Can someone tell me why Bendis is bothering killing people that will be brought back sooner or later?

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Fanboyimus Prime

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 4:08:17 AM9/29/04
to
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.

Samy Merchi

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 4:53:33 AM9/29/04
to
Fanboyimus Prime <xfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in

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

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 10:47:29 AM9/29/04
to
Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message news:<Xns957379896...@130.232.1.14>...

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 12:23:16 PM9/29/04
to
"Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
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 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 1:56:20 PM9/29/04
to

"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

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 6:05:59 PM9/29/04
to
Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message news:<Xns957379896...@130.232.1.14>...
> 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.

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

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 7:06:26 PM9/29/04
to

"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

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 7:51:28 PM9/29/04
to
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.

-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

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 8:01:36 PM9/29/04
to
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:06:26 GMT, "zildjean" <zild...@verizon.net>
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

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 9:00:02 PM9/29/04
to
"Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote in message news:<KfB6d.3481$7P.2...@wagner.videotron.net>...
> "Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 9:54:02 PM9/29/04
to
Fanboyimus Prime <xfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:b2rkl0tl7jdqqpsbm...@4ax.com:

You can't not do a story just because someone might undo it. That would
just make all writing futile.

Tom Brevoort

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 10:08:24 PM9/29/04
to
>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.

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

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 10:53:32 PM9/29/04
to

"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

unread,
Sep 30, 2004, 2:56:41 AM9/30/04
to
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.

> 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

unread,
Sep 30, 2004, 3:11:24 AM9/30/04
to
"Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote in

> 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

unread,
Sep 30, 2004, 4:50:30 AM9/30/04
to
Just restricting to Marvel/DC Universes: Beak, Fantomex, Noh-Varr,
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

unread,
Sep 30, 2004, 9:42:02 AM9/30/04
to
Fanboyimus Prime <xfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Sep 30, 2004, 11:58:18 AM9/30/04
to
"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.

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

unread,
Sep 30, 2004, 12:01:43 PM9/30/04
to
"Travis Hegde Coke" <valisnwo...@aol.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Sep 30, 2004, 12:06:26 PM9/30/04
to
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 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

unread,
Sep 30, 2004, 12:26:37 PM9/30/04
to
"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.

Jon J. Yeager

unread,
Sep 30, 2004, 2:44:03 PM9/30/04
to
"Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns9574C64FF...@130.232.1.14...

> "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

unread,
Sep 30, 2004, 5:23:02 PM9/30/04
to

"Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns9574682AA...@130.232.1.14...

> "Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote in
>
Maggott and Cecilia Reyes had their own fanbases.

Say it ain't so, Samy!

Samy Merchi

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 1:54:45 AM10/1/04
to
"Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote in

>> 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

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 1:57:11 AM10/1/04
to
"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.

grinningdemon

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 2:06:05 AM10/1/04
to

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

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 2:06:17 AM10/1/04
to
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.

Nathan P. Mahney

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 6:47:11 AM10/1/04
to
Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns95755BBD0...@130.232.1.14...

> "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

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 8:31:51 AM10/1/04
to
>> > 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.

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

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 4:25:18 PM10/1/04
to
Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message news:<Xns957465A9B...@130.232.1.14>...

> 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

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 8:38:43 PM10/1/04
to
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:06:26 +0100, Christian Smith
<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

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 2:03:30 AM10/2/04
to
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.

> 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

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 5:15:37 AM10/2/04
to
grinningdemon <grinni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i4srl0hl5rpgshvob...@4ax.com...

Neither is Sage technically, having been a background character in X-Men for
nigh on twenty years.

Nick Eden

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 7:36:16 AM10/2/04
to

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

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 8:18:48 AM10/2/04
to
Nick Eden <mar...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
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

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 8:29:20 AM10/2/04
to

You do know that Sage is Tessa's codename, right?

Nick Eden

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 9:43:54 AM10/2/04
to

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

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 11:21:13 AM10/2/04
to
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.

>
> > 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

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 12:16:36 PM10/2/04
to

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

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 1:12:45 PM10/2/04
to
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:16:36 -0400, lavar78 <lavar78@g[oogle]mail.com>
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

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 1:48:41 PM10/2/04
to
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.

Bob Kennedy

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 5:09:29 PM10/2/04
to
Nick Eden <mar...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<e2ctl09jmob0cntfh...@4ax.com>...

> >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

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 6:39:20 PM10/2/04
to
On 2 Oct 2004 14:09:29 -0700, arquei...@yahoo.com (Bob Kennedy)
wrote:

>> No, I didn't.

IIRC Tessa only appeared in the Smith era, after Byrne and Cockrum.

Menshevik

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 7:16:34 PM10/2/04
to
>>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).

Ralf Haring

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 8:17:41 PM10/2/04
to
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.

CleV

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 7:49:52 PM10/2/04
to
On 02 Oct 2004 23:16:34 GMT, mens...@aol.com (Menshevik) wrote:

>>>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

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 11:38:53 PM10/2/04
to

"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

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 1:38:02 AM10/3/04
to
"The Babaloughesian" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in

> 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

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 6:46:54 AM10/3/04
to
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.

>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

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 12:01:29 PM10/3/04
to
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.

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

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 12:58:44 PM10/3/04
to
"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.

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

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 12:59:32 PM10/3/04
to
"Jim Longo" <jims_gro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c44f75b.04100...@posting.google.com...
> 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.
>
> 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

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 1:12:29 PM10/3/04
to
"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.

Samy Merchi

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 1:20:21 PM10/3/04
to
jims_gro...@hotmail.com (Jim Longo) wrote on 03 loka 2004:
> 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

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 4:05:17 PM10/3/04
to

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

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 5:48:48 PM10/3/04
to
Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message news:<Xns957379896...@130.232.1.14>...
> 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

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 6:18:20 PM10/3/04
to
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:05:17 GMT, har...@SPAMBLOCK.preypacer.com (Ralf
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 1:07:21 AM10/4/04
to
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.