Ethnicity Change for DC's Uncle Sam in New 52

[glennsim]

It doesn't, because they don't sell well.



New characters generally don't work because they lack the history of the older characters. This is true regardless of the characters race. Here's a few titles starring new white characters that did not last very long:

Aztek, Chase, Chronos, Manhunter, Resurrection Man.

And while Chase has the benefit of being a woman, there were two white male Manhunters and neither of them got very far.

Although oddly enough, the female lesbian Manhunter had a pretty good run.

[bobbyraw]

But nobody has explained to me why they need to bother creating a new character when they can change/replace an existing one.

It's the opposite. Why change an existing character when you can create a new one. The existing character's fans like the existing character as he is. That's why they pay to read about him/her. Don't push those fans aside to appeal to new fans (who might not even exist).

By creating a new character, there's no potential of damaging a much-loved character, but you get the same result - a character of minority race/orientation to do with as you please.

Both options (new vs changing) achieve the same result, but one has the potential of annoying/saddening longterm fans and one doesn't.


It's like getting your kid a bike for christmas. You can either buy your kid a new bike from the store, or steal the bike from the kid down the street. Both ways end up with your kid getting a bike, but only one denies another person their enjoyment. Why the hell would you choose the second option?

[CaptCleghorn]

And while Chase has the benefit of being a woman, there were two white male Manhunters and neither of them got very far.

Although oddly enough, the female lesbian Manhunter had a pretty good run.

I thought she was straight. Her son was gay, though.

[bobbyraw]

If they are that attached to one version of a fictional character, then they have bigger problems than me and my feelings.

Are you seriously, on a comicbook forum, going to say that liking a fictional character is bad? People read about these characters for decades. They grow attached to thses characters. It's why we buy comics despite the poor price:content ratio.

After forming this attachment, can you not see how long-term fans might be upset by a change like that potentially makes that much-loved character barely recognisable? Why risk doing this to your fans when you can create a new character instead to achieve the same thing.

[Poe1809]

Non-Americans can have an investment in the characters. But not recognizing that the characters are being created and written by Americans for an American audience would be irrational.

All of which is funny to mention since the overt patriotism that used to fill a lot of the comics has died out, and I have no problem with that.

Apparently they're being written for an ever decreasing number of Americans as they strive mightily towards that false idol, Diversity. If you don't have three hyphens in front of "American," you're not DC's target audience. And if you don't fit onto some approved list of minorities, you don't matter. Which is all weird, considering the trumpet blasts we keep hearing here.

[bobbyraw]

So would you anticipate a company like DC, when asked about why they don't have more gay/minority characters, to say "Well, in our experience, only straight white males really buy our product, and they only want to read about other straight white males, so that's what we're focusing on."

I believe the answer to that would be "Then you need to do more to get other kinds of people to buy your product."

I'm not quite sure where you got this from from that post of mine you quoted. I think it might be because you think that I my issue is with a white character being changed to black. That's not the case. I'd have just the same problem, for the exact same reasons if it was the other way around. Eg John Stewart being turned white. I'm opposed to changed the race of characters fullstop, not just white--->minority. I'd be opposed to asian---> black or gay,white--->straight,black too. I find it disrespectful to long-term fans.

[tony ingram]

I don't know that DC considers giving gays and minorities a fair shake as being an American problem. Saying "it's not something I have to deal with in my own life" is one thing. Essentially saying "I don't care about how gays and minorities feel" is quite another. We're all one big happy world. Nobody's asking you to go march in a gay pride parade, just cut them some slack when someone else does something in that direction.

Fine. So long as they don't alter existing characters to do it.

And DC does care about not losing longtime fans and customers. For example, I've been reading DC for about 35 years and I find the fact that the invigorated their line to be very interesting and it has increased my purchases of their books.

I've also been reading DC for about 35 years. It's stopped mine completely.

If they are that attached to one version of a fictional character, then they have bigger problems than me and my feelings.

The fact that you don't give a crap about the characters doesn't mean nobody else should. As I said, different priorities.

[Jeff Brady]

Are you seriously, on a comicbook forum, going to say that liking a fictional character is bad? People read about these characters for decades. They grow attached to thses characters. It's why we buy comics despite the poor price:content ratio.

After forming this attachment, can you not see how long-term fans might be upset by a change like that potentially makes that much-loved character barely recognisable? Why risk doing this to your fans when you can create a new character instead to achieve the same thing.

That attachment is unhealthy and unrealistic, something that most people grow out of around puberty. Of course it's understandable, but that is their burden.

The fact that you don't give a crap about the characters doesn't mean nobody else should. As I said, different priorities.

There's a huge difference between caring about the characters and being attached to them. Which brings us back to the 'disposable escapist power fantasy for children' discussion.

[tony ingram]

New characters generally don't work because they lack the history of the older characters.

And now, so do the older characters...

[Jeff Brady]

And now, so do the older characters...

On the contrary, Earth 2 still has that sense of history without it being present in the current stories. And it's selling pretty well, including to people who are not in your demographic.

[tony ingram]

That attachment is unhealthy and unrealistic, something that most people grow out of around puberty. Of course it's understandable, but that is their burden.

Do you know what a misplaced superiority complex is?

There's a huge difference between caring about the characters and being attached to them. Which brings us back to the 'disposable escapist power fantasy for children' discussion.

Hmm. I think that answers my question.

[Jeff Brady]

Do you know what a misplaced superiority complex is?

Hmm. I think that answers my question.

Check a mirror, pal.

[glennsim]

It's the opposite. Why change an existing character when you can create a new one. The existing character's fans like the existing character as he is. That's why they pay to read about him/her. Don't push those fans aside to appeal to new fans (who might not even exist).

It's the opposite. Why create a character who is destined to fail because he has no history or name-recognition when you could take a name or character who has those things and serve up another version?

That's like saying that Superman fans won't go see a Superman movie because it won't be exactly like the comics, so they should only create new super-heroes for movies.

By creating a new character, there's no potential of damaging a much-loved character, but you get the same result - a character of minority race/orientation to do with as you please.

Both options (new vs changing) achieve the same result, but one has the potential of annoying/saddening longterm fans and one doesn't.

Except the new one doesn't achieve the same result, because nobody buys the comic with the new character in it, because he has an unfamiliar name.

It's like getting your kid a bike for christmas. You can either buy your kid a new bike from the store, or steal the bike from the kid down the street. Both ways end up with your kid getting a bike, but only one denies another person their enjoyment. Why the hell would you choose the second option?

I think it's like your kid has a bike that they never ride, so you put new tires on it and paint it so that they might actually ride it. Why bother going and buying a whole new bike when you've got a perfectly good one that just needs freshening up? That's wasteful.

[tony ingram]

Check a mirror, pal.

I try to avoid doing that, Jeff. Because, y'know, I just wouldn't be able to drag myself away. Seriously, sometimes I catch a glimpse of myself in the bathroom mirror as I'm leaving, and I'm just stuck there, transfixed, all day.

Good thing you don't have that problem, eh?

[glennsim]

Are you seriously, on a comicbook forum, going to say that liking a fictional character is bad? People read about these characters for decades. They grow attached to thses characters. It's why we buy comics despite the poor price:content ratio.

After forming this attachment, can you not see how long-term fans might be upset by a change like that potentially makes that much-loved character barely recognisable? Why risk doing this to your fans when you can create a new character instead to achieve the same thing.

Liking a fictional character is fine. Expecting the character to stay exactly the same way is unrealistic. Which you can be upset about, but I'd be embarrassed to let people know it.

Like I said before, it would be like me bitching and moaning for months because I didn't win the lottery. Sure, I can be upset, but nobody will feel sorry for me.