Why the Marvel Movies Should Ditch Peter Parker

[Binturung]

Alright, there's an elephant in the room that needs addressing.

To put it bluntly, Spider-Man is Marvels biggest brand. Check this site here: http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales.html

When Peter Parker is helming Spider-Man, the series is constantly at the top. When Otto took over, they had a boost as people checked out Superior, but interest dropped off very quickly, losing significant amount of sales with every issue. When Peter comes back, boom, double what Superior Spider-Man 1 sold. And constantly stayed at the top of the sales charters ever since, usually just under 110K in sales with every issue.

Where is Miles in all this? Sitting around 5k sales per issue. Peter pulls in 22 times the number of sales.

The facts couldn't be clearer. People. Love. Peter Parker. Marvel would be insane not to use him in the MCU. Miles just won't have the appeal to draw people.

If anyone pointed this out already, sorry.

 

[Ramzal]

The fact that people are cheering for Miles Morales for diversity reasons are cheap. I'm sorry, but it is. What brings diversity--true diversity is culture and Miles brings none of that with him as Spider-man or with himself. The one who brings actual culture to the table and is a Spider-man that has diversity is Miguel O'hara, Spider-Man 2099. He is vastly different than Peter on so many levels. Peter is very big on saving people even if they've killed, but you kill around Miguel and you're...say... a cannibal who eats people and you are falling to your death, you better not expect that line of web to come and catch you because he will let you fall.

He has to hide physical traits about himself behind sunglasses (red eyes), he has to be careful how he speaks to people because if he opens his mouth too widely you can see his fangs so he is constantly accused of mumbling when speaking... and he's a biologist. Okay that's a personal one there but to be honest if you want ACTUAL diversity Miguel is the way to go that isn't limited by skin color but by culture--his Mexican culture which he celebrates frequently and is the first Latino Spider-man. He literally WEARS his culture as his outfit.

All of that being said... I want Peter to be in the movies. Not Miguel. Not Miles. Not Jessica (Yet), or Mayday. They haven't got Peter completely straight before but the closest they've gotten was Andrew Garfield's Peter. (I dunno. I always found Toby's Peter to be very creepy... kind of like that guy who lives with his distant relatives, is very quiet and sets fire to cats in the basement or something.)

 

[mecegirl]

Alright, there's an elephant in the room that needs addressing.

To put it bluntly, Spider-Man is Marvels biggest brand. Check this site here: http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales.html

When Peter Parker is helming Spider-Man, the series is constantly at the top. When Otto took over, they had a boost as people checked out Superior, but interest dropped off very quickly, losing significant amount of sales with every issue. When Peter comes back, boom, double what Superior Spider-Man 1 sold. And constantly stayed at the top of the sales charters ever since, usually just under 110K in sales with every issue.

Where is Miles in all this? Sitting around 5k sales per issue. Peter pulls in 22 times the number of sales.

The facts couldn't be clearer. People. Love. Peter Parker. Marvel would be insane not to use him in the MCU. Miles just won't have the appeal to draw people.

If anyone pointed this out already, sorry.

The comic book reading audience is not the same as the general audience. And until a broader audience is really exposed to Miles there is no way to know if they will take to him. I will say that it would be wiser to give him his own cartoon first though. He's had a cameo in the Ultimate Spiderman cartoon thus far but not a whole lot of focus.

For instance, the Blade movies did well in there day. Some even attribute the restart of the comic book movie boom to his films. I don't even think he was featured in a book at the time of his movies. Or look at people's reactions to John Stewart after the Justice League cartoon. Folks legitimately thought that Green Lantern had been whitewashed by the time Hal was given a movie. Like for a second the internet was about to do what the internet does whenever a character is white washed. And that's thanks to continued exposure to John. Or Static, who a lot of folks didn't know existed until he was given his own cartoon show. It lasted four seasons, and his own comic book had long since been canceled at the time. When he was included in the Teen Titans book not all comic fans were happy with it.

Comic book sales are not the best indicator of widespread interest. The top book on the Diamond rankings for January is Star Wars with 985,976 copies sold. Batman is behind that with 110,232 followed by the 12th issue of Amazing Spiderman with 105,458 in sales. Obviously Star Wars has massive cross over appeal. One could say the same with Batman. We all know that his movies and cartoons sell very well, that however hasn't crossed over to effect comic book sales. In recent years around the 100,000's are where high selling comics stay around so the Star Wars book is doing amazingly well. Though it should be noted that the numbers don't always relate to the number of copies people buy, but of the number of copies sellers purchase with the intent to sell. Just to compare though, the Walking Dead comic is at #10 with 66,097 sales and we all know the tv audience is much larger than sixty thousand people. The Flash comic is at # 48 with 35,180 in sales but I wouldn't be surprised if the CW show reached more viewers. Same goes for Green Arrow who sold 20,207 copies last month. And just for reference the Ultimate Spiderman book is at # 64 with 30,135 copies sold.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

When I think "Spiderman" I think "Peter Parker". Change Peter Parker and I lost any interest in Spiderman. I know a shitload of people who think the same way. If you want diversity, make a new hero. I found the idea of swapping Peter Parker in the comic stupid, nothing will change about it in the movie if it happens.

 

[JimB]

Yes, the issue of her sex comes up on just about every page. From the first page of issue one, they've painted just about every male character in a very misogynistic light.

I can only find issues 3, 4, and 5 right now (seriously, where the fuck did I file the first two?), but from what I see in them, I disagree with your assertion. Spoilered for length.

Spoiler

Issue 3, pages 1-4:
Not a single mention of women or female-gendered terminology. Do note, though, that on page 4, Skrymir says that without Mjolnir, Thor is, "Nothing. Nothing but a god," as gods are beneath contempt without extraordinary circumstances. It will be important later.

Issue 3, page 5:
Malekith banters about Roxxon manufacturing lady Thors. This is only making issue of her gender if you think it's weird for Malekith wonder why Thor, or at least someone who looks and acts like Thor, now seems to be female. He doesn't take her seriously, but he didn't take the Odinson seriously when he chopped off the Odinson's arm, so I don't see any misogyny there either.

Issue 3, page 6:
The ice giants disparage her for her size, and Skrymir underestimates her. He seems to be treating her no differently than he treats any god. It does not seem to make an issue of her size or to be motivate by misogyny.

Issue 3, pages 7-11:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 3, page 12:
Two giants refer to Valkyries and Norn witches. This is only making an issue of her gender if you think it's unreasonable for giants to guess the Asgardian woman fighting them is a member of an Asgardian society for women.

Issue 3, pages 13-15:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 3, page 16:
A frost giant silently refers to her as a little bird. I guess I can see this as making an issue of her gender, since I don't know what connotation "bird" has in this situation, though I'm inclined to think he's still just mocking her for her small size and plumage rather than her vajayjay. Still, if you know something I don't, please tell me and I will concede the page.

Issue 3, pages 17-18:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 3, page 19:
Malekith calls her a foolish female, but given what she just did, I doubt he's calling her foolish for her sex rather than her actions. I think he just added the female bit because he liked the alliteration.

Issue 3, page 20:
The Odinson calls her "woman," which is only making an issue of her gender if you think him referring to a person whose name he doesn't know by a gender-specific word is making an issue of gender. It's rude, but since he thinks she's a thief, I can't in good conscience call it misogynistic.

Issue 4, pages 1-3:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 4, page 4:
The Odinson addresses to Thor as "woman." See two entries up.

Issue 4, page 5-7:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 4, page 8:
The Odinson addresses Thor as "woman" and "girl." See two entries up.

Issue 4, pages 9-10:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 4, page 11:
The Odinson guesses Thor is his mother, transformed. This is only making an issue of her gender if you think it makes an issue of a man's gender to guess his secret identity is male.

Issue 4, page 12:
The Odinson refers to Thor as the goddess of thunder, which I admit does irritate me a little because I hate nouns with female-gendered suffixes, but it's only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language. Thor kisses the Odinson, which I guess you can argue is about her being a woman, but I have to say I think it's more about her being of a sexual orientation that finds Thor attractive, which could happen to a man too.

Issue 4, pages 13-14:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 4, page 15:
Malekith refers to Thor as "Dear lady," which is only making issue of her gender if you think mocking a man by referring to him as "my lord" is making an issue of the man's gender.

Issue 4, page 16:
The Odinson uses the pronoun "she." I include that only for the sake of accuracy and really hope we're not making a big deal out of that.

Issue 4, page 17:
The Odinson addresses his mother by her titles, which, in English, are gender-specific words. This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language.

Issue 4, page 18:
Spider-Man sees a woman who dresses like the Odinson and carries Mjolnir, and he makes fun of the conventions of naming female superheroes. That's not mocking women, that's the author mocking the comics industry for the way it names its female characters. No misogyny there, and the point is less about her sex than the way the predominantly male comic community handles female characters.

Issue 4, pages 19-20:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 5, page 1:
Odin refers to Thor as a sorceress. It's a term for a female magic-user. This is only making an issue of her gender if you think calling a man a sorcerer makes an issue of the man's gender.

Issue 5, pages 2-3:
The Absorbing Man calls Thor "lady," like he would probably call any woman whose name he doesn't know. This is only making an issue of her gender if you think addressing an unknown man as "man" makes an issue of his gender.

Issue 5, page 4:
The Absorbing Man says feminists ruin everything and dispenses advice that minority characters should never be legacies. I hope it doesn't come off as condescending when I say I can see how this looks like it's making an issue of her gender, but I think it's making an issue of people who don't understand gender politics. The difference may be fine, but I believe it's important.

Issue 5, page 5:
Thor uses the word "feminist." I don't think that's making an issue of her gender, unless you think men are incapable of being annoyed when someone uses the word "feminist" as a pejorative.

Issue 5, page 6:
Thor refers to herself as goddess of thunder, which is only making issue of her gender if you're condemning the English language for having female-specific suffixes to nouns. Titania makes the same jokes about naming conventions that Spider-Man mocked last issue, and I direct you to my analysis of that.

Issue 5, page 7:
Yeah, okay, I put my hands up on this page. I'm frankly way more annoyed at panel 3 centering the camera on Titania's half-bare bubble butt, though. Can't believe no one in editing caught that.

Issue 5, page 8:
Odin refers to Thor as a witch, which is only making issue of her gender if you think referring to a male magic-user as a sorcerer makes issue of his gender. Freyja falsely accuses Odin of misogynistic motivations to try to distract him, but I don't think anyone with an ounce of critical thought in their head could honestly believe Odin is spying on Thor because of her tits instead of because he wants Mjolnir back.

Issue 5, page 9:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms.

Issue 5, page 10:
The Odinson addresses his mother as "Mother." This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language.

Issue 5, page 11:
The Odinson addresses Lady Sif by her title of "Lady." This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language.

Issue 5, page 12:
The Odinson addresses Lady Sif by her title of "Lady." This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language. He asks if she is Thor, which is only making an issue of her gender if you think guessing a male superhero's secret identity is male makes an issue of his gender.

Issue 5, pages 13-14:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 5, page 15:
Thor addresses Lady Freyja by her titles of "All-Mother" and "Lady." This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language. I guess the line about "I have been told Thor cannot be a woman" does make an issue of her gender, though.

Issue 5, page 16:
Thor addresses Lady Freyja by her titles of "All-Mother" and "Lady." This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language.

Issue 5, pages 17-20:
Not one mention of women or of female-gendered terminology.

So yeah, I think you're severely and unfairly overstating your case. Now, if you'll excuse me, this took more than an hour to write and I need a shower.

 

[JimB]

Why do people keep talking about Miles Morales like he's some interesting new character?

He is interesting to me. He's younger and less seasoned than Peter, less gifted but with different powers, yet still similar enough to really drive home the point inescapably: Why couldn't Donald Glover have played Spider-Man? What about Spider-Man is so inescapably Caucasian?

At this point, apparently you have Odin turned into a chauvinistic idiot[...]

Unless that happened somewhere in the first two issues of Thor I have misplaced, I think my previous post amply documents that he's not a misogynist, and given how he's behaved in this title as well as Loki: Agent of Asgard, I think he's being portrayed not as an idiot but as a tyrant.

[...]Crusher Creel becoming your average "Hurr, feminists!" strawman.

So you're saying Crusher Creel, supervillain, is totally above sexist comments? Okay then.

As for calling her Whor, she's not a real person so I honestly don't see the big deal in referring her with a rather mild insult.

I hope you know I am not so delusional as to think I believe you are hurting the feelings of a person who does not exist and never has existed. I am saying that if you want to insult a female character, you should probably do so for traits she actually possesses rather than relying on an insult that only works if you believe female expressions of sexuality are inherently dishonorable.

Can I be the actual minority that agrees with you?

Sure, as long it's understood I am no more interested in your racial composition than I am in Jake Martinez's.

I am not at all being serious with that comment.

Sure. That was more for the audience than for you. Let my position be on the record and as clear as I can make it.

Korath the Pursuer is one of Ronan's important minions. He is Kree.

That is true in the comics. It is not true in the movie. The movie made Korath, uh, shit, what were they calling Ronan's henchmen? Necro-somethings, right? Not necromongers--that's a different movie franchise--but necro-somethings. I think the implication is they're zombies on loan from Thanos.

I don't know why people keep getting hung up on the idea that Heimdall is some glowing albino when there are sources that describe his armor as white.

I have to assume it's because Idris Elba is black and they just want something to justify their existing hate.

What brings diversity--true diversity--is culture, and Miles brings none of that with him as Spider-Man or with himself.

Aren't you effectively arguing that race should determine one's culture, which seems to have unavoidable implications of a society self-segregated along racial lines?

I know a shitload of people who think the same way.

I appreciate you warning us about the army you have backing up your opinion, but you must forgive me if I find their implied but apparently staggeringly massive numbers do not convince me of anything.

If you want diversity, make a new hero.

How many original comic book heroes do you believe succeed in their own titles without ties existing franchises? How many original comic book characters without ties to existing franchises do you believe succeed in films?

 

[happyninja42]

Yes, the issue of her sex comes up on just about every page. From the first page of issue one, they've painted just about every male character in a very misogynistic light.

I can only find issues 3, 4, and 5 right now (seriously, where the fuck did I file the first two?), but from what I see in them, I disagree with your assertion. Spoilered for length.

Spoiler

Issue 3, pages 1-4:
Not a single mention of women or female-gendered terminology. Do note, though, that on page 4, Skrymir says that without Mjolnir, Thor is, "Nothing. Nothing but a god," as gods are beneath contempt without extraordinary circumstances. It will be important later.

Issue 3, page 5:
Malekith banters about Roxxon manufacturing lady Thors. This is only making issue of her gender if you think it's weird for Malekith wonder why Thor, or at least someone who looks and acts like Thor, now seems to be female. He doesn't take her seriously, but he didn't take the Odinson seriously when he chopped off the Odinson's arm, so I don't see any misogyny there either.

Issue 3, page 6:
The ice giants disparage her for her size, and Skrymir underestimates her. He seems to be treating her no differently than he treats any god. It does not seem to make an issue of her size or to be motivate by misogyny.

Issue 3, pages 7-11:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 3, page 12:
Two giants refer to Valkyries and Norn witches. This is only making an issue of her gender if you think it's unreasonable for giants to guess the Asgardian woman fighting them is a member of an Asgardian society for women.

Issue 3, pages 13-15:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 3, page 16:
A frost giant silently refers to her as a little bird. I guess I can see this as making an issue of her gender, since I don't know what connotation "bird" has in this situation, though I'm inclined to think he's still just mocking her for her small size and plumage rather than her vajayjay. Still, if you know something I don't, please tell me and I will concede the page.

Issue 3, pages 17-18:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 3, page 19:
Malekith calls her a foolish female, but given what she just did, I doubt he's calling her foolish for her sex rather than her actions. I think he just added the female bit because he liked the alliteration.

Issue 3, page 20:
The Odinson calls her "woman," which is only making an issue of her gender if you think him referring to a person whose name he doesn't know by a gender-specific word is making an issue of gender. It's rude, but since he thinks she's a thief, I can't in good conscience call it misogynistic.

Issue 4, pages 1-3:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 4, page 4:
The Odinson addresses to Thor as "woman." See two entries up.

Issue 4, page 5-7:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 4, page 8:
The Odinson addresses Thor as "woman" and "girl." See two entries up.

Issue 4, pages 9-10:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 4, page 11:
The Odinson guesses Thor is his mother, transformed. This is only making an issue of her gender if you think it makes an issue of a man's gender to guess his secret identity is male.

Issue 4, page 12:
The Odinson refers to Thor as the goddess of thunder, which I admit does irritate me a little because I hate nouns with female-gendered suffixes, but it's only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language. Thor kisses the Odinson, which I guess you can argue is about her being a woman, but I have to say I think it's more about her being of a sexual orientation that finds Thor attractive, which could happen to a man too.

Issue 4, pages 13-14:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 4, page 15:
Malekith refers to Thor as "Dear lady," which is only making issue of her gender if you think mocking a man by referring to him as "my lord" is making an issue of the man's gender.

Issue 4, page 16:
The Odinson uses the pronoun "she." I include that only for the sake of accuracy and really hope we're not making a big deal out of that.

Issue 4, page 17:
The Odinson addresses his mother by her titles, which, in English, are gender-specific words. This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language.

Issue 4, page 18:
Spider-Man sees a woman who dresses like the Odinson and carries Mjolnir, and he makes fun of the conventions of naming female superheroes. That's not mocking women, that's the author mocking the comics industry for the way it names its female characters. No misogyny there, and the point is less about her sex than the way the predominantly male comic community handles female characters.

Issue 4, pages 19-20:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 5, page 1:
Odin refers to Thor as a sorceress. It's a term for a female magic-user. This is only making an issue of her gender if you think calling a man a sorcerer makes an issue of the man's gender.

Issue 5, pages 2-3:
The Absorbing Man calls Thor "lady," like he would probably call any woman whose name he doesn't know. This is only making an issue of her gender if you think addressing an unknown man as "man" makes an issue of his gender.

Issue 5, page 4:
The Absorbing Man says feminists ruin everything and dispenses advice that minority characters should never be legacies. I hope it doesn't come off as condescending when I say I can see how this looks like it's making an issue of her gender, but I think it's making an issue of people who don't understand gender politics. The difference may be fine, but I believe it's important.

Issue 5, page 5:
Thor uses the word "feminist." I don't think that's making an issue of her gender, unless you think men are incapable of being annoyed when someone uses the word "feminist" as a pejorative.

Issue 5, page 6:
Thor refers to herself as goddess of thunder, which is only making issue of her gender if you're condemning the English language for having female-specific suffixes to nouns. Titania makes the same jokes about naming conventions that Spider-Man mocked last issue, and I direct you to my analysis of that.

Issue 5, page 7:
Yeah, okay, I put my hands up on this page. I'm frankly way more annoyed at panel 3 centering the camera on Titania's half-bare bubble butt, though. Can't believe no one in editing caught that.

Issue 5, page 8:
Odin refers to Thor as a witch, which is only making issue of her gender if you think referring to a male magic-user as a sorcerer makes issue of his gender. Freyja falsely accuses Odin of misogynistic motivations to try to distract him, but I don't think anyone with an ounce of critical thought in their head could honestly believe Odin is spying on Thor because of her tits instead of because he wants Mjolnir back.

Issue 5, page 9:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms.

Issue 5, page 10:
The Odinson addresses his mother as "Mother." This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language.

Issue 5, page 11:
The Odinson addresses Lady Sif by her title of "Lady." This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language.

Issue 5, page 12:
The Odinson addresses Lady Sif by her title of "Lady." This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language. He asks if she is Thor, which is only making an issue of her gender if you think guessing a male superhero's secret identity is male makes an issue of his gender.

Issue 5, pages 13-14:
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terminology.

Issue 5, page 15:
Thor addresses Lady Freyja by her titles of "All-Mother" and "Lady." This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language. I guess the line about "I have been told Thor cannot be a woman" does make an issue of her gender, though.

Issue 5, page 16:
Thor addresses Lady Freyja by her titles of "All-Mother" and "Lady." This is only making an issue of her gender if you're condemning the entire English language.

Issue 5, pages 17-20:
Not one mention of women or of female-gendered terminology.

So yeah, I think you're severely and unfairly overstating your case. Now, if you'll excuse me, this took more than an hour to write and I need a shower.

I haven't read issue 5, the last one I read was 4, where it's Thor vs Thor. And I will admit, it does trickle off as the issues go on, but issue number 1 especially, and 2, have got a ton of it. Odin especially is very obnoxious. And considering in that issue, every time he used the words woman or man, it was bolded in the text, putting emphasis on it, implying he was being sexist. I don't recall the precise wording, but he was apparently just waking up from an Odinsleep, and was feeling cranky I guess. He speaks to his wife with phrases like "Silence woman clearly you can't run things while I'm gone. Now that a man is here to be in charge, we'll clear up this crap with my son acting like a coddled woman." Considering this trend was established in issue one, every time I saw another male norse guy use the term in reference to her, it sure felt like it had the same tone. Maybe it didn't, but it felt like it did to me. And yeah, the minotaur guy didn't seem to care one way or another, nor did the giants, but I wasn't referring to them really. It's more the support cast of "heroes" that show up. There is a definite "I'm a woman and I can do this just as good as a man!" feel to the tone of the comics, and it gets tiresome.

 

[SonofSpermcube]

Yeah... no. How about instead we have Spider Girl and stop pretending that race is the most important factor in choosing a superhero. The political correctness in this article is off the charts.

1. It matters, and can we stop pretending that race isn't the most important factor in casting so many white actors in superhero roles?

2. It was mentioned after a ton of other arguments. OFF THE CHARTS I TELL YOU!

 

[SonofSpermcube]

Alright, there's an elephant in the room that needs addressing

...

Where is Miles in all this? Sitting around 5k sales per issue. Peter pulls in 22 times the number of sales.

...

Comic book sales are not the best indicator of widespread interest. The top book on the Diamond rankings for January is Star Wars with 985,976 copies sold. Batman is behind that with 110,232 followed by the 12th issue of Amazing Spiderman with 105,458 in sales. Obviously Star Wars has massive cross over appeal. One could say the same with Batman. We all know that his movies and cartoons sell very well, that however hasn't crossed over to effect comic book sales. In recent years around the 100,000's are where high selling comics stay around so the Star Wars book is doing amazingly well. Though it should be noted that the numbers don't always relate to the number of copies people buy, but of the number of copies sellers purchase with the intent to sell. Just to compare though, the Walking Dead comic is at #10 with 66,097 sales and we all know the tv audience is much larger than sixty thousand people. The Flash comic is at # 48 with 35,180 in sales but I wouldn't be surprised if the CW show reached more viewers. Same goes for Green Arrow who sold 20,207 copies last month. And just for reference the Ultimate Spiderman book is at # 64 with 30,135 copies sold.

Comic book sales are not the best indicator of widespread interest. Who is still reliably reading comics? What are their demographics like? How many people even knew that the Miles Morales character existed before this discussion began? (I didn't.) The audiences are so small, and I'm going to guess demographically narrow, that anything that happens in the comics is 1. going to have to appeal to that very narrow, very change-averse audience (after so many decades of narrative treadmills who else is going to be a long-term reader but the change-averse?) 2. not going to reach a wider audience (one which doesn't share the sensibilities of the comic fans) unless some gatekeeper to those wider audiences decides it should...there just aren't enough comic readers with enough contacts outside fandom for word-of-mouth to have any effect.

Frankly I'm surprised comics have retained any relevance whatsoever, given how the industry has ghettoized itself and priced itself out of reach of much of its most receptive audience, and pretty much the entirety of casual audiences. That's the elephant in the room.

 

[JimB]

Yes, the issue of her sex comes up on just about every page. From the first page of issue one, they've painted just about every male character in a very misogynistic light.

I can only find issues 3, 4, and 5 right now (seriously, where the fuck did I file the first two?).

HA! Found 'em! I set them aside because I ran out of tape and couldn't bag them. Spoilered again for length.

Spoiler

Issue 1, pages 1-5
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms.

Issue 1, page 6
Odin's emphasis when he says "The boy will speak to his father" could be interpreted as misogyny, but I'm inclined to believe it's all about Odin's ego and a reference to his title of All-Father.

Issue 1, pages 7-8
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms.

Issue 1, page 9
Yeah, there are hints--okay, let's be honest--more than hints of misogyny in Odin's speech about an All-Mother...but I really do believe at least half of it is his own arrogance, just ruin is the only possible outcome of Odin not sitting on Asgard's throne. I also wonder how much of it is Odin feeling betrayed by his wife taking his throne, but since I didn't read that story arc, I can't say.

Issue 1, pages 10-11
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms.

Issue 1, page 12
See two paragraphs up.

Issue 1, page 13
Odin does make a crack about Freyja remembering her place in the world, but I'm inclined to think he's referring to not being the ruler of Asgard rather than in the kitchen making sandwiches and babies.

Issue 1, pages 14-20
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms.

Issue 1, page 21
Mjolnir's inscription does change to recognize that a woman is holding it, but that seems less making an issue of her gender than closing a loophole (imagine how differently the Witch-King's story would have ended if the rule had been no mortal could kill him).

Issue 1, page 22
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms, unless you think showing that the character is female makes an issue of her gender.

Issue 2, pages 1-6
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms.

Issue 2, page 7
The giants use female pronouns "she" and "her." Again, really hoping we don't think that counts as making an issue of gender.

Issue 2, pages 8-9
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms.

Issue 2, page 10
One frost giant calls Thor a wench, which is a little misogynistic, I guess, but I tend to excuse it because like it or not, in English, a lot of our insults are gendered (for instance, have you ever heard anyone call a woman an asshole or a prick?). I chalk this up to the nature of English.

Issue 2, page 11
Thor does make an issue of the wench thing. I concede that one. I don't think it's unjustified, but I do concede it.

Issue 2, pages 12-15
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms.

Issue 2, page 16
The frost giants do point out Thor is a woman, but the operative words in their insults seem to be "little" and "puny." I think she's being insulted for her size, not her ovaries. Agger addresses her as "lady," but that's only making issue of her gender if you think addressing an unknown man as "man" is making an issue of his gender.

Issue 2, pages 17-18
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms, apart from the pronoun "she."

Issue 2, page 19
Thor refers to herself as "goddess of thunder." That is only making an issue of her gender if you think the Odinson calling himself "god of thunder" make an issue of his gender.

Issue 2, page 20
Not one mention of women or female-gendered terms.

Odin especially is very obnoxious. And considering in that issue, every time he used the words woman or man, it was bolded in the text, putting emphasis on it, implying he was being sexist.

I concede that there do come off some whiffs of it, but as I believe I addressed, I think there's less of it than you're making out.

He speaks to his wife with phrases like "Silence woman clearly you can't run things while I'm gone. Now that a man is here to be in charge, we'll clear up this crap with my son acting like a coddled woman."

Er, that's...not very close to what he said at all. I mean, it's close enough that I don't think you're deliberately misrepresenting what was said, but it's far enough away that I think you're viewing it through a twisted lens.

There is a definite "I'm a woman and I can do this just as good as a man!" feel to the tone of the comics, and it gets tiresome.

Thor never once said, thought, or implied anything to that effect. That is definitely projection on your part.

 

[JimB]

I've made my position on the matter perfectly clear.

You...really haven't, though. You have not at all explained why of all the dozens of incongruities with Norse lore that even I, a disinterested layperson with no training and only a passing awareness of Norse mythology, can detect, only casting a black man as Heimdall is beyond the pale and must therefore be laid at the feet of cultists worshiping the secret and sinister church of political correctness. In order to do that, you're going to have to actually engage and address every other possible theory, which you have not done. You've only scoffed and said, "Nope, political correctness!"

If you have some specific knowledge of the casting process, perhaps testimony you've heard from the creative team or reports of an editorial mandate, then please, present it. Until then, though, all you're doing is presenting a theory and insisting it's true not because you can prove it but because you can't or won't entertain any contradictory theories.

 

[mecegirl]

Frankly I'm surprised comics have retained any relevance whatsoever, given how the industry has ghettoized itself and priced itself out of reach of much of its most receptive audience, and pretty much the entirety of casual audiences. That's the elephant in the room.

My only guess is nostalgia? I don't even know why I still read superhero comics myself, especially since ever so often either the editorial or the writers do something that disinterests me...I.E. the entire new 52 except like the Aquaman title. But DC is proposing new and somewhat interesting things soon so I'll probs be sucked back in.

But overall the characters are often very entertaining, which is why the movies and cartoons gain audiences so fast.

Also, I'm not certain if you meant to quote both me and Binturng or if you got our posts mixed up while you were editing things.

 

[Bat Vader]

Peter Parker had his time as a movie character with some good movies attached to him. I say bring in Miles and introduce his character to the people that don't know about him.

 

[Aesir23]

Honestly, I would not want Miles to be the new movie Spider-Man and I'll readily admit that I don't have a well-thought out reason for it.

To put it plainly, Peter Parker is Spider-Man to me and has been since I first read some old copies of Spider-Man that my uncle once owned. So, I had very little interest in Miles from the get-go.

I'm all for some more diversity in movies but I would rather we don't just shoehorn it in just for the sake of it. I want there to be a reason for it and I want it to be done well otherwise it will seem forced and that's something I would apply to any ethnicity.

 

[xsosxfelix]

uhh no
That's like saying superman should be Jimmy Olsen. come up with new superheros if you feel the need to add variety like static shock, he was awesome and new. . . crazy i know. Don't bend over backwards to change an already existing story, it never works anyway and things will eventually go back to status quo, and then people forget about the whole thing. Its stupid stunt that they try to pull and a wastes everyone's time who is involved, from reader to the writers and artists.

 

[JimB]

Come up with new superheroes if you feel the need to add variety, like Static Shock, he was awesome and new...Crazy, I know.

How many original comic book characters do you believe have long-term success without attaching themselves to an existing character first, xsosxfelix? For instance, Static Shock has no ongoing title, no TV series, no plans to release his series on DVD, and no major movie prospects; in fact, so far as I can tell, he has barely even made a guest appearance in another hero's title in the two and a half years since his relaunched title failed.

I think you have very unreasonable expectations.

Don't bend over backwards to change an already existing story.

I don't understand what this means. In what way does a movie's script already exist before it's even been written?