An interesting column at Newsarama's The Fifth Color:
http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/04/11...vel/#more-3357
What do you guys think?
"If you ever start to feel too good about yourself, they have this thing called the internet."
Tina Fey 1/12/09
I don't really see the problem. Deaths of background characters (which most of the examples were) is a great vehicle for showing the seriousness of a situation and for a motivation for main characters.
Sucks that the same vehicle has been used a lot lately, but it hardly requires any more action than the editorial team suggesting alternatives to their writers. And if the story still requires the death of innocents, then so be it.
Long story short... nah.Originally Posted by Dan Slott
It's a bit tricky to formulate a strong answer to a column like that, because it makes decent points with a fair amount of justification: young characters and background players have been dying of late, and too much of anything will lead to desensitization, which is without question a bad thing. And really, how are you supposed to argue against it - demand for more kids to be killed? I don't want to suggest that the columnist had anything but sincere motives, but it's really quite an effective cornering of the argument from the start.
But really, I can't agree. Granted I haven't read every Marvel book to come out of late - and in fact I'd rather read about adults than teenagers (A:TI bucks the trend there, for me) - but I think having read basically all of Civil War, plus the end of the pre-CW Iron Man arc (mentioned in the blog), and A:TI (also), I've got a decent feel for the spread of stories the columnist is talking about. And I don't see a problem. I certainly don't see a lack of judgement on Marvel's part such as would require what amounts to censorship. Civil War and A:TI are both rated T, they're not for children - and more importantly, the deaths in them have been handled in a way that's far from encouraging desensitization.
Speaking of A:TI specifically (since that's what we're interested in on this board), MVP's death didn't bother me, on a content level. It was shocking and tragic - especially seen through Cloud 9's eyes, and when you think back to their brief encounter earlier, and how he gave her that 'Heh, you're cool' grin as she was blushing and racing off. Tragic, no question about it. But senseless? He was a participant in a newly-established boot camp for recruits with phenomenal powers - I'd have been surprised if there hadn't been a fatality sooner or later. That doesn't make it senseless - it makes it part of the story. If you want to avoid MVP's death, you have to avoid the story of the Initiative, and I'd rather see that story told, and take the bad with the good.
So in closing, no, I don't feel that young characters being 'senselessly' killed has become 'a trend', and in no way do I feel that Marvel needs a moratorium on young characters dying in books rated T and above. There are some comics that come uncomfortably close to the line (JSA, for instance, much as I enjoyed it, had some pretty horrific and, I feel, unjustified civilian deaths in its opening arc), and I'm not saying there's no need for writers and editors to consider the choices they make, whether what they're portraying is necessary for the stories they want to tell, and if it is, how it's presented. But a moratorium, based on this? No. Hell no.
I can understand the desensitation argument, but to call a moratorium on it is a bit silly. I think it's something every writer and/or creator could maybe re-consider, but I don't really think it's such an epic problem that demands some decree from on high.
I say do what the story dictates. Though there has been a wee bit more violent deaths lately than I am comfy with...
I think the issue could be addressed in The Marvel Universe by having rogue heroes create a memorial to all the young superheroes who died defending the earth, as a response to the Stanford memorial which holds young, inexperienced superheroes to task for their activities. The point should be made that whenever a young person dies, it's a tragedy.
Clearly, Joe Q's response to this should be a mini-series where Marvel's most evil and hated villain (Speedball) beats every hero under 18 to death... with Franklin Richard's mutilated body. It'll sell millions.
if it will keep the current Ant-Man alive, then hell yes there should be a moratorium.
i am so stupid that i got punk'd
Good lord, no. Death should happen in comics just as it can happen in the real world. If you want to shelter kids direct them to Marvel Adventures and block out the news channels.
The reason Gwen's death was special was because no died but lets face in, with what superheroes do people are going to die. Heroes and bystanders.
Everyone being fine at the end of the day brings the product down to a "kiddy" level. We don't need a kiddy level anyone, kids see death and violence in cartoons, movies and video games every single day.
There is nothing wrong with death in comic books.
I do think it can be overdone e.g. New X-Men and it can be done for shock value (Hawkeye) but it's a valuable tool when done right
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks