I’m just saying, if (as posts and links here seem to indicate–I haven’t read a Marvel comic since the '80s myself) so many of the established characters have become nonwhite, we shouldn’t be surprised or outraged if this leads to poorer sales, since whites significantly outnumber other races. If it’s not very many, and the vast majority are still white, then I got the wrong impression about what has happened in the Marvel print universe. I don’t claim to have any firsthand knowledge on that.
If all, or even most, comic characters were nonwhite, you might have a point. But I suspect that, even with all of the recent “diversifications”, the proportion of white superheroes is still higher than the proportion of whites in the general population.
I don’t think this relevant. People usually prefer the superhero they grew up with as teens. If it were a black superhero then that’s the one they would be most comfortable with. As of course there were very few black heroes in the comic books of many generations then white heroes are the ones they prefer. There’s no racism involved, just simple nostalgia, not nostalgia for a time when blacks were invisible in comics but nostalgia for your childhood. It’s a perfectly understandable emotion, not racist in intent but certainly racist in effect.
Movie goers are not comics readers, and are never likely to become comics readers. They’re casual fans, unlikely to be motivated to go out and actually find a comic book to read. If they go out looking for more Avengers media, they’ll pick up the mass-market stuff: t-shirts, maybe a trade paperback from B&N (one which the movie they just saw was likely based on), and similar merchandise.
Comics readers, however, are guaranteed comic-movie goers. They’re the people can be counted on to go see awful things like that last Fantastic Four reboot. However, they’ve already read the story that movie was based on, so to continue to churn out the same story and characters to match the movie risks losing the few comics readers that are left.
Also, DC and Marvel seem to regard their comics solely as idea-generators for movie and other media properties. Changing the status quo of, say, the Justice League membership by adding Cyborg is a way to throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks for later inclusion into the movies.
It’s not very many, the vast majority are still white, you have the wrong impression, and you don’t have any firsthand knowledge on that.
In what alternative universe are there insufficient numbers of role models for white American kids?
Most racist things aren’t “racist in intent”, I think. My point is that such readers probably wouldn’t bat an eye at, say, an Irish-American (or German American, or Dutch American, etc.) background for Batman, Superman, or Spiderman, all else being equal, but a black American version would bother at least some of them. And that Clark Kent grew up in idealized version of rural America in whatever decade might not mesh with any reasonable view of history if he were black (though, IMO, the black Kents’ story could be altered slightly to match a more realistic view of history without much trouble, if a writer were so inclined) is a reasonable parry to this, but at least for Batman and Spiderman, their race is IMO wholly unimportant to their background (indeed, a black Wayne family devoting its efforts towards helping a troubled city might be even more poignant and effective in Batman’s story).
My overall thrust is that there doesn’t need to be any greater level of differentiation between, say, a black guy playing Bruce Wayne vs a Dutch (or Welsh) guy playing Bruce Wayne (or even, say, a blonde guy, or a short guy, etc.), but our society has programmed most of us to see the race differences as more significant than other differences.
I recall a Shakespeare film from the 90s, in which Denzel Washington played one of the European noblemen. I’m sure some people were upset, but this was their problem, not some fundamental truth of film or fiction that the role must be played by a white actor.
Sooo… I gather you haven’t been reading a lot of X-books lately? It’s been a few months since I picked one up, but it had the original X-Men (including Scott saying “Cyclops was an asshole!” - paraphrased, that may not have been the exact word) timeshifted from the past and it had Old Man Logan timeshifted from the future.
Between the Hand, cloning, timeshifts and whatnot, what’s amazing about Marvel’s universe is that there’s a single Christian left. “Resurrected? OK, is that supposed to be some sort of big deal?” The place has more zombies than the Walking Dead.
The All-New X-Men have been revealed (sorta) as not the “original” X-Men, but their equivalent counterparts from a very close parallel universe. Which makes not a whit of sense, since at one point Old Cyclops started disappearing when Young Cyclops was almost killed, and Old Bobby was revealed to have been secretly gay all along when Young Bobby came out of the closet because Jean read his mind and immediately told everyone. But now Young Angel has fire wings instead of the metal knife wings that Old Angel has (Old Angel having reverted back and forth between metalwing Archangel & featherwing Angel, became Apocalypse’s successor, regressed to a childlike persona, regained his personality, regressed to Apocalypse’s successor, and I think now again back to “normal”. ha!)
The X-books have been a bit of a dog’s breakfast while Marvel went all-in on Inhumans. But since that all fell flat on its face, they’re about to get a renaissance/reboot. With All-New Wolverine as one of the anchor books, apparently. And the All-New X-Men, too.
But Death of X jacked up Emma in a supremely stupid way, and I’m a little bitter about that.
Yeah, okay… That reads a lot like “Heritage, not hate!” to me, but your mileage obviously varies.
But not the cancer? 
:p;)
The numbers on that are staggering. Doctor Strange, the movie, grossed $233 million in the U.S. That’s about 20 million tickets sold. Assume that half of them were repeat viewers, leaving 10 million individuals seeing the movie. And many more will see it in the future, via cable, and streaming, and DVDs.
In November 2016, the month the movie was released, the Dr. Strange comic book sold … 39,390 copies. That implies that 99.6% of the viewers of a hugely popular, highly rated (90% on rottentomatoes) movie couldn’t be bothered to check out the comic book currently available.
Who is the audience for comics these days? And why does anybody pay attention to them? 39,390 isn’t a good turnout for a New Kids on the Block reunuion concert.
Note the contrast, too, with popular novels, whose sales often do spike in connection with the release of a film (for instance, The Girl On The Train or Me Before You).
Nope. It burns out the chemo, because it’s a foreign substance in her body. But the cancer by is literally a part of her, so that stays when she transforms back.
I think the audience for comics is, literally, “comic book fans”. Heck, I’m not sure if it’d be wrong to change that “fans” to “fanatics”; as you can see in this thread, many of the avowed “fans” note that they haven’t ready comics in years. (I read on Marvel Unlimited, which is quite a bargain, really.)
If Marvel or DC had to support their business on comic book sales, they’d be going under like just about every newspaper and many magazines are doing. Their value is in generating movies, and probably secondarily in protecting the property rights. Sales have become an incidental revenue stream, I think.
I agree with Odesio here. I’ve read Wertham’s book, and it came down against horror and crime comics for the most part – a lot of the stuff EC was famous for. By the time his book came out in 1954 the Golden Age was over, and the brief flare-up of interest in the early 1950s that had a brief superhero revival was over, too* Sosuperheros were pretty much dead before Wertham’s book appeared. (Interestingly, Wertham was very much down on superhero women with gravity-defying bosoms like Phantom Lady The below image is actually in his book:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Phantom_Lady_17.jpg
He would’ve hated Power Girl.
Wertham, by the way, lived on well after his heyday in the 1950s. he died in 1981. I read some of his later stuff – he was not happy with the "Silver Age’ comics revival in the 1960s.
*Someone once had a theory that comics flourished during war times, and that would put brief comics “spring” during the Korean War. Not sure if the theory holds water, but it’s interesting. In any event, not all superhero comics disappeared – Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Superboy, and Green Arrow continued on through the 1950s without interruption.
I think the real question is why hasn’t there been a really popular character introduced since the mid 60’s?
You’re off by at least a decade: Wolverine was 1974.
And Deadpool was 1991; judging by the film’s sales, he’s “a really popular character”.
There’ve been a few, including Wolverine (introduced 1974), Deadpool (1991), ad Harley Quinn (1992 in a TV cartoon, 1993 in comic books). If we include books beyond DC and Marvel, you could also include characters like Spawn (1992) and Hellboy (1993).
Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that most of the superheroes who still enjoy widespread popularity today date back to the Golden or Silver Ages.
Parenthetical: what was it about the early 90s? 
Edit: partial ninja by Lightray!
Good question about why all the most popular characters were invented over a half century ago. (Actually that’s not quite true, as Wolverine’s first appearance was in 1974. Still more than 40 years ago.) [ETA: double-ninja’d; but I never heard of those later characters until the movies came out.]
Couldn’t they do a lot better with cross-promotion or synergy or whatever you want to call it, and have little 15-second ads for the comics at the beginning or end of the movie? Even after the credits would work, since people stick around for post-credit scenes.
It also strikes me that they would be wise to have a line of Marvel Cinematic Universe comic books, since they have so many different realities anyway.
Straw man. I wasn’t making a moral argument, just a point about market economics. In a country where white people vastly outnumber black people, it doesn’t seem surprising to me that changing a superhero from white to black would result in lower sales. That’s not meant to be a normative statement, just an observation. And isn’t it the same observation the Marvel executive made? He seems like he would be in a position to have some idea about this.
I’m cool with that, but shouldn’t it work both ways? Seems like a lot of people lost their damn minds when Tilda Swinton was cast as The Ancient One. :dubious:
Superman was created in the 1930s, and some histories have had him as being active since then, the older origin is what I was calling the ‘traditional origin’. Even with modern origins, I think that having Superman appear as a black guy would radically alter the story - a black superhero just wouldn’t be casually accepted as an ‘all American guy’ the way that Superman is, and racial themes would either have to be addressed or the story would feel like a cop-out. It’s different than someone like Spider Man, who keeps his skin covered, or Batman who is a menacing outsider (in most timelines), or Aqua-Man who is represented as coming from a different race entirely, I think that being a ‘majority-race American’ is a pretty key part of Superman’s story.
I wouldn’t be bothered by a black superman, but I don’t think you can just swap the actor and tell the same story.