Captain America >> View Post
Post By

In Reply To

Subj: Re: It's great that you loved the character, but... [SPOILERS]
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:55:42 am EST
Reply Subj: Re: It's great that you loved the character, but... [SPOILERS]
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:34:29 am EST

Previous Post

> I don't think Marvel has been making many mistakes, as you put it, lately.
> I'm not talking about mistakes money wise, I was speaking about how core characters have routinely been treated by Marvel. Especially characters created by Lee and Kirby. They simply want their own characters, not those that Marvel may owe money to others for their part in creating.
> The company is doing great. They have half a dozen Hollywood projects under way, not to mention video games, animation and licensing deals too numerous to name. Their publishing wing is doing well and, in fact, has been far more successful that DC's for an entire generation.
> Making moves like this, risky moves, is what breathes life into stories. If you like staid repetition and certainty, watch reruns of 70s drama and sitcoms. The characters always stay the same. You know they'll be there from episode to episode. It's dull and it's unrealistic and it makes for terrible storytelling.
> I love Captain America and I have decades worth of Cap comics to prove it. But what I like more are good stories. Ed Brubaker and a handful of other super hero comics writers tell good stories.
I appreciate good stories also, but at the end of the day, after a good story, you still want your character around.
> As for DC respecting its characters more? I think that's nonsense. Batman's back was broken by Bane and he was temporarily replaced. Superman died. There's a new Aquaman. Green Lantern was replaced and only recently reacquired his mantle. The Flash has been replaced twice (three times if you go back to Jay Garrick). I don't think I need to say any more to point out the error in your comment.
> You purposely missed my point. I was speaking about core characters that got the companies where they are now from the forties. Batman, Superman, Wonderwoman, Captain America, Namor, etc. Even tho DC injured Batman, they never cancelled his book or killed him completely and let others carry on as Batman in the hopes that fans would follow the fake and forget about the original. Same with Superman. DC killed the character, but as I said earlier, Superman had something like five titles at the time and there was no way DC was cancelling all titles and losing that money. So, no, they really didn't kill him off and no one with half a brain thought they did.

Also, when you kill off characters, you kill the collectability of the comics they were in. Marvel doesn't care about collectability, they care about now.
> I'm totally behind Marvel on this. They haven't always gone the way I want them to with their stories, but since Joe Quesada took over as EIC, they've always been risk takers and innovators within the constraints of the shared super hero universe concept. And for that I'm happy.

Good for you. You are into the now. But answer me this. There are people that collect comics for the heroes they loved. There are people that collect comics to make money. There are people that simply read comics for the now. What I see from Marvel is that Marvel doesn't want a fan base anymore of people that collect for the heroes on a long term basis. They care about stories for now and will not hesitate to kill off characters if that character isn't making money for them. You think for a minute based on what you have seen Marvel do that they wouldn't kill Wolverine if he stopped being large with the fans? That would kill of any collectability of an book he was in. How would fans feel then? Don't say it won't happen. Spiderman was a base Marvel character. Movies, books, etc. More sellable than Captain America because Spiderman can be appreciated worldwide, whereas since the majority of the world can't stand America right now, Captain America can't sell for Marvel. Since that is the case, Marvel kills him off.

What about Thor? Wasn't Thor popular? Wasn't Thor Marvel's strongest charcter? Why get rid of Thor? Answer, to try to build up a new character (Sentry). However, that isn't working, because the Sentry character really sucks. Marvel needs to bring back Thor, Asgard and the Asgardians.

Anyway, again I rant. I have no problem with new characters, strong stories, etc. But, killing off characters that helped Marvel be the best in the sixties, seventies, etc. was just plain wrong.

I don't think it's a case of killing off a character who wasn't performing well. If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying this is a Hal Jordan kind of thing. Kill off the old man because no one cares about him and insert someone new. I don't think that's the case here at all. In GL's case, that was an editorial fiat: "Kill Hal. He's not selling comics."

In this case, they had this big event, "Civil War," and Captain America played a major role in it. Ed Brubaker, I believe, and perhaps other members of Marvel's creative staff, determined that it would be dramatic and a valuable story device to kill the character.

I've been where you are, but I guess I've learned to look beyond character and more to story. As for collectibility, I think you're mistaken that this event in any way devalues the collectibility of Captain America comics. The title itself is doing very well so sales was not at issue here. It's just a story device.

There are so many wrong reasons to kill a character: character isn't selling well, quick shock value to sell a book, writer doesn't care for the character. This wasn't any of those. This is a writer, a guy who really creates some innovative stuff within the constraints of super hero fiction, doing something purely for the sake of telling an interesting story.

Posted with Mozilla Firefox on Windows 2000
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software