Comic Vine News

135 Comments

Off My Mind: Female Characters Made From Male Characters

Why do we have so many male/female versions of the same characters?

I would imagine it is a difficult thing to create a new character in comic books. Especially since pretty much every idea has already been used. If you're looking to make a new superhero, what can a publisher do? How about make a female version of an existing character? 
 
This was a topic that came up between me and Nightwatcher. Why do we have so many male and female versions of the same character? It could be to attract more female readers to comics. It could be that guys like seeing women in tight clothing in their comics. Maybe it's to add a "softer touch" to all the superhero action. Or maybe it's just to cash in on a successful idea. 
  

   
What are your thoughts on male and female versions of the same character? Are there any that you like more than the original? Do you think the 'new' character should have the same traits and goals as the original or are they better off doing their own thing?

135 Comments
  • 135 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by fesak

I think it's overused, but this topic gives me an excuse to post this:



Moderator
Posted by OmegaDynasty

Rule 63 at it's finest. lol

Posted by Chaos Prime

Overused imo far too many female clones of male characters..

Posted by G-Man

Loki even went so far as to completely change his gender. 
 
But now I'm gonna have this song stuck in my head all day. 
  

Staff
Posted by ComicMan24

IMO they are trying to capitalize on a character's success although some of them are interesting. From what I know Spider-Man and Spider-Woman are unrelated. LMAO at Lady G-Man.
 @fesak:
LOL

Posted by Gennadius

I dont mind if they got a good backstory for like example X-23 her 2 mini-series where really really really good.

Posted by MikeDanger

some are kinda original in terms of personality,but what bothers me is that they're not really all that related to their oposite version of themselves, they do those characters and they want to put them independent sometimes without relating them to the original character. that's just sometimes... the other issue is that they'll never be as strong nor popular as the original character.  in my opinion Harley Quinn is the most popular one mentioned,and X-23 the strongest and coolest.  
Posted by rogue_mar1e

There are definitely some female characters which may have been created to cash in on a successful idea . But even so, i do like how there are female versions of characters . Some of my favourite characters are derived from male superheroes (Supergirl, Lady Deadpool, X-23...) 
:)

Posted by Planewalker

It's just fan service and trying to cash in

Posted by Gylan Thomas
@fesak: 
Dude that's brillaint!
Where'd you ffind it?
Posted by Sanj

Lady G-Man is terrifying!

Posted by X

Their goals and attitude and personality should be different 

Posted by Green Skin

 I think it's just an over used writer's trick to give the audience an instant connection to a new character. 

Posted by fesak
@Gylan Thomas said:
" @fesak:  Dude that's brillaint! Where'd you ffind it? "
 
Mariano Navarro is the artist. He does a lot of gender-swaps.
Moderator
Posted by Illyana Rasputin

It Could Happen!
Posted by imaginaryman

I think publishers just do it as a fan service for people who wanna see some girls who do bad-ass things, some female versions are good like Lady Blackhawk, but I guess she kinda stands out coz the other blackhawks are dead and she works with BOP.

Posted by Anwar

Isn't Sara Lady G-Man? Oh yes I did. :P

Posted by Danial79

I like it... but only if they're slightly different. Deadpool and Lady Deadpool, for instance, are far too similar. Spider-Man and Spider-Woman have different abilities, so that's fine in my view.

Posted by Michiel76

Yeah don't you hate it.
 
you got:  Wonder Woman and Wonder Man.............oh wait

Posted by weapon154

Well, G-man forgot joker's daughter but the real question is where are all the girl heroes to guys?

Posted by tonis

Not sure what's worse, the dude that looks like a lady or the lady that looks like a dude. 
Would Lady G-Man have a spotlight column here called 'The G-Spot'? 
 
Oh and you forgot Superman, he's been femanized several times.

Posted by ImperiousRix

I think most of these female characters ARE first conceived to cash in on a popular male hero, and at the worst, they become uninteresting clones of their male counterparts.  However, when given the right care and attention, a lot of "female clones" become interesting and worthwhile in their own right.  Less than the character itself, I believe it just depends on the creative team given the character.

Posted by WW-Fan

and there is Wonder Woman and Wonder Man! :)
Posted by Om1kron
@weapon154 said:
" Well, G-man forgot joker's daughter but the real question is where are all the girl heroes to guys? "
Simple... Smallville's superman is the perfect Male superhero based off of one that originally had a vagina. 
 
In all seriousness my feeling is because the studios lack originality and the balls to try something new and run with it. That's what was so great about image comics and smaller publishers. Instead of being a nintendo comic book publisher and relying on your mario, zelda, and metroids, they were willing to provide something fresh. No lets not make any new villains for spiderman . Lets just bring carnage back, oh hey doomsday he killed superman, we made 4 other supermans then decided that wasn't going to work and did a restart.  Oh did we mention doomsday is back, but now is 100times more likely to get his ass kicked by superman this time. 
 
Sigh, it's one of the main reasons why I don't collect any mainstream comics anymore.
Posted by Video_Martian

Three words: Lazy. Ass. Writers.

Posted by AskaniSon295

The reason why is "marketability" a female version of a Male character is marketable to a fan interested in that character. Interesting enough not all version succeed such as Marvel's "Wolverina" a wolverine Parody or "WildThing". X-23 succeeds do to the fact she is not female carbon-copy of Wolverine.  The thing that fascinates me more is why there are not more male versions of female characters.

Posted by Mainline

In broad strokes it's largely economic, as opposed to purely creative, reasons however the way it works out isn't as A-to-B as one might expect from economically motivated decisions... 
 
For example, pressure came from above to inject Wolverine into more of the teenaged storyline of his animated series, but in order to not compromise his character by making him unrealistically hang out with kids, X-23 was created... so a creative decision, but sourced from economics.  You can hear the creator's rationale in this video.  Why a version of Lady Deathstrike wasn't used.... 
 
With She-Hulk, Benny Hill did a sketch in the late 70s about, essentially, a woman hulking out and Marvel panicked given the relative success of their Hulk television show at the time.  She-Hulk was rushed out the door and created solely for securing the rights to the character and concept.  Spider-Woman was created for the same reason because Filmation was planning to release a new cartoon character called Web Woman. 
 
You have to realize that the biggest source of long term and meaningful intellectual protection for comic book characters is trademark which is enforcible only through use and exposure (such that consumer confusion as to source could arise)... in broad strokes this means that, in theory, there's nothing preventing a rival company from creating a female variation of your hero unless you monopolize the idea yourself first with an established character. 
 
This should be somewhat intuitive as it makes sense that people cannot own monopolies on character concepts... if you wanted to make a female version of James Bond or Indiana Jones as an archetype (heh, Angelina Jolie apparently having done both) no one who did not have an established version of that character out there to call you on it could stop you. 
 
This means that often the female analogs are not created to profit in and of themselves but to prevent someone else from profiting off their creations.

Posted by afierce

Us gals need heroes too! I'm totally fine with it as long as the characters are fleshed out nicely and it makes sense. For example, all the members of the Bat-family make sense to me. They aren't knock-offs of one another with the same powers, they are all just united under the symbol of the Bat. I think the Super-family makes sense as well.

Posted by weapon154
@Om1kron: What kind of comics do you read?
Posted by TSCTH

I've read about the psychology of gender swap in manga/anime, where it's a way to safely live out homo-erotic tendencies, while not having to worry that the oneself might be a homosexual. I don't know if the same applies to american/european comics, since manga/anime focuses on a more liberated (and explicit) form of sexuality, but i would say it's impossible.

Posted by Rheged

I don't think it's Lazy Writers or Lack of Originality, but Money.  When a writer creates an all new original character, that character belongs wholly to the publisher.  There's absolutely no incentive for a writer to create new characters, when he will never make a dime off the merchandising, future movies, other associated rights to said characters.  If a writer has a GREAT idea for a new character, or an original plot, he's probably going to save it for a creator owned project, where he is beneficiary of his talents.  So if you want blame someone, blame Marvel and DC, who need to come up with some sort of profit sharing plan with the creators.
 
I find many of the newer female versions of established male characters to be tedious, but the older established ones, like Supergirl and Namorita, have grown on me and become individuals in their own right.

Edited by Om1kron
@weapon154 said:

" @Om1kron: What kind of comics do you read? "

I mainly read manga scanlations now of Naruto and Katekyo Hitman Reborn since I am really into their anime's. My absolute favorites were anything Greg Capullo Did (Spawn, The Creech) Travis Charest (Xmen/wildcats, wildcats) Xmen, punisher, iron man, savage dragon, mainly a lot of image comics and wildstorm studios titles I enjoyed. Damn shame what happened with wildstorm.  I normally will follow an artist more than I will a book as I appreciate the artists ability more than I do the story.
 
It's niche things like this that piss me off (duplicating the same character and switching the gender.)
Posted by Rheged
@AskaniSon295 said:
" The reason why is "marketability" a female version of a Male character is marketable to a fan interested in that character. Interesting enough not all version succeed such as Marvel's "Wolverina" a wolverine Parody or "WildThing". X-23 succeeds do to the fact she is not female carbon-copy of Wolverine.  The thing that fascinates me more is why there are not more male versions of female characters. "
Like who?  There aren't that many major female characters that aren't analogues of male characters.
Posted by Fantasgasmic

@Gman I'd say its less bad when done in a different universe, like Captain America and his female counterpart American Dream from MC-2. But I'd say aside from "the Smurfette Principal" at work here there's just the problem of too many REPETATIVE superheroes.  My in no way comprehensive list is below.
 
Ignoring your sidekicks(kids) based on primary characters(adults) like Red Devil and Kid Devil, Martain Manhunter and Ms Martian, or Zachary Zatara and Zatanna, You've got Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) and Spider-Woman/Arachne (Julia Carpenter), Captain America and USAgent, I've lost count of all the Ant Man/Giant Man/Wasp/Yellowjacket that have run around Marvel's earth-616. You've got 2 Flashes who dress almost identically and Jay Garrick, and THEY each have a palette swapped Reverse Flash (the darker Rival in Garrick's case), there are 3 Green Lanterns just from Earth AND Allan Scott, Captain Marvel (DC) has Captain Marvel Jr and Black Adam, Human Torch (Johnny Storm) and Human Torch (Jim Hammond) and Toro, Ghost Rider (Johnny Blaze) and Ghost Rider (Dan Ketch), Elongated Man is just a lamer (though perhaps more sane) version of Plastic Man and lest we all forget, we're going to have at least 2 Batmen. 
 
Then you have what I'd call your DERIVATIVE superheroes, yeah they're a little different but not enough (in my opinion) to make them interesting. Your various Ghost Riders had Vengeance,  Thor has/had Beta Ray Bill and Thunderstrike,   Hulk has Red Hulk, She Hulk has Red She Hulk, Superman has Mon El, Wolverine has X-23 and Daken,  there's Araña who is now Arachne, Captain Mar-Vell and his Power Bands were a lot like Quasar and his Nega Bands, a jillion people have wielded the Phoenix Force, Bling is just a combination of Emma Frost and Marrow, Domino and Longshot, Magneto has Polaris, and although he didn't start out as one Wild Child became a lame version of Sabertooth.

Posted by Mainline
@Rheged said:
" There's absolutely no incentive for a writer to create new characters, when he will never make a dime off the merchandising, future movies, other associated rights to said characters.  If a writer has a GREAT idea for a new character, or an original plot, he's probably going to save it for a creator owned project, where he is beneficiary of his talents.  So if you want blame someone, blame Marvel and DC, who need to come up with some sort of profit sharing plan with the creators. "
A couple comments... 
1. There are plenty of incentives, even creatively... if you look at X-23, it allowed Kyle and Yost to tell the stories they wanted to tell while keeping their bosses happy and clearly they've felt creatively satisfied with X-23 because they continue to treat her like their baby in writing her.  As a creator, making a mark on a decades old institution is an accomplishment many would like to have.  Do it well and you'll reap other benefits as well...  

2. A female character is still a new legally protectable character in the eyes of the law (which is the only relevant eyes since we're talking about rights and ownership) so it's not like making a female version means they're giving the publisher less or saving anything for themselves... they could go off and do their own female version of the character without the behest of the publisher... they're just far less likely to succeed at doing it.  

3. Mainstream incentives are just fine.  Creatively, you get to play with famous toys.  Economically, you get your name out there, get a bigger pay check, and get a stable pay check (and often royalties) all without having to deal with the business side of things.  Is it any wonder than small independent directors leap at the chance to work on big well known franchises?  If you make your mark you not only reap the short term economic benefits but your back catalog of work gets appreciated, your future works are anticipated, you're given more creative freedom, more are willing to take risks on you, and in essence your stock raises.  That is the deal- fame, stability, and management for production.  People talk about "Dan Slott's She-Hulk" or "Greg Rucka's Wonder Woman" because your efforts get noticed.  In terms of risk / stability... most indies don't make it past issue 3... the ones that do are almost always by those who made the deal with the mainstream at one point which got their name out there, additionally there's upwards mobility in terms of promotions or exclusivity contracts and the like to make a creator's life more predictable.  Finally, many creators just want to create.  Being independent is often more about savvy business sense, negotiation, promotion, marketing, etc. than just working on one's craft.  Often the creator either lacks said talents or in the hiring of one to manage said things cedes nearly as much to their manager as they would to any mainstream publisher.  The mainstream allows you to just do what you like to do- art or writing- in the knowledge that your deal is market driven in terms of fairness... you can ask around and know you're not getting taken for a ride... compared to trying to use your limited business savvy to negotiate with a manager who you're hiring to shore up said lack of business savvy.
Posted by Lvenger

I think if you are going to create an opposite gender version of the same character they shouldn't be personality wise identical. For example, Hulk is a more violent, smashing neutral hero whilst She Hulk has followed the superhero path, Superman is the champion of Earth and the world's greatest superhero but Supergirl lately has been getting a lot of stick from Cat Grant. You see the point I'm making. If you are going to do a gender opposite version of a character, at least have the decency to make them their own person rather than a carbon copy of the original. And Lady G-Man or should I say G-Woman? HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA lol that is brilliant. I want to see that in the future.

Online
Posted by Yummylee

Lady Deadpool is steamingly hawt!

Edited by DMC

I can't recall many male versions of female characters....oh wait
 

Powerboy
"Oy Vey" -_- 
Posted by Rheged
@Mainline said:
" @Rheged said:
" There's absolutely no incentive for a writer to create new characters, when he will never make a dime off the merchandising, future movies, other associated rights to said characters.  If a writer has a GREAT idea for a new character, or an original plot, he's probably going to save it for a creator owned project, where he is beneficiary of his talents.  So if you want blame someone, blame Marvel and DC, who need to come up with some sort of profit sharing plan with the creators. "
A couple comments... 
1. There are plenty of incentives, even creatively... if you look at X-23, it allowed Kyle and Yost to tell the stories they wanted to tell while keeping their bosses happy and clearly they've felt creatively satisfied with X-23 because they continue to treat her like their baby in writing her.  As a creator, making a mark on a decades old institution is an accomplishment many would like to have.  Do it well and you'll reap other benefits as well...  

2. A female character is still a new legally protectable character in the eyes of the law (which is the only relevant eyes since we're talking about rights and ownership) so it's not like making a female version means they're giving the publisher less or saving anything for themselves... they could go off and do their own female version of the character without the behest of the publisher... they're just far less likely to succeed at doing it.  

3. Mainstream incentives are just fine.  Creatively, you get to play with famous toys.  Economically, you get your name out there, get a bigger pay check, and get a stable pay check (and often royalties) all without having to deal with the business side of things.  Is it any wonder than small independent directors leap at the chance to work on big well known franchises?  If you make your mark you not only reap the short term economic benefits but your back catalog of work gets appreciated, your future works are anticipated, you're given more creative freedom, more are willing to take risks on you, and in essence your stock raises.  That is the deal- fame, stability, and management for production.  People talk about "Dan Slott's She-Hulk" or "Greg Rucka's Wonder Woman" because your efforts get noticed.  In terms of risk / stability... most indies don't make it past issue 3... the ones that do are almost always by those who made the deal with the mainstream at one point which got their name out there, additionally there's upwards mobility in terms of promotions or exclusivity contracts and the like to make a creator's life more predictable.  Finally, many creators just want to create.  Being independent is often more about savvy business sense, negotiation, promotion, marketing, etc. than just working on one's craft.  Often the creator either lacks said talents or in the hiring of one to manage said things cedes nearly as much to their manager as they would to any mainstream publisher.  The mainstream allows you to just do what you like to do- art or writing- in the knowledge that your deal is market driven in terms of fairness... you can ask around and know you're not getting taken for a ride... compared to trying to use your limited business savvy to negotiate with a manager who you're hiring to shore up said lack of business savvy. "
You talking about incentives to WORK for the Big Two, and mostly, I agree with what you've stated.  But what I was talking about was creating brand NEW CHARACTERS, like when Wein created Wolverine or Liefield created Deadpool.  Dan Slott did not create She-Hulk and Greg Rucka did not create Wonder Woman, so neither of those examples apply.
 
Sure there are pluses to working at the Big Two, and they trade happily on those that you mentioned.  BUT, as far as rewarding original work, that's not the place a creator wants to expend their efforts.  Hence, the readers are left with derivative work and a lack of new characters.
Posted by Rheged
@DMC said:
" I can't recall many male versions of female characters....oh wait
 
Powerboy
"Oy Vey" -_-  "
OMG.  I can't believe that's real!  Dear heavens ... right down to the boob window!  LOL!
Posted by SirSparkington
@Gennadius said:
" I dont mind if they got a good backstory for like example X-23 her 2 mini-series where really really really good. "
Yeah some of the female versions are good (Batgirl, Batwoman, She-Hulk), while some are dumb.
Posted by CrimsonTempest

I'll only say this: Lady Deadpool was the most disgusting idea for a cross-gender version of Deadpool. Her one-shot issue solidifies my theory to an even bigger degree.
Posted by Mainline
@Rheged said:
to WORK for the Big Two, and mostly, I agree with what you've stated.  But what I was talking about was creating brand NEW CHARACTERS, like when Wein created Wolverine or Liefield created Deadpool.  Dan Slott did not create She-Hulk and Greg Rucka did not create Wonder Woman, so neither of those examples apply.  Sure there are pluses to working at the Big Two, and they trade happily on those that you mentioned.  BUT, as far as rewarding original work, that's not the place a creator wants to expend their efforts.  Hence, the readers are left with derivative work and a lack of new characters. "
There's got to be a fault in your analysis if you are citing new character created for the Big Two!  Clearly there was enough incentive for someone to create Wolvie, Deadpool, She-Hulk, Wonder Woman, X-23, etc. 
 
Neither Marvel nor most readers particularly care about a character's origins, only their execution... Deadpool is a perfect example.  If your worry derivative work, Deadpool as created was terribly uninspired... a Deathstroke / Spidey rip-off mercenary in a book filled with mercenaries with a healing factor in a book filled with healing factors.  After conception, however, investment and development on an already existing corporately owned character turned him into a critical, fan, and commercial success... none of that work being creator owned.  People don't need new characters, per se, they need sufficiently high quality stories (whether that justifies an old one or is embodied in a new one).  As was mentioned for She-Hulk, her creation was purely done for defensive legal reasons... again, uninspired, nonetheless there was incentive to recreate her- for Slott to "expend his efforts" on She-Hulk rather than go off and write his own original sassy cosmic-lawyer brawler comedy independently. 
 
At the end of the day, I think you're overestimating the success or rewards of creator owned work.  If you pour your heart and soul into an indie work filled with integrity and originality but it only ever gets seen by 500 people and puts you $30K in debt in the process... how is that more incentive than putting your mark on a 60+ year old franchise read, in aggregate, by millions and enables you to pay for private school?  The idea is that if you control the destiny, marketing, and rights wholesale to a character the rewards will be wholly yours is technically true... but then so is the risks, the lack of infrastructure, marketing, etc.  Your character is unlikely to ever be Superman or even She-Hulk.  By contrast, working on a corporately owned character you can still control his or her destiny within the scope of your contract which will only extend or open more opportunity if you do a good job. 
 
I guess I don't see the whole creator owned thing as that much a realistic deterrent to creativity.  When you're paid to do a job and reap so many benefits both creatively and economically by doing a good one (say nothing of excellent one and certainly at least professional one), how much does a risky longshot really factor into that analysis? 
 
I see this as saying, "I don't need to study in school because I'm going to make it in the NBA... my efforts are better saved for the court than books!" type incentive/disincentive analysis.
Edited by ShirEPanjshir

I don't mind some of these female/male versions as long as they are more like what's going on for example with Hulk & She-Hulk. Sure, they look the same, have the same powers, but are otherwise very different from each other as G-Man said.
 
But just copying the character and giving it female ornaments without any diversion from character traits, goals, objectives, etc. is a lot less interesting. Even though in some cases it does make sense; take Lady Deadpool for example. She's an alternate reality version of Deadpool, and she happens to be female ( there are also others like Kidpool, Zombie Deadpool, etc. ). So yes this does make sense, but it isn't really an intriguing character to read, since she basically is a full copy of Deadpool without any diversity. 
 
In all of this I'm pretty curious which way Pepper as Rescue will go. She isn't exactly a female version of Iron Man as she's been around for a long time, before she ever turned into Rescue, and she has a completely different personality. Now she's given an armor that looks a lot like the Iron Man armor, but functions quite differently. So could you regard upon her as Iron Woman? Or is she truly a different kind of hero than Iron Man?

Edited by Jslab425

One shining example of originality bears mentioning in this OFF MY MIND:
 
MERA is not and has never been AQUAWOMAN (as Geoff Johns reminded us in a cool moment from Blackest Night #3).  She has her own look, own powers, and own agenda and its what made her such a great compliment to Aquaman when she was created in the 60's, and perhaps why she is gaining a new fan base in Brightest Day.
 
I think its refreshing to find a female character that is not a riff on her male counterpart and here's to GJ for realizing this and capitalizing on it.  And just for the record, the original Aquagirl was a counterpart to Aqualad, not Aquaman.

Edited by Kyreo

I don't think that The Joker and Harley Quinn are the same but with different genders... I mean... thats like saying Batman and Robin are the same superhero but with different ages.

Posted by Talon/X23

At times I suppose it could be a little weird but at other times it works well I mean like the Bat Family sure there are lots of female characters Batwoman, Batgirl but each character has their own reasons to follow or to take the mantel of another character and with in that it forms another plot line or whatever. 
 
But in terms of She Hulk/X-23 ect its nice to see another character with similar if not exact abilities but due to their life or previous things that have happened to them they in truth take a different road and follow a different path or do their job differently or their morals are different. It just depends on the character and their backstory and possibly other things I suppose.

Posted by Rheged
@Mainline said:
" @Rheged said:
to WORK for the Big Two, and mostly, I agree with what you've stated.  But what I was talking about was creating brand NEW CHARACTERS, like when Wein created Wolverine or Liefield created Deadpool.  Dan Slott did not create She-Hulk and Greg Rucka did not create Wonder Woman, so neither of those examples apply.  Sure there are pluses to working at the Big Two, and they trade happily on those that you mentioned.  BUT, as far as rewarding original work, that's not the place a creator wants to expend their efforts.  Hence, the readers are left with derivative work and a lack of new characters. "
There's got to be a fault in your analysis if you are citing new character created for the Big Two!  Clearly there was enough incentive for someone to create Wolvie, Deadpool, She-Hulk, Wonder Woman, X-23, etc. 
 
Neither Marvel nor most readers particularly care about a character's origins, only their execution... Deadpool is a perfect example.  If your worry derivative work, Deadpool as created was terribly uninspired... a Deathstroke / Spidey rip-off mercenary in a book filled with mercenaries with a healing factor in a book filled with healing factors.  After conception, however, investment and development on an already existing corporately owned character turned him into a critical, fan, and commercial success... none of that work being creator owned.  People don't need new characters, per se, they need sufficiently high quality stories (whether that justifies an old one or is embodied in a new one).  As was mentioned for She-Hulk, her creation was purely done for defensive legal reasons... again, uninspired, nonetheless there was incentive to recreate her- for Slott to "expend his efforts" on She-Hulk rather than go off and write his own original sassy cosmic-lawyer brawler comedy independently.  At the end of the day, I think you're overestimating the success or rewards of creator owned work.  If you pour your heart and soul into an indie work filled with integrity and originality but it only ever gets seen by 500 people and puts you $30K in debt in the process... how is that more incentive than putting your mark on a 60+ year old franchise read, in aggregate, by millions and enables you to pay for private school?  The idea is that if you control the destiny, marketing, and rights wholesale to a character the rewards will be wholly yours is technically true... but then so is the risks, the lack of infrastructure, marketing, etc.  Your character is unlikely to ever be Superman or even She-Hulk.  By contrast, working on a corporately owned character you can still control his or her destiny within the scope of your contract which will only extend or open more opportunity if you do a good job.  I guess I don't see the whole creator owned thing as that much a realistic deterrent to creativity.  When you're paid to do a job and reap so many benefits both creatively and economically by doing a good one (say nothing of excellent one and certainly at least professional one), how much does a risky longshot really factor into that analysis?  I see this as saying, "I don't need to study in school because I'm going to make it in the NBA... my efforts are better saved for the court than books!" type incentive/disincentive analysis. "
You are missing the point that I and others brought up.  We are getting more of these female knock offs now, and less "original" work now, and more recycling of dead / established heroes.  How many of those new characters I cited were created recently?  Only X-23 -- which, as you pointed out, was specifically created by editorial mandate.  The newest of those other characters is almost 20 years old.  IMO, the reason for this is independent comics that are creator owned.  Twenty years ago, there was not that option.  When Wonder Woman and Wolverine were created, there was not that option.  In fact, the Big Two were the only real option IF you wanted to work in comics.
 
I tend to agree with you on the realities of doing creator owned work.  And I agree that there's definitely a portion of creators, that are perfectly happy just playing with the established toys and drawing a secure check now.  However, I would like to point out, comics is not a viable long career for many creators, so the financial security you mention has similar risks, but of course, not as high, as going the creator owned work route.  What we are basically talking about, is working for a company vs. starting your own business.
 
I disagree that creators aren't thinking and proceeding on the creator owned track.  Many with an eye toward Hollywood, rather than book print runs.  Is it realistic?  Will they all be successful?  No.  But that doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
Posted by Enyeez

I dont think Harley Quinn and The Joker are that alike, I mean, she was clearly inspired by him, but not the same as she-hulk and well, Lady Deadpool

Edited by queenfrost_

Really, there should be MALE versions of FEMALE characters ;)
& They really shouldn't just stick the word 'she' or 'girl' or 'lady' in a character's name, kinda stooopid

  • 135 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3