Anonymous asked:
brevoortformspring answered:
We’ve been over this before, but let me go through it again in the hopes of clarifying things.
There’s a difference between catering to the movies and not being stupid.
More people in the world now know and recognize Nick Fury as an African-American man than have ever known him any other way. He’s depicted that way in film, in animation, and in consumer products.
So, given that, why wouldn’t we make an effort to cross that divide? To not do so only invites more confusion.
I understand that you draw an arbitrary distinction between the desires and reading experience of yourself and others of your generation and those who’ve come later, but we do not.
And saying that we had Ultimate comics for that is like me telling you that you have back issues for that—it does nobody any good and it’s hardly satisfying. (Especially in this instance, where the race issue gives it added context: “Hey, there’s a nice separate-but-equal version right over there for you guys!)
That’s not the movies driving anything, though. That version of Nick Fury came right out of the comics. And nobody made us do this, we chose to do it because it simply made good sense. And we did it in such a way that we left the original Nick Fury and his history intact.
So where is the problem here?
Yeah. I would just be too confusing and kill interest for movie fans .
It’s not like fans of Emma Stone could ever enjoy a comic book about a punk rock Gwen Stacy who had spider powers, wasn’t dating Peter Parker, had a Dad who was alive and well,and you know…didn’t have a broken spine.
They certainly couldn’t make it go to second printing or generate enough interest for an ongoing or anything.
Nope. It’s just tooooooooooo confusing.
