Dwayne McDuffie

I'm going to look at it positively. As long as it's only a temporary thing (and it almost has to be), hopefully it'll at least be some good exposure to get more people to read the book.

>>>I'm going to look at it positively. As long as it's only a temporary thing (and it almost has to be), hopefully it'll at least be some good exposure to get more people to read the book.<<<

But see, that's my whole concern...that it appears that it's not going to be temporary... based on the following..

"...intends to cancel Black Panther and reboot the series with someone new in the totemic Panther outfit."

"He has been challenged to be the Panther in the past but this time the change appears more than cosmetic. "There will be another after him," Hudlin said of T’Challa. "In the same way that he became the Black Panther because his father was assassinated and died before his time, the same could happen to T'Challa."

Marvel’s editor-in-chief, Joe Quesada, told the paper, "It was a very cool idea. Especially thinking about the legacy of the character," he says. "The fact that this is sort of a part of the Wakandan religion, and their royal family. It was a neat approach to the Black Panther, and I think it will add a wonderful twist to everything."

That dialogue doesn't bode well... and if this is truly the case, I will be really, really, pi**** at Marvel...and not a little bit at Reggie (not that they care a whit).  Like I said above, there is absolutely no consideration of this ever  happening with the icons referenced above on a permanent basis.

Edited to add...

Unless of course, Reggie fought tooth and nail.. but was forced to capitulate...  Cause his time on The Black Panther (not Pantheress!) has been great and brought forth nuances that made the character more accessible to the mainstream along with giving us starving folk much needed and tasty food to eat.

So Reggie, which is it?  Cos' if you folded like a deck a cards, then I'm calling the 'squad.'   :-L   :-)

Realize you're not at liberty to share the details, but on the real...thanks for what you brought to The Panther.  Excelsior!

Or in the language of the region...  AMANDLA!

I have to say it since it seems like no one else well. 

Aryeh and Juco with all your I'm ok with Black women in comics but why do they have to emsculate the Black Panther by having the new one a women talk are sounding a little close to all those on the net that get upset when a Black character takes the mantle of an older white hero (GL, Firestorm, Nick Fury, kingpin the daredevil movie etc)

They are having a new character stepping into the role of BP.  it happens to be a woman.  deal with it

But rebooting is just a sales tool. New #1, new character. It's all to draw in intrest. I still doubt it'll last. And they HAVE to make it sound permanent - they always do when there is a major change.

Personally, as much as I've enjoyed Reggie's run, I loved Jason Aaron and Jefte Palo's take on the character, and I'd love to see the 2 of them get another shot at the Panther.

Finally!  Controversy!  ;-)

A bit of a low blow, but I can't say that the point you raise doesn't have an element of truth attached and did make me reflect on the legitimacy of my personal reaction to the news.

Is GL important to lots of comic fans?  Sure he is. But the very nature of the GL Corps establishes that others can wear the ring.  Is Wilson Fisk?... yep... and when his character was modified in the movie I confess to being a bit disappointed...but again... an underworld figure...is an underworld figure...character modeling important but not critical from a personification aspect.

You can have a She-Hulk...but you know she's not The Hulk... you can have a Spider-Woman, but everybody knows that she can disappear as a character tomorrow and very few tears would be shed...even among female fans...cause she's not Spider-MAN.

Superman is SuperMan....Batman is BatMAN...Wolvie is testosterone personified....NONE of these characters will EVER be feminized.  Their maleness is an unalterable part of who they are.  And there's a simple reason for that.  The same is true for The Black Panther.  Or at least it should be, and would be if there was representation (with real power) in the ivory towers that had an abundance of melanin.

The character representation isn't the issue....The ICON <npi> is.  And the iconic symbol of The Black Panther is male.

And oh yeah...there's that little matter of his iconic symbolism being that of a BLACK male as well...

So yeah... the fact that Marvel is playing with that element makes this a bit more than the normal geek gripe...imo.

>>>Personally, as much as I've enjoyed Reggie's run, I loved Jason Aaron and Jefte Palo's take on the character, and I'd love to see the 2 of them get another shot at the Panther.<<<

To be sure, Mssrs Aaronand Pato's take has been interesting, but I may as well add more spice to this brew.   IMO, and with all gratitude, respect, and high props King Kirby for his creation of the character, the Black Panther did not become fully realized until Priest breathed in him.  The reason is obvious....and remains so.

And before someone begins to heat up the tar and strips some hapless chickens of their dignity, I raise the question...

When did Diana Prince really become Wonder Woman?

I am unconvinced.

The concept of the Panther throne is rooted in the <i>inevitability of succession</i>. Whoever legitimately sits atop that throne, wears that garb, is the Wakandan people's counterpart to Pope, King and President rolled into one person. And in each office's case, the inevitability of succession is a given. It is accepted that succession will happen sooner or later. Whether by election, appointment or ritual challenge won.

T'Challa is not - CAN NOT - be immune to this.

"Superman is SuperMan....Batman is BatMAN...Wolvie is testosterone personified....NONE of these characters will EVER be feminized.  Their maleness is an unalterable part of who they are.  And there's a simple reason for that.  The same is true for The Black Panther.  Or at least it should be, and would be if there was representation (with real power) in the ivory towers that had an abundance of melanin.

The character representation isn't the issue....The ICON <npi> is.  And the iconic symbol of The Black Panther is male."

ok Superman and Batman by the nature of having man in their name can't change sex (at least not without a change in the the names)

But Wolverine can easily be turned into a female if someone wanted to, just as easily as the did with Black Panther. 

And as noted up above the Black Panther is the titled of the leader of the Black Panther tribe.  the title as been passed on form person to person.

BP is like GL in a way since the story is setup where it is easy to have someone else in the suit.  it doesn't matter if it's T'Chaka, T'Challa, Killmonger, Kasper Cole or this new one, at least not in the context of the setup of the character.

Not to mention the fact that this very thing has happened at least twice in the last decade that I know of, and maybe more if you count Everett Ross' time as Regent (part of the ceremony of which actually involved him wearing the Panther costume).

And as others have pointed out, this kind of change never sticks. Superman might get replaced by a kid, a Kryptonian clone, a guy in armor and a half-robot psychopathic killer, but it all shakes out in the end. Spidey might get replaced by a clone/not-a-clone; Captain America might get killed and replaced by his cyborg former sidekick who's actually been a bloodthirsty brainwashed killer for decades. Heck, the list of first-tier characters who HAVEN'T been temporarily replaced is considerably shorter than those who have. (Of the Big Seven JLAers, the only one I can think of who hasn't had a high-profile replacement is J'onn, and I might have just missed it. Every Avenger high-profile enough to have their own book for more than five minutes has been replaced for a while.)

I'd say James Barnes is as legitimate an heir to Steve Rogers for the role of Cap as anyone, and moreso than many. I could live with that as a permanent arrangement.

As for J'Onn...M'gann M'orzz AKA "Miss Martian" may be as close as he's going to get to a temp or permanent fill-in. (Is it alright if I just refer to her as "M'gann" full-time?)

Then let me try again, DW...by using components of your own post.  >>>Whoever legitimately sits atop that throne, wears that garb, is the Wakandan people's counterpart to Pope, King and President rolled into one person.<<<

Again, I have absolutely no quarrel with the inevitability of succession...what I'm saying is that The Black Panther is, and always should be, a male icon.

Per your examples... The Pope has always been (and will always be) a male.... The role of king is, by its very definition, masculine... and this would especially be true of the succession plans for a traditional African monarchy (which speaks to another post I raised in the thread).  As in other monarchies that are defined by bloodlines, the Wakandan lineage has been framed on this model.  And in Wakanda's case, the Black Panther is King and the King is the Black Panther.  They are intrinsically and inseparably linked.

Shuri (if indeed she is to be the Black Panthress) can not be considered or accepted as the Wakandan king.  And not only would the centuries of bloodline stability be broken should she take a husband in order to bring forth the next generation, can you imagine the Panthress doing her thing in maternity gear?  Or are the Wakandan's (not to mention the world) just to call a 9 month time out to their enemies until she gives birth? 

And back to the bloodline issue, I think that it's safe to assume that a culture that is this scientifically advanced would definitely look to 'assist' nature to make sure that at least two or three of the king's progeny are male.

 "BP is like GL in a way since the story is setup where it is easy to have someone else in the suit.  it doesn't matter if it's T'Chaka, T'Challa, Killmonger, Kasper Cole or this new one, at least not in the context of the setup of the character."

Per my response to DW, it does matter.  From the standpoint of the historical framing of the character....and to the broader issue of what the character means as a symbolic representation to the fans.....especially and particularly those that look like me.

Edited to add...

>>> But Wolverine can easily be turned into a female if someone wanted to,...<<<

Sure...he could be turned into a female... but my point is that he won't be.  Ever. *   Why?  Because Wolvie fulfills the male fantasy / wish fulfillment needs too well.  Hence his 4000 titles.

*The only exception would be a 'What if one-shot'.

I'm assuming that X-23, the female Wolverine, is irrelevant to your argument because there's still a male Wolverine running around.

I understand that the character of the Black Panther is very important to you symbolically, but to my ears, "BP must ALWAYS be male" doesn't sound all that different from the statements like "Green Lantern must always be white" I used to hear.

Well, there was a throwaway line in Babylon 5 about a female pope. Personally I think Robert Silverberg's story about a robot becoming pope ("Good News from the Vatican") is more likely to happen first. "Pope" literally means father and all, but modern plumbing isn't made from lead, so....

A slightly annoying (to me, anyway) editorial style choice I've noticed is using "chair" as substiute for chairman or chairperson. Um, a chair is a piece of furniture, or the position held by a chairman. Not sure if this is just a Filipinism, though I haven't seen it in sources from other countries that I can recall. Regardless, the founding chairman of the Philippine Star was the late Betty Go-Belmonte.

...no.

I won't support the "emasculation" complaint.

You're correct.  X-23 is a non-factor in this argument..

I thought I'd addressed this point when the 'nerd' raised it, but here's a more clarified response.  First off, I'd like to think that I've represented myself up in this joint well enough to establish that I'm not only pro-woman, I'm pro-human.  My objections to this change has nothing to do with a sexist POV.  That would be stupid.

My objection stems from the fact that until quite recently (6 more days!) positive representation of Black males in American mainstream media is a fairly rare and elusive thing.  So I find it passing strange and d***** frustrating that Marvel found it necessary to feminize the (arguably) single most powerful and positive representation of a Black male (again..high props and sincere appreciation to the great Jack Kirby) in all of comicdom.  I have my suspicions as to why, but please don't try to tell me that it's to generate interest in the book or character.   T'Challa's visibility and role in the Civil War, taking over the FF during Reed and Sue's sabbatical, not to mention his ruining many a geek's fantasy sure seemed to stir up sufficient interest and controversy, wouldn't you say?

The White male comic fanbase has a veritable unlimited smorgasbord of wish fulfillment imagery to feast upon. Black males?  Not so much.  So why feminize the Black Panther?  I think I've established above as to why it doesn't ring true from a cultural and historically framed standpoint, so what's the real motivation?  Like I said, we won't ever see the predominant White male constructs (Supes, Bats and Wolvie) ever rebooted as females, so why the Panther?

It smells.  Bad.

"Personally I think Robert Silverberg's story about a robot becoming pope ("Good News from the Vatican") is more likely to happen first. "Pope" literally means father and all, ...."

Exactly.