Ethnicity Change for DC's Uncle Sam in New 52

[stk]

Because they don't want their precious characters touched so they keep throwing out the same poorly-thought-out idea.

It's right up there with "if you wanted to do this with a character, you should have gone and written another character."

But in a perfect world, that is what would happen. For someone complaining about creativity and originality, you should see this. The problem is that our fandom has been conditioned to only want to read the same corporate-owned properties they've been pushing on us all our lives. But in a perfect world, all creators and creative teams would come up with their own, new characters that would be theirs alone.

[tony ingram]

You mean those long-term fans who, week in and week out over decades buy the comics put out by the company? Yeah why please those guys?
Let's appeal to the guys who will buy an Alan Scott story now that he's gay, but wouldn't when he was straight, because they're totally out there, as evident in the fact that minority character have a history of selling SOOOO well for us and bringing in SOOO much money.

I really don't think that pissing off a number long-term fans in exchange for possibly attracting an imaginary audience (hint: they won't buy the books) will be good for the bottom line.

Thank you. Glad someone else gets it.

But in a perfect world, that is what would happen. For someone complaining about creativity and originality, you should see this. The problem is that our fandom has been conditioned to only want to read the same corporate-owned properties they've been pushing on us all our lives. But in a perfect world, all creators and creative teams would come up with their own, new characters that would be theirs alone.

And there would be something for everyone.

[Jeff Brady]

Possibly the wrong thread.

[glennsim]

Regarding your first point, how much name-recognition do you think that Alan Scott has that would draw new readers who have never read a comicbook before (and who all of a sudden would just because this particular character happens to now be gay and the already existing gay characters for some reason weren't doing it for them)? If it's the green lantern name that is the draw, create a new green lantern. You still get to use the GL name. The Alan Scott in Earth 2 could be the exact same character but named Hamish Wood. You'd still get your minority character, Alan Scott fans don't lose a favourite character and the aspects of that character they liked (father, old bloke, whatever)


More relevant to this case, how many non-comicbook readers know there is a comicbook character named Uncle Sam. What possible name recognition could there be there? May some "OMG CONTROVERSY!!!! The spirit of America is a black guy! Lolz Outrageous!!!"

Name recognition isn't a valid argument. People who don't read comicbooks don't know the names of the sort of character who have their race, etc changed. And if they want to read about a black character and don't feel that the ones that currently exist are good enough, this new guy isn't going to change their mind, especially if he was white 2 months ago.

Second point;
The thing is though, that "bike they never ride" is a character that other people are enjoying and do like (the way they are). That's why my stealing a bike to give to someone else analogy works better. You're depriving someone of something they enjoy.

Regarding my first point, speaking for myself, I'm all about buying "the new JSA book" whatever form it generally will take. If it had been some book with no ties to anything that came before, I wouldn't have bought it. Since that seems to be what DC does most of the time, I assume it works for them, so I assume there are lots of other people like me. I like the "Green Lantern" concept. I will buy generally any book that they call "Green Lantern". However, I decided the Red Lantern book deviated too much from what I liked about the Green Lantern concept, so I dropped it. I actually would never have picked it up if I hadn't gotten a huge discount if I bought all 52 books the first few months, so theoretically I never would have picked it up in a normal situation.

Could the Earth 2 book have been a new Green Lantern, Flash, etc just with something to clearly connect it with the old Earth 2/Justice Society concept? Sure, but then we'd still be having the same basic discussion, except it would be "why is DC publishing books about these new guys instead of Alan Scott and Jay Garrick?" Functionally the same argument, so nothing would have been achieved.

There is a tradition of an Uncle Sam with the Freedom Fighters. If there was no Uncle Sam, we'd all be wondering why they got rid of Uncle Sam. So they gave us an Uncle Sam. One that the writers feel will be a more interesting one than the old one. Can't blame them for that.

Name recognition means you have a general idea of the concept, even if you didn't like the last execution. People are comfortable with things they know already. That's why every McDonalds looks basically the same on the inside.

Second point:
I'll clarify - they only ride the bike like once a month, which is far too little to be worth having to keep the bike around. So do you buy them a new bike, or do you just fix up the one at hand?

Another example - your house is getting run down. But it's structurally fine, it just needs some minor repairs and new paint. Sure, it's providing the basic function of shelter, but it could be so much more. Do you just chuck it all and go buy a new house, or do you spend 1/10 of the cost and just fix up the one you've got?

Not enough other people were enjoying the old versions to be worth keeping them around as-is. This is proven by the less-than-desirable sales on whatever the previous incarnation was.

So, ironically, you are in a minority.

[stk]

And there would be something for everyone.

Well...

In my perfect world, after a creator stopped writing/drawing their character, that would be it. It wouldn't be passed on to other creative teams. More like the relationship between author and novel. So yeah, you'd continue to have that original run kept in print and the character would never be altered in a way contrary to the creators' intent, but you wouldn't have endlessly-continuing adventures either. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc., would all be long done. What you would have is a lot of new ideas and a hell of a lot more variety, though.

So yeah, there would be something for everyone. But not the way you mean.

[glennsim]

But in a perfect world, that is what would happen. For someone complaining about creativity and originality, you should see this. The problem is that our fandom has been conditioned to only want to read the same corporate-owned properties they've been pushing on us all our lives. But in a perfect world, all creators and creative teams would come up with their own, new characters that would be theirs alone.

That's taking things a bit further outside of the reality than I care to spend my time discussing or worrying about.

The question is why, in the current environment, does the corporation make particular changes to their corporate properties.

[stk]

That's taking things a bit further outside of the reality than I care to spend my time discussing or worrying about.

And yet, the world I described DOES exist, right now, today, in the real world. And sells a sh*t ton more comics than our US comics industry does.

[glennsim]

You mean those long-term fans who, week in and week out over decades buy the comics put out by the company? Yeah why please those guys?

Assuming you only mean the long-term fans who are offended by the changes? All 1000 of them?

Let's appeal to the guys who will buy an Alan Scott story now that he's gay, but wouldn't when he was straight, because they're totally out there, as evident in the fact that minority character have a history of selling SOOOO well for us and bringing in SOOO much money.

Or lets appeal to people who find the character more interesting now, with his gayness just being one part of that.

I really don't think that pissing off a number long-term fans in exchange for possibly attracting an imaginary audience (hint: they won't buy the books) will be good for the bottom line.

Again, the 1000 or so that this matters to don't compare to the number who appreciate interesting changes.

[glennsim]

And yet, the world I described DOES exist, right now, today, in the real world. And sells a sh*t ton more comics than our US comics industry does.

But the US comics industry isn't going to become that any time soon.

Not saying you can't create a thread to talk about how the US comics industry should be more like other countries' but that's not the subject at hand.

[bobbyraw]

The problem with your house analogy is that it assumes that now being black, gay etc makes the character better. It might, it might not. I lean towards the 'not' because I don't think that the possibility of wiping out the history or character traits which made the character appeal to his fans (whose purchase of his book made this character a big enough deal to be considered significant enough to draw readers though a race-change) is worth the benefits gained by the presense of a new minority character. You do feel that benefits of a new minority are worth the lost character traits,etc.

You've explained your viewpoint fairly well here (I can see where you're coming from) and I don't think I'll change your mind. You won't change mine. It's getting late here, so I think I'll drop out.
It's been an interesting discussion, anyway.


Edit: this is directed to glennsim. a few guys posted before i could get this post in.

[tony ingram]

Assuming you only mean the long-term fans who are offended by the changes? All 1000 of them?

Do you have a source for this?

Or lets appeal to people who find the character more interesting now, with his gayness just being one part of that.

Why are they more important?

Again, the 1000 or so that this matters to don't compare to the number who appreciate interesting changes.

Again: evidence?

[stk]

But the US comics industry isn't going to become that any time soon.

The reason it isn't going to change any time soon is because of the attitudes of the consumers. Specifically, the buying attitudes. So you're as much a part of the problem as anyone else.

[CaptCleghorn]

Getting back to Uncle Sam...

We've seen the black super-spy guy. At this point he may be a Sam Jackson Nick Fury Knockoff, or he may be something else. I don't know how well the name would work without the costume. It's like Santa Claus, for cryin' out loud. My opinion, but dress could be tweaked to better reflect modern clothing items, but the loud red white and blue I'd have a tough time letting go of. Now if he has a costumed identity and he's black in that, so what? The USA is a mixed bag of races and creeds and colors, so black, asian, or white would work for me.

Me, I would make him like Galactus, as John Byrne wrote him. We all see Galactus looking like our race and he appears different to everybody. I'd make Uncle Sam appear as he traditionally does until he uses his "see me as you see America" power. Maybe that would always be the case, who knows, but I'd love to see an Uncle Sam story vertigoized where he travels the country or world, with people seeing him as they think America is.

In any case, the spy guy and the Freedom Fighters would need a heckuva tagline to get me in. Right now they look like yet another supergroup on a planet over-run by supergroups. I could go for another Earth-10 series where good and evil versions of DC characters live on a planet where the Nazis won the war. May not be everybody
s cup of tea, though

[glennsim]

The reason it isn't going to change any time soon is because of the attitudes of the consumers. Specifically, the buying attitudes. So you're as much a part of the problem as anyone else.

I'll take my chances.

[glennsim]

Do you have a source for this? Why are they more important?

Again: evidence?

Nope, pure speculation and opinion. Not even really intended to be a hard number, simply a metaphor for "a relatively small number." Which is in itself a result of my perception of the situation.

And the fact that if this number WAS a big number, I guarantee DC would pay more attention to it. So it's rather cyclical, really.

It comes down to whatever you think is more likely: that there are a relatively large number of fans who are turned off by DC's changes and therefore DC is making a horrible mistake, or that there are a relatively small number of fans who are turned off by DC's changes and DC is not making a horrible mistake. My gut tells me the latter.