hushicho

Using House of M as a 'look what happens if mutants get rights' argument is about like using Rob Liefeld's art for a course on accurate human anatomy.

Mutants are entitled to human rights, because a human mutant is still human. Mutants are mutated humans. If they were another species, they would be called something else. A mutant is so called because it has mutated but is still a member of the species. The whole reason why ignorant anti-mutant idiots in comics are characters people hate is because they're wrong and they're stupid; they are judging by external appearances, rather than by the quality of one's character, and furthermore they're not using any accurate scientific thought to differentiate between perceived species. They're just hating on something that's different, because they don't understand it and thus are afraid of it. They do it in the real world just as in the comics, it's nothing new.

As comic geeks (at least some of the people here) we really should recognise that is why X-Men was, in better-written days, an appealing comic: we ourselves were often judged by external appearances, or by petty differences from the glorified 'norm', and many of us were happier not being like everyone else, even if we had fewer friends or less social life. Being identifiably the 'uncool kids' or the outcasts, the people who are fantastic but aren't usually given a chance, has been the raison d'être of the X-titles since their inception. Anyone in any sort of minority or ostracised group could identify with their situation, which gave them an appeal that kept readers holding on for even little victories.

So this really isn't a question. Mutants are human, otherwise they would be called something else entirely. On every level, it's ludicrous to debate. And frankly, as some others have pointed out, in the Marvel Universe even anti-mutant hysteria is rather nonsensical when you have exactly the same sort of superhuman powers shown by world celebrities like the Avengers and the Fantastic Four.

Pretty much all of the stupid controversies are just exploitation of 'controversial' groups and tend to cheapen that group's struggles for equality because Marvel or DC want to get free publicity due to someone thinking it's 'shocking'. If they didn't think it would sell a few more comics for a little while, we'd never even have 'out' characters, and that is really telling.

You haven't even scratched the surface of the other transgender characters that exist (and existed long before these) in comics, not to mention gay and lesbian characters that were out and far predated Marvel and DC's attempts to be 'trendy' and 'timely' and of course sell more comics by exploiting a group. Northstar getting married? Cheap. It was only done because Marvel wanted to effectively end the character's use and hadn't been able to kill him off despite several attempts. Today, marriage of any kind is dull and tends to spell the essential nadir of a character. In the 80s it was a big thing, today it's ho-hum because nobody cares...unless it's gay marriage. That's still novel enough and enough of a discussion issue that they knew they could get the free publicity. And at the same time, since it's marriage they can write off the character and mate -- who cares about them now?

Even Archie's Kevin Keller character is, at his root, nothing but an overtly gay Jughead whose stories are a parade of embarrassing gay stereotypes and hot topics, without any real novelty or wit added to them. And Archie, though hailed for being 'progressive', just jump on whatever bandwagon happens to be hot at the moment, then eventually it's forgotten. Look at the (for a while genuinely amusing) Cheryl Blossom.Good luck finding her anywhere now.

The big companies have more or less inured people to sensationalistically killing off characters, and they're tired of it. So now they have to move to other things they haven't beaten like a dead horse.

Essentially what needs to be considered here is, if one of the big companies like Marvel, DC, or Archie are doing anything, it's probably just to pull the spotlight onto themselves. It isn't for any humanitarian reason, nor artistic; it's just them trying to exploit a group of people and make a buck doing it, and if they can fool some gullible (if often well-meaning) people desperate for recognition and validation from others, all the better. That's how they've managed to justify plenty of execrable stories, characters, and members of their not-so-creative teams.

Smaller press and independent comics don't tend to do that. And frankly the US is just about the only major comic publishing country in the world where GLBTQ characters are that much of an exploitable issue. Because it's the big companies like Marvel and DC that keep sequential art dragging behind thanks to their own example. They haven't learned anything. And thanks to their visibility, it's easy for them to influence others' perceptions of sequential art and comics as a whole, as a puerile, childish, and opportunistic medium.

And that, to me, is a shame. Honestly, it's a tragedy.

Don't be fooled by these companies. They're out to make a buck, they're not out to champion any real causes or further any social progress. They're out to exploit causes and ride on the coattails of any progress.

Killing off characters in general is usually a bad idea, especially if the story has unlimited scope like most Western superhero-genre comics. Inevitably a character is going to appeal to a writer that takes the reins of a series, and that character will inevitably return; it would be much easier and less cheapening if the character were simply incapacitated or seriously injured than a huge event made out of killing them off, which is additionally very tacky.

When any character is killed off, you lose readers because that character is always someone's favourite. Every character is someone's favourite, somewhere.

Frankly, I think that it's just weak writing using tactics like apparent character death in order to make some sort of sensationalised appeal to readers. It takes far more talent and skill to write a compelling story without using stunts guaranteed to have an emotional response...and one thing they never seem to consider is that the emotional response cultivated is not always a positive one. In fact, it almost never is.

The 'Crisis on New Genesis' story was one of the best of the Justice League title's history, in my opinion. However, I think it would require too much to be changed in order to make it a viable stand-alone film. I don't think that necessarily makes it impossible that they would do it, but if they do, it will not turn out well. It's not a story that was meant to stand alone in and of itself, because it was one of the exciting regular JLA-JSA crossovers...very much something made to appeal to the fans. To take it out of context and pare it down to only a handful of JLA members would rob it of significant thrill and largely of meaning.

It would also be necessary for the story to involve the New Gods, at least to some extent, and that also would seem to make it even more unlikely; with a 2-2.5-hour limit for most films of this type, that would just complicate the story more than a casual audience is ready to attempt to understand. And if they don't, it will just make the story seem flimsy and incoherent, or rely too much on what will seem to a casual audience to be endless deus ex machina.

It's an interesting possibility, and I'm really glad this story was brought up because I hope it will encourage people to read it who never have before, but as far as it being a great basis for the upcoming film, I can't agree. I hope not, at least, because I think it would not adapt well, especially with the requisite changes that would need to be in the story.

I miss them too. I think Marvel and DC both take themselves far too seriously, so much so that most of the comics just aren't fun anymore. What The--?! was a product of when they actually could laugh at themselves (and each other!) sometimes.

As an artist and creator, I attend as many shows as I can, and I do best of all when people know these basics. I'm really glad this article is here, and I hope it will help con attendees to get the most out of their experience.

And as sixdemonbag said, don't neglect an artist even if you haven't heard of him or her. Look over the stuff they've got, check their prices, and you might just find yourself with a new favourite artist. Of course, as has been said, bigger-name artists may not even be doing convention sketches, or their prices may be prohibitively high, especially for someone who hasn't attended many conventions. There are also people who open up convention art bookings before the convention itself, so their list may be full even before the show, and many other artists will have their schedule fill up quickly. Out of courtesy it's usually good to go fairly early so that they will have adequate time to give you the best work possible.
 
Of course, if it's a multi-day convention, most artists will also be willing to take on as many works as they can, then take them back to the hotel room to finish and bring them back the next day to pick up. These are usually paid up front though.
 
Another thing to consider is that independent creators will often do a wider range of things than most of the Marvel and DC crowd, so there's also that to consider. Many artists these days contract with different companies regularly and do plenty of independent work as well, but when you're contracted with a certain company, sometimes there are restrictions on what you are and aren't able to do. If you want that art of Satana dressed as Sexy Santa Claus, spanking Wolverine bare-bottomed under the mistletoe, you may not be able to get it from some of the big-name companies' contracted employees.

Nice idea, but there are just too many problems with the writing of the X-series over the years to make this work. At first when I saw this headline I thought someone had proposed an actual X-Men museum, and my first thought was an immediate ' god no!' I think really it can only show ably how implausible the whole anti-mutant hysteria is, and how the writers have to keep upping the ante to even have it keep going.
 
It's kind of sad, but the writing over the years, especially in the last decade, has shown fairly ably that if people are that dedicated to hating mutants, maybe humans really are too stupid to be reasoned with. Despite the X-Men's repeated and constant heroic actions, some members and former members being associated with the Fantastic Four, the Avengers, and other groups (who tend to be exempt from super-power paranoia, outside of gimmicky storylines like Civil War, which just reused an old X-Men plot that had been done to death anyway), why exactly is mutant paranoia so high? It doesn't make sense anymore. It was, once upon a time, an interesting study in ideological differences between extremes striving towards the rights of a minority. Nowadays, it's just the same tired motions.
 
Though to sum it up, as I was saying to a friend a little while ago, if I were a mutant, I would give peace a chance...until government-produced giant killer robots were sent out after me, then I'd be a little less eager to embrace peaceful coexistence.
 
What I'm trying to say, really, is that even though any one of the tragedies the X-Men have suffered through should be enough to turn mass public opinion to their side, the writing over the years has zealously kept the majority of humanity surrounding them joyfully and willfully ignorant...perhaps a commentary on American culture? Who knows.
 
The answer to the question specifically is that if people are as dumb as a bag of hammers, as they are now written in the X-titles, a museum is probably a bad idea. But so were a lot of things. Kind of odd that they haven't (to my knowledge) explored the unquestionably existing world of mutant fetishists, people so fascinated with mutants that they're turned into a desire.

I like him. Unfortunately he's often badly-written or shuffled to the background. He's kind of a cute hunky brick type who may not be the sharpest stick in the bunch, but he's nice to look at and genuinely a nice guy, under it all.

The biggest problem here is that they killed off a character with decades of foundation -- despite being a streamlined version in an alternate universe -- and then expected fans and regular readers to accept a replacement that was so different. Any minor protests before have now been made significantly more vocal and more extreme due to the hamfisted way they have handled this. Naturally, the groups on both sides each embody an extreme that is neither one better than the other and has little to do with the actual issue, a lot like the recent bizarre DC gender wars. 
 
That's the short version.
 
Below is more detail, all is my two cents' worth, so disregard as you please.
 
The things done wrong here are as follows:
 
1) killing off an established character and making an event around it. This is overdone and needs to stop. We don't read superhero comics to see constant death and despair. We read them to see heroes escape what seems like certain doom, in an exciting fashion. Even if in the Ultimate universe, life is cheap (which is one reason why the Ultimate comics have mostly tanked by this point), Ultimate Spider-Man was always rather distinct and different from the rest. This undoes that and gives the Ultimate universe little hook. It also marks the whole thing as a publicity stunt done in the mistaken attitude that it will increase sales to kill off characters, which it doesn't. Any boost is temporary and the event is guaranteed to permanently alienate at least some readers. Death is not a tactic to be used casually. It has drastically amplified the outrage most of these people probably feel. If Peter had just decided to retire as Spider-Man, or been injured and chose to become an advisor to Miles instead, Miles would likely have received a much warmer welcome. Additionally, it would have been a wiser business choice since if the new Spider-Man didn't work out, they could just put the original back in. Now that will be further complicated and his demise cheapened if it goes that way.

2) replacing a well-known character with someone drastically different. It doesn't really matter that he's of mixed race, it's that he's so different to Peter. It didn't even work when they tried to slide Ben Reilly -- who was basically Peter -- into the role in the mainstream book's past. Nobody snaps to recognise Ben as Spider-Man. Spider-Man has been Peter Parker ever since the beginning, and most casual readers and fans will not accept anyone else in the role. The dissonance with a character so markedly different from Peter, especially one not gradually introduced, is something guaranteed to cause upset with casual and dedicated readers both. The differences are not subtle.

3) playing up the minority cards. It makes it seem more like Marvel are just using Miles as a dumping ground for all the diversity they intend to introduce. They've done this more than a few times in the past, in order to avoid having other characters changed for inclusiveness. The characters in question are usually shuffled to the background; while that can't be done for Miles yet, it's fairly clear that it's just a publicity tactic and isn't done for any noble reasons. If they wanted to make a real statement, they wouldn't have relegated this to the easily-ignored Ultimate line, but of course they did. They also did this, most likely, to have a built-in defence from anyone criticising their decision, but their motivation is of course the bottom line: money, which is why they keep doing these sensationalistic stunts.
 
4) giving no real narrative build-up to it. Suddenly we've got a new Spider-Man, one of the most iconic and widely-recognised characters in superhero comics, and everyone is supposed to embrace him? Even a character similar in race, appearance, or even, I don't know, in some way actually significantly related to or connected to Peter probably would not be accepted. It's the same as the aforementioned Ben Reilly.
 
Personally, I think the whole thing was in bad taste. It only does harm to the cause of diversity in comics with the way it's been done, which is clumsily and as a transparent bid for publicity and cash, both of which will be temporary. Miles seems like a nice character, but thanks to the way this was done, he likely won't be given a chance by most of the readers, casual or longtime. Though some will reject him due to his racial background, I honestly think that more are upset due to the poor way Peter was shuffled off and then they were expected to accept someone new in the role. It would be like losing a friend and then someone introducing a different person to replace them; you would probably be rather upset at this and completely unwilling to accept someone in the same place, no matter what the similarity.
 
If new, more diverse heroes and villains are to be introduced, they should be introduced in an organic, natural way. There is no reason why the Ultimate universe could not have done this from the beginning, and backpedalling now just shows how desperate Marvel seem to have become to promote it. Why can't we have new, interesting heroes promoted as well as ones many readers are getting tired of, yet seem to be promoted to the hilt? Why does it always have to be a publicity stunt whenever we do get any sort of diversity, like this is some sort of big to-do? We live in the 21st century.
 
I shake my head at both the companies and many of the fans. The worst of both comes out in these sorts of situations, and so much of it could have been avoided by a more sound business approach, a better creative approach, and greater respect for both the characters and the fans that have supported this floundering genre for so long. It makes me sad to see the comics I once loved become something I'm embarrassed someone will associate me with.
 
I can appreciate a genuine attempt at inclusion, and speaking as someone who belongs to a number of minorities myself, I can appreciate honourable intentions. But seriously, things like this just make it worse. People are going to be sensitive over this for months, if not years. It's probably not the worst way they could have handled this, but it's close.

Yeah. Though I can see why sometimes people get unhappy when characters they loved or love are changed, there are a lot of things that are done to characters that are a lot worse than taking their heretofore unexplored sexual orientation and bringing it to the fore. The Kid didn't change as far as his ability, his charm, or his look. If anything, the Slap Leather series made him more distinct than most of his contemporary characters, by making him more intelligent, more coherent, and a more refined guy. It was actually rather strongly in line even with the Rawhide Kid series Marvel put out in the mid-80s, though much more upbeat and entertaining in my opinion. I don't see a problem with it.
 
I'd much rather see that than see him made into an incapable ninny or brought back to be made into a footnote in some overwrought 'serious business' series by a whippersnapper with something to prove. Also, you kids get off my lawn!
 
Seriously though, the Kid wasn't changed hardly at all, and all the changes I think were decidedly for the better. They could have done a lot of things with him that they've done to other characters who have sat idle for decades, but they kept him true to what he always was. They made him better, but they also stayed true to him.
 
I'm not honestly sure what the problem is with the Kid being openly (inasmuch as he could be at the time) gay, it's not like he was a huge casanova in the original series or anything. In fact, the few times -- you can count them on one hand and have fingers to spare -- he even seemed slightly interested in women were debatable and had nothing to do with anything. I could see someone getting out of sorts if the Kid were some kind of philanderer, but Johnny? Not at all!