TF Views

Fuck the X-Men movies. I recently rewatched all three of them and they could barely hold my interest. X2's plot is all over the place and I don't even want to talk about the third one. When I say "Marvel movies," I mean, "Every Marvel film since Iron Man that isn't produced by Sony or Fox."

Bucky's return from the dead is so important and integral to his character now that I would argue he wouldn't even have been killed in the Cap movie if they weren't already planning on bringing him back. Characters whose entire gimmick is that they have died and come back from the dead from a long absence (notably Bucky and Jason Todd) get a pass because, as cheap as their original bringing back might have been in the comics, it has clearly stuck around and been important. This is different from, say, The Human Torch, whose death will only be remembered because it meant Spider-Man was on the Fantastic Four for a little while.

Obviously bad comic book death-and-rebirths are, for example, from this very page of this thread--according to Dom, Janet Van Dyke is back. She was apparently dead at some point. Maybe. It's this flippant attitude towards death of human beings in the mainstream comic book universes that make it such a cheap shitty tactic and when characters die for shock value only for their triumphant return to happen a year later--sometimes even planned to do so--it just makes that death cheap and useless.

When Superman died, it was a big deal because no major character like him had died before, and when he came back (as opposed to someone else becoming "the next Superman," like Superboy for example) it was a cheap cop-out that the Superbooks arguably have only recently overcome. When Bruce Wayne died a few years ago, people were seriously already trying to figure out when he was coming back. The entire Dick Grayson Batman era was tainted with a constant caveat of, "This is great, but how long is it going to last before Bruce is back?" And that's the problem.

I mean, pretty much the only books where this kind of thing can work is robot-based books--and even then, it can be stretched past the point of believability. (Roberts is really tiptoe-ing some lines in MTMTE lately, but it's hard to fault him because it seems like he kills characters about as often as a character miraculously pulls through. I am getting a little tired of the "x character gets shot" cliffhanger ending only for that character to be alive next issue, though.)

If Captain America dies in Avengers 2 (some rumours are saying it's going to be a Civil War adaptation, but we'll see how that pans out) then I fully expect that to stick for the movie universe. Steve Rogers will be dead. Hell, Phil Coulson has been announced to be in the SHIELD TV series, but for all we know it's an Avengers prequel series. If it's not, the running rumour is that it won't be Literally Coulson--it'll probably just be a robot with his personality. (Some people are leaning towards him being The Vision. I'd be okay with that. His hairstyle works.)

That still doesn't make every story that involves time travel, alternate universe or clones or what have you a stupid story.

Yeah, but most of the time, those things do mean the story is stupid.

When Superman died, it was a big deal because no major character like him had died before, and when he came back (as opposed to someone else becoming "the next Superman," like Superboy for example) it was a cheap cop-out that the Superbooks arguably have only recently overcome.

DC was still coasting on the credibility that "Crisis on Infinite Earths" gave it. For a long time after, when DC said that they meant business, they meant it. People cared when a second tier character like Hawk flipped out and went bad because it was likely to stick. (At the time, Marvel had already back-written Jean Grey back to life, undoing one of the more important character deaths the company had.) They killed (and completely wrote out) Supergirl. They killed the Flash. They killed a Robin. There was always a sense that maybe, just maybe, Superman was going to stay dead.

When Bruce Wayne died a few years ago, people were seriously already trying to figure out when he was coming back. The entire Dick Grayson Batman era was tainted with a constant caveat of, "This is great, but how long is it going to last before Bruce is back?" And that's the problem.

Planned returns are much different than bringing a character back years after the fact (when it was never the plan) or just randomly killing and raising a character for lack of planning (as was the case with the Wasp).

Batman was never dead. One of the last pages of "Final Crisis" showed Batman alive in the distant past. DC never even pretended to act like they thought for a moment that Bruce Wayne was dead. Similarly, Booster Gold's death was played totally straight in "52". And, the big reveal about him surviving (using time travel and teleportation as the explanations) was a brilliant riff on "shitty back-writing".

Contrast that with the return of Hal Jordan or Barry Allen, which were fanfic grade stories that existed just to make something or another right for a specific set of readers.

I mean, pretty much the only books where this kind of thing can work is robot-based books--and even then, it can be stretched past the point of believability. (Roberts is really tiptoe-ing some lines in MTMTE lately, but it's hard to fault him because it seems like he kills characters about as often as a character miraculously pulls through. I am getting a little tired of the "x character gets shot" cliffhanger ending only for that character to be alive next issue, though.)

Flexible death has always been thing in TF. The first few issues of the Marvel series made a point of having characters say that "death" was different for Cybertronians. Oddly, despite this, the old Marvel series (even at its lowest) was still one of the more dynamic books on shelves. Stuff changed and damned well stayed changed.

Roberts has definitely been riffing too much on that though.


Dom
-how many of the big stories from the last 20 or so years have actually stuck, not counting stories that undid other stories?

Onslaught Six wrote:Fuck the X-Men movies. I recently rewatched all three of them and they could barely hold my interest. X2's plot is all over the place and I don't even want to talk about the third one. When I say "Marvel movies," I mean, "Every Marvel film since Iron Man that isn't produced by Sony or Fox."

They're still Marvel movies. You can't discount them just because they don't fit your picture here. And as you admit, Thor's movie also kills off the character just to bring him right back. Captain America will be doing the same with Bucky.

Bucky's return from the dead is so important and integral to his character now that I would argue he wouldn't even have been killed in the Cap movie if they weren't already planning on bringing him back. Characters whose entire gimmick is that they have died and come back from the dead from a long absence (notably Bucky and Jason Todd) get a pass because, as cheap as their original bringing back might have been in the comics, it has clearly stuck around and been important. This is different from, say, The Human Torch, whose death will only be remembered because it meant Spider-Man was on the Fantastic Four for a little while.

I think they would have killed Bucky either way, because he was a character that was supposed to die. That's long been established why the Marvel universe doesn't have sidekicks. Granted the movie looses the impact of that with Bucky already being an adult, but he is a character destined to die. That does not mean they have to bring him back in the movies though. I don't see that it's his 'gimmick' that he was dead for a long time here at all. It still cheapens the character's death if they explain they didn't actually die in the first place. Don't you remember the reactions from fans when Bucky or Jason returned?

When Superman died, it was a big deal because no major character like him had died before, and when he came back (as opposed to someone else becoming "the next Superman," like Superboy for example) it was a cheap cop-out that the Superbooks arguably have only recently overcome. When Bruce Wayne died a few years ago, people were seriously already trying to figure out when he was coming back. The entire Dick Grayson Batman era was tainted with a constant caveat of, "This is great, but how long is it going to last before Bruce is back?" And that's the problem.

Barry Allen's death during Infinite Crisis was a pretty big deal. And as Dom points out several other DC characters that had been killed off had stuck up until that point they killed off Superman.

Dominic wrote:Yeah, but most of the time, those things do mean the story is stupid.

It all depends on how the story handles it. It does not automatically mean that story is stupid.

It all depends on how the story handles it. It does not automatically mean that story is stupid.

"I am so glad [x character] came back to life because his friends went to an alternate reality to bring that reality's [character] to our universe." --Things Nobody Says Ever

The Death and Return of Superman was good storytelling. It wasn't a cheap shock ending to a story designed to sell due to shock value, it was well-told and the forgone conclusion that Superman would be back didn't hurt that particular story.

Barry Allen did not need to return. Bringing back Hal Jordan was a "fix fic" that did a good job undoing years of character destruction. I'm not sure what the point of "killing" Batman in Final Crisis was, other than to give us a chance to see someone else in the role temporarily. I've read a few of the trades with Dick Grayson as Batman, and I didn't think they were anything special, honestly.

"Death of Superman" was "hype comics 101".

Single image spash pages? Check.

Poly-bagged variants? Check.

Hype? Check.

It wasn't a cheap shock ending to a story designed to sell due to shock value, it was well-told and the forgone conclusion that Superman would be back didn't hurt that particular story.

After a year+ of hype and "awesome", I damned well expect more than "Superman came back.....with a mullet!"

Bringing back Hal Jordan was a "fix fic" that did a good job undoing years of character destruction.

No, it made everything like it was. "Hal is alive. Hal is a good guy again. And, it was never really Hal that went bad in the first place. He just had yellow space scabies." That whole arc read like a damned fanfic from the first page to the last. I *tried* to get through it. I really did. "Rebirth" did more to set Hal back as a character by removing the effects of, (and thus effectively undoing), a story arc that changed and redefined the character while giving the character a definite ending.

I'm not sure what the point of "killing" Batman in Final Crisis was, other than to give us a chance to see someone else in the role temporarily.

Morrison has a boner for "Bruce Wayne as bad ass". And, again, Batman did *not* die during "Final Crisis". The last issue specifically shows Bruce Wayne to be alive. There was never any question of him being dead for the readers. Morrison was subverting the whole stupid "hero dies in the big retarded event story" by specifically *not* killing the hero off. The idea is that Batman fought Darkseid and managed to not get killed.

I've read a few of the trades with Dick Grayson as Batman, and I didn't think they were anything special, honestly.

A big problem was that nobody over the age of 5 thought that it would stick. (Granted, many of use wanted it to. But, it was not going to.) "Sidekick temporarily takes the master's job" is much less impressive than "sidekick grows up to fill the master's shoes".


Dom
-sticking with DC for as long as the New 52 changes stick...

Onslaught Six wrote:"I am so glad [x character] came back to life because his friends went to an alternate reality to bring that reality's [character] to our universe." --Things Nobody Says Ever

1. Clearly you have never read the Exiles.
2. No one ever intentionally goes to another universe to bring that realities version of a character back with them. It's pretty much always a mistake and the character ends up stuck so that they can't get back to their home universe, or chooses to stay for some greater purpose.

Dominic wrote:No, it made everything like it was. "Hal is alive. Hal is a good guy again. And, it was never really Hal that went bad in the first place. He just had yellow space scabies." That whole arc read like a damned fanfic from the first page to the last. I *tried* to get through it. I really did. "Rebirth" did more to set Hal back as a character by removing the effects of, (and thus effectively undoing), a story arc that changed and redefined the character while giving the character a definite ending.

Haven't you read anything after Rebirth? In the fall out after that story, Hal had to spend some quality time with Bruce to prove to him he wasn't evil. Which was no small thing because Bruce was extremely skeptical of Hal. During the Sinestro Corps War, it was shown most of the Green Lantern Corps did not trust Hal. Even during Blackest Night, Hal tells Barry he had died a sinner still working on putting things right, were as Barry died a saint. Made everything like it was? You could not be further from the truth. Hal was given a shot at redemption because he had been possessed by Parallax, but that doesn't mean everyone had forgiven Hal or understood Hal was not entirely in control of his actions.

And, now a quick review of the more recent "Horus Heresy" novel, which is actually a compilation.

Shadows of Treachery (Dunn and Kyme):
I do not count anthologies, for good or ill, towards my decision to keep reading a series like this or not. Given that this sort of book will have an many authors as it does stories, quality and tone can vary wildly in the book itself, never mind relative to other books in the series. "Shadows of Treachery" also includes formerly exclusive (either online or as audio books) content. (Ironically, there is an add for another "temporary exclusive" novel. If GW releases too many exlusives, I will drop the series, regardless of quality.)

"The Crimson Fist" (French):
French makes an odd stylistic choice in having some scenes narrated in the first person while others are narrated in the third. This does not ruin the story, but it does make for a choppier read. French also borrows a plot-point from "The Outcast Dead", specifically the Imperium finding out just how badly its first move against Horus went. It does not carry the same impact as it did in "The Outcast Dead", but "The Crimson Fist" does not have the mind-blowingly sloppy errors of "The Outcast Dead".
Grade: C

"The Dark King" and "The Lightning Tower" (McNeill and Abnett):
These were marketed as being complimentary. And, while that is a fair way to pitch them, neither story relies on the other. "The Dark King" is a character study of Konrad (Night Lords' Primarch) and "The Lightning Tower" focuses on Dorn (Imperial Fists' Primarch). "The Lighting Tower" is the better, and shorter, of the two. Besides adding depth to an established character, it also forshadows how the Imperium of the pre-Heresy years will eventually become the Imperium of 40K . Grade: A/B

"Kaban Project" (McNeill):
The focus of this story is on the Mechanicum in the days leading up to the Heresy. It does not cover much new ground. But, it covers semi-treaded ground well enough.
Grade: B

"Raven's Flight" (Thorpe):
This reads like a cut scene from Thorpe's "Deliverance Lost". At ~45 pages, I can see why it was cut, despite there being nothing actually wrong with it. The focus switches between Corax trying to survive on Isstvan 6 immediately after the massacre and inbound re-enforcements.

"Death of a Silversmith" (McNeill):
McNeill writes from the perspective of a nameless craftsman attached to Horus' Legion shortly before the Heresy. There are subtle references to the first 3 novels in passing dialogue. And, the smith is killed for reasons that neither he nor the reader ever fully understand. All told, it nicely captures the atmosphere of "False Gods" and "Galaxy in Flames".
Grade: A

"Prince of Crows" (Dembski-Bowden):
Bowden has a thing for the Nightlords. He has referred to this story as "Sevatar has a bad day", and that is about as good a description as one could hope for. Bowden nicely balances the tone of the story using a combination of gallows humour and appallingly casual brutality (even by the standards of GW novels). Bowden does not attempt to rehab the Nightlords in to anti-heroes. They are unambiguously the bad guys, even before the Heresy. But, Bowden does a solid job of showing the hows and whys.
Grade: B/C

And, that gets me caught up on the "Horus Heresy" series.

2. No one ever intentionally goes to another universe to bring that realities version of a character back with them. It's pretty much always a mistake and the character ends up stuck so that they can't get back to their home universe, or chooses to stay for some greater purpose.

And, thus, the lesson was lost.


Dom
-going to be another big week for comics.

Dominic wrote:And, thus, the lesson was lost.

Which would be that those stories aren't necessarily bad stories? Yeah, I've seen saying that for the last several posts...

*cry*

No. I meant, "falling back on in-fiction logic and completely missing the point of what O6 was saying".

The in-story reason for an alternate universe character making the jump does not matter as much as the fact that said plot-point comes off as really fucking stupid.


Dom
-not sure if "Exiles" is the best defense either....