convincing them of the outlay is easier.

Using legacies in this manner is a useful and practical application of the importance that comic readers attatch to those legacies. If a legacy character was instead presented as original and unconnected to existing characters would be more poorly received, sell less books and have less chance of being a success.

have you noticed how the reverse doesnt seem to happen? there has never been a Wasp-Man, or Black Widowmaker, or Invisible Man, or Scarlet Wizard, etc. the problem is that these comic writers are looking at the social climate and thinking "we need more female superheroes... screw it, lets just replace Thor and Iron Man with women."

Hank Pym took to calling himself Wasp for a while and Wiccan, the Scarlet Witch's son, has near identical "vague ill-defined magic" powers.

basically, these comics would be a lot more genuinely inclusive if they were more like the X-Men comics. those comics are extremely diverse, and the mutation aspect of that series forced the writers to come up with completely original female heroes and villains instead of just making characters like Professor Charlotte Xavier or Magneta or Icewoman.

Cassandra Nova, Charles Xavier's evil female twin? Polaris, Magneto's secret lovechild with identical powers? (Not female but in terms of diversity) Literally gay young time-displaced Iceman who then outs present day Iceman?

 

[JimB]

I doubt there could be violence when she's involved. Could you imagine her in something where people are getting murdered and mutilated rather violently?

Brian Michael Bendis wrote plenty of gruesome, violent murder being witnessed by Ultimate Peter Parker; for example, in a single issue, Norman Osborn transformed into the Green Goblin, beat his son to death with his bare hands, transformed back to a human in grief, and got his brains blown out by Maria Hill. I don't know why that's something we need to cheer for, children being traumatized by watching murder upon murder, but it happened, so...yay?

For the record, that villain you're talking about actually does have a history of being sexist.

No, he doesn't. He only behaved the way he did to attack straight, white men in general and me in particular. If he had a history of behaving like a sexist prick, then my narrative would fall apart, so he definitely has never made sexist comments about female heroes before.

He once held hostage and tried to gaslight a woman into falling in love with him. And there's an issue in Kelly Sue DeConnick's Captain Marvel run where he uses sexist slurs to push Carol Danvers' buttons.

Yeah, I was doing a bit where I mock the position that he hasn't done that before, because I've been in too many arguments about that one scene with people who don't know what they're talking about when they say Creel and Titania both were acting out of character to suit an essjew agenda.

 

[burnout02urza]

Yawn. They keep doing this, and it never works.

Anybody remember the time Captain Britain handled over his title to a Muslim woman? No? Good, because she sucked.

Or the time Green Lantern was Simon Baz, the Amazing Bank-Robber Man?

Oh, how about the time Power Girl handed over to this black girl? (It's really a thing.)

Like all the other embarrassments, she'll just get shuffled off the stage after a brief time in the spotlight. It's sort of like how Bendis is desperately trying to keep Miles Morales relevant.

 

[Naldan]

I doubt there could be violence when she's involved. Could you imagine her in something where people are getting murdered and mutilated rather violently?

Brian Michael Bendis wrote plenty of gruesome, violent murder being witnessed by Ultimate Peter Parker; for example, in a single issue, Norman Osborn transformed into the Green Goblin, beat his son to death with his bare hands, transformed back to a human in grief, and got his brains blown out by Maria Hill. I don't know why that's something we need to cheer for, children being traumatized by watching murder upon murder, but it happened, so...yay?

Nah, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't like that in most cases, so I wouldn't include children in these stories in the first place.
But still, it's good to know that Iron Woman age 15 won't necessarily mean that they will kneecap themselves in terms of artistic freedom just to pander to a very specific audience. To be clear; I really don't mean this sarcastically.

Really, good to know. And she isn't Iron Man's replacement per s? - this in specific, another character (temporary) donning the cape of the other hero happened a lot and rarely (don't know if it ever happened at all) they kept replacing the other character for good. Something I'd have liked to know back with female Thor, even though they really wrote her to be Thor for the first few issues.

So all seems good. Just don't fuck this up, Marvel.

 

[Overhead]

Yawn. They keep doing this, and it never works.

Anybody remember the time Captain Britain handled over his title to a Muslim woman? No? Good, because she sucked.

He didn't hand over her title. She managed to pick up Excalibur and was given the codename Excalibur while Captain Britain remained Captain Britain. Her only times of being Captain Britain are temporarily in alternate timeline events (Age of Ultron and Secret Wars)

I liked her as a character, but Captain Britain has always sucked at selling comics so even if you had been right the supposed difference anyway would have been....?

Or the time Green Lantern was Simon Baz, the Amazing Bank-Robber Man?

Literally starring right now in two comics, Justice League and Green Lanterns. Also all the current Green Lanterns including Hal Jordan and Kyle Rayner (not to mention the thousands of alien ones) are copies of the original Golden Age Green Lantern Alan Scott who was published well before them.

Oh, how about the time Power Girl handed over to this black girl? (It's really a thing.)

Literally starring right now as a member of the Teen Titans. Also the original Power Girl is herself a copy of Supergirl.

Like all the other embarrassments, she'll just get shuffled off the stage after a brief time in the spotlight. It's sort of like how Bendis is desperately trying to keep Miles Morales relevant.

You mean all the embarrassments you listed who are either starring in comics right now rather than being "shuffled off the stage after a brief time in the spotlight" as you stated or never even took over the title that you claimed at all?

After all these things never work. I mean do you remember the time Dick Grayson tried to stop being the Robin...?

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Guys.. guys.. and girls..

The new comic will tank... not because of PC.. not because of social justice...

But because the "art" looks terrible:

https://twitter.com/PixelBuff/status/752284656536588288

That's not the work from the actual comic, is it? It looks like heavily shaded Poser models with either bad toon shading, or post added lines... either way, that doesn't look great.

But still, maybe the story will be engaging on some level that will outshine/outpace/overcome the visuals?

It's not from the comic. The new comic hasn't come out yet. That image is from an old ironman.

 

[Overhead]

Guys.. guys.. and girls..

The new comic will tank... not because of PC.. not because of social justice...

But because the "art" looks terrible:

https://twitter.com/PixelBuff/status/752284656536588288

That's not the work from the actual comic, is it? It looks like heavily shaded Poser models with either bad toon shading, or post added lines... either way, that doesn't look great.

But still, maybe the story will be engaging on some level that will outshine/outpace/overcome the visuals?

It's not from the comic. The new comic hasn't come out yet. That image is from an old ironman.

Yeah, Invincible Iron Man #9 to be exact.

 

[mecegirl]

Really this is one of the best things to happen to the comic in years. It's been a long time since anyone gave a shit about Tony Stark. He was of course always supposed to be a member of the Avengers, if that changed(and it has from time to time) some comic book readers would get upset, but very few cared about his book. The movies have people very interested in Stark but pre MCU if you asked someone who their favorite Marvel character is Iron Man would be low on the list. Now some are up in arms about this new legacy character. And its just really amusing because legacy characters are super common in the big two. And for it to be for a character that no one gave a shit about for decades is hysterical.