Comicscape - September 10, 2003

By: TONY WHITT
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2003

OPINION

Before we launch into this week's discussion, I must apologize to the reader who brought up the Nick Fury question in the first place - seems I called him "Brian" when his name is actually "Chris." That being said, I must remind everyone that if you wish to be quoted in this column, you should include your first and last name. There's nothing quite so embarrassing as having to attribute a quote to "John" or to an e-mail monniker, especially if it's from some address like "skankyho2003@excite.com"...

Anyway, "Chris" originally asked whether the ULTIMATES version of Nick Fury, who is African-American instead of caucasian, would be considered "stereotypical," whether he would be considered "too white," or whether the character merits examination at all because he is a reinterpretation of a white character. Your responses were all interesting, but most had to do with the question of whether the character ever needed that reinterpretation to begin with. Mark Sehestedt, for instance, feels that the problem isn't with Fury's race at all, as the following oh-so-politely worded statement shows: "Poor Pharisees. You strain at gnats and swallow camels. The problem with the ULTIMATES is not that Nick Fury looks like Sam Jackson...The problem is that this is one of the worst-written comics put out by Marvel. It's mindless action, nonsensical stunts, pretty posing, frequent pontificating, maniacally silly villains, and pointless plot. In short, it's the comic world's version of a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. If the writing would improve on ULTIMATES, they could draw Nick Fury like Ed Asner for all I care." Methinks you might be in the minority opinion there, Mark, but great job dodging the question, eh? "Pharisees," indeed...

Joseph Mudd espoused an even more troubling opinion: "I don't like [the ULTIMATE Nick Fury] at all. Yes, it's because he is a black man. I have never liked black superheroes and I don't really think that they are believable. I didn't mind the Kingpin being black in the DAREDEVIL movie because he's a villain. I don't want to relate to or care about the villains, only the heroes. I know that this may sound like a racist statement but look at the society that we live in. If you look at the majority of crimes and lawlessness in this country most of it is caused by African-Americans. The kind of movies, television and music they endorce [sic] is full of violence, drug use, abusing women, attacting [sic] law enforcement officers, rape and murder. That's really all that needs to be said." Actually, I think there's quite a bit more to be said, including something about people's misguided belief that the media's representation of African-Americans as the largest criminal element in the US is the "truth," but what do I know - I just write about comic books. By the way, I've included this one because it represents quite a few people who wrote in with similar views. I just have to say, it astounds me that such viewpoints still exist in 2003. Anyway, wasn't this supposed to be about Nick Fury?

Steve Rivers was also dismayed at the changeover of Nick Fury, but for a different reason: "When I first saw the African American Nick Fury I was reading ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN. I rubbed my eyes, looked back at the book...yup, he was still black. I shook my head violently trying to make sure I was awake and not half asleep, looked back...still black. I then looked at the cover to make sure I wasn't reading a copy of "What If Nick Fury was black?" I could not figure out why Marvel would take a character that had been around for 40 years and change his race. I know the Ultimate line of books was to refresh characters, but not totally re-invent them. I am now surprised that they didn't go the extra mile and make him a woman: Nicole Fury. I just can't figure out why they did that. Message to Marvel: refresh, don't re-invent." Um...isn't that exactly what the Ultimates line is meant to be doing, though - reinvention of established characters in new and startling ways? And judging by this reaction, wasn't that aim then achieved by making a long-standing caucasian character into an African-American?

"Tim," whose last name I unfortunately don't have, felt very differently about the change (and, it would appear, about the quality of the series' writing): "I've found the Nick Fury character to be one of the most developed in the ULTIMATES, a series I highly recommend. I think the best way to build African-American characters is to build good characters in the first place. Maybe his heritage means something to him, maybe it doesn't, but if it doesn't work with the character, why should you force it? Does a character have to be a red-haired, bearded, kilt-wearing bagpiper to be Scottish? Of course not. But hey, I'm just some white guy, what do I know." I know how you feel, Tim. Here's an interesting question: was the original Nick Fury's heritage so important to the character that changing it changes the essential nature of the character? I haven't seen that it does, to be honest - the "Samuel L. Jackson" version of Fury doesn't appear to be a bastardization of the character in any way (at least, not in the same way that the David Hasselhoff version does...), so is the change all that extreme?

Leonard Pigg feels that it isn't, and that it's a positive one, overall: "I like the [ULTIMATES version of Nick Fury], simply because most African Americans are depicted as slang-speaking street hustlers. Fury is depicted as a Machieavellian soldier who covers every angle and realizes that you can't protect the world and be everyone's friend. I think...despite the change in pigment, the spirit of the character remains unchanged. Only in the past decade or so has the entertainment industry begun to get past the street image of the Black male. I've encountered a few people who had a fit when there was a Black captain on STAR TREK, a Black man in the Iron Man armor and another wearing a Green Lantern ring. There are a few exceptions to the stereotypical Black characters, ie: WAR MACHINE's James Rhodes whose MAX title was quite refreshing. Then there's always Green Lantern John Stewart who was always written as a non-stereotypical Black male. Of course, we can't forget Christopher Priest's work on BLACK PANTHER either. The bottom line is, there aren't many writers that can write Black characters as cool and not come off trite, so it's better to shatter stereotypes and move on into the future. Remember, there's more to sci-fi and fantasy than Lando Calrissian." Good point, though the counterargument could be made that none of those other characters were originally caucasian, as Fury was - except in the cases of T'Challa and Lando, all of them were black characters put into a role originally begun by a white character. Apart from that, it does appear that the new Nick is a pretty positive depiction of an African-American character, regardless of how he started.

Ramon Alex Jones agrees, but with reservations: "First of all, I never thought much of the original Nick Fury. To me, he just looked too much like Reed Richards with more muscles, an eye patch, a cigar, and a brawler's disposition. I liked that the Ultimate version of Fury was black, and I especially loved the early takes on the character. But then something happened that I utterly hated, and that was the fact that, as drawn by Bryan Hitch, Fury started to look like Samuel L. Jackson - bald, darker skin, scraggly moustache and goatee. This was a drastic difference from the lighter skinned, fade hair cut, suave figure we saw in the early issues of ULTIMATE X-MEN. Why the change? I like Sam L., but is he the only template for a brown-skinned man? It never made sense to me."

Well, it could be that Marvel really is thinking of THE ULTIMATES as the comics version of a Jerry Bruckheimer movie, as Mark pointed out above - or could it be that Bryan Hitch can't draw without photo references? (Ouch, I can see the hate mail coming for that one already...)

So, as we might expect, opinions about the new Nick Fury seem to be polarized, but the main questions that "Chris" posed still remain: is he a stereotype? Is he "too white"? And an even bigger question: does the new version somehow subvert the spirit of the original character (a view with which Leonard Pigg would disagree), or is he an improvement on the original? If anyone's still interested in talking about it, just e-mail me at comicscape@cinescape.com. In the meantime, here are some goodies coming this week:

THIS WEEK

Looks like

Marvel is gearing up for another swimsuit-style special issue, if covers like this one done by Karl Bollers for EMMA FROST #3 is anything to go by. Looks like Pamela Sue Anderson should be the main contender for Emma's role in the next X-MEN movie, too, as that face looks awfully familiar...

Not exactly a blast from the past, unless you're someone like me who is more familiar with the original ULTRAMAN TV series from the '60s and not its latter-day incarnations...but Dark Horse is putting out ULTRAMAN TIGA #1, the first in a ten-part series. Dare I ask for a JOHNNY SOCKO series to go with that, or would that really be dating myself?

There's no escaping the Bat this week, as the BATMAN: BRUCE WAYNE - FUGITIVE, VOL. 3 trade paperback goes on sale for $12.95. Honestly, didn't we suffer enough the first time? If that's not your cup of Bat-tea, then BATMAN: DEATH AND THE MAIDENS #2, the second in the nine-part miniseries, is also shipping this week. Then there's BATMAN: LEGENDS OF THE DARK KNIGHT #171, NIGHTWING #85 for those who want to see how Dickie-boy is doing, and SUPERMAN & BATMAN: GENERATIONS III #9 for those who will buy absolutely anything with Bats

in it.

Of course, you could forego your Bat-fix for the week and buy the first issue of an exciting new six-part "hyper-pulp" miniseries called THE DEMON: DRIVEN OUT, in which Jason Blood tries to get rid of Etrigan once and for all. "Hyper-pulp"? Is that some fancy name to disguise some plan to cut costs by publishing the book on newsprint or something?

Speaking of news, the second issue in Neil Gaiman's 1602 series for Marvel also ships this week. If anyone's got an extra copy of the first issue, let me know - this title is selling like the proverbial hotcakes. Can't imagine why - especially since I haven't read the damn thing yet...

Those lucky enough to have read another number one issue last month - GEORGE R.R. MARTIN'S THE HEDGE KNIGHT - will be pleased to know that Image and Roaring Studios will be shipping the second issue of this classy adaptation of Martin's fantasy short story this week. Image is also shipping out TORSO: THE DEFINITIVE COLLECTION trade paperback for $24.95, as well as a special version of GI-JOE/TRANSFORMERS #3 with a cover done by the same artist doing THE HEDGE KNIGHT's cover, some guy named Miller. No, not that Miller...though that would be cool, wouldn't it?

The bad news is that Vertigo's only shipping one title this week. The excellent news is that it happens to be FABLES #17, which wraps up the "Storybook Love" story arc and which finds Snow White and Bigby still out in the woods together. Wouldn't that be considered bestiality, even for

a fable?

OK, OK, let's talk about something more innocent for a second, such as the POWERPUFF GIRLS special manga-sized collected editions going on sale this week, with both volumes one and two going for $6.95 each. What a bargain for me! And they're small and cute! The comics, I mean...

Kingpin's got a spider on his back - literally, if this month's cover is anything to go by - in KINGPIN #4.

And speaking of spiders, there's more Petey to love this week as both SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN #4 and ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN #46 both go on sale. And for more Ultimate excitement, there's ULTIMATE X-MEN #37. Any bets as to whether Nick Fury will look like Samuel L. when he finally visits those

titles again?

Don't know why Princess Di's on the cover of X-STATIX #13 - wasn't the "Di Another Day" storyline cancelled, after all? - but there she is. Whether she's in it or not, this is the best way to get your Milligan fix until the next issue of HUMAN TARGET comes out.

Wildstorm's rolling out GEN13 #13 this week (and no, I didn't accidentally type that twice), as well as STORMWATCH: TEAM ACHILLES #15 and the ZERO GIRL: FULL CIRCLE softcover, which collects Sam Kieth's second eponymous miniseries. Might just be worth that $17.95 you've been saving up to replace your

gramma's dentures.

Guess there's something for the reader who prefers beefcake to cheesecake this week after all... SUPERMAN: BLOOD OF MY ANCESTORS is an Elseworlds one-shot recounting the beginnings of the House of El. It also happens to feature the final work of artists Gil Kane (who also co-wrote the story) and John Buscema. Well worth the $6.95, even without the half-naked man on the cover.

Anyone who's been missing MVCreations/CrossGen Entertainment's MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE: ICONS OF EVIL one-shots is doing themselves a grave disservice - who else would take lame characters like Beast Man and Mer-Man and remake them into something genuinely cool? TRI-KLOPS gets the treatment this time out in a script written by the talented Robert Kirkman.

Why, Ms. Pym,

is that a new outfit? Sure looks that way, if the cover of AVENGERS #71 is anything to go by. And if that's not enough for you, it's still being written by the multi-talented Geoff Johns.

Geoff Johns fans can also get a double-shot of JSA action this week, as JSA #52 features new penciller Don Kramer, while JSA: STEALING THUNDER collects issue #s 32-37 of the series and features the team's epic battle with the Ultra-Humanite. You know, that ape dude. Some will already be familiar with Kramer's work from the new DR. FATE miniseries, the second issue of which also ships this week.

And finally, we get a blast from the not-so-distant past this week as THE SILVER AGE TEEN TITANS ARCHIVES hits the stands, collecting THE BRAVE & THE BOLD #s 54 and 60, SHOWCASE #59, and TEEN TITANS #1-5. Groovy, man! Far out!

Later, kids!

Comicscape is our weekly Comics column.

Questions? Comments? Let us know what you think at Comicscape@cinescape.com.