should fans really rage about changes ?

^

No... but then, it really wouldn't be the internet if everyone was calm and collected, now would it?

They're going to, they have the right to be irrational : P

If the changes are bad then absolutely they should rage.

Some people can't accept change. So yes.

Some changes are for the better. Like when people were complaining about Aquaman costume not being Gold and Green, like really that costume would never work on the big screen.

Some fans say nothing , some fans say allot and some characters have hardly any fans and those boards are empty threads and not even threads just no selling books hoping for a fan to rant about something.

In the army they have a saying , if nobody is complaining something is wrong.

If you ever watched kids you understand if no noise is coming from the room they are up to something lol.

So fans should have a voice , it is the best part of comics.

You could do away with all the forums and you could just put out stories but fans are one of the best parts of comics , from the voice that his happy , to the unhappy soul to the one that just wants to come and say...hey what about this idea?

Stories are nothing without the fans that enjoy them, the fans that buy the books , the fans that rant and rave and carry on like a spoiled two year old after a peace of candy dammit lol ooops.

My short reply got burned in a bad fire that I started when I was writing a reply to should fans wear make up to football games and be allowed to drink?

Who knows all in all....

I just wonder where I put my beer mug and whom is driving to the next game.

Depends on the change really.

@life_without_progress: depends what it is, but for the most part things revert back to normal, and if not then pack up and move along. Venting about something I am fine with, raging about something for months to people who can't do anything does nothing.

Yeah, they can rage. People don't always like changes. Some people want to keep things the same way.

No. IMO unless it's obviously negative and not opinion driven, it's idiotic and close minded.

What's obviously negative to one person is not negative to another. To those who are legitimately upset over certain changes, it is "obviously negative" to them, but possibly "close minded" to you.

Change comes and goes as change sometimes is needed it all comes down to an individual or individuals`s opinion.

The only thing that doesn't change is the change itself.

I can see ragin a little over when a writer changes something you really like for a change you don't like, it's only human.

Depends on the change. If they want to make Superman a teenager and have him live in Gotham City, that is the kind of change that is acceptable to rage against.

Now if a writer change the origin of New 52 WW to getting raped by Ares as she was a little kid that will eventually led her to her journey of killing Ares for revenge and receiving her Goddess of War title, then be prepared for the giant backlash. But, the writer could explain that by these events, Diana became the person she will become and instantly become more relatable towards rape victims, etc. But still, there's going to be people and fans that will be in rage and there's going to be some people that can understand what the writer was trying to do. If this had happened for the New 52 WW, then people will be outrage but eventually, had to accept that its going to be her new origin.

one man's change is another man's rage.

Female thor.

@jedixman: Fine, I'll be specific on "Obviously Negative".

Example, Flash not being a speedster. That's an obvious negative. I doubt that a majority of Comicbook fans (including those who may not like flash) would not like the idea of Flash not being a speedster.

If the change is done to something people are paying for, then they have every write to rage regardless if they're overreacting or not.

Only because WB has a fear of bright colors.

Fandom is nothing without rage.

If people have the right not to like something then they have the right to be angry and say something about it.

If you give everyone a trophy then the trophy becomes meaningless.

That being said I do not like change, in comics atleast.

Raging over change is dumb..... If I don't like the "change" to some enjoy I just don't read, watch, or buy it, and move on to the next thing.........

I'm saying no because most of the time it's just people screaming for the sake of screaming

No

I like when a lot of changes are done.

It allows the writer to make more interesting stories.

No. Not in games, not in comics, not in movies, not in anything. It's annoying.

When ever anything isn't the way it's been for the past five years you should scream and shout about it online as if it wasn't way different ten years ago.

@darthmummy: what? Lool didn't the mixture of colours in krypton. WB DC universe will be a dark and gritty place, a different tone to Marvel's more kid friendly universe.

I doubt Marvel would've used Aquaman more traditional costume just look Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Gamora & Star Lord.

Bright colours doesn't necessarily mean good. Their trying to get rid of the general concious of Aquaman being lame and I'm afraid the 90's version of him would be easier to adapt than the traditional one. Let the movies and comic books be seperate for things like that.

WB are scared to use bright colours loool that's why were getting a movie with Joker, Harley & Boomerang.

Depends of the change and the reason for the change.

Race change happens most of the time based on a marketing gimmick.

There its also the whole idea to let some McHeroes(SJWs) people who never buy the comics, video games, movies, decide what its right and what its wrong in fantasy, even when its fantasy and what they cry about it isnt real.

Canon change try to make things more easy, but at the end make things harder and more senseless (Batman had 20 Robins in 5 years).

Character change, most of the times now isnt character development, but a way to make things "new" "edgy" and stuff.

Political Correctness = Censorship.

It's more of a personal thing IMHO. Any change is going to be welcomed by some and shunned by others. Almost no DC or Marvel character is now like they were back when they were created. I'm sure some folks that liked the Golden Age Superman didn't like the overpowered faster than light guy he became in the 1960's )or was that the 50's?) Thor used to a blind professor that simply stumbled upon a hammer. Now, the folks that grew up with faster than light Superman wouldn't like it if he became Action Comics number 1 Superman. We like whatever it is we're used to and comfortable with. But, no I don't think fans should be outraged over any change, it's a big part of comics history and is the nature of beast.

Yes, and no.

If they feel rage, they should express it.

If that expression turns ugly and inspires some kind of hate propelled agenda against a group as the reason for the change, rather than the actual company making the changes, then I'd say they should still carry on as they'd like since freedom of speech is an awesome thing. As is the right to point out how hilarious it is. This sort of rage is at the very least, amusing. To me, anyway.

Yes. It's needless pandering and if I were a person of colour, I'd be insulted if they thought I was so superficial.

Yes, and they should do more to somehow 'affect' the company so that they know not to naff around with the people that made them big in the first place.

Comic fans are have a stockholm syndrome mentality in that regard, they accept whatever happens or whine to people/those whom cannot do anything to change it.

Rage is impotent if they don't take proactive action.

Yes, it's unnecessary.

New 52 Kid Flash (Wally West)... Also, this guy makes a lot of sense from his very complex and thought provoking answer :P

Let's be honest here for a second, if you can't rage about changes made about comics without people trying to turn it into some kind of moral question then what can people rage about in society nowadays? Not that I do but I mean come on. Its comic books. If people want to rage about something that a writer or company is doing then let them without getting all bent out of shape over it. Its not like you have to read any of it.

Depends on the change and the reason. Changing certain things is fine as long as the build is right and the change makes sense. I liked that Venom changed hosts to Flash Thompson, it was something long overdue and it re-invigorated both characters. I liked that Dick Grayson became Batman. It was always implying Dick was Bruce's rightful successor to the mantle and it was awesome to finally see him step into that role. I didn't mind Superior Spider-Man at first, since the idea of someone else being Spider-Man worked with the Kraven's Last Hunt story all those years ago (my issue with that is something all together different). Ult Peter Parker dying and Miles Morales taking up his icon's mantle and doing justice to it is a good change.

Change can be good when executed well and done properly. Something random like Thor losing worthiness to some random whisper and someone else taking his name (since Thor is not a mantle but, you know, who he is). Is not a good change. People are still wildly critical over that, but I haven't heard many rumblings about Sam Wilson's Captain America. Maybe it's because that was executed better?

Point being change can be good, but not all changes are. And as fans, who pay these companies for their stories and have sometimes life-long vested interests in characters, we have the right to speak out. But we should do so not just verbally or textually but with our wallets as well. When Al Simmons stopped being Spawn I didn't like Jim Downing, so I spoke out with my wallet and stopped buying and reading Spawn. We have the right as consumers to voice dissatisfaction with a product or turn of events...sometimes as fans we get a little too passionate even when we have too little information though haha.