Comic Pants Podcast #10 (11-24-06)
Episode number ten of the Comic Pants podcast is now live. Nick Budd, Randy Lander, David Martindale and Dave Farabee start with some “viewer mail” that kicks off a discussion on crossovers, continuity, legacy characters, the superhero icons and character death, as well as a few other related tangents.
As always, commentary is welcomed and encouraged. Let us know what you thought of the podcast, give us your thoughts on the various topics discussed, and if you’ve got suggestions for future podcast topics, leave us a comment! And listeners who write in could win cool comics every week! Please drop us a line at comicpantsfeedback@gmail.com to give us some questions or comments for the next show.
Use the podcast feed buttons on the sidebar to subscribe, listen via the flash player below, or directly download the MP3 here:
Interesting podcast guys! And under the hour which I also think is a good thing.
I have some remarks about it though. You talked about the death of characters and came to the conclussion that if a death isn’t heroic it is a bad death. I don’t entirely agree on that point because for me it all stands of falls with writing (I’ve to say I nearly missed all the bad death you mentioned).
If a character is just killed and nobody talks about it anymore that’s just lame. The consequences of a death should make it heroic (the hunt, fight and bringing to justice of the killer) and not necessarily the death if you get what I’m trying to say here.
Some characters just deserve a heroic death if only it is because of the powers they have. For example you only can kill Superman in a fight with a extremly powerful villian. He’s to strong to be killed by a small villian and this right away explains the ‘randomness’ in these deaths. As a villian always kill the weaker one first because you then don’t have to worry about him anymore (at least I would if I was a villian :)). And if Superman was killed and Superboy wasn’t this means that Superboy was smarter/strong/or whatever than Superman in this fight. This means that he should fill in the void that was left behind by the death over Superman.
This also brings us to the point of the aging of superheroes. I would love to see this happening in the books. Not only do I think this will keep the books fresh, it also gives you new takes on the character and also on the persons/pupils of the character that will succeed him.
There are only a few problems with this. The first is that new readers expect something from a book when they pick it up. You get yourself a comic of Superman expecting Clark Kent and you get someone completely different. You might scare new readers off.
And the second problem is of how fast a superhero should age. Should this be realtime, which is kinda problematic if a comic stops with a cliffhanger in the middle of a fight (altough this can easily be solved by jumping foward in time after completing an arc). But this would also mean that for some real changes you maybe have to read a book 10-15 years, which is a long time for most readers
So I’m not entirely sure if this could work in a comic book. But it sure would be cool to read a entire run of Superman and see all the changes he’s gone through.
24 Nov 2006 at 6:40 am
QuoteI was struck by something Dave said, and how it applies to a lot of these arguments. When discussiong Morrison’s X-Men run, Dave said the characterization of Cyclops was “wrong.” Not, “I didn’t care for his characterization.” Just “wrong.” AT the same time, Randy loves the characterization.
Well, there you go. Can’t please everybody.
At the heart of it all, these arguments (character death, the importance of continuity) are about as important as “Who would win in a fight between Thor and Superman.” No two fans are going to agree 100%. There is no baseline. The right and wrong in this can’t be measured. For everybody who loves Grant Morrison’s run on X-Men, for example, there will just as many fans who think he damn-near destroyed the franchise. Best for the writers to do their job and TELL GOOD STORIES. Really, screw the rules.
But c’mon, somebody out there cares that Quasar died? You gotta be joking!
24 Nov 2006 at 8:33 am
QuoteNice words. Very iconoclastic. But no good here. Thing is, franchise-based stories follow different rules from other stories. There’s doubtless a great story to be told with a gay James Bond, for instance, or a Mickey Mouse who sinks into depression, or a Battlestar Galactica where the universe is as teeming with aliens as Star Trek - but none of these things will happen outside of fanfic because both the property-owners and the audience for the most part recognize that familiarity and reliability are important elements to franchises. Might sound boring as dirt when you come out and say it that way (”LOVE that reliability!”), but it’s the truth. And within the strictures outlined in series’ bibles, of course, there’s still lots of wiggle room. Some properties accomodate different visions better than others - Batman was great in the 90s animated series, also great as a nutso old man in the R-rated Dark Knight. Disney characters like Mickey and Donald, on the other hand, are pretty much the same lamers now as they were in the 40s. But it’s worked for them. In fact, one could probably argue persuasively that their stability is what’s given them numbers that comics would kill for. Parents can rely on Mickey to be kid-safe, but the same can’t be said for Spider-Man comics. Ironically, Spidey does great in the MOVIES where a more classical, general audiences vibe is the norm.
Me, I’m all for great stories, but when we’re talking franchises, great stories also comes with an added responsibility on the creators’ part to show fidelity to the core of the characters and the tone of their past stories. That’s the discipline of working a franchise. Ask anyone who ever wrote a Star Trek novel. And again…there’s wiggle room (Miller’s Daredevil revamp comes to mind), but you can’t just say, “Just write GOOD!” Not unless you’d be cool with Buffy having been written in iambic pentameter from season 3 onward. ‘Cause who knows? Done right, that could be great! But would it be “Buffy”?
24 Nov 2006 at 1:26 pm
QuoteYou’re a big liar-pants, Nate.
I just went back to give the relevant portion a listen, and I never said the word “wrong” even once (unless the topic came up a second time and I forgot it). I said it felt like Morrison had changed the character to suit his own style and said Morrison didn’t always show respect for what had come before, but that’s a pretty good ways off from “WRONG.”
You and your nutty smear campaigns!
24 Nov 2006 at 5:00 pm
QuoteNate said:
AT the same time, Randy loves the characterization.
And I never said I *loved* the characterization. I said that I thought it was the best we’d seen in a while, but then again, the character hasn’t been written well since about the ’80s. Kinda crashes your point when both of your examples are wrong.
Well, there you go. Can’t please everybody.
and
Best for the writers to do their job and TELL GOOD STORIES. Really, screw the rules.
Well… that’s hard to argue with, because it’s about as general as you can get. Really, are you going to tell a mechanic “just do your job and FIX THE ENGINE!” I mean, you can, but it doesn’t really indicate an understanding of the process. Yes, that’s the general goal, but it does nothing to illustrate the tools and processes used to accomplish that goal. Seriously, if there’s a writer working on DC/Marvel superheroes and the extent of their thought about the genre and its trappings is “TELL GOOD STORIES,” then I’d probably like them to stop.
At the heart of it all, these arguments (character death, the importance of continuity) are about as important as “Who would win in a fight between Thor and Superman.”
Well, yeah… we’re not solving the crisis in the Middle East here. This is a comic book website and a comic book podcast.
But c’mon, somebody out there cares that Quasar died? You gotta be joking!
Every character is somebody’s favorite, and most characters have something to offer in the hands of the right writer. Why off a character, whether you think he’s stupid or not, unless there’s a point to it? Seriously, did Clor blowing up Black Goliath make that a better story? Did the death of Ant-Man raise the stakes of Avengers: Disassembled? Or was it just cheap shock tactics, writers trying to pretend there are going to be real consequences for the whole universe by killing off B- and C-listers that only a few readers care about?
Jofo said:
I have some remarks about it though. You talked about the death of characters and came to the conclusion that if a death isn’t heroic it is a bad death. I don’t entirely agree on that point because for me it all stands of falls with writing (I’ve to say I nearly missed all the bad death you mentioned).
Hmm… you’re probably right. It doesn’t necessarily need to be heroic… but it does have to have a point. If the death further motivates characters in new ways, if it serves to raise the stakes or give a sense of real danger, if it makes a point about how unfair death could be, I’ll agree that it doesn’t have to be heroic. For example, in the movie SERENITY (*spoiler warning*), one of my favorite characters is killed off in what can only be called a random act of violence. I hated losing that character. But… the death happens at the end of a harrowing sequence, when it looks like they’re all safe, and serves as a bridge into the “last stand” style of the movie.
The death of Wash served three purposes:
1) Since it came right as it seemed they had succeeded, it was a big shocker, and got an emotional response from the audience.
2) Since he was a major character, it served notice that anyone was potentially toast. Seriously, for a while I actually thought the movie was headed into a “Butch and Sundance” kind of ending. You can’t get that kind of feeling without sacrificing a major character.
3) His death was a major change for Zoe, his wife, and had the series continued into sequels, would no doubt have had major characterization effects on her and the rest of the crew.
Had it been only one of those things, I probably wouldn’t have been as willing to accept it. But since his death accomplished so much, story-wise, I couldn’t really feel too bad about losing a favorite character.
Very few deaths in Marvel and DC are thought through to this degree, and their shared universe has much more longevity than the Firefly/Serenity franchise and needs the structural integrity more.
Some characters just deserve a heroic death if only it is because of the powers they have.
I would argue that it’s not just the powers they have, though. I mean, Aquaman’s powers are relatively lame, and most people aren’t huge fans of the character. I’m not, for example. But if he’d been killed off as casually as Pantha and Wildebeest in Infinite Crisis, fans would have gone apeshit, and for good reason. He’s a major player in the universe, and his heroic nature and role in the superheroic pantheon of DC earns him a modicum of respect.
Is it super-realistic? No. But “realism” shouldn’t be the end goal for a superhero universe. In fact, in general, I’ll say that actual realism (as opposed to the faux-realism introduced by Stan Lee that gave Marvel a lot of its early distinctive flavor) is poison for superhero comics. At least, those in a shared universe. Introducing realism begs the reader to start analyzing everything in terms of reality. And suddenly the underpinnings of the universe, from heroes not killing because it’s the right thing to do to how on Earth Nightwing can be a grown man and Batman is only 5 years older than when he started, are weakened.
But it sure would be cool to read a entire run of Superman and see all the changes he’s gone through.
I have to say, I kind of think Marvel and DC both missed an opportunity with the Ultimate and All-Star lines. These books aren’t as tied to the iconic nature of the characters, they’re for newer fans and serve as a different flavor. Rather than just reintroducing “Ultimized” characters (as X-Men and Spidey have more or less been reduced to), why not make bigger changes in the universe, let the characters age and grow? It’s something you can’t do for the mainstream universes, for a variety of reasons, some of which Jofo talks about, some of which we talked about in the podcast, but it’s a lot easier in a newer universe like the Ultimate or All-Star line.
24 Nov 2006 at 5:40 pm
QuoteBut c’mon, somebody out there cares that Quasar died? You gotta be joking!
Nate, you wound me! : ) I am one of those poor souls who…Well, I won’t go into details on what I did when the horrible moment actually came, but I was mighty ticked off to see Quasar bite the big one. Still, like Dave and Randy have said, his death isn’t going to stick. And we know that for a fact since he’s getting a mini of his own at some point (at least, I think this is true).
24 Nov 2006 at 10:54 pm
QuoteSorry about the second ID. The password to my main is at work, and not accessable from home.
Ouch! I have been out-snarked!
Oops! You’re right, you didn’t say that about the Cyclops characterization. It was the lack of respect thing, and I misheard it as I began typing. This is what I get for going after coherent thoughts while I should be working. Sorry about that. And to you too, Randy, for the misquote.
And the “Tell Good Stories” rule does apply. That’s a writer’s job and responsibility before any other. Your better writers know what rules to bend, break, or discard in order to service a good story. Your examples are damn good. What did they toss from the previous versions of Battlestar Galactica or Buffy in order to tell a good story? The Bond series has been known to play fast and loose with its own continuity, too.
True, there’s abalance between telling a good story and servicing the demands of the comics universe, the fans, continuity, and a zillion other factors. That’s a damn shame, too. I’d be more than happy to see more of books like All Star Superman, where the emphasis is more on story than continuity.
And okay, fine. I take the Quasar thing back. I didn’t even know he’d died. When the hell did that happen, anyway? Let me guess, big crossover? Randy, your Wash’s death example is a good one in terms of serving the needs of a story. No, I don’t think we need cheap shock tactis by way of c-lister death (or even Hawkeye’s death). I’m not sure the phrase “cheap shock tactics” applies, however, when the death involved is in no way shocking. Really, was there anything shocking about Goliath of the 2nd (3rd, 4th?) Antman? Of course not. Blah. Of course Marvel isn’t going to kill off any of their major franchise players, but I suppose killing nobodies is a good way to find some level of realism in the thoroughly realistic tale of superheroes fighting each other because of Government Regulation. If nothing else, I’m irked they killed off almost all the New Warriors when their last series was mediocre at best (my opinion, that’s all). See? I get bent out of shape over useless death, too? Please don’t put me back in my box!
Just a question… Did anybody die in Secret Wars or Secret Wars II? I can’t recall anybody, and those were arguably the best-selling Marvel crossovers of all time. How the times have changed. I blame Quentin Tarantino.
25 Nov 2006 at 1:40 am
QuoteOh, and just to add (because I think I sound like a jerk above)…
25 Nov 2006 at 1:47 am
QuoteRandy said:
I mean, Aquaman’s powers are relatively lame, and most people aren’t huge fans of the character. I’m not, for example. But if he’d been killed off as casually as Pantha and Wildebeest in Infinite Crisis, fans would have gone apeshit, and for good reason.
First off I’ve to say that I’ve never read an Aquaman comic, and probably never will, and actually I don’t really know what his powers are but there has to be some reason why he’s still alive?
Is it super-realistic? No. But “realism” shouldn’t be the end goal for a superhero universe.
True! It probably also isn’t realistic that people can fly. But I think I enjoy more the more realistic stories that are told with superheroes.
I have to say, I kind of think Marvel and DC both missed an opportunity with the Ultimate and All-Star lines.
For now I don’t think you can compare the Ultimate line to the All-Star line. Maybe built on the same principle but from the All-Star line only one issues comes out every 2 months while from Ultimate Spider-Man you get 2 comics in one month
Being USM one of my favorite comics (ignoring the clone saga at the moment) I kinda hope that Peter will get out of highschool at some point and go to college or do something else. I don’t want to get the book repetitive at some point. Or don’t you think that Marvel will do this with USM?
25 Nov 2006 at 7:25 pm
QuoteHmm, obviously the [i] tags don’t work
Maybe the wrong place to ask but what tags can be used when typing a reply?
25 Nov 2006 at 7:28 pm
QuoteThe tags work, but the [] brackets don’t. You need to use “< " and ">” brackets instead. I went ahead and edited your earlier post to get the italics in.
25 Nov 2006 at 8:59 pm
QuoteJofo writes:
For now I don’t think you can compare the Ultimate line to the All-Star line. Maybe built on the same principle but from the All-Star line only one issues comes out every 2 months while from Ultimate Spider-Man you get 2 comics in one month
Sure, they’re definitely two different things. But it seems clear that All Star is, in many respects, DC’s answer to the Ultimate line. Unfortunately, it’s kind of a lame answer, since All-Star Batman blows and runs remarkably late and All-Star Superman is really a book all its own, rather than anything that could be considered the flagship of a line.
And I say that as someone with little to no interest left in the Ultimate line and as a diehard fan of All-Star Superman. But when you look at the success in terms of branding and launching a line, Marvel wins this round.
Being USM one of my favorite comics (ignoring the clone saga at the moment) I kinda hope that Peter will get out of highschool at some point and go to college or do something else. I don’t want to get the book repetitive at some point. Or don’t you think that Marvel will do this with USM?
I believe that Bendis has said something to the effect of Peter Parker being in high school for as long as he’s writing the title. The general goal seems to be a relatively static status quo, which to me seems antithetical to the general purpose of the Ultimate line.
25 Nov 2006 at 9:01 pm
QuoteNate said:
Ouch! I have been out-snarked!
You totally got snark-served.
And the “Tell Good Stories” rule does apply. That’s a writer’s job and responsibility before any other. Your better writers know what rules to bend, break, or discard in order to service a good story.
Well, sure… my point, though, is that this should basically be an unspoken rule. The rules that need talking about are the ones where there’s a lot more variance of opinion, such as continuity, character consistency, shared universe and genre stuff like that. I mean, you’re not gonna find any writers disagreeing and saying “No, I think I should tell bad stories!”
True, there’s a balance between telling a good story and servicing the demands of the comics universe, the fans, continuity, and a zillion other factors. That’s a damn shame, too. I’d be more than happy to see more of books like All Star Superman, where the emphasis is more on story than continuity.
Sure… but not every book can be All Star Superman. Even in a perfect world where every creator is as good and perfectly matched as Morrison and Quitely, some characters and books demand a more continuity-intensive approach. The X-Men, for example. Half the fun of the X-Men is the soap opera, the continuing subplots. Self-contained stories with the X-Men would lose something. Plenty of characters work well in that format. I think Superman is at his best in a non-continuity style book, and probably Batman is too. In fact, it’s probably common across DC. But the Marvel books, which have always played up the continuity of stories and the relationships between the characters, have to rely on continuity to some extent for their power. Spidey’s story is more meaningful because of what happened to Gwen Stacy, or what happened to his Uncle Ben, etc.
And okay, fine. I take the Quasar thing back. I didn’t even know he’d died. When the hell did that happen, anyway? Let me guess, big crossover?
You got it. Part of Annihilation, but it seems like it’s pretty much one of these “he’s dead, but he’ll be back by the end of the series” things.
No, I don’t think we need cheap shock tactis by way of c-lister death (or even Hawkeye’s death). I’m not sure the phrase “cheap shock tactics” applies, however, when the death involved is in no way shocking. Really, was there anything shocking about Goliath of the 2nd (3rd, 4th?) Antman? Of course not. Blah.
See, but that’s part of my point. It’s cheap precisely because we all know that it’s either not going to have a lasting effect, or it’s basically just getting rid of a character that very few people cared about anyway? What’s the point, other than to rob a few fans of a character who someone else might have written a good story with? It’s killing characters because you can get away with it, not because it advances the story or says anything about the characters. Which is cheap and lazy. I guess the shock tactics part of it is my shock that lazy writers continue to rely on it as a crutch.
Of course Marvel isn’t going to kill off any of their major franchise players, but I suppose killing nobodies is a good way to find some level of realism in the thoroughly realistic tale of superheroes fighting each other because of Government Regulation.
I’m not sure, but… you’re being sarcastic here, right? I mean, is the Civil War premise really realistic? It seems to lack internal logic or realistic motivations, at the very least. The basic premise, that the government might try to regulate superhuman behavior, is maybe realistic and sound, but the execution has been as over-the-top and unrealistic as most of Millar’s work.
If nothing else, I’m irked they killed off almost all the New Warriors when their last series was mediocre at best (my opinion, that’s all). See? I get bent out of shape over useless death, too? Please don’t put me back in my box!
You didn’t like the Wells/Young mini, huh? I liked it, although it’s not my preferred take on the characters, which is a bit more straightforward in general. One thing we can agree on, though.. killing off the Warriors was definitely useless.
Just a question… Did anybody die in Secret Wars or Secret Wars II? I can’t recall anybody, and those were arguably the best-selling Marvel crossovers of all time.
You know, I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head. There were changes as a result of Secret Wars, including Spidey’s black costume, She-Hulk joining the FF in Thing’s place, shake-ups in the Avengers and plenty more, but no deaths. I mean, the Beyonder died in Secret Wars II, but he was basically created by Jim Shooter for Secret Wars, so it made perfect sense for him to die, and Shooter had every right to kill off his own creation, certainly. And I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that *nobody’s* favorite character was Jeri-Curl action Beyonder.
25 Nov 2006 at 9:17 pm
QuoteOh, yeah. I was totally benig sarcastic about the realism in Civil War.
As far as the New Warrios mini, I kinda liked it at first, but I had a bad taste in my mouth by the time it was over. I’m not really sure why. Just something didn’t sit right with me.
25 Nov 2006 at 9:39 pm
QuoteRandy, I was going to talk about Wash in “Serenity”, but you’ve stolen my thunder. Guess I should be quicker on the listen. I actually had a problem with his death the first time. I was so dumbstruck that I had problems paying attention to the rest of the movie. I was angry and stuff. Very negative fanboy moment. Second viewing smoothed it out tho.
Randy, you mentioned liking non-canon stories for your DC Icons. I am in strong agreement with that. And I haven’t even been reading them for very long. Didn’t take me long to see that the best Batman stories aren’t in ‘Tec or Batman (at least, before Dini’s start on ‘Tec). When I started reading comics 4 years ago, I had this whole list of Batman minis to blow through.. Loeb/Sale and Frank Miller.. imagine that’s your first exposure to the character in comics. I couldn’t get into any of his monthlies after reading that stuff.
The letter that this podcast was structured around, confused genre & medium. It’s a tiny thing, but a pet peeve, i suppose. Comics have more to offer than superheroes. I know you all know that, just sending it to the ether.
It leads to a conflict hovering over many of this week’s topics: adults wanting sophsticated superhero stories. It’s difficult for my brain to empathize. I mean, I like the sophsticated stories I get.. Kingdom Come, DKR, DareDevil.. but I’m not about to demand that of genre. I have plenty of sources for sophsticated comics… like nearly every other publisher (and imprint) out there.
*Sophsticated here is a stand in for the concept of stories with nuance and themes greater than good punches evil. Stories of satire, love, death, liberty, whatever. Stuff that my nephew wouldn’t pick up on. I’m prolly gonna lose on this point, but whatever…
26 Nov 2006 at 1:26 am
QuoteRight there with you, and I think Arkham Asylum’s maybe a good book to bring up in service to the point. There’s a book rife with experimental story structure, complex psychoanalysis, sexual subtext, and multilayered symbology. I’ve actually come to enjoy it quite a bit as a weird-ass artifact (especially with the new edition featuring all of Morrison’s notes), but mostly I think of it as the most overwrought Batman story in existence.
It begs the question: “Is a Batman comic really the best place to go to for deep human insight?” I gotta go with a big, honkin’ NO. It’s a place to maybe dabble in such things, but ultimately Batman is a mechanism for escapist adventure. Detours along the way are fine, but go too far and you risk getting lost. I tend to think the guys who did Batman: The Animated Series in the 90s had the best persistent vision of the character we’ve seen in modern times.
Ultimately, I guess they had it easy, though: they only had to do stories for three or four years, while the comic guys have been keeping Batman running for decades upon decades. Therein lies the true difficulty. And it’s only gotten tougher since the direct market arose in the 70s, both saving the industry and marginalizing it. The shift away from newstands and convenience stores lost the kiddie audience, but found a relatively loyal adult audience. Problem was, the adult audience didn’t cycle out for a new generation every five or six years as was the case when the readership was primarily kids. So for the first time, you had readers who’d read every single Avengers story for the last decade or even longer. Of COURSE they got bored with the same ol’, same ol’! What concept could stand up to the rigors of hundreds of stories on end? The Simpsons? Have you SEEN how bad that show’s gotten?
Anyway, it’s tough. My own method of weathering all the varied solutions the biz comes up with is to only ever commit to superhero titles on occasion, even favorites. For instance, I was a big X-Men geek as a kid, but as an adult, while I’ve peeked in on the franchise occasionally, the only serious committment I made was during Morrison’s run. And when it was over (thank god it got an ending, even a weak one) I was able to break away and go back to dabbling. Still waiting for someone great to pick up the torch (and unfortunately, it looks like Brubaker won’t be that guy).
Likewise, the only new Spidey books I’ve really bought in the last decade or so are standalone projects like Spider-Man/Human Torch from Dan Slott and Negative Exposure from Brian Vaughan. The only Daredevil is from Bendis and Brubaker. It can still be frustrating, because even during relatively isolated runs you might still have stories suffering from crossovers, and it hurts when a run like Morrison’s New X-Men gets immediately jettisoned upon completion, but it seems to give me my fix.
26 Nov 2006 at 2:19 am
QuoteAnother good podcast. Even though I read very few superhero comics anymore there were some points I thought were really good that were brought up. Civil War making more sense in the Ultimate universe and using the Ultimate line to really shake things up like the characters aging were two things I’d never thought of that really make sense. One of the things I’ve noticed about comics with myself is, in almost all cases, the longer a book goes the less interest I have in it. Whether this is just my own flaw or not, I was really into the Ultimate universe when I started reading comics around five or six years ago. The titles hadn’t been going for more than a year or two and I really enjoyed most of them. Now I could care less about anything except The Ultimates. When Bendis brought in the Clone Saga in USM, all I could think was why was this line ever created? And I agree with character death being pointless, since they bring everyone back. It’s never going to be dead-is-dead, so why bother?
27 Nov 2006 at 11:28 am
QuoteTim.agen wrote:
Randy, I was going to talk about Wash in “Serenity”, but you’ve stolen my thunder. Guess I should be quicker on the listen. I actually had a problem with his death the first time. I was so dumbstruck that I had problems paying attention to the rest of the movie. I was angry and stuff. Very negative fanboy moment. Second viewing smoothed it out tho.
I had a pretty negative reaction as well, but… at that point, the movie had hooked me, and I was willing to forgive it, and as I thought about it more, I realized how effective it was as a death. I’d rather they had killed Simon or River, who I don’t like as much, but it wouldn’t have had the same effect.
Honestly, I was more annoyed that they killed Shepherd Book. There was a lot of story left in that character, and his death served mostly to motivate Mal, so it didn’t have the layers of depth that Wash did. But even then, it’s more of a “Why’d they have to kill such a great character?” then “Jeez, that’s just lazy writing” which is a contrast to how I usually feel when I see deaths in superhero comics these days.
When I started reading comics 4 years ago, I had this whole list of Batman minis to blow through.. Loeb/Sale and Frank Miller.. imagine that’s your first exposure to the character in comics. I couldn’t get into any of his monthlies after reading that stuff.
Yeah, that’d definitely be rough. My exposure to Batman was through BATMAN and DETECTIVE in the early ’90s, when Alan Grant, Peter Milligan and Chuck Dixon were doing a lot of the writing, and so it was solid, continuity-based storytelling. I still have some slight fondness for that work, enough that it has survived several purges of my comics collection but not enough that I’ve ever gone back to reread it. The Batman stuff I reread is basically DKR, Year One, a few of the Elseworlds… miniseries and OGN stuff.
*Sophsticated here is a stand in for the concept of stories with nuance and themes greater than good punches evil. Stories of satire, love, death, liberty, whatever. Stuff that my nephew wouldn’t pick up on. I’m prolly gonna lose on this point, but whatever…
Well, I think you’ve lost in the larger market, but you won’t find much argument here. I know both Dave and I are generally bemoaning that the average comic is not at all friendly to anyone under a teenage age, and probably won’t hold much interest to those below college age. Most superheroes don’t benefit from that kind of sophistication, honestly. It starts raising lots of questions about the sillier underpinnings of the genre.
27 Nov 2006 at 1:12 pm
QuoteOn Death.
That swashbuckling death early in “Fables” was thrilling. I suppose he could be considered a villian in that story too, but he wasn’t killed by the nicest of fellows (he wasn’t at that time). A few issues later there’s another death. It’s brutal and wonderful. Good guys kill her something fierce (so does a semi truck, actually).
“The Walking Dead” — I can’t even recount the deaths. Some are of slight impact because we know so little of the character dieing, but it usually has some impact on another character (say the farmer and his sons). We’ve lost some big chars throughout.. and I’ve enjoyed the story very much. I like not knowing if Rick is going to survive the next issue.
Both those examples are from books coming from a single writer.
Swinging a little closer to the topic, the big death in “Runaways” this year (it was this year, right? I’m in trades). The biggest problem with that is that I was spoiled before I got there. But I still think it was a great story and can hardly wait to see it’s impact on [Character] as the series progresses.
I almost forgot about the death in “Runaways” vol1! That was a great story too! Those closing moments, the impact on the other kids throughout vol2.. all played out really well I though. Really well.
of course.. single writer still.
So maybe it just stinks to have 40 writers over 40 years telling stories.
27 Nov 2006 at 2:28 pm
QuoteTim,
A good list, and I generally agree with you. The Walking Dead deaths don’t always have the impact they should, as I sometimes get the feeling that Kirkman thinks we know all these characters better than we do, and so we don’t have an emotional connection to whoever gets killed. But the death early on when a zombie attack comes while the whole group is joking around near the campers was a shocker, and a good one that resonated throughout the group.
The Fables death is another good example, as it was both a surprise, spun the story in new ways and had the guts to take out what was at the time a major character.
Runaways… I dunno. At the time, both deaths were well-written, but I think that the overall effect has been to weaken the story instead of strengthen it. From a story point of view, though, the first one especially accomplished almost as much as Wash’s death in Serenity. It served notice that no one was safe, it made a big status quo change and it affected all the characters. But I felt the loss of that character fairly deeply. Of course, if Serenity had continued on in movies or another show, I suspect I would have felt the loss of Wash as well.
So maybe death is at its best when it comes near the conclusion of a story, rather than in the middle or the end.
And I think you’re definitely right about the number of hands involved. Just the nature of corporate comics, everyone wants to make their mark and will have a least-favorite character that they’ll kill off or change, and everyone coming in might have a favorite character they want to bring back.
Hell, I’m no different. If I was put on Avengers tomorrow, I’d be bringing back Hawkeye and Scott Lang (Ant-Man) in the first couple of issues and pretty much jettisoning Bendis’ line-up. There’s an overpowering temptation to “fix” what has been done, and I can see why most writers can’t resist it.
It’s the rare writer who can try to work with what was done and move forward rather than simply writing in a reset button. Kurt Busiek is pretty good at that kind of thing, as he showed respect to all eras of Avengers when he wrote the book. Geoff Johns used to be more in that school of writing as well, although his newer stuff, from the early days of ramping up to Infinite Crisis to present day, is more in line with the “reconfigure as I feel like” mode favored by guys like Bendis, Whedon and Straczynski.
27 Nov 2006 at 3:56 pm
QuoteI love this thread!
A few folks have said it before, but I’ll agree restate, that I think it comes down to the quality of the story. I do not think that there should be limits put on whether characters can or should be killed off or if characters can or should be brought back to life. If it is a requirement for the story and it is a good story, then I am not opposed to it.
That could mean that it is a random senseless death or a noble heroic death. Either one can work under the right circumstances.
What I dislike seeing are deaths that satisfy either of the two following criteria:
1) Deaths intended soley to shock the reader. (The Millar specialty)
2) Deaths intended to make the storyline “important” (The Bendis specialty)
*urgh*
I’m pretty fine with the character coming back to life afterwards. I think it works best if it is done by the same writer and is integral to the story arc of the character. For instance, DD’s death in the middle of Born Again is a good example. It was pretty obvious that they weren’t going to kill the title character and the story was called “Born Again”, but the death doesn’t feel cheap. And it only lasted a few pages!
I do dislike another writer immediately bringing a character back to life just to reverse another writer’s stories. Although, like Randy, I can certainly see the appeal.
I also think that death is just one example of how asking how much change should there be in a serial, continuity-based shared universe? Ageing, death, marriage, graduation, births, etc. One of the key items in “Telling a good story” (or so they taught me in HS) was that the characters should go through change or growth during the story. But in a serial comic, too much growth will sooner or later result in a character that bears little resemblance to the key concept that they were based on.
I love the Runaways stories, but I think they are on or past the brink of too much change. They undergone significant change over volume 1 to volume 2 and even the core of what they are running away from has been modified. Into Whedon’s run, I fear it will start to become, “What do we run away from now - parent’s, adulthood, responsibility, Starwars Episode I, etc.” It starts to become silly.
The only ways to “fix” too much change seem to be either continuity resets, awkward storylines reversing changes, ignoring continuity or legacy heroes replacing the changed hero. All of those leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I’d rather (and here is where everyone will disagree with me) live through some of them evey few years than having the writers hampered to not including change in their stories. I think having stories with only an “illusion of change” across the shared universes is worse than having to go in a “fix” the continuity from time to time.
27 Nov 2006 at 9:33 pm
QuoteTodd writes:
A few folks have said it before, but I’ll agree restate, that I think it comes down to the quality of the story. I do not think that there should be limits put on whether characters can or should be killed off or if characters can or should be brought back to life. If it is a requirement for the story and it is a good story, then I am not opposed to it.
True, but the problem is, everybody thinks the quality of their storytelling is up to it. There needs to be some kind of gatekeeper in editorial who backstops the creators and says “Wait… why is this death here? What does it accomplish?” Instead, it seems like the editorial vision at both DC and Marvel these days is “Who can you kill or maim in this story for shock value? Here, we’ll give you a list of characters you can kill!” You’ll note the stories circulating about how the rape of Sue Dibny in Identity Crisis was editorially mandated… or how Bendis was given a list of which characters he could kill for Avengers Disassembled.
Someone should be providing the voice of the universe that these guys are supposed to be caretaking. “OK, you’re going to subtract this character. What does this subtraction add?” If the answer is “It makes the story look more important!” then that death should be vetoed. Not enough of an answer.
I’m pretty fine with the character coming back to life afterwards. I think it works best if it is done by the same writer and is integral to the story arc of the character. For instance, DD’s death in the middle of Born Again is a good example. It was pretty obvious that they weren’t going to kill the title character and the story was called “Born Again”, but the death doesn’t feel cheap. And it only lasted a few pages!
Yeah, I think this kind of “death” is OK. I think this is a long-held tradition of superhero comics, the fake death that provides a cliffhanger or a surprise. Kind of like what Brubaker did with Foggy Nelson. I wasn’t thrilled with it at the time, but when the truth came out, I bought into it. I’m still not sure it was entirely necessary to the story, as compared to DD’s death in “Born Again” which is pretty essential to the point of the whole thing, but I was OK with it at that point.
I also think that death is just one example of how asking how much change should there be in a serial, continuity-based shared universe? Ageing, death, marriage, graduation, births, etc. One of the key items in “Telling a good story” (or so they taught me in HS) was that the characters should go through change or growth during the story. But in a serial comic, too much growth will sooner or later result in a character that bears little resemblance to the key concept that they were based on.
Right. Also, there’s nothing wrong with that change or growth being in a small way. Look at “The Kid Who Collected Spider-Man” by Roger Stern. That has a *huge* impact on Spider-Man, emotionally, but it doesn’t leave any continuity landmines for future writers. Compare that to Spider-Man: The Other, where any changes made were mostly physical (powers and such) and everyone knows they’ll probably be reversed back to “classic” Spidey some time in the future. The Other made much bigger changes, but “Kid Who Collected” is an example of the kind of growth that fiction writers are really expected to provide.
It should be an emotional or intellectual experience, not new powers, new girlfriend, marriage, kids, etc. Not saying you can’t have this kind of growth, but in a serial medium, that kind of huge character development should be relatively rare and special. Rather than being trotted out every six months to reinvigorate sales.
The only ways to “fix” too much change seem to be either continuity resets, awkward storylines reversing changes, ignoring continuity or legacy heroes replacing the changed hero. All of those leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I’d rather (and here is where everyone will disagree with me) live through some of them evey few years than having the writers hampered to not including change in their stories. I think having stories with only an “illusion of change” across the shared universes is worse than having to go in a “fix” the continuity from time to time.
I can see your point. At times, I’ve agreed with it. But generally, I think that the “illusion of change” in the hands of good writers is better than actual change in the hands of bad ones. Basically, it’s a question of tradeoff. You’re right that you can accept some very bad stories and the tradeoff is that all the writers, good and bad, get more creative freedom in their work.
However, I’d rather have the tradeoff that all writers, good and bad, have to deal with a little creative hand-cuffing (not in a dirty way… perverts!) in exchange for the bad writers being less free to ransack characters and shared universes. But then, I generally feel like most writers do their best with some sort of constraints, which forces them to think more about what they’re doing. Look at most writers who get big and get the freedom to write whatever they want, and their work generally starts to suffer for it. Fact is, everybody has bad ideas, and a good editor is supposed to be there to weed those out. These days, it seems like the job of too many editors at Marvel and DC is 25% creative, 75% traffic cop and marketing, and I think those percentages are out of whack.
I should be clear and say that this is based purely on the end results of the books, interviews with various editors and creative talent and conversations with creators and editors. I don’t actually *know* the inner workings of editorial at DC and Marvel. But my gut feeling is that the industry is really feeling the loss of guys like Mark Gruenwald and Archie Goodwin, who were both strong writers in their own right and excellent editors.
28 Nov 2006 at 8:18 pm
QuoteWell, my e-mail is taking longer than I thought (it’s coming guys, really!), so I figured I’d check the comments and see what y’all’re commentating.
There needs to be some kind of gatekeeper in editorial who backstops the creators and says “Wait… why is this death here? What does it accomplish?”
Not exactly the same thing (the opposite actually), but I think a good example of this is Jim Shooter stepping in to pull rank on the Dark Phoenix Saga. In that instance, Byrne and Claremont didn’t want to kill Jean, but Shooter knew the story they had written required her death. Today’s editors seem not to have that, um…editorial instinct to look at a story and ask, “What’s necessary?” Was it necessary to zombify Jack-of-Hearts and bomb-o-gram Ant-Man, or could they just, I dunno, fall into comas? Did Pantha’s head have to knocked off to prove Superboy-Prime’s primacy, or could he simply have punched her to Antarctica? Did we really need to see three issues of Black Mask torturing Spoiler, or Dr. Light’s holorape, or Iron Man blowing Cap’s jaw off? Do Marvel and DC really think their summer odes to capitalism are worthy of the same brutality and death as PREACHER and WATCHMEN?
I think this is a long-held tradition of superhero comics, the fake death that provides a cliffhanger or a surprise.
Which also requires the editor to know something about what they’re editing. To use another Claremont example, look at how Quesada kiboshed Psylocke’s resurrection, despite that being the whole point of her death in the first place. Granted, it was a real death not a fake one, but it was about as “real” as Superman’s death. Again, knowing the purpose behind an action is as important as the action itself. Born Again would have sucked if Shooter had pulled a “dead means dead” trick on Miller.
To be honest, I don’t think our current crop of superhero creators are particularly gifted writers for the genre, or at least they don’t write like they are. All the relative newcomers who have been given the keys to the kingdoms may be skilled in specific areas–Bendis does good neo-noir, Johns in slice-of-life, Millar in political allegory, and so forth–but not in superheroics. Their more mainstream novelistic approach often points them in directions unsuitable for shared-universe action-adventures–if you’re Tolkien or Doyle, with every possiblility of Middle-earth or Holmes-land wholly your own, you can kill and resurrect whoever you damn well please. That, or they really do think they can channel Alan Moore (or that Alan’s channeling through them), either ignoring the fact that none of his more brutal pieces were entirely in continuity (save KILLING JOKE) or believing that nothing can’t be made better with necrophiliaic flair.
But the greats knew when to push and when to restrain themselves. It’s as much an art as pacing (probably even related). Just as you don’t want every other page to be an explosion, you don’t want every other issue to be a death. Between them, the pilots of ’80s Marvel–Claremont, Byrne, the Simonsons, Miller, and Stern–pulled the death card maybe a dozen times; the shapers of ’90s DC–Morrison, Waid, Dixon, Ostrander, and Robinson–maybe a hair more. These are the guys the likes of Johns and Millar are following and no one as yet has topped them, so maybe more Wildebeests and Goliaths aren’t the way to go. Try creating the next Rogue or Beta Ray Bill or Elektra. Try building the next BIRDS OF PREY or STARMAN or SPECTRE. Try reshaping a cancelled title into the medium’s biggest franchise or restoring a fallen gimmick to its modern-mythological splendor. Stop tearing things down, writers! And you editors, stop telling them to do it!
29 Nov 2006 at 3:47 am
QuoteWow. Honestly, Cove, I don’t know what to add, as I’m pretty much in 100% agreement with you on all points. Very well put.
I especially agree with: To be honest, I don’t think our current crop of superhero creators are particularly gifted writers for the genre, or at least they don’t write like they are.
Absolutely.