Captain Marvel Fame & Recognition

[Bartmanhomer]

My older brother and I were discussing Captain Marvel Fame & Recognition. He told me that Captain is a B+ superhero with an A+ recognition. I do agree that Captain Marvel is a B+ superhero. Her popularity is higher than most superheroes including Top-Tier Superheroes such as the Hulk and Thor. So I think Captain Marvel deserved some high recognition maybe A- recognition to say the least. What do you think about Captain Marvel fame and recognition? What're your thoughts on this topic? :confused:

[Elkad]

If she hadn't "donated" her powers to Rogue, I wouldn't even remember her.

B-list for sure.

[Bartmanhomer]

If she hadn't "donated" her powers to Rogue, I wouldn't even remember her.

B-list for sure.

I think that was Ms Marvel. I'm not sure that she's the same character as Captain Marvel.

[Khedrac]

I think that was Ms Marvel. I'm not sure that she's the same character as Captain Marvel.

And this is the problem with ranking supers - you tend to need to define which canon version you are classifying - because yes, that is the same character (or one version of her).

With both DC and Marvel having reset their comic universe several times, plus having multiple alternate realities each even before you get into films, tv shows etc. it can be very hard to decide...

[Daimbert]

I think that was Ms Marvel. I'm not sure that she's the same character as Captain Marvel.

If you're talking about the current Carol Danvers Captain Marvel, it is. She changed from Ms. Marvel to Captain Marvel.

[GloatingSwine]

Carol has been a long-standing workhorse of the Avengers, popular enough to have carried relatively long running solo books and to be a regular team fixture and to show up in other team books like the X-Men.

She's been more prominent in recent years as Marvel have been interested in promoting teams and characters they have the rights to.


(Thor was not a top-tier Marvel superhero. You can tell who was a top tier Marvel superhero because they were worth someone buying the film rights to when Marvel were near bankruptcy, so Spidey, Hulk, the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four. Everyone else was B-List or lower compared to them).

[Rodin]

(Thor was not a top-tier Marvel superhero. You can tell who was a top tier Marvel superhero because they were worth someone buying the film rights to when Marvel were near bankruptcy, so Spidey, Hulk, the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four. Everyone else was B-List or lower compared to them).

This.

An A-lister would be someone prominent enough to have name recognition outside of comic book readers. For DC, that's Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, and maybe Aquaman. For Marvel, that's Spidey, Hulk, Wolverine (most other X-Men are unknown), and the Fantastic Four. And the Fantastic Four only have that level of name recognition because they keep failing at the box office. Prior to the first F4 movie, I hadn't heard of them.

Marvel's list has arguably grown since the MCU, as you can now add Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America to that list. The others probably don't have the name recognition still, despite getting their own movies.

[Kitten Champion]

Carol has been a long-standing workhorse of the Avengers, popular enough to have carried relatively long running solo books and to be a regular team fixture and to show up in other team books like the X-Men.

She's been more prominent in recent years as Marvel have been interested in promoting teams and characters they have the rights to.


(Thor was not a top-tier Marvel superhero. You can tell who was a top tier Marvel superhero because they were worth someone buying the film rights to when Marvel were near bankruptcy, so Spidey, Hulk, the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four. Everyone else was B-List or lower compared to them).

The development of Superhero cinematic culture has pretty much negated the concept of tiers when comics have been utterly dwarfed by movie adaptations. In the end you're talking about the prominence - or lack thereof - of a character within the niche Big-Two comic-reading subculture. It could be reasonably argued that iron Man was the most popular superhero - and possibly fictional character - on the planet for about a decade, and he was certainly not that for comic readers prior to 2008. Or you could look at the B-to-D-tier Guardians of the Galaxy to where they are now.

It's difficult to still call Carol B-tier when she was in two billion+ dollar movies - one of which was her own - and at least mentioned in a third, even if you don't specifically like her as a character.

[LibraryOgre]

As others have said, it's a bit cyclical. Carol really came onto my radar* with Kelly Sue Deconnick's 18-issue reboot in 2012. That was, IMO, a deliberate tactic by Marvel to raise her profile, and also revamp her origins to be less dependent on the old Captain Marvel, Mar-Vell; given the timing, it might have also been a decision to position her for the movies.

In terms of power, she's obviously in the A+ range. But she's been getting some serious attention in the comics for almost a decade, with top-tier writers and artists... so while she might have languished for a while, she's had some legs for a while.

*like, I knew who she was, but largely through her connection to Rogue, but not much else about the character, being mostly an X-Fan through the 80s and 90s

[Imbalance]

Well, Ms. Danvers has appeared in HeroClix a dozen times since 2008's Secret Invasion set. That's B-ish.

[Tyrant]

Well, Ms. Danvers has appeared in HeroClix a dozen times since 2008's Secret Invasion set. That's B-ish.
I never thought I would see the day that how frequently a character appeared in HeroClix was used to determine their popularity outside of a site like HCRealms (http://www.hcrealms.com).

Up until her more recent-ish push I honestly mainly knew her as "that woman that Rogue put into a coma". I'm relatively indifferent to her as a character.

[Man on Fire]

My older brother and I were discussing Captain Marvel Fame & Recognition. He told me that Captain is a B+ superhero with an A+ recognition. I do agree that Captain Marvel is a B+ superhero. Her popularity is higher than most superheroes including Top-Tier Superheroes such as the Hulk and Thor. So I think Captain Marvel deserved some high recognition maybe A- recognition to say the least. What do you think about Captain Marvel fame and recognition? What're your thoughts on this topic? :confused:

These terms mean nothing. There are only two real a-listers, Batman and Spider-Man. No one else sells as many comic books, no matter how famous or iconic.

[GloatingSwine]

These terms mean nothing. There are only two real a-listers, Batman and Spider-Man. No one else sells as many comic books, no matter how famous or iconic.

Eh, most of the time Wolverine can. To the extent that Marvel used to put him on the cover of books he wasn't even in.

[Imbalance]

I never thought I would see the day that how frequently a character appeared in HeroClix was used to determine their popularity outside of a site like HCRealms (http://www.hcrealms.com).

If I was more Internet famous things might have been different.


These terms mean nothing. There are only two real a-listers, Batman and Spider-Man. No one else sells as many comic books, no matter how famous or iconic.

'90's Spawn says "hi" from the '90's, but most other times (and presently) you're on the money.

[Man on Fire]

Eh, most of the time Wolverine can. To the extent that Marvel used to put him on the cover of books he wasn't even in.

And before they killed him he could barely hold his own book for 12 issues. Deadpool also went from a guy with 4 series to struggling with just one.

[Droid Tony]

The big thing about Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) Fame is that it is purely artificial.

Spider Man became popular over the corse of years by having a good, solid character; good stories, good writing and having a concept that many fans could go with: not just With Great Power Comes Great Responibility, but the whole unsure of himself nerdy teen turned super hero and still trying to lead a normal life.

Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) is some what well known as they simply over expose her character. The only thing about her is...well, she is a ''her'' and Marvel wants more women superheros.

[Knaight]

A list.

At the end of the day the MCU is just bigger business than the comics, substantially. A minor character from a minor comic line gets a movie, and they're instantly in the big leagues. Guardians of the Galaxy was a tiny little side comic nowhere near the radar of anyone but serious comic nerds. Then the movie came out, and now Groot is a household name.

Then there's recency. As a rule characters from more recent movies are going to be a bit better known than older ones, with the obvious exceptions of characters from older movies who keep getting prominent spots (e.g. Iron Man). At the moment this effect is mostly buoying up Captain Marvel, Spiderman, and maybe Black Widow (though trailer hype is not the same thing as a movie actually being out), along with helping keep the Avengers cast in the limelight. It's also probably pretty huge for Thanos; I'd expect him to drop pretty precipitously as whatever threat shows up for Avengers 5 comes up.

The last factor is representation. As a rule people get some enjoyment of seeing people like them on screen, especially when it's rare. For instance, I live in a "flyover" state, so whenever I see something like a tiny Colorado ski town get prominence the familiar buoys up the work a little for a way it doesn't when someone living in LA or NYC sees the billionth depiction of their city again. The Marvel cast of main characters has been pretty overwhelmingly male, the moviegoing public isn't, and that creates a significant representation factor. There's potentially also a smaller one from Danvers being a military pilot, the other characters were almost all civilians, with Captain America covering a fairly different branch.

[Mordar]

These terms mean nothing. There are only two real a-listers, Batman and Spider-Man. No one else sells as many comic books, no matter how famous or iconic.


Eh, most of the time Wolverine can. To the extent that Marvel used to put him on the cover of books he wasn't even in.


And before they killed him he could barely hold his own book for 12 issues. Deadpool also went from a guy with 4 series to struggling with just one.

I guess this is an issue of defining terms. Blockbuster was a massive success that effectively cornered the market on video rentals and used sales for years. They don't exist anymore. Comic books sales have cratered in the last couple decades from their highs...so do we measure "a-list" based on today's fractional market, or high water marks through the years?

I think for the discussion to really be relevant, it should probably be "historically". And then you have to consider what measure you want to use - comic sales, non-comic merchandise sales, percentage of the general population that know the character...or other things entirely?

For me, based on best estimate of character popularity during the time I was reading (70s-00s) and with a dose of general population knowledge, I'd say you're looking at (not in perfect order):


Superman
Batman
Spider-Man
Wolverine
Spawn
Captain America
Hulk
Punisher


That is, of course, only individuals, or X-men would be on the list as well. Spawn is probably the one I'd drop off first if pressed. All of these had at least one major theatrical release or multiple seasons of prime-time television before the glut of supers movie properties triggered by Nolan and MCU. All of them appeared on clothes and toys sold by nationwide department/variety stores, not just niche hobby stores. Several of them had major outlet news stories printed about their comic book happenings. All but Captain America and Hulk had times when they dominated comic book sales to (as someone mentioned above) cover cameos and brief appearances were used to place the character in 10-20+ books in a single month. I'd be willing to wager (small time) that if we removed Spawn and Punisher from the list we'd get at least 67% recognition of the remaining characters by a huge swath of the public.

So, to the OP point: Ms Marvel was a marginal or mid-line character in the late 70s and early 80s, a legacy of the not terribly successful (as I can remember) cosmic universe for Marvel comics. Sure, people knew the Novas, the Captian Mar-vell, Celestials/Eternals/Inhumans...but I think they didn't have legs beyond the people who followed them through the 70s. She was effectively name-replaced by the Monica Rambeau in the early 80s after (IIRC) being shuttled off to another dimension in a storyline that got some mass media attention for its inappropriate themes/conclusions. Chris Claremont brought her back as a narrative tool to give Rogue permanent powers and then shuffled her off into an array of other characterizations with cosmic connections.

So, based on her history and presentation in my reading era, she'd have been maybe a C- or D+ in recognition/import/popularity until her inclusion with the X-men, and then she was bumped up to maybe a B-. Her powerset has always been pretty impressive (in those times she had powers, anyway), rising up to Herald of Galactus level, so that's in the A-range (for non-reality warpers/true cosmic powers).

I don't know if any of that is any value, but it was fun to stroll through the exercise.

- M

[Bartmanhomer]

I guess this is an issue of defining terms. Blockbuster was a massive success that effectively cornered the market on video rentals and used sales for years. They don't exist anymore. Comic books sales have cratered in the last couple decades from their highs...so do we measure "a-list" based on today's fractional market, or high water marks through the years?

I think for the discussion to really be relevant, it should probably be "historically". And then you have to consider what measure you want to use - comic sales, non-comic merchandise sales, percentage of the general population that know the character...or other things entirely?

For me, based on best estimate of character popularity during the time I was reading (70s-00s) and with a dose of general population knowledge, I'd say you're looking at (not in perfect order):


Superman
Batman
Spider-Man
Wolverine
Spawn
Captain America
Hulk
Punisher


That is, of course, only individuals, or X-men would be on the list as well. Spawn is probably the one I'd drop off first if pressed. All of these had at least one major theatrical release or multiple seasons of prime-time television before the glut of supers movie properties triggered by Nolan and MCU. All of them appeared on clothes and toys sold by nationwide department/variety stores, not just niche hobby stores. Several of them had major outlet news stories printed about their comic book happenings. All but Captain America and Hulk had times when they dominated comic book sales to (as someone mentioned above) cover cameos and brief appearances were used to place the character in 10-20+ books in a single month. I'd be willing to wager (small time) that if we removed Spawn and Punisher from the list we'd get at least 67% recognition of the remaining characters by a huge swath of the public.

So, to the OP point: Ms Marvel was a marginal or mid-line character in the late 70s and early 80s, a legacy of the not terribly successful (as I can remember) cosmic universe for Marvel comics. Sure, people knew the Novas, the Captian Mar-vell, Celestials/Eternals/Inhumans...but I think they didn't have legs beyond the people who followed them through the 70s. She was effectively name-replaced by the Monica Rambeau in the early 80s after (IIRC) being shuttled off to another dimension in a storyline that got some mass media attention for its inappropriate themes/conclusions. Chris Claremont brought her back as a narrative tool to give Rogue permanent powers and then shuffled her off into an array of other characterizations with cosmic connections.

So, based on her history and presentation in my reading era, she'd have been maybe a C- or D+ in recognition/import/popularity until her inclusion with the X-men, and then she was bumped up to maybe a B-. Her powerset has always been pretty impressive (in those times she had powers, anyway), rising up to Herald of Galactus level, so that's in the A-range (for non-reality warpers/true cosmic powers).

I don't know if any of that is any value, but it was fun to stroll through the exercise.

- M

D+?! :frown: :eek: Wow She must be a very low-tier superhero.

[Jerrykhor]

It doesn't help that her hairstyle and costume keep on changing, and her moniker changed once, her powers are generic, and she has no defining personality. But I think the main reason why she is not memorable is this: She does not have a well-known arch-nemesis.

[GloatingSwine]

It doesn't help that her hairstyle and costume keep on changing, and her moniker changed once, her powers are generic, and she has no defining personality. But I think the main reason why she is not memorable is this: She does not have a well-known arch-nemesis.

Yeah, but in Marvel the only people who have well-known arch nemeses are Spider-Man or characters who have borrowed an arch-nemesis from Spider-Man.

[comicshorse]

It doesn't help that her hairstyle and costume keep on changing, and her moniker changed once, her powers are generic, and she has no defining personality. But I think the main reason why she is not memorable is this: She does not have a well-known arch-nemesis.

I'd argue Captain America has a well known arch nemesis

[Rynjin]

Yeah, but in Marvel the only people who have well-known arch nemeses are Spider-Man or characters who have borrowed an arch-nemesis from Spider-Man.

That's not quite true. For example, people know Sabertooth, and Wolverine borrowed him from Iron Fist, not Spider-Man.

[Eldan]

I dont' actually read comics, but I was under the impression that Doctor Doom was a pretty well-established Nemesis to mainly the Fantastic Four, too. Or is he more of a general villain these days?

[Kitten Champion]

I dont' actually read comics, but I was under the impression that Doctor Doom was a pretty well-established Nemesis to mainly the Fantastic Four, too. Or is he more of a general villain these days?

Sort of. While Doom's specific animosity towards Reed Richards was still a central part of his characterization, he became more a part of the Avengers-related story-lines especially as Marvel pushed the F4 more into the margins.

Though I don't know what's happened since the re-acquisition with the F4, but Doom's presence was definitely more visible than what was left of the F4 when I stopped following things.

[Darth Credence]

Yeah, but in Marvel the only people who have well-known arch nemeses are Spider-Man or characters who have borrowed an arch-nemesis from Spider-Man.

I'm much more of a DC fan than a Marvel fan (most of my Marvel knowledge comes from movies and animated shows), but what I know off the top of my head:

Professor X - Magneto
Wolverine - Sabretooth
Spider-Man - Green Goblin (I think that's his nemesis, although he has almost as good a villain list as Batman)
Daredevil - Bullseye, Kingpin
Captain America - Red Skull
Hulk - The Abomination, the Leader
F4 - Dr. Doom
Thor - Loki
Iron Man - The Mandarin
Black Panther - Kilmonger (I have no idea if that is purely movies or not)

Of the other characters who have movies, I don't care if any other X-Men have a specific nemesis, as they are teams. I have no idea who would be considered a nemesis to Dr. Strange, Captain Marvel, the Guardians, Black Widow, Hawkeye, or Ant-Man. Maybe some or all of what I have listed came from Spider-Man initially, I don't know. But based on that, the only characters I really like without someone I can define as a nemesis are the Guardians, so the idea that not having a defined nemesis hurts Captain Marvel seems like it has some worth.

[comicshorse]

I'm much more of a DC fan than a Marvel fan (most of my Marvel knowledge comes from movies and animated shows), but what I know off the top of my head:

Professor X - Magneto
Wolverine - Sabretooth
Spider-Man - Green Goblin (I think that's his nemesis, although he has almost as good a villain list as Batman)
Daredevil - Bullseye, Kingpin
Captain America - Red Skull
Hulk - The Abomination, the Leader
F4 - Dr. Doom
Thor - Loki
Iron Man - The Mandarin
Black Panther - Kilmonger (I have no idea if that is purely movies or not)

Of the other characters who have movies, I don't care if any other X-Men have a specific nemesis, as they are teams. I have no idea who would be considered a nemesis to Dr. Strange, Captain Marvel, the Guardians, Black Widow, Hawkeye, or Ant-Man. Maybe some or all of what I have listed came from Spider-Man initially, I don't know. But based on that, the only characters I really like without someone I can define as a nemesis are the Guardians, so the idea that not having a defined nemesis hurts Captain Marvel seems like it has some worth.

Similarly more a DC fan than Marvel :
Black Panther : I think Klaw is more of his nemesis (and he even turned up in the movies)
Doctor Strange has an extensive rogue's gallery but the two biggest (IMHO) would be Dormammu and Baron Mordo

[Talakeal]

Good villains are hard to find.

It seems that, while most heroes have a few notable nemeses, only Batman, Spiderman, and to a lesser extend the X-Men have truly expansive rosters of memorable villains.

This might explain why these properties are so popular, or it might be the other way around, a sort of chicken and the egg thing.

I do agree though, Captain Marvel doesn’t have anyone I can name off hand, although I think the original Captain Marvel had a long running feud with Thanos,

[Tyndmyr]

It's difficult to still call Carol B-tier when she was in two billion+ dollar movies - one of which was her own - and at least mentioned in a third, even if you don't specifically like her as a character.

I love the heck out of Ant Man and Wasp, but I would be hard pressed to claim that Wasp is an A list character. A more logical explanation is that the MCU has experienced such success that even relatively obscure characters have done well for them.

[GloatingSwine]

I do agree though, Captain Marvel doesn’t have anyone I can name off hand, although I think the original Captain Marvel had a long running feud with Thanos,

Though bear in mind that was in the period where Thanos would regularly get punked by characters like Hellcat.

Though he did have his Thanoscopter. That has to count for something.

[Mordar]

D+?! :frown: :eek: Wow She must be a very low-tier superhero.

You did see the part about having A-level powers, right? D+ was for her popularity and importance to Marvel Comics/readers.

- M

[Bartmanhomer]

You did see the part about having A-level powers, right? D+ was for her popularity and importance to Marvel Comics/readers.

- M

Yes, I saw that part. My mistake for misunderstanding.

[The Glyphstone]

Though bear in mind that was in the period where Thanos would regularly get punked by characters like Hellcat.

Though he did have his Thanoscopter. That has to count for something.

That was also the period when Thanos was punked by the real fruit filling of delicious Hostess(TM) brand snack cakes, though. So it wasn't a great time for him overall.

[Tyndmyr]

In fairness, Hostess has defeated almost everyone. It's the real hero.

[GloatingSwine]

That was also the period when Thanos was punked by the real fruit filling of delicious Hostess(TM) brand snack cakes, though. So it wasn't a great time for him overall.

True, he has always been a tool.

Galactus preferred Twinkies.

[LibraryOgre]

True, he has always been a tool.

Galactus preferred Twinkies.

Like planets, they have a delicious creamy filling.

[TeChameleon]

The Fantastic Four are a bit of an oddity in that their primary nemeses are vastly more memorable than the team itself- they count amongst their rogues Doctor Doom, Galactus, Annihilus, the Skrull Empire (and Kl'rt the Super-Skrull), Ronan the Accuser, and Terrax the Tamer- any of whom could potentially be considered better-known than the FF themselves.

And Carol Danvers does have one at least modestly memorable foe- Moonstone, although her involvement with the Masters of Evil and the Thunderbolts are probably more responsible for her being well-known than any association with Ms/Captain Marvel. That and she was borrowed from Captain America via the Hulk :smallconfused:

Then again, Marvel has always been more fluid about who fights whom. Galactus has fought Thor, Ego the Living Planet has fought Quasar, Doctor Octopus has fought the Punisher...

And yeah, poor Carol started as a D-Lister with an oddball gimmick, and that was about it (said gimmick being that her secret identity was so secret, she didn't even know it herself... which could conceivably make her an imitator of DC's Rose and Thorn, who debuted 7 years earlier, and who wasn't exactly A-list material herself).

[Kitten Champion]

Mystique was intended to be a Ms. Marvel villain, which was why Claremont introduced her in an issue of Ms. Marvel.

Carol didn't have a solo run after her initial 70's comic until the 2000's, and that was predominantly focused on her neurotic lack of self-esteem. The overarching conflict is she's very powerful - in an objective sense - but is miserable with her inability to live up to her potential. She didn't have any notable villains as it wasn't the point of it for the most part, and her story kept running into events which have rarely benefited her as a character.

Then in the 2010's Kelly Sue DeConnick was tasked with reinventing her with an emphasis on a more modern feminist (read not 70's) text and subtext. This run acquired her a loyal cult following - dubbed the Carol Corp - and is the primary inspiration for the current movie character, though comic Carol is more characterized as a combat veteran as she is an US Air Force colonel and experienced fighter pilot.

[Knaight]

I love the heck out of Ant Man and Wasp, but I would be hard pressed to claim that Wasp is an A list character. A more logical explanation is that the MCU has experienced such success that even relatively obscure characters have done well for them.

I also loved Ant Man and Wasp, but their movie is somewhat smaller than Captain Marvel was in terms of both budget and revenue - by the standards of the MCU it was a small one, and Ant Man is bigger by virtue of having one more movie.

I'd still put Wasp above any comic only character though, regardless of her previous status - the MCU has experienced such success that making it in at all bumps a character up in prominence beyond the upper eschelons of comics alone, especially as the upper eschelon characters are all in the MCU by now anyways.

[Man on Fire]

The big thing about Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) Fame is that it is purely artificial.

Spider Man became popular over the corse of years by having a good, solid character; good stories, good writing and having a concept that many fans could go with: not just With Great Power Comes Great Responibility, but the whole unsure of himself nerdy teen turned super hero and still trying to lead a normal life.

Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) is some what well known as they simply over expose her character. The only thing about her is...well, she is a ''her'' and Marvel wants more women superheros.

That is a lie. Pretty much no character who is superfamous stayed the same way he's been introduced at. Spider-Man himself was not the "unsure of himself nerdy teen" in his original series. He was a smug, resentful egoist that is misunderstood by his shallow-minded peers that do not appreciate his genius and principles, acts passive-aggressive towards women and has a stick up his anus so deep he won't take a bonus from J. Jonah Jameson despite him and his aunt needing money because it would be against his Randian beliefs. Steve Ditko was an objectivist and used Spider-Man to soapbox his views.

Also, by your logic Hulk is only popular due to overexposure since his first book got cancelled at #6 and Marvel was throwing him from one supporting role to another (backup features, team member) until he amassed enough popularity to hold his own series again. Same with Wolverine - when he was introduced fans hated his guts, saw him as an amoral monster and sent letters asking for him to be killed off. Claremont and Byrne refused and kept pushing him in people's faces, giving him awesome moments and showing his character has depth until he became popular. That's how the comic industry really works - very few characters are instant hits, almost no one. You just keep giving them roles so they can amass a fanbase.

I also need to point out that the argument you use has been previously used to shoot down various minor fan-favourites over the course of history. It has been used to shoot down Cassandra Cain and Stephanie Brown in 00's, it has been used to shoot down Jaime Reyes. And we owe to the fact that people in charge didn't listen that they have fandoms going strong even now, when new people in charge actually hate them.

[LibraryOgre]

IME, 9/10 what makes a popular character is an author who believes in them.

Take, for example, Squirrel Girl. She has silly powers, and seems to win despite all odds. What makes HER popular?

Writers who cared enough to keep writing her. Writers who said "You know what, I'm gonna have some fun with Squirrel Girl."

I mean, Stephanie Brown was DEAD. One of the few real deads in comics for a while. Brutally dead. Batman-is-mocked-for-not-having-a-memorial-to-her dead. And yet, because a writer wanted to, she's alive. She had a semi-popular and well-regarded solo run. She gained popularity... not because of some master plan to make us like Stephanie Brown (We already liked Stephanie Brown, because we're not monsters and we like to have fun), but because a writer who liked her wrote a good book that let her shine.

I mean, FFS, CATMAN is popular. CATMAN is liked. Is it because Kevin Smith put him in Quiver as a buttmonkey for Ollie to slap around? No. It's because Gail Simone took him in Villains United and Secret Six (and Birds of Prey, in crossover) and make him LIKABLE. She wrote Thomas Blake, who used to be a cheap Batman-knock-off villain, and made him someone people wanted to read about.

Hawkeye had a surge of popularity in comics circles because of Fraction's run (which a Hawkeye loving friend of mine hates, because it's not her version of Hawkeye). Was that because of the MCU? He may have been moved to the front of the queue because of the MCU, but folks liked him for the story he was written in. And Carol had a surge in popularity, partially because of the movie, but also because, six years before the movie, Kelly Sue DeConnick sat down and wrote Carol to be a likeable character. She retconned her a bit, she took her on a time-travel adventure, she gave her a freaky alien cat-beast... but she wrote a character people clicked with, and that helped make Carol a bigger character.

[comicshorse]

I mean, FFS, CATMAN is popular. CATMAN is liked. Is it because Kevin Smith put him in Quiver as a buttmonkey for Ollie to slap around? No. It's because Gail Simone took him in Villains United and Secret Six (and Birds of Prey, in crossover) and make him LIKABLE. She wrote Thomas Blake, who used to be a cheap Batman-knock-off villain, and made him someone people wanted to read about.



Hell Green Arrow straight up tortured him. For fun ! Which I still consider one of the most repellent things a super hero ever did and a total misreading of Oliver's character. Still pisses me off


But yeah agree with everything you said

[LibraryOgre]

Hell Green Arrow straight up tortured him. For fun ! Which I still consider one of the most repellent things a super hero ever did and a total misreading of Oliver's character. Still pisses me off


IME, a great number of proclaimed comics fans do not understand the moral codes that guide superheroes.

[Tyndmyr]

I also loved Ant Man and Wasp, but their movie is somewhat smaller than Captain Marvel was in terms of both budget and revenue - by the standards of the MCU it was a small one, and Ant Man is bigger by virtue of having one more movie.

I'd still put Wasp above any comic only character though, regardless of her previous status - the MCU has experienced such success that making it in at all bumps a character up in prominence beyond the upper eschelons of comics alone, especially as the upper eschelon characters are all in the MCU by now anyways.

Mmm, it might be that the MCU itself is changing the way characters are perceived, and we need to reformulate what A list, B list, etc mean. Sue, Bats, Superman, Spiderman being A list worked really well pre-MCU, but nowadays? Hating on superman is almost common, and, say, Iron Man is recognizable as all hell? On the flip side, The Xmen have been on a decline, and the fantastic four have cratered hard.

If we had to pick, say, a top ten modern folks, based primarily on who people recognize today, who would they be?

[Mordar]

Mmm, it might be that the MCU itself is changing the way characters are perceived, and we need to reformulate what A list, B list, etc mean. Sue, Bats, Superman, Spiderman being A list worked really well pre-MCU, but nowadays? Hating on superman is almost common, and, say, Iron Man is recognizable as all hell? On the flip side, The Xmen have been on a decline, and the fantastic four have cratered hard.

If we had to pick, say, a top ten modern folks, based primarily on who people recognize today, who would they be?

Not specifically in order:


Batman
Superman
Spider-man
Hulk
Captain America
Iron Man
Wonder Woman
Robin
Joker
Groot


I think MCU has significant impact, but still doesn't move more than Iron Man and Groot into broader consciousness.

Totally based on feel and anecdotal observances.

- M

[Kyberwulf]

The problem with this train of thought, is its conflating movie popularity power levels and comic book. Who is popular in comics almost had no bearing on who they pick anymore for movies. I would argue that Captain Marvel was a c list hero. Remember Power levels of characters is not directly proportional to their popularity. But inversely power level is proportional to popularity. Meaning the more popular a character gets the more powers they seem to get. Captain Marvel in my circle of friends, who knew comics to some extent.. not super nerds only knew her as.. the chick who gave rogue her powers. So I would say she isn't b list. As that is the level down we go as comic book fans.

Now comic book and movies diverged after I would say for marvel, after iron man came out. Because suddenly that became a benchmark for people's expertise on comic book for some reason. That would be like saying I am a paleontologist after watching the movie jurrasic park. Sure maybe it caused me to read up on some dinosaurs and I know something. That doesn't make me some kind of expert though.

[Lethologica]

Not specifically in order:


Batman
Superman
Spider-man
Hulk
Captain America
Iron Man
Wonder Woman
Robin
Joker
Groot


I think MCU has significant impact, but still doesn't move more than Iron Man and Groot into broader consciousness.

Totally based on feel and anecdotal observances.

- M
I think Wolverine challenges Robin here if modern cinema presence is factored in. A full generation of moviegoers has been watching the jacked man put Wolverine to screen, and became positively sick of him until the brilliant send-off of Logan. Meanwhile, no live-action film has dared to actually show us Robin since the mess that was Batman & Robin. Nolan portrayed his nascence, Snyder his conspicuous absence, but his presence? Zip. Robin is still prominently around in animation due to Teen Titans and Lego Batman, to be fair, and of course legacy favors him heavily, but it's a much tighter race than anyone would have guessed twenty years ago.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I think Wolverine challenges Robin here if modern cinema presence is factored in. A full generation of moviegoers has been watching the jacked man put Wolverine to screen, and became positively sick of him until the brilliant send-off of Logan. Meanwhile, no live-action film has dared to actually show us Robin since the mess that was Batman & Robin. Nolan portrayed his nascence, Snyder his conspicuous absence, but his presence? Zip. Robin is still prominently around in animation due to Teen Titans and Lego Batman, to be fair, and of course legacy favors him heavily, but it's a much tighter race than anyone would have guessed twenty years ago.

I actually wouldn't say that Wolverine challenges Robin so much as he should actually take Robin's place completely.

[Mordar]

I think Wolverine challenges Robin here if modern cinema presence is factored in. A full generation of moviegoers has been watching the jacked man put Wolverine to screen, and became positively sick of him until the brilliant send-off of Logan. Meanwhile, no live-action film has dared to actually show us Robin since the mess that was Batman & Robin. Nolan portrayed his nascence, Snyder his conspicuous absence, but his presence? Zip. Robin is still prominently around in animation due to Teen Titans and Lego Batman, to be fair, and of course legacy favors him heavily, but it's a much tighter race than anyone would have guessed twenty years ago.


I actually wouldn't say that Wolverine challenges Robin so much as he should actually take Robin's place completely.

Depends on your population and sample. 30-and-under superhero movie goers, those relationship-adjacent to those movie goers, and Hugh Jackman fans do not, I suspect swamp out the generations of folks that came before them. Certainly many of those would think of short-shorts clad Burt Ward, but that doesn't change the recognition level.

This did make me consider Wolverine vs, say, Iron Man...but I think that recency plus "Iron Man" being easier to remember than "Wolverine" for complete non-fans still supports Iron Man. Groot, on the other hand...he could probably be bounced for Wolverine.

- M

[Tyrant]

Depends on your population and sample. 30-and-under superhero movie goers, those relationship-adjacent to those movie goers, and Hugh Jackman fans do not, I suspect swamp out the generations of folks that came before them. Certainly many of those would think of short-shorts clad Burt Ward, but that doesn't change the recognition level.

This did make me consider Wolverine vs, say, Iron Man...but I think that recency plus "Iron Man" being easier to remember than "Wolverine" for complete non-fans still supports Iron Man. Groot, on the other hand...he could probably be bounced for Wolverine.

- M
For whatever it's worth, I thought that's the way you were going. Robin was in a show that has been on TV off and on since the 60s. That's a few generations worth of people. Then you have 2 of the 4 80s/90s Batman movies and the 90s animated series. Vs what? A few X-Men movies, some of which are considered pretty bad, that started less than 20 years ago? Maybe the 90s X-Men series too? I think Robin is very likely the winner here in terms of cultural recognition. Wolverine probably is more well known than Groot though and easily the most well known X-Man. I'm saying that as an X-Fan who doesn't really care for Wolverine that wishes the rest of the team got more coverage.

I don't think a character like Captain Marvel is even on the radar compared to someone like Batman or Superman who have had numerous shows and movies across decades of time to the point that they are cultural icons recognized around the world and across age categories. Iron Man and Groot (or Wolverine) are probably the main characters that would only be on the list due to the recent movies.

TLDR: I agree with you Mordar for pretty much the same reasons.

[Tyndmyr]

I think Wolverine challenges Robin here if modern cinema presence is factored in. A full generation of moviegoers has been watching the jacked man put Wolverine to screen, and became positively sick of him until the brilliant send-off of Logan. Meanwhile, no live-action film has dared to actually show us Robin since the mess that was Batman & Robin. Nolan portrayed his nascence, Snyder his conspicuous absence, but his presence? Zip. Robin is still prominently around in animation due to Teen Titans and Lego Batman, to be fair, and of course legacy favors him heavily, but it's a much tighter race than anyone would have guessed twenty years ago.

I would agree with that. Robin, while hinted at repeatedly, doesn't get the kind of front stage billing that he used to. People still recognize him because of inertia, certainly, but his star is definitely falling.

Wolverine, oddly enough, also seems to be fading to some degree, but more slowly, mostly thanks to Old Man Logan, the movie, which was liked by a fair number. I wouldn't consider Wolvie's movies to generally be the best, but he sure is in a lot of them.

It feels odd to say that Groot is the most recognizable GotG person. I mean, he is super popular. So it's probably not wrong. At a minimum, becoming more popular, but I could also see someone having missed those coupla movies and not being all that aware of what used to be an extremely niche character.

I would agree that Captain Marvel doesn't make the top ten. Probably not the top 20.

[Rodin]

I think you have to look at a deeper level of cultural recognition than whether the character has been in films recently.

The Superman movies came out around the time I was born. I never saw them, and I'm darned if I could quote you any line from them (despite eventually seeing them on TV as an older child).

But when I was in first grade? We were playing Superman. We were saying "Up, up, and away!", despite that line not being in the 80s Superman films. It was from the 40s radio serials. We did the whole "It's a bird, it's a plane, it's SUPERMAN" bit that was from the 50s TV show. Everyone knew that Superman got changed in a phone booth, which was another thing most prominent in the radio serials.

Same thing with Batman. We all knew who Batman was without reading the comics. The references were generally of Adam West era Batman, or the "Jingle Bells, Batman Smells" song that I learned even before seeing Bart sing it on The Simpsons. There hadn't been a Batman movie in over 20 years. We knew who Robin was in the same way.

I'd be willing to bet that Robin is still far more well known than Wolverine. He's baked into American culture at a far deeper level. People who have never touched anything Batman related know who Robin is, and could give all kinds of descriptors of him (probably still of the Burt Ward version). Wolverine would get some level of recognition, but it would be on the same sort of level as Iron Man.

I'd say there's only three or four superheroes who are that well known. Batman, Robin, Superman, and Spiderman. And Spiderman is debatable.

[Rynjin]

Here's the deal with Robin: nobody (read: the average movie going non-comic-reading public) really cares about Robin as a character, even if they know him.

It's always "Batman and Robin" who are known, or just Batman alone. Never "just Robin".

Hell, Robin isn't even a single character, and I think you'd be hard pressed to get people who "know Robin" to name a single one of their actual names.

Robin is a less a character in the eyes of the public than an accessory to Batman, which is why I don't think he counts, any more than the Batarang counts as a "character" people know.

[Jerrykhor]

This is a joke right? Comparing Wolverine to Robin? Robin, a character who is widely known as 'Batman's sidekick'? If your existence is tied to another character, then your existence isn't much to begin with. Without Batman, there won't be Robin, but without Robin, there won't be Robin.

This should be a no contest. Wolvie has 3 solo films, a ton of appearances in X-Men films, games and whatnot. I don't see Robin anywhere in the movies. My only recollection of Robin in recent times is the Arkham series and... Lego Batman.

[Eldan]

And yet, If I were to ask my parents who have probably never seen a superhero movie, I'd bet anything they will know Robin, but have no idea about who Wolverine is.

[Kitten Champion]

If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect that most people who've heard of Robin through cultural osmosis probably know him exclusively as an extension of Batman. In the same way people know of Alfred, the Bat Cave, or the Batmobile. The extended history of the Robin role and the various Robins that would inhabit it are something much, much more esoteric, relatively speaking.

I mean, look at The Dark Knight Rises and the twist with Joseph Gordon Levitt's character. He wasn't even a Robin, rather his name was literally Robin and that was the takeaway.

He's merged conceptually with the very concept of a superhero side-kick in popular culture, a character whose the lame second fiddle to the cool protagonist.

[Willie the Duck]

This is a joke right? Comparing Wolverine to Robin? Robin, a character who is widely known as 'Batman's sidekick'? If your existence is tied to another character, then your existence isn't much to begin with. Without Batman, there won't be Robin, but without Robin, there won't be Robin.

Remember that the comparison we are discussing is, "If we had to pick, say, a top ten modern folks, based primarily on who people recognize today, who would they be?" no more, no less. Not cultural relevance, not impact on how comic books and comic book movies are made. Broad-spread name recognition. Note that this isn't a particularly important metric, but it's the one we started turning our mental gears on. Mind you, we really should put some more guidance on there, like '4-color action and superhero comic book characters coming from US sources,' otherwise worldwide name-recognition polls would probably be dominated by Disney character (er, longtime Disney characters).

What I'm saying is, 'Without Batman, there won't be Robin' is a reasonable point, but not particularly relevant to a straight-up polling of recognition.

[Peelee]

The Fantastic Four are a bit of an oddity in that their primary nemeses are vastly more memorable than the team itself- they count amongst their rogues Doctor Doom, Galactus, Annihilus, the Skrull Empire (and Kl'rt the Super-Skrull), Ronan the Accuser, and Terrax the Tamer- any of whom could potentially be considered better-known than the FF themselves.

Don't really read non-Star Wars comics. Saw most superhero movies before the MCU, and barely any after. So I feel like I'm a decent random same for the purposes of this. So...


Fantastic Four - pretty much always knew them, at the very least from those cheesy cartoons back when. "Flame on!" and "it's clobberin' time!" were my two big takeaways. Also invisibility also grants force field abilities or something? And they made themselves into a corporation, I think? Hey, it's like a precursor to The Boys! But these I know.
Doctor Doom - Evil guy who looks like a robot but isn't. He's like the Joker to the F4, right? Their archnemesis and only they fight him? I'd say they're on equal footing. I think he was on the ship with them and also got his powers that way but went evil instead and can't take the mask off.
Galactus - I literally only know this guy as Silver Surfer's boss, and I'm pretty sure Silver Surfer is a little obscure. Was he really related to the Fantastic Four in any way or did that crappy movie way back when just tap into him because the rights were cheap? Anyway. Eats planets. Would have confused him with Thanos before all those Avenger movies.
Annihilus - who?
The Skrull Empire - i would say "who?" but I think they were in the Captain Marvel movie maybe? If not for that, they'd be relegated to the unknown column.
Ronan the Accuser - ok now you're just making names up.
Terrax the Tamer - the tamer? Is there a Terrax the Feircer? Wouldn't he be a better villain? Cmon, this guy even sounds lame, how can he be popular?

So, with a sample size of one, and all evidence being anecdotal... I challenge your claim as to how well known their rogues are. Doom, Ph.D is the only one who could come close, and he I always lump in with F4.

[Talakeal]

Ronan the Accuser - ok now you're just making names up.

But... he was the main villain of the first Guardians of the Galaxy!

And, yet, still, nobody knows who he is. Huh. Good point.

[Daimbert]

But... he was the main villain of the first Guardians of the Galaxy!

And, yet, still, nobody knows who he is. Huh. Good point.

I didn't know him from the comics and yet I was so tempted to point that out. So Peelee may not be representative here [grin].

[Rodin]

For fun, I asked a couple of people to name the first 5 superheroes that came into their heads - one acquaintance a fair bit younger than myself, and my parents as a pair.

The acquaintance rattled through Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, Captain Marvel, and Spiderman. So the MCU won the day. As for Robin, she was only vaguely aware of him.

My parents went through Batman, Superman, Wolverine, and finally Spiderman. My mother knew Robin, but didn't say him because she didn't consider him a superhero. Both were shocked to learn that the comics were on their fifth Robin by this point (not counting alternate universes and such).

Anecdotal, but still a fun experiment.

[LibraryOgre]

I mean, look at The Dark Knight Rises and the twist with Joseph Gordon Levitt's character. He wasn't even a Robin, rather his name was literally Robin and that was the takeaway.


That particularly annoyed me, because his last name is Blake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catman_(comics)), not Drake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Drake), who was at least a Robin.

But that's comic nerd stuff.

[Lethologica]

Remember that the comparison we are discussing is, "If we had to pick, say, a top ten modern folks, based primarily on who people recognize today, who would they be?" no more, no less. Not cultural relevance, not impact on how comic books and comic book movies are made. Broad-spread name recognition.
Why name recognition, specifically? If I showed a hundred people a slideshow of the various Wolverines and Robins (with no Batman in sight), I know which one I'm betting gets recognized more often.

[dancrilis]

Why name recognition, specifically? If I showed a hundred people a slideshow of the various Wolverines and Robins (with no Batman in sight), I know which one I'm betting gets recognized more often.
Not exactly a slideshow but I am thinking it would be the robins, but feel free to decide for yourselves:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Wolverine_01.jpg/1200px-Wolverine_01.jpghttps://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/04/08/science/08WOLVERINE/08WOLVERINE-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscalehttps://blog.nature.org/science/files/2018/08/14891182018_63a73aed14_k.jpghttps://i.ytimg.com/vi/CbUqwQoyEqo/maxresdefault.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Robin_catching_it's_dinner.jpg/1200px-Robin_catching_it's_dinner.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Cape_Robin-Chat_%28Cossypha_caffra%292.jpghttps://i.ytimg.com/vi/DNBaJp_dPAg/maxresdefault.jpghttps://duckduckgo.com/?q=robin&t=ffsb&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.audubon.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault %2Ffiles%2FAmerican_Robin_m50-1-006_l_0.jpg


As for Carol Danvers maybe the fact that her most memorable villian is the one she slept with - and who was also kindof her son - hurts her reputation a little bit.

[Willie the Duck]

Why name recognition, specifically?

Because that was the question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24346192&postcount=44) asked for which people started making top-ten lists.

[Peelee]

For fun, I asked a couple of people to name the first 5 superheroes that came into their heads - one acquaintance a fair bit younger than myself, and my parents as a pair.

The acquaintance rattled through Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, Captain Marvel, and Spiderman. So the MCU won the day.

Hardly surprising, considering the sheer volume of movies they'd put out which built on each other.

Also, i choose to believe she meant the original Captain Marvel (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Shazam%21_theatrical_poster.jpg/220px-Shazam%21_theatrical_poster.jpg). :smalltongue:

[Talakeal]

That particularly annoyed me, because his last name is Blake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catman_(comics)), not Drake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Drake), who was at least a Robin.

But that's comic nerd stuff.

For some reason that moved changed a lot of people's names.

Holly Robinson became Jen, Roland Daggett become John Daggett, and Tim Drake became Robin Blake. Its weird.


Hardly surprising, considering the sheer volume of movies they'd put out which built on each other.

Also, i choose to believe she meant the original Captain Marvel (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Shazam%21_theatrical_poster.jpg/220px-Shazam%21_theatrical_poster.jpg). :smalltongue:

When my mom and I went to see Captain Marvel, it took forever to explain to my dad that it wasn't the same movie as Shazam.

[Willie the Duck]

For some reason that moved changed a lot of people's names.

Holly Robinson became Jen, Roland Daggett become John Daggett, and Tim Drake became Robin Blake. Its weird.

Some other property (one of the cartoons, perhaps) have exclusive rights the specific names but not concepts at the time? Copyright and licensing weirdness happen amongst these things from time to time. Hopefully no one thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutant_X_(TV_series)#Lawsuits)they were getting the actual property and instead were getting a little sliver of the development space.

[Lethologica]

Because that was the question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24346192&postcount=44) asked for which people started making top-ten lists.
The original post refers to:

the way characters are perceived

based primarily on who people recognize today
My question was why name recognition is the chosen metric, as opposed to other forms of recognition.

[TeChameleon]

My comments on Peelee's comments in bold, because I don't feel like trying to disentangle the quote-list-pile-thing right now...


Don't really read non-Star Wars comics. Saw most superhero movies before the MCU, and barely any after. So I feel like I'm a decent random same for the purposes of this. So...


Fantastic Four - pretty much always knew them, at the very least from those cheesy cartoons back when. "Flame on!" and "it's clobberin' time!" were my two big takeaways. Also invisibility also grants force field abilities or something? And they made themselves into a corporation, I think? Hey, it's like a precursor to The Boys! But these I know. Sounds like you stopped watching cartoons too soon :smalltongue:
Doctor Doom - Evil guy who looks like a robot but isn't. He's like the Joker to the F4, right? Their archnemesis and only they fight him? I'd say they're on equal footing. I think he was on the ship with them and also got his powers that way but went evil instead and can't take the mask off. Bit surprised by this one- even discounting Doctor Doom's many, many, many comic book appearances, he's shown up in a lot of different media, some of which has absolutely nothing to do with the Fantastic Four- the early 80s Spider-Man cartoon, the 90s X-Men cartoon, 90s Spider-Man cartoon, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes and Avengers Assemble both...
Galactus - I literally only know this guy as Silver Surfer's boss, and I'm pretty sure Silver Surfer is a little obscure. Was he really related to the Fantastic Four in any way or did that crappy movie way back when just tap into him because the rights were cheap? Anyway. Eats planets. Would have confused him with Thanos before all those Avenger movies. Galactus and the Silver Surfer first appeared in the Fantastic Four comics way back in the day, and also have at least a handful of media appearances- many of the same shows as Doctor Doom, actually.
Annihilus - who? Relegated to comic-book nerds, mostly, but he was at the heart of one of Marvel's huge crossovers a couple of years ago- "The Annihilation Event".
The Skrull Empire - i would say "who?" but I think they were in the Captain Marvel movie maybe? If not for that, they'd be relegated to the unknown column. Yup, they were the oppressed minority in the Captain Marvel movie. Also shown up in more than a few places, such as a bunch of the shows mentioned under Doctor Doom, and had their own major crossover storyline a while ago- the "Secret Invasion".
Ronan the Accuser - ok now you're just making names up. As noted, the primary antagonist in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie... and for that matter, the Captain Marvel movie. Maybe the people who complain that Marvel has trouble making memorable villains have a point...
Terrax the Tamer - the tamer? Is there a Terrax the Feircer? Wouldn't he be a better villain? Cmon, this guy even sounds lame, how can he be popular? Think 'tamer' as a verb, not an adjective, as in 'one who tames things'. In comics, at least, he's one of these 'powerful enough to look challenging while not so powerful that people call hax when you beat hiim' villains that jobs to a lot of new heroes and teams. Dunno if 'popular' is the right word, but 'frequently-appearing-jobber' is a bit of a mouthful.

So, with a sample size of one, and all evidence being anecdotal... I challenge your claim as to how well known their rogues are. Doom, Ph.D is the only one who could come close, and he I always lump in with F4.

[GloatingSwine]

The original post refers to:


My question was why name recognition is the chosen metric, as opposed to other forms of recognition.

Mostly because "It's him, that one, thingy" doesn't really count as recognition.

Though "can name the character from a picture" would count.

[Talakeal]

Bit surprised by this one- even discounting Doctor Doom's many, many, many comic book appearances, he's shown up in a lot of different media, some of which has absolutely nothing to do with the Fantastic Four- the early 80s Spider-Man cartoon, the 90s X-Men cartoon, 90s Spider-Man cartoon, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes and Avengers Assemble both...

Was Doom really on the 90s X-men cartoon? I have absolutely no memory of that.

[Peelee]

Fantastic Four - Sounds like you stopped watching cartoons too soon
Nah, I kept watching cartoons. Still do, even after the peak of television (https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Futurama).:smallwink:


Doctor Doom - Bit surprised by this one- even discounting Doctor Doom's many, many, many comic book appearances, he's shown up in a lot of different media, some of which has absolutely nothing to do with the Fantastic Four- the early 80s Spider-Man cartoon, the 90s X-Men cartoon, 90s Spider-Man cartoon, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes and Avengers Assemble both...
I loved 90's Spider-Man and enjoyed the 90's X-Men enough. Don't ever remember Doctor Doom in either of those, but I didn't see all the episodes either.

Galactus - Galactus and the Silver Surfer first appeared in the Fantastic Four comics way back in the day, and also have at least a handful of media appearances- many of the same shows as Doctor Doom, actually.
Same, don't remember Galactus in either of those shows I watched. Maybe I caught the Silver Surfer in one of those? I don't know how I knew of him back then but I did know of him. Never saw the F4 movie with him, but he was in the title, so that was some exposure.Which, again, I'm assuming is due to buying the rights for cheap.

Annihilus - Relegated to comic-book nerds, mostly, but he was at the heart of one of Marvel's huge crossovers a couple of years ago- "The Annihilation Event".
Was the Annihilation Event the Thanos snap thing? Or was the AE in the comics?

The Skrull Empire - Yup, they were the oppressed minority in the Captain Marvel movie. Also shown up in more than a few places, such as a bunch of the shows mentioned under Doctor Doom, and had their own major crossover storyline a while ago- the "Secret Invasion".
Ronan the Accuser - As noted, the primary antagonist in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie... and for that matter, the Captain Marvel movie. Maybe the people who complain that Marvel has trouble making memorable villains have a point...[/LIST]
I should remind that after the first Avengers I mostly checked out of the MCU. I think I did see GotG, but it was mostly pretty unimpressive to me (same as the first Avengers, in fact), so it's not surprising I don't remember him. I am surprised that apparently others don't as well, and that the "unmemorable villains" is a complaint against them, given how popular all those movies were.

Terrax the Tamer - Think 'tamer' as a verb, not an adjective, as in 'one who tames things'. In comics, at least, he's one of these 'powerful enough to look challenging while not so powerful that people call hax when you beat hiim' villains that jobs to a lot of new heroes and teams. Dunno if 'popular' is the right word, but 'frequently-appearing-jobber' is a bit of a mouthful.
I know, I was just going for a joke to avoid a second "who" or "you're making names up.":smalltongue:

In any event, the point of that list was for me, a guy who's not all that big into superhero movies (especially the MCU) to chime in on how well known those listed villains were compared to the Fantastic Four. I haven't seen any of the F4 movies, but they had a lot, all of which featured their name in the title, so I'd be amazed if their villains are more well-known than they themselves are.

[GloatingSwine]

Was the Annihilation Event the Thanos snap thing? Or was the AE in the comics?


Nah, Annihilation was much more recent than that, and it was mostly stuff that happened in space with the Kree, Skrulls, Guardians and Nova Corps.

All the earth heroes were busy with Civil War at the time.

[Lethologica]

Mostly because "It's him, that one, thingy" doesn't really count as recognition.

Though "can name the character from a picture" would count.
Which is...what I suggested? Although I think adequately descriptive recognition can be had without the name, the point was to give people something to recognize besides a name, not to remove names from the process entirely. After all, "it's him, that one thingy" could easily be a response to the name as well.

[Willie the Duck]

The original post refers to:


My question was why name recognition is the chosen metric, as opposed to other forms of recognition.

You quoted me talking to other people discussing Wolverine vs. Robin in a top 10 list. That list was produced in reference to name recognition. We can absolutely discuss other forms of recognition, and it would definitely be pertinent to the overall thread topic. However, the side tangent about whether Robin or Wolverine is supposed to be higher on a given list should not change what is being measured mid-stream (or at least people should be given a chance to change their positions, if we are changing the measurement metric).

[Prime32]

Was Doom really on the 90s X-men cartoon? I have absolutely no memory of that.
He was in the 90s Incredible Hulk series. Possibly tied in to She-Hulk's origins.


Same, don't remember Galactus in either of those shows I watched. Maybe I caught the Silver Surfer in one of those? I don't know how I knew of him back then but I did know of him. Never saw the F4 movie with him, but he was in the title, so that was some exposure.Which, again, I'm assuming is due to buying the rights for cheap.
Silver Surfer had his own 90s series, and Galactus wasn't in every episode. It also had Thanos, the Watchers, Ego the Living Planet, and Beta-Ray Bill (though the latter was just someone's avatar on a planet of VR addicts).

[TeChameleon]

Same, don't remember Galactus in either of those shows I watched. Maybe I caught the Silver Surfer in one of those? I don't know how I knew of him back then but I did know of him. Never saw the F4 movie with him, but he was in the title, so that was some exposure.Which, again, I'm assuming is due to buying the rights for cheap.
Just wanted to point out that Galactus and the Silver Surfer almost certainly came with the Fantastic Four rights, not separately- they had their origins in the FF just as much as Doctor Doom did.


In any event, the point of that list was for me, a guy who's not all that big into superhero movies (especially the MCU) to chime in on how well known those listed villains were compared to the Fantastic Four. I haven't seen any of the F4 movies, but they had a lot, all of which featured their name in the title, so I'd be amazed if their villains are more well-known than they themselves are.
Fair enough, although I'm not sure how much recognition as 'those blue-tights geeks with a bunch of crappy movies' counts for. Also, Fan4stic is still a mind-bogglingly terrible name for a movie.

[Lethologica]

You quoted me talking to other people discussing Wolverine vs. Robin in a top 10 list. That list was produced in reference to name recognition. We can absolutely discuss other forms of recognition, and it would definitely be pertinent to the overall thread topic. However, the side tangent about whether Robin or Wolverine is supposed to be higher on a given list should not change what is being measured mid-stream (or at least people should be given a chance to change their positions, if we are changing the measurement metric).
When asked why the scope was limited to name recognition, you first cited "the question asked" and referenced the post which asked the question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24346192&postcount=44). I used your own citation to show that this was incorrect, that that post cites recognition generally without specifying names (or using the word 'name' once, for that matter). So now you claim (unless I misunderstand you) that what matters is the post that made the list. But that post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24346244&postcount=45) doesn't offer any statements about what was being measured or how to define recognition. It only provides a list in response to the initial question. So this new claim is not correct either.

Also, you suggest that I am not giving people a chance to change their positions, "if we are changing the measurement metric." But I only just now suggested the change - not even that - I only just now questioned name recognition as the metric. Not only have I left plenty of room for people to change their position, the metric has not even been changed yet, so I haven't had a chance to not let people change their positions.

Moreover, I don't know how much more reserved you could expect me to be. On the concrete matter of including Wolverine or Robin, I didn't even say Wolverine should be on the list over Robin, I said he challenges Robin for the spot, while noting Robin's advantages in many areas. I asked why name recognition was the exclusive metric, but didn't dismiss it as a metric, or assert that my own was better. I didn't accuse people preemptively (or at all) of having bad opinions based on my metric (or any metric). Just what do you want from me?

Honestly, I care a lot less about superhero rankings or recognition metrics than I do about earnest discussion. If you'd made any sort of argument for why name recognition should be the metric, I probably would have just nodded and moved on. Instead, I feel that you are being dismissive of my opinion and my suggestion based on, at best, some careless statements about the nature of the discussion, while implying that I am some kind of aggressor. And I'm not sure why that is, but I would like to reiterate that I am only suggesting consideration of other types of recognition alongside name recognition.

[Willie the Duck]

When asked why the scope was limited to name recognition, you first cited "the question asked" and referenced the post which asked the question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24346192&postcount=44). I used your own citation to show that this was incorrect, that that post cites recognition generally without specifying names (or using the word 'name' once, for that matter). So now you claim (unless I misunderstand you) that what matters is the post that made the list. But that post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24346244&postcount=45) doesn't offer any statements about what was being measured or how to define recognition. It only provides a list in response to the initial question. So this new claim is not correct either.

Looking back, you are correct. I read, "who people recognize today" and imputed name recognition into it without realizing it. That was my mistake that I continued to make without realizing it. Thank you for pointing it out, as I did not realize the error.


Honestly, I care a lot less about superhero rankings or recognition metrics than I do about earnest discussion. If you'd made any sort of argument for why name recognition should be the metric, I probably would have just nodded and moved on. Instead, I feel that you are being dismissive of my opinion and my suggestion based on, at best, some careless statements about the nature of the discussion, while implying that I am some kind of aggressor. And I'm not sure why that is, but I would like to reiterate that I am only suggesting consideration of other types of recognition alongside name recognition.

Here you are imputing a lot of assumptions onto my behavior not evidenced by what I stated. I made no statement whatsoever regarding aggressor status. Nor was I dismissive in any way. I even stated that we could discuss literally any other aspect of character fame anyone wanted to, only that any given list would still be reference to whatever metric we started with (about which I was wrong, as discussed above). So the answer to 'why that is,' is 'it wasn't.' We both thought the other had gotten lost in the conversational weeds, and in the end, you were the one who was correct in that regard. However, that does not mean I was calling you some kind of aggressor.


Silver Surfer had his own 90s series Wow. I have no recollection of that. Mind you, it is the sweet spot between when I stopped watching children's programming block cartoons and when I started caring for kids who did, but I would have thought I would have caught it through cultural osmosis. Anyone know if it was any good? Worth going on a lookback list?

[Tyndmyr]

Looking back, you are correct. I read, "who people recognize today" and imputed name recognition into it without realizing it. That was my mistake that I continued to make without realizing it. Thank you for pointing it out, as I did not realize the error.

If it helps, I was sort of thinking of name recognition when I wrote that, but I suppose that's not the only kind of recognition. If anything, it might be interesting to discuss characters who are visually recognisable, but who do not enjoy name-recognition. Ronan definitely qualifies as this, while, say, Maelkith probably has neither.

[Willie the Duck]

If it helps, I was sort of thinking of name recognition when I wrote that, but I suppose that's not the only kind of recognition. If anything, it might be interesting to discuss characters who are visually recognisable, but who do not enjoy name-recognition. Ronan definitely qualifies as this, while, say, Maelkith probably has neither.

I mean, the issue was I mentally read name recognition into it, and then did that thing where you mentally skip over blocks of text you're sure you've read until someone says, effective, 'no, go reread that, it doesn't say that.' This is something about which I keep trying to warn my employees (who otherwise will occasionally very very competently code a wonderful solution to a problem other than the one with which we've been tasked), so it's either apropos or sad that I make it.

Regardless, yes, visual recognition is certainly another way to do this. Particularly if we're trying to capture the 'non-nerd who has still seen/taken a kid to/bought toys as presents' for various comic book movies. I certainly do think switching between names and visuals will shake up the rankings (although Robin probably is pretty high there too). One thing that might do is increase the amount of Deadpool-Spiderman (/Spawn, depending on prominence of cape) confluence.

[Darth Credence]

Wow. I have no recollection of that [Silver Surfer cartoon]. Mind you, it is the sweet spot between when I stopped watching children's programming block cartoons and when I started caring for kids who did, but I would have thought I would have caught it through cultural osmosis. Anyone know if it was any good? Worth going on a lookback list?

I haven't seen it, but I have noticed that it is available on Disney+ if you are looking to watch.

[Mordar]

If it helps, I was sort of thinking of name recognition when I wrote that, but I suppose that's not the only kind of recognition. If anything, it might be interesting to discuss characters who are visually recognisable, but who do not enjoy name-recognition. Ronan definitely qualifies as this, while, say, Maelkith probably has neither.

As was I, but if I had say a collection of 25 or so trading cards/head shots/artwork to show people and they said "He's that guy from Guardians of the Galaxy that Chris Pratt tries to have a dance-off with" I'd probably take that as an acceptable answer for Ronan.

The problem I have is thinking of what pictures I would use for say, the X-Men, as they were not given their costumes in the films. I would much prefer to use comic book art and for most of the mainstream DC and MCU characters that would be fine...but some films shied away from costumes for some stupid reason or the other. :smallmad:

- M

[TeChameleon]

Wow. I have no recollection of that. Mind you, it is the sweet spot between when I stopped watching children's programming block cartoons and when I started caring for kids who did, but I would have thought I would have caught it through cultural osmosis. Anyone know if it was any good? Worth going on a lookback list?

Hmm... my extremely suspect memory is trying to tell me it was kind of awful, but I don't have any clear memory of actually watching the thing, so I'm really not sure. There were definitely a few duds in the 90s Animated-Marvel-verse. If you're in a superhero cartoon kind of mood, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes is definitely worth a watch, at least for the first season and a half (at which point they changed showrunners and writers and the quality sorta tanked...).

[Kareeah_Indaga]

In response to the original question...I had to Google ‘whose symbol is that at the end of Infinity War’ and I wouldn’t know of her at all if not for the MCU. The same is not true of Daredevil, Morbius, Captain America, the Beyonder, Silvermane...and Moon Knight and Speedball. Until the media attention from the MCU movie I was also unaware the she was the source of Rogue’s flight and strength powers despite having seen several X-Men cartoons. :smallconfused: Not sure how that happened.

[Peelee]

In response to the original question...I had to Google ‘whose symbol is that at the end of Infinity War’ and I wouldn’t know of her at all if not for the MCU. The same is not true of ... Morbius, the Beyonder, Silvermane...and Moon Knight
Who?

and Speedball.
Ok that one you're making up. Ain't no hero named "cocaine and heroine".

Until the media attention from the MCU movie I was also unaware the she was the source of Rogue’s flight and strength powers despite having seen several X-Men cartoons. :smallconfused: Not sure how that happened.
Huh I was unaware of that until just now.

[GloatingSwine]

Ok that one you're making up. Ain't no hero named "cocaine and heroine".


No, he's called Snowflame (https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Snowflame_(New_Earth)). And yes, he literally gets superpowers from taking cocaine.

[Peelee]

No, he's called Snowflame (https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Snowflame_(New_Earth)). And yes, he literally gets superpowers from taking cocaine.

Note to self, read more comics. Because that's hilarious.

[The Glyphstone]

Speedball (https://superheroes.fandom.com/wiki/Speedball) is actually a completely different character, which is the best part.

[GloatingSwine]

Speedball is pretty much an ultra-nobody though. Like they tried to make him a thing after Civil War by making him grim and edgy but nobody liked it.

[The Glyphstone]

Clearly,he must have been unpopular because his new personality/powerset had nothing to do with cocaine.

[GloatingSwine]

Clearly,he must have been unpopular because his new personality/powerset had nothing to do with cocaine.

Oh I know who Speedball is. I also know who bleedball/emoball is.

I was continuing the joke about drugs based superheroes (Okay Snowflame is a villain whatever).

The fact that this confusion ever arose demonstrates how Z list Speedball really is.

[The Glyphstone]

Oh I know who Speedball is. I also know who bleedball/emoball is.

I was continuing the joke about drugs based superheroes (Okay Snowflame is a villain whatever).

The fact that this confusion ever arose demonstrates how Z list Speedball really is.

I only remember him specifically because of the emo remake, where he put spikes inside his armor so he was always cutting himself or something so hilariously gratuitous after he accidentally blew up a school. But it was Peelee who didn't believe a character with that name actually existed, and I think the joke has taken on a life of its own.

[Prime32]

Huh I was unaware of that until just now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8k7hlN5l9w

[Peelee]

Huh. "Ain't no daughter o' mine is a mutant! Crazy red and white hair is acceptable though." C'mon redneck papa, you know that wouldn't fly. Also, Miss Marvel picked a really weird hill to fight on. "As far as you specifically are concerned I may or may not be married!"

I did wonder about the disparity of Rogue's powers between the cartoon and the movies, so that's helpful.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Who?

In fairness, all I knew about Moon Knight was:


His hero name
The fact that he wore mostly white and had a cape


But I did know he existed. (And now apparently they're planning a Moon Knight TV show somewhere down the line for the MCU so...yay I guess?)


Speedball is pretty much an ultra-nobody though.

And yet I knew about him and not Carol Danvers! Admittedly that might say more about me than it does about either of them. :smalltongue:


I only remember him specifically because of the emo remake, where he put spikes inside his armor so he was always cutting himself or something so hilariously gratuitous after he accidentally blew up a school.

IIRC he wasn't even the one who blew it up, the super villain his team was fighting did. Nitro, I think? But yes, hilariously gratuitous.

[Kitten Champion]

Huh. "Ain't no daughter o' mine is a mutant! Crazy red and white hair is acceptable though." C'mon redneck papa, you know that wouldn't fly. Also, Miss Marvel picked a really weird hill to fight on. "As far as you specifically are concerned I may or may not be married!"

I did wonder about the disparity of Rogue's powers between the cartoon and the movies, so that's helpful.

It's Ms. Marvel. Not Miss.

It's an honorific from the Feminist movement of the 70's in which there was a dedicated effort to create a new standard form of a address for women that wasn't premised on their marital status but rather the recognition of themselves as individuals. The inception and original run of Ms. Marvel comics was very conscious of then contemporary gender politics with how they positioned Carol as a character and the language they used to attempt to make her emblematic of the modern, progressive woman.

Then, less then a decade later, Avengers 200 happened. In which it's writers decided for this milestone for Carol would be mind controlled, raped, impregnated, give birth to a reincarnation of her rapist, and then sent off to another dimension to live with her spawn forever -- all while her fellow Avengers cheered her on.

But, such is life.

[GloatingSwine]

I only remember him specifically because of the emo remake, where he put spikes inside his armor so he was always cutting himself or something so hilariously gratuitous after he accidentally blew up a school. But it was Peelee who didn't believe a character with that name actually existed, and I think the joke has taken on a life of its own.

Yeah.

The silly explanation is that after it all went down his powers stopped working if he wasn't in pain, and given that he's all but immune to blunt force he needed the spikes for his powers to work.

http://webcomicoverlook.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/glipenancejpgix7.jpg

Context: At the time Squirrel Girl had a crush on Robbie, so when she found out what had happened because Deadpool lent her a copy of Civil War Frontline No. 11 she decided to go back in time to stop it, so she went to Latveria and borrowed Dr. Doom's time machine (he wasn't going to try and stop her, Doom does not commit the same error twice!). But it was too late, he was too far gone.

[Aedilred]

Carol has been a long-standing workhorse of the Avengers, popular enough to have carried relatively long running solo books and to be a regular team fixture and to show up in other team books like the X-Men.

She's been more prominent in recent years as Marvel have been interested in promoting teams and characters they have the rights to.


(Thor was not a top-tier Marvel superhero. You can tell who was a top tier Marvel superhero because they were worth someone buying the film rights to when Marvel were near bankruptcy, so Spidey, Hulk, the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four. Everyone else was B-List or lower compared to them).

Blade? (Everyone forgets about Blade.)

[Kitten Champion]

Blade? (Everyone forgets about Blade.)

I think that's because he doesn't really feel like a Superhero. I mean, his whole niche is fighting vampires, which becomes a thing in and of itself.

Like, you could call Angel from BtVS a superhero and not exactly be wrong, but he fits more in that urban fantasy/supernatural drama sub-genre. I don't think Blade is that far off from him, really.

Though, yeah, people tend to overlook Blade and start with X-Men for the whole Superhero movie renaissance.

[dancrilis]

Like, you could call Angel from BtVS a superhero


Well he kindof was just check out this click and tell me it isn't superhero worthy.

https://youtu.be/Q5D-YIldov4

He even comes with his own pseudo-supervillian (you know he is bad because he smokes).

[Kitten Champion]

He's very Batman-esque when he's wall-climbing (I think he even has a grappling hook at points too) or pulling one of those escapes where he vanishes mid-conversation to the other person's befuddlement once the camera pans away from him.

Despite that, I doubt many would refer to him as a Superhero just for the lack of any of the traditional trappings.

[The Glyphstone]

Yeah, I don't personally think of Blade a superhero either, even if he is originally from a comic book.

[Peelee]

How about Spawn?

[The Glyphstone]

Spawn I would credit as being a super 'hero', yeah. Never seen his movie, though.

[Peelee]

Spawn I would credit as being a super 'hero', yeah. Never seen his movie, though.

It's.... as good as you'd expect a superhero movie based on Spawn in 1997 could have been.

[Rynjin]

I remember it being entertaining enough.

Don't forget there was a Spawn cartoon as well around that time.

[Vinyadan]

Am I the only one who remembers Miss Marvel surviving as a parasitic entity within Rogue's mind, making her insane and forcing someone to actually enter Rogue's mindscape to scrap Marvel's remnants out of it?

EDIT: I didn't know it was Marvel, just this very angry very white woman.

[Kyberwulf]

What does that even mean? He doesn't even feel like a superhero. What because he is black? If he were white he would have been lauded for being the first correctly done r rated superhero movie way before deadpool and iron man was. I mean you want to break it down .. superman isn't really a super hero movie either.. just a alien coming to earth movie.. same thing with x men. Just mutants doing their crazy thing mutant things. Iron man and batman? Just rich white guys forcing their brand of justice in people who can't afford to stand up against them.

[Rynjin]

What does that even mean? He doesn't even feel like a superhero. What because he is black? If he were white he would have been lauded for being the first correctly done r rated superhero movie way before deadpool and iron man was. I mean you want to break it down .. superman isn't really a super hero movie either.. just a alien coming to earth movie.. same thing with x men. Just mutants doing their crazy thing mutant things. Iron man and batman? Just rich white guys forcing their brand of justice in people who can't afford to stand up against them.

WTF are you even going on about?

Blade doesn't feel like a superhero because he's a monster hunter, not a traditional hero. Are Sam and Dean of Supernatural superheroes too?

Blade media isn't framed or shot the same way superhero movies are, they're shot like monster movies and horror action flicks, like Underworld and whatnot. It kicked off an entire craze of those kinds of movies. Including the aforementioned Underworld and whatnot.

[The Glyphstone]

WTF are you even going on about?

Blade doesn't feel like a superhero because he's a monster hunter, not a traditional hero. Are Sam and Dean of Supernatural superheroes too?

Blade media isn't framed or shot the same way superhero movies are, they're shot like monster movies and horror action flicks, like Underworld and whatnot. It kicked off an entire craze of those kinds of movies. Including the aforementioned Underworld and whatnot.

Wait...if Blade kicked off the trend that created Underworld, and Underworld created the modern vampire vs. werewolf rivalry....does that mean Blade is indirectly responsible for Twilight?:smalleek:

[Bohandas]

Captain Marvel doesn't have A+ recognition. The character's primary claim to fame is winning a trademark suit against a similarly named DC character.

[Bartmanhomer]

Captain Marvel doesn't have A+ recognition. The character's primary claim to fame is winning a trademark suit against a similarly named DC character.

If I'm not mistaken last time that I check that Shazam was a Fawcett character before DC owning rights to him.

[Rynjin]

Wait...if Blade kicked off the trend that created Underworld, and Underworld created the modern vampire vs. werewolf rivalry....does that mean Blade is indirectly responsible for Twilight?:smalleek:

That tracks to me.

[Bohandas]

It's Ms. Marvel. Not Miss.

Its the same thing. "Ms." is at best an abbreviated form of "Miss" corresponding to the difference between "Mr." and "Mister". There's a case to me bade that it's not even necessarily that and could be considered al alternate spelling akin to color/colour or walkthrough/walkthru

[Kitten Champion]

Its the same thing. "Ms." is at best an abbreviated form of "Miss" corresponding to the difference between "Mr." and "Mister". There's a case to me bade that it's not even necessarily that and could be considered al alternate spelling akin to color/colour or walkthrough/walkthru

No, the whole point of it is it's not. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms.)

[Bohandas]

No, the whole point of it is it's not. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms.)

This is an etymological fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy). I don't think the fact that "Miss" once specifically designated a woman who is not married is widely remembered among people who aren't either ancient and/or english majors*. Furthermore, I doubt that anyone other than english majors alone would be able to tell you which is which, or even know that there was a difference beyond spelling, without consulting wikipedia.


*or who happened upon it after clicking through a long chain of different wikipedia articles.

EDIT:
And its telling that your linked article doesn't have any examples of differentiation between the two that are from this century

EDIT:
Now that I think of it, it's not even a proper etymological fallacy since the use of miss to indicate marital status reflects neither its current usage nor its original use, but rather a defunct use from the 19th and 20th centuries (quoting the article "Miss and Mrs., both derived from the then formal Mistress, like Mister did not originally indicate marital status" (emphasis mine)

[Kitten Champion]

This is an etymological fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy). I don't think the fact that "Miss" once specifically designated a woman who is not married is widely remembered among people who aren't either ancient and/or english majors. Furthermore, I doubt that anyone other than english majors alone would be able to tell you which is which, or even know that there was a difference beyond spelling, without consulting wikipedia.

Look, I'm not going to argue this.

Ultimately, this is what you're doing --


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WssBJeExiOM&ab_channel=Mike


https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/6/6b/Ms._Marvel_Vol_1_18.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/340?cb=20191109194245

[Bartmanhomer]

This is my opinion about the Ms. debate. I feel like that Ms. and Miss are the same things in my opinion. So anyway back to the topic. I feel like that Captain Marvel is just a B+ superhero with an A+ recognition. More importantly, I really like Captain Marvel. :smile:

[Bohandas]

Look, I'm not going to argue this.

Ultimately, this is what you're doing --


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WssBJeExiOM&ab_channel=Mike


https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/6/6b/Ms._Marvel_Vol_1_18.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/340?cb=20191109194245

More like this (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2otq8h) around 43 seconds in. "They're not spelled the same but they mean the same"

[Peelee]

Note to self, make jokes less subtle.

[Aedilred]

This is an etymological fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy). I don't think the fact that "Miss" once specifically designated a woman who is not married is widely remembered among people who aren't either ancient and/or english majors*. Furthermore, I doubt that anyone other than english majors alone would be able to tell you which is which, or even know that there was a difference beyond spelling, without consulting wikipedia.


This is absolutely not the case. Not an etymological fallacy or anything like that. If anything you're the one applying an etymological fallacy later in your post by suggesting that because they're all ultimately abbreviations of the same word ("mistress") they all mean the same.

Standard use is "Miss" for an unmarried woman, "Mrs" for married and "Ms" for unspecified. Originally, "Ms" was probably most commonly used for women who were divorced, or elderly spinsters, but it has now entered general use as "unspecified marital status". Now maybe this is different in the US but it is definitely, 100%, the case in correspondence where titles are used in the UK. Just because you didn't realise there was a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. If you're using "Miss" and "Ms" interchangeably, you're doing it wrong.

As has been pointed out, the entire point in "Ms" is that it is neither "Miss" nor "Mrs" and therefore leaves marital status unstated.

[Willie the Duck]

This is an etymological fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy).

Throwing around links to fallacy explanations will not impress anyone. We're all nerds on the internet, we've been to that dog and pony show before.


I don't think the fact that "Miss" once specifically designated a woman who is not married is widely remembered among people who aren't either ancient and/or english [sic] majors*. Furthermore, I doubt that anyone other than english [sic] majors alone would be able to tell you which is which, or even know that there was a difference beyond spelling, without consulting wikipedia.

Nor will suggesting that no one will care but English majors, so your mistake doesn't matter. No one else has suggested that any of this really matters, only that it was a mistake (and regardless of any runaround, in the end you cannot retroactively make 'Miss' be the word in the character name). You were the one who, when it was pointed out that you used 'Miss' where the character's actual name uses 'Ms.,' have continued to repeatedly double down. This is entirely a self-made wound. This could have been resolved in a second if your response to Kitten Champion's "It's Ms. Marvel. Not Miss." comment was, 'So it is, my mistake.'


Now maybe this is different in the US but it is definitely, 100%, the case in correspondence where titles are used in the UK.

Nope. It is the same in the United States.

[Bohandas]

This is absolutely not the case. Not an etymological fallacy or anything like that. If anything you're the one applying an etymological fallacy later in your post by suggesting that because they're all ultimately abbreviations of the same word ("mistress") they all mean the same.

Standard use is "Miss" for an unmarried woman, "Mrs" for married and "Ms" for unspecified. Originally, "Ms" was probably most commonly used for women who were divorced, or elderly spinsters, but it has now entered general use as "unspecified marital status". Now maybe this is different in the US but it is definitely, 100%, the case in correspondence where titles are used in the UK. Just because you didn't realise there was a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. If you're using "Miss" and "Ms" interchangeably, you're doing it wrong.

As has been pointed out, the entire point in "Ms" is that it is neither "Miss" nor "Mrs" and therefore leaves marital status unstated.

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same the only people who are going to be differentiating the two are people who for some reason are frequently seeing them written out and who are paying an obsessive amount of attention.

Furthermore my position is not an etymological fallacy because I'm appealing to the past thirty years, not to the 18th and earlier century usage. I merely bring up the 18th century usage to admit that my earlier accusation that Kitten Champion was using the etymological fallacy was technically incorrect as a true etymological fallacy would appeal to the original usage, whereas Kitten Champion was appealing to a usage that, while obsolescent, was technically not the original and thus arguably not the etymological fallacy

[Darth Credence]

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same the only people who are going to be differentiating the two are people who for some reason are frequently seeing them written out and who are paying an obsessive amount of attention.

Furthermore my position is not an etymological fallacy because I'm appealing to the past thirty years, not to the 18th and earlier century usage. I merely bring up the 18th century usage to admit that my earlier accusation that Kitten Champion was using the etymological fallacy was technically incorrect as a true etymological fallacy would appeal to the original usage, whereas Kitten Champion was appealing to a usage that, while obsolescent, was technically not the original and thus arguably not the etymological fallacy

Ms. and Miss are not pronounced the same. Not really even that close - Ms. has a z sound, Miss has an s sound.

[Peelee]

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same

See the video that started this whole thing (well, my too-subtle joke started it, but still). Someone says, "Miss Marvel!" She responds, "That's mizz Marvel to you!" Response written phonetically, because she is saying "Ms." and clearly differentiating it from "Miss".

[Lethologica]

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same the only people who are going to be differentiating the two are people who for some reason are frequently seeing them written out and who are paying an obsessive amount of attention.
...Both of which are likely true for people reading Ms. Marvel comics? So even if the distinction didn't apply in the general case (which it absolutely does, as others have pointed out), it is especially pertinent to this specific one.

[Knaight]

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same the only people who are going to be differentiating the two are people who for some reason are frequently seeing them written out and who are paying an obsessive amount of attention.

Yeah, homophones are deep linguistic lore, known only to specialists. The whole idea that there might be two words with different meanings but the same pronunciation is too hard to understand for anyone who isn't totally obsessive. Also writing is a degenerate form of language, wholly subsurvient to the spoken word. Nobody writes nearly as often as they speak, let alone more; there's orders of magnitudes separating them. It's not like people carry a device where they could send some sort of message, in text (we'll call these "text messages", or "texts" for short), and it's not like there were important institutions where you could go to some sort of office with some post you wrote a letter on and send it for literally centuries.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

You're all wrong. It's not Miss or Ms. or Mrs. or Dr. for that matter.

It's 'Captain.' :smalltongue:


Wait...if Blade kicked off the trend that created Underworld, and Underworld created the modern vampire vs. werewolf rivalry....does that mean Blade is indirectly responsible for Twilight?:smalleek:

Well if Blade's responsible for it then he should be cleaning it up, don't you think? Stake + Heart = Problem solved! :smallamused:

Slightly related, I'm only familiar with Blade from the old Spiderman cartoons, were the movies any good? I know they're rebooting it for the MCU, so I've been wondering if it would be worth tracking down the originals.

[Rynjin]

Well if Blade's responsible for it then he should be cleaning it up, don't you think? Stake + Heart = Problem solved! :smallamused:

Slightly related, I'm only familiar with Blade from the old Spiderman cartoons, were the movies any good? I know they're rebooting it for the MCU, so I've been wondering if it would be worth tracking down the originals.

Blade and Blade 2 are pretty alright. I remember Blade: Trinity being, err, not very good.

[JadedDM]

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same the only people who are going to be differentiating the two are people who for some reason are frequently seeing them written out and who are paying an obsessive amount of attention.

Miss sounds like 'miss.'
Mrs. sounds like 'missus.'
Ms. sounds like 'miz.'

[comicshorse]

Well if Blade's responsible for it then he should be cleaning it up, don't you think? Stake + Heart = Problem solved! :smallamused:

Slightly related, I'm only familiar with Blade from the old Spiderman cartoons, were the movies any good? I know they're rebooting it for the MCU, so I've been wondering if it would be worth tracking down the originals.

Well, IMHO, the first was pretty good (worth seeing if only for the start which is pure Sabbat party straight from V:TM).
The second is excellent. Directed by Guillermo Del Toro with verve and style and notable (for the elderly viewer like me ) that one of the main bad guys used to be half of the boy band 'Bros'
The third is dire. Just utterly bad.
(I'll resist the temptation to compare them to a recently completed movie trilogy)
There was also a short lived TV series that was....Ok as I remember. But severely hampered by the fact that Blade is a sword wielding, vampire decapitating, action hero and the actor playing Blade in the series was pretty terrible at the action scenes

P.S
Damn beaten to it

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Blade and Blade 2 are pretty alright. I remember Blade: Trinity being, err, not very good.

Like the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies? :smallfrown: I'll have to remember to avoid the third one then.

EDIT: @comicshorse: Don't worry I appreciate the feedback regardless. :smallsmile:

[Jerrykhor]

Ms. sounds like 'miz.'

https://besthqwallpapers.com/Uploads/28-11-2018/72815/thumb2-the-miz-michael-mizanin-wwe-american-professional-wrestler-creative-art.jpg

[Kitten Champion]

The third Raimi Spider-Man movie was done in by the studio for the most part, but there's definitely some heart there regardless. Blade Trinity however was made at the point where Wesley Snipes really didn't give a damn, and it definitely shows.

Blade is cheesy 90's fun, some great stupid one-liners and lots of attractive people in shadowy industrial locations wearing the blackest of leather clothing.

Blade II has a serviceable enough story that I can barely remember, but the real draw is that the action scenes are actually pretty enjoyable and Del Toro's penchant for cool horror imagery is on full display.

[Aedilred]

Like the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies? :smallfrown: I'll have to remember to avoid the third one then.

EDIT: @comicshorse: Don't worry I appreciate the feedback regardless. :smallsmile:

This actually seems to be a relatively common phenomenon among pre-MCU comic book films. The first film is good; the second film is better. The third is, at best, a bit rubbish. In the event the series makes it to a fourth, it’s mind-bogglingly terrible.
Holds good for Batman, Superman, Blade, Spiderman and the pre-reboot run of X-Men films. Even the Nolan Batman films are arguable.

Hellboy never got its third instalment, which in light of the above, may have been for the best.

It notably doesn’t apply for Fantastic Four (or Transformers) which started badly and got worse.

[Bohandas]

Hellboy never got its third instalment, which in light of the above, may have been for the best.

Didn't they make a third one last year?

And in any case, it already breaks the pattern regardless because the second one was terrible.

[comicshorse]

Didn't they make a third one last year?



They did and yes it WAS terrible

[Bohandas]

They did and yes it WAS terrible

I didn't see it, but it looked better than the second one (albeit still bad)

[GloatingSwine]

I didn't see it, but it looked better than the second one (albeit still bad)

It very much was not. Del Toro's Hellboy knew and cared about the source material, even if it was designed specifically not to be totally faithful to it (Mike Mignola specifically wanted Del Toro to change it to make his own version). And that extended to the second one, which was merely not quite as fresh and interesting as the first.

The 2019 rebootquel did not. It's terrible as a movie and it neither knows or cares about the spirit of the original source.

[Aedilred]

I believe the Hellboy movie last year was a reboot, rather than the third instalment in the trilogy.

Same goes for the 4 movie a few years back, in relation to the Fantastic four movies of the 2000s.

[Rodin]

I believe the Hellboy movie last year was a reboot, rather than the third instalment in the trilogy.

Same goes for the 4 movie a few years back, in relation to the Fantastic four movies of the 2000s.

Fantastic Four is another that breaks the general pattern. The first was decent, the second was a bit rubbish, and that made them not make a third.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Hulk (not the MCU movie The Incredible Hulk. The one before that) also breaks the pattern, it was terrible in the first installment and as far as I know never got any sequels to be worse than the first before the reboot into the MCU.

[Kitten Champion]

I think the issue with a lot of them was the Spider-Man's success led to them rushing out similar-ish products relatively quickly in the mid-2000's.

Fantastic Four and Daredevil are conspicuous as trying to chase the coattails of Raimi hype-train. It was within the expectations of the audiences of the time, however it looks in hindsight.

Though the third X-Men movie falling flat was its own, sad misadventure.