Nerys Myk wrote:
All those characters are "re-engineered". The Silver Age was all bout "re-engineering." Any character created before 1986 probably was "re-engineered" when it came to religion, because such thing wer not part of the characters in the 40s, 50s or even the 60s. Dave Cockrum and Len Wein had no idea Nightcrawler was a Catholic. The idea that Magneto was a Jew never crossed Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's minds.
We aren't talking about re-jiggering details about the planet Krypton, or minutiae like that. We are talking about fundamental aspects of the identity of the character.
I am definitely a more "casual" comic book reader than a majority of the people on this thread. But I really disagree with you, darkwing duck1
on this point. Several crises changed fundamental aspects of several characters. *cough* Power Girl / Super Girl *cough*. What about Superboy? That's one way the comic book publishers have of changing the status quo. Superman gets a mullet, superman gets a blue costume (I think costumes are very intrinsic to this medium - after all it's all about costumed heroes).
I am in the process of reading Essential Avengers Vol 2 and Hank Pym, in the space of this single collection (maybe 20 different issues?), has changed from Giant-Man to Goliath to Ant-Man - that is also a very specific identity question. Later on, he will even turn into a wife beater. Those are pretty closely linked to the identity of him as a comic book superhero.
What you are suggesting by limiting the discussion to only a superhero's sex, race, sexual preference & religion is limiting the life-changing experiences that superheroes get into, to a small set of items that *you* detest.
Which is fine. However, allowing other character changes and not letting people change the ones *you* don't want to is a personal preference. What I suggest we focus on is whether they did it "right" - did they handle the thing "right"? eg. did they handle a character who is now of a different race in a compelling manner or was it boring?