Two Americas TPB: Falcon on the train

[Corey W]

I apologize if this was dealt with six months ago--I am a trade waiter and often try to avoid spoilers on books that I know I will pick up.

In the recent "Two Americas" arc of Captain America, Sam Wilson finds himself on a train filled with explosives that the right-wing terrorist group the Watchdogs plan to detonate at a meeting of political lobbyists. In stopping the plot, the Falcon throws (at least) two people to their deaths.

I have noted, as have most of the commenters in this forum, that Brubaker and Bendis have, without getting too gory, relaxed the general rule that super heroes (and, in particular Avengers) don't kill. This instance, however, seemed out of keeping with the other recent examples. In the past, when Bru has had a character, say Cap, kill it was plausibly necessary (ex. In a very similar example, Cap stopping terrorists from detonating a bomb on the subway train in Bru's first arc). Even if you had the feeling that Cap has avoided killing in similar situations on dozens of occassions in the past, it was hard to censor him for killing then. Indeed, Cap did not intend to kill the terrorists and I am sure that he would have been happy to have them live.

Similarly, although more ambiguously since Bucky generally intends the death of his opponents, Bucky has killed and the story has allowed the argument that killing was necessary--i.e., Bucky is a guy without powers and people are trying to kill him, so he shoots them. The same has been true for Bendis's Hawkeye (and, although there is no evidence that Clint Barton feels this is an important distinction, Skrulls aren't human and the killings were during a war (although, during "Avengers' Forever" Clint expressly notes that he won't kill even in war).

Sam's killing seems different. When the Falcon throws the Watchdogs off the train (and into a canyon), if didn't feel necessary at all. In fact, it was hard for me to view his actions as anything other than cold blooded murder.

Did anyone feel differently? And, does it matter to our perception of the characer?

[Monty_Cristo]

is Sam as "straight-edge" as Steve? i remember him using guns in the Cap/Falcon series.

[Corey W]

is Sam as "straight-edge" as Steve? i remember him using guns in the Cap/Falcon series.

I don't know, I never read the Cap/Falcon maxi as I wasn't reading comics at the time. I have read the entirety of his Cap & The Falcon appearances from the 70's/early 80's and his two stints in the Avengers. While I would never say that Falc is as straight laced as Cap (who under many writers is not all that straight laced himself) I don't ever remember him killing people.

It is an interesting comment on the shift in comics that pure heroes (as opposed to anti-heroes like Wolverine or the Punisher) can now kill and still be viewed as heroes.

During Simonson's FF run, Reed takes Johnny to task for killing one of the cross-time Kangs who, in all likelihood, would have killed the FF had Johnny not killed him first. Now, less than 20 years later I get the feeling that Johnny's action would have passed without comment.

[marvell2100]

I apologize if this was dealt with six months ago--I am a trade waiter and often try to avoid spoilers on books that I know I will pick up.

In the recent "Two Americas" arc of Captain America, Sam Wilson finds himself on a train filled with explosives that the right-wing terrorist group the Watchdogs plan to detonate at a meeting of political lobbyists. In stopping the plot, the Falcon throws (at least) two people to their deaths.

I have noted, as have most of the commenters in this forum, that Brubaker and Bendis have, without getting too gory, relaxed the general rule that super heroes (and, in particular Avengers) don't kill. This instance, however, seemed out of keeping with the other recent examples. In the past, when Bru has had a character, say Cap, kill it was plausibly necessary (ex. In a very similar example, Cap stopping terrorists from detonating a bomb on the subway train in Bru's first arc). Even if you had the feeling that Cap has avoided killing in similar situations on dozens of occassions in the past, it was hard to censor him for killing then. Indeed, Cap did not intend to kill the terrorists and I am sure that he would have been happy to have them live.

Similarly, although more ambiguously since Bucky generally intends the death of his opponents, Bucky has killed and the story has allowed the argument that killing was necessary--i.e., Bucky is a guy without powers and people are trying to kill him, so he shoots them. The same has been true for Bendis's Hawkeye (and, although there is no evidence that Clint Barton feels this is an important distinction, Skrulls aren't human and the killings were during a war (although, during "Avengers' Forever" Clint expressly notes that he won't kill even in war).

Sam's killing seems different. When the Falcon throws the Watchdogs off the train (and into a canyon), if didn't feel necessary at all. In fact, it was hard for me to view his actions as anything other than cold blooded murder.

Did anyone feel differently? And, does it matter to our perception of the characer?

Until we really know if the guy is dead or not it's hard to make a judgement. He couls have fallen onto a body of water, we don't know how high he was and we don't know if the suit took the brunt of the fall. And if the guy did die, I really don't thik that was Sam's intent.

[Corey W]

Until we really know if the guy is dead or not it's hard to make a judgement. He couls have fallen onto a body of water, we don't know how high he was and we don't know if the suit took the brunt of the fall. And if the guy did die, I really don't thik that was Sam's intent.

I agree that the panels could be read ambiguously. Indeed, it is possible that the Watchdogs thrown off the train lived--they did have most of their Watchdog armor on and with respect to the guy thrown into the gorge we don't know how deep the water was at the point he was thrown in (although I doubt Sam did either). However, and just looking at the panels, I don't think that the most natural reading is that those Watchdogs survived their exit from the train. I think that the artist intended for us to assume that Sam killed them--at least, we are expressly allowed to think that.

I also agree with you that we don't know Sam's intent--although I submit that with regard to the last Watchdog there was no on panel justification for throwing him off the train at that moment. Sam had the situation well in hand at that point.

So, I do agree that there was ambiguity present in the story (even if I think that the more obvious reading is that Sam killed at least two people) and I think it is a good point. Now that you pointed it out, I think that it is the casual ambiguity that I found so striking about the story.

Once upon a time, the death--or even perceived death--of a villain was a big deal. When Hawkeye killed Egghead, when Mock killed Phantom Rider, as recently as when Carol killed Graviton (or whatever his name was), substanatial ink was spilled on the ethical quandaries involved. Similarly, Punisher and Wolverine were interesting in large part because they were willing to decide issues of life and death. Here, a major (or at least reasonably prominent) hero impliedly killed two non-super powered antagonists (even if, as you suppose, the Watchdogs might have lived) and it was done is such a casual manner that we can't really be sure that it happened and we don't even know if it bothered Sam. And I think that bothers me.

I am willing to accept a world in which heroes cannot always find an alternative to death. As the saying goes, some people just got to get got. I understand that. But at the same time, I am old fashioned enough to want my heroes to seek a different and better way. As Spiderman told Clint Barton when the New Avengers were debating whether they should kill Osborn, heroes need to act heroic.

Maybe I am the only one who assumed the Watchdogs died. If so, I am reading too much into the story.

[marvell2100]

I think that in this case the writer(Bru) may have left too much to the imagination. Maybe we weren't supposed to care about what happened to the guy. But with Marvel touting a new heroic age we are now scrutinizing every hero's action to see if it matches up with the new direction. I agree with you that there needs to be some moments of clarity in some situations with nothing to be implied. Not all cases mind you but definitely in some.

[Hrist]

See, I tend to think that in superhero comics, usually, unless explicitly shown, actions the hero characters take are non-lethal even if they really oughtn't be. Being struck on the head by a flying shield thrown with force by someone like Steve would probably kill someone. HYDRA goons are always getting into sticky situations and somehow not emerging seriously injured. Hawkeye shoots people full of arrows without killing them, even when they're shot through what looks to be rather vital regions.

I took that scene with Sam in the same spirit. People are always falling from great distances in the MU and coming out mostly fine— perhaps gravity works differently there? Anyway, even though comics are more relaxed on killing, it's usually still notable when it happens. Clint's "let's assassinate Norman Osborn" plan didn't go over so well with the New Avengers. In the pages of this specific Captain America run, it's generally accepted that sometimes, bad guys will die, but it's still treated as a noteworthy happening. In the first issue, Sharon called Steve out about that terrorist train attack. Bucky killed a HYDRA agent and the Young Avengers were shocked. Later, Namor snapped that guy's neck and Bucky and Natasha both commented. And that Bucky had to shoot 50's Cap at the end of the Two Americas is certainly weighing on his conscience.

That's really why I don't think those guys Sam threw off the train are dead. But there's enough ambiguity for other plausible readings.

[Gabe De Los Muertos]

Falcon should kill. Absolutely. Like real Falcons do.

[marvell2100]

See, I tend to think that in superhero comics, usually, unless explicitly shown, actions the hero characters take are non-lethal even if they really oughtn't be. Being struck on the head by a flying shield thrown with force by someone like Steve would probably kill someone. HYDRA goons are always getting into sticky situations and somehow not emerging seriously injured. Hawkeye shoots people full of arrows without killing them, even when they're shot through what looks to be rather vital regions.

I took that scene with Sam in the same spirit. People are always falling from great distances in the MU and coming out mostly fine— perhaps gravity works differently there? Anyway, even though comics are more relaxed on killing, it's usually still notable when it happens. Clint's "let's assassinate Norman Osborn" plan didn't go over so well with the New Avengers. In the pages of this specific Captain America run, it's generally accepted that sometimes, bad guys will die, but it's still treated as a noteworthy happening. In the first issue, Sharon called Steve out about that terrorist train attack. Bucky killed a HYDRA agent and the Young Avengers were shocked. Later, Namor snapped that guy's neck and Bucky and Natasha both commented. And that Bucky had to shoot 50's Cap at the end of the Two Americas is certainly weighing on his conscience.

That's really why I don't think those guys Sam threw off the train are dead. But there's enough ambiguity for other plausible readings.

I took the same view as you and it's easy to understand where Mr K is coming from as well. Until I see a reaction from a hero that says he killed someone in an instance like that, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt that he didn't kill anyone.

[Hrist]

I took the same view as you and it's easy to understand where Mr K is coming from as well. Until I see a reaction from a hero that says he killed someone in an instance like that, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt that he didn't kill anyone.

Oh, sure. No doubt, I think a lot of people had the same reaction when the issue came out, wondering if Sam had killed those guys.

[Corey W]

Interesting. I am surprised that I am in the minority on reading it as a death scene. But you guys are obviously right that in the context of the run death is allowed, but rarely allowed to pass without comment (and all of the examples that you cited were good ones (and I had forgotten about Namor)).

The Hawkeye example is another good example of the ambiguity. Recent arcs have certainly shown Clint skewering a number of people (I am not sure that I ever remember that happening in a pre-2005 comic). Following Secret Invasion, I assumed that Hawk was skewering people because it is accepted that he is a badass killer now. But given the NAs reaction to his "kill Osborn proposal" I think that it is a case of Marvel biology rather than Hawkeye auditioning for a role as Frank Castle's replacement.

I suppose that if I want to preserve my image of the Falcon, I should just chalk it up the train scene to Marvel physics.

Stil, I can't help but feel that in the old days the artists (and often the writers) went out of their way to show us that no one died. That is certainly not the case anymore.

[Hrist]

The Hawkeye example is another good example of the ambiguity. Recent arcs have certainly shown Clint skewering a number of people (I am not sure that I ever remember that happening in a pre-2005 comic). Following Secret Invasion, I assumed that Hawk was skewering people because it is accepted that he is a badass killer now. But given the NAs reaction to his "kill Osborn proposal" I think that it is a case of Marvel biology rather than Hawkeye auditioning for a role as Frank Castle's replacement.

In one of the Hawkeye and Mockingbird things— when he used the Pym arrow and skewered a bunch of people in a hail of arrows, they mentioned that he just had good enough aim to not hit anyone in lethal spots. So I applied that back to say, Captain America reborn and even the last Hawkeye solo ongoing, where there were some pretty suspect shots of arrows in the head and stuff, iirc.

[marvell2100]

Interesting. I am surprised that I am in the minority on reading it as a death scene. But you guys are obviously right that in the context of the run death is allowed, but rarely allowed to pass without comment (and all of the examples that you cited were good ones (and I had forgotten about Namor)).

The Hawkeye example is another good example of the ambiguity. Recent arcs have certainly shown Clint skewering a number of people (I am not sure that I ever remember that happening in a pre-2005 comic). Following Secret Invasion, I assumed that Hawk was skewering people because it is accepted that he is a badass killer now. But given the NAs reaction to his "kill Osborn proposal" I think that it is a case of Marvel biology rather than Hawkeye auditioning for a role as Frank Castle's replacement.

I suppose that if I want to preserve my image of the Falcon, I should just chalk it up the train scene to Marvel physics.

Stil, I can't help but feel that in the old days the artists (and often the writers) went out of their way to show us that no one died. That is certainly not the case anymore.

In one of the Hawkeye and Mockingbird things— when he used the Pym arrow and skewered a bunch of people in a hail of arrows, they mentioned that he just had good enough aim to not hit anyone in lethal spots. So I applied that back to say, Captain America reborn and even the last Hawkeye solo ongoing, where there were some pretty suspect shots of arrows in the head and stuff, iirc.

I think we also have to look at who or what they're fighting at the time as well. Enhanced humans, super humans, aliens etc more likely are able to take a little more than the average person so a little more force maybe applied. What we see as a potentially lethal blow in some cases may not actually be for those involved.

[RatFace]

Yes those guys that Sam kicked off the train probably died, but they were members of a terrorist organization that was planning to blow up a lobbyist conference outside of Vegas, so I don't feel so bad.

IMO comic books are a lot less violent than most of the more popular video games out there.

[Toadwbg]

I do appreciate the intellectual discussion here but wanted to add a point or two. My comments are not meant as a personal attack on anyone in this thread.

Why is it OK when Cap or Bucky are killing Nazis in WW2? No one seems to blink an eye at that. It's socially acceptable to kill fictional Nazis but taboo to kill Modern fictional villains? Give me a break. I think Brubaker is doing some fine writing in this regard.

Remember those classic GI Joe cartoons from the 80s? Everyone got shot at and planes blown up but no one got killed-they even went out of their way to show them parachuting away to safety! This is an extreme example granted, but I don't want modern comics to be this way. People do bad things and death should be illustrated as a consequence.