Marvel Developing Winter Soldier-Falcon Limited Series for Disney’s Streaming Service 3 3

[drotto]

6 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

I believe English is not his first language. But I may be wrong.

I get his point. The passing of the title becomes downgraded if it is just a common occurrence so as to transition to someone new. It degrades the intent of such a critical plot point at times the role itself is bigger than that character holding it at the time. It transcends the individual that established the audience importance to begin with. Keep doing it, and the emotional relevance wears off.

Nah, I just absolutely suck at spelling. Plus, I am not a good writer, never have been. 

 

Yes, the practice of creating more Thors or more Spider people, or an infinite number of Hulks is essentially diluting the original character concept. Over time it makes the original character less special and the versions that follow basically cheap copies. Passing on a title, if over used, has the same effect.  The first time the Captain America title is passed it can lead to cool new stories or ideas to explore, do it too often and the title loses all meaning. So the current road that the comics and possible the MCU are on right now risks making these monikers cheap hand me downs.  

 

Plus, I feel that all these diverse groups deserve interesting new characters and new stories, not hand me downs, and recycled ideas.  Again, the first or even second time you do it, it can be interesting, when that becomes your complete roadmap going forward, it loses impact.  At some point, it just feels lazy.  Eventually, does it not become insulting to the group you are trying to represent when all they are is a replacement for something that came before? I personally want new blood, new characters with their own unique stories to tell. 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by drotto

[Gatsby77]

6 hours ago, drotto said:

Nah, I just absolutely suck at spelling. Plus, I am not a good writer, never have been. 

 

Yes, the practice of creating more Thors or more Spider people, or an infinite number of Hulks is essentially diluting the original character concept. Over time it makes the original character less special and the versions that follow basically cheap copies. Passing on a title, if over used, has the same effect.  The first time the Captain America title is passed it can lead to cool new stories or ideas to explore, do it too often and the title loses all meaning. So the current road that the comics and possible the MCU are on right now risks making these monikers cheap hand me downs.  

 

Plus, I feel that all these diverse groups deserve interesting new characters and new stories, not hand me downs, and recycled ideas.  Again, the first or even second time you do it, it can be interesting, when that becomes your complete roadmap going forward, it loses impact.  At some point, it just feels lazy.  Eventually, does it not become insulting to the group you are trying to represent when all they are is a replacement for something that came before? I personally want new blood, new characters with their own unique stories to tell. 

I see your point, but disagree.

Partly because this isn't a new phenomenon. How many Flashes are there? How many Green Lanterns are there? And was John Stewart's introduction nearly 50 years ago "insulting?"

When I was a kid I was confused because I knew Marvel's Captain Marvel was a guy, but there was a female version in West Coast Avengers. I had no idea that Carol Danvers might count (or ever had counted) as another female version, but I was legit confused by the one I saw in West Coast Avengers.

And never forget that multiple Supermans in the early 90s gave rise to one of the *actual* worse comic book films of all time - Shaquille O'Neal's Steel.

But, as importantly, the reboots and alternate versions aren't always bad - by a long shot. Most of the best Batman stories of the 80s involve Jason Todd.

And Gaiman's reboot of Kirby's Sandman gave rise to one of the best comic series of the 90s.

[jcjames]

It's not new, and not restricted to Marvel, as you point out DC did it a few times too.

Point is - it's lazy when it's used so much as it is nowadays.

Also, as an analogy, in sports a team often replaces a greater-than-great retiring player in the same position, but they retire that player's jersey number out of respect for the greatness of the player.

You can create a "new" superhero, but there's only one Peter Parker, Bruce Banner, Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, Thor, Natasha, T'Challa, etc. etc... so don't just slap the same jersey/costume on a new hero and think it's not disrespectful to the original and more so just plain lazy. Create a new character with new abilities - the X-men continually created a huge amount of new characters with new abilities over the decades, they didn't resort to re-suiting the same great characters over and over again or make derivative diverse spin-offs to show off the PCness of the writers. In almost all cases, the sequel of a movie sucks compared to the original, and the more sequels the greater the suckiness. Same with spin-off derivative superheros.

Though it did happen occasionally throughout the history of hero-comics, creating derivative copies of classic superheros seems to have accelerated in the past decade or two to the point it's becoming the standard way to introduce a new character - just give the new person the same powers as half a dozen other derivatives spun-off from the original.

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by jcjames
ETA: and get off my lawn

[Bosco685]

 

[@therealsilvermane]

5 hours ago, jcjames said:

It's not new, and not restricted to Marvel, as you point out DC did it a few times too.

Point is - it's lazy when it's used so much as it is nowadays.

Also, as an analogy, in sports a team often replaces a greater-than-great retiring player in the same position, but they retire that player's jersey number out of respect for the greatness of the player.

You can create a "new" superhero, but there's only one Peter Parker, Bruce Banner, Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, Thor, Natasha, T'Challa, etc. etc... so don't just slap the same jersey/costume on a new hero and think it's not disrespectful to the original and more so just plain lazy. Create a new character with new abilities - the X-men continually created a huge amount of new characters with new abilities over the decades, they didn't resort to re-suiting the same great characters over and over again or make derivative diverse spin-offs to show off the PCness of the writers. In almost all cases, the sequel of a movie sucks compared to the original, and the more sequels the greater the suckiness. Same with spin-off derivative superheros.

Though it did happen occasionally throughout the history of hero-comics, creating derivative copies of classic superheros seems to have accelerated in the past decade or two to the point it's becoming the standard way to introduce a new character - just give the new person the same powers as half a dozen other derivatives spun-off from the original.

 I agree with Gatsby77.

To do the sports analogy from a different angle: A Marvel legacy character or title(Iron Man, Hulk, X-Men) could be very much like a major league sports team. Comparing Iron Man, a legacy title, to the Los Angeles Lakers, when the greats like Magic Johnson or Kareem Abdul Jabbar moved on, the team owners/NBA didn't end the team, they found new great players to replace them because you don't replace a winning brand like the Los Angeles Lakers with a new name. Similarly, if Iron Man as a title is proven to be such an iconic part of pop culture and big business, when Tony Stark/Robert Downey Jr is ready to call it quits, you don't end the Iron Man name, it's too big. You replace Tony Stark with another equally interesting human being to wear the suit, or something similar to it in order to continue the legacy and the brand.

I think it keeps fans involved and is a better business model for the creators/copyright owners who don't want to retire a legacy title just because the guy or gal wearing the suit or moniker dies or retires.

[jcjames]

14 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

 I agree with Gatsby77.

To do the sports analogy from a different angle: A Marvel legacy character or title(Iron Man, Hulk, X-Men) could be very much like a major league sports team. Comparing Iron Man, a legacy title, to the Los Angeles Lakers, when the greats like Magic Johnson or Kareem Abdul Jabbar moved on, the team owners/NBA didn't end the team, they found new great players to replace them because you don't replace a winning brand like the Los Angeles Lakers with a new name. Similarly, if Iron Man as a title is proven to be such an iconic part of pop culture and big business, when Tony Stark/Robert Downey Jr is ready to call it quits, you don't end the Iron Man name, it's too big. You replace Tony Stark with another equally interesting human being to wear the suit, or something similar to it in order to continue the legacy and the brand.

I think it keeps fans involved and is a better business model for the creators/copyright owners who don't want to retire a legacy title just because the guy or gal wearing the suit or moniker dies or retires.

Regarding your analogy, the Lakers stay the Lakers, but with new members. Same with the Avengers. Change the players, team name stays, fine.

But you don't put a newb into Magic Johnson's or Shaquile O'Neal's jersey and keep calling him "Magic" or "Shaq" - and you don't put someone else into Cap's uniform and keep calling him "Capt. America".

He's not Capt. America. 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by jcjames

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

2 minutes ago, jcjames said:

you don't put someone else into Cap's uniform and keep calling him "Capt. America".

He's not Capt. America. 

You should visit some of the spec threads.. They want to keep going on and on about the NEW SPIDER-MAN , or SUPERMAN, or BLACK SUPERMAN, ETC.. 

Really do like the analogy though.. 

[skypinkblu]

12 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Shaquille O'Neal's Steel.

That's a movie I missed. Was the name "Steel"?  I try to watch most superhero movies, terrible or not. I even watched the first Supergirl and that was terrible.

[@therealsilvermane]

2 minutes ago, jcjames said:

Regareding yoyr analogy, the Lakers stay the Lakers, but with new members. Same with the Avengers. But you don't put a newb into Magic Johnson's or Shaquile O'Neal's jersey and keep calling him "Magic" or "Shaq" - and you don't put someone else into Cap's uniform and keep calling him "Capt. America".

He's not Capt. America. 

 

That was Sam Wilson's argument and why he gave up the Shield at the start of FWS. Clearly Steve Rogers thought otherwise which is why he passed that mantle/Shield to Sam. It doesn't belong to someone else. That's why it's Sam's.

Especially after the MCU, I see the human beings first before the call sign anyway. For me, Stark was the important character, not the Iron Man name. Steve Rogers was the real American hero, not Captain America. They're just titles. Sam has the title now, but it's still Sam Wilson, a black guy from Louisiana, not a blonde hair blue eyed kid from Brooklyn. Besides, Captain America was a government entity anyway, not Steve's creation, in the MCU anyway.

[Bosco685]

7 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

That was Sam Wilson's argument and why he gave up the Shield at the start of FWS. Clearly Steve Rogers thought otherwise which is why he passed that mantle/Shield to Sam. It doesn't belong to someone else. That's why it's Sam's.

Especially after the MCU, I see the human beings first before the call sign anyway. For me, Stark was the important character, not the Iron Man name. Steve Rogers was the real American hero, not Captain America. They're just titles. Sam has the title now, but it's still Sam Wilson, a black guy from Louisiana, not a blonde hair blue eyed kid from Brooklyn. Besides, Captain America was a government entity anyway, not Steve's creation, in the MCU anyway.

What does any of this have to do with handmaids?

[jcjames]

"Falcon" was his title. Rogers gave him the shield not the name. Falcon became "Capt. America" in the comics before the MCU.

Coulda called himself "Falcon America" (ugh) or just kept "Falcon" since he can still mainly fly but now with the shield. 

He's not Captain America, he's Falcon. Stupid to change it now especially in the same MCU. 

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

36 minutes ago, skypinkblu said:

That's a movie I missed. Was the name "Steel"?  I try to watch most superhero movies, terrible or not. I even watched the first Supergirl and that was terrible.

Yes it was called "Steel"

 

[drotto]

1 hour ago, @therealsilvermane said:

 I agree with Gatsby77.

To do the sports analogy from a different angle: A Marvel legacy character or title(Iron Man, Hulk, X-Men) could be very much like a major league sports team. Comparing Iron Man, a legacy title, to the Los Angeles Lakers, when the greats like Magic Johnson or Kareem Abdul Jabbar moved on, the team owners/NBA didn't end the team, they found new great players to replace them because you don't replace a winning brand like the Los Angeles Lakers with a new name. Similarly, if Iron Man as a title is proven to be such an iconic part of pop culture and big business, when Tony Stark/Robert Downey Jr is ready to call it quits, you don't end the Iron Man name, it's too big. You replace Tony Stark with another equally interesting human being to wear the suit, or something similar to it in order to continue the legacy and the brand.

I think it keeps fans involved and is a better business model for the creators/copyright owners who don't want to retire a legacy title just because the guy or gal wearing the suit or moniker dies or retires.

Yes, there is a very long history of passing along titles in comics, or creating characters with similar names.  It was often done as an attempt to shortcut a character to popularity, by attempting to ride the coattails of an existing brand. It was a lazy then as it is now. By borrowing attributes and backgrounds, the hope was always to bypass having to organically grow a new character from scratch. I would argue, that often works for short term popularity, but in the long term it can severely limit what you can do with and where you can take a character.  That new character becomes to closely tied to the original.  Do anything too risky, and you risk harming the legacy of the original character as well as the brand.

 

Often creating a similar name had nothing to do with storytelling.  If I remember correctly, Marvel did this when they created Spider-Woman with no real desire to have a new character, but to stop someone else from copyrighting the name. Yes, she was eventually able to gain her own identity, but originally they had no idea what to do with her.

 

The much more modern reason to reuse names has to do with the relationship between companies, creators, and copyright law. Basically, nobody wants to share rights, or lose rights to a character, especially with how horribly companies have historically treated creators. So again the lazy and easy thing to do is reuse names and ideas, because it avoids conflict. Companies get what they want, content and sales, and creators "save" their original ideas to use when they can protect their rights to those ideas.  It is a somewhat mutually beneficial arrangement, but it severely stunts original content in existing legacy brands.

 

Historically, these are the primary reasons why comic companies used similar names, and passed on titles.  It has rarely been done to tell a good story, it is usually done as a quick cash grab, or to protect IP's.

Edited April 29, 2021 by drotto

[D84]

Not saying I agree or disagree, but it's an interesting point of view.

 

[@therealsilvermane]

1 hour ago, jcjames said:

"Falcon" was his title. Rogers gave him the shield not the name. Falcon became "Capt. America" in the comics before the MCU.

Coulda called himself "Falcon America" (ugh) or just kept "Falcon" since he can still mainly fly but now with the shield. 

He's not Captain America, he's Falcon. Stupid to change it now especially in the same MCU. 

In the MCU, the Falcon name was Sam’s military code name as that’s the name of the wings tech. While Falcon was apparently the official Avengers name he used, nobody ever really called him that. They just called him Sam. In fact, when the banker calls him that in FWS, that’s the only instance I remember when he was called Falcon in the MCU. It’s the human being behind the suit that’s important in this universe. I would say that of all the nicknames, Captain America is the most important, and that’s why Sam taking the name was such a big deal. Such a big deal that Marvel made a TV show about it. 

Either way, Sam Wilson IS Captain America now. Just not your Cap, I guess. A lot of fans feel the same way, and it’s kinda cool and kinda meta how Sam even acknowledges that in Episode Six.

[jcjames]

It's cheap and lazy. 

[fantastic_four]

2 hours ago, skypinkblu said:

14 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Shaquille O'Neal's Steel.

That's a movie I missed. Was the name "Steel"?  I try to watch most superhero movies, terrible or not. I even watched the first Supergirl and that was terrible.

I'm a big NBA fan and I've been wow'ed by Shaq since his first year playing at LSU, but man, this movie looked WAY too cheesy to even give a shot.  I think I've seen a few minutes of it flipping channels, but I didn't stay long.  

[skypinkblu]

10 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

I'm a big NBA fan and I've been wow'ed by Shaq since his first year playing at LSU, but man, this movie looked WAY too cheesy to even give a shot.  I think I've seen a few minutes of it flipping channels, but I didn't stay long.  

My GF liked Shaq so much, she named one of her puppies after him. I thought she might like to watch it. I guess I won't look too hard to find it, lol.

[@therealsilvermane]

23 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

I'm a big NBA fan and I've been wow'ed by Shaq since his first year playing at LSU, but man, this movie looked WAY too cheesy to even give a shot.  I think I've seen a few minutes of it flipping channels, but I didn't stay long.  

Shaquille O’Neal is good in one movie, William Friedkins’ Blue Chip, because he  basically played himself. He has no business being in movies. He can barely carry those General commercials.

It’s funny he always likened himself to Superman in the NBA, even had the “S” arm tattoo which on his planet stands for Shaq. There was one Superman in the NBA: Michael Jordan. If Shaq’s  gameplay was akin to any superhero, it was the Hulk.

[@therealsilvermane]

1 hour ago, drotto said:

Yes, there is a very long history of passing along titles in comics, or creating characters with similar names.  It was often done as an attempt to shortcut a character to popularity, by attempting to ride the coattails of an existing brand. It was a lazy then as it is now. By borrowing attributes and backgrounds, the hope was always to bypass having to organically grow a new character from scratch. I would argue, that often works for short term popularity, but in the long term it can severely limit what you can do with and where you can take a character.  That new character becomes to closely tied to the original.  Do anything too risky, and you risk harming the legacy of the original character as well as the brand.

 

Often creating a similar name had nothing to do with storytelling.  If I remember correctly, Marvel did this when they created Spider-Woman with no real desire to have a new character, but to stop someone else from copyrighting the name. Yes, she was eventually able to gain her own identity, but originally they had no idea what to do with her.

 

The much more modern reason to reuse names has to do with the relationship between companies, creators, and copyright law. Basically, nobody wants to share rights, or lose rights to a character, especially with how horribly companies have historically treated creators. So again the lazy and easy thing to do is reuse names and ideas, because it avoids conflict. Companies get what they want, content and sales, and creators "save" their original ideas to use when they can protect their rights to those ideas.  It is a somewhat mutually beneficial arrangement, but it severely stunts original content in existing legacy brands.

 

Historically, these are the primary reasons why comic companies used similar names, and passed on titles.  It has rarely been done to tell a good story, it is usually done as a quick cash grab, or to protect IP's.

Right, it’s bad business to let a legacy character like Captain America just go away because Steve Rogers is dead or whatever. You have to keep the name going, not just for story purposes, for copyright reasons as well. 

Personally, I think the “lazy” thing to do, in this case, is to just recast Steve Rogers and keep everything the same as if it’s the same guy. How stale is that? I love how the MCU is a living breathing thing where heroes die and retire or grow and evolve. To me, it’s way more interesting to treat Captain America like a legacy and where a worthy hero like Sam tries to live up to that legacy. Falcon Winter Soldier was such a compelling story to me.