Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Marvel Universe >> View Post
·
Post By
Menshevik

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,014
In Reply To
Comicguy1

Subj: Re: What Marvel Characters Should Have STAYED Dead After They Died, And Not Been Resurrected?
Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 05:59:16 pm EDT (Viewed 200 times)
Reply Subj: What Marvel Characters Should Have STAYED Dead After They Died, And Not Been Resurrected?
Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:37:22 pm EDT (Viewed 529 times)



    Quote:
    Yeah, I know, no one stays dead in comics, and you can argue that most of them shouldn't have been killed off to begin with, BUT, at least a few of the ones brought back should have STAYED dead. And there was a reason that some of them were killed off in the first place. I'm sure that we all have our own personal list, so, let's have at it. Here are mine:



    Quote:
    #Elektra- She was CREATED to die. Frank Miller told a storyline with her, and that was all that he had planned. Her storyline was complete. Anything after Frank Miller, shouldn't have been, unless in Flashback.


Well, Miller kinda brought her back to the living himself, didn't he? Much as I did not feel that it was necessary to retcon her into Daredevil's origin, I really see no compelling reason for her to stay dead.


    Quote:
    #Mendell Strom- He was the Robot Master. He was resurrected as Gaunt during the Clone Saga. He was the partner of Norman Osborn, which led to Norman becoming the Green Goblin. He was a one-shot character created to die.


However, I will say this: I think in general writers should think twice or thrice before they ressurrect someone. They should really reflect if there really is a compelling story worth telling that can only be told with the ressurrected character. And maybe they should test if they can look in the mirror and say: "I'm not doing this just for nostalgia about the time when I was a fan who enjoyed this character" without breaking into guffaws. Because all too often the ressurrection of a character is connected either to the writing being too lazy or lacking in self-confidence to create a new character or obsessed with the glories of the past (and I think early X-Factor showed the horrors to which the nostalgic mindset can lead) or both.


    Quote:
    #Bolivar Trask- The creator of the Sentinels and the Master Mold. I never read the story, but again, created to die. Died in his first appearance. I believe that his death was one of those noble "I saw the error of my ways, so now I want to redeem." sacrifices. Heck, you know what, ANY character created to die, especially in their first storyline or storyarc. The exception being: Wonder Man.


Yes, it shouldn't be a 100 per cent rule, but characters created to die should generally stay dead except in very rare occasions. Also most characters created to already have been dead, such as Peter Parker's parents. (Personally, I never saw the point of revealing that Matt Murdock's mother was not dead but had abandoned her family to become a nun).


    Quote:
    # Kraven The Hunter- Completely useless and senseless resurrection. The guy, for all intents and purposes already beat Spider-Man, so what's left to do with him? It's practically the only thing that the guy was even remembered for. We didn't need him back, especially as we have (Or had.) all of these other Kravens. They were using his son quite a bit. You want a new Kraven? Okay there, you have a new Kraven.


Pretty much agree on this one. He may be a Ditko creation, but really Kraven's Last Hunt was the only memorable story in which he starred.


    Quote:
    #Captain Marvel- Again, why? Was it really worth it? He's another character who's more known and remembered for hi death.


Well, I'm old enough to remember reading and enjoying his title, but I can't really see the point of ressurrecting him.


    Quote:
    #Ultimate Spider-Man- Yeah, I know that it hasn't happened yet (Or has it?). But it probably will someday. Not that hi death was all that great (I thought that it was kind of lame, actually.), but the series pretty much ended there. I think that they should have ended the series and the title there. That was kind of Bendis's baby. Now that there's a new title (Which I actually kind of want to check out.) around, you just know that he's going to be back one day. I think that the Ultimate Universe should be it's own continuity with his death intact.


Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man is one of my favourite titles these days, so I guess I'm okay with Ultimate Peter Parker staying dead, even though his death saddened me. I want that title to move on, not wallow in the past.


    Quote:
    # Norman Osborn- Maybe. I love the character (Or used to anyway, before Dark Reign overexposed him to death.), and I loved most of his post-resurrection Spider-Man (And Thunderbolts.) stories, but he probably could have stayed dead. I can see where a lot of people prefer him to be a legacy character, who works better as a memory, and as someone who haunts Peter from the grave.



    Quote:
    #Aunt May- Again, maybe! I've changed my mind somewhat. She wasn't really needed as a character anymore, because Peter had grown up, and he became an adult. He also had MJ to lean on and rely upon, so she really served her purpose. However, I know that she's an integral (Too integral.) part of the Spidey universe, and that as long as he's being published, she has to be part of the books, as well as the franchise. So, a part of me thinks that maybe they shouldn't have killed her off, but since they did, I would prefer her to stay dead.


Straczynski gave her a reason to continue to exist as part of the Spider-cast when he had her find out Peter is Spider-Man. After OMD of course she can die again already.


    Quote:
    #Harry Osborn- At least since Norman's resurrection. Having Harry around takes quite a bit away from the Peter/Norman mutual hatred dynamic. If they brought back Harry instead of Norman (As they originally planned to do.), then fine, but since they brought Norman back, a lot of the animosity between the two hinged on Harry. And it's kind of hard to see him (Or rather view him.) as a friend of Peter's again, after some of the hurt that he caused him. So, since they brought back Norman, leave Harry dead.


What made it worse was what kind of a person he was after his return. Starting with this whole distasteful "gay divorcé" crap...


    Quote:
    #Bucky- Yeah I know, but still, it's Bucky.


Bucky should have stayed dead. What clinches it for me: The Winter Soldier is a very different person from Bucky, so he could easily have been an all-new character or based on a different, more obscure Golden Age character. So the only reason I see for having him be Bucky Barnes is marketing, because breaking the taboo against ressurrecting Bucky will get more attention than having a character who will be judged on his own merits.


    Quote:
    That's all for now, because I'm tired. \:P But most of those are a definite. What about you guys?


I always said resurrecting Jean Grey was a mistake, as it led to early X-Factor and some pretty bad damage to other characters, especially Cyclops. Also I think pretty much all the stories told with Jean probably could have been told just as well with Madelyne Pryor-Summers and Rachel.

A final thought: Maybe rather than immediately taking things to the fundamental level ("death should mean something" vs. "nothing should be permanent") one should look at cases of resurrections that arguably went wrong or proved anti-climactic? Were there resurrections that made you say: "This should not have happened" or "This was not worth it"?


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.12 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software