Legacy stories are new territory for Marvel Comics. I think they feel 'new' and 'fresh' when writers pitch them. It's a lot at once, that's for sure- but I can't fault good storytelling. Seriously, who would have thought that mind-swapping Dr. Octopus and Peter Parker would have been such a success? You have to let writers try.

I won't say these are motivated by diversity goals and money, because writers develop these stories, and if they're not writing for their own passion for the story, they wouldn't be writing them. There's more diversity in comic creators now, and that may be reflected in writers wanting characters that reflect their experiences. Besides, I don't think these make bank like so many speculate.

At the end of the day, like any storyline, some work for you and others don't. I love the X-Men, but at any given time I'm reading only 1 book with a mutant in it. I jump titles based on the rosters, writers, and artists. I can appreciate Forge and Magik and Emma Frost and the Young X-Men, but ultimately, I want to read about Nightcrawler, Colossus, and Shadowcat. Some Iron Man fans only want to read about Tony Stark- and obviously this new book is not for them. Others want to read about young heroines, and may buy an Iron Man book for the first time.

There is a small voice in the back of my head saying "you should be bothered by the Iron Man thing", but common sense tells me I shouldn't be outraged. Like some have said, legacy can be awesome for storytelling, but that's not really what's happening with Iron Man.

I do believe that embracing diversity is necessary for the overall health of everyone, and comic companies are finally starting to pick up on that. I can't remember where, but I have read some pretty compelling arguments on how there isn't much of an organic way to inject diversity into old stories like the ones we're so familiar within Sometimes you just have to jump in head first.

With Tony, legacy really hasn't been that important, which is kind of funny because he has a line that says otherwise in one of the movies. If this Riri character is pretty cool, I'll be happy. There's no way Tony Stark will never be Iron Man again, and I can wait if this turns out to be a flop idea. And if it's successful and Tony gets written out of comics forever, then I've got a pretty great headcanon anyway.

Echoing this sort of sentiment, Superior Spider-Man had me buying a monthly Spider-Man title for the first time ever.

Ironically, Kamala Khan and baby mama Spider-Woman are two of the freshest books in my mind, and constitute about half of my monthly comic purchases. These stories are exploring new territory for superhero books and don't rely on monthly gimmicks to keep the story alive. I've handed both of these books to people who have never read a superhero comic book and hooked them. In a deluge of meaningless events and shock plots, these books feel meaningful.

Inhumans, on the other hand, were pushed into the limelight against their best interest, without a plot, and despite my love for them I can't muster the desire to keep spending money on their books. They are doing what many here are asking: introducing new characters rather than using the names of the old to carry them. It's completely uninteresting, because the core of what makes an Inhumans story is destroyed. They aren't an isolated people. They don't have a completely foreign society. There's no Royal Family intrigue. And perhaps most fatally, the Inhumans had a distinct lack of enemies to toss at the newbies.

I won't say that's because of choosing to introduce their characters as completely new, but it's indicative of the problem they're dodging with the legacy format: people don't have preexisting attachment to carry them through the rough patches. An Iron Man fan may miss Tony under the armor, but they still want to know what happens to the Iron Man family. A Captain America fan may not care for Sam Cap, but there was a Winter Soldier plot happening and now he's facing Baron Zemo and that's a fight they're curious to see play out. Spider-Man can safely take some time off because when Miles Morales takes up his title and battles Hobgoblin while New York slowly falls under the control of a newly-powerful Carnage, that plot is exciting regardless of who the hero is.

To sum up, good stories are good stories.

i agree with this 100% i couldn't have said it better my self i have no problem with them making new characters but i don't like them changing the old one's.

Legacy characters should be ret conned.

I keep seeing this and I don't understand where this idea comes from. Yes, Marvel's current trend is replacing brand-name heroes with new identities, but legacy heroes have always been strong in Marvel. The Big Three Avengers and Spider-Man have all had someone else in the costume before.

How many non-starters were debuted in the 80s and 90s? In today's comic book market, do you really think they could put a new character with a new name on the shelf and get it into the hands of new readers?

Runaways was one of the best 'completely new' books of the last 20 years. And yet the characters struggle even now to find a niche. Their book was cancelled. Their movie was cancelled. Nico now generically fills the mystical role on an Avengers spinoff team. The last time she was written true to her character was Avengers Arena, which only made it to the shelves by tossing Avengers in the title for no reason. Where are Karolina, Molly, and Xavin? Why are Chase and Victor dissociated with their former teammates, who I have to believe are still in rough shape and in need of homes? It's because more people are reading meaningless Civil War sidebooks and the 6 Deadpool titles than the sleeper hit with no star power.

A new character needs to be marketed to reach an audience. And while my wife still laments Kamala taking someone else's name rather than developing her own identity, the truth is we wouldn't have an ongoing book starring Kamala without that legacy title.

Yes, they have. But when compared to DC, Marvel has barely scratched the surface. For one, many of those stories were poorly written (Thunderstrike? Ben Reilly?) They were done to 'spice up' a perceived 'lame alter ego'. Why did Donald Blake get replaced by another white guy with a blonde beard? Because Donald got boring? Why did Peter get replaced with a clone of himself? Because Ben could date? They hardly changed the status quo. Only Iron Man/James Rhodes was really a change, and not just because he was black.

You misspelled Racist.

seriously. Why mention Sam Wilson becoming Captain America? he's not a NEW character.

Along the same lines, you don't mention Jane Foster as Thor or even more pertinently you don't mention Nadia Pym, the new Wasp??

seems like your complaint is a lot more about characters of color than about new versions of characters. Comics is all about legacy. the same old stuff get's boring, sales wither. Marvel recognizes that there are people out there reading comics that aren't white, male, heterosexual, cisgender, christian etc. etc. and instead of the same old usual junk they are creating new characters, that maybe a 5 year old getting into comics can look at and say "hey, she's just like me!" Representation is important, and just because not all comics represent you, it doesn't mean it's a bad thing. It just means the world is diverse, and we aren't all the same.

We either embrace this kind of change, or we become the problem.....

I am sorta, but it's more about the conception of the character than the race/gender/name.

I like Captain Marvel (Fawcett version) to be a grown man who a kid summons, not a kid in a grown-up body. I like Creeper sane, but pretending to be insane. I like Wolverine as mentally unstable and a bad team player more than as a wise old sage.

I don't really care when they introduce a new character, as long as they don't crap all over the old one to do it.

I know I enjoy the classics more than the changes.

My opinion. When you treat super hero personas like an appointed office, each character/ regime/ administration holding the title of "Ironman" for a short term, you make the title of "Ironman" more important than any individual that has held the position.

In other words, By changing who Ironman is, they are making anyone who was Ironman less important, because anyone can be Ironman.

Seems counter productive to put emphasis on the current Ironman being a black woman when next year it could be anyone else.

This style of hero can have a great impact when done right. V for Vendetta was supposed to a movement instead of any one individual. But Superheroes are generally not a movement. They are given a backstory and the individual character behind the mask is given importance. Brings it back round circle to the beginning of my post, this type of hero swap brings less importance to the hero behind the mask.

Yep, this. And, again, I've read numerous story arcs in which writers crapped all over characters without having introduced a new one.

I prefer the classic characters so I guess I am a classicist. I don't mind some of the changes that have been done to characters over the years. But Marvel seems to have almost no idea of how to do it. Their rush to change all of their Headliner characters has turned me off on most of there books.

I want my Steve Rogers Cap, Donald Blake Thor, Peter Parker Spider-Man and so on. Carol Danvers has been one of my favorite Marvel heroes since she was introduced in 1976/77. Her changes over the years have been fine and promoting her to Captain Marvel was a good choice for her. But at the same time I felt Marvel seriously sold out by immediately bringing out a new Ms Marvel. It cheapen Carol's promotion and made me wonder if this was Disney's decision to make Marvel more politically correct. Do I like the new Ms Marvel, NO. Do I read her book, NO. Does she belong ..... Yes.

Not everyone who is a main hero has to be white. Marvel is just doing what they think is best to sell more books. My biggest complaint on how Marvel is trying to reinvent themselves, is too many changes at once.

In the latest Spider-Man cartoon series I do like how they changed Miles Morales into Arachnid Kid while leaving Peter Parker as Spider-Man.

I like how DC has done it over the years. My favorite DC character is Dick Grayson. Since 1940 he has been Robin, Nightwing, Batman, Nightwing, Agent 37 and now his is back to Nightwing for a 3rd time. Some of the changes were so gradual that it made no difference and they shown the character grow as he changed.

The Green Lantern of Sector 2814 has changed and diversified while increased to 6 people now from Earth. Hal, Guy and Kyle are white, John is black, Simon is arabic, and Jessica is hispanic. I have no problem with that since we still have all of the others ring slinging somewhere in the galaxy. I also happen to like Jessica Cruz as the newest GL.

Marvel on the other hand seems to be throwing the characters who helped the company grow from 1960-2010 to the side and not care about them. Do I care about Riri taking over for Tony Stark as Iron Man, no. But I do want to find out why he is possible leaving the armor for good but besides that I doubt I will read it. I'm not a big Iron Man fan anyhow.

Yeah, now that Marvel has done this for a dozen major characters in a few years, it rides that line for me too. Particular when it's not done well. I enjoy the Samuel L. Jackson-inspired Nick Fury, but not the putrid, convoluted way they brought "Jr." into the 616.

Was he required to be comprehensive? He rattled off arguably Marvel's top three characters, but you're on him for not including a lower profile character like the Wasp. Riri Williams is the one trending on Facebook, not Nadia Pym, who's taking the name of a character who has been dead for eight years.