@CTG: Here is my question to you. If all the first death did was set the stage and establish a real penalty, then why couldn't Hopeless have created a character just to kill for that purpose? It would have been just as shocking to the kids (who didn't all know each other anyway), and it wouldn't have required killing a character that many readers cared about.

Likewise, if the only purpose of the issue two death was to establish another parameter, then why couldn't Hopeless have created a character just to kill for that purpose?

The two previously-existing characters who have died were killed for in-book reasons which could easily have been satisfied by not killing an established character (in the case of the first one, with a decent fanbase, especially considering that the first issue directly followed the last issue of his book).

The first actually meaningful (I won't say necessary because I find the entire series' premise unnecessary, but "necessary" based on the premise) death happens to a Hopeless-created character after two non-Hopeless-created characters have been killed to prove basic points. Seems rather ridiculous to me.

@akbogert:

It would seem as though the reason why he killed an established character first as the stage-setter was to set that as the stage.

If I flip on a movie and I see Stalone and a bunch of no-name's running through a warzone, I instantly assume that Stalone is safe, even if some of the no-names around him might die.

If, five minutes into that movie, I see Bruce Willis get shot and killed, then I no longer assume that being a "big name" makes them safe.

For Avengers Academy, killing a nobody sets a precident that the nobodies will die, but it still leaves a lot of us believing all the ol' reliables are coming home. And further, it prevents us from getting emotionally invested in the new characters because we just assume they will die. They are supporting cast while the established kids are the main characters. By killing an established character, he immediately sets the stage of "Nobody is safe". Doing that makes us actually worry about the established characters we care about, plus it makes us more open to the new characters who have equal odds. I do not believe people would be nearly as interested in the Britain Academy if they only existed as the unofficial cannon fodder.

Not saying it's right. Not saying I like it. I still want my poor Nico and Hazmat to come home safe; they've been through enough already. But it is what it is.

@Sharkbite said:

@akbogert:

It would seem as though the reason why he killed an established character first as the stage-setter was to set that as the stage.

If I flip on a movie and I see Stalone and a bunch of no-name's running through a warzone, I instantly assume that Stalone is safe, even if some of the no-names around him might die.

If, five minutes into that movie, I see Bruce Willis get shot and killed, then I no longer assume that being a "big name" makes them safe.

For Avengers Academy, killing a nobody sets a precident that the nobodies will die, but it still leaves a lot of us believing all the ol' reliables are coming home. And further, it prevents us from getting emotionally invested in the new characters because we just assume they will die. They are supporting cast while the established kids are the main characters. By killing an established character, he immediately sets the stage of "Nobody is safe". Doing that makes us actually worry about the established characters we care about, plus it makes us more open to the new characters who have equal odds. I do not believe people would be nearly as interested in the Britain Academy if they only existed as the unofficial cannon fodder.

Beat me to it, but this is exactly right on the money.

To paraphrase - killing a no-name character leaves very little impact, while killing an established character sends the message.

@CTG: I misread your original statement, it seems, as just "it lets the other characters know..." rather than "it lets the other characters and the readers know..." So that addresses that portion of what I said (which is the portion @Sharkbite was talking about).

Of course, we are thus returned back to my original statement, that the death wasn't earned or meaningful. The only purpose it served was shock value/getting reader attention/publicity. Hopeless did absolutely nothing to "earn" the right to kill one of the lead characters of the book his first issue immediately followed. There was no lead-up or inevitability to the death, nor was it (or could it be) adequately addressed or reflected upon afterwards; one or two quick scenes does not a mourning make, and because the book doesn't care about the individual characters half so much as the ensemble feel, there will never be time for proper reflection. Marvel's already soliciting future books with Hazmat in someone else's arms (BS or not, they're willing to let the advertising "move on" pretty darn quickly).

It's like a recent thread I've posted in, about Power Girl's boob window. Regardless of the plausibility of the explanation given, everyone knows that the real reason she has a hole there is to show off cleavage. It's a non-textual reason that trumps all the lesser in-text reasons for the thing to be there. Likewise, no matter how you can try to make a justification for the death, the only actual reason Mettle died was to shock readers into taking the book seriously; a non-textual reason that trumps all the lesser in-text reasons for the thing to be there. And in that way, the death is stripped of any potential meaning it could have had.

@akbogert said:

@CTG: I misread your original statement, it seems, as just "it lets the other characters know..." rather than "it lets the other characters and the readers know..." So that addresses that portion of what I said (which is the portion @Sharkbite was talking about).

Of course, we are thus returned back to my original statement, that the death wasn't earned or meaningful. The only purpose it served was shock value/getting reader attention/publicity. Hopeless did absolutely nothing to "earn" the right to kill one of the lead characters of the book his first issue immediately followed. There was no lead-up or inevitability to the death, nor was it (or could it be) adequately addressed or reflected upon afterwards; one or two quick scenes does not a mourning make, and because the book doesn't care about the individual characters half so much as the ensemble feel, there will never be time for proper reflection. Marvel's already soliciting future books with Hazmat in someone else's arms (BS or not, they're willing to let the advertising "move on" pretty darn quickly).

It's like a recent thread I've posted in, about Power Girl's boob window. Regardless of the plausibility of the explanation given, everyone knows that the real reason she has a hole there is to show off cleavage. It's a non-textual reason that trumps all the lesser in-text reasons for the thing to be there. Likewise, no matter how you can try to make a justification for the death, the only actual reason Mettle died was to shock readers into taking the book seriously; a non-textual reason that trumps all the lesser in-text reasons for the thing to be there. And in that way, the death is stripped of any potential meaning it could have had.

Of course it was - we don't have a disagreement there. I specifically said that he killed Mettle to show that the book was serious. Whether or not he "earned the right" to kill the character is up for debate - a debate that I was never engaging in. My original point was that the last death that occurred IMO was the most meaningful as it was setup for 2-3 issues. It's also the first confirmed death of one of the combatants at the hands of another combatant.

Remember, Arcade killed Mettle and the second death was cause environmentally - though I guess technically, you could put that on Arcade also.

@CTG: Sure, sure. I was just reinforcing my dismay that the most memorable/earned death we've seen has been of someone Hopeless made -- and thus, in my opinion, the least deserving of it. Though of course insomuch as a new character lives and an older one is spared, I won't complain too much.

As for Arcade vs. environment -- nah, I'll continue putting that on Hopeless. Arcade does nothing without his approval.

@akbogert said:

It's like a recent thread I've posted in, about Power Girl's boob window. Regardless of the plausibility of the explanation given, everyone knows that the real reason she has a hole there is to show off cleavage. It's a non-textual reason that trumps all the lesser in-text reasons for the thing to be there. Likewise, no matter how you can try to make a justification for the death, the only actual reason Mettle died was to shock readers into taking the book seriously; a non-textual reason that trumps all the lesser in-text reasons for the thing to be there. And in that way, the death is stripped of any potential meaning it could have had.

This right here. No matter how you look at it, no matter what kind of in context "meaning" (I use that term loosely, mind you) these characters' deaths are given, the sole reason they're being killed off is to be shocking and edgy and make a quick buck, and because they aren't deemed as popular enough for Marvel to care about what happens to them as, say, Iron Man or Thor. Hopeless saying "oh all the deaths will be meaningful" is like him saying "well, we're going to be driving this drill into your skull, but don't worry, I'll make it hurt as little as possible." That's great and all, but guess what, you're still driving a drill into our skulls.

@Ravager4 said:

@akbogert said:

It's like a recent thread I've posted in, about Power Girl's boob window. Regardless of the plausibility of the explanation given, everyone knows that the real reason she has a hole there is to show off cleavage. It's a non-textual reason that trumps all the lesser in-text reasons for the thing to be there. Likewise, no matter how you can try to make a justification for the death, the only actual reason Mettle died was to shock readers into taking the book seriously; a non-textual reason that trumps all the lesser in-text reasons for the thing to be there. And in that way, the death is stripped of any potential meaning it could have had.

This right here. No matter how you look at it, no matter what kind of in context "meaning" (I use that term loosely, mind you) these characters' deaths are given, the sole reason they're being killed off is to be shocking and edgy and make a quick buck, and because they aren't deemed as popular enough for Marvel to care about what happens to them as, say, Iron Man or Thor. Hopeless saying "oh all the deaths will be meaningful" is like him saying "well, we're going to be driving this drill into your skull, but don't worry, I'll make it hurt as little as possible." That's great and all, but guess what, you're still driving a drill into our skulls.

This. This is wrong.

The first and second deaths you can debate. The third was earned.

Of course characters are going to die. If you're reading this series expecting them not to and then when they do you say "oh that's cause it's the concept of the book!" then well... DUH! The issue of whether or not characters are going to die is a tired one. We all know they will b/c as I said before - it's the entire concept of the book. The issue here is whether these deaths are coming cheap or if they have some type of thought behind them.

The first and second can be argued either way, but they were necessary. The third death was most certainly thought through and setup over the course of 3 issues. If you can't appreciate that, you shouldn't be reading this book. Characters will die and no matter how much planning, thought and effort goes into those deaths, if you don't agree w/ the concept of the book, which it seems you don't, you're not going to like it and describe it as a cheap ploy for shock value.

You don't go to a horror movie and complain that characters are being killed off do you? If so, you're no fun to be around for your friends.

@CTG: I honestly don't know how what you just said applies to what you quoted. Or even, actually, to anything anyone has argued.

In terms of the cheap ploy for shock value angle, I can't be sure, but I'm pretty sure Ravager's entire response must be seen as a response to the deaths of pre-existing characters, not the new ones.

@akbogert said:

@CTG: I honestly don't know how what you just said applies to what you quoted. Or even, actually, to anything anyone has argued.

In terms of the cheap ploy for shock value angle, I can't be sure, but I'm pretty sure Ravager's entire response must be seen as a response to the deaths of pre-existing characters, not the new ones.

Then you're reading differently than I...

@Ravager4 said:

@akbogert said:

It's like a recent thread I've posted in, about Power Girl's boob window. Regardless of the plausibility of the explanation given, everyone knows that the real reason she has a hole there is to show off cleavage. It's a non-textual reason that trumps all the lesser in-text reasons for the thing to be there. Likewise, no matter how you can try to make a justification for the death, the only actual reason Mettle died was to shock readers into taking the book seriously; a non-textual reason that trumps all the lesser in-text reasons for the thing to be there. And in that way, the death is stripped of any potential meaning it could have had.

This right here. No matter how you look at it, no matter what kind of in context "meaning" (I use that term loosely, mind you) these characters' deaths are given, the sole reason they're being killed off is to be shocking and edgy and make a quick buck, and because they aren't deemed as popular enough for Marvel to care about what happens to them as, say, Iron Man or Thor. Hopeless saying "oh all the deaths will be meaningful" is like him saying "well, we're going to be driving this drill into your skull, but don't worry, I'll make it hurt as little as possible." That's great and all, but guess what, you're still driving a drill into our skulls.

The second bolded sentence has nothing to do with what we were discussing and is complete theory on his part. The first bolded sentence was/is the base of what was being discussed. I have not and won't start debating someone's random theory unless it's backed up by some type of evidence.

"They're killing them b/c they aren't popular!" - Show me any type of proof that's case and I'll discuss it, otherwise it gets ignored. I don't feed in to that type of nonsense.

@CTG: Well consider the implications. By talking about character's not being deemed popular enough for Marvel to care about them, he must be understood to mean characters who already existed to have had a shot at being popular or unpopular. You called them two sentences but they're actually one long sentence, with an "AND" (the one word you didn't bold) connecting the two thoughts in a way which cannot be ignored. Characters who are being killed off for shock value and because they're not popular can only mean characters who previously existed; like me, Ravager likely does not care what Hopeless does to his own characters.

And actually the claim that these characters weren't popular enough has been substantiated by official quotes in other threads on the subject, including at least one blog of mine, so it's not mere theory.

@akbogert said:

@CTG: Well consider the implications. By talking about character's not being deemed popular enough for Marvel to care about them, he must be understood to mean characters who already existed to have had a shot at being popular or unpopular. You called them two sentences but they're actually one long sentence, with an "AND" (the one word you didn't bold) connecting the two thoughts in a way which cannot be ignored. Characters who are being killed off for shock value and because they're not popular can only mean characters who previously existed; like me, Ravager likely does not care what Hopeless does to his own characters.

And actually the claim that these characters weren't popular enough has been substantiated by official quotes in other threads on the subject, including at least one blog of mine, so it's not mere theory.

Wait, wait, wait - you guys are complaining that the characters that are dying aren't Hopeless' creations - thus he doesn't have the right to do it? That's basically what you're saying between the lines.

L.M.A.O.

If that's the case I'm done. That's beyond a waste of time to even get into. The amount of characters who've died - even for shock value - at the hands of writer who didn't create them is (to steal a line from Zoolander) really, really, really, ridiculously long.

@CTG: No, you've actually drawn a false causal from what I said. Yes, I am complaining that pre-existing characters are being killed (primarily because their deaths were literally the selling point used to promote this book for the first month or so and prior to launch). But of course Hopeless is one among hundreds (or at least dozens) to have killed characters he didn't create. Once more you are criticizing a position that no one actually holds. The complaint is that this book is going to (and has been promised to) kill at least a handful of niche characters whom Marvel did not deem popular or financially viable enough to justify keeping alive. This complaint is further exacerbated by Hopeless actually having declared that all the deaths would be respectful and meaningful and earned, both in interviews and, again, in the letters section of the book itself -- ironically directly after Mettle died. Those complaints are entirely valid, and debating them equally a waste of time.

I'm simply saying that it's sad that the first truly earned/well-planned death was given to a character who didn't even exist before the first issue of this series, after two far less-meaningful/earned deaths (by your own words) had befallen established characters.

@akbogert: I hold this guy's position on the issue to.

@Technicolorville: Which position? The only position I have been given is an anti-position in response to a point no one actually made...

@akbogert said:

@CTG: No, you've actually drawn a false causal from what I said. Yes, I am complaining that pre-existing characters are being killed (primarily because their deaths were literally the selling point used to promote this book for the first month or so and prior to launch). But of course Hopeless is one among hundreds (or at least dozens) to have killed characters he didn't create. Once more you are criticizing a position that no one actually holds. The complaint is that this book is going to (and has been promised to) kill at least a handful of niche characters whom Marvel did not deep popular or financially viable enough to justify keeping alive. This complaint is further exacerbated by Hopeless actually having declared that all the deaths would be respectful and meaningful and earned, both in interviews and, again, in the letters section of the book itself -- ironically directly after Mettle died. Those complaints are entirely valid, and debating them equally a waste of time.

I'm simply saying that it's sad that the first truly earned/well-planned death was given to a character who didn't even exist before the first issue of this series, after two far less-meaningful/earned deaths (by your own words) had befallen established characters.

That is complete BS - that's what I'm saying. You have no evidence that any characters being killed are a result of them not being "deeply popular or financially viable enough to justify keeping alive". It's complete BS. It's a theory that has no evidence to stand on.

And as I've said a couple times now, while the first two were less meaningful than than third - they were indeed meaningful and served the book a great justice as a whole. Killing a new character in the first issue does nothing to set the stakes - NOTHING.

@CTG: First, as to unsubstantiated, as I said earlier, they have been proven in other threads -- I found proof for that before I even joined CV, in one of the first interviews Hopeless did. He requested characters for this book and was told -- even though they weren't going to be used by anyone else -- that he wasn't allowed to touch them. Several of the characters were from books which routinely underperform financially. I'm not going to bother arguing it because it's something that, again, has absolutely been established with links elsewhere.

Mettle's death served the book, not Mettle, not Academy fans. If you call that "meaningful" then our definitions are simply wildly incompatible. When you have the author promising fans of a character that should that character die, you'll have been respectful and you'll have honored the character's legacy -- and then kill the character in a way which only serves your selfish purposes as a writer, then no, you are not writing a meaningful death. And nothing whatsoever can be defended about the second death. None. There is no excuse for having killed anyone there -- she could have simply been injured, or just realized it was a roof. And if someone had to die, then that absolutely could have been a red shirt type new character, not a previously-existing one.

So I finished issue seven and I'm just a tad confused about something.... Did Arcade actually kill Constrictor or did he just severely injure him?

@sunman said:

@

Hilarious. The latest issue was kinda lame, but I guess Hopeless felt it was necessary to address people's complaints about Arcade's powers.

I have found an interview that will definitely be found very interesting, very interesting indeed

C2E2: HOPELESS REACHES THE "BOSS LEVEL" OF "AVENGERS ARENA"

Also here is some info regarding issue 13

During the Chicago ComicCon, Dennis Hopeless stated "As for other notable supporting players -- keep your eyes open for issue #13. A lot like our issue #7 Arcade story, 13 is a very special "Avenger Arena" issue that takes place outside Murder World. It has some surprising guest stars and answers a few questions fans have had since the beginning."

As well as that

Another Interview with Hopeless by Newsarama

you might find it interesting

AND

For everyone wondering if anyone is looking for the teens I found this interview done in September of last year, which sort of answered the question

Full interview

Relevant part

"Finally, the premise of "Avengers Arena" begs a number of questions about your larger plans for the series. Like how long will this contest go on? And will someone come looking for the teen heroes that have been abducted? I understand if you can't answer those questions for fear of spoilers, but are you able to reveal if "Avengers Arena" is a long form story with a beginning, middle, and end? Or is it a more open ended?

Like all games, this one will end. But we're telling a long-form story within that. These characters are going to be trapped for a while.

Yes, they'll be missed. Yes, people will come looking. But looking for someone and finding them are two very different things.

I'm as proud of this book as anything I've ever written. There's more to it than the premise implies, but we're not shying away from the scary parts of that premise. It's a gut punch and I think people are going to love that about it."

(SPOILERS)

Judging by the wiki, this thread is getting an update.

@akbogert: Which wiki, do you have the address

@animehunter: I don't know what protocol is for discussing unreleased issues, but this morning the page of the character in question listed this issue under "died."

Just put it under a spoiler cut and you'll be all set.

Stuff leaks all the time, we don't prohibit discussion of it as long as spoilers are used.

@ellie_knightfall: I'd love to use spoiler tags but the list of things I can't do using the mobile version of this site is far longer than the list of things I can :/

@akbogert: Ah...I feel your pain on that one.

@ellie_knightfall: on the positive side I can now reply directly, so at least people KNOW I'm painfully reaching out to them :p

if you have read issue 9, read at own risk

Sorry guys

Looks like Justons survival was short lived (issue 9)

Yep, snapping the necks of preteens is a form of entertainment these days

It's even better because they made sure everyone was really excited to see him back and alive last issue.

This book is all about twisting the knife.

I don't think anyone enjoyed reading that part. It is a heartbreaking moment. I don't enjoy any of these deaths. Even Kid Britons death was hard to take and he was a bully who was about to kill a girl. I support this book because to me, it is well written.

At least one person did.

Fair enough!

New information regarding issue 13 & 14

Issue 13

Hank Pym searches for the kidnapped Avengers Academy students…by the special guest creative team of AVENGERS ACADEMY’s Christos Gage and Karl Moline!

Issue 14

It begins here, the last story arc of Season One! The contestants have fought one another, now can they put aside their feuds and battle Arcade?

I am still totally loving this series. Ive learned if you have expectations and favorites, your going to really hate it. But if you just enjoy it for a survival story with actual real deaths, its pretty good.

I understand that Deathmatch is actually doing "a survival story with actual real deaths" a lot better. Just in case there are folks who are just reading for that kind of thing, not the specific characters.

The issue is, the OCs are fantastic but the explanations, continuity and plotholes are pretty bad. Hopeless shows some talent but the book reeks of a lack of research on several characters and such.

I don't know why the &*#@ Marvel decided to solicit this book with Nico, blood-soaked, reaching for her staff.

Whatever folks thought might happen didn't.

Screw Dennis Hopeless. Screw Marvel. Screw anyone who defends the book, honestly. I've lost my capacity to empathize.

Edited to add:

After witnessing Juston's body hurled through the air disrespectfully by one of Hopeless' new characters (that's not even a spoiler, that's in the solicits), this image is now in the open:

.

.

@akbogert: do you a link to the image

@animehunter: Which image? The spoiler reveals this week's death.

@akbogert: opps sorry didn't see the spoiler

@akbogert: Maybe she managed to cast one final spell which saved her or am I being optimistic

Edit:

and why would they release her death in advance, is there something we're not seeing or like you said are they just simply messing with us.

@animehunter: Yeah, I edited after my original post to include it (and mention the Juston thing, which I'd forgotten had pissed me off already this week).

I just... there are so many strong, valid, indisputable reasons why this series should not have been permitted, why it should have been cancelled, why it should not have been renewed, why people should not support it. The negatives objectively outweigh the positives. The years of dedication fans have poured into many of these characters are being outright ignored and disregarded for a book which even half the people who read it consider "okay" at best. What is being destroyed and lost in this book is far greater than whatever temporary enjoyment or interesting singular story people are getting.

No more Runaways books. They just ended the franchise permanently.

Just...

...I don't know how I'm going to get through the rest of this series without getting myself flagged and/or banned. I'm a writer, and words are my tools for coping. Proving that I'm right about something, that's how I cope with things. But I have argued in reasonable, logical, multiple-angle ways for months, and at the end of it all it honestly does not matter. This being disrespectful and horrible and canon-distorting/ignoring and shedding 2/3 of its readers... none of it has been enough to actually stop these deaths from occurring.

What do you do when words absolutely fail?