Can someone tell me why Bendis is bothering killing people that will be brought back sooner or later?
Fanboyimus Prime
Avengers that will be back sooner or later? It seems to be a major
part of his story, yet will be nulled as soon as the dead get revived
and used by someone else.
Samy Merchi
I see it as an entirely positive thing.
This way he can kill ppl off easily, without having to worry about "OMG U
KILT MY FAVORITE CHARR I WILL NEVRSEE HIM AGAIN YOU BASTARD I WIL KILLL
YOU!!!!!1" schmucks.
And those of us who are a little more sane, can also breathe a sigh of
relief because even if our favorite characters do get killed, it's not as
permanent a thing as it was earlier in the Quesada era. I can't tell you
how pissed off I was about killing off Psylocke and Colossus. Now, if I
know ppl can be brought back again, and I can see them again in 5-10 years,
hey, no biggie. I can wait that long. It was always that 'never again' fear
that pissed me the hell off.
Resurrections are good. Resurrections prevent us from losing favorite
characters.
--
Samy Merchi | sa...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/samy | #152235689
Reader of superhero comic books, writer of superhero fanfiction
"*Astrolabe*...whirls...*twirls*!"
Mark Moore
> Fanboyimus Prime <xfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>
> > That is the one thing I can't get in his stories. Why bother killing
> > Avengers that will be back sooner or later? It seems to be a major
> > part of his story, yet will be nulled as soon as the dead get revived
> > and used by someone else.
>
> I see it as an entirely positive thing.
>
> This way he can kill ppl off easily, without having to worry about "OMG U
> KILT MY FAVORITE CHARR I WILL NEVRSEE HIM AGAIN YOU BASTARD I WIL KILLL
> YOU!!!!!1" schmucks.
>
> And those of us who are a little more sane, can also breathe a sigh of
> relief because even if our favorite characters do get killed, it's not as
> permanent a thing as it was earlier in the Quesada era. I can't tell you
> how pissed off I was about killing off Psylocke and Colossus. Now, if I
> know ppl can be brought back again, and I can see them again in 5-10 years,
> hey, no biggie. I can wait that long. It was always that 'never again' fear
> that pissed me the hell off.
>
> Resurrections are good. Resurrections prevent us from losing favorite
> characters.
Didn't Marvel do something called "The End" recently, where the dead
are supposed to remain dead?
Mark
Jon J. Yeager
> relief because even if our favorite characters do get killed, it's not as
> permanent a thing as it was earlier in the Quesada era. I can't tell you
> how pissed off I was about killing off Psylocke and Colossus. Now, if I
> know ppl can be brought back again, and I can see them again in 5-10
> years,
> hey, no biggie. I can wait that long.
5-10 years? Haha..
(All of these characters will be back within 5-10 months.)
I think the problem with not being able to leave characters dead is the
comic industry's inability to create interesting new ones to take their
place. Both Marvel and DC are still being fueled by characters created half
a century ago.
Since Marvel introduced Deadpool... have any other characters been
introduced than anyone gives a rat's ass about?
The reason old characters like Union Jack and the Whizzer could die and
remain dead (well, relatively dead) is that back then, new characters were
introduced to take their place. But could Triathlon ever replace Hawkeye or
the Black Panther? Could Silverclaw ever replace Wanda? Or Wasp? Or even
Tigra for heaven's sake?
Who's to blame for the public being completely indifferent to new
characters, all the while complaining that the old ones won't stay dead?
In a recent interview, Kurt Busiek blamed the lack of support for Triathlon
and Silverclaw on the fans' fierce loyalty to existing characters. Is that
true? Are new characters doomed to public indifference before they even hit
their first panel? Or were Triathlon and Silverclaw simply uninteresting
characters?
Were writers and artists simply better at creating new characters in the
60's and 70's than they are today? Or are we simply too attached to the old
ones to ever give new ones a fair shake?
Jon J. Yeager
"Shave Tony Stark!"
Martin Feller
"Fanboyimus Prime" <xfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2rkl0tl7jdqqpsbm...@4ax.com...
Your head was supposed to explode long ago, thus you shouldn't be able to
think about things like this.
Jim Longo
>
> > That is the one thing I can't get in his stories. Why bother killing
> > Avengers that will be back sooner or later? It seems to be a major
> > part of his story, yet will be nulled as soon as the dead get revived
> > and used by someone else.
>
> I see it as an entirely positive thing.
>
> This way he can kill ppl off easily, without having to worry about "OMG U
> KILT MY FAVORITE CHARR I WILL NEVRSEE HIM AGAIN YOU BASTARD I WIL KILLL
> YOU!!!!!1" schmucks.
>
> And those of us who are a little more sane, can also breathe a sigh of
> relief because even if our favorite characters do get killed, it's not as
> permanent a thing as it was earlier in the Quesada era. I can't tell you
> how pissed off I was about killing off Psylocke and Colossus. Now, if I
> know ppl can be brought back again, and I can see them again in 5-10 years,
> hey, no biggie. I can wait that long. It was always that 'never again' fear
> that pissed me the hell off.
>
> Resurrections are good. Resurrections prevent us from losing favorite
> characters.
Of course, not killing them in the first place also prevents us from
losing favorite characters. Given how many times Hawkeye, for
example, has left the Avengers, by modern standards, he should have
been killed off at least half a dozen times.
(I know--we'll retcon Avengers #181 to have the Falcon kill Hawkeye to
take his slot on the team!!!!!!)
And multiple deaths only serve to make them less effective when
they're used--something Bendis, Lobdell, and other writers of that ilk
haven't quite figured out yet.
I'm really JiminQueens. It's a hotmail account. Bitchslap a spammer
today.
zildjean
"Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote in message
news:KfB6d.3481$7P.2...@wagner.videotron.net...
> In a recent interview, Kurt Busiek blamed the lack of support for
> Triathlon and Silverclaw on the fans' fierce loyalty to existing
> characters. Is that true? Are new characters doomed to public indifference
> before they even hit their first panel? Or were Triathlon and Silverclaw
> simply uninteresting characters?
>
> Were writers and artists simply better at creating new characters in the
> 60's and 70's than they are today? Or are we simply too attached to the
> old ones to ever give new ones a fair shake?
>
> Jon J. Yeager
> "Shave Tony Stark!"
>
Wasn't Triathalon a redo of the 3-D man, a character created in the 80's or
90's but whose adventures were suppossed to be in the 50's?
In any event, both Trithalon and Silverclaw were pretty lame.
I was sorry to see Firestar and Justice take off from the Avengers,
presumably to make way for these two lame-o's. I know that neither had
their origins in Avengers, but weren't both created since 1990? Do they
fit your criteria? Both had remarkably twisted development before Kurt
picked them up, but her used both of them very well during his run on
Avengers.
Why'd he drop them in favor of Triathalon and Silverclaw?
Ralf Haring
wrote:
>
>Didn't Marvel do something called "The End" recently, where the dead
>are supposed to remain dead?
The "The End" books are hypothetical final stories done by creators
who are strongly associated with the character in question.
-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon
Ralf Haring
wrote:
>
>I was sorry to see Firestar and Justice take off from the Avengers,
>presumably to make way for these two lame-o's. I know that neither had
>their origins in Avengers, but weren't both created since 1990?
Firestar first appeared in the 1980s Spider-Man and his Amazing
Friends cartoon. Vance Astro first appeared in the 1970s with the
Guardians of the Galaxy.
Scott Dubin
> news:Xns957379896...@130.232.1.14...
> >
> > And those of us who are a little more sane, can also breathe a sigh of
> > relief because even if our favorite characters do get killed, it's not as
> > permanent a thing as it was earlier in the Quesada era. I can't tell you
> > how pissed off I was about killing off Psylocke and Colossus. Now, if I
> > know ppl can be brought back again, and I can see them again in 5-10
> > years,
> > hey, no biggie. I can wait that long.
>
> 5-10 years? Haha..
>
> (All of these characters will be back within 5-10 months.)
>
> I think the problem with not being able to leave characters dead is the
> comic industry's inability to create interesting new ones to take their
> place. Both Marvel and DC are still being fueled by characters created half
> a century ago.
>
> Since Marvel introduced Deadpool... have any other characters been
> introduced than anyone gives a rat's ass about?
The superhero genre has been pretty well mined. For new original
characters you might have to go to other genres, or at least other
continuities.
Dan McEwen
You can't not do a story just because someone might undo it. That would
just make all writing futile.
Tom Brevoort
>and Silverclaw on the fans' fierce loyalty to existing characters. Is that
>true? Are new characters doomed to public indifference before they even hit
>their first panel? Or were Triathlon and Silverclaw simply uninteresting
>characters?
I think it's a matter of context. I fully believe that, had Kurt instead
introduced Triathlon or Silverclaw in the pages of ASTRO CITY, people would be
interested in seeing more of them the same way they are in the rest of the AC
cast. But the expectations of AVENGERS readers were different.
Tom B
"There's three things about fans that always come out. One, they think what was
done ten years ago is better than today. Second, they express this with violent
opinions. And third, they expect you to publish for them alone."
Jim Warren
August 1, 1965
The Babaloughesian
"Mark Moore" <sailo...@naturecoast.net> wrote in message
news:48d3c1d3.04092...@posting.google.com...
"The End" is a what if set at the end of the world, IIRC (although Claremont
seems to think it's the Real Future).
Samy Merchi
> Of course, not killing them in the first place also prevents us from
> losing favorite characters.
True. However, if nobody ever 'dies', stories kind of lose an element of
suspense. Even if they don't die permanently, being 'dead' for 5-10 years,
or even just 2-5, is still quite significant in terms of character
development, and can propel things forward quite a bit.
> And multiple deaths only serve to make them less effective when
> they're used--something Bendis, Lobdell, and other writers of that ilk
> haven't quite figured out yet.
For me, at least, we aren't anywhere near the point where deaths are
overused. When I start seeing something like, a major character in a book
dying every 3-4 months or so, then I'm gonna start getting like, okay,
nobody cares anymore. But as it is, they can definitely quicken their pace
of killings (and resurrections) without overusing them in my eyes at least.
I do realize that the threshold is subjective though.
Samy Merchi
> Since Marvel introduced Deadpool... have any other characters been
> introduced than anyone gives a rat's ass about?
Anyone? Oh, tons.
Deadpool was introduced in 1991. Plenty of people care about Bishop, for
example. Marrow, Maggott and Cecilia Reyes had their own fanbases. I'm
fairly sure that Genis was created post-'91. Dallas Riordan. Jolt. Not
Charcoal though, he's the Slipstream of the Thunderbolts. Ick. Pete
Wisdom is quite popular. I cared a lot about the new White Tiger in
HEROES FOR HIRE. Jessica Jones most definitely has a fanbase. Do I need
to go on?
> In a recent interview, Kurt Busiek blamed the lack of support for
> Triathlon and Silverclaw on the fans' fierce loyalty to existing
> characters. Is that true?
It's true that when people want to read AVENGERS, they want to read about
the Avengers. Though I like Busiek's writing a lot, I must say that
Triathlon and Silverclaw were really hamfistedly obvious shoe-ins for the
Avengers. I think they might've been better received if he'd introduced
them in other books first, or perhaps as mere civilian identities for
occasional cameos, a few panels every six issues, then after 2-3 years of
that segued into bringing about their origin stories. I think right now,
they were thrust at the reader too quickly, trying to force the reader to
accept them, cramming them down the readers' throats before the readers
had had time to naturally build an acceptance and affection towards them.
> Are new characters doomed to public
> indifference before they even hit their first panel? Or were Triathlon
> and Silverclaw simply uninteresting characters?
I don't think they were any more uninteresting than the vast majority
created these days, but I do think there might have been a 'usurper'
mindset on the part of some readers at least, for those two filling two
slots on the team when the readers could've instead gotten already
estabilished fan-faves for those slots. I think it would've been better
for them to have been frequent guest-stars than bona fide members -- that
would've helped avoid the usurper objection. And let them build up reader
interest down that route, before bringing them in.
> Were writers and artists simply better at creating new characters in
> the 60's and 70's than they are today? Or are we simply too attached
> to the old ones to ever give new ones a fair shake?
Not 'better'. Just more persistent. Iron Man has been hammered at us for
400+ issues. It's no wonder people like him now. If Silverclaw got
hammererd at us for 400+ issues, she'd become popular too.
Travis Hegde Coke
Prometheus (is there a pattern here?), the leads of 'Alias' and 'Agent
X' (er... memorable to me, anyway)... were all created within the last
handful of years.
Outside of these continuities, but still in comics: Spider Jerusalem
(Transmetropolitan), Jack Frost (Invisibles), Snow (Planetary), Fanny
(Invisibles), Dragon (Savage Dragon), Goldfish (Goldfish/Jinx), and
probably more, but I don't read as much new comics at the moment and
there aren't many new characters in say, an Essential volume.
This is completely ignoring non US-produced comics. Putting aside my
own taste, any random character from Yu-Gi-Oh (and I've probably
spelled that wrong) is probably more recognizable at the moment than,
well, a lot of characters that first appeared as little
word-balloon-talking drawings, from DC or Marvel.
Nathan P. Mahney
news:b2rkl0tl7jdqqpsbm...@4ax.com...
Possibly it's a way to explain the new line-up we're getting. Everyone else
is dead!
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
Writing:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
Jon J. Yeager
news:20040929220824...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> >In a recent interview, Kurt Busiek blamed the lack of support for
> >Triathlon
>>and Silverclaw on the fans' fierce loyalty to existing characters. Is that
>>true? Are new characters doomed to public indifference before they even
>>hit
>>their first panel? Or were Triathlon and Silverclaw simply uninteresting
>>characters?
>
> I think it's a matter of context. I fully believe that, had Kurt instead
> introduced Triathlon or Silverclaw in the pages of ASTRO CITY, people
> would be
> interested in seeing more of them the same way they are in the rest of the
> AC
> cast. But the expectations of AVENGERS readers were different.
Hi Tom,
If you've read any of my other postings (and I'm going under the assumption
that you haven't), I have championed Kurt as the definitive Avengers writer.
I've been reading ever since West Coast Avengers #1, and in fact see many
similarities between Kurt and Englehart's styles in that they both allow the
characters to be more than crime-fighting superheroes. They're people too. I
think this is why WCA outsold Avengers during Englehart's run, and Kurt is
credited for bringing Avengers back from public indifference.
That being said, I think both writers also bear the same achille's heel :
creating new characters. Englehart brought us the likes of Butte and Cactus
<groan>, while Kurt gave us Triathlon and Silverclaw. In fact, Kurt made his
new creation the focal point of his storyline for a long while (during the
whole Triune arc). When you look back at it, it's not like Triathlon and
Silverclaw were introduced to us in an obscure book by an obscure writer...
they were introduced in a mainstream flagship book by a writer that had
public favor and could seemingly do no wrong by the readers, all the while
benefitting from several issues dedicated almost exclusively to hard-selling
them to us.
No one cared.
I'm not saying I could do better, but let's face facts : Astro City did not
catch on. It remains an obscure universe that only hardcore comics fans even
know exists, all these years later. The most popular of Astro City's
characters doesn't even come close to rivaling the popularity of indie
counterparts like Spawn, Witchblade, Blade or The Crow. I bought an Astro
City collection 6 or 7 years ago which I believe was created to introduce
the universe to new readers... and haven't re-read it since, nor could I
name you any single character from those pages. All I remember was the
Superman clone and the Wonder Woman clone attempting to go out on a date.
What I'm getting at is that while you have to spare these writers' egos
because you have to work with them, I don't. =) I can say loud and clear
that Kurt, like many other gifted writers, simply does not have the knack
for introducing original new characters. Or is it only Marvel that hasn't
created a character anyone has cared about since Wolverine and Gambit?
I'm certain other people here could name other characters that have been
created in the modern era that enjoy huge fan followings. But Kurt isn't
behind any of them -- Avengers or no Avengers.
Jon J. Yeager
news:a324b27a.04093...@posting.google.com...
No offense, but I have no idea who any of the characters you just named are.
I don't think the simple fact that they EXIST makes them successes. If I
don't know who they are, and I consider myself the average comic book reader
(no more or less informed than the next one), then I'd tend to put them in
the category of "meh". ;)
Christian Smith
wrote
>"Tom Brevoort" <kitc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040929220824...@mb-m06.aol.com...
>> >In a recent interview, Kurt Busiek blamed the lack of support for
>> >Triathlon
>>>and Silverclaw on the fans' fierce loyalty to existing characters. Is that
>>>true? Are new characters doomed to public indifference before they even
>>>hit
>>>their first panel? Or were Triathlon and Silverclaw simply uninteresting
>>>characters?
>>
>> I think it's a matter of context. I fully believe that, had Kurt instead
>> introduced Triathlon or Silverclaw in the pages of ASTRO CITY, people
>> would be
>> interested in seeing more of them the same way they are in the rest of the
>> AC
>> cast. But the expectations of AVENGERS readers were different.
just my two pence worth, but the last "new" characters that really
grabbed me for any reason were
(a) Thunderbolts issue 1 (the entire team) and 4 (Jolt)
(b) Sage in X-treme X-men
Christian
--
"The Dark Phoenix may have been a threat to all life in the universe...
But she had great taste in costumes." (Rachel Summers Excalibur #65)
Samy Merchi
> "Travis Hegde Coke" <valisnwo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> Outside of these continuities, but still in comics: Spider Jerusalem
>> (Transmetropolitan), Jack Frost (Invisibles), Snow (Planetary), Fanny
>> (Invisibles), Dragon (Savage Dragon), Goldfish (Goldfish/Jinx)
> No offense, but I have no idea who any of the characters you just
> named are.
> I don't think the simple fact that they EXIST makes them successes.
You're shifting your goalposts, changing your argument.
Your initial question was:
> Since Marvel introduced Deadpool... have any other characters been
> introduced than anyone gives a rat's ass about?
You gave no prerequisite about success, merely the criteria of somebody
caring about the characters. Fact is, in the last 13 years, there have been
*many* characters created that people care about. (Connor Hawke, Kyle
Rayner, Spawn, Gen13, DV8, etc etc.)
So, well, *yes*, there have been characters introduced that people give a
'rat's ass' about.
Jon J. Yeager
> "Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote in
>> "Travis Hegde Coke" <valisnwo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>>> Outside of these continuities, but still in comics: Spider Jerusalem
>>> (Transmetropolitan), Jack Frost (Invisibles), Snow (Planetary), Fanny
>>> (Invisibles), Dragon (Savage Dragon), Goldfish (Goldfish/Jinx)
>
>> No offense, but I have no idea who any of the characters you just
>> named are.
>> I don't think the simple fact that they EXIST makes them successes.
>
> You're shifting your goalposts, changing your argument.
>
> Your initial question was:
>
>> Since Marvel introduced Deadpool... have any other characters been
>> introduced than anyone gives a rat's ass about?
>
> You gave no prerequisite about success, merely the criteria of somebody
> caring about the characters. Fact is, in the last 13 years, there have
> been
> *many* characters created that people care about. (Connor Hawke, Kyle
> Rayner, Spawn, Gen13, DV8, etc etc.)
>
> So, well, *yes*, there have been characters introduced that people give a
> 'rat's ass' about.
You're one of those people I wanted to kill during the Shave Tony Stark
thread, aren't you? You know, the kind that pretends not to know what the
other person is talking about, and is simply out to prove them wrong any
which way they can?
I missed you guys. Where have you been for the past 2 months?
zildjean
Say it ain't so, Samy!
Samy Merchi
>> So, well, *yes*, there have been characters introduced that people
>> give a 'rat's ass' about.
>
> You're one of those people I wanted to kill during the Shave Tony
> Stark thread, aren't you? You know, the kind that pretends not to know
> what the other person is talking about, and is simply out to prove
> them wrong any which way they can?
Not really, no. Even at its most abstracted level, your statement basically
boils down to a thesis of 'the nineties were creatively bankrupt'. If,
indeed, this was not the core of your claim, I'd be curious to hear what
*was* the core of your claim.
And I disagree with said thesis. There was certainly a lot of drek
produced, but it's not as if there weren't shining moments as well. That's
pretty much true for most decades.
Samy Merchi
> "Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
> Maggott and Cecilia Reyes had their own fanbases.
> Say it ain't so, Samy!
Much as people like to joke about some characters (especially Maggott) I do
think that there's a sizable amount of people who liked the character(s).
I, for one, was quite fond of all three, Marrow, Maggott and Cecilia, and
found it a shame when Kelly was ousted and his characters sidelined.
grinningdemon
Triatholon and Silver Claw were just lame...sorry Kurt
The only recent inventions from Marvel that I've liked have been
Captain Marvel (the current one) and Jessica Jones in Alias
grinningdemon
Haring) wrote:
>On 29 Sep 2004 07:47:29 -0700, sailo...@naturecoast.net (Mark Moore)
>wrote:
>>
>>Didn't Marvel do something called "The End" recently, where the dead
>>are supposed to remain dead?
>
>The "The End" books are hypothetical final stories done by creators
>who are strongly associated with the character in question.
That's true about all of them except Marvel Universe: the End...that
one is in current continuity...it has been referenced, and it gave an
explanation for the "dead means dead" policy...it basically ended up
that the MU was destroyed and recreated and the new reality would not
allow people to come back from the dead.
Nathan P. Mahney
> "zildjean" <zild...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:WO_6d.3912$OX.803@trndny07:
> > "Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>
> > Maggott and Cecilia Reyes had their own fanbases.
>
> > Say it ain't so, Samy!
>
> Much as people like to joke about some characters (especially Maggott) I
do
> think that there's a sizable amount of people who liked the character(s).
>
> I, for one, was quite fond of all three, Marrow, Maggott and Cecilia, and
> found it a shame when Kelly was ousted and his characters sidelined.
Chalk me up as a fan of Maggott and Cecilia, though not Marrow. I was also
pretty miffed when Kelly and Seagle were frustrated away from the titles.
Menshevik
>>
>> > Say it ain't so, Samy!
>>
>> Much as people like to joke about some characters (especially Maggott) I
>do
>> think that there's a sizable amount of people who liked the character(s).
>>
>> I, for one, was quite fond of all three, Marrow, Maggott and Cecilia, and
>> found it a shame when Kelly was ousted and his characters sidelined.
>
>Chalk me up as a fan of Maggott and Cecilia, though not Marrow. I was also
>pretty miffed when Kelly and Seagle were frustrated away from the titles.
I thought Cecilia was an okay (but not all that remarkable) character,
was appalled by Marrow as an X-Man, and found the
shenanigans involving Maggot unnecessary (he's an Australian
Aborigine! No he's not, he's South African!)
And I breathed a sigh of relief when Seagle and Kelly left.
Tilman
"Who wants to read something about this subject will find it in a book, the
title of which I've forgotten. But it's the 42nd chapter."
Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)
Jim Longo
> jims_gro...@hotmail.com (Jim Longo) wrote in
>
> > Of course, not killing them in the first place also prevents us from
> > losing favorite characters.
>
> True. However, if nobody ever 'dies', stories kind of lose an element of
> suspense. Even if they don't die permanently, being 'dead' for 5-10 years,
> or even just 2-5, is still quite significant in terms of character
> development, and can propel things forward quite a bit.
If death or near-death is the only way to maintain the suspense, that
says more about the writer than it does about the reader. It isn't
the only possible cliffhanger, just the most obvious one.
As far as character development, I can think of two characters right
of the top of my head that were dead, are alive again, and haven't
changed one bit: Hellcat and Moondragon.
>
> > And multiple deaths only serve to make them less effective when
> > they're used--something Bendis, Lobdell, and other writers of that ilk
> > haven't quite figured out yet.
>
> For me, at least, we aren't anywhere near the point where deaths are
> overused. When I start seeing something like, a major character in a book
> dying every 3-4 months or so, then I'm gonna start getting like, okay,
> nobody cares anymore. But as it is, they can definitely quicken their pace
> of killings (and resurrections) without overusing them in my eyes at least.
>
> I do realize that the threshold is subjective though.
Yep. I think I've been reading comics a bit longer than you have.
I've seen Vibe, Steel, Terra, Ferro Lad, Invisible Kid, Karate Kid,
Chemical King, Thunderbird I, Marvel Girl, Swordsman I, Captain Marvel
I, Cypher, Wonder Man, half the Defenders, Kraven, Egghead, Green
Goblin I, Nemesis Kid, the Mutant Massacre........the list goes on and
on.
j.
grinningdemon
<chri...@jasdigital.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:58:18 -0400,"Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com>
>wrote
>
>>"Tom Brevoort" <kitc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20040929220824...@mb-m06.aol.com...
>>> >In a recent interview, Kurt Busiek blamed the lack of support for
>>> >Triathlon
>>>>and Silverclaw on the fans' fierce loyalty to existing characters. Is that
>>>>true? Are new characters doomed to public indifference before they even
>>>>hit
>>>>their first panel? Or were Triathlon and Silverclaw simply uninteresting
>>>>characters?
>>>
>>> I think it's a matter of context. I fully believe that, had Kurt instead
>>> introduced Triathlon or Silverclaw in the pages of ASTRO CITY, people
>>> would be
>>> interested in seeing more of them the same way they are in the rest of the
>>> AC
>>> cast. But the expectations of AVENGERS readers were different.
>
>just my two pence worth, but the last "new" characters that really
>grabbed me for any reason were
>(a) Thunderbolts issue 1 (the entire team) and 4 (Jolt)
>(b) Sage in X-treme X-men
>
>Christian
The Thunderbolts weren't technically new characters...except for Jolt,
who I liked early on but less and less as the series went on.
Samy Merchi
>> True. However, if nobody ever 'dies', stories kind of lose an element
>> of suspense.
> If death or near-death is the only way to maintain the suspense
Did I say it was the only way?
No.
I said it was *an* element, not *the* element.
Superhero stories where nobody ever 'dies' in the long run are, imho,
poorer for it.
> As far as character development, I can think of two characters right
> of the top of my head that were dead, are alive again, and haven't
> changed one bit: Hellcat and Moondragon.
I can think of many characters who have always been alive and haven't
changed one bit, too. Just because some writers don't develop characters,
doesn't mean all writers should be deprived of a device for doing so.
>> For me, at least, we aren't anywhere near the point where deaths are
>> overused.
>> I do realize that the threshold is subjective though.
> Yep. I think I've been reading comics a bit longer than you have.
> I've seen Vibe, Steel, Terra, Ferro Lad, Invisible Kid, Karate Kid,
> Chemical King, Thunderbird I, Marvel Girl, Swordsman I, Captain Marvel
> I, Cypher, Wonder Man, half the Defenders, Kraven, Egghead, Green
> Goblin I, Nemesis Kid, the Mutant Massacre........the list goes on and
> on.
That puts you at about 3 years longer than me. I started around the time
that Proteus and Dark Phoenix died. I wouldn't call that a meaningful
difference, no.
Nathan P. Mahney
news:i4srl0hl5rpgshvob...@4ax.com...
Neither is Sage technically, having been a background character in X-Men for
nigh on twenty years.
Nick Eden
I think a good working definition of a new character is one that's not
appeared or been referred to before. Sage certainly wasn't in the
background of early 80's X-Men. Perhaps she's been retconned into
having been hiding off panel maintaining the X-computers all that
time, but she's a new character in all the ways that count.
Nathan P. Mahney
news:1i4tl0hahvsqrs4c6...@4ax.com...
Sage is the character formerly known as Tessa. The one who worked for
Sebastian Shaw. The real retcon was the revelation that she was a mole for
Xavier.
CleV
You do know that Sage is Tessa's codename, right?
Nick Eden
No, I didn't.
So am I right in thinking that she was therefore one of the bimbo's in
basques that would hand Sebastian Shaw his cape after a fight? Still a
retcon.
Jim Longo
> jims_gro...@hotmail.com (Jim Longo) wrote in
> > Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>
> >> True. However, if nobody ever 'dies', stories kind of lose an element
> >> of suspense.
>
> > If death or near-death is the only way to maintain the suspense
>
> Did I say it was the only way?
>
> No.
>
> I said it was *an* element, not *the* element.
>
> Superhero stories where nobody ever 'dies' in the long run are, imho,
> poorer for it.
And superhero stories where characters die about as often as they
change their underwear are equally poorer for it.
>
> > As far as character development, I can think of two characters right
> > of the top of my head that were dead, are alive again, and haven't
> > changed one bit: Hellcat and Moondragon.
>
> I can think of many characters who have always been alive and haven't
> changed one bit, too. Just because some writers don't develop characters,
> doesn't mean all writers should be deprived of a device for doing so.
>
> >> For me, at least, we aren't anywhere near the point where deaths are
> >> overused.
> >> I do realize that the threshold is subjective though.
>
> > Yep. I think I've been reading comics a bit longer than you have.
> > I've seen Vibe, Steel, Terra, Ferro Lad, Invisible Kid, Karate Kid,
> > Chemical King, Thunderbird I, Marvel Girl, Swordsman I, Captain Marvel
> > I, Cypher, Wonder Man, half the Defenders, Kraven, Egghead, Green
> > Goblin I, Nemesis Kid, the Mutant Massacre........the list goes on and
> > on.
>
> That puts you at about 3 years longer than me. I started around the time
> that Proteus and Dark Phoenix died. I wouldn't call that a meaningful
> difference, no.
Probably a little longer than that, given that Ferro Lad and Invisible
Kid died in the 60s.
lavar78
She was Shaw's right-hand woman. Making her an underground operative
for Xavier is indeed a retcon, but she was still supporting character
for many years. Of course, this is a case of Claremont retconning his
own stories, so he can always claim he meant it that way the whole
time. FWIW, I remember Shan commenting on how strong-willed Tessa was
when she possessed her in NM #54.
--
lavar78
"The eyes are the window to the skull, my friend." -- Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
CleV
wrote:
>> No, I didn't.
I just re-read the TNM GN (her first *named* appearance, I believe?).
She calls Xavier "Charles", which presupposes some prior involvement -
or she would more likely have called him "Xavier". OTOH, the
exposition clearly says he doesn't trust her ...
Samy Merchi
>> Superhero stories where nobody ever 'dies' in the long run are, imho,
>> poorer for it.
> And superhero stories where characters die about as often as they
> change their underwear are equally poorer for it.
You can set up strawmen and knock them down all you like; them dying
*constantly* has never been my argument. I am merely saying that there
should be deaths every now and then.
Bob Kennedy
> >You do know that Sage is Tessa's codename, right?
>
> No, I didn't.
>
> So am I right in thinking that she was therefore one of the bimbo's in
> basques that would hand Sebastian Shaw his cape after a fight? Still a
> retcon.
You might want to go back and re-read some of those old comics. It
was clear in the Byrne/Claremont issues that Tessa had a lot more
status than the other "bimbos in basques" and had something resembling
a computer mind. Look at the New Mutants GN; when Donald Pierce, the
cyborg White King, compromised the Club's security, he was expelled
and got his ass kicked. Not on Shaw's orders, but on Tessa's. It was
also clear in this story that she was protecting Xavier's interests
within the Hellfire Club. These were all Claremont innovations in the
early 80s; it was clear from the character's introduction that
Claremont had plans for her, even if we had to wait almost 20 years to
find ut what those palns were.
CleV
wrote:
>> No, I didn't.
IIRC Tessa only appeared in the Smith era, after Byrne and Cockrum.
Menshevik
>>was clear in the Byrne/Claremont issues that Tessa had a lot more
>>status than the other "bimbos in basques" and had something resembling
>>a computer mind. Look at the New Mutants GN; when Donald Pierce, the
>>cyborg White King, compromised the Club's security, he was expelled
>>and got his ass kicked. Not on Shaw's orders, but on Tessa's. It was
>>also clear in this story that she was protecting Xavier's interests
>>within the Hellfire Club. These were all Claremont innovations in the
>>early 80s; it was clear from the character's introduction that
>>Claremont had plans for her, even if we had to wait almost 20 years to
>>find ut what those palns were.
>
>IIRC Tessa only appeared in the Smith era, after Byrne and Cockrum.
Tessa first appeared in UXM #132, during the Dark Phoenix Saga,
although at the time she was not named (that was in 1980).
She was first called Tessa in the New Mutants Graphic Novel, which
appeared in 1983 (which was around the time of the Paul Smith
run).
Ralf Haring
>
>IIRC Tessa only appeared in the Smith era, after Byrne and Cockrum.
Here's a list http://www.chronologyproject.com/t.htm#TESSA
I only did a quick scan, but it looks like they're spread around
pretty evenly.
CleV
>>>You might want to go back and re-read some of those old comics. It
>>>was clear in the Byrne/Claremont issues that Tessa had a lot more
>>>status than the other "bimbos in basques" and had something resembling
>>>a computer mind. Look at the New Mutants GN; when Donald Pierce, the
>>>cyborg White King, compromised the Club's security, he was expelled
>>>and got his ass kicked. Not on Shaw's orders, but on Tessa's. It was
>>>also clear in this story that she was protecting Xavier's interests
>>>within the Hellfire Club. These were all Claremont innovations in the
>>>early 80s; it was clear from the character's introduction that
>>>Claremont had plans for her, even if we had to wait almost 20 years to
>>>find ut what those palns were.
>>IIRC Tessa only appeared in the Smith era, after Byrne and Cockrum.
>Tessa first appeared in UXM #132, during the Dark Phoenix Saga,
>although at the time she was not named (that was in 1980).
>She was first called Tessa in the New Mutants Graphic Novel, which
>appeared in 1983 (which was around the time of the Paul Smith
>run).
Ah - I'm not sure if I have that issue.
The Babaloughesian
"Jim Longo" <jims_gro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c44f75b.04100...@posting.google.com...
> Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:<Xns95765CC73...@130.232.1.14>...
> > jims_gro...@hotmail.com (Jim Longo) wrote in
> > > Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
> >
> > >> True. However, if nobody ever 'dies', stories kind of lose an element
> > >> of suspense.
> >
> > > If death or near-death is the only way to maintain the suspense
> >
> > Did I say it was the only way?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > I said it was *an* element, not *the* element.
> >
> > Superhero stories where nobody ever 'dies' in the long run are, imho,
> > poorer for it.
>
> And superhero stories where characters die about as often as they
> change their underwear are equally poorer for it.
Only if it's the same character dying repeatedly. I'd like to see a real
"dead means dead" policy, without all these damn exceptions the current one
seems to have.
Samy Merchi
> Only if it's the same character dying repeatedly. I'd like to see a
> real "dead means dead" policy, without all these damn exceptions the
> current one seems to have.
I would hate to see one.
CleV
Haring) wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 22:39:20 GMT, clJU...@balcab.ch (CleV) wrote:
>>IIRC Tessa only appeared in the Smith era, after Byrne and Cockrum.
>Here's a list http://www.chronologyproject.com/t.htm#TESSA
>I only did a quick scan, but it looks like they're spread around
>pretty evenly.
Look at the codes again: BTS - behind the scenes in the pre-#100
issues. A bunch of Classic X-Men issues (ie retcons). Not named and
flashbacks ... Looks like the real first appearance was #151 during
the Cockrum era.
Jim Longo
> jims_gro...@hotmail.com (Jim Longo) wrote in
> > Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>
> >> Superhero stories where nobody ever 'dies' in the long run are, imho,
> >> poorer for it.
>
> > And superhero stories where characters die about as often as they
> > change their underwear are equally poorer for it.
>
> You can set up strawmen and knock them down all you like; them dying
> *constantly* has never been my argument. I am merely saying that there
> should be deaths every now and then.
Every now and then is one thing, but in the last 15 years they've been
happening with greater frequency. Let's take the Avengers as an
example.
Pre 1990 (about 30 years): Captain Marvel, Jocasta, Marrina,
Swordsman, Whizzer--5 deaths, an average of 1 every 6 years.
Post 1990 (about 15 years): Doctor Druid, Duane Freeman, Gilgamesh,
Hellcat, Jack of Hearts, Masque, Mockingbird, Moondragon,
Thunderstrike, Wonder Man, Yellowjacket II--11 deaths, an average of a
little under 1 every year.
And this isn't even counting Bendis' work, or Onslaught.
As for the "dead is dead" policy, I'd just as soon everybody from
Bucky Barnes on were restored to life. It's eventually going to
happen anyway.
Michael C. Monroe
> jims_gro...@hotmail.com (Jim Longo) wrote in
>> Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>
>>> Superhero stories where nobody ever 'dies' in the long run are, imho,
>>> poorer for it.
>
>> And superhero stories where characters die about as often as they
>> change their underwear are equally poorer for it.
>
> You can set up strawmen and knock them down all you like; them dying
> *constantly* has never been my argument. I am merely saying that there
> should be deaths every now and then.
Then what the F does this have to do with the main argument of this thread?
You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
It's like watching someone state that floods are bad, then someone like you
comes in and says rain can be good. Like, what the F does this have to do
with anything? Your kind just likes to hear themselves argue. Gives them a
sense of purpose, of belonging... I don't know what.
Bendis is not only killing people that will be brought later, but the guy he
centered a whole issue around killing (complete with big headline on the
cover, and said headline being part of all sollicitations for this issue),
will be back FIRST... to secretly help the Thunderbolts while everyone
thinks he's dead.
What the hell does "some deaths every now and then are good" have to do with
this discussion other than wanting to see your name in this thread? No one
ever said EVERYONE SHOULD BE IMMORTAL, ALL THE TIME. So why are you arguing
a point that was never made?
M.
Michael C. Monroe
> news:<Xns9576D4383...@130.232.1.14>...
>> jims_gro...@hotmail.com (Jim Longo) wrote in
>> > Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>>
>> >> Superhero stories where nobody ever 'dies' in the long run are, imho,
>> >> poorer for it.
>>
>> > And superhero stories where characters die about as often as they
>> > change their underwear are equally poorer for it.
>>
>> You can set up strawmen and knock them down all you like; them dying
>> *constantly* has never been my argument. I am merely saying that there
>> should be deaths every now and then.
>
> Every now and then is one thing, but in the last 15 years they've been
> happening with greater frequency. Let's take the Avengers as an
> example.
Jim, you're arguing with a guy who just likes to read his own name.
It's not worth it. We all know what you meant, and you are right.
M.
Samy Merchi
> What the hell does "some deaths every now and then are good" have
> to do with this discussion other than wanting to see your name in
> this thread? No one ever said EVERYONE SHOULD BE IMMORTAL, ALL
> THE TIME.
Isn't that the whole point of asking 'why is x killing people that
will be brought back sooner or later'? Since 99% of characters will be
brought back sooner or later, questioning why Bendis is killing such
people is implying disapproval of putting deaths in comics in general.
Samy Merchi
> Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>> You can set up strawmen and knock them down all you like; them
>> dying *constantly* has never been my argument. I am merely
>> saying that there should be deaths every now and then.
>
> Every now and then is one thing, but in the last 15 years they've
> been happening with greater frequency. Let's take the Avengers
> as an example.
>
> Pre 1990 (about 30 years): Captain Marvel, Jocasta, Marrina,
> Swordsman, Whizzer--5 deaths, an average of 1 every 6 years.
>
> Post 1990 (about 15 years): Doctor Druid, Duane Freeman,
> Gilgamesh, Hellcat, Jack of Hearts, Masque, Mockingbird,
> Moondragon, Thunderstrike, Wonder Man, Yellowjacket II--11
> deaths, an average of a little under 1 every year.
You're certainly underestimating the amount of deaths pre-1990
(golden memories?) for example where's Wonder Man? But yes, I'll
certainly grant that the pace has picked up of late. I just don't
feel the pace has become excessive yet. Nothing wrong with 1 a year,
for me at least. But again, as I've stated before, the exact
threshold where the amount of deaths becomes unpalatable is
subjective.
Ralf Haring
And then her only appearance in Uncanny after that while Smith was on
the book was #169. #180 and after was post-Smith. I was saying that
since her appearance she's been appearing here and there pretty
consistently, not restricted to any one period where a certain artist
was drawing the book. She didn't "only appear in the Smith era".
Bort
> Resurrections are good. Resurrections prevent us from losing favorite
> characters.
Meanwhile cheapening any heart-felt, sentimental, classic, meaningful
death scene...(e.g. norman osborn, aunt may, etc...).
Nick Eden
Haring) wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:46:54 GMT, clJU...@balcab.ch (CleV) wrote:
>>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:17:41 GMT, har...@SPAMBLOCK.preypacer.com (Ralf
>>Haring) wrote:
>>>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 22:39:20 GMT, clJU...@balcab.ch (CleV) wrote:
>>
>>>>IIRC Tessa only appeared in the Smith era, after Byrne and Cockrum.
>>
>>>Here's a list http://www.chronologyproject.com/t.htm#TESSA
>>
>>>I only did a quick scan, but it looks like they're spread around
>>>pretty evenly.
>>
>>Look at the codes again: BTS - behind the scenes in the pre-#100
>>issues. A bunch of Classic X-Men issues (ie retcons). Not named and
>>flashbacks ... Looks like the real first appearance was #151 during
>>the Cockrum era.
>
>And then her only appearance in Uncanny after that while Smith was on
>the book was #169. #180 and after was post-Smith. I was saying that
>since her appearance she's been appearing here and there pretty
>consistently, not restricted to any one period where a certain artist
>was drawing the book. She didn't "only appear in the Smith era".
I don't think he meant only in that sense.
Samy Merchi
>> Resurrections are good. Resurrections prevent us from losing
>> favorite characters.
>
> Meanwhile cheapening any heart-felt, sentimental, classic,
> meaningful death scene...(e.g. norman osborn, aunt may, etc...).
Better that than making sucky, un-sentimental, un-classic, meaningless
death scenes stick.
The Babaloughesian
> bro...@hotmail.com (Bort) wrote on 04 loka 2004:
> > Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>
> >> Resurrections are good. Resurrections prevent us from losing
> >> favorite characters.
> >
> > Meanwhile cheapening any heart-felt, sentimental, classic,
> > meaningful death scene...(e.g. norman osborn, aunt may, etc...).
>
> Better that than making sucky, un-sentimental, un-classic, meaningless
> death scenes stick.
I disagree.
Tue Sorensen
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:51:28 GMT, har...@SPAMBLOCK.preypacer.com (Ralf
> Haring) wrote:
>
> >On 29 Sep 2004 07:47:29 -0700, sailo...@naturecoast.net (Mark Moore)
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>Didn't Marvel do something called "The End" recently, where the dead
> >>are supposed to remain dead?
> >
> >The "The End" books are hypothetical final stories done by creators
> >who are strongly associated with the character in question.
>
> That's true about all of them except Marvel Universe: the End...that
> one is in current continuity...it has been referenced, and it gave an
> explanation for the "dead means dead" policy...it basically ended up
> that the MU was destroyed and recreated and the new reality would not
> allow people to come back from the dead.
But surely that has been nullified now that people (like Colossus)
*are* coming back from the dead. But then again, I never was under the
impression that anybody at all in Marvel editorial took Starlin's The
End seriously...
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> "Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
> news:Xns9576D4383...@130.232.1.14...
> > jims_gro...@hotmail.com (Jim Longo) wrote in
> >> Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>
> >>> Superhero stories where nobody ever 'dies' in the long run are, imho,
> >>> poorer for it.
>
> >> And superhero stories where characters die about as often as they
> >> change their underwear are equally poorer for it.
> >
> > You can set up strawmen and knock them down all you like; them dying
> > *constantly* has never been my argument. I am merely saying that there
> > should be deaths every now and then.
>
> Then what the F does this have to do with the main argument of this thread?
> You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Let me just interject here: That dead heroes (or even villains) are
sometimes resurrected is part of the FUN of comic books, IMO. It's a
hoot! Superheroes are so larger than life that they *shouldn't* be
definitively bound by a silly thing like death. I think that's Samy's
point, and I think it has everything to do with the main argument of
the thread.
I'm not a Bendis reader and I usually don't like the way he does
things, but in principle I don't think there's anything wrong with
killing a character and then bringing them back. Still, it has to be
done right. With the proper understanding of and sensitivity to such
situations. Unfortunately, many such stories (incl., I'm quite
convinced, Bendis') are *not* done right. If a story featuring a death
is extremely serious, for instance, like Kraven's Last Hunt, then the
dead guy should NOT be brought back (the fact that they say it's his
son doesn't matter much since he looks *exactly* like the original).
That's not funny. It ruins the original story. There are many other
examples.
But there are also examples of it being done right. Jean DeWolff was
never brought back (to my knowledge, at least). And, IIRC, the
original Captain Marvel pretty much stayed dead. OK, he went on living
inside a soul gem world, but that's so metaphysical that it's good
fun. That's how it *should* be done. This is comics. All possible and
impossible things can be played with, as long as there's some
integrity and consistency in the stories. But of course, the likes of
Bendis, Quesada and their ilk have entirely different philosophies
about these things, sadly.
- Tue
Jon J. Yeager
> "Michael C. Monroe" <as...@nospam.com> wrote on 03 loka 2004:
>
>> What the hell does "some deaths every now and then are good" have
>> to do with this discussion other than wanting to see your name in
>> this thread? No one ever said EVERYONE SHOULD BE IMMORTAL, ALL
>> THE TIME.
>
> Isn't that the whole point of asking 'why is x killing people that
> will be brought back sooner or later'? Since 99% of characters will be
> brought back sooner or later, questioning why Bendis is killing such
> people is implying disapproval of putting deaths in comics in general.
No, it doesn't. Stop putting words in people's mouthes that were never
spoken or even implied.
How many metaphors do you need to understand this? Michael gave you one. I
will give you two more : someone saying there is too much sugar in their
coffee is told that black coffee is harder to digest.
Whoever talked about black coffee? Why does not enjoying TOO MUCH sugar is
one's coffee mean that this person must like their coffee black?
If you don't like being sunburnt, does this mean you hate the daylight?
That is now 3 metaphors total. So once again, someone complaining about
Bendis killing characters left and right that won't stay dead long enough
for most people to notice is a bad thing, isn't necessarily a CONDEMNATION
OF PUTTING DEATHS IN COMICS IN GENERAL.
Jean DeWolfe, Dick Grayson...death in comics is fine. They weren't part of
mass-bludgeonings and they weren't brought back within 3 months.
Do you now understand the point of the subject of this thread?
Jon J. Yeager
"Shave Tony Stark!"
Jon J. Yeager
news:c50450f6.04100...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael C. Monroe" <as...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<2sape4F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9576D4383...@130.232.1.14...
>> > jims_gro...@hotmail.com (Jim Longo) wrote in
>> >> Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>>
>> >>> Superhero stories where nobody ever 'dies' in the long run are, imho,
>> >>> poorer for it.
>>
>> >> And superhero stories where characters die about as often as they
>> >> change their underwear are equally poorer for it.
>> >
>> > You can set up strawmen and knock them down all you like; them dying
>> > *constantly* has never been my argument. I am merely saying that there
>> > should be deaths every now and then.
>>
>> Then what the F does this have to do with the main argument of this
>> thread?
>> You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
>
> Let me just interject here: That dead heroes (or even villains) are
> sometimes resurrected is part of the FUN of comic books, IMO. It's a
> hoot! Superheroes are so larger than life that they *shouldn't* be
> definitively bound by a silly thing like death. I think that's Samy's
> point, and I think it has everything to do with the main argument of
> the thread.
Samy's point is that if we have a problem with what Bendis is doing, then we
do not agree with deaths in comics under any circumstance.
And before you tell me I misunderstood it, here he is stating so in so many
words : "Questioning why Bendis is killing such people is implying
disapproval of putting deaths in comics in general."
How can you align yourself with such a narrow-minded position, Tue?
I don't agree with uber-hyping the death of a character - complete with
ominous "one of these will DIE" headline on the cover (and all
sollicitations, need I remind you) who will be back within 6 months to a
year.
I would have much less of a problem with it if it wasn't advertised. Had
Clint "seemingly" died in the course of the story... and been brought
back... I'd be fine with it.
No one would have misled me as a buyer and loyal fan of the company.
> I'm not a Bendis reader and I usually don't like the way he does
> things, but in principle I don't think there's anything wrong with
> killing a character and then bringing them back. Still, it has to be
> done right. With the proper understanding of and sensitivity to such
> situations. Unfortunately, many such stories (incl., I'm quite
> convinced, Bendis') are *not* done right.
Then you agree with our position - not Samy's.
I think the problem here is that you read Samy putting words in people's
mouthes and you chose to respond to those (fictional) words, rather than
finding a single example anywhere of anyone implying that deaths in comics
are bad.
You're arguing a phantom debate.
grinningdemon
wrote:
That seems to be the case...and I'm happier for it...while some
characters should stay dead, some deaths are written with the
intention of bringing them back...I believe Claremont intended to
bring Psylocke back but they wouldn't let him...these are comic
books...anything goes...so why do characters have to stay dead?
Samy Merchi
> Let me just interject here: That dead heroes (or even villains)
> are sometimes resurrected is part of the FUN of comic books, IMO.
> It's a hoot! Superheroes are so larger than life that they
> *shouldn't* be definitively bound by a silly thing like death. I
> think that's Samy's point, and I think it has everything to do
> with the main argument of the thread.
You've got it in one, Tue. I don't think deaths should happen 1 in
20 years, nor do I think they should happen 1 in 1 month, but
somewhere in-between, and I think some of them (albeit a very small
minority) should be allowed to stick, while most of them IMO should
be reversed in the long term.
Ideally, those that should be allowed to stick would be ones with
great emotional significance, like Bucky Barnes, Ben Parker, Mar-
Vell, Gwen Stacy, Norman Osborn, John Proudstar, et al. However,
it's often difficult to tell which ones are such deaths, within 0-5
years of the initial death, which presents practical problems and
resultantly the ideal case may not always realize if people are in a
rush to resurrect.
> story featuring a death is extremely serious, for instance, like
> Kraven's Last Hunt, then the dead guy should NOT be brought back
> (the fact that they say it's his son doesn't matter much since he
> looks *exactly* like the original). That's not funny. It ruins
> the original story. There are many other examples.
I agree. I don't think it's unsalvageable though; Alyosha Kravinoff
can still be differentiated from Sergei Kravinoff, and some writer
who cares should take this task upon themselves, to really tackle
and define Kraven II as a different character. This would more or
less allow Last Hunt to take its rightful place as a milestgone.
> But there are also examples of it being done right. Jean DeWolff
> was never brought back (to my knowledge, at least). And, IIRC,
> the original Captain Marvel pretty much stayed dead. OK, he went
> on living inside a soul gem world, but that's so metaphysical
> that it's good fun. That's how it *should* be done. This is
> comics. All possible and impossible things can be played with, as
> long as there's some integrity and consistency in the stories.
> But of course, the likes of Bendis, Quesada and their ilk have
> entirely different philosophies about these things, sadly.
I wholeheartedly agree with your entire post, Tue.
Samy Merchi
> That is now 3 metaphors total. So once again, someone complaining
> about Bendis killing characters left and right that won't stay
> dead long enough for most people to notice is a bad thing, isn't
> necessarily a CONDEMNATION OF PUTTING DEATHS IN COMICS IN
> GENERAL.
Okay, how many characters did Bendis kill that won't stay dead long
enough for most people to notice?
> Jean DeWolfe, Dick Grayson...death in comics is fine. They
> weren't part of mass-bludgeonings and they weren't brought back
> within 3 months.
I haven't read #502 yet, but I thought the advance hype was that one
Avenger would die, not a mass-bludgeoning. Without spoiling #502 for
me with any identities of people who die, can you tell me how many
people die in the issue?
Peter Dimitriadis
: grinningdemon <grinni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4kcpl05i6bqpeeabq...@4ax.com>...
Well, technically speaking, Colossus, going by the story, came back from
the dead before The End anyway. Sure, really he was only revived a few
months ago, but within the Marvel Universe the say he's been alive almost
since he died.
This also presumably wouldn't cover people who die but 'weren't really
dead'.
Although I'd agree, they don't really take it seriously.
Peter Dimitriadis
The Unreachable Star - http://www.unreachablestar.net
Comics & Speculative Fiction News, Reviews, Opinions, and Discussion
Jon J. Yeager
> "Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote on 04 loka 2004:
>
>> That is now 3 metaphors total. So once again, someone complaining
>> about Bendis killing characters left and right that won't stay
>> dead long enough for most people to notice is a bad thing, isn't
>> necessarily a CONDEMNATION OF PUTTING DEATHS IN COMICS IN
>> GENERAL.
>
> Okay, how many characters did Bendis kill that won't stay dead long
> enough for most people to notice?
http://www.marvel.com/publishing/stories/whosnext.htm
Enjoy!
> I haven't read #502 yet, but I thought the advance hype was that one
> Avenger would die, not a mass-bludgeoning. Without spoiling #502 for
> me with any identities of people who die, can you tell me how many
> people die in the issue?
One was promised to die.
This person will be back before you know he went missing.
Why you keep turning the debate around into something you can win is
beginning to be really annoying, Samy. Nobody spoke of a mass bludgeoning in
#502 specifically. We are talking about Avengers Disassembled as a whole,
all issues and all books included.
NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WILL STAY DOWN.
Not a single one of them.
But again, you managed to tip-toe around your original foul-up. Namely, that
NOBODY SAID DEATHS IN COMICS IS BAD. These are words you put in our mouthes,
which actually urged fine posters such as Tue to defend a position that
never needed defending.
WE ALL AGREE. The only person who refuses to see it is you.
lavar78
> "Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
> news:Xns9578C720F...@130.232.1.14...
>> "Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote on 04 loka 2004:
>>
>>> That is now 3 metaphors total. So once again, someone complaining
>>> about Bendis killing characters left and right that won't stay
>>> dead long enough for most people to notice is a bad thing, isn't
>>> necessarily a CONDEMNATION OF PUTTING DEATHS IN COMICS IN
>>> GENERAL.
>>
>> Okay, how many characters did Bendis kill that won't stay dead long
>> enough for most people to notice?
>
> http://www.marvel.com/publishing/stories/whosnext.htm
>
> Enjoy!
Following that link *will* spoil Avengers #502. Don't click it if you
don't want to know.
--
lavar78
"The eyes are the window to the skull, my friend." -- Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
Jon J. Yeager
news:2004100416382543658%lavar78@googlemailcom...
> On 2004-10-04 15:28:00 -0400, "Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> said:
>
>> "Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9578C720F...@130.232.1.14...
>>> "Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote on 04 loka 2004:
>>>
>>>> That is now 3 metaphors total. So once again, someone complaining
>>>> about Bendis killing characters left and right that won't stay
>>>> dead long enough for most people to notice is a bad thing, isn't
>>>> necessarily a CONDEMNATION OF PUTTING DEATHS IN COMICS IN
>>>> GENERAL.
>>>
>>> Okay, how many characters did Bendis kill that won't stay dead long
>>> enough for most people to notice?
>>
>> http://www.marvel.com/publishing/stories/whosnext.htm
>>
>> Enjoy!
>
> Following that link *will* spoil Avengers #502. Don't click it if you
> don't want to know.
In all fairness to myself, lavar, you must concede that if one is willing to
read and actively participate in a thread called "Can someone tell me why
Bendis is bothering killing people that will be brought back sooner or
later?", then one is kind of asking for it. ;)
Samy Merchi
> NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WILL STAY DOWN.
> Not a single one of them.
Why would you want them to? Do you really hate those characters so
much?
In other words, why do you make it seem like it's such a bad thing
for them not to stay down?
> But again, you managed to tip-toe around your original foul-up.
> Namely, that NOBODY SAID DEATHS IN COMICS IS BAD. These are words
> you put in our mouthes, which actually urged fine posters such as
> Tue to defend a position that never needed defending.
> WE ALL AGREE. The only person who refuses to see it is you.
I'm not sure we're all in 100% agreement -- indeed, if we were, that
would probably be a unique happenstance in history. I don't get
annoyed by hashing out our unique perspectives and delineating our
differences, even if it is just a 10% difference and we're in 90%
agreement.
lavar78
Sorry, but I can't agree. He explicitly asked not to be spoiled. I
just assumed you made a mistake, because deliberately trying to spoil
it for him would be childish.
Carmen Williams
>
> Jean DeWolfe, Dick Grayson...death in comics is fine. They weren't part of
> mass-bludgeonings and they weren't brought back within 3 months.
...Dick Grayson? Uh, when was *he* killed?
Do you maybe mean Jason Todd?
Carmen W.
The Babaloughesian
"Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote in message
news:Pqh8d.46585$247.8...@wagner.videotron.net...
> But again, you managed to tip-toe around your original foul-up. Namely,
that
> NOBODY SAID DEATHS IN COMICS IS BAD.
I thought that was what Samy was saying.
> These are words you put in our mouthes,
> which actually urged fine posters such as Tue
LOL!
Bort
> bro...@hotmail.com (Bort) wrote on 04 loka 2004:
> > Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>
> >> Resurrections are good. Resurrections prevent us from losing
> >> favorite characters.
> >
> > Meanwhile cheapening any heart-felt, sentimental, classic,
> > meaningful death scene...(e.g. norman osborn, aunt may, etc...).
>
> Better that than making sucky, un-sentimental, un-classic, meaningless
> death scenes stick.
Well, most likely it's a bit of column A, and a bit of column B. I
mean you've got great scenes that never should have been undone such
as Aunt May's in amazing spidey #400, and then you've got ones that
even the author knows will be undone, such as hawkeye's current death.
I think one of the biggest differences is that meaningless ones are
often done for shock value...i mean bendis KNOWS hawkeye's gonna come
back, so why even bother killing him off? As i said in another post,
how long before every single character has been dead and ressurected?
Well it kind of loses its shock value at that point... Hell, it'd be
more shocking to me to make hawkeye join up with AIM for a year or
so...it would at least make a better story i'd think...but no, bendis
wants shock, and death provides an easy one, thus we're stuck with it.
Bort, disgruntled.
Samy Merchi
>> Better that than making sucky, un-sentimental, un-classic,
>> meaningless death scenes stick.
>
> Well, most likely it's a bit of column A, and a bit of column B.
> I mean you've got great scenes that never should have been undone
> such as Aunt May's in amazing spidey #400, and then you've got
> ones that even the author knows will be undone, such as hawkeye's
> current death.
Well, yes. We should have both, IMO. There's no reason, IMO, that
fiction should constrain itself to just one of those two narrative
devices. Then, it'd just become that much more predictable. Varying
between the two means you never know which it is.
Just like this kind of 'mass-killing' that some people are decrying
is something different, in my opinion, compared to cliched stories
where it's always *one* guy who dies right at the end. It's been
done so much. Why not do a story where we get a whole bunch dying at
once? After all we've really become overinundated with stories where
it's just about one person dying. In comics, we don't really have
the convention of 'Dirty Dozen' stories like that, except for the
occasional SUICIDE SQUAD type book (which was awesome in its time).
> I think one of the biggest differences is that meaningless ones
> are often done for shock value...i mean bendis KNOWS hawkeye's
> gonna come back, so why even bother killing him off?
Maybe because it serves some point in the story? After all, the
characters in the *story* don't know Clint is coming back, and the
supposed death can be used to propel Clint forward to a new phase in
his life. A fake death doesn't have to be a meaningless death: look,
for example, to Vision whose disassembly in Byrne's hands led to his
'resurrection' as the white, emotionless Vision which brought us a
whole new character arc with the character.
> in another post, how long before every single character has been
> dead and ressurected? Well it kind of loses its shock value at
> that point...
We'll worry about that when it gets to that point.
> Hell, it'd be more shocking to me to make hawkeye
> join up with AIM for a year or so...it would at least make a
> better story i'd think...but no, bendis wants shock, and death
> provides an easy one, thus we're stuck with it.
Well, we don't know much of what Bendis is going to do with Clint
post-Disassemble, so, we can't really judge whether Bendis is doing
it solely for the shock value or if there are other motivations in
as well.
CleV
>>In a recent interview, Kurt Busiek blamed the lack of support for Triathlon
>>and Silverclaw on the fans' fierce loyalty to existing characters. Is that
>>true? Are new characters doomed to public indifference before they even hit
>>their first panel? Or were Triathlon and Silverclaw simply uninteresting
>>characters?
>I think it's a matter of context. I fully believe that, had Kurt instead
>introduced Triathlon or Silverclaw in the pages of ASTRO CITY, people would be
>interested in seeing more of them the same way they are in the rest of the AC
>cast. But the expectations of AVENGERS readers were different.
Well, I really liked Silverclaw, but it seemed nothing was ever done
with her.
Jon J. Yeager
> "Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote on 04 loka 2004:
>
>> NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WILL STAY DOWN.
>> Not a single one of them.
>
> Why would you want them to? Do you really hate those characters so
> much?
>
> In other words, why do you make it seem like it's such a bad thing
> for them not to stay down?
That's it. I give up and call troll.
Jon J. Yeager
"Gwen may have been a hot commodity when she was just a pretty corpse, but
she's damaged goods after sleeping with Osbourne." -lavar78
Jon J. Yeager
> On 2004-10-04 17:04:02 -0400, "Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> said:
>
>> "lavar78" <lavar78@g[oogle]mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2004100416382543658%lavar78@googlemailcom...
>>>
>>> don't want to know.
>>
>> In all fairness to myself, lavar, you must concede that if one is willing
>> to read and actively participate in a thread called "Can someone tell me
>> why Bendis is bothering killing people that will be brought back sooner
>> or later?", then one is kind of asking for it. ;)
>
> Sorry, but I can't agree. He explicitly asked not to be spoiled. I just
> assumed you made a mistake, because deliberately trying to spoil it for
> him would be childish.
Deliberately spoiling something, I'd have put it in the subject line.
It was indeed a slip. Even if I am now leaning towards the theory that he is
trolling us.
- Jon J. Yeager
"Gwen may have been a hot commodity when
she was just a pretty corpse, but she's damaged
goods after sleeping with Osbourne." (lavar78)
Jon J. Yeager
news:7de82793.04100...@posting.google.com...
Sorry. Jason. Right. The one Joker killed in the desert after fans called in
the death sentence.
(All those Robins... they all look the same!)
Jon J. Yeager
> bro...@hotmail.com (Bort) wrote on 05 loka 2004:
>>
>> I think one of the biggest differences is that meaningless ones
>> are often done for shock value...i mean bendis KNOWS hawkeye's
>> gonna come back, so why even bother killing him off?
>
> Maybe because it serves some point in the story? After all, the
> characters in the *story* don't know Clint is coming back, and the
> supposed death can be used to propel Clint forward to a new phase in
> his life. A fake death doesn't have to be a meaningless death: look,
> for example, to Vision whose disassembly in Byrne's hands led to his
> 'resurrection' as the white, emotionless Vision which brought us a
> whole new character arc with the character.
Anyone who can say with a straight face that Hawkeye's death (I didn't spoil
it, lavar - Bort did!) served a meaningful purpose to the story is obviously
trolling us for replies.
Either that, or is somehow related to Bendis.
>> in another post, how long before every single character has been
>> dead and ressurected? Well it kind of loses its shock value at
>> that point...
>
> We'll worry about that when it gets to that point.
IT HAS gotten to that point.
Have you not read the outcries regarding this pointless death?
When exactly do you consider it "that point"?
I would say the near-unanymous reaction to the death more than fucking
qualifies this as "that point".
> Well, we don't know much of what Bendis is going to do with Clint
> post-Disassemble, so, we can't really judge whether Bendis is doing
> it solely for the shock value or if there are other motivations in
> as well.
Bendis has NO plans for Hawkeye post-Disassembled. It will be Fabian and
Kurt's problem to find a way to bring him back in the pages of the new
Thunderbolts without making Bendis look TOO bad. But my guess is that
neither Fabe or Kurt are very impressed with Bendis' handling of the
character, and they won't be going TOO far out of their way to make Bendis
look brilliant.
I bet he just gets up and dusts debris off himself.
That's what I would do if I was annoyed with another writer killing off my
favorite one in such a pointless way.
Samy Merchi
> Anyone who can say with a straight face that Hawkeye's death (I
> didn't spoil it, lavar - Bort did!) served a meaningful purpose
> to the story is obviously trolling us for replies.
> Either that, or is somehow related to Bendis.
I'm sorry you're so closed-minded.
>>> in another post, how long before every single character has
>>> been dead and ressurected? Well it kind of loses its shock
>>> value at that point...
>>
>> We'll worry about that when it gets to that point.
>
> IT HAS gotten to that point.
Not for me.
> When exactly do you consider it "that point"?
When a character dying doesn't rouse Usenet threads and doesn't have
marketing value anymore.
The fact that it now does both, kind of *proves* that it still has
shock value.
> Bendis has NO plans for Hawkeye post-Disassembled. It will be
> Fabian and Kurt's problem to find a way to bring him back in the
> pages of the new Thunderbolts without making Bendis look TOO bad.
> But my guess is that neither Fabe or Kurt are very impressed with
> Bendis' handling of the character, and they won't be going TOO
> far out of their way to make Bendis look brilliant.
Your guess.
Jon J. Yeager
>
>>>> in another post, how long before every single character has
>>>> been dead and ressurected? Well it kind of loses its shock
>>>> value at that point...
>>>
>>> We'll worry about that when it gets to that point.
>>
>> IT HAS gotten to that point.
>
> Not for me.
>
>> When exactly do you consider it "that point"?
>
> When a character dying doesn't rouse Usenet threads and doesn't have
> marketing value anymore.
>
> The fact that it now does both, kind of *proves* that it still has
> shock value.
Are you really buying your own kool-aid, Samy?
What shock value is there in a death that is announced on the cover,
mentioned in all sollicitations, turns out to be the only one of the
possible candidates who actually shows up in the book, and whose death is
guaranteed to be reversed in the pages of the upcoming Thunderbolts series?
If by "shock-value" you mean the shock that a writer could write something
this bad and hype a temporary twisted ankle as a *DEATH*... then yes, the
shock-value is still there.
And I'm betting there is more shock to come and this wraps up.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Causing an uproar on a flagship
book is EASY. Austen caused one. I couldn't call it a good thing that people
were at least talking about it. Put that same writer on an unknown book and
I guarantee no one reacts.
They react because it's the Avengers Bendis is screwing with right now. Not
because the death in question was masterfully executed.
Samy Merchi
>>> When exactly do you consider it "that point"?
>>
>> When a character dying doesn't rouse Usenet threads and doesn't
>> have marketing value anymore.
>> The fact that it now does both, kind of *proves* that it still
>> has shock value.
> Are you really buying your own kool-aid, Samy?
I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion.
> What shock value is there in a death that is announced on the
> cover, mentioned in all sollicitations, turns out to be the only
> one of the possible candidates who actually shows up in the book,
> and whose death is guaranteed to be reversed in the pages of the
> upcoming Thunderbolts series?
Apparently, a lot. People are talking, no? It certainly doesn't seem
to be something that people are indifferent towards.
> If by "shock-value" you mean the shock that a writer could write
> something this bad and hype a temporary twisted ankle as a
> *DEATH*... then yes, the shock-value is still there.
> And I'm betting there is more shock to come and this wraps up.
Which is what I'm saying.
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Causing an uproar on
> a flagship book is EASY. Austen caused one. I couldn't call it a
> good thing that people were at least talking about it. Put that
> same writer on an unknown book and I guarantee no one reacts.
Well, people aren't interested in reading how Joe Blow dies and
comes back. People might very well be interested in reading how
Hawkeye dies and comes back. I know I am.
> They react because it's the Avengers Bendis is screwing with
> right now. Not because the death in question was masterfully
> executed.
I don't know if it's masterfully executed or not, since I haven't
read it yet, but that's irrelevant to my point which is that I, and
I believe many others, can still enjoy a story about a death and
shortly subsequent resurrection, and the story isn't made
objectively bad by such a narrative device.
Heck, Jesus was killed and then brought back in three days, and
that's one of the more popular stories in world history.
Jon J. Yeager
[...jaw dropping on floor in disbelief...]
Dude, I give up. You win. All our base are belong to you.
Bort
Damnit, Samy, why do your arguments always have to be so sound, and
also so respectful so that i can't make a dissenting, spiteful reply?
;)
Bort
> "Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
> news:Xns9579552A5...@130.232.1.14...
> > bro...@hotmail.com (Bort) wrote on 05 loka 2004:
> >>
> >> I think one of the biggest differences is that meaningless ones
> >> are often done for shock value...i mean bendis KNOWS hawkeye's
> >> gonna come back, so why even bother killing him off?
> >
> > Maybe because it serves some point in the story? After all, the
> > characters in the *story* don't know Clint is coming back, and the
> > supposed death can be used to propel Clint forward to a new phase in
> > his life. A fake death doesn't have to be a meaningless death: look,
> > for example, to Vision whose disassembly in Byrne's hands led to his
> > 'resurrection' as the white, emotionless Vision which brought us a
> > whole new character arc with the character.
>
> Anyone who can say with a straight face that Hawkeye's death (I didn't spoil
> it, lavar - Bort did!) served a meaningful purpose to the story is obviously
> trolling us for replies.
>
Oops, my apologies if i forgot spoiler space...
Michael C. Monroe
news:4f3bc8fb.04100...@posting.google.com...
>
> Damnit, Samy, why do your arguments always have to be so sound, and
> also so respectful so that i can't make a dissenting, spiteful reply?
They are sound because they are in response to comments that were never
made, and exist only in his head.
If I were debating comments no one ever made, odds are I'd be on the winning
side of that debate.