akbogert

@Yai_Inn said:

@InkInk: So you're saying a bunch of people aren't reading this comic and then they're complaining about it...

I'm not positive whether this was a genuine inquiry (if so, InkInk has addressed it) or more of a snide dismissal of complaining based on secondhand knowledge. If it's the latter, though, do consider the nature of the complaints. It'd be one thing if people were saying the art or writing sucked without having read the book. But if the complaints stem from the premise and implications of the book, then it would actually hurt them to purchase it (just to confirm their suspicions) because Marvel will simply look at sales numbers in determining whether people want the book to continue. Just think of the flip side. If these complainers had picked it up, people would say "Yeah, but you still bought it, so it must not be that bad."

I'm also going to go ahead and post the addendums to my former post (now that I can actually do so without being blocked) in case they were missed due to being edits:

January 9th: 2:01 EST

@Yai_Inn: Everything you say about the business angle of this is true.

However, backlash is generated not by business but by emotion, and in terms of things that can legitimately be expected to p**s people off, I think you're hard up to find a better example. So if the crux of your argument (re: this topic, not necessarily the overall series' legitimacy) is that people shouldn't complain because Marvel's just looking at their bottom line, that's fine, but it ignores that comics are art as much as they are commerce, and art's the reason people are complaining. The fact that this particular book seems to be completely disregarding the emotional component of its readership is precisely what makes it so appalling to people like me.

You didn't really address why these characters had to be killed (as opposed to an original cast) other than to say that it's beneficial for making money (though as most people who are interested in Arena because of the characters are now boycotting it, I'm not sure where you get the idea that that's actually a great boon to sales).

And again, even if they must die, none of them can get good deaths, because their deaths are all simply part of this side story. At the end of the day, regardless of the minutiae, the sentence reads "died in Arcade's Murder World, Avengers Arena #x." The noblest of deaths within this story is still irrelevant to the greater world from which the characters came, which means even if they receive a somewhat respectful death insomuch as Arena is concerned, their death will in the grander universe sense be quite meaningless. Add to this the insult of blatantly disregarding character immortality (I just don't accept that "God" explanation), and yeah, again: backlash.

The weight is doubled, of course, when you have Hopeless in interviews specifically addressing worried fans and specifically promising to make the deaths meaningful, and then fridging and/or disregarding canonical rules while killing them in the first couple issues.

At the end of the day, I still feel this is a commentary on the erosion of comic books. I don't know which is worse: that Marvel thinks they can make money off of shockingly murdering teenagers, or that they may quite possibly be right.

January 10th: 11:10 a.m. EST

@Yai_Inn: You acknowledge that the people who will appreciate this book are the ones who don't like the characters, which leads me to two questions: 1, is that group large enough to justify an ongoing series and 2, is the readership that sadistic, that the only thing they like about the book is that it kills characters people care about?

It just seems to me that the people who fit into your category of "excited because at least they're in something" would be far better served by the same cast of characters in a book in which they weren't being slaughtered. Not only does that lend itself to greater longevity, but it brings in all the people currently refusing to buy it in hopes the thing dies. As business seems to be the focus of Arena's defenders, I guess my real question is, do you actually believe that the group of people who will buy this book because of death appeal is larger (and therefore more profitable) than the group who would buy the book simply because of the characters in it?

Howdy, y'all. Had to wait a day to post here because I'd already hit the flood protection limit elsewhere.

The longer version of my history with comics is here, leading into a discussion of why I'm considering dropping the hobby so shortly after jumping back in. Meanwhile, if I'm going to read and have thoughts about them, this seemed as good a place as any to do so.

The short version: grew up with Sonic comics, read Ultimate Spider-Man in high school, picked up Civil War TPBs in early college and have the entire Kyle/Yost X-Force run as pretty much the only pseudo-recent timeline with which I'm familiar. Through that I got hooked on X-23, who has become more or less my favorite character (I'm diligently working on acquiring comics in which she's featured). I'm also a fan of Cloak & Dagger and really hope their brief appearance in Spider Island leads to more frequent appearances of the pair. The most mainstream character I like is Deadpool. I suspect if I read or watched more X-Men stuff I'd be a big Gambit fan as well. On the DC side of things, I got introduced to the universe via the Arkham games (I've been a huge gamer my whole life), and am slowly easing into the New 52 world. So far I really like anything Gail Simone does (does that make me cliche?), and I've always been keen on The Riddler, villain-wise.

Obviously I've always been a much bigger Marvel fan but with Arena threatening to kill off my favorite character in the universe, I'm in search of writers and publishers who don't torture their fans ^_^

Anyhow, I obviously write… a lot. If you bothered to actually read all that then we're probably going to get along.

@Wondeboy said:

Not one person said "Hi" or "Welcome" or anything... Im sad :'(

HaHa! anyway, so since my first post ive started to find my feet with a few books. I read through the civil war series last night, and whilst i had some small issues with the story, it has well and truly whet my appetite.

I've also started reading Saga, which so far has been a really interesting setting, amazing writing, and fantastic artwork! (plus Alana is a badass hottie)

Heh, sounds like you and I are in similar positions. My real introduction to Marvel was reading Civil War books, and everyone keeps telling me I should read Saga.

@Cafeterialoca said:

@DH69 said:

lol i openly admit to only reading avengers initiative and academy for the teachers, hope everyone but laura dies XD

...I strongly dislike you.

Why are X-23 fans so selfish?

Hey, we're not all selfish. :P While I can't manufacture affection for characters I don't know (and thus am not personally going to be half as irate if the others die as if Laura does), I've tried to be as impartial as possible about condemning the series under the assumption that all the other characters have fans with equally strong attachments to them.

With me, it's more a matter of, "I want this cancelled, but if it's going to continue I'll be most upset if she dies because she's the one I'm most invested in."

@Yai_Inn: That's saddening, to say the least. I happened to run across it today while in the midst of trying to parse my emotions over the likely death of X-23 and/or Runaways kids, and its brilliant execution merely underscored the sloppiness of these deaths.

That said, I still fail to see why "cleaning slate" is necessary at all. If Marvel did not intend on using these characters in the future, they could have chosen not to do so. As of now, the best imaginable purpose their deaths serve is to establish that henceforth Arcade is a legitimate force to be reckoned with (and that's not even necessarily what the plan is -- none of us knows, obviously). Difficulty of keeping track of fringe heroes is an imaginary problem that hardly requires resolution. If a character is simply never used for a decade or two, new readers will never worry about them and old readers will either forget or cherish the short runs those characters had.

But to proceed with slaughtering characters which have established (and now, coming from the woodwork, vocal) fans with no obvious purpose other than to crush those fans' hopes of their beloved characters ever showing up again...well, why wouldn't that draw backlash? No one who loves the characters would want to see them die, and people who don't know or care about them don't really benefit too greatly from those deaths either. It seems that Hopeless is capable of creating new characters that readers find interesting (people can't sing Deathlocket's praises loudly enough, it seems). To the extent that the arena concept, and the empowering of Arcade, could have just as easily been achieved without killing established niche favorites, it seems the backlash this comic gets is justified. Perhaps if it establishes a legitimacy for what it's doing beyond the simple shortening of a universe roster, some of the rage will subside.

@BR_Havoc said:

I do not think its wrong saying what that member said. I mean deaths in comics are a dime a dozen and none last but what makes this different is that there is no story behind the deaths. Its gore for the sake of gore, pretty much he have a "horror" comic that is filled with cheap deaths that are supposed to be entertainment.

I think that's also a key. Like I said, I'm a greenhorn when it comes to comics. My main exposure has been through Kyle/Yost's X-Force and X-23 material (hence my Laura affinity), and while that team has a reputation for some unnecessary violence I'd say on the whole theirs mattered. More germanely, I just read Second Coming today. Nightcrawler died. He's a heck of a lot more popular and interesting than probably anyone in Arena, but the reason his death is acceptable is that it worked into a greater purpose, lived up to the nobility we'd come to expect of him, and was actually reflected upon and dealt with within the context of the universe in which it happened. Which brings up:

@BR_Havoc said:

Also I hate to say it but it looks as if Hopeless did not even research many of these characters before killing them Mettle is metal all the way threw he his bones would be covered and metal as well. I mean he is pretty much indestructible yet with the snap of Arcade (a powerless human that builds traps) he explodes into a cloud of gore (with no metal I may add) all for the sake to shock the reader.

I'd heard people complaining about Mettle's death, and aside from the most obvious issue -- he was blatantly fridged as a device for introducing the shocking "real" stakes of the book -- I'd heard mutterings about it also completely ignoring the mythos behind Mettle. Sure enough, his body is supposed to be entirely metal, through and through. Not only should that make his death impossible, but even in the event that he is plausibly killed there's no explanation for blood splattering everywhere. So you have a death which serves not the character nor the universe but the most conventional of plots (again, fridging), directly contradicting Hopeless' claims in interviews that the deaths would be meaningful, completely ignoring the canonical strengths and weaknesses of the character, and in a situation wherein no one really has time to consider the reality of his passing. It's everything that Nightcrawler's death was not.

It may not be everything wrong with comics, but it's sure hitting quite a few bullet points.

I think it's funny how many people -- whether you think it's VR or not -- keep harking on the implausibility of outsiders failing to find the kids in time. My issue goes even farther back to how they could have gotten kidnapped in the first place; the fact that that's yet to be resolved renders the question of how the people under whose noses these kids were stolen from could fail to track them back down seem almost trivial.

I'd also dismiss the idea of it being run by the Avengers, as they'd likely want the kid least likely to ice his/her teammates for self-preservation purposes, and that seems to have already been established. Further trauma would do nothing to produce a good Avenger, but would do much to harm the psyche of the kids.

It seems the best arguments for simulation are

A. Not plot-based: either wishful thinking that our favorite characters aren't really going to die, or the noteworthy possibility that Marvel is intentionally leaving an escape contingency in case of excessive backlash.

B. Still wishful (but less cynical) thinking that the kids are meant to survive and have to grapple with the consequences of their actions (though this still leaves plenty of questions).

The best arguments against it being simulation:

A. The people who currently like the book would call that a major cop-out.

B. It's almost too obvious, given the whole "arcade" thing.

C. That would undermine the only obvious purpose of this series (in the greater Marvel contingency) thus far (aside from profit), which is to clean house of extraneous and (mainline) unpopular heroes. But that harkens back to the simulation argument, I suppose: the possibility, however unlikely, that Marvel actually is going to make these events matter, whether the characters die or don't.

Personally? I'd rather the series end before we find out. Meanwhile, I honestly don't know.

I actually agreed with that comment, and linked (here, I'll do it again ^_^) to a much more thought-out explanation of how I came to the similar conclusion. I'll save you some time by addressing two possible objections based on your blog (supposing you find the time to read that and seek to actually reply).

The first is that I'm pretty much a noob when it comes to comics (and that goes doubly as this is a comics community). While I'd like to believe that none of the points I made in my blog actually rely on intimate history with the industry -- that is to say, while I don't think I made any classic rookie mistakes in my reasoning -- even if I did, it simply means that I'm averse to what comics have become over the years. If not so sensational as "everything that's wrong with comics," I think I'd at least be fair in saying this book's premise (killing loved niche characters off unnecessarily while capitalizing on currently popular trends in non-comic entertainment) qualifies as a reason for non-readers to continue to be non-readers.

The second is that I did not read the books themselves (a point I addressed in my blog). If nothing else, it must be said that I've done as much research about the books as one could hope short of actually stealing it (as I've seen some reviewers elsewhere on the net having done).

You say it's okay because Arcade's not killing major characters, but for fringe readers like myself, or non-mainstream readers like the ones for whom Runaways have always been the stand-out rather than the sideline, he may as well be.

I want to love comics, but killing or threatening the few I've come to love isn't exactly making that easy.