Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Forum devoted to Mega Man by Archie Comics.

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby Striker » Mon Sep 21, 2015 7:00 pm

Quake Woman? Splash Woman?

Or do those 2 characters not exist?

Also can't forget Doctor Lalinde and Agent Krantz.

There are more than just 2 females in the series.
User avatar
Striker
BumbleClan
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:22 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby Astrobot7000 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 7:03 pm

The comic has some good female characters. Beyond Quake Woman there is her female creator and not to mention Federal Agent Roslyn Krantz.

EDIT: Beat me by a matter of minutes. Well done.
User avatar
Astrobot7000
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:20 pm

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby Tylinos » Mon Sep 21, 2015 7:47 pm

Striker wrote:Quake Woman? Splash Woman?

Or do those 2 characters not exist?

Also can't forget Doctor Lalinde and Agent Krantz.

There are more than just 2 females in the series.

Astrobot7000 wrote:The comic has some good female characters. Beyond Quake Woman there is her female creator and not to mention Federal Agent Roslyn Krantz.


Uh...

Penguin God wrote:Guys, the issue was not that domestic work is a terrible lifestyle. The issue was that in a series with over 70 named characters, there was only two girls ... Archie actually did get around this by introducing more female characters ... You're all getting mad at something the series has actually addressed and already admitted was a problem, then came up with a solution that didn't alter who Roll was or her strengths or demean her in any way.

That's kind of exactly what Penguin God said in that post. He was pointing out that, until MM9 (it had over 70 named characters pre-MM9; It's at least 90+ after MM10, so I figure he meant pre-MM9), there was only Roll and Kalinka, and Splash Woman was added to alleviate the problem somewhat. Then, after that, Archie further addressed it with characters like Krantz, Lalinde, and Quake Woman.

(Unless you're both responding to a different post that I overlooked or something. I'm assuming that was aimed at PG.)
User avatar
Tylinos
BumbleKnight
 
Posts: 931
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:43 am

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby lalalei2001 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 7:56 pm

Battle 'n' Chase has Plum, and there were also the Zodiac/Constellation Droids.
lalalei2001
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby Mordum » Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:21 pm

Like most social issues, there're valid points on both sides that just happen to be spoken in ways where they're deemed incompatible and also I basically hate both sides.

I actually agree with both DoNotDelete and, to my utter shock, BlazeHeatnix, to extent, though I agree with Heatnix more than Delete. I sympathize with Delete's point that homemaking shouldn't be seen as lesser, even if it's done by a woman. I love my mother dearly and think she's a marvelously strong, caring individual and to most people she'd probably seem like a dottering, unambitious housewife. I don't take kindly to the idea that a woman doing traditional feminine things or taking in traditional feminine roles somehow makes her less of a person (which nobody here's really claiming, exactly) either.

...But by the same token, Delete. I think you're a cool guy, but let's be real: based on the threads WE'VE interacted in, aggressive as I can sometimes be, I think your issue with social progress and diversity in media has less to do with any real philosophies one way or another and just hating it being a topic AT ALL. Which...I dunno. I sympathize on one level. I'm someone with fairly progressive, even laid back, social views and I have an utter hatred for anyone who makes it clear that they're passionate about social activism because, unfortunately, I've had far too many experiences with overly progressive people who dehumanize the very people they claim to fight for and have the exact same views as their bigoted opponents, they just don't notice. So I can agree with and empathize with your frustration, but let's also be real: if you consider the subject wrong just on the basis of it coming up at all, which was also basically your perspective when we discussed the unfortunate implications of Command Mission, you are being intellectual dishonest and unreasonable. Your frustration, in my (limited, admittedly) interaction with you, seems to come less from whether or not the argument is legitimate and more about it just being there. You don't seem to actually care if it's right or wrong, you just don't want it here at all. That's, honestly, fair enough. If I were being uncomfortably honest, I lean toward that myself. But it doesn't stop you from being dishonest and unreasonable. If someone has a complaint, your argument can't just be "Yeah well, you look too much into it and since a lot of people are annoying about social issues, you must be wrong." This is basically the second time I've seen you do this. Two's a coincidence, three's a pattern, but I get the feeling three would crop up eventually. Regardless of how you feel about something, being dismissive just because of what it is is not cool.

Though, I've just found more reasons why I relate to you. F...Friendsies?

On the other hand, as much as you're fighting the good fight SonicBlueRanger, you are EXACTLY like the sort of faux-progressives who have essentially come into my life over and over again. Your only advantage over them is that we're casual acquaintances on a message board and not super close friends. I like you and think you're a nice person, but let's be real: the level of dismissiveness you have completely overshadows the general level of insight you have on the very real social issues you claim to be passionate about. I NEVER see you actually engage anyone, you just assume your perception of your intellectual position is correct and everyone else is a bigot. The Max Landis thing, where you didn't even read the context of his statement you were protesting against? And when someone, or at least me, calls you out on your behavior? You don't defend yourself. You basically go to the venting thread and cry. You feel the absolute need to impose your beliefs on others and when they don't take it, you immediately crumble. You are no different from the very bigots you cannot tolerate, and it seems like the closest you can actually get to defending your point is to point out that everyone else has the opposite opinion you do. Which, yeah, basic observational skills are nice, but come on. What are you actually accomplishing when it doesn't seem like you can ever articulate the things you think are hard, fast truths?

Frankly, I think you're both really hurting your cause or position. I think Penguin God knows what's up more than most people in this thread, really. Everyone else is on varying spectrums of reasonability, but it's all gonna go in circles anyway.

But let's face the REAL problem: when social issues in media like this tends to come up, it always has to do with representation in brands. More diversity in superhero comics! More diversity in Mega Man! But, fundamentally, I think that boils down to a really troubling contradiction nobody seems to have addressed yet. The Reagan era really demolished our generation, and I don't think the auteur boom of the 90's TV cartoon helped much either. At this point, the millennial is someone outright conditioned to associate artistry with brands. Bruce Timm, Greg Weisman, even the British comics boom where Europeans were snagged up and put on DC's failing titles to reinvigorate them with a new wave of artistry and fresh voice. It's likely a lot of people's formative fiction here was repurposed former brands done by creatives given unprecedented freedom. The exact OPPOSITE of David Chase, Chris Carter, and Joss Whedon revolutionizing creativity on mainstream venues (though one could make the valid argument that David Chase spawned something that, even now with Vince Gilligan, we're not quite escaping: the romanticization of the tragedy of the patriarch. But that's another debate, I think). But a lot of us got introduced to big, famous established brands via an auteur boom in various accessible mediums and I think that really dang the diversity discussion.

You hear stuff about the Marvel Cinematic Universe needing more diversity, for example. But that seems like a terrible solution. As much as capitalism has its flaws in leaning toward those who already are advantaged, there're plenty of socially progressive geekers who rail ON AND ON AND ON about the fundamental social problems in their brands and then...still spend money on them. You know how you can use your power to change things? Stop buying what offends you. You know what I did, as a teenager eager for material to explore that featured LGBT characters like me? I just looked for gay cinema. I mean, I hated them because I thought they were fundamentally condescending, gross, and simplistic in their worldview in a shallow way, but the fact remains that there IS material out there. It exists. You can find it pretty easily, even if you didn't want to resort to financially dependent means. It NEVER occurred to me growing up that there was a lack of representation for me in media because I could very easily find, purchase, or watch the media that I thought I would relate to.

That's not to say that mass market material like cartoons or comics shouldn't be diverse. I think they should be if that's what the creator desires. I care less about the races or genders of central characters as much as I care about premises and themes and the potentials for story. Sometimes gender, race, and sexuality has to do with that potential, sometimes it doesn't. But I'm not going to STOMP MY FEET when something isn't what I want. I'm simply going to not support or indulge that product. I DON'T subscribe to the notion popularized in the 80's about commercializing sentimentality via the action figure. If a brand isn't giving me what I want, I'm getting rid of that brand. I'm not going to demand it fit me. We're caught in this Reaganized place where these brands are not meeting our social and emotional needs, but rather than discard them as outdated we just keep them around because you can't POSSIBLY have a world without them! It seems like, at the end of the day, as much as people want this stuff to be diverse, it's slightly more important that this stuff sticks around than it actually becomes more enlightened.

That seems weird to me, but again, I come from a worldview where I just find actual things that fit what I'm looking for instead of sitting on a constantly disappointing brand and keep whining it doesn't appeal to me. It's capitalism. Prove you want change by making an effort to change. If everyone who disagreed with the outdated views they say certain works have ACTUALLY rejected those works, instead of just put up with them, there'd be some reasonable change. But frankly, I don't think people care as much as they say they do. Because we couuuuuuld fight for women, blacks, gays, etc. but then we couldn't play Mega Man or watch Batman anymore so OBVIOUSLY THIS PLAN IS TERRIBLE.

Nobody will ever get anywhere, from a progress stand point, if they feel the need to prioritize their sentimentality toward brands over their compassion for their fellow human being. Yet here we are. And the argument's probably going to go in circles. SonicBlue, Delete, don't take what I say too hard. I'm just being honest, here, and I think in a discussion like this honesty is the only place to go. I feel like Delete has a perfectly valid stance at this point (because, yes, the need to force brands to change is obnoxious...because we're insisting progress but demanding we keep the familiar. We give brands artists to empower brands, not give brands to artists to empower artists). I feel like what SonicBlue believes is admirable and I agree with a lot of it; I'm not really a conservative by any means (well, I generally dig the death penalty in the abstract, but besides that...). But you both pretty conveniently represent a spectrum that insists on communicating with people in ways where problems won't be solved...so I question why you'd both care so much about what neither of you could really solve.

Personally? I think the gender politics in Mega Man make sense.

Speaking purely from a perspective internal to the logic of the story presented, there's rarely much of a reason to make a specifically female robot. Not because women are lesser or differently abled as much as most of the Robot Masters are based around military or labor professions that just...don't require the specificity of the female build? If I were building robots to do construction, I wouldn't see much of a need for feminine specific body parts or female body structure in the same way I would feel no need to give Guts Man a penis. It's just something I can't imagine would ever occur to Dr. Light or Dr. Wily in terms of their ambitions when creating those machines.

There IS a potentially sexist notion in the fact that Rock is chosen to be refitted to battle instead of Roll, but that's not really actual sexism in the definition we're discussing. That's a character's debateably sexist notions, and I don't think presenting those or being consistent with them makes a writer or artist a bigot. Dr. Light's an old man, and for all his ambitions and liberal views, if he has to send one of his children off to what's essentially military service...sorry, speaking as a guy? I'd probably pick my son over my daughter too, and I say this growing up with a SISTER who was in football when I was so physically inept that any heavy lifting around the house came down to asking my FRIENDS to help with physical labor. I was a genuine waste of time. Between a straight daughter roughhousing and footballing with the boys and a deep voiced gay son lacking any real distinct feminine qualities but who still couldn't lift a drawer unless he tried way too hard, my Fox News loving father didn't exactly have much in the way of what he probably expected. But Doctor Light is a heterosexual male and I feel like, with that sort of outlook, you probably have, whether you're right or wrong, a certain notion regarding the vulnerability of women. ESPECIALLY once you get a daughter, and you suddenly realize the entire world is going to look at her the way you looked at girls your age who were someone else's daughters. A man is going to probably feel more protective of his daughter just based on that prism and thus the son is enlisting first. That is a notion rooted in sexist attitudes, but it's not especially malicious. It's interesting and honest and real. It is a little offensive. Life is offensive.

Despite that, it's hard for me to protest diversity because 1.) I'm not a bigot and 2.) Tempo happens to be my favorite character in the comic. Not that the notion started here, exactly, but her story arc reminds me a lot of what I liked about Joss Whedon's Dollhouse. How Echo would slowly find herself after being wiped like a machine. That story's interesting to me, and Quake Woman's intrigue in that context to me has near everything to do with that. Her gender, color, whatever else? Fairly immaterial. Her identity crisis is just really interesting to me and the sort of things I like. And it's pretty well done, to boot, while still being accessible to about anybody.

(Well, okay. Second favorite. Ra Moon is amazing, and the entire Ra Moon arc is so insanely jarring in its worldbuilding based on what came before that it feels like a shonen filler arc, which was always the best part of any shonen anime. Ironic, given he actually does come from the source material. And it's a dang great story too. Plus I find gods really interesting.)

I feel like it's a pretty inane point. People who're mad at Mega Man's lack of diversity are still going to consider their attachment to the brand more important than the progression of equality for marginalized people, making them insanely horrible activists and allies no matter HOW you slice it. People who aren't mad at Mega Man's lack of diversity are going to think people who diversity are annoying shriekers who never go away. There's clearly not going to actually be any progress, because both sides have been drinking the capitalist Kool-Aid enough that neither of them really realize that their fundamental need for this progression is locked in an iron cage that keeps everything safe and familiar from ever going away.

Like Sonic, I like Mega Man as it is. I enjoy Ian Flynn's interpretation of the material. I adore Quake Woman's character, and actually think it'd be fun if he made even MORE new characters, regardless of gender. If I wanted something Mega Man didn't offer, I'd...get something that isn't Mega Man. You know, show that there's financial support for things we say big bad corporate doesn't believe works. Instead of buying their product and saying it's socially irresponsible (but apparently we're not at fault for contributing to social irresponsibility because Iron Man is my favorite box of Cheerios).

TL;DR You could always be a grown up and watch Caprica because that's awesome and about a robot girl deciphering the nature of her sentience. Also there's a part where she katanas people in a 1920's noir town and it's awesome.
User avatar
Mordum
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:58 am

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby EvilEddie » Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:30 pm

I like how the only time a Mega Man issue thread is active is when we're talking about things other than the comic.

Really shows how vested in it people are.
User avatar
EvilEddie
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:01 am

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby Bean » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:51 pm

EvilEddie wrote:I like how the only time a Mega Man issue thread is active is when we're talking about things other than the comic.

Really shows how vested in it people are.

You're saying that, but we are talking about the comic and the series with this.

I mean, I could go on another tangent and say that the Mega Man 3 storyline was the best this book has ever been to me, but it doesn't matter when the moment it ended the "hiatus" word came up. Hearing that it was getting canned or shelved at that point was a huge gut punch, especially knowing that the Sonic one will have two books still running because they perform equally or better and not to mention that they waited until a couple of weeks after I had just renewed the book in the spring.

And Worlds Unite was a second gut punch because that one just didn't deliver. It was also literally a three-month period where the issues were not getting delivered to me and I had to contact Archie every time. Then #53 gets here on time, showing how cursed that second crossover was. Sonic fans have storylines going. Mega Man fans are being set up for something that may or may not happen. Again, it's tough to generate enthusiasm when there's nothing waiting on the horizon.
Bean
BumbleCitizen
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby Penguin God » Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:49 am

The idea that people who ask for changes in a story can only be slaves to brands is an extremely presumptuous one, but frankly that's an issue you feel passionate about and I doubt there's much I can say to dissuade it. A person can look for other stories they want more AND have standards for ongoing stories and how they develop in the future. People who say "Mega Man is a really great game series but it also has problems with how it portrays women" are not mindless zombies that worship the little blue robot according to Reagan's whims, suffice to say.
User avatar
Penguin God
BumbleCult
 
Posts: 8406
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby Mordum » Tue Sep 22, 2015 2:48 am

You're not entirely wrong, so there's not much dissuading you need to do. And for all my rambling on brands, I DO enjoy brand and mainstream entertainment. I think Mega Man is consistently one of the better comics produced, and I think the entire Ra Moon arc is the most fun I've had reading a comic in a long time. Quake Woman's story arc genuinely moved me, and her archetype is one that means a lot to me personally.

That being said? I think my point stands. You can argue it reaches too far, and you'd have a point, but at the same time...it does beg a question that's worth answering. No, I DON'T think people are zombies. But I do think that the fact the commercialization of sentimentality NEVER seems to come up when this debate approaches comic book or superhero nerds says a lot. We could at least agree on that much, right? Even if you think I'm completely wrong, fair enough, but the fact this isn't even APPROACHED? Come on. There's a reason for that. There has to be.

Which is why if someone would call me wrong, I'd like for them to explain why. I agree with the fact that someone can like something but want better representation or more diversity. That's not unreasonable. When this becomes a GENRE WIDE, MULTIMEDIA SPANNING PHENOMENON, then I balk. That stops being reasonable. Either your belief in equality transcends your sentiment and need for your childhood love, or it doesn't. If you're watching Ant-Man and complaining about no prominent women or minorities in the MCU, you are in the wrong. Not Marvel. If you're eagerly downloading Megaman 9 in a nostalgic rush but then go on a message board to complain about the series's lack of ethnic or gender diversity, that is your fault. Not Capcom's. Consumers have EVERY RIGHT to deny a product for any reason, and if the reasons relate to social convictions then those convictions about the equality of all people being compromised is absolutely shameful.

You make a valid point that Archie did make a point to rectify the complaint and, as licencors who control the property, that is their right and nothing any reasonable person should complain about. But that is not a NECESSARY step for a brand to take, in my mind. I feel like a brand should succeed or fail based on how well it does with its audience. If a superhero book, Mega Man included, consistently makes its audience feel offended on a social level, there is no justification for its success. Don't like the Batgirl cover? Stop buying Batgirl. Don't like a lack of women in the overall Megaman brand? The Archie book probably would be a good product to support, but if it somehow wasn't enough? Stop buying it. Either everyone being seen as human matters more to you than a fictional story, or it doesn't.

Superman is one of my all time favorite characters and one I feel an excessive, almost upsetting personal connection to. I've still never seen Man of Steel and have no intention to because its sensibilities as advertised are not something I agree with on many levels. Yu-Gi-Oh! is one of my all time favorite things ever, but I can find the original manga to be troublesome in how it contextualizes its otherwise fantastic, hilarious softcore horror content without wanting it to be changed or altered. The work is the work. I don't believe in censorship, nor do I even believe in a work changing itself to the whims of its audience unless that's absolutely what the creators want to do. If something does something I don't like to the point I think it's actually SOCIALLY OFFENSIVE? It's my fault if I support that product.

So while I acknowledge and appreciate the point you make to reel back, I don't really back down from my assertion. The geek faux-progressive millennial perpetuates his or her beliefs while utterly refusing to move on from the things that defined their childhood. I don't think it's a coincidence I can see people I know personally with supposedly enlightened beliefs about social progress and equality in media suddenly FLIPPING THEIR WORLD in joy in hope that Splat will bring Rugrats back completely unmolested. There's a correlation between the nostalgia boom and the faux-progressive. I think it's too prominent. I think it's self defeating. And I think it's ridiculous that it's a correlation that never comes up.

You're not wrong in your assertion, but you're also not correct enough for me to be convinced that it's not an actual thing, either. Which I suppose you saw coming, so I must come off obstinate. I think if someone thinks diversity in this demographic and genre of multimedia is a legitimate, quantifiable problem and none of their "activism" really does much besides the occasional cover removal or occasional new (usually cool) character and it's not really satisfying...it's time to just vote with your dollar. Stop buying. Stop engaging. Let them know what they're doing is not acceptable in a way that actually matters to them. As much as I don't really agree with DoNotDelete's approach to just assuming someone with social complaints looks too much into things, I DO agree with his weariness and his general apathy toward the situation.

I've also never really agreed with the notion that we "know better" than we did in previous decades. If even one person didn't agree with Jim Crow laws or the 3/5ths clause, ignorance is not a valid excuse. If even one person was tolerant of homosexuals during excessively homophobic periods, ignorance is not a valid excuse. If someone even proposed the idea that women should vote at all, ignorance is not an excuse. Millennial faux-progressives take pride in trying to put forth good work in the fact we "know better" now. We don't. And it shows the grand majority of the time, whether bigots (I can RANDOMLY, in my home town, come across people who legitimately believe gays are devil wizards who should be murdered by gunpoint) or supposed progressives (people who're supportive of being gay I've met because it makes me "cute" or "cool", or a friend of mine who took a traumatic experience in my life and was excited by its implications for the wider social cause). There's not a vast difference.

If an entertainment product starts doing something that bothers you, it's their fault. If you keep supporting them for what they're doing, putting your investment in something intangible and literal escapist fiction over a social cause, that's your fault.

All of this, though, is truly secondary to the fact that Archie Mega Man isn't sexist and Mega Man's gender politics make perfect sense in the context presented.
User avatar
Mordum
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:58 am

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby SonicBlueRanger » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:03 am

Mordum I'll say that you're right about me. I do have a problem of not defending myself or my position very well but I really don't agree with the idea that we should just drop things because there's no diversity.

I sincerely believe that demands do help I mean look at Marvel. In recent years they've heard the complaints about diversity and created more Diverse characters like Kamala Kahn, Mile Morales, Making Sam Wilson Captain America, Jane Foster as Thor (Regardless of your personal thoughts on the book) and so on. They listened to the people asking for more Diversity and they changed things for the better.

To say "Oh, you shouldn't complain about these things because cooperation's and media will never change" comes off as defeatist to me. You have to demand better to get better.
User avatar
SonicBlueRanger
BumbleChosen
 
Posts: 12370
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Angel Grove, CA

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby BlazeHeatnix » Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:09 am

And remember that it's only Mega Man Classic that has a lack of diversity. I'm willing to bet Capcom got this complaint over the years, because by Zero and ZX there was quite a bit of female representation. Ciel is practically the true protagonist of Z, and in ZX there's pretty equal representation on both sides especially since Aile is canon. It's like in the hundreds of years of lore MM has, society gradually becomes more progressive. So knowing that, I don't actually mind the Classic universe not having many female characters.
User avatar
BlazeHeatnix
BumbleCitizen
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:40 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby lalalei2001 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:42 am

Roll started having a more prominent role starting with MM7, too, especially in Powered Up, 9 and 10. (As well as the Ruby-Spears cartoon ^^ That show had a lot of women, human and robot!)
lalalei2001
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby The KKM » Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:33 pm

It also provided important demographical representation for furries.
User avatar
The KKM
BumbleClan
 
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:40 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby Mordum » Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:03 am

SonicBlueRanger wrote:I sincerely believe that demands do help I mean look at Marvel. In recent years they've heard the complaints about diversity and created more Diverse characters like Kamala Kahn, Mile Morales, Making Sam Wilson Captain America, Jane Foster as Thor (Regardless of your personal thoughts on the book) and so on. They listened to the people asking for more Diversity and they changed things for the better.


Which is fine, sure. Kamala is cool, based on the little I've been exposed to. I can't speak for Miles as I stopped caring about Ultimate long before he was ever a thing (not that Ultimate was ever all that great beyond the Hollywood arc) and I don't think I've ever read or seen anything involving that character. Though I heard Donald Glover voiced him in Ultimate...which is kind of a big insult because the entire point of the Glover thing was that he was a perfect PETER PARKER, not a perfect BLACK SPIDER-MAN. But whatever. Couldn't tell you how Glover felt about that, but he voiced the episode so it must not've been that much of a bother to him. Still, though...

I don't know how much of that is change for the better. Miles Morales makes sense: Peter Parker dies, someone takes up his legacy. But Sam Wilson as Captain America? I never read those books, but that logic never really made sense to me. Sam Wilson already has a superhero identity. Was there not a Falcon book? Why not just make a Falcon book? How is that more diverse? It's just a costume switch and, more important, taking away a black man's identity and making him look like the more famous white man.

John Stewart and Simon Baz are one thing, as...misguided as a lot of Baz's early stuff was (is it still like that? I wouldn't know). Green Lanterns are space cops, they're not taking Hal Jordan's identity (stolen from Alan Scott anyway). But...Sam Wilson losing his own identity to be Captain America? Glover lobbying to be Peter Parker meaning he can be the other, black Spider-Man that isn't the actual character he identifies with as a person. Because to Marvel, skin color matters more than your actual personal identity.

Marvel is literally the exact type of thing I hate. Their successful attempts, honestly, feel more like accidents given how horribly racist some of their decisions (faux)-progressives praise are. Legacy characters are one thing, but the subtext behind some of Marvel's choices are incredibly dehumanizing. They're, again, pandering to what people THINK is progressive, which is they're conditioned to think just paying attention to the people who don't look like them is SUPER GREAT, GUYS.

It's a complete and utter insult to what something like Milestone was founded on.
User avatar
Mordum
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:58 am

Re: Mega Man #53 - Spoilers & Discussion

Postby Antiyonder » Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:05 pm

Just got the issue today.

Surprised that the Genesis Portal was referred to as such, rather than merely a portal since the term originated in StH.
Antiyonder
BumbleCitizen
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:09 am

PreviousNext

Return to For Everlasting Peace!



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron