Thought Bubble Thursdays #6 - Fates Worse Than Death

in #writing7 years ago

Doubling down on the thought bubble last week, I decided to look at the topic from a different angle. For us mortals, death is almost always the worst possible thing to happen to us. I'm sure many would agree. Well, except for those Generation Z kids who feel like having no internet or damaging their rep is the worst thing ever. Ugh. Anyways... something, something, something, Thought Bubble Thursdays!


tbt.png

For characters that are virtuality immortal, death is but as passé as, let's say, the common cold. Just don't tell that to the Martians (see War of the Worlds). For beings that constantly get the opportunity to be resurrected, death is but a passing thing. There are virtually no stakes, no consequence of dying. Perhaps they would lose some time, or maybe have to go to the civil registry and have their "Deceased" status reversed (I mean, what a legal nightmare that is, huh?) but other than that, it really costs them nothing when they die. Or, is there?

Let's examine the different fates... worse than death. Dun dun dunnnnn!!!

Collateral Damage


collateral.jpg
Original Image Source

Unless a character was a recluse or anti-social, it would inevitably have friends or peers that aren't invulnerable to death. By invulnerable, what I mean is that even though comic book characters could die, they don't usually stay dead. Well, at least such is the case for most major characters. Most minor characters don't have the luxury of having droves of adoring fans clamoring for their revival. If anything, most minor characters who fall out of the mass' favor almost always usually find themselves on the end of a campaign that calls for their demise. Ouch!


graveyard
Image Source

While minor characters have the displeasure of grieving for the same major characters multiple times, major characters usually only grieve for minor characters once, because the latter usually doesn't get resurrected. Readers would just flip a page and call it a day, but if we put ourselves in the mindset of the characters, that's a major thing. It's the closest thing they have to what we feel in real life. Sure, the minor characters don't have a 100% assurance that the deceased major characters would return years from now, there's still hope. But, when minor characters are the ones that bite the dust, you can bet your sweet ass that they're done for good. For a world so used with miraculous returns, a one-way ticket to the afterlife is something that's hard to stomach.

Some characters may be immortal, but they still have feelings. And when everyone that they care for is long gone, they'll remain carrying on, living their life for the entertainment of a brand new generation of audience.

Retcons


retcon.png
Original Image Source

Short for retroactive continuity, it's a literary device that's used to change established history. This is done for many number of reasons, and it usually involves adjusting a character's history, ignoring past deeds or straight up changing backstories. For characters going through different generations, a change in history is almost always inevitable. Some backstories involve events that wouldn't be relatable to the current generation, rendering the character itself as unrelatable to the reader. To remedy it, a character's history is tweaked to make it connect better with the reader.

When done right, some retcons can be amazing. But, if not handled properly, these could easily muddle up stories and character histories. Once all of these little mistakes compound, a whole universe would end up like a patchwork mess that only an extinction-level crisis could fix. Just ask DC.


crisis.jpg
Original Image Source

Turning Heel


heel.jpg
Original Image Source

Since one of the reasons comic book characters are killed off is popularity, it's been a common practice to flip a character's alignment to see if the fresh scenery would be able to boost the reception. Villains have turned to the side of the angels, and heroes have broke bad. There's a line in the movie The Dark Knight that went, "you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." For characters that are essentially immortal, there are no truer words.

Hal Jordan (Green Lantern), Scott Summers (Cyclops), Steve Rogers (Captain America), Tony Stark (Iron Man) and even Ultimate Reed Richards (Mister Fantastic) are just some of the noteworthy heroes that have turned to the dark side. Although, I still do think that Cyclops was right, and Captain America has been evil for years. In the name of fresh stories, these boy scouts ripped off their snazzy cardigans and put of spiked leather jackets. Not literally, of course.

As with real life, once you go bad, forget years of good deeds, because any stain would be the things people fixate on. It's a shame that heroes build up years of good will only to be shattered by a sudden heel turn. Somehow, it not only betrays their legacy, but also the things they once stood for.

Fading into Obscurity


fade.jpg
Original Image Source

Of all the worse things that could happen, this is arguably the worst. Harrison Ford signed up for The Force Awakens hoping to give Han Solo a memorable send-off, Hugh Jackman essentially retired Wolverine in Logan and Henry Cavill hung up his tights in... hmm... well, I guess for a hot minute, before Superman was revived. That's because Superman never dies.

The best thing that can be done to a character is give them a proper send-off, other than that they'll just linger until the general public forgets about them. In real life, a person only truly ever dies when his or her memory fades from people's minds. One would argue that it's even more true for fictional characters. Their legacy is the mark that they leave on the world. There's nothing worse than a character overstaying his welcome and just fading out of existence. This is what the writers are risking for characters that they constantly bring back.


**

Will these problems linger on to the big screen? Constant revivals of Batman, Spider-Man and Superman seems to suggest so. The characters that the actors play are just roles that could be constantly recycled for the benefit of new stories. But, the connections that the audience forms in terms of associating actors with iconic roles they defined isn't something that could easily be rebuilt.

How will audiences react to someone other than Robert Downey Jr. playing the genius, billionaire, playboy philanthropist? Can anyone really capture the same Wolverine magic that Hugh Jackman did? Will someone else other than Ryan Reynolds exude the essence of X-Men Origins: Wolverine's Wade Wilson Green Lantern Deadpool? It worked for Professor X and Magneto, why can't it work for other characters?

But, enough about them. Let's talk about you. What are your thoughts on this? Should characters be recast or should they just create new characters to replace the departing ones? Did you leave the stove on?



Help keep @lukestokes.mhth as a top STEEM witness! Vote now :D



Join me in my Year of Resilience!

Sort:  

I have a difficult time with re-casting, but I wonder if it's also a generational thing. Particularly since in my life time alone there have been an extraordinary number of characters that have bee re-cast, for me it began with Toby Maguire (particularly since Ethan was in love with those movies, they played on our tv non-stop for what seems like years while he ran around in his spiderman or venom costume depending on the day), though you could also look at the different renditions of Hulk until they finally landed on the current one- I happen to like Mark Ruffalo, but I also really liked Edward Norton, and I wasn't opposed to Eric Bana either--and it made getting into Mark's character more difficult. It's a good thing the Green monster hasn't changed hands since then because I would probably be done with him.

Selling a different Tony Stark...good luck, RDjr is the entire reason I love that character ;)

I have a hard time with it too, so you're not alone there, sis. I get what you mean about Hulk and Spider-Man. Bana's not too bad, but the script and the graphics were awful. Also, when you take into account that Banner was supposed to be this awkward nerd, it's hard to picture Eric Bana as such. Norton brought gravitas to the role, but he's really polarizing. There's no doubt that he's acting is top notch, but they had to part because of creativity issues. Mark Ruffalo is very likable, and that is why I feel he endeared himself to the audience easily. I'm glad he stuck around, otherwise I couldn't have taken a new Banner seriously.

Maguire was good for the stories he was given. It's a good thing I hated Garfield's run, that's why when Holland stepped into the role as a younger on the character, it felt like he was saving Spidey haha!

Robert Downey Jr can never be replaced. Whoever they plan on casting (if they ever recast) is going to be a tough sell. He owns that character!

Most probably those characters are ressurected only to bring money and to insert some ideas into the wievers minds&hearts the money givers that the producer found wanted to insert. If this calls for their ressurection, even if they have to say olny a sentence from some ancient text, then they get ressurected.

Oh definitely. In the end, showbiz is still a business. Actors and studios need to make money, and if a surefire way is to bring a dead character back to life, then I'm sure they'll pull the trigger on that decision every time.

That was always one of my favourite graphic novels, the Dark Knight and it is a fantastic quote. One which has parallels in real life!

I dont like it when they re-cast established characters, it rarely works well. Of course when it does I bang the drum and say isnt this amazing but overall Idont like it!

Just away to check my stove... :OD

'Tis a fantastic quote indeed! I use that whenever I can. For people, food, cars, and anything that's affected by wear and tear.

I'm on the same boat, bro-nado! There are some roles that are meant to be recast, but for roles that have had a definitive performance, it's hard to imagine someone else taking over the role. I imagine I'll have a hard time accepting a different actor playing Han Solo.

Aha! I knew I would catch someone being distracted by STEEM! I hope you made it in time to save your mansion from burning down!

Iron man and Captain America turned evil??? :P

about your question: Should characters be recast or should they just create new characters to replace the departing ones?

i really don't care as long as i like it :P it may be simple minded but that's all i care when reading a comic or watching a movie-show. Also have you thought about the scenario to be the one having issues and not the character? so in a second try with everything as it was except the scenario may be a whole different experience

Oh yeah, definitely! Iron Man first had a turn in the 90s. He was mind-controlled and all, but still, there were a lot of deaths. His teenage self was brought in to fix the mess, but really, I feel like it was a way for the writers to rejuvenate the character and start young. After a few months, the two were merged and the bad deeds were forgotten. 90s comics were weird. He had a second turn not too long ago when he was struck with an "inversion" spell that turned the good guys bad and the bad guys good. That time, he was more just a cockier version of himself. He wasn't really "evil", he just didn't care about others as much.

Captain America turning evil was a big issue a year or so ago. A lot of people were up in arms about the whole thing, with many boycotting Marvel. The internet was on fire for months haha! What happened was that a sentient cosmic cube "rewrote" history to give the Nazis the World War II victory. Plot twist: it turns out they really were the winners, and the allies winning is the real tampering of history. Yadda yadda yadda nazi regime, heroes revolt, and the cosmic cube "reboots" the original Captain America. Now, there are two Steve Rogers-es running around. The good one, and the Hydra Supreme Leader.

In the end, that's all that really matters I guess. What's the use of stories if they're not enjoyable, right? It's tough to please everybody, so as long as good stories are being published, that's all that's important.

ahh i have seen that hydra image a couple of times but as i don't read comics i didn't care a lot :P but as we both said if good stories are around with every element inside we don't have to care about anything else and child-teens fan ''love'' to characters

It's all been resolved now, so you don't need to revisit the Hydra Cap story. I really didn't care for it. Maybe if it stuck, it would've made a bigger impact.

are there in these comics let's say captain america killing scenes and stuff or most likely just beat up to the bag guys and justice

Straight up killing scenes when he was all Hail Hydra haha Push Jack Flagg out an aircraft in one scene haha

hahaha such a badass :P

True that!

I think the point here is that some heroes are iconic.

You can traslade that icon and adjust it to new generations. Or you can twist it, change its colors, bring it to new scenarios and stuff, as long as you respect the icon's basic characteristics.

Ask batman and joker. Yeah, whatever version you like.

They should not die. They cannot die. You can't kill this icon, even if you wanted to.

Let's say you actually kill batman. Yeah, you kill him and that's it. You got another character to take his place. A cooler character, sexier, with 20% more awesomess.

Will the world actually accept that? Will it forget batman?

Other heroes are not iconic. They are just characters that could die and be replace for something better, sexier or cooler. You would miss them, maybe, but not all that much.

I totally get your point, man. Actually, Batman's a good example. Back in the 2000s, they actually did "kill" Bruce Wayne off for a time. There was even a whole Battle for the Cowl event which pitted a lot of characters trying to take up the mantle of Batman. I was totally fine with that, and a lot of characters brought a lot to the table. Eventually, the first Robin, Dick Grayson won and was Batman for quite some time. Since the other Robins already made their bid to become Batman, they wouldn't go back to being sidekicks. So, Damian Wayne, Bruce's son, became the new Boy Wonder. It really presented a new dynamic, and it gave the world a fresh Batman, who was unsure if he was suited for the role.

It's not just Batman, too. Bucky became Captain America for a while (which I was cool with), Jane Foster became Thor (which I'm still not cool with), the many Green Lanterns, Wally West became the Flash (which I grew up with), and many others. The point is, the same character doesn't need to live forever to become effective. Sometimes death, when meaningful, could have a better effect on a character's legacy than continuing on for decades.

I totally get your point though, thanks for sharing it! I appreciate it a lot :D

Yeah... not cool about the Thor girl.

Not specially happy about this teenage girl being Iron Man either. You know, not because she is a girl, but... heck, "Iron man", people?

That's the same case as "Devilman Lady". Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?

Oh, well... if i am buying she being this government sponsored erotic demon that will bring the apocalypse and stuff, i guess she being a "devilman" is kinda ok...

Thor is his name and they played it off as being a title. Jeez. They really missed the mark on that one.

Because of the backlash, they didn't push forward with making her "Iron Man". Instead, they named her Ironheart who took over the Iron Man title in the comics while Tony Stark was in a coma. He's coming back soon, so I don't know how they would handle that. Probably a mentor-student relationship.

And what's it like for these characters, to live in a retconned universe? Do they privately mourn the loves lost, or do they celebrate new potential? Probably both.

If that old saw, "there are only so many stories" is true, it should hold that there are only so many characters, too. Might as well just recycle.

Whenever I can, I try to insert myself in their world to ask these hard hitting questions. I do strongly believe that for those who remember the old world, it's bittersweet seeing dead people resurrected and histories changed. It feels like a second chance, but it also feels like a magnification of how powerless they are.

But there could be more, what with pleas for diversification. It used to be that mostly WASPs are used, but now it could half-Asian, half-European lesbians taking the lead. The possibilities are endless. For those that can change with the times, I don't have that much of a problem in terms of recycling. But for characters that live in the past, they need to retire.

Yeah. If any part of a character's essential perspective is based on antiquated notions, like, I think, Captain America will soon be guilty of, they can be forgotten.

Actually, they've been doing a good job with Captain America as of late. They're changing the character as a reflection of the times. For a time, Falcon took up the SHIELD while Steve Rogers was aged to his proper age (probably as a depiction of, as you said, antiquated notions). But, Steve Rogers' youth has since been restored, and he's been through the wringer because of recent events.

I guess we'll see, but I wonder if even the notion of patriotism will become antiquated in the US as it has in Germany.

I'm pretty sure it would. I think the main factor working for that is time. Given enough of it, patriotism would surely wane, especially with polarizing views on pertinent topics.

Here's hoping!

Haha! Ever the contrarian :D

I grew up watching the original TV Superman, George Reeves. He committed suicide, but his character lived on with other actors and other shows. For me even though Superman wasn’t killed off in the show he was dead to me, buried with George Reeves.

Man, that's a bummer about George Reeves. I knew his story because of the movie Hollywoodland. I totally get how you feel about it, being attached with the character-actor. I guess this is one of those cases where a character was gone too soon. Had they retired Superman along with George Reeves' passing, it would've made for a more compelling successor. Now, they couldn't get Superman right.

I like how cartoon characters can die but then they come back in another part some how.

Sometimes it has its uses, but most of the time, especially when the reason is illogical, I can't help but be pissed off. But hey, if that's a character you liked and it moves the story forward in a positive way, then why not, right?

yea it gets me a little at first like hey thats not cool dead is dead but then it reminds me that the cartoon world is different from reality in that whatever the mind can think of and the hand can draw can become reality no matter how far fetched it may seem

You got a 9.73% upvote from @postpromoter courtesy of @jedau! Want to promote your posts too? Check out the Steem Bot Tracker website for more info. If you would like to support development of @postpromoter and the bot tracker please vote for @yabapmatt for witness!

Already voted! :D

Great post! Come with me!

Stranger danger! Stranger danger! Thanks for the compliment though!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 63057.34
ETH 2546.78
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.64