We're not debating that distinction as far as I'm aware.

 

No, he's right. That's on me for using "black" rather than specifying African-American.

Storm being African is a pretty significant part of her character. She was, for starters, the African representative of Chris Claremont's run on X-men wherein every member came from a different country. She continuously returns to Africa and has plots centered around it, being once worshipped as an Africa goddess plays into her character... no. Africa and Storm are pretty closely linked.

Speaking of Chris Claremont, can you just imagine if that happened today? A superhero team completely and utterly replaced by a team composed entirely of people from different cultures? Would that just be diversity for diversity's sake?

 

no....but that's not the issue...it's taking said superhero team and replacing all the members cultures or genders while still keeping them as the same characters. that's the issue. new members are one thing but changing who the characters are while still relying on the name is what i have issue with. like the hank henshaw thing...okay..he's basically a new character..but why still call him hank henshaw? why still call him the cyborg superman? you want the name recognition so badly but you want nothing else...heritage included.

claremont created a whole new team he didn't just make beast an asian guy or iceman a black girl. he dropped a whole new team on us. it's two different things.

and to answer the storm thing again...the ultimate universe version of storm was born in morocco but immigrated early to texas where she was a car thief....that version of the character was very successful with her african decent so nonexisted it didn't matter....so i hold firm she doesn't need to be from africa. the ultimate universe made it very successful.

 

Let's say I have a team of pre-existing superheroes. My job is to write up a new story for them. My job is not to invent new ones - I've been hired to help shape an old property into a new story, to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

Positives of race-swapping to make the cast more diverse:
+ Broader potential appeal.
+ Makes the team a better reflection of the diversity of the world we live in - in other words, modernises the franchise.
+ Probably the decent thing to do, given that minority groups are still underrepresented in fiction.

And the negatives?
+ A minority of purists will be annoyed because of what they see as a cynical decision that isn't done to please them.

It's kind of a no-brainer.

 

lol this post

 

if you want to come up with an actual pro and con list be my guest but if you actually want me to care about what you say you can try being less condescending when getting to the negative portion.

keep in mind preserving the history of a character isn't as simple as "pleasing" a purist. maybe one of the purists enjoys said character and feels representation in said character and a radical change alienates the purist with the character because your fictional company can't create something new and is struggling to hold on with name recognition over creative thought....but "muh diversity" i guess...as long as iron man is a black girl now.

 

Actually, it's a few valid points given how existing comic book franchises do pretty much everything they can to not introduce new characters... The limitation often coming from the corporate higher-ups. So a writer who got to introduce anything new can pretty much only reimagine old legacy characters.
You have any new character introduced these days and it's a lot of fanfare as if it was something special... It used to be a commonplace in comic books to have new characters.

 

I can concede the market is quite saturated now...

 

Did Spectacular Spider-man stop existing?

Liz was changed to Hispanic and Ned Leeds was changed to Ned Lee in that, among other characters.

Strange you left out Shocker, though.

 

Tired pedophile robots.

 

What the fuck even is this thread?

 

Haven't actually seen Spectacular, didn't know about the first two. Knew about Shocker, but wasn't keen on that either.

 

What are you saying is condescending? You're certainly in a minority, you use the term 'purist' in your post as well, and I've certainly seen the idea of race-swapping being criticised as cynical, so I guess it's the last part?

I don't think white guys are generally lacking in characters to feel represented by, so is that really much of an issue? It does rather bring to mind the edict to 'share your toys'.

Big companies don't modify name brands because they're struggling to come up with something new. They pay one team of creators to come up with something new, and another team to update and maintain the name brand. Why should Team A be the only one permitted to use a racially diverse cast? Again, because of a minority of purists?

 

whit?

 

Legion wants to go to bed.

 

There isnt, but matt tracker is one of the lead characters of that franchise. He had his time in the spotlight, so its less insulting than it would be to fans of a lesser known character to have his/her/its identity changed.
And having read the revolutions tie-ins the characterisation for Tracker is very good, the dynamic with Mayhem is great and its well written so i dont mind the raceswap.

 

We got to get past this nonsense. This isn't about pleasing one person or the other. It's about the integrity of the property. Silly stunts (that are slowly undone in the long run) aren't cool because they pander, not to minorities, but typically white people with an agenda. This nonsense of "it's not made for you anymore" is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Spider-man wasn't written for me because he's a catholic white guy from queens? The fantastic stories aren't enough? Black panther isn't aimed to me because he's an African prince? Can I not enjoy the Martian Manhunter because he's a green alien? Kyle Rayner isn't aimed at me because his father is Mexi... oh wait. Never mind. Is it entertaining? Does it present a good story? Then it's for anyone that might enjoy it, regardless of the racial or ethnic make-up of the character in the fiction. Representation is good, I get it. People want to be able to relate to the character they're reading about. But if that is all you want to take away from a comic, then I really have to question how anyone can relate to an inorganic alien that is millions of years old.

To my next point, The problem with this "broader potential appeal" is that it doesn't work. It alienates the fans that want to read their favorite character. Speaking to a change that I wasn't fond of at first, Alan Scott being randomly chosen to be turned into a homosexual was a terrible idea. It was bad from beginning to end. Does that make me a homophobe now? To some it might. Forget the fact that I love Midnighter and Apollo. I have figures of the characters, and up until a few months ago (water damage) I had a poster of those two hanging in my man-cave. Sometimes the answer to not liking these "forward thinking" changes really is that they're poorly conceived stunts that don't work. It doesn't make anyone a bigot, or sexist, or whatever other 'ist'. It just means they can see through the bullshit. That's it.

 

"I love you Convoy... is that Ice cream on your gear handle...?"

 

Now i cant touch any of my Optimus toys untill i get that mental image out of my head  

 

i used purist because that's the person you chose to target whether it's who we're talking about or not....i used purist so you can relate. it's not always about purists having problems with pandering or forced diversity.

the rest of my response i'm just going to repost what GoLion said because he summed it up perfectly and i really had nothing more to add. well said GoLion.