I have to disagree with this. I recently acquired the first 500 issues of "Amazing Spider Man" starting with the '62(?) issue of "Amazing Fantasy". I've read up thru 1971 and found it interesting the integration of black characters and the stories perspective on racism.
Examples... 1) The Prowler - Hobie Brown, black villian. Hobie is first shown as a window washer, (dead end job) and frustrated with his place in life mostly due to his color. 2) "Robbie Robertson" the lead editor of the Bugle. Robbies son was involved in a strike at E.S.U. (non racist strike) and the father & son have a discussion about 'making it in a white mans world'. A few instances where Robbie convinced JJJ that he was supporting a racist (Sam Bullit). Once JJJ realized his mistake; he (Jonah) pulled the newspapers support and threw Sam out of his office.
The Sam Bullit issue (#91, "To Smash A Spider") is an excellent example. The issue touches on the racial tension of the day w/out allowing it to interfere with the story.
@justsomereportingguy: But none of these characters were leads. Your lead character here is a white kid who got bit by a radioactive spider. Nothing against Peter Parker - I'm a Spider-Man fan with the exception of the daily strip, which I only masochistically read to give myself a regular example of truly horrible writing. But he fits a larger pattern where people of color are overwhelmingly not the main protagonists in "mainstream" comics.
@Boas_MC: You have a good point which I think also happens to be the point of the article.
The reason why I disagree is because of when these comics started. Spider-man began in 63! Wrong or right a black Spider-Man simply would not have sold in 63. With that in mind I think Marvel did a good job addressing the race issue and offering their opinion on it while still working to sell a product. The prowler issue ends with Hobie Brown as the 'lucky one' (no matter your color, you get to lead a 'normal' life while I must continue being miserable) and the Sam B issue ends in a similar fashion - With Sam getting outed by JJJ & Robbie.
S-M is but one example. Many of our favorite comic super-heroes are very old, they go back as far as the 60's & 70's. Selling a product in that time almost demanded the 'white guy - leading role'. Still even with that demand, still knowing they have to sell a product (yes, Marvel employees love their job but they gotta pay the bills like the rest of us), I think Marvel has done a good job at least offering their opinion on the race issue = "It's wrong"
Stan has even mentioned (more than once but I cant find the orig reference I want) that the X-Men (Mutants) are based on racism and the struggle to live in harmony with those that are different. [newsone.com]
Maybe not an elephant in the room, but there is at least a cash cow in the room: Archie. *That* would be a better fit for the Miley Cyrus crowd, and with Marvel under the wing it would mean more crossovers like this:
I've been thinking some more about this, and I'm surprised that only DocSeuss has mentioned the word "token." Part of the problem is that most of the characters that are popular these days are still the same ones that were created 30-50 years ago. The creators of the 60s and 70s were for the most part well-meaning white liberals dealing with companies that were stuck in the 40s. That doesn't excuse the tokenism, but it explains it. The creators felt that Black Panther, Black Lightning, etc were all that they could get away with (and they were probably right: in at least one case DC literally whitened a character who was going to be black.)
I think the reason Milestone failed was that they were not part of the regular DC universe. The easiest way to shore up the sales of a lagging title is to have special guest stars ("hey look! It's Static's pal Batman!")
I think what I'm saying is that this isn't a problem that can be easily solved.
Disney has always gotten their ideas from somewhere else: Grimm Brothers, P.L. Travers, A.A. Milne, Hans Christian Andersen. Now Marvel. They were never an "idea" factory. They were an innovation factory; telling old stories in new and exciting ways. Until they announce Ant Man: The Movie, I don't think it's necessary to run up the white flag.
Hey, there was an Ant Man movie in the works, and it was actually a pretty great idea. Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead) was planning to write/direct, and he was going to base it on the Scott Lang version (possibly starring Will Arnett)
Just a quick observation. It seems to me to be more of a writer issue rather than a fan-based issue. I find whenever they introduce a "non-white" character, they seem to not know what to do with them. 'Runaways" started with a black character who was very interesting but they seemed to run out of ideas on how to use him so they made him a bad guy and got rid of him. The New X-Men (the young ones) had a black character who was very interesting but they ran out of ideas on how to use him so they took away his powers. Need another example? The Sasquatch character (Black woman) on "Exiles" depowered and discarded. Some writer can take a "non-white" and do great work writing for them. The problem comes when a new writer comes in who has no idea how to speak for the character and either they mess them up or simply get rid of them. I recently read the first 25 issues of Luke Cage's series and I thought it was great. Although I like what Bendis is doing with him now, I would rather see the original Luke Cage, the way he was a originally written. He was a hard-ass but he was a "thug".
@MartinMatchu:
I agree it's a writer problem. One of the stupidest things I remember from the Secret Wars was Jim Shooter's portrayal of Rogue. Now, white Southerners are not a racial minority, but their accents are often used as examples of "stupid" by Northerners. As written by Claremont, Rogue still retained a bit of her accent but became a bit more sophisticated. When Shooter wrote her around the same time, she sounded like she belonged on hee haw.
Seeing as how Lucas himself is personally worth several billion dollars, and that Star Wars is still a license to print money, I seriously doubt he'd have any incentive to sell his franchises to anyone. It's not his style to sell out, at least in the financial sense.
Seriously, they should just reprint the Howard comics in all their glory. Gerber was the Zappa of Marvel in the 70s - a genius who happened to be nuts.
@Rickotron: Um... Warner Brothers already owns DC... and probably wouldn't be willing to sell, unless they get really fucked up by the current Superman litigation... and by that point, no one would want to buy.
Need I remind you what the biggest movie was of last year? I really don't think Warner would want to give that up. But you're right, if the Superman heirs totally take DC to the cleaners (and I'm not erntirely sure they would be wrong to do so) it might be a different story.
@Aidan_: *Parades back in with a marching band*....Hey..thats cool!! Thank goodness im not just the only person who liked it. I thought i was going mad!!! Its a top take on Treasure Island.
@CoffinDodger (If the typos crap. Blame my keyboard): I always enjoy Peter DeSeve's vivid character designs. I could have done without Martin Short doing a Robin Williams impression as BEN. All in all an enjoyable kid's movie that followed the original material well and had great space fantasy hooks.
Plus, Patrick McGoohan as Billy Bones.
this ignores the fact that disney isnt just buying up everyone. they bought marvel because it was a demographic they previously didn't have before. the teen to young male market hasn't been disney's bread and butter and they wanted a way into that demographic's pockets. the end. now they have families/children, girls, women, young men, and man children. there is very little of the population that wont be giving that company money.
@GreyHammer: Everyone says that Disney bought Marvel to get the young men -- but do teens/tweens/boys/dudebros read comic books nowadays like they used to?
These Kids Today seem way more into the manga... although I suppose Disney could be planning more cartoons, live-action shows, and movies for merchandising. Not so much the comics themselves.
09/08/09
Examples... 1) The Prowler - Hobie Brown, black villian. Hobie is first shown as a window washer, (dead end job) and frustrated with his place in life mostly due to his color. 2) "Robbie Robertson" the lead editor of the Bugle. Robbies son was involved in a strike at E.S.U. (non racist strike) and the father & son have a discussion about 'making it in a white mans world'. A few instances where Robbie convinced JJJ that he was supporting a racist (Sam Bullit). Once JJJ realized his mistake; he (Jonah) pulled the newspapers support and threw Sam out of his office.
The Sam Bullit issue (#91, "To Smash A Spider") is an excellent example. The issue touches on the racial tension of the day w/out allowing it to interfere with the story.
09/08/09
09/08/09
The reason why I disagree is because of when these comics started. Spider-man began in 63! Wrong or right a black Spider-Man simply would not have sold in 63. With that in mind I think Marvel did a good job addressing the race issue and offering their opinion on it while still working to sell a product. The prowler issue ends with Hobie Brown as the 'lucky one' (no matter your color, you get to lead a 'normal' life while I must continue being miserable) and the Sam B issue ends in a similar fashion - With Sam getting outed by JJJ & Robbie.
S-M is but one example. Many of our favorite comic super-heroes are very old, they go back as far as the 60's & 70's. Selling a product in that time almost demanded the 'white guy - leading role'. Still even with that demand, still knowing they have to sell a product (yes, Marvel employees love their job but they gotta pay the bills like the rest of us), I think Marvel has done a good job at least offering their opinion on the race issue = "It's wrong"
Stan has even mentioned (more than once but I cant find the orig reference I want) that the X-Men (Mutants) are based on racism and the struggle to live in harmony with those that are different. [newsone.com]
09/07/09
09/07/09
Maybe not an elephant in the room, but there is at least a cash cow in the room: Archie. *That* would be a better fit for the Miley Cyrus crowd, and with Marvel under the wing it would mean more crossovers like this:
09/07/09
09/07/09
I think the reason Milestone failed was that they were not part of the regular DC universe. The easiest way to shore up the sales of a lagging title is to have special guest stars ("hey look! It's Static's pal Batman!")
I think what I'm saying is that this isn't a problem that can be easily solved.
09/06/09
09/07/09
Sure thing. Dark Knight pretty much saved Warners last year, so I don't think they're going to part with it any time soon.
09/06/09
09/06/09
09/07/09
Hey, there was an Ant Man movie in the works, and it was actually a pretty great idea. Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead) was planning to write/direct, and he was going to base it on the Scott Lang version (possibly starring Will Arnett)
09/05/09
09/07/09
I agree it's a writer problem. One of the stupidest things I remember from the Secret Wars was Jim Shooter's portrayal of Rogue. Now, white Southerners are not a racial minority, but their accents are often used as examples of "stupid" by Northerners. As written by Claremont, Rogue still retained a bit of her accent but became a bit more sophisticated. When Shooter wrote her around the same time, she sounded like she belonged on hee haw.
09/05/09
09/07/09
The only reason he'd sell is if he's tired of being caretaker of the brand name.
09/05/09
09/07/09
Seriously, they should just reprint the Howard comics in all their glory. Gerber was the Zappa of Marvel in the 70s - a genius who happened to be nuts.
09/05/09
UGH...
However, if Disney does a reboot, or even a cool sequel, of the Black Hole, that would be interesting.
09/05/09
09/05/09
09/07/09
Need I remind you what the biggest movie was of last year? I really don't think Warner would want to give that up. But you're right, if the Superman heirs totally take DC to the cleaners (and I'm not erntirely sure they would be wrong to do so) it might be a different story.
09/05/09
09/05/09
09/05/09
09/05/09
09/06/09
09/06/09
Plus, Patrick McGoohan as Billy Bones.
09/05/09
09/05/09
09/05/09
These Kids Today seem way more into the manga... although I suppose Disney could be planning more cartoons, live-action shows, and movies for merchandising. Not so much the comics themselves.
09/05/09
Not too important, they're freakin' comics ...
That's kind of like the Earth-shattering cultural influence of chewing gum ads.
-Kle.