|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jul 15, 2014 9:05:44 GMT -5
Death has been meaningless in comics for quite awhile.They ruined death,you hear me?We had a good thing going with death.It was final and poignant and made for nice funerals where everybody turned out on a rainy afternoon and deliver speeches as the leaves swirl around. Now they hold off on the funerals for a few months to see what developes.By the time they think its safe to proceed,everyone has already made other plans.So many funeral homes have gone out of business giving refunds.
What cracked me up yesterday reading a newspaper with the article about Archie's death and a quote from some Archie Comic Exec saying how this isn't a publicity stunt.Next to it was a photo of the Special Double Sized Commemorative Issue that comes in 15 Variants.
|
|
|
Post by comicscube on Jul 15, 2014 9:10:51 GMT -5
Kind of a no-win situation, don't you think?
If they legitimately thought, let's say, that killing off Archie was the best way, narratively, to end the series, it would be kind of dumb, businesswise, to not capitalize on it. And the covers are damn pretty, at least.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 15, 2014 9:23:51 GMT -5
I think it's a common thing for comic fans to blame a story for what will eventually happen or what it will eventually mean instead of on it's own merits. Just because a death will be overturned doesn't make the story where it happens any less worth telling. It's because death is such a big part of life that the story of a beloved comic character dying can be so poignant. It's one of the only mediums where death can be explored the way it is. Comic deaths have given us some of the best stories in comic history. Ferro-Lad, the death of Superman, Supergirl and Flash in Crisis, Gwen Stacy, Captain Stacy, Superior Spider-Man, the death of Captain America, Ultimate Peter Parker. The issue following the death of Johnny Storm was some of the best emotional storytelling comics has ever done, all mostly without words I actually agree in part: it is true that any story can be moving if considered on its own terms. It depends on the skill of the creator(s) and on the reader's willing suspension of disbelief. But that's where the problem lies: with comic-book death being a revolving door, it becomes increasingly difficult to take a story as seriously as when a demise was rare and permanent. The problem is compounded by comic-books now having no continuing timeline, but some kind of moving stasis where the status quo needs to be reinstated on a regular basis. Gwen Stacy and her father died when such things almost never happened, and when a character who really died (as opposed to one who just disappeared in an explosion or a landslide) stayed dead for good. Death in comics back then was indeed pretty much like death in real life, and readers felt genuine sorrow for the loss of a Jean Grey, a Mar-Vell, or even a Karate Kid. (Or a Harry Osborn, or even, years later, a Jim Wilson). However, the reliance on the death of old characters as ways to give more weight to story lines (and the extremely frequent resurrection of said characters) has made caring a lot harder. Comic-book death, which used to be tragic, became a bother. I can't say I felt sorrow when the Wasp died at the end of Secret Invasion; my reaction was more like "all right, bring her back already since you know you're going to. Why waste time?" The need to have fresh cannon fodder also means that several good characters just vanished for no good reason. Killing Quartermain to establish Red Hulk as a badass? Ugh. Disposing of Echo, whose potential has barely been scratched? Re-ugh. I'd really wish death in comics (the death of major characters, I mean) was once again rare and permanent; rare to the point that only a truly, truly outstanding story would justify it. The death of Jean deWolffe qualifies; the first death of Phoenix as well. They're stories that we still talk about thirty years after the fact. I also wish writers would limit the killing to characters they created, as when J.M. Straczynski killed Bill in his last Thor arc. But then if wishes were horses, beggars would ride; as long as there's money to be made by advertising a comic as "the death of a major character", I doubt things will change. The readership is for the most part replaced every few years anyway so only old curmudgeons will complain.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 9:24:32 GMT -5
Every comic is theoretically supposed to be an attention-grabber right, or should be? Is death a stunt? Yes! The publisher shouldn't be afraid to admit that, just like a fan shouldn't assume that it automatically means the comic won't be entertaining to read. When did the weight of all future comics become the responsibility of the comic a fan is reading right now?
I blame the previews culture, which has placed the emphasis on what happens next over the comic you actually just paid money to read.
|
|
|
Post by comicscube on Jul 15, 2014 9:30:11 GMT -5
I was reading the Return of Barry Allen TPB (the original one, by Waid) and in the intro he flat-out says that it was the stunt that would put Flash back on the map. Even though Barry didn't actually come back in it, two characters, previously dead, did.
I try to take every story on its own and within its own context. The moment it stops working for me, the moment I start feeling that the motions are meaningless, as you do, Raider, is the moment I decide to take a step back and go read something else until the bug bites me again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 9:31:36 GMT -5
Well, the death has to be good, and in the case of the Wasp it wasn't. Blaming the common element of bad stories isn't exactly fair. It's not the element of death that creates bad stories, it's bad writing.
Feeling the loss of Jean Grey (for example) ultimately isn't as important to me as eventually getting new stories with her.
And I'm positive the death of Captain America and Ultimate Peter Parker will be just as fondly remembered 20 years from now as the ones you cited. After all, Jean came back from the death of Phoenix
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 15, 2014 9:40:33 GMT -5
Every comic is theoretically supposed to be an attention-grabber right, or should be? Is death a stunt? Yes! The publisher shouldn't be afraid to admit that, just like a fan shouldn't assume that it automatically means the comic won't be entertaining to read. When did the weight of all future comics become the responsibility of the comic a fan is reading right now? I blame the previews culture, which has placed the emphasis on what happens next over the comic you actually just paid money to read. True, things seem to be happening much faster today than when the medium was created in the '30s. (God, we'll soon have to indicate what century we're talking about!!!) I recently joked about previews of the return of Wolverine that would be available online before the issue in which he actually dies comes out. But death as a stunt comes at a price: it makes it less important. Clearly from the replies on this thread many readers don't mind, and take it all in stride as part and parcel of the medium; personally, however, I can't manage to get emotionally invested in a story or in a character if my suspension of disbelief has been removed... I just can't bring myself to care.
|
|
|
Post by comicscube on Jul 15, 2014 9:42:59 GMT -5
Every comic is theoretically supposed to be an attention-grabber right, or should be? Is death a stunt? Yes! The publisher shouldn't be afraid to admit that, just like a fan shouldn't assume that it automatically means the comic won't be entertaining to read. When did the weight of all future comics become the responsibility of the comic a fan is reading right now? I blame the previews culture, which has placed the emphasis on what happens next over the comic you actually just paid money to read. True, things seem to be happening much faster today than when the medium was created in the '30s. (God, we'll soon have to indicate what century we're talking about!!!) I recently joked about previews of the return of Wolverine that would be available online before the issue in which he actually dies comes out. But death as a stunt comes at a price: it makes it less important. Clearly from the replies on this thread many readers don't mind, and take it all in stride as part and parcel of the medium; personally, however, I can't manage to get emotionally invested in a story or in a character if my suspension of disbelief has been removed... I just can't bring myself to care. I would be with you, I think, if the death were all we were discussing. But you know, as a Dick Grayson fan, the years in which he was Batman was much more enjoyable to me than most any other Batman story, and it's not happening without Bruce's "death." Same with Bucky as Cap. Superior Spider-Man was a solid, solid series, and it wasn't happening without Peter dying. I think the trick is to focus on the surroundings around the death, rather than the death itself, if that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by travishedgecoke on Jul 15, 2014 9:47:04 GMT -5
I think, once you've been around, or on a title/in a universe long enough that stunt deaths are too stunty for you, it's probably just time to move onto something else. Leave the fourth death of Charles Xavier to readers who're green or just mark enough to invest in it emotionally.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 9:48:57 GMT -5
As long as the death makes for interesting stories, I'm all for it. And for me personally, more often than not they have.
I would agree there are certainly too many needless supporting character deaths, but ironically those are the most easy to believe in being permanent or long-lasting.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 9:50:22 GMT -5
Another example, U Go Girl is one of the most affecting deaths I've ever read, but I would kickstarter fund any movement that allowed her to come back for more stories
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Jul 15, 2014 9:52:41 GMT -5
Death in a shared universe can be pretty weird though: all the deaths in Hitman? X-statix? Even a little more mainstream title as Exiles? Those felt genuine and even if you know that people can return from the death in those universes, you know that these characters won't. Ultimate universe also has death as a more permanent than the main universe.
And then you get stuff like Loki's fate in Journey into Mystery. It acknowledges that the death and rebirth are part of comics, but it still gives meaning to this particular cycle.
|
|
|
Post by comicscube on Jul 15, 2014 9:55:44 GMT -5
Some characters just end up having that as part of their thing, you know? People have things. Spider-Man's always gonna quit and then unquit, Batman's always gonna end up pushing away his friends only to learn his lesson, Iron Man's always gonna go back to the drink, Jean Grey's always gonna die, Steve Rogers is always gonna get replaced. That's just their thing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 9:57:28 GMT -5
Death in a shared universe can be pretty weird though: all the deaths in Hitman? X-statix? Even a little more mainstream title as Exiles? Those felt genuine and even if you know that people can return from the death in those universes, you know that these characters won't. Ultimate universe also has death as a more permanent than the main universe. And then you get stuff like Loki's fate in Journey into Mystery. It acknowledges that the death and rebirth are part of comics, but it still gives meaning to this particular cycle. I guess my question is why does it have to have additional meaning beyond whether it was a good story or not? Kinda unfair to expect a comic to be entertaining and yet also have a higher purpose
|
|
|
Post by travishedgecoke on Jul 15, 2014 9:59:01 GMT -5
Half of the Marvel Universe's Earth's population has been dead at least once.
There's jumping the shark, and then there's slapping sunglasses on the shark, giving it a name, and making it a recurring character.
|
|