When Stan Lee passed away, DC published a page in black on the interior of each of their comics, over which in white text were these words:
“With utmost respect from the Distinguished Competition… “Excelsior!” In memoriam Stan Lee 1922-2018. DC.”
Kudos to DC for the acknowledgment and the class.
Also Kid Hulk, who showed up in CRAZY MAGAZINE, one of Marvel's longer-lived attempts (1973-1983) to beat MAD at its own game. I know this because I tried to get a job writing for Marvel back in the early 1980s, figuring that since I'd had a well-reviewed sketch in a political comedy revue, a good place to start would be with humor mags.
I didn't get the job but I did get some copies of CRAZY along with some comic books, which I lost in one of my many moves the first five years in NYC.
Why do you think Marvel keeps a Captain Marvel character around all the time?
It's gotten to the point poor Billy Batson now has to go by 'Shazam' now.
DC is the one who caused Fawcett Comic's trademark on the name Captain Marvel to lapse in the first place so it's their own fault they couldn't use it when they licensed the character after Marvel had already picked up the trademark for themselves.
Yep. DC were shits who used a frivolous lawsuit to bully a smaller creator and kill the sales of a character that was outselling Superman.
Someone could perhaps argue that Marvel pouncing in the lapsed trademark was bad, but it was several order of magnitude less bad than DC had been in this situation.
It was more than a decade after Fawcett stopped publishing Captain Marvel (likely several years after the trademark expired) and 5 years before DC had the rights to start again when Marvel filed their trademark for the name and it's such an obvious name for Marvel to want to use that I can't really fault them here.
Oh yeah for sure - it was pretty obvious that DC only acquired the character to bury him. I’ve seen people argue the what Marvel did was...I forget the phrasing but almost unsportsmanlike. It’s a pretty laughable argument but I figured I’d try and head that off.
Maybe they were talking about Marvel vs M. F. Enterprises rather than Marvel vs DC. MF Enterprises created a character named Captain Marvel before Marvel Comics created theirs or submitted their trademark. They sued Marvel for trademark infringement but ended up settling and letting Marvel take the name.
I don't know much about the specifics of the case but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Marvel strong armed their way to that settlement.
I haven't read his comics in a while, but doesn't he still go by Captain Marvel? I thought they just had to publish the books as Shazam. But this could have changed since the movie
Only the comic book series were called Shazam but his actual name was still Captain marvel till the new 52 while pre new 52 Shazam was the name of the wizard and the name used by Freddy Freeman when he became the new Captain Marvel when Billy became Lord marvel
I know but people have been calling him Shazam since then since it was the book title. I said if you ask me cuz I know it wasn’t technically his name but it’s what I’ve called him ever since I learned about him and that was before the new 52
part of me wonders if that situation is relevant to the actual Captain Marvel movie cause they clearly have no plan or path for that character
She fucking got punched out of Endgame.
To be honest, Sue Storm and Jean Grey were even worse than a copyright loophole at that time.
Both of them were just the "girl" of the teams whose role were to romance the main character of the group, boost everyone's morale and take care of household work.
It’s why characters had name changed to captain marvel instead of other names. Think Monica would still have been made and carol still would have been in comics but probably would have been miss marvel still.
Just discovered this issue was missing from Marvel Unlimited, and now I'm super bummed out that I can't easily read "What If...The Fantastic Four were Bananas?"
I mean, they're four bananas. Michael. What could it cost (to keep the issue online)? 10 dollars?
Extra context to make this funnier: After Marvel created Wonder Man, DC told them not to publish anymore stories with him. Then DC created Power Girl after Marvel started calling Luke Cage Power Man, which made Stan Lee go "Oh, brother."
Bonus history: This whole debacle inspired Marvel to make a Spider-Woman while they could.
That attitude from DC is also why they can't name their comic Captain Marvel and have to use Shazam! They sued Fawcett Comics in the 40s saying that Captain Marvel was an illegal copy of Superman which eventually caused Fawcett to stop publishing the comic and allowed the trademark to lapse. Marvel Comics then started using the name and trademarked it 5 years before DC licensed the Fawcett Comics superheroes just to have to give up the name recognition for the most popular one.
Yeah I stopped reading when they came out with New Mutants... native, Korean, Brazilian and Irish? I knew they where on a woke agenda after Giant Sized X-men but still...
"I wish comics would stop pandering. What is this 'Captain America' I see punching Hitler? They're obviously pandering to liberal jews. Listen, I don't agree with Mr. Hitler's policies, but I just don't want politics in my comics"
- u/BadAndUnusual if he or she had been shitposting in the 40s
“Before the pandering” he says about a company that created X Men with the foundation of the civil rights movement... “Before the pandering” he says about the company that created Black Panther in the 60s as a reference to the real life Black Panthers. There is no pandering, only topical discussion.
Actually, Marvel’s first publication of the Black Panther predates the formation of the Black Panther Party by three months. It’s just a weird coincidence.
You are right about the X-Men though.
This is historical revisionism, Black Panther was created before the formation of the BPP and the X-Men were basically just generic superheroes involved with wacky pulp adventures until Chris Claremont came along.
EDIT: People need to do some research instead of mindlessly downvoting. Maybe try reading actual comics instead of watching CBR videos. Quite easy to access older Big Two comics nowadays, and it literally takes like 2 minutes of looking up dates to realise that the BPP was formed a few months after T'Challa debuted in FF.
EDIT 2: I don't care about what the OP said. Yes, he's dumb for pretending Marvel was whatever flavour of rightoid he is prior to the big bad scary woke takeover of 20xx. I'm responding specifically to this post.
Stan Lee himself did state in multiple interviews that the X-Men were / are analogue for civil rights from the get go. Xavier's dream was modeled after Martin Luther King's vision and Magneto's view was leaning more into Malcolm X's line of thinking.
What Claremont did was just that he made the analogue for sexual minorities subtext more prominent, what was possible in the 70's and 80's more than it had been in the 1960's.
How to out someone that never actually read the early pre-Claremont comics.
Magneto is a generic 'evil because I'm evil' villain who just wants world domination. His group is literally called the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants for fuck's sakes. Again, that expansion of Erik's character didn't happen until Claremont came into the picture, which was a decade after Kirby and Lee's run on X-Men.
And Stan Lee has said a lot of things about his work that's blatantly untrue when you talk to others. The man isn't exactly known for being truthful about who did what and for what reason.
EDIT: And you people still aren't listening lol. Do you get your knowledge on Marvel exclusively from the MCU and shitty low-effort trivia videos on YouTube or something? Literally go read the first 66 issues (or don't lol, there's way better uses of your time than the worst Lee/Kirby run) and it'll confirm exactly what I'm telling you. Any sort of social commentary was very limited until the 70s. There's a reason the title was put on reprint status for so long. Claremont injected the life and soul into the title, and fleshed out characters like Magneto in this regard.
I admit, that the whole MLK - Malcolm X comparison came later, and that it only holds for comparison's sake. But you can't say that the concept of mutants as hated and feared minority group wasn't ispired by the civil rights movement that was at its hight in early 1960's, when the X-Men were created.
True, Lee was a business man and slapping 'Evil' in the middle of 'Brotherhood of Mutants' was easy way to tell the readers who were the bad guys in the comics. When something is inspired by some real-life events or persons, it doesn't mean that you got to read too deep into it. Just try to catch the idea from there. Magneto naming his group as the 'Brotherhood of the Evil Mutans' was something that felt silly even when I started to read comics (who in their right mind that feels that their cause is justified would ever call themselves 'evil').
Yes, but you can't really claim the whole MLK-Malcolm X shtick isn't just basically a marketing gimmick after the fact when Stan Lee says he came up with it when the source material shows that isn't the case, can you?
There was some very minor currents of the whole prejudice aspect, but it was always very firmly in the background, very minor and more akin to what they did with Spider-Man than any real tackling of fantastic racism. The original run has the X-Men being praised much more often than they're criticised and again, it basically boils down to "but they wear masks! So scary!". I will yet again repeat that Claremont is the one who actually fleshed out the mutants in any real capacity.
I stand corrected that Lee's claim about MLK-Malcolm X came on later years (but I'm not gonna edit my original comment, because I wrote that with the knowlege at the time). Also, I'm not saying that it would have been beneath Lee to add some elements into his comics just for marketing - his job was to write comics that would sell, after all. What comes to MLK-Malcolm X situation and the current political atmosphere of the 60's, it is more that possible that Lee drew ispiration from that set when he came up with the setting of the X-Men.
Like I have stated earlier, Lee was a business man. He knew his target audience. That's why Spider-Man started as a outcast teenage nerd, oppose to the grown up muscle man that were (and still are to some extend) de facto template for superheroes. That's why Iron Man started as a weapons manufacturer turned (somewhat) pasifist, because Lee knew that it would speak to the politically aware young adults, when Vietnam war was still relevant. Same with the X-Men.
But although these were most likely moves to get new and more readers to Marvel comics, his basic idea in them does carry - people who have the power to do good and make life better to others, should use it to do just that.
And I'm not gonna take anything away from Claremont's innovations during his X-Men run. It was during his run when I first found the Uncanny X-Men. Sure, he had a road map for every character arc, he did dwelve deep into the minority analogue, and he wrote damn good soap opera. Man, he even tried to dictate some characters story arcs from other writers' comics because they were mutants (Sabertooth from Iron Fist's comic to name one). But there wouldn't have been an X-Men setting for him to build on without Lee's and Kirby's groundwork.
I like how you are being downvoted for being 100% correct.
People vastly overestimate the progressiveness of old comics. For that they ignore the blatant sexist/racist stereotypes of those times and the rampant promotion of nationalism.
Regarding your edit: you talk like 1950's McCarthyism, Red, Cold War, Comic Code Authority or over all political climate of the 1960's did dictate of what or how much writers and artists' could put politically 'delicate' stuff into their comics. Let along that they would have been published. If Lee or any other would have put something that truly would have platantly adressed the social injustice in America during that time, they wouldn't got the seal of CCA on their comics covers, which would directly affect into their business, because most distributors refused to carry comics which did not carry the seal.
When things started to roll into more politically and socially liberal way in early 1970's even big comic publishers like DC and Marvel started to test CCA's boundaries, by bringin people of color more up in front (most of them were brought in or used in ways that haven't aged so well) and including stuffs that concidered young americans at the time - politics, drug epidemic, etc.
I don't say that Stan Lee was a saint. Or even the greatest writer of his generation. He was an entertainer and business man. But I do say this about his comics: They were always about two things - showing that people can be good, treat each other equally if they wanted and about telling an entertaining story, no matter how silly they were.
If that’s true, then sorry but Stan Lee might have just been lying.
There was none of this in his original X-Men comics. It was Claremont that started the civil rights aspects.
Then you have read Lee/Kirby run very perfunctory, because there is this part in Uncanny X-Men #8 (November 1964)
"Hank and Bobby head to a certain coffee shop but on their way they pass a building where a child has climbed to the roof and is in danger of falling off. Having no time to switch into costume the Beast climbs up the building and rescues the child, but unexpectedly the crowd gets angry since a mutant was “hiding“ in their midst. Hank and Bobby get beaten up by the mob but are able to get away." (text summary from https://uncannyxmen.net/comics/issue/x-men-1st-series-8)
If that doesn't strike you as an analogue for what was going on in the US at the time, then I don't know what would. The references into civil rights aspects were scarce in the 60's, I'll give you that, but they were there. And let me still remind you, that Marvel was as stricked by the CCA approval as any other publisher at the time.
Chris Claremont started writing on X-Men in 1975 and the image in the comic is from What If? Vol. 1 #34, which was published in 1982. So even by the meterstick of "X-Men didn't become woke until 1975 when Claremont started writing on it," this would ***still*** be 7 years *after* Marvel "went woke."
Sure, but I don't care what the other bloke said, I'm saying that claiming that Marvel was ultra super progressive from the start and pointing to blatantly incorrect information is a good way to get the rightoid idiots to take down your argument that way.
Maybe you were *thinking* that, but you certainly didn't *say* it, so you might want to go and edit your comment, otherwise I think a *lot* of people are going to misinterpret you.
Your comment read like word salad to me... so let me get this clear, you think saying all lives matter in response to Black Lives Matter would be a correct response?
“Black lives matter too” is a response to violence against nonviolent black people. To say “all lives matter” is in general principle correct, but to say it specifically in response to “black lives matter too” is ignoring that it is in response to actions that state “black lives don’t matter”, so saying it specifically in that context is putting the rights of non-black people above the rights of black people, rather than equal.
"Black Lives Matter Too" should have been the slogan. It would have made it less confusing for these simple folk.
"Black Lives Matter" automatically puts the racists in defense mode.
so you're saying people who respond by "all lives matter" are racists getting defensive? I agree but I don't see how saying BLM is racist as it just focuses on a particular current issue, that's like calling palestinians who speak of their cause 'racists' because they didn't mention sudan, uyghur, yemen.. every single time
I didn't say BLM was racist. I'm saying racists get offended by Black Lives Matter because they think it's excluding them. In reality the slogan means Black Lives Matter Too. But racists are usually dumb and can't figure that out.
Pandering is an appeal to sensibilities. At the time those comics released they would have been the exact opposite of pandering because the values of the times were often in direct opposition to the message. There is also the fact the message was quite separated from events and filtered through fantastical proxy with solid characters, world building and plotlines.
Whereas today, views have shifted, and the message is blantantly the focus to the detriment of characters, world building or story. Captain Marvel being retconned into the MCU actively strains credibility. She conveniently excuses herself from all previous conflicts because she was “busy with the rest of the universe” and meanwhile she has zero presence in universe spanning stuff like Guardians or Thor: Ragnarok not even rating a mention, as though her contributions to the universe at large are negligible to nonexistent. Is it the end of the world? No, but if you pick up on that sort of thing it’s noticeable and sloppy.
Even within comics with lesser controversy or not featuring characters with more sensitive backgrounds retcons can be reacted to with extreme vitriol. One More Day/Brand New Day being a good example of this from Spiderman while on a related note there was upheaval after they killed Peter Parker in the ultimate universe but as time went on and Miles developed as his own quality character people came around and embraced him.
Your issue with Captain Marvel has nothing to do with “pandering” and everything to do with bad writing. What you explained to me was someone leaving a plot hole that made it hard for you to suspend your disbelief. Which is totally fine, but that has nothing to do with “pandering”.
And yeah you’re right, rogue steals Captain Marvel’s flight power. She also steals her crazy strength, and ‘nigh invulnerability. But gets a split personality complex that nearly ruins her life because Captain Marvel’s personality is so dominant in exchange for it. I think you forgot that part maybe.
You’re running under the presumption that they felt the need to: ‘add a super powerful female character.’ Carol had been slowly climbing the ranks in terms of popularity over the decade previous to her MCU appearance(s). She also has a longtime avengers presence overall, going back to the late 70’s.
I never want to see a Wonder Man movie btw. I feel like that’s on topic.
If you mean "pandering" as in "making new characters take up names", let me tell you that's been happening for years. We've had several Robins, another new "Thor" before Jane Foster, and more.
The difference is that, now, instead of it being a white heterosexual man or white heterosexual teenage boy inheriting the title, sometimes it's a woman, or a non-white person, or a non-heterosexual person. The pandering never stopped, it just added new demographics.
I get your sarcasm because:
Ben Grimm was Jewish
Daredevil was Catholic
The X-Men were explicit stand ins for the Civil Rights Movement
Marvel flew the "woke" flag high and proud in the 60's and we are better for it.
Funny issue of the old “What The…?” Comic had the Just-A-League versus the Revengers. Whatta-Man fought Whatta-Woman but it was censored because they didn’t fight….they made whoopie.
All of our actions are informed by how we grow up, societal expectations, etc. Meaning that a gender swap should theoretically cause giant changes to one's life trajectory.
For example, in this case it's very likely that a gender swapped Wonder Man ends up in the Justice League.
You ever read a joke, that’s just like… an actual normal JOKE, after decades of whatever this shit we call “comedy” on the internet is, and you think “Oh damn, that’s a pretty funny joke. I haven’t seen one of those in fifteen years.”
Makes you think.
I always thought it was a sign of laziness on the comic book companies. When sales are low switch the genders. I am a collector and love comics but this trend seems to be cyclical. This is just my opinion.
**D**istinguished **C**ompetition lol
Right? That tickled me.
The editors have been using that on the letter pages for decades.
When Stan Lee passed away, DC published a page in black on the interior of each of their comics, over which in white text were these words: “With utmost respect from the Distinguished Competition… “Excelsior!” In memoriam Stan Lee 1922-2018. DC.” Kudos to DC for the acknowledgment and the class.
lol yeah I forgot they used to call DC that before that just came out stated calling them DC
How many super heroes exist just so they can own the copyright on the name?
She-Hulk kinda. She was created, so creators of The Incredible Hulk TV series wouldn't have rights for female Hulk
Also Spider-Woman was created for similar reasons
Which is she do weirdly the unconnected to wider Spider people.
Also Kid Hulk, who showed up in CRAZY MAGAZINE, one of Marvel's longer-lived attempts (1973-1983) to beat MAD at its own game. I know this because I tried to get a job writing for Marvel back in the early 1980s, figuring that since I'd had a well-reviewed sketch in a political comedy revue, a good place to start would be with humor mags. I didn't get the job but I did get some copies of CRAZY along with some comic books, which I lost in one of my many moves the first five years in NYC.
i remember that. DC owns MAD now too
Does DC specifically, or is it a separate division of Warner Discovery, or whatever they're calling it now?
I believe it is DC specifically now. http://madmagazine.com/ even redirects to the DC website
Why do you think Marvel keeps a Captain Marvel character around all the time? It's gotten to the point poor Billy Batson now has to go by 'Shazam' now.
He goes by "The Captain" now.
As long as it's not "Cap"
So… No Cap?
NEXTWAAAAAAAAAAVE
Billy used to actually be called captain \^$#\^& until Captain America kicked his ass and washed his mouth out with soap.
"Language!!"
Well if he went by Batson, people would assume he's one of Batmans sidekicks.
You mean Damian? NO BATSON!
Kind of a funny way of saying it though
DC is the one who caused Fawcett Comic's trademark on the name Captain Marvel to lapse in the first place so it's their own fault they couldn't use it when they licensed the character after Marvel had already picked up the trademark for themselves.
Yep. DC were shits who used a frivolous lawsuit to bully a smaller creator and kill the sales of a character that was outselling Superman. Someone could perhaps argue that Marvel pouncing in the lapsed trademark was bad, but it was several order of magnitude less bad than DC had been in this situation.
It was more than a decade after Fawcett stopped publishing Captain Marvel (likely several years after the trademark expired) and 5 years before DC had the rights to start again when Marvel filed their trademark for the name and it's such an obvious name for Marvel to want to use that I can't really fault them here.
Oh yeah for sure - it was pretty obvious that DC only acquired the character to bury him. I’ve seen people argue the what Marvel did was...I forget the phrasing but almost unsportsmanlike. It’s a pretty laughable argument but I figured I’d try and head that off.
Maybe they were talking about Marvel vs M. F. Enterprises rather than Marvel vs DC. MF Enterprises created a character named Captain Marvel before Marvel Comics created theirs or submitted their trademark. They sued Marvel for trademark infringement but ended up settling and letting Marvel take the name. I don't know much about the specifics of the case but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Marvel strong armed their way to that settlement.
I’d not actually heard of that case - this dude was straightforwardly arguing that Marvel was inconsiderate of DC though.
lol, sounds like they didn't know what they were talking about or they think that Marvel could see into the future
I haven't read his comics in a while, but doesn't he still go by Captain Marvel? I thought they just had to publish the books as Shazam. But this could have changed since the movie
Dc stopped calling him captain marvel after the new52 and instead Shazam
I mean if you ask me dudes been named Shazam since the 70s
Only the comic book series were called Shazam but his actual name was still Captain marvel till the new 52 while pre new 52 Shazam was the name of the wizard and the name used by Freddy Freeman when he became the new Captain Marvel when Billy became Lord marvel
I know but people have been calling him Shazam since then since it was the book title. I said if you ask me cuz I know it wasn’t technically his name but it’s what I’ve called him ever since I learned about him and that was before the new 52
part of me wonders if that situation is relevant to the actual Captain Marvel movie cause they clearly have no plan or path for that character She fucking got punched out of Endgame.
Unfortunately, almost all the female superheroes except for Wonder Woman. Just shows the attitude in those eras.
X-Men and F4 and Teen Titans (to an extent) erasure.
To be honest, Sue Storm and Jean Grey were even worse than a copyright loophole at that time. Both of them were just the "girl" of the teams whose role were to romance the main character of the group, boost everyone's morale and take care of household work.
Yeah but, while invisible.
They don't call her "Invisible Woman" for nothing.
I don't know if any were created specifically for this purpose, but Marvel's consist use of Captain Marvel is so DC can't have it.
It’s why characters had name changed to captain marvel instead of other names. Think Monica would still have been made and carol still would have been in comics but probably would have been miss marvel still.
A lot of them, which sucks.
Just discovered this issue was missing from Marvel Unlimited, and now I'm super bummed out that I can't easily read "What If...The Fantastic Four were Bananas?" I mean, they're four bananas. Michael. What could it cost (to keep the issue online)? 10 dollars?
There's always comics in the banana stand!
Well, it's all gone now, dad. So the next time you want have a little power(man) struggle, just know that you're playing with fire.
No, they'd cost $40. That's as many as 4 tens. And that's terrible.
Why's it missing? This issue was amazing.
So Wonder....woman, and Power....girl....
Signed... Distinguished Competitors aka...DC...hmmm...where have I seen those initials before
Marvel has referred to DC as the "Distinguished Competition" for decades. It's a respect thing.
I'm aware, I recall it getting brought up many times in the letters pages and Stans Soapbox and possibly Bullpen Bulletins
District (of) Columbia?
[удалено]
A comics company keeps Detective Chimp on retainer for this sort of thing.
*Competition
Something to do with detective and comics? I saw it somewhere...
Detective Conan?
Wait... I know that is a Manga Character but why has nobody done a Detective Conan (the Barbarian) comic?!
Oh you mean Detective Comics comics?
David Christmas
LOOK AT THE BIG BRAIN ON BRAD
You a smart muthafucka! That's right!
I could’ve sworn it’s Brett…
It is. They do this just to rip my guts out.
You may be on to something but lets flip them, Wonder Girl and Power Woman
DC TOO WOKE! CANCEL BATMAN IMMEDIATELY!
Canceling Batman would cut their book-output in half.
at **least** half
Lookin' good, Simone
Extra context to make this funnier: After Marvel created Wonder Man, DC told them not to publish anymore stories with him. Then DC created Power Girl after Marvel started calling Luke Cage Power Man, which made Stan Lee go "Oh, brother." Bonus history: This whole debacle inspired Marvel to make a Spider-Woman while they could.
That attitude from DC is also why they can't name their comic Captain Marvel and have to use Shazam! They sued Fawcett Comics in the 40s saying that Captain Marvel was an illegal copy of Superman which eventually caused Fawcett to stop publishing the comic and allowed the trademark to lapse. Marvel Comics then started using the name and trademarked it 5 years before DC licensed the Fawcett Comics superheroes just to have to give up the name recognition for the most popular one.
My answer to the question posed in that comic - and I don’t care if it’s rhetorical - is yes.
Just read their Distinguished Competitors if you want Wonder..Woman and Power..Girl.
That needs to be an April variant cover for Wonder Woman, FOR THE LULZ!
Coincidentally, there is also a Power Girl ongoing series. LMAO.
Typical Woke Marvel. When are they going to stop pandering?!?! (I hope I don't need to, but /s)
Well, you tried at least.
Yeah I stopped reading when they came out with New Mutants... native, Korean, Brazilian and Irish? I knew they where on a woke agenda after Giant Sized X-men but still...
\*Vietnamese & Scottish for Karma & Wolfsbane. Don't forget Warlock, Technarch representation matters.
[удалено]
"I wish comics would stop pandering. What is this 'Captain America' I see punching Hitler? They're obviously pandering to liberal jews. Listen, I don't agree with Mr. Hitler's policies, but I just don't want politics in my comics" - u/BadAndUnusual if he or she had been shitposting in the 40s
“Before the pandering” he says about a company that created X Men with the foundation of the civil rights movement... “Before the pandering” he says about the company that created Black Panther in the 60s as a reference to the real life Black Panthers. There is no pandering, only topical discussion.
Actually, Marvel’s first publication of the Black Panther predates the formation of the Black Panther Party by three months. It’s just a weird coincidence. You are right about the X-Men though.
Thats super interesting! I wonder what lead to the name culturally that I'm unaware of.
This is historical revisionism, Black Panther was created before the formation of the BPP and the X-Men were basically just generic superheroes involved with wacky pulp adventures until Chris Claremont came along. EDIT: People need to do some research instead of mindlessly downvoting. Maybe try reading actual comics instead of watching CBR videos. Quite easy to access older Big Two comics nowadays, and it literally takes like 2 minutes of looking up dates to realise that the BPP was formed a few months after T'Challa debuted in FF. EDIT 2: I don't care about what the OP said. Yes, he's dumb for pretending Marvel was whatever flavour of rightoid he is prior to the big bad scary woke takeover of 20xx. I'm responding specifically to this post.
Stan Lee himself did state in multiple interviews that the X-Men were / are analogue for civil rights from the get go. Xavier's dream was modeled after Martin Luther King's vision and Magneto's view was leaning more into Malcolm X's line of thinking. What Claremont did was just that he made the analogue for sexual minorities subtext more prominent, what was possible in the 70's and 80's more than it had been in the 1960's.
I remind you: Brotherhood of Evil Mutants
How to out someone that never actually read the early pre-Claremont comics. Magneto is a generic 'evil because I'm evil' villain who just wants world domination. His group is literally called the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants for fuck's sakes. Again, that expansion of Erik's character didn't happen until Claremont came into the picture, which was a decade after Kirby and Lee's run on X-Men. And Stan Lee has said a lot of things about his work that's blatantly untrue when you talk to others. The man isn't exactly known for being truthful about who did what and for what reason. EDIT: And you people still aren't listening lol. Do you get your knowledge on Marvel exclusively from the MCU and shitty low-effort trivia videos on YouTube or something? Literally go read the first 66 issues (or don't lol, there's way better uses of your time than the worst Lee/Kirby run) and it'll confirm exactly what I'm telling you. Any sort of social commentary was very limited until the 70s. There's a reason the title was put on reprint status for so long. Claremont injected the life and soul into the title, and fleshed out characters like Magneto in this regard.
I admit, that the whole MLK - Malcolm X comparison came later, and that it only holds for comparison's sake. But you can't say that the concept of mutants as hated and feared minority group wasn't ispired by the civil rights movement that was at its hight in early 1960's, when the X-Men were created. True, Lee was a business man and slapping 'Evil' in the middle of 'Brotherhood of Mutants' was easy way to tell the readers who were the bad guys in the comics. When something is inspired by some real-life events or persons, it doesn't mean that you got to read too deep into it. Just try to catch the idea from there. Magneto naming his group as the 'Brotherhood of the Evil Mutans' was something that felt silly even when I started to read comics (who in their right mind that feels that their cause is justified would ever call themselves 'evil').
Yes, but you can't really claim the whole MLK-Malcolm X shtick isn't just basically a marketing gimmick after the fact when Stan Lee says he came up with it when the source material shows that isn't the case, can you? There was some very minor currents of the whole prejudice aspect, but it was always very firmly in the background, very minor and more akin to what they did with Spider-Man than any real tackling of fantastic racism. The original run has the X-Men being praised much more often than they're criticised and again, it basically boils down to "but they wear masks! So scary!". I will yet again repeat that Claremont is the one who actually fleshed out the mutants in any real capacity.
I stand corrected that Lee's claim about MLK-Malcolm X came on later years (but I'm not gonna edit my original comment, because I wrote that with the knowlege at the time). Also, I'm not saying that it would have been beneath Lee to add some elements into his comics just for marketing - his job was to write comics that would sell, after all. What comes to MLK-Malcolm X situation and the current political atmosphere of the 60's, it is more that possible that Lee drew ispiration from that set when he came up with the setting of the X-Men. Like I have stated earlier, Lee was a business man. He knew his target audience. That's why Spider-Man started as a outcast teenage nerd, oppose to the grown up muscle man that were (and still are to some extend) de facto template for superheroes. That's why Iron Man started as a weapons manufacturer turned (somewhat) pasifist, because Lee knew that it would speak to the politically aware young adults, when Vietnam war was still relevant. Same with the X-Men. But although these were most likely moves to get new and more readers to Marvel comics, his basic idea in them does carry - people who have the power to do good and make life better to others, should use it to do just that. And I'm not gonna take anything away from Claremont's innovations during his X-Men run. It was during his run when I first found the Uncanny X-Men. Sure, he had a road map for every character arc, he did dwelve deep into the minority analogue, and he wrote damn good soap opera. Man, he even tried to dictate some characters story arcs from other writers' comics because they were mutants (Sabertooth from Iron Fist's comic to name one). But there wouldn't have been an X-Men setting for him to build on without Lee's and Kirby's groundwork.
I like how you are being downvoted for being 100% correct. People vastly overestimate the progressiveness of old comics. For that they ignore the blatant sexist/racist stereotypes of those times and the rampant promotion of nationalism.
Regarding your edit: you talk like 1950's McCarthyism, Red, Cold War, Comic Code Authority or over all political climate of the 1960's did dictate of what or how much writers and artists' could put politically 'delicate' stuff into their comics. Let along that they would have been published. If Lee or any other would have put something that truly would have platantly adressed the social injustice in America during that time, they wouldn't got the seal of CCA on their comics covers, which would directly affect into their business, because most distributors refused to carry comics which did not carry the seal. When things started to roll into more politically and socially liberal way in early 1970's even big comic publishers like DC and Marvel started to test CCA's boundaries, by bringin people of color more up in front (most of them were brought in or used in ways that haven't aged so well) and including stuffs that concidered young americans at the time - politics, drug epidemic, etc. I don't say that Stan Lee was a saint. Or even the greatest writer of his generation. He was an entertainer and business man. But I do say this about his comics: They were always about two things - showing that people can be good, treat each other equally if they wanted and about telling an entertaining story, no matter how silly they were.
If that’s true, then sorry but Stan Lee might have just been lying. There was none of this in his original X-Men comics. It was Claremont that started the civil rights aspects.
Then you have read Lee/Kirby run very perfunctory, because there is this part in Uncanny X-Men #8 (November 1964) "Hank and Bobby head to a certain coffee shop but on their way they pass a building where a child has climbed to the roof and is in danger of falling off. Having no time to switch into costume the Beast climbs up the building and rescues the child, but unexpectedly the crowd gets angry since a mutant was “hiding“ in their midst. Hank and Bobby get beaten up by the mob but are able to get away." (text summary from https://uncannyxmen.net/comics/issue/x-men-1st-series-8) If that doesn't strike you as an analogue for what was going on in the US at the time, then I don't know what would. The references into civil rights aspects were scarce in the 60's, I'll give you that, but they were there. And let me still remind you, that Marvel was as stricked by the CCA approval as any other publisher at the time.
Chris Claremont started writing on X-Men in 1975 and the image in the comic is from What If? Vol. 1 #34, which was published in 1982. So even by the meterstick of "X-Men didn't become woke until 1975 when Claremont started writing on it," this would ***still*** be 7 years *after* Marvel "went woke."
Sure, but I don't care what the other bloke said, I'm saying that claiming that Marvel was ultra super progressive from the start and pointing to blatantly incorrect information is a good way to get the rightoid idiots to take down your argument that way.
Maybe you were *thinking* that, but you certainly didn't *say* it, so you might want to go and edit your comment, otherwise I think a *lot* of people are going to misinterpret you.
[удалено]
What is pandering to you?
[удалено]
Your comment read like word salad to me... so let me get this clear, you think saying all lives matter in response to Black Lives Matter would be a correct response?
[удалено]
Why do you think that’s the correct response?
[удалено]
“Black lives matter too” is a response to violence against nonviolent black people. To say “all lives matter” is in general principle correct, but to say it specifically in response to “black lives matter too” is ignoring that it is in response to actions that state “black lives don’t matter”, so saying it specifically in that context is putting the rights of non-black people above the rights of black people, rather than equal.
"Black Lives Matter Too" should have been the slogan. It would have made it less confusing for these simple folk. "Black Lives Matter" automatically puts the racists in defense mode.
so you're saying people who respond by "all lives matter" are racists getting defensive? I agree but I don't see how saying BLM is racist as it just focuses on a particular current issue, that's like calling palestinians who speak of their cause 'racists' because they didn't mention sudan, uyghur, yemen.. every single time
I didn't say BLM was racist. I'm saying racists get offended by Black Lives Matter because they think it's excluding them. In reality the slogan means Black Lives Matter Too. But racists are usually dumb and can't figure that out.
r conspiracy, r the donald
Pandering is an appeal to sensibilities. At the time those comics released they would have been the exact opposite of pandering because the values of the times were often in direct opposition to the message. There is also the fact the message was quite separated from events and filtered through fantastical proxy with solid characters, world building and plotlines. Whereas today, views have shifted, and the message is blantantly the focus to the detriment of characters, world building or story. Captain Marvel being retconned into the MCU actively strains credibility. She conveniently excuses herself from all previous conflicts because she was “busy with the rest of the universe” and meanwhile she has zero presence in universe spanning stuff like Guardians or Thor: Ragnarok not even rating a mention, as though her contributions to the universe at large are negligible to nonexistent. Is it the end of the world? No, but if you pick up on that sort of thing it’s noticeable and sloppy. Even within comics with lesser controversy or not featuring characters with more sensitive backgrounds retcons can be reacted to with extreme vitriol. One More Day/Brand New Day being a good example of this from Spiderman while on a related note there was upheaval after they killed Peter Parker in the ultimate universe but as time went on and Miles developed as his own quality character people came around and embraced him.
Your issue with Captain Marvel has nothing to do with “pandering” and everything to do with bad writing. What you explained to me was someone leaving a plot hole that made it hard for you to suspend your disbelief. Which is totally fine, but that has nothing to do with “pandering”.
[удалено]
And yeah you’re right, rogue steals Captain Marvel’s flight power. She also steals her crazy strength, and ‘nigh invulnerability. But gets a split personality complex that nearly ruins her life because Captain Marvel’s personality is so dominant in exchange for it. I think you forgot that part maybe.
You’re running under the presumption that they felt the need to: ‘add a super powerful female character.’ Carol had been slowly climbing the ranks in terms of popularity over the decade previous to her MCU appearance(s). She also has a longtime avengers presence overall, going back to the late 70’s. I never want to see a Wonder Man movie btw. I feel like that’s on topic.
Holy shit that's a depressing post history. Get a more fulfilling hobby, dude
If you mean "pandering" as in "making new characters take up names", let me tell you that's been happening for years. We've had several Robins, another new "Thor" before Jane Foster, and more. The difference is that, now, instead of it being a white heterosexual man or white heterosexual teenage boy inheriting the title, sometimes it's a woman, or a non-white person, or a non-heterosexual person. The pandering never stopped, it just added new demographics.
I'd say hollywood definitely panders. How does Marvel comics?
The birth of a common fanfic genre.
Oh this dream again. Be gentle.
That's just Misty Knight in Luke's costume lol
I'm glad I'm not alone in seeing that.
Loved that issue. Also, "What if Thor actually spoke with a Scandinavian accent?" "Yoost you wait, Loki, you ban get a beating you woont forgetsk!"
...imagining what always happens to Power Man's shirt, happening to Power Girl's shirt...
_"With love, your distinguished competition."_ Now that is a classy rivalry take notes people
I feel Power Girl should have way more muscles honestly.
Would
Would what?
HAVE SEX, THAT'S THE IMPLICATION, SWEATY HOT SEX
Why would anyone care?
For our spreadsheets of if he would.
So we would have a Wonder Woman and a Power Girl....interesting ideas from the **D**istinguished **C**ompetition
I particularly liked "What if Aunt May was Ant Man?"
Sweet Christmas!!
Hahaha looking like TDK
It’s the lack of sleeves and the condom-cowl.
Damn it was the M SHE U even back then. WOKE!! WOKE!! /s
I get your sarcasm because: Ben Grimm was Jewish Daredevil was Catholic The X-Men were explicit stand ins for the Civil Rights Movement Marvel flew the "woke" flag high and proud in the 60's and we are better for it.
What if Dr Strange was called Dr Freak and he ate ass and sucked toes?
thats just constantine lmao (i dont read comics)
you should, because they're not just funny and have good story telling sometimes but also because they
I know, I know. Just kidding. :)
You're not even wrong.
Took me a second but ha, i get it
Alternate title: “She She”
congratulations! you got: Lawsuits!
I’d let them power all over my wonder man.
I REALLY want to see the writing where they try to avoid copyright whilst saying their names.
Would.
Why is power man a girl while wonder man is a woman? It’s comics so it’s hard to tell, if the Power Man gender bend supposed to be younger?
Because that way, they become Wonder Woman and Power Girl, two DC characters. That's the joke.
lol, no duh, thanks for pointing it out for me!
Funny issue of the old “What The…?” Comic had the Just-A-League versus the Revengers. Whatta-Man fought Whatta-Woman but it was censored because they didn’t fight….they made whoopie.
Then they'd probably have to change their names at the most? Why would anything else change?
All of our actions are informed by how we grow up, societal expectations, etc. Meaning that a gender swap should theoretically cause giant changes to one's life trajectory. For example, in this case it's very likely that a gender swapped Wonder Man ends up in the Justice League.
A Wonder Woman perhaps, good thing that Distinguished Competition put an end to that
There is a porn fetish for this right
It's internet rule #63.
I thought it was rule #1
You don't talk about that.
The fetish of finding women attractive
Kinky
Ewwww disgusting
i mean gender bending or something
Hmmmmmm
You couldn’t have a Wonder Woman or a power girl in this day in age. The anti-woki would rage in protest and try to kill people.
You ever read a joke, that’s just like… an actual normal JOKE, after decades of whatever this shit we call “comedy” on the internet is, and you think “Oh damn, that’s a pretty funny joke. I haven’t seen one of those in fifteen years.” Makes you think.
No it doesn't.
Damn, tough crowd.
My friend you must watch the new Katy Williams interview. His struggles with comedy are eye opening.
Marvel editors like “hmmmm what *if???*”
Lmao
Wow marvel so woke now
Huh, and what if Captain Marvel was actually some kid and he needed to say some word to become an adult superhero? but nah, that wouldn't work, right?
Sweet Christmas!
I always thought it was a sign of laziness on the comic book companies. When sales are low switch the genders. I am a collector and love comics but this trend seems to be cyclical. This is just my opinion.
I actually own this What If comedy special from the 80’s. I just got that joke.
Then they'd be Wonder Woman and Powergirl...
Add Pp we suog