Death, Why New Super-Heroes Are Doomed and Post-Traumatic Stress

[PatrickG]

I would like to pick up the new Blue Beetle, Spectre, etc. books. But by and large, I probably won't.

Why? Because, in a lot of ways, there's no use getting attached to anyone shy of Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman for me. Anybody else is eventually going to die... and probably sooner rather than later. And this IS sad because I LIKE a lot of second stringers.

But... What's the point? As soon as a character seems a little tired or has no place, they die.

Does anybody else have trouble emotionally investing in characters that could go away at any moment.

I understand if a character's title gets cancelled. This is a fact of life in today's market. But if a character is just going to totally disappear for a decade and/or get killed, what's the point? Why should I become a fan of a character that will be gone in five years.

I'm tired of playing that game.

Maybe they should just stop killing off characters altogether.

I've been advocating this forever. I'd just assume they bring back Barry and everyone else who's died... and then seal off death as an option for awhile.

The characters can still worry about it but why should the readers.

And before anybody suggests that death or the potential for it is necessary, I'd like to point out that an awful lot of the films, TV shows and movies that people love don't really include death as a reality.

Did the TV show "Friends" need the threat of characters dying to keep an audience? Do any of the remake movies? Nobody who goes to see Dukes of Hazard or Bewitched in theatres expects for the characters to die. Do people who watch "House" really want to wonder if he could die at any minute? Does "The West Wing" rely on the threat that any of its major characters could die? Are "Totally Spies" or "Kids Next Door" less appealing to kids because nobody dies? Reality TV doesn't get big ratings from threatening death because people know the bloody thing wouldn't air if somebody died.

The "necessity of death" is a copout. Yes, death can be very dramatic. But honestly, it's not really necessary in pop culture OR heroic fiction for the audience to worry for the protaganist's life. The real issue is how and if the protaganist succeeds or fails and that can happen in plenty of ways without death. Heck, it gets MORE interesting when you take death off the table because, frankly, death is more predictable than what happens if you keep a character going and work on keeping his or her life interesting. Plus, people become invested when reassured that a character isn't going anywhere. That's partly why so many new series flop in today's market; we're trained to think that all characters are disposable and the new ones won't last.

You ever hear of somebody who lost a lot of loved ones and has trouble committing? Well, I feel that way about super-heroes.

You can do TONS of interesting and dramatic things without death being on the table as an option. But death has become a certainty for super-heroes and, frankly, the lifespan of the average DC or Marvel character is far below what the lifespan of real people are now.

Does anybody else have trouble committing to, say, the new Blue Beetle because of this? Or new characters in general?

I can already envision the new Blue Beetle, Spectre or Dr. Fate being replaced. And that's a problem. Because it's become too easy for things to change IMO.

ANYBODY else agree with me?

Anybody else wish they'd just totally invalidate death by bringing back everybody and getting it over with so we can stop this morbid game of waiting to see who dies when and focus on interesting stories?

[XPac]

I almost agree with you... but not quite. I don't think we need to be absolute about this sort of thing... I think on rare occasion it's okay to kill off a character, and on EXTREMELY rare ocassion it's okay even to bring them back. But it should be VERY rare, and it should be meaningful.

I don't agree with killing off a character just so you can slap a new guy in the same name and costume to give yourself a fresh start. And as I've already said on this board, I'm even less of a fan of bring the old one back and have 3-4 versions of the same hero running around.

But something like Jean Greys death was cool... at least till she started dying and coming back over and over again.

[Violently Apathetic]

I actually agree with you quite a bit. It doesn't help that character's I tend to champion are almost inevitably on the chopping block. Case in point, most of my favourite DC characters are currently dead (Blue Beetle, Wally West(?), etc..) or running around with targets on their backs (Red Hood, Nightwing, Animal Man, Booster Gold...).

I suppose the reason I'm less inclined to accept a death in the comic universe compared to say...one in a movie or a book, is that those mediums tend to end soon after said character's death. Where as in comics the other characters continue their day to day lives without the deceased character almost indefinitely. The void the character has left remains. Sure they can try to fill it with other characters, to varying levels of success, but it's never really the same.

I don't think deaths are needed to make something serious or dark. To dust off an old cliche, there are worse things than death. When a character has lost his or her direction I'd rather see a talented writer take up said character and attempt to save him or her than have them killed off as a way of making a point to the readers 'Oh my God, we're serious kids!!!' That’s just silly and in the end I think it cheapens some really good and poignant deaths. You can come desensitized to character’s dying after a while. Death can be a threat in comics without being used in a wanton and thus, IMHO, ineffective manner.

So yes, I do have trouble investing emotionally (and thus financially) in characters who aren’t ‘safe.’ I will be buying the new Blue Beetle series, at least for a while, but the goal for me is to attempt to view it as objectively as possible.

I’m a big sap, I don’t want any long running characters to die and frankly I wouldn’t mind some of the dead ones come back, unless they’re essential to an origin or something.

[Corrina]

Does anybody else have trouble emotionally investing in characters that could go away at any moment.



Absolutely. They're just going to be cannon fodder somewhere down the line, so why get invested? At least, that's what the last two years of DC has taught me.

It's one reason I'm moving more and more to trades with complete stories. At least then, I get closure on the story.

[Xero Kaiser]

This reminds me of something that happened to me in the 8th grade. I was at my friends house watching Batman: TAS, we were about to leave but I wanted to see the end of the episode. He just looked at me and said, "who cares? you know nothing's going to happen."

This is the biggest reason I have trouble getting into superhero comics. Nothing happens to anyone that matters, and if it does it just gets undone. I'm not saying that someone needs to get killed every other issue, but if it gets to the point where people don't give a crap because there's no real threat, that's no good either

Oh, and using "Friends" and "Kids next door" as examples is just weak. Friends didn't need supervillians, powers or elaborate costumes to keep an audience either, should we get rid of those while we're at it?

[Black Hole]

I agree somewhat. However, we must admit that The cast of Friends or the cast or House aren't going out and fighting megapowerful bad guys who are really trying to kil them. So the expectation of possible death is not really there.

Superheroes are actually putting themselves in harms way, so if the book is written well (which is rare these days) there should be some possibility of death and some reasonable (within continuity) way of escaping that death.

But yes, I agree that I won't be picking up any of the new books because eventually they will just be cheaply killed to make some threat seem that much more dangerous, or to return things to the status quo.

[Buried Alien]

How about this, then: there have been over two dozen James Bond movies made since the series began in the early 1960s. Bond has gotten into hundreds of close calls in those movies, but do we ever expect Bond to actually *die* in those movies? Never. That doesn't take the thrill away, however.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[The Wayner]

And I have no problems investing in new characters, or new series. Actually, I'm quite looking forward to it.

I also wouldn't connect post-traumatic stress disorder to it. I've suffered through that crap, and in no way would losing a comic book character jettison me back into it.

No way.

[The Shadow]

I don't agree with killing off a character just so you can slap a new guy in the same name and costume to give yourself a fresh start. And as I've already said on this board, I'm even less of a fan of bring the old one back and have 3-4 versions of the same hero running around.

But something like Jean Greys death was cool... at least till she started dying and coming back over and over again.
Yeah I agree with this.

2 Hourmans, 4 Green Lanters, 2 Aquaman's, 2 Green Arrow's, 2 Flash's and so on really takes away a lot of what makes the hero special.

[shyguy]

The James Bond thing is a good example. If one decides not to watch Batman because he knows that nothing is really going to happen to Batman, well, that's not a problem with Batman; the viewer is just missing the point of the show/comic/movie.

While I abhor the deaths of a bunch of second-string superheroes just for shock value (usually centered around some big event), I honestly can't fault DC for doing it all the time because, hey, it seems to work. People seem to like that thing. There are a lot of people who were wowed by the Superboy fight in the latest issue of IC and what happened to the Freedom Fighters, and a lot of people who liked Blue Beetle's death, so, eh, I guess stuff like this is going to keep happening.

I think it's lazy writing, playing it safe, and just kind of stupid, but these things keep selling...

[Black Hole]

How about this, then: there have been over two dozen James Bond movies made since the series began in the early 1960s. Bond has gotten into hundreds of close calls in those movies, but do we ever expect Bond to actually *die* in those movies? Never. That doesn't take the thrill away, however.


Excellent point.

[Jeff F]

If one asks the majority of comic book fans what the best run of The Spectre was I'm willing to bet they will tell you that it is the Ostrander/Mandrake one.

What happens at the end of that?

Right.

I'm with the character for their journey. If it's over, it's over and I move on.

[Mainline]

I think mixing in movies is a bad example because those are financed by producers intending to make back their investment... there's a long gap between films until they're confident that they will. If the film fails to meet expectations, they're not going to make another film just to kill off the character (usually).

Meanwhile, monthly books are expected to come out regardless. And given their business model, killing off characters makes a kind of sense. With lagging sales a character is forced into defacto "death" even if not actually offed... with that the case, then it's an "easy" decision to exploit the absence and eventual return for a temporary boost in sales- integrity be damned since death comes on the heels of lagging sales to begin with.

From a dramatic standpoint, it might be meaningless, but there's still an element of threat involved... "Read [blank] or we'll cancel/kill the character." It's a threat to those "disloyal" fans (consider, no matter how poor Superman or Batman in drama, their sales remain strong out of loyalty).

[moebius]

I would like to pick up the new Blue Beetle, Spectre, etc. books. But by and large, I probably won't.

Why? Because, in a lot of ways, there's no use getting attached to anyone shy of Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman for me. Anybody else is eventually going to die... and probably sooner rather than later. And this IS sad because I LIKE a lot of second stringers.

But... What's the point? As soon as a character seems a little tired or has no place, they die.


Have you ever owned a dog? A cat? Do you expect them to be around forever? No? Then why bother buying one in the first place? You sink a lot more emotional investment into a pet than a comic book character, but that pet will die with 100% certainty, probably faster than most characters.


Maybe they should just stop killing off characters altogether.

I've been advocating this forever. I'd just assume they bring back Barry and everyone else who's died... and then seal off death as an option for awhile.

The characters can still worry about it but why should the readers.


Because if there's no risk, there's no conflict. And if there's no conflict, who cares? You can add risk in other ways, the character can still fail to save lives or in their personal lives, but if you suddenly say that no main or supporting player is going to die, you've immediately hamstringed future writers.

[Apathy Boy]

I never understood fans' obsessive avoidance of anything that might not last forever. Good stories aren't retroactively turned to crap because the character gets killed off five years later.

I mean, is there anyone out there disappointed that they missed out on a chance to pick up something like WATCHMEN #236 by AJ Lieberman and Scott McDaniel this week?

[Xero Kaiser]

How about this, then: there have been over two dozen James Bond movies made since the series began in the early 1960s. Bond has gotten into hundreds of close calls in those movies, but do we ever expect Bond to actually *die* in those movies? Never. That doesn't take the thrill away, however.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Maybe Bond doesn't die but other people still catch it. I don't think anyone expects the hero to get killed in the middle of their own story, but if nobody's ever in any real danger that would sure as hell take the thrill away

[Sean Whitmore]

Let's not be blinded by the "Uncle Ben Exception" here...death in comics is as insubstantial a thing as it's always been. They can kill off every C-Lister in creation for all I care. As soon as they're needed for a story, or some writer gets the urge to use them, or the editors decide they're commercially viable again, they'll be brought back with nary a second thought.

Doesn't even matter how they died, either. Don't matter if they were decapitated, cremated, evaporated or disintegrated. They can be plucked out of time an instant before their deaths (Hourman, Barry Allen), healed by advanced science (Colossus, Green Goblin), or out and out resurrected (Green Arrow, Hal).

And let's just say my favorite C-Lister stays dead, because nobody thinks enough of him/her to bring them back. Well, then no loss, because I was never going to see them again anyway except in obligatory team-ups that proclaim "Every member of (insert team) ever!" I really liked the Pantha/Red Star era Titans, but I'd rather they be dead than wonder what they've been doing for the past decade.

New characters, good and evil, are introduced into the DCU literally every month, and playing "where are they now" with all of them is ridiculous. At least we know where they are when they're six feet under.


SEAN

[Ultraman]

People die, it never has to invalidate the time they did walk the earth. You can always cherish and champion that time they did exist. It is dishonorable to do anything else.

I can understand the desire to see your favorite heroes continue on and on with fantastic adventures. I can also understand not wanting to be reminded of mortality in an entertainment medium that has generally shows that death can be defeated, that a flying man in a cape pulls people from cars diving off bridges.

While understanding this, I prefer to see that dark side rear it's head in my comics. In fact, I do not feel it is done enough. I would feel that DC may have plans to kill Bruce Wayne after reading Infinite Crisis #4, if not for the fact he has a summer blockbuster movie coming out in the nearish future. This detracts from the impending doom feeling of the series for me.

The death of a hero is one of the greatest dramatic tools in writing. It validates all the risks they endured, and their commitment to their belief of fighting the good fight. They become a martyr. A hero.

I really can't abide by fanboys who stomp their feet anytime some character finally ends his story. I will always have a strong distaste for Hal Jordon because of this phenomenon. The fanboys got their way with Hal, but now his continuity is a joke and terribly contrived; ruining what was once a shocking story about a hero trying to do his best.

I hate that a death in a comic book is now used as a sales tool, that it is stereotypical that the hero will be back. In fact, it is wrong to say it is a stereotype, because they pretty much do always come back. Pathetic.

I say bring on the death, but make it real. No bi-monthly great returns from the grave.

Holding onto characters past their time, ressurecting them from the grave is a glaring exhibition of a companys lack of commitment to good entertainment, but commitment to short sighted profitability. It also speaks volumes about the limitations of many of todays writers creative abilities.

Better to burn out in a blaze of glory than fade away.

[Viking Bastard]

I dunno. I don't get that emotionally bonded to characters as much as I bond with stories. I may bond with Batman in one story, but that doesn't mean I will bond with him in the next. I don't bond with Bats. I bond with the stories he's in.

I like the new Manhunter, but if she gets whacked off sometime after her title gets cancelled it will have no impact on her past stories that I liked. Whatever. I would gladly trade her life for a neat moment in some other story.

(What I hate are plots without resolutions. Those piss me off.)

[Violently Apathetic]

I hate that a death in a comic book is now used as a sales tool, that it is stereotypical that the hero will be back. In fact, it is wrong to say it is a stereotype, because they pretty much do always come back. Pathetic.


That's just it, I feel we could avoid that phenomena if they didn't use the death of characters in such a wonton way, half the time it seems like they use the death of a character not to tell a compelling story, but to make a sale. Obviously treating a character people love like this is going to leave a sour taste in the reader's mouths, prompting the eventual resurrection of the character and thus the cycle is repeated ad nauseam. Frankly because I personally am more character driven than anything, generally it's the characters that pull me into the story, not necessarily the concept or plot, I'd like to see the cycle interrupted with simply less deaths. Unrealistic? Yes, but frankly I don't go to comics for realism. However it's perfectly reasonable that some people want the cycle interrupted as the resurrection stage. Keep a real threat in the books and don't undo deaths. It's just not for me *shrugs*

[Leebenhouse]

I can't believe nobody here mentioned Starman. Robinson from the start planned on telling a story from start to end, but left places in-between so that the character can comeback. Also he wrote into the tale of Jack Knight that if he came back and played Starman again he would die. So that way he made the character safe. He couldn't jump the shark, because he never let it get to that point. That's why there's shows that quit while they're ahead rather than they get cancelled when they start to suck. It's the same thing with comic books.

Take for example the Stern Starman, after Stern left, the book took a nosedive in sales and quality ending with it being canned and Will Payton being killed off in the Eclipso crisis.

[Capt USA]

I don't mind meaningful deaths, and I love what dc has done in the past with deaths, by bringing in a new 'original' character(just looking at the new blue beetle I have to say that trend has ended, does anyone expect him to last even 4 issues?)

Dc started with jay garrick, then barry allen, and then wally west, adding to the legacy of the character, bringing back allen cheapens the flash legacy. Same with Hal Jordan, Kyle did a great job in replacing him.

Brining back dead characters who have been effectively replaced makes no sense. Death has to have meaning, and it shouldn't be cheapened for a gimmick. (I hated spider mans total carnage, even though he was killing 'nobodies' it was more than likely dozens if not hundreds of people he killed, and they act like it never happened 6 months later, or that mass murder of that kind is so common that nobody takes it seriously)

DC used to be real good about treating death pretty respectfully, that trend ended with Green arrow.

[Buried Alien]

bringing back allen cheapens the flash legacy.

This has been repeated thousands of times across dozens of forums, but nobody has ever explained *why* to me in a manner that has persuaded me that it's true.

It doesn't "cheapen" anything in my view; it just gives people who like to read Barry Allen Flash stories new Barry Allen Flash stories to read.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Sean Whitmore]

This has been repeated thousands of times across dozens of forums, but nobody has ever explained *why* to me in a manner that has persuaded me that it's true.


I don't know about cheapening the legacy, but it would certainly marginalize Wally in my eyes. He holds the distinction of being the first (possibly only) sidekick to step up and fulfill the unspoken promise of taking over for his mentor.

Having Barry return as a fulltime Flash would at worst, make Wally a placeholder, and at best, make him no different than Nightwing, Tempest, and Arsenal.


SEAN

[PatrickG]

Why does there even need to be a legacy.

It's simply an out. When a character loses a bit of ground, they get replaced.

At least with Earth-1 and Earth-2, there wasn't this legacy business looming over every new character's head.

Barry and Hal weren't Alan and Jay's SUCCESSORS, they were their counterparts. And I rather prefer it that way.

[Mr. Truth]

I have two views about death in comics one being if certain characters died in a self-contained stories like Watchman, V for Vendetta, Sin City etc. etc. books that have a clear beginning and end, I don't mind death in those books.

But for open-ended books like Uncanny, Batman, JSA etc. etc. then I think its kinda stupid unless it was done amazingly well. I mean I loved the Countdown Special in which Blue Beetle got axe'd it was wonderfully written and even though he got executed (and I know people will disagree on me with this) he was given proper treatment through out the whole book.

Would bringing back Blue Beetle "cheapen" that story? Hell no! How can it possibly? It was a great story with Blue Beetle's death, it was a great story during Blue Beetle's death, and it will STILL be a great story at Blue Beetle's return (if any).

Now its pretty much a given 90% of back-from-the-grave stories will be bad or corny. But does that "cheapen" the character? Nope. Its just one story, read it or not but just get over it. It may be a part of their continuity but its only as big as you (the reader) makes it to be.

As for death as a sales gimmick, so what? DC, Marvel every comicbook company is a business, and if death sells, then it does. Nothing can really change that. Maybe when the industry grows enough they won't have a reason to pull the death card every few months. But if death can produce a great book like Countdown, or IC then by all means go for it, even if it invovles my favorite characters. I'm a huge Freedom Fighters fanboy, so when they got "killed" in IC I was somewhat shocked, but I also liked the way they were killed so I wasn't feeling to bummed about it.

As for Barry Allen returning, I think everyones jumping the gun, lets wait until IC concludes before we start with the "omigod Barry's back!!" reaction.

[Buried Alien]

I don't know about cheapening the legacy, but it would certainly marginalize Wally in my eyes. He holds the distinction of being the first (possibly only) sidekick to step up and fulfill the unspoken promise of taking over for his mentor.

Having Barry return as a fulltime Flash would at worst, make Wally a placeholder, and at best, make him no different than Nightwing, Tempest, and Arsenal.


SEAN

I think if Wally is to really escape the ghost of Barry Allen, then Barry must...well, stop being a ghost.

Wally's had a great career as the Flash...even surpassing Barry in some areas. No matter how far he goes or what he accomplishes, however, Wally remains in Barry's shadow as long as Barry remains dead. Barry died saving the Multiverse/universe; no matter what Wally does, as long as he remains alive, he's trapped in the shadow of Barry's sacrifice.

Compounding the problem for Wally is that he's taken not only the Flash name (which originated with Jay...let's get that out of the way now so it doesn't become a stickling point later), but Barry's costume and role in the JLA. Wally's entire existence is predicated upon Barry. Barry is an inextricable part of Wally's origin...that's something Wally can't help. But Wally's entire story has been based upon the idea of carrying on Barry's name and work. It's an honorable thing to do and Wally has done it well, but is that really independence? I think that if Wally is really, really to become his own man and truly escape Barry's shadow, Barry must live again. Wally can then truly be his own man and not serve in Barry's wake.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Paradox]

Apathy Boy likes using scare tactics:

I mean, is there anyone out there disappointed that they missed out on a chance to pick up something like WATCHMEN #236 by AJ Lieberman and Scott McDaniel this week?

:eek:

Don't DO that! Now I'm not going to be able to sleep for a WEEK!

[stealthwise]

I get the point of what you're saying Patrick, but there are too many Starman's, Swamp Thing's, Guy Gardner's, JLI's, etc, to enjoy for the ten years that they DO exist to just give up altogether.

[PatrickG]

Uh... Stealth? Most of those things you describe have pretty much been in a persistant vegetative state for OVER ten years.

[stealthwise]

Uh... Stealth? Most of those things you describe have pretty much been in a persistant vegetative state for OVER ten years.

Yep. But if I were to subscribe to the philosophy you brought up, I never would have tried any of those books out in the first place because they were characters "that could go away at any moment."

There are going to be a lot more Starman's, Swamp Thing's, etc, in the next ten years. There are too many great creators out there for it not to happen.

For a concrete example, are you planning to get Gail's Secret Six? I know that I sure as heck am, because even if the characters all eventually get raped/murdered/retconned that Gail will give us some kickass stories before editorial ruins them.