www.ComicBookPage.com

Hey guys,

Listening to the ep and I'm really confused about your take on FF. You both take issue with the way the "death" was portrayed and both convince yourselves that the use of the term "death" was due to the Marvel PR machine and not Hickmans choice. That's great and all, except it's not remotely accurate. Hickman planned on the death of that character from jump street and has been unambiguous in his discussion from the start. So maybe the problem you really should have is with Eptings choice of how to visually depict the "death" which made it far too ambiguous.

Wood wrote:Hey guys,

Listening to the ep and I'm really confused about your take on FF. You both take issue with the way the "death" was portrayed and both convince yourselves that the use of the term "death" was due to the Marvel PR machine and not Hickmans choice. That's great and all, except it's not remotely accurate. Hickman planned on the death of that character from jump street and has been unambiguous in his discussion from the start. So maybe the problem you really should have is with Eptings choice of how to visually depict the "death" which made it far too ambiguous.

Marvel's marketing machine went into overdrive promoting the "death" for months prior to the issue coming out. I don't recall stating that the term "death" was forced on Hickman so much as that the marketing of the storyline for month around a definitive death which was then not delivered hurt the story somewhat.

As for Hickman's plan being clear from the start, maybe it was for him. But I don't follow the interviews and I don't judge comics based on them. (If I did, the original Youngblood #1 would have been a brilliant comic based on what Rob Liefeld said about it in interviews prior to it being released.) The problem wasn't if the initial plan was to kill the character or not. The problem was Marvel felt the need to over-hype that aspect of the story for a couple of short-term sales bumps.

As for who to blame for the "death" being so ambiguous, I blame Hickman, not Eptings. At this point, I expect Fantastic Four #600 to be the return of the "dead" character and the story of how that character didn't really die in Fantastic Four #587 and what happened to that character in the intervening time. I think Eptings drew what the script told him to draw. I could be wrong on that but really doubt that I am.

Without the hype, given the issue as printed, I would have expected the next issue to be an action based issue with the character that "died" in a heroic struggle to survive. The issue ended with "The Last Stand of (character)." which was presumably an ending title page but one that I initially took as a next issue teaser.

JohnMayo wrote:

Wood wrote:Hey guys,

Listening to the ep and I'm really confused about your take on FF. You both take issue with the way the "death" was portrayed and both convince yourselves that the use of the term "death" was due to the Marvel PR machine and not Hickmans choice. That's great and all, except it's not remotely accurate. Hickman planned on the death of that character from jump street and has been unambiguous in his discussion from the start. So maybe the problem you really should have is with Eptings choice of how to visually depict the "death" which made it far too ambiguous.

Marvel's marketing machine went into overdrive promoting the "death" for months prior to the issue coming out. I don't recall stating that the term "death" was forced on Hickman so much as that the marketing of the storyline for month around a definitive death which was then not delivered hurt the story somewhat.

As for Hickman's plan being clear from the start, maybe it was for him. But I don't follow the interviews and I don't judge comics based on them. (If I did, the original Youngblood #1 would have been a brilliant comic based on what Rob Liefeld said about it in interviews prior to it being released.) The problem wasn't if the initial plan was to kill the character or not. The problem was Marvel felt the need to over-hype that aspect of the story for a couple of short-term sales bumps.

As for who to blame for the "death" being so ambiguous, I blame Hickman, not Eptings. At this point, I expect Fantastic Four #600 to be the return of the "dead" character and the story of how that character didn't really die in Fantastic Four #587 and what happened to that character in the intervening time. I think Eptings drew what the script told him to draw. I could be wrong on that but really doubt that I am.

Without the hype, given the issue as printed, I would have expected the next issue to be an action based issue with the character that "died" in a heroic struggle to survive. The issue ended with "The Last Stand of (character)." which was presumably an ending title page but one that I initially took as a next issue teaser.

Marvel marketed a definitive death because Hickman intended for it to be definitive. I'm not sure how any blame can be ascribed to Marvel for promoting the book, particularly when its sales have failed to find any momentum in spite of high profile runs from Millar/Hitch (I'm going to make FF a Top 10 book again!) and now Hickman. As you said on the show, this most likely will give FF a nice bump in sales as more people try out the gimmick. That's the business now as we both know. Ongoing titles have to rely on events, PR moves and the like to ignite the flames.

Batman got similarly eviscerated by critics for the "death" of Bruce Wayne. Yet last time I checked the Bat books, post all that gimmickery, are driving DC's sales and routinely outselling almost everything the House of Ideas puts out.

I would LOVE to see FF at the top of the charts, it mystifies me how few core fans seem to want to read it on a regular basis.

One other point re: FF and Hickman. John, I'm glad you brought up the other definitive runs and asked Bob's thoughts because I kind of think the "Top 5 runs of all time" is an admittedly low bar since most, including yourselves, struggled to name more than three other runs of consequence.

One of the "problems" with that kind of assertion I think for many of us long-time readers is that, in spite of the long publishing history, there haven't been that many multi-year runs by creative teams.

Lee/Kirby had more than 100 issues on the book
Byrne and DeFalco had 50/60 issue runs
Waid and Englehart had 30+ issue runs

And that's about it.

For my money, the top FF runs of "all time" are:

Lee/Kirby -- As singularly responsible for the creation of the marvel universe that we know today as any of their collaborations

John Byrne -- Byrne's best, and most definitive run as a story-teller. Made Sue the force to be reckoned with that she should have always been. Great character development of Doom.

Waid -- His run was so well received by fans at the time that he was actually re-hired after being kicked off the book, and ultimately that decision led to Bill Jemas departure from Marvel

Simonson -- Lasted slightly less than two years, but every issue was a tour de force and he even got Art Adams to do the art on a few of them.

Carlos Pacheco -- Amazing to me how so few people remember that it was Pacheco's creative guidance that was responsible for the creation of Valeria and the resurrection of Galactus. Two changes to the FF mythos that are vitally important to today (and are huge parts of Hickman's run).

I think death issues would be more respected if they actually kept a major character dead. I feel a little insulted when they keep telling me "No for real, THIS time we meant it" and yet they constantly come back. I mean, I just ran across an older comic with an ad about a funeral for Susan, so I guess she died years ago? That didn't last. I think Reed died in the Civil War, of course that didn't last.

We don't need the fear of the main character dying for us to enjoy the story. We all know this is a business and you're not going to kill a cash cow.

abysslord wrote:I think death issues would be more respected if they actually kept a major character dead. I feel a little insulted when they keep telling me "No for real, THIS time we meant it" and yet they constantly come back. I mean, I just ran across an older comic with an ad about a funeral for Susan, so I guess she died years ago? That didn't last. I think Reed died in the Civil War, of course that didn't last.

We don't need the fear of the main character dying for us to enjoy the story. We all know this is a business and you're not going to kill a cash cow.

But that's not a new thing to comics. Your issue with it is more about your personal tastes and expectations evolving over time than something the publishers are doing as a gimmick. Characters have been killed off in ongoing comics for a long as we've been reading (and longer).

Wood wrote:Hey guys,

Listening to the ep and I'm really confused about your take on FF. You both take issue with the way the "death" was portrayed and both convince yourselves that the use of the term "death" was due to the Marvel PR machine and not Hickmans choice. That's great and all, except it's not remotely accurate. Hickman planned on the death of that character from jump street and has been unambiguous in his discussion from the start. So maybe the problem you really should have is with Eptings choice of how to visually depict the "death" which made it far too ambiguous.

While I check out news sites more than John, I never read the interviews you're talking about, thus was unaware a real death was part of Hickman's "grand plan".

The death scene itself was really ambiguous and open to interpretation, which if it was supposed to be a definitive "death" is the fault of BOTH Hickman & Epting. I'm actually kind of sorry to hear that he meant it to be a real death, because that makes the execution of the end of the issue really clumsy in my mind.

Wood wrote: But that's not a new thing to comics. Your issue with it is more about your personal tastes and expectations evolving over time than something the publishers are doing as a gimmick.

Well my expectations evolving are due to the gimmicks though. Because this gimmick has been employed in the past it is now meaningless to me, and any other reader that's been around for even a little while.

I know every comic has endings like "Oh no, Spider-Man is falling and his web shooters are out, he's going to die .... tune in next month", but that's different. Running promotional ads and talking about an upcoming death for months ahead is just purely motivated by money, not storytelling ... unless you actually have the balls to kill a main character permanently.

Wood wrote: But that's not a new thing to comics. Your issue with it is more about your personal tastes and expectations evolving over time than something the publishers are doing as a gimmick. Characters have been killed off in ongoing comics for a long as we've been reading (and longer).

This is very true.

However, just because death has had a revolving door at marvel/DC for a long time does not mean we need to like it & not call it into question every time there is a highly publicized "death" we know is not going to stick.

You comment about "your personal tastes and expectations evolving over time" is exactly correct. The writers/publishers have been using this gimmick for so long that long time readers see it for what it is, a gimmick.

That's why these deaths fail to have any real emotional story impact for me.

abysslord wrote: ... unless you actually have the balls to kill a main character permanently.

I will say that if you actually keep a character dead for 20 years or so (like Barry Allen) I can give more of a pass to the creators when they come up with a good story in which to return the character.

Captain America, back after a very short time (and in what I thought was a very poorly constructed set of reasonings) does not get the same slack.

abysslord wrote:

Wood wrote: But that's not a new thing to comics. Your issue with it is more about your personal tastes and expectations evolving over time than something the publishers are doing as a gimmick.

Well my expectations evolving are due to the gimmicks though. Because this gimmick has been employed in the past it is now meaningless to me, and any other reader that's been around for even a little while.

I know every comic has endings like "Oh no, Spider-Man is falling and his web shooters are out, he's going to die .... tune in next month", but that's different. Running promotional ads and talking about an upcoming death for months ahead is just purely motivated by money, not storytelling ... unless you actually have the balls to kill a main character permanently.

It's not balls. LOTS of writers would love to actually kill off characters permanently. It's that they're not allowed, because they don't own the characters. The characters are worth far more as icons for branding and licensing than they're worth as part of any particular piece of serialized fiction.

BobBretall wrote:

Wood wrote:Hey guys,

Listening to the ep and I'm really confused about your take on FF. You both take issue with the way the "death" was portrayed and both convince yourselves that the use of the term "death" was due to the Marvel PR machine and not Hickmans choice. That's great and all, except it's not remotely accurate. Hickman planned on the death of that character from jump street and has been unambiguous in his discussion from the start. So maybe the problem you really should have is with Eptings choice of how to visually depict the "death" which made it far too ambiguous.

While I check out news sites more than John, I never read the interviews you're talking about, thus was unaware a real death was part of Hickman's "grand plan".

The death scene itself was really ambiguous and open to interpretation, which if it was supposed to be a definitive "death" is the fault of BOTH Hickman & Epting. I'm actually kind of sorry to hear that he meant it to be a real death, because that makes the execution of the end of the issue really clumsy in my mind.

See, that's where I'm at and why I was scratching my head as you both were blaming Marvel powers-that-be and absolving Jon and Epting of any role here. To my mind though, reading Hickman's latest interview, he intended for this to be an unquestioned death at the hands of BILLIONS of Annihilation horde foes. Seems to me that it's more a failing of Epting than Hickman.

Wood wrote: It's not balls. LOTS of writers would love to actually kill off characters permanently. It's that they're not allowed, because they don't own the characters. The characters are worth far more as icons for branding and licensing than they're worth as part of any particular piece of serialized fiction.

Fair point. Which put the ball back in the court of the publishers who want to have their cake & eat it too. Let's do the "death" and then bring the character back.

Not the fault of fans who see through this attempted manipulation of their emotions, though.

That said, DC "killed" Barry Allen for a good long time & it didn't prevent them from keeping up whatever brand marketing they wanted to have around the Flash.

Wood wrote: See, that's where I'm at and why I was scratching my head as you both were blaming Marvel powers-that-be and absolving Jon and Epting of any role here. To my mind though, reading Hickman's latest interview, he intended for this to be an unquestioned death at the hands of BILLIONS of Annihilation horde foes. Seems to me that it's more a failing of Epting than Hickman.

I agree, but I don't read those interviews, thus my ignorance of this particular point in my review of the issue. I was judging based on what I was seeing in the comic itself, not what a creator is saying on some internet interview.

That said, you have to admit, you and I could both think of several different ways for the character to get out of that situation without dying.

Wood wrote:
It's not balls. LOTS of writers would love to actually kill off characters permanently. It's that they're not allowed, because they don't own the characters. The characters are worth far more as icons for branding and licensing than they're worth as part of any particular piece of serialized fiction.

I wasn't blaming the writers, I'm talking about in general .... it takes balls to kill off a character that is a constant source of income, just like you said.

BobBretall wrote:

Wood wrote: See, that's where I'm at and why I was scratching my head as you both were blaming Marvel powers-that-be and absolving Jon and Epting of any role here. To my mind though, reading Hickman's latest interview, he intended for this to be an unquestioned death at the hands of BILLIONS of Annihilation horde foes. Seems to me that it's more a failing of Epting than Hickman.

I agree, but I don't read those interviews, thus my ignorance of this particular point in my review of the issue. I was judging based on what I was seeing in the comic itself, not what a creator is saying on some internet interview.

That said, you have to admit, you and I could both think of several different ways for the character to get out of that situation without dying.

I 1000% agree, and my first reaction was, "Oh, this character will be back for Fantastic Four #600." I hope I'm wrong.