|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 25, 2021 21:16:46 GMT -5
So back in the day, if a character had to be 'killed' for big drama, it was an occasional thing, but there was often an out.... falling over a cliff and unlikely to survive.. stuck in a burning building with no escape, the classic 'off camera gunshot'... we've all read a million of them.
Then it started getting, well, more 'mass produced'. We had Secret Invasion, so that 'that was a Skrull that died' could be used for almost anyone. Characters would simply go to death and retrieve the fallen. Or sometimes there'd be no explanation at all.
I feel like (especially in the Marvel Universe).. it's hit a new milestone. Mutants are immortal, now, as long as the five exist, and it certainly wouldn't be a stretch to think if something happened to one of them they could get cloned. Tony Stark has literally invented a cure for death... he says it only works once (for now), but it's not a long walk to have that be effective immortality, too.
Since no one ever ages, and no one can die, how does that shape the future? New characters really have no place, no ant motivation to exist, in story as well as in real world terms (since who would create a great character for Marvel or DC now, when they could instead have the next Walking Dead?) They've already been telling stories with alot of these characters for 50.60, 70 years.. how many stories are really left out there? Especially since they always have to reset to standard for IP purposes.
It's no wonder top writers are using Marvel and DC as a path to write their own stuff, instead of the other way around. Is there a fix? Or do we just circle 'round the same stories until the people get sick of superhero movies and the whole thing dies?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Dec 25, 2021 21:55:03 GMT -5
The problem is, readers don't want death.
Morrison's Batman run got hit with this when Damian died. Massive outcry over the idea that Damian would stay dead, because they want to keep reading new Damian stories - clearly not realizing that death equals loss. So what happens? Damian gets brought back to life.
Now that I think of it, the same thing happened to Morrison with the Xorn-is-Magneto reveal. This character he created that became a fan favorite turned out to have never really existed at all. Again, the emotional impact of the story is the sense of loss that Morrison was able to create, and again, audience demand retconned the whole Xorn thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Dec 26, 2021 9:08:54 GMT -5
Without the possibility of real, permanent death, there is no dramatic tension. It's my single biggest gripe about modern super-hero comics.
Cei-U!
I summon the missing stakes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2021 9:27:54 GMT -5
Without the possibility of real, permanent death, there is no dramatic tension. It's my single biggest gripe about modern super-hero comics. Cei-U! I summon the missing stakes! Death isn't the only change that can create tension, and it runs deeper than lack of death in modern super-hero comics. Because everything is a product and a status quo has to be maintained, there can be no growth for characters in modern super-hero comics. There can be no consequence on the characters for the conflicts that they face that can cause the character to grow or change. They are static and stagnant. Death is only one possible consequence or change, but all of the others have been de facto removed as well. However, that is an unintended consequence of doing ongoing serialized storytelling where there can never be an ending, the primary goal is sales not storytelling, and your audience flees whenever something changes from the way it was when they first bought in. Losing lasting death is simply a result of those issues, not a cause. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2021 14:01:11 GMT -5
I was pleased that EAGLE (the 80s-90s version) often finished stories that had run their course. One strip - “Death Wish” - had a scarred adventurer called Blake Edmonds, performing dangerous stunts as he didn’t want to live anymore but considered suicide inappropriate. He became an adventurer and dated a woman, Suzi. Eventually the strip ended and that was that. Some closure was nice (I believe the character did appear again in a Rebellion strip years later).
“Computer Warrior” was another strip where a boy, Bobby Patterson, would enter his computer and play games for real, to keep something known as the Dark Forces at bay, threatening to leave the computer realm and enter our world. Eventually, that strip ended, Patterson having completed a required number of tests and freed of his responsibilities. Again, closure was nice. Would I want to be reading the strip years later, with Patterson still playing computer games for real against the Dark Forces? I’m not so sure.
On the topic of death, EAGLE did kill off characters. Doomlord, an alien (actually one of many to hold that title), died eventually after turning on humanity; his son, Enok, then became mankind’s protector. Doomlord never returned and the strip ended.
Here’s one more example: the strip “Storm Force”, about a British special ops unit taking on all sorts of threats, led by a man called John Storm, an amputee who could fit weaponry of all kinds where his arm used to be. One of his men was called Mikron, a reformed computer hacker. Eventually, Mikron died during a particularly difficult mission. Knowing that EAGLE wasn’t afraid to kill off characters, I knew that was final.
Did the original Dan Dare ever return from the dead? That version is well before my time, so I’m not so sure.
I’m not saying no British comicbook character hasn’t returned from the dead, just that there was something final about death in some British comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2021 14:11:04 GMT -5
…and your audience flees whenever something changes from the way it was when they first bought in. I would imagine that is true for the most part (I don’t doubt what you say), but, again, from my examples of British comics, I never fled when there was change. The Storm Force team I mentioned lost 3 members (one of them to death), but I never fled. One alien character turned heel and threatened mankind before being replaced by his benevolent son. Again, I never fled. I liked the change. An AI called Max in a strip called “The Thirteenth Floor” ran a tower block and used his rather psychotic mind to deal with people who threatened his tenants. Eventually, police learnt about him and shut him down. His mind was wiped and he was placed in a department store, but his old personality resurfaced and he eventually became an “agent” for MI5, assisting them with missions. I know those are only three examples, and what you describe is generally true, but I quite liked change. It shook things up. Thinking about that third example, Max continually dealing with loan sharks and burglars in his tower block became old hat eventually, so seeing him moved to a department store where he eventually assisted MI5 was a change I wholeheartedly embraced as a kid. I never mean to keep bringing wrestling analogies into posts (it’s never intentional, I swear), but when I used to mix in wrestling circles elsewhere, it seemed some people didn’t want change. More than once I saw that mindset. ”I want WWE to give their world championship to a new wrestler.” “Erm, I think WWE made a mistake doing that, I want the belt back on the old wrestler.” I think some of us do like change. I’m not on a pedestal as I’d wager a lot of people want it. As long as it’s not too extreme (subjective, I know). Couldn’t really get used to Spidey becoming a galaxy-travelling guy on a robotic horse, but moving Daredevil to the West Coast or having Sandman become a good guy were examples of times where I thought change was good. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 27, 2021 18:22:19 GMT -5
Without the possibility of real, permanent death, there is no dramatic tension. It's my single biggest gripe about modern super-hero comics. Cei-U! I summon the missing stakes! I agree with this 100%. What's the drama of a big fight if the result has no consequence? Then all you're left with is the characterization, and we all know how wildly that varies in superhero books. I think what I really want in an American shared superhero universe with manga style character growth and development. My Hero Academia ALMOST did it, but not quite. |
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Dec 27, 2021 18:42:19 GMT -5
Back in the 70s, when I was in high school, I wrote 50 episodes of a crime series. The hero's "arch enemy" got killed in spectacular fashion on the last page of the 1st story. Apart from ONE story a year-and-a-half later (which was a lengthy flashback to events before #1), he NEVER came back. But there was a running joke when characters would keep referring to how he died. His life became summed up by HOW HE DIED, not by anything that preceded it!  |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 27, 2021 19:51:06 GMT -5
Without the possibility of real, permanent death, there is no dramatic tension. It's my single biggest gripe about modern super-hero comics. Cei-U! I summon the missing stakes! So many stakes, and yet Dracula keeps coming back!  |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 27, 2021 20:19:11 GMT -5
Without the possibility of real, permanent death, there is no dramatic tension. It's my single biggest gripe about modern super-hero comics. Cei-U! I summon the missing stakes! How are we defining modern here? Like in the historical sense of 1900-Present? Because there has never once been a feeling of real, permanent death in super hero comics during that period(which is the entire history of comics as we know them). It's specifically because super hero comics were always so safe that the Death of Gwen Stacey was so shocking as unless you were a random mook, the parents of Batman or Superman or Uncle Ben you were coming back next month no worse for the wear. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 27, 2021 20:33:19 GMT -5
See, I didn't always think everyone was coming back until recently. I thought the Silver Age DC heroes were actually dead (Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, Oliver Queen)... they all had good meaningful deaths, and passed their legacy on to great new character.. they weren't needed anymore.
While it was fun to see the occasion throwback series, that was plenty. Heck, I even thought it was POSSIBLE Bruce Wayne would stay broken... after all, he's in an exo-suit in DKR. Lesser characters like Mockingbird in Marvel? Sure, why not? She had a good run, no need to come back. Sadly, that's not how it works. Even Thunderbird who was a throw away character to make a story point is back now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 27, 2021 20:37:39 GMT -5
Without the possibility of real, permanent death, there is no dramatic tension. It's my single biggest gripe about modern super-hero comics. Cei-U! I summon the missing stakes! How are we defining modern here? Like in the historical sense of 1900-Present? Because there has never once been a feeling of real, permanent death in super hero comics during that period(which is the entire history of comics as we know them). It's specifically because super hero comics were always so safe that the Death of Gwen Stacey was so shocking as unless you were a random mook, the parents of Batman or Superman or Uncle Ben you were coming back next month no worse for the wear. I wouldn't say that; growing up in the '70s, I could tell the difference between "comic-book" death and "real" death. The latter usually involved a big emotional build-up, and looked as if it was meant to stick. Fu Manchu crashes in his flying saucer? Doc Ock blows up along a nuclear power station? Joker falls off a bridge? Nah, they'll be back. But Captain Marvel dying of cancer? Pam Hawley dying during a random bombing? Norman Osborn dying impaled on his glider? Those read as if they were the real deal. But after the "real" death of Jean Grey was undone, it's as if the Hadean floodgates opened for good. It was suddenly acceptable to stage "real" deaths and undo them a few months (or very few years) later, thus leading to the utter lack of dramatic tension Kurt alluded to. Of course, part of the problem is that in the 80s it was suddenly fashionable to kill characters or destroy concepts (even in an initially permanent manner) before realizing that companies needed most of them. Is the Marvel universe more interesting without a savage land, S.H.I.E.L.D., or Spider-Woman? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 27, 2021 20:51:39 GMT -5
See, I didn't always think everyone was coming back until recently. I thought the Silver Age DC heroes were actually dead (Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, Oliver Queen)... they all had good meaningful deaths, and passed their legacy on to great new character.. they weren't needed anymore. While it was fun to see the occasion throwback series, that was plenty. Heck, I even thought it was POSSIBLE Bruce Wayne would stay broken... after all, he's in an exo-suit in DKR. Lesser characters like Mockingbird in Marvel? Sure, why not? She had a good run, no need to come back. Sadly, that's not how it works. Even Thunderbird who was a throw away character to make a story point is back now. How are we defining modern here? Like in the historical sense of 1900-Present? Because there has never once been a feeling of real, permanent death in super hero comics during that period(which is the entire history of comics as we know them). It's specifically because super hero comics were always so safe that the Death of Gwen Stacey was so shocking as unless you were a random mook, the parents of Batman or Superman or Uncle Ben you were coming back next month no worse for the wear. I wouldn't say that; growing up in the '70s, I could tell the difference between "comic-book" death and "real" death. The latter usually involved a big emotional build-up, and looked as if it was meant to stick. Fu Manchu crashes in his flying saucer? Doc Ock blows up along a nuclear power station? Joker falls off a bridge? Nah, they'll be back. But Captain Marvel dying of cancer? Pam Hawley dying during a random bombing? Norman Osborn dying impaled on his glider? Those read as if they were the real deal. But after the "real" death of Jean Grey was undone, it's as if the Hadean floodgates opened for good. It was suddenly acceptable to stage "real" deaths and undo them a few months (or very few years) later, thus leading to the utter lack of dramatic tension Kurt alluded to. Of course, part of the problem is that in the 80s it was suddenly fashionable to kill characters or destroy concepts (even in an initially permanent manner) before realizing that companies needed most of them. Is the Marvel universe more interesting without a savage land, S.H.I.E.L.D., or Spider-Woman? I don't think so. This is what I'm talking about, "deaths" like Doc Ock, Joker and Fu Manchu were way more plentiful and normalized the idea that idea of safety to the point that when other writers came along and tried to write meaningful deaths they were special specifically because such things were damned near unheard of and I don't think the ratio is any different today. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Dec 28, 2021 8:45:44 GMT -5
For me personally bringing back Aunt May after the dignified and reasonable cause; old age/disease (much like RR mentioned Capt Marvel, even though that was before my time) was really the breaking point for caring about modern comics. Death really isn't anymore different than the much hated by many gimmick covers of the 90's. Nothing more than an instrument to sell comics. Didn't Logan come back recently from being ripped in half by the Hulk?  And I don't believe for a minute it is being a serialized publication. Or even super-heroes in general. While not widely popular in America anthologies in comics prove a story can be told for the sake of telling a story. Batman LOTDK did well with this for the most part. Let a writer/artist team tell the story they want in 2, 3 or 4 issues, and no matter what happens in that story, the next team can write the story they want without have to do constant reboots, retcons, and event nonsense. But I will agree that publishers are doing what the fans want. And in a world now, where everyone has instant access to some random persons opinion, why wouldn't studios listen and give the people giving them money what they want. Look at what happened to the live action Sonic movie. Enough people complained online and the studio literally revamped the entire movie. The fans may have actually saved the movie and put more money in the studios pocket than if they hadn't listened. So i guess it's a two way street that can be both bad and good. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2021 9:24:52 GMT -5
There's a "Valhalla" concept to me for superhero comic books in general.
The characters are in never-ending adventures, and we see them stay in their prime as they move on from conflict to conflict. I'm kind of OK with that, because I read these stories for escapism, and a true character death means the end of looking forward to seeing them continue on. I have a high tolerance for somewhat recycled themes in the hands of the right creative team that can still keep things fun somehow (and you can still weave in themes of tragedy to add some pathos and gravity in spite of the "immortality" of many characters).
I would argue the use of death too many times does NOT have enough poignancy and feels like shock value for sales. An exception to what I said above being something like the Jean Grey storyline, I felt that really handled sacrifice in a meaningful way and agree with many that she should never have been resurrected.
To kill off a character because "they've been around long enough" doesn't necessarily resonate for me either. Batman was approaching 50 years of existence when Dark Knight Returns came out and set a whole new tone for the character and enduring popularity.
Also, I just want to add I'm old and still bitter over many deaths from my young reading days. Gwen Stacy, Iris West, and most horribly Aquababy. I do not feel better in life for having read those stories.
|
|
