The Comics Professor

Thoughts on the new Captain America and the direction of Marvel Comics

If I knew the official announcement of Sam Wilson (the Falcon) picking up the mantle from an aged Steve Rogers was coming so soon, I would have waited to write my post on the new Thor, since many of the points I have to make are the same. But here I'll focus on the aspects unique to Cap.

1. Ever since this was hinted several weeks back, I've thought about it in terms of two issues: who becomes the new Cap, and why are they replacing Steve Rogers at all. The first is a no-brainer, and personally I'm thrilled to see Sam as the next person to wield the shield. I think this a win all around: it flows naturally from the story Rick Remender has been telling, and Sam is the natural successor to Steve (given that Bucky already had a shot), having been his crime-fighting partner and close confidante for years. Furthermore, it helps to diversify the Marvel line in the same way that the female Thor does, which I only hope will be justified and motivated in-story as well as Sam's ascension is. (The same issues with legacy that I expressed in my Thor post hold, even though there have been almost as many different Caps as Thor has had helmets.)

2. The bigger issue for me is: why is Steve Rogers being replaced again so soon after he came back from "the dead" several years ago? (It seems like yesterday, but possibly that's because I have no life.) There are a number of possible reasons.

First, it may have been motivated for the express purpose of putting Sam in the red-white-and-blues. Nothing wrong with that, though it does seem to make Steve Rogers disposable and imply that Sam Wilson can't be made a more prominent fixture in the Marvel Universe as the Falcon—which, after all, is an original, nonderivative superhero identity without "Black" in the name, and something I think should be celebrated.

Second, it may be part of a larger character arc for Steve Rogers—in much the same way that Rhodey first served as Iron Man during Tony Stark's fall and rise from the depths of alcoholism, only to have Tony reclaim the armor when he was all better—but this would diminish Sam's stature as a "true" successor as Captain America and make him little more than a placeholder. He would get his moment in the sun, true, but he deserves better.

Third, it may simply be a "hail mary" on the part of the creators. I've found Remender's run to be less than inspiring after an impressive start, and this may have been the best Cap story they could come up with. If I remember correctly, Cap has been "depowered" twice since he was reborn, and that well has run dry—which leads me to think this was motivated by one or both of the reasons above (or simply a desire to mix things up, as I'll discuss below).

3. Let's abstract away from the new Cap and talk about Marvel in general. In my post on the new Thor I expressed my suspicions that all of these abrupt changes in major characters were leading to a Marvel reboot down the road. Maybe it's not, and many if not all of these changes will be reversed in a year or so. Regardless of how long these changes stay in place, however, and no matter how much I support each of these changes individually and look forward to the stories that can be told with them, taken together they reek of the same desperation that led DC to reboot their universe three years ago: short term shock to goose sales. As Brevoort says in the interview announcing the New Cap, “Change is one of the watchwords of the Marvel Universe, so there are even more startling surprises to come!” This sounds to me like "change for the sake of change," which I regard as a shortsighted alternative to solid, innovative storytelling rooted in the rich history of beloved characters.

But I'm not running Marvel Comics, and I'm no expert on what sells comics to the majority of current fans (or the elusive "new fans" they hope to elicit). Maybe current readers want rapid change that keeps them on the toes. Maybe they don't have the same appreciation of decades of continuity and character development that we old fogeys have. DC certainly seems to have banked on that, and even though their editorial and PR problems of late are well documented, few of them seem to deal directly with lost continuity. As long as Marvel avoids a total reboot, they will retain that history that many fans love, and will also be adopting a concept of legacy similar to what DC had before the New 52 (as I discussed in the last post). This may be inconsistent with the appreciation many longtime fans have for the characters, but may appeal more to new ones. (I don't know.)

Again, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. After all, look at the Superior Spider-Man, which exceeded almost everyone's expectations in terms of storytelling, after which (to me, at least) Peter Parker as Spider-Man once again seems almost blasé. Fantastic stories were told of Bucky Barnes when he served as Captain America, and I hope the stories of Sam Wilson as Captain America (and the new Thor) will be just as good. At the end of the day, there are two things that matter to me: story and character. If good stories are told that respect the characters and develop them organically, I'll be the happiest fan knocking down the door of my local comics shop every Wednesday morning. But with Marvel right now (or "Right NOW!"), it just seems like too much all at once, and that worries me.

Thoughts on the new Thor: Legacy, characterization, and a possible reboot

Recently it was announced—on "The View," of all places—that the next person found worthy to wield the power of Thor in the Marvel Universe would be a woman, after the current Thor is judged unworthy. (See here for the best write-up I've found, including an interview with writer Jason Aaron and EIC Axel Alonso.) Predictably, the comics internet went crazy, with some fans excited and supportive of the move and others very upset, many of them angry that "their Thor" could possibly be a woman.

After following the news and conversation all that day, I want to offer a few random thoughts.

1. It's a bold move on the part of Marvel Comics and I think it's a positive one. Those of us in comics fandom who want a more diverse range of characters would of course prefer that new, nonderivative female characters would be created and promoted, but we also realize the reality of the marketplace and how difficult that is. Personally, I would love to see Sif or Valkyrie put forward more—and to Marvel's credit they have tried—but it may be the case that the best way to diversify the line is substitute women and other minorities for established characters (as they did so well with Miles Morales) and hope that over time they establish themselves as beloved and independent iterations. (From what I've seen, few consider Miles to be a replacement but a fascinating character in his own right.)

Furthermore, there is a tradition of the current Thor losing his "worthiness" and the mantle being passed to another character, such as Beta Ray Bill (a horse-faced character for people like me to identify with), and we all know that Thor himself became a frog for a spell (after which an independent Frog-Thor was created, because you demanded it!). A female Thor was a natural next step in the evolution of the Thor mythos (just like I believe Sam Wilson-as-Cap is), and it allows the current Thor to go through a redemption storyline. I have no doubt the current Thor will come back, but as long as good stories are told in the meantime, I'm all for it. (And this is Jason Aaron, one of my favorite writers in the medium right now, so I have no doubt the stories will be fantastic.)

2. I think another reason this change is being met with skepticism—aside from issues with the character's gender—is that Marvel does not have an established traditon of legacy in the same way that DC does (or did before the New 52). There have been a number of Flashes, Green Lanterns (even just counting the Sector 2814 ones), Robins, and even Batmen. In particular, Wally West and Kyle Rayner served as "the" Flash and Green Lantern, respectively, for over a decade after their predecessors "went away," and a large contingent of fans embraced them, largely because their characters were more fleshed out than Barry Allen and Hal Jordan were at the time. While they were beloved, Barry and Hal's original adventures were mostly about using their powers to fight bad guys, not explore their deepest character traits, which made them relatively easy to replace with new people that, given the times in which they were introduced, were explored in more depth.

But when the Marvel heroes were created (or defrosted) in the 1960s, they were instilled from the get-go with well-defined character traits that served to make their superhero identites indistinguishable from their "real" identities. So even though there have been others to use the names, many fans don't see them as the authentic versions. With all due respect to Bucky and Rhodey, Steve Rogers is Captain America and Tony Stark is Iron Man because Steve and Tony's personalities are as much a part of the identities of Cap and Shellhead as are the shield and the armor. (Even in DC, the trinity of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman have become inseparably tied to Clark/Kal, Bruce, and Diana, but few others have.) And Thor takes this even further because Thor is his given name—there is no difference between the hero Thor and the "civilian" Thor (now that Don Blake has been rendered irrelevant). (Apparently the current Thor will go by a different name after he is "deposed," but even that highlights how odd this transfer of title is.)

This doesn't mean that "mantles" can't be passed on in the Marvel Universe, but merely that replacing Thor or Cap has more impact—and receives more resistance aside from issues of gender and race—than it would in DC, where multiple generations of heroes was once a grand tradition.

3. Who will be the new Thor—and who should it be? The safe bet is that it will be Angela, newly revealed to be Thor and Loki's sister. Less likely, it could be Valkyrie, another natural choice for her longlasting popularity and close ties to Asgardian lore, or Jane Foster, who recently moved to Asgard as an emissary from Midgard (Earth) and is suffering from cancer (which could be cured with the Odinforce, even though she doesn't want this). My ideal choice would be Sif, who seems to be the natural successor to the current Thor just as Sam Wilson is the natural successor to Steve Rogers (after Bucky had his shot). (As for hair color, I have it on good authority that people can change their hair color, especially if they undergo a transformation to become the Norse God of Thunder.)

4. Finally and most speculatively, I can't help but think that so many major changes at once—new Thor, new Cap, newly dead Wolverine, possible cancellation of the Fantastic Four—are increasing the odds that there is some sort of reboot coming at Marvel after this "Time Runs Out" business coming in the Avengers titles. I may be wrong, and I really hope I am, but it seems that the powers-that-be at Marvel are playing with their favorite toys one last time, taking bold chances with them, before they get all new ones. They've done radical things before—killing Cap, replacing Peter Parker, taking Dazzler seriously—but now they're doing a lot of it all at once, and frankly it worries me. Again, I hope I'm wrong, because I love the Marvel Universe and its rich history that, for the most part, the creators there respect.