Quote from: Previsionary on January 15, 2012, 07:57:11 PM
I don't think anyone even made a claim that the female comic character in question (or any for that matter) was meant for the feminist movement.... In fact, most of the commentary has been to how, typically, male READERS react to and treat female characters in general. Period.
If the commentary is critical of the "(middle-age white men)" (sic) and their reactions to and treatment of female characters, in a thread about a female version of a male character, and the commentary is defending that character's existence, I think it's hard not to infer the implication that said female retread is in some way a reaction to that alleged sexism, and therefore somehow "pro-females".
I merely point out that unimaginative tokenism based on simplistic reversals of traditional representations of gender, race, or sexual orientation is not the new civil rights movement some of you seem to think it is.
If I was or am mistaken, you have my profound and sincere apologies.
To be clear, Ghost Rider as a concept has moved from host to host. To be upset that a woman could be a Ghost Rider or that she is somehow less than a man counterpart is offensive to me personally. This isn't Superman or even Wolverine, it's Ghost Rider.
Quote from: AfghanAnt on January 15, 2012, 11:32:47 PM
To be clear, Ghost Rider as a concept has moved from host to host. To be upset that a woman could be a Ghost Rider or that she is somehow less than a man counterpart is offensive to me personally. This isn't Superman or even Wolverine, it's Ghost Rider.
Yes, Ghost Rider is a demon or spirit who possesses a human, and so can be male or female.
And Kryptonians can be male or female.
And if you clone a mutant, the result can be male or female, as can the mutant themselves.
And a man or a woman can dress up in a bat costume.
And gamma rays can mutate men or women.
So actually, it turns out female Ghost Rider is no different to any other rationale for a female counterpart.
And the argument that like photocopying, each subsequent iteration is a weaker, fainter copy of the original, also applies to Ghost Rider too.
As to your "offense", nobody actually posted that they were "upset" by a female Ghost Rider, or anything suggesting that a woman would be in any way inferior to a man.
Please, quote me posts with that in, because I cannot find them.
What people
did post was that derivative characters are weaker
as concepts than the originals, whether the derivative is a "Red" version, or a "female" version or a "clone" version matters not one jot.
While I think the economic arguments posed the thread that inspired this discussion are spot on (Variant heroes as a means to get more return on a particular franchise), think a case can be made, and I think this is whay AA is getting at, that this is NOT a derivative character. Metatextually, of course. it is. It is the latest version of a chacter establshed nearly 4 decades ago, with only a light variation on the major design and character elements. But in continuity, this character may not (I haven't read the comics so can't say for sure) derivative, in the same way that Red Hulk is. That is to say, because MArvel has established that the Ghost Rider is a character that has had more than one human host with the creation of Dany Ketch in the 1990s, the female Ghost Rider is the latest in the line. Again, this is nothing different than AA is saying - merely a derivation fromt he original. :P
i remember reading something in regards to this from the creators perspective. creators as influenced by the editors, of course. i wish i could remember it better. something about putting a male character iconic symbolism on a female character to make the character relevant and easily recognizable, with the effect of subtle titillation being a side effect more than the intent, in the same old timey thinking of a female police officer or in a foot ball uniform. not that anyone was really talking about that aspect, just what i'm half remembering and paraphrasing. from what i read, feminism or female power wasn't really part of the original scheme, back in the golden age.
really, wonder woman is the only golden age original female character i can think of. i wonder why there has never been a male version? wonder man doesn't count. could wonder woman conceivably have a male sidekick, robin style?
Wonder Woman is an interesting issue because some considered her to be the female Superman for a time despite how wacky her golden age stories were written where she was constantly being tied up by someone and how her books were filled with innuendo, low key or otherwise. And then there was a time when some considered her to be a super powered Batman because of her heavy gadget/weaponry use. For whatever reason, people of a certain time just saw her as a female version of the more established duo of the DC trinity until her many origin changes, I suppose... and even post that.
Basically, Wonder Woman was full of controversy for many years because of her early adventures, the time period in which she sprouted from, and how ignorance of those decades tried to paint her as a "bad idea" for women, a lesbian, a man-hater, and etc. Imagining a male character built in the same faction as Wonder Woman (with the obvious shifts in direction) would probably paint that character in even more controversy. For an industry that is already seen as very male oriented to the point that full female creative teams are considered news worthy and unique, I don't know how well that'd work out for the long term.
All that said, a male sidekick for WW wouldn't be unwelcomed, I believe. I'm sure if it were done right, it would be accepted well. I guess part of the issue for WW in the sidekick department is that many of her origin stories, and the characters who share her power, rise from Themyscira, which is commonly described as man-hating. Putting her in the position to train a young, male hero might prove a little more difficult but it could open some story possibilities for her. Interestingly enough, there are two wonder boys out there, and they have next to nothing to do with Diana, Donna, or Cassie. Also of interest, the male version of Wonder Woman... is Wonder Man, Earth 11. There's also... Wonder Warrior. Both are essentially male amazons, so there is a precedent.
*sigh* See, that right there AA, that is what I was talking about when I said dumbness had reached a ridiculously high level in the other thread. I know for a fact prem's just as nettled by this debate as you, but he's not resorting to name calling or baiting. I'm not saying your perspective is wrong (far from it actually... I'm actually somewhere in the middle) you need to either craft a coherent argument or just not post. Tommy, same goes for you... don't turn this into a flame war, especially over something you clearly haven't read yourself. As a fair warning to EVERYONE, I already asked stumpy to keep an eye on this nonsense back when I posted over in the request board, so don't say something in heat that could get you banned, m'kay?
Now, I'll be the first to admit, generally I feel like Rule 63 Superheroines are weaker conceptually then a character created as a female (Storm, Shadowcat, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Wonder Woman, etc.) that isn't to say that "each subsequent iteration is a weaker" though... in fact, some female variants go on to become at least as interesting, to me anyway, as the male "counterpart" (X-23, Batgirl, Spidergirl). The simple fact is, if Ghost Rider is supposed to be something that jumps from host to host, it's likely that it would settle on a female host eventually (particularly since there are more females alive today then males). In this case, I find it more plausable and, indeed, more acceptable that GR would settle on a female host then I do for having clones or daughters or female sidekicks running around with "girl" in the title.
But all that is moot compared to the real discussion here... despite your comments about no one being "upset," members were and are going out of their way to bash the concept of this character in a request thread. I'll admit to thinking the idea is dumb too(but again, my interest in GR is nil to begin with, so having more of them running around doesn't thrill me regardless) but the sheer fact that people were going out of their way to post in a relatively innocuous request thread qualifies as "upset" to me. THAT is what prem and AA are getting annoyed about here, not the concept of the character, but the fact that people are so close minded about the change that they're going out of their way to bash it without bothering to read it.
Quote from: Tomato on January 16, 2012, 08:35:21 AM
*sigh* See, that right there AA, that is what I was talking about when I said dumbness had reached a ridiculously high level in the other thread. I know for a fact prem's just as nettled by this debate as you, but he's not resorting to name calling or baiting. I'm not saying your perspective is wrong (far from it actually... I'm actually somewhere in the middle) you need to either craft a coherent argument or just not post. Tommy, same goes for you... don't turn this into a flame war, especially over something you clearly haven't read yourself. As a fair warning to EVERYONE, I already asked stumpy to keep an eye on this nonsense back when I posted over in the request board, so don't say something in heat that could get you banned, m'kay?
Well, lets hope the moderators start to moderate, and delete abusive posts aimed directly at one person, as per rules 1, 5 and 6.
Or not, and we can see where that goes.....I'm quite capable of fighting my own wars.
Quote from: Tomato on January 16, 2012, 08:35:21 AM
Now, I'll be the first to admit, generally I feel like Rule 63 Superheroines are weaker conceptually then a character created as a female (Storm, Shadowcat, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Wonder Woman, etc.) that isn't to say that "each subsequent iteration is a weaker" though... in fact, some female variants go on to become at least as interesting, to me anyway, as the male "counterpart" (X-23, Batgirl, Spidergirl). The simple fact is, if Ghost Rider is supposed to be something that jumps from host to host, it's likely that it would settle on a female host eventually (particularly since there are more females alive today then males). In this case, I find it more plausable and, indeed, more acceptable that GR would settle on a female host then I do for having clones or daughters or female sidekicks running around with "girl" in the title.
And once again, an entity that possesses either male or female is no more compelling or plausible a rationale than "Superman's female cousin".
If the odds are roughly 50/50 of a female getting any given power it really doesn't matter if the power is the "original" one, as with Ghost Rider, or if they are Kryptonian like Superman/Girl, or bitten by a radioactive water buffalo.
I fully understand the "but it's not a new character, it's still Ghost Rider" defense. And all that does is switch us from "derivative for copyright reasons" or "derivative for financial gain" into at best "derivative for story interest". At worst it puts us into "derivative for prurience" or "a lack of anything interesting to say with or about the character so let's use gimmicks". I would again cite Ultron arbitrarily switching gender solely to appear as a naked woman in several issues. That was not done to explore the character of Ultron, or to challenge patriachally inclined comic book readers. On the contrary, it was done to pander to them by showing some Frank Cho drawn skin.
Some have said this female GR
is female for sound storytelling reasons, and that may be the case. It's probably a bit unfair to lump her in with female Ultron or the baffling female Black Panther or Lady Bullseye. But it's a bit hard to not characterize something as part of a trend if it happens during a trend. There have been trends for Zombie comics and vampire comics and some of those might be good comics, but are still part of a trend.
And again I'd like to draw a distinction between the concept of a character, and any comics they might happen to appear in.
J.H.Williams III's Batwoman is currently an excellent, masterful comic. Simone's Batgirl is very good. I loved Dan Slott's She-Hulk issues.
All comics I loved, but it doesn't change what those characters are, or that to me they are weaker concepts than the originals from which they were derived.
They can still be in great comics, even as weaker concepts, just as their progenitors can be in awful comics, despite being stronger concepts.
That to me seems so obvious it should not need stating.
"So what's your problem with them?" is a predictable response to the above.
There are some characters or stories which linger in human culture and consciousness, and some which don't.
As far as I know, King Arthur was not Queen Arthura's cousin, Robin Hood was not inspired by Robina Hood, Sherlock Holmes was not the former sidekick of Shirley Holmes.
Likewise Queen Boadicea was not King Boadicea's distaff half, Black Canary is not a knock off of Black Canary Man, Buffy is not a derivative of a male Mr. Buffy.
Original characters tend to be longer lasting, and by virtue of being longer lasting eventually accrue more good stories than their derivatives do.
I like good stories, therefore I prefer original characters to derivatives because originals seem to give me more good stories.
I'll take Veil, Hazmat or even Finesse, (all original characters in Avengers Academy) over female Ghost Rider any day of the week, (even though Finesse is arguably female-Taskmaster, but since she shares neither name nor costume, only an approximate power set, I let her off).
Quote from: Tomato on January 16, 2012, 08:35:21 AM
But all that is moot compared to the real discussion here... despite your comments about no one being "upset," members were and are going out of their way to bash the concept of this character in a request thread. I'll admit to thinking the idea is dumb too(but again, my interest in GR is nil to begin with, so having more of them running around doesn't thrill me regardless) but the sheer fact that people were going out of their way to post in a relatively innocuous request thread qualifies as "upset" to me. THAT is what prem and AA are getting annoyed about here, not the concept of the character, but the fact that people are so close minded about the change that they're going out of their way to bash it without bothering to read it.
If you are going to address my points directly by using the pronoun "you" in your posts, please quote me, it makes the discussion easier to follow, and is only polite.
This is not a request thread, it's a thread started to discuss that specific character and the phenomenom allegedly represented by her.
I do not need to read a comic titled "Cowboys" featuring cowboys on the cover to venture the opinion that it's about cowboys. Though I could be wrong.
The merits of the book are irrelevant to
this discussion, which is not "is Lady Ghost Rider a good comic book?".
This thread is a discussion of the phenomenom of derivative characters, if that even exists, what it implies, and does Mrs.Ghost Rider fall under it's remit.
And your buddies "Prem" and "AA" can take their "annoyance" and "offense" to the thread where people are slating the quality of books they have not read, rather than this thread discussing the quality of the concepts of various characters.
Nobody need agree with my point of view, and this is not some contest to be won.
People have made some valid points about the conservatism (not the political sense) of comic book readers, and how new characters can fare poorly, leading to the phenomena of Spider-Girls etc keeping some in their comfort zones.
I'd counter this with the observation that since popular culture is currently strip-mining superhero comics for any viable "property", you don't have to pander to those comic book buyers who are innately conservative.
Just make good new characters, and tell good stories with them, and even if the comic-book-market does not come the chances are film, TV or videogames will pick it up. And here I would cite The Walking Dead and Alias, though I admit the videogames based on new characters are thin on the ground...if we don't count Freedom Force..
EDITED to correct a"their" to a "there".
Guys, I like the discussion going on here male/ female counter parts etc, but lets keep it civil. No need for name calling or putting each other down. If I get another complaint about this thread I will shut it down.
Thank You!
an interesting thing to note is that female derivations of male characters in comics are nearly always -girl. -woman is a lot more rare. and typically not as popular. popularity being driven by sales, and sales being derived from, let's face it, "reading the book by it's cover", not the well written or poorly written content. i'm not sure what this says about the psychology of the "common fanboy", then and now, i have read post feminist articles suggesting it is the male fear of strong women, in some fashion.
i will say this, i have a 10 year old daughter, and when i got her comics from 7 on, she much preferred supergirl to wonderwoman.
edit: i don't want to get into politics, and i probably shouldn't, but maybe the name calling post can simply be deleted? for the sake of peace.
tommyboy is playing games about comic book characters?
sorry, thought that was funny, for obvious reasons. don't mind silly me.
my conclusion, and i'm appreciative of the discussion that led me to this awareness of myself, is that taking a male character and dropping a female in the costume for whatever reason...is somewhat lame, and exploitative, not of females per se, but of fandom in general. and in spite of that, or maybe because of it, i find it fascinating. if it was blue devil girl, i would absolutely have to know what it was about, and why. for some reason, it is more interesting than simply another character in the role. blaze replaced by ketch, a little interesting, but now i want to get this book and see what it's about.
anyone else interested now? and if so, why?
My post in the request thread was about how creatively bankrupt Marvel is. It was definitely not about how female characters are inferior to male ones. Adding "T and A" to Ghost Rider is boring, tired, and over done. Yes it was in the wrong thread to do so...but that pic was my first look at the character and I responded to it. Sorry that my post was the spark in this flame war.
Some posts removed. And, I hate having to remove posts from a thread because it makes the thread hard to read. Which is too bad because the general discussion of whether some aspect of a character (or development in a character's story arc) makes it more or less derivative and whether that, in turn, characteristic makes the comic more or less interesting or whatever is valid fodder for this forum.
However, the name-calling isn't. And, meanwhile, after a moderator has stepped in and asked for civility, the appropriate course is not to justify the name-calling or discuss it further or discuss the moderation of it. It's done. Either stick to the issues as they relate to comics - without trying to characterize the people discussing them - or leave the thread alone.
I wonder if her nipples are on fire too.
Quote from: murs47 on January 17, 2012, 01:36:15 AM
I wonder if her nipples are on fire too.
omgah, so hawwwwwwwt.
If she turns into a flaming skeleton ,she wouldn't have any. If only the skull is stripped of flesh, then so would Blaze's and Ketch's.
For characters like Ghost Rider or entities like it, I don't mind female, or any counterparts for that matter. As stated, they are just host. However, I dislike the She-, -Boy, -Girl, -Woman (and -man for that matter, but couldn't think of any instances of this) thing going on in comics. It feels as if they are just cheap, weaker counterfeits to the original, regardless of gender.
Quote from: Randomdays on January 17, 2012, 04:47:51 AM
If she turns into a flaming skeleton ,she wouldn't have any. If only the skull is stripped of flesh, then so would Blaze's and Ketch's.
Please remove yourself from existence! You took something that was soooooooo hawwwwwwwwt and made it sooooooo not hawwwwwwwt, which is rude. Vury rude. <_<
obviously joking for those that would like to incorrectly guess my emotion, intent, or argument as has been the case in this thread 2-3 different times.
Quote from: Randomdays on January 17, 2012, 04:47:51 AM
If she turns into a flaming skeleton ,she wouldn't have any. If only the skull is stripped of flesh, then so would Blaze's and Ketch's.
That right there just kills this whole conversation. If the host is male or female and they turn into the Ghost Rider, technically, they wouldn't have and distinction to tell if they were male or female, it would just be a skeleton riding on a motorcycle. But we know Marvel and if there were a female Ghost Rider she would have a flaming chest.......that just sound so wrong
Ok, first, as someone in the medical profession, there are several distinctions between the male and female skeletons. Second, the leather jacket fem-GR typically wears seems to be form fitted to her chest... so it can probably keep its shape even without anything actually being in there. Just sayin'
Quote from: Tomato on January 17, 2012, 11:13:52 PM
Ok, first, as someone in the medical profession, there are several distinctions between the male and female skeletons. Second, the leather jacket fem-GR typically wears seems to be form fitted to her chest... so it can probably keep its shape even without anything actually being in there. Just sayin'
Johnny and Danny always seemed to fill out their leather outfits and not appear to be scrawny bags of bones, why not a female GR? I think you guys are just hung up on boobs...LOL.
Dana
Quote from: cmdrkoenig67 on January 18, 2012, 01:08:11 AM
I think you guys are just hung up on boobs...LOL.
Oh yes I am.
LOL!
I read up on this a bit before deciding to post.
GR's origins have evolved over time into a flaming mess, if you'll excuse the expression. It never quite made sense... but even I have to admit that a flaming skull-headed figure riding a motorcycle and punishing evildoers is pretty cool.
What interests me about this is the fact that Blaze makes a selfish choice to pass on the curse of the Ghost Rider, and that he's going to be forced to deal with the consequences of that act somehow. No matter how you spin it, it still winds up being about Johnny Blaze fighting his personal demons in the end.
As for the host being a woman, I suppose you can look at it from a couple of different viewpoints.
The first follows the premise that sometimes the female of the species is deadlier than the male. "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned" and all that. In that sense, I suppose this is fitting in a way. Sort of a Xena, Amazon Princess of Hell kind of a take.
A romanticized view of women being another viewpoint, a woman would seem to fit better in a protective role than in that of a merciless, avenging warrior. This is not totally out of scope for a GR story, but GR was always more about vengeance than protection, punishment opposed to prevention.
I understand that the GR book has now been cancelled and #9 will be the last for this run. They're already hyping "who will be the Ghost Rider?" so the whole issue may wind up being academic.
Quote from: Tomato on January 17, 2012, 11:13:52 PM
Ok, first, as someone in the medical profession, there are several distinctions between the male and female skeletons. Second, the leather jacket fem-GR typically wears seems to be form fitted to her chest... so it can probably keep its shape even without anything actually being in there. Just sayin'
Why do you have to come in and start making sense! LOL! The jacket is form fitted to GR because he's full of hot air! Okay, I stop now