The Captain America Debate

[Mowgli]

I have done a lot of thinking about this topic and the rationale for the death of Captain America. I made these feeling apparent in a drawing I made and posted.  Unfortunately this drawing was removed when a few posters aired their problems with moderators in the thread. So I am now trying to discuss this in type. I would like to keep this a a nice orderly and adult discussion of the topic. Thanks, and everyone is invited to participate.


Podmark and Zuludelta both made great points about their beliefs about Cap's death in another thread. And I hope they both join this thread as well. I want veryone to know that I am not here to attack anyone, just discuss the topic at hand.

I believe that Captain America was killed in the interest of profit. Plain and simple. I would never fault a company with wanting to make money, as that is what they do. But I think that companies can be responsible, and held accountable, for the means in which they do it.

Podmark and Zuludelta: You both made great points, even quoting Brubaker's own words, about how it was his idea. It may well have been. I don't know for sure. I have read some of Brubaker's other work (like his Daredevil) and have no problem with his writing. I have even enjoyed some of it. But even good writers have bad ideas. As to the death of Captain America, why give an american icon such an undignified death? Superman's death, temporary or otherwise, was stoppping that which no one else could stop to save the world. Innocents were dieing, heroes were dieing, and Superman gave his life to stop that. Simply put, that is a heroic end. Captain America was being paraded up courthouse stairs, handcuffed and defenseless, when a sniper (an incompetent one at that) shot him and an ex-girlfriend, brainwashed by his arch-nemesis, shot him in the gut. He bleeds to death as the media snaps pictures. I am not a writer by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't wrap my mind around how Brubaker could have thought this was a good idea. Perhaps this was an attempt at realism for a character who was... imbued by a "super soldier serum" that was frozen in a block of ice and brought back many years later? I simply don't understand the reasoning at all.

Then there's Marvel... and the business end of this. Comicas are competitive. The companies all try to get the largest market share and I believe this story was just another attempt to increase their piece of the pie. Fine. But to destroy an american icon to do so leaves a bad taste in my mouth. People have said not to blame Marvel... but that statement makes no sense to me. Here's an example to drive my point home: People burnt an american flag and claimed the constitution protected thier right to do so. The media went into a frenzy covering the story. The media made a lot of money carrying that story as viewers couldn't wait to see the result. Was the media to blame for the flag being burnt? No. They responded to something that had been done and made money off of it. This is the nature of the media. That brimgs me to a quote from Zuludelta:

"As far as "milking" the death for media exposure and to boost sales, well, I don't think you can fault the editors for doing what I think is a perfectly reasonable business move. It makes perfect sense to me for them to get maximum synergy out of Brubaker's plans to shake up the Captain America book and their tent-pole event for 2006."

In a similar situation, Marvel is "milking" the death of Captain America. There is one huge difference, they burned this flag.  While Cap certainly  isn't an amrican flag, he is a widely known symbol of our country. A symbol with actual history (not invented- like characters who show up later ... cable... and claim to have history in the Marvel universe) in the Marvel universe that is part of actual american history. Captain America punched out Hitler on the cover of his first comic during our actual involvement in WWII. Captain America is fictitious, and not as sacred as the country's flag, but still an icon, a symbol for the United States of America. And he was destroyed so Marvel would have something to "milk" for profit. Even if it was Brubaker's idea, it had to pass through editors and decision makers at Marvel before ever being set into motion for print.

Why Cap? Again, it comes down to money. The name had to be big, so news would cover it, thus increasing sales even among people who don't typically buy comics. Certain characters like Spider-man and the Hulk, are currently too lucrative in other markets like the movie industry to even be considered. You don't destroy a bigger market to create a smaller one. Meanwhile, Cap would create a frenzy, because he is an american icon, with no movies out. A perfect fit.

These points are the reason I named my drawing "Uncle Sam and the Drive By". Because in my opinion, Marvel just destroyed a symbol that stood for something to make a few bucks. To me, there are a lot of better ways to make your cash.

These are all just my opinions. I encourage an open discussion with no flaming each other. Again, I encourage Podmark and Zuludelta to talk about this here, as I respect their opinions. Anyone else, who wants to join, please, feel free.

[zuludelta]

Neat post Mowgli... unfortunately, the "Uncle SamDrive-By" thread you were referring was locked and edited before I could take a look at the image, so I can't offer any opinions on that.

Now, I'm not sure if I'm on the right track here but I think the issue being raised here is that the Captain America death story was written to boost sales of the title and the ancillary event books, and that it was done in poor (perhaps even vulgar, to some) taste.

I won't argue about the merits of the Civil War mini-series or Captain America #25... as they say, de gustibus non est disputandum ("there's no accounting for taste"), a reader either likes them or they don't, and no amount of arguing will change that reader's mind, and it's all good. Personal preferences are just that... no rationalization necessary (despite what your Philosophy of Art professor might have told you). I mean, it's interesting to talk about aesthetics and why some things work and others don't and all that but in the end, apart from fixed, underlying physical, physiological and even psychological fundaments, what perceived "artistic merit" really boils down to is personal preference.  So you think that the death was handled in an undignified manner (insulting to your sensibilities even, if I am allowed to imply as such from your post), that's cool. I myself was pretty indifferent to the whole thing, but that's probably because I'm not emotionally invested in the Captain America character as you seem to be.

What I am willing to talk about and discuss at length is whether or not it was "right" (in whatever sense you want to read the word) for Marvel to profit from/exploit the death storyline and whether Marvel hashould be held accountable for the book's content. Now, I don't want to introduce a new debate here, but for the sake of argument, let's just say that Captain America #25 is an art object. It may be good art, it may be bad art, call it commercial art, whatever... but let's agree that its primary function was first and foremost to communicate a message via an appeal to the reader's aesthetic sense (you may not agree with whatever message the artists were trying to communicate, but I think it's pretty straightforward that the intent to communicate through aesthetics is there). Now, I take it that what you meant by "... Marvel just destroyed a symbol that stood for something to make a few bucks. To me, there are a lot of better ways to make your cash" is that if generating profit was a concern (secondary to the primary concern of telling a story via words and pictures), Marvel could've done so with a much better story than just killing off Captain America. Now see, this is where personal preference comes in... to you, they practically killed a piece of Americana when they cheap-shotted a handcuffed and defeated Steve Rogers on the courthouse steps, to me it was a telegraphed shock ending to a decent, if unspectacular narrative. Again, there's no accounting for taste. But I certainly have no problem with Marvel profiting from any story (whether that story involves the death of Captain America, a retconned love affair between Norman Osbourne and Gwen Stacy, or any of the other controversial stories they've published of late... and I have to tell you, I nearly threw up in my mouth when I saw Norman Osbourne's "O" face).

To use a different art medium as an analogy... I totally, totally hate any "song" put out by 50 Cent... I think the music and beats are derivative, the lyrics and rhymes are horribly sophomoric, and the overall "theme" around the musician and his work reeks of misogyny and racism. Do I think it's wrong that he is able to profit from the over-engineered turds that he releases... well, no, as much as I'm loathe to admit it. I don't think the quality of his music should have any bearing on his ability to make money off his work (as bad as it is). Should the record companies be held accountable for releasing his music? If we start playing the accountability game, who's to say where we draw the line? Do we really want what amounts to self-censorship governing artistic expression?

By asking Marvel to somehow be accountable or responsible for the content of their comics, we are one step closer to self-censorship. I don't think it's the editors' job to second-guess reader preferences... their primary purpose is to ensure that the comic is created in a manner consistent with professional and legal guidelines... but judging the contents of the book, that's something that's best left to the reader him/herself. I can clearly see how the death of Captain America could be offensive to some, even many or most readers, but I don't think there was anything horribly outrageous in any of the sentiments expressed and raised by the creators that would require Marvel and its editors stepping in, certainly nothing more outrageous than what you would see on prime-time TV or on the evening news.

Well, that's all I have to say on the matter for now, I've got a few errands to run but I might post some more thoughts later. Thanks for creating this thread Mowgli, it's not too often that I get to spout off my thoughts on comics as art.

[Mowgli]

"... it's interesting to talk about aesthetics and why some things work and others don't and all that but in the end, apart from fixed, underlying physical, physiological and even psychological fundaments, what perceived "artistic merit" really boils down to is personal preference."

I wish more people understood that idea. I agree wholeheartedly. All of this is personal preference and I am certainly not about censorship. As an artist, I believe people should say what they want, and it's up to the individual to take in or disregard information as desired. I think the difference in our points may have something to do with the metaphor you chose. I understand you were speaking figuratively, but the choice made there says something about our beliefs on this topic.

You compared this story or decision to kill Cap to an art object. I would compare it to a product for mass consumption. To me, it seems more like a marketing decision, carefully thought through for maximum profit. But for the sake of argument, let's discuss it as an art object. A famous artist (whose name I forget) did a piece of work called "P!$$ Christ" which depicted a crucifix submerged in urine. Some liked it, while other's hated it. I didn't like it, but not because of the "assumed" content. I disliked what I still believe to be it's true intent. The artist was of, at least, reasonable intelligence. So he knew that this was going to cause a stir, among his other work which was rather poorly received or deemed mediocre at best. Shock value sells well in many, many markets. The artist knew this and counted on it for some attention. Unfortunately, shock for the sake of shock is devoid of any real content at all. One of the best ways to make a CD or movie sell is to ban it somewhere. That doesn't make it better in any way, it just gets more people to stop and look. I believe that was, at least, part of why (if not the majority of) the reason why this story went through at Marvel. That's why I have issues with the whole story or concept. I think the act of killing off this character was a marketing idea, not an artistic decision, from start to finish.

I mean, Brubaker honestly said he had planned on "stirring up" the Captain America title with this story  long before Civil War. I'm not even discussing Civil War, just the Cap storyline, killing the character. Killing a character isn't how you stir up their story, it's how you end it. (I realize in comics that in comics that is not always true, as characters return in many ways. But Cap's death has finality- shootings with an autopsy- and Marvel said that Steve Rogers is dead- alluding to the fact that they want to give the mantle to someone else).

I believe most of the talk about how this was planned before, or part of (or not part of) Civil War is a tap dance to avoid the obvious questions about why they would kill Cap for money.

[Podmark]

I'm not entirely sure where I come in on this debate. I should say I was mostly indifferent to Cap's death. I was pretty sure it was coming, and I'm not a huge Cap fan.

One thing that needs to be considered is that the current Cap title was doing well, both financially and critically. Will it sell better because of this? Of course, but only for a little while. This move was not done wholly for the Captain America title, it was done for other titles (ie Fallen Son etc) and for general attention, including the much coveted main stream attention. See Marvel has been trying very hard lately to get a larger audience interested in comics (examples: using "hollywood" writers, Stephen King, Dabel Brothers, Civil War and mass news coverage, movies, Cap's death). So there is certainly an attention and ultimately profit goals here.

We know from various interviews that Brubaker had something planned, but it's quite clear from his comments that it was nothing as big as this. The death came as a result of various things. The creators saw it as an effective ending to Civil War and start for the "Initiative" status quo, additionally the Cap title was currently well positioned to take this story and run with it due to similar (if possibly different) plans already in motion, as well as a strong supporting cast to continue to focus on (most notably the Winter Soldier - a key part of the current title). And the kicker of course was the mass attention that would be gained. So no I don't believe this was wholly a profit situation, in fact to my knowledge most writers/artists etc are paid based on page count, not copies sold so they wouldn't directly profit from such an action. These were creators that came up with this, so while profit is there, their goal is more likely attention (which would of course lead to profit). Additionally they wouldn't pull a move like this if they didn't think they had at least adequate plans to play it off in their ongoing books.

However my real position on the debate is less specific to the situation. I am essentially a writer, I've yet to publish anything, but that's how I look at things. Actually that's still inaccurate, I'm...a storyteller I guess. I look at things in terms of plots and plot logic etc. Hard to really explain so I won't get into it. So where I come in is that every time something of note happens in a comic I always hear comments such as "shock value", "marketing ploy", "they're ruining the characters" etc. I don't really disagree with these comments, but I also look at based on what story is being told. And that's why it bugs me that people explode when Cap dies or Spidey is unmasked or Tony goes "evil". If we (the writers) can NEVER try these stories it vastly limits the potential story options we have. Thats not to say that every writer should have a free pass to do these things, obviously you SHOULD have a proper plan and story to maximize these events. In Cap's case, Brubaker (whether he really wanted to kill Cap or not) has a story that he (and his Editors hopefully) believes is fully worhwhile. And later on if it doesn't work out there's always comics favorite device - the retcon ("It's ok Bucky, that wasn't really me it was a clone created by Nick Fury so I could be moved into hiding").

Of course it's prefered that we avoid retcons, so I like to hope that things like this have some good ideas behind them, but sadly that doesn't always happen.   

[JKCarrier]

(I realize in comics that in comics that is not always true, as characters return in many ways. But Cap's death has finality- shootings with an autopsy- and Marvel said that Steve Rogers is dead- alluding to the fact that they want to give the mantle to someone else).

Pffft. I don't believe that for a second. They'll milk the idea for a while, and then once the attention dies down, they'll announce the return of Steve Rogers, so they can hype that. At this point, I don't think there's a major Marvel or DC character who hasn't spent some time "dead". They always come back.

[zuludelta]

... Shock value sells well in many, many markets. The artist knew this and counted on it for some attention. Unfortunately, shock for the sake of shock is devoid of any real content at all...

>SNIP!<

... That doesn't make it better in any way, it just gets more people to stop and look. I believe that was, at least, part of why (if not the majority of) the reason why this story went through at Marvel. That's why I have issues with the whole story or concept. I think the act of killing off this character was a marketing idea, not an artistic decision, from start to finish...

I think the difference in our opinions is rooted in the way we take into consideration an artist's intent when evaluating an art object. I try as much as possible not to let artist intent and artist history get in the way of my assessment and appreciation of work. Of course, one can never fully divest oneself of these things when evaluating art, but I sincerely think that it is in the viewer's best interests to try and do so as much as possible. Years ago, I remember I had to watch Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph Des Willens for an art class. I remember feeling nauseated at the notion of watching probably the most (in)famous piece of pre-World War II Nazi propaganda. But after giving it much thought, I began to realize that my feelings for the Nazi Party and my disgust at the film's original purpose were getting in the way of my ability to see the pioneering techniques that Riefenstahl introduced into the film-making milieu.

Now, it might seem ridiculous to compare a comic book to Riefenstahl's opus but I think something similar is at work here. It is certainly possible that this story was written as a shameless cash-grab. But I think it would be terribly unfair to yourself if you let that assumption keep you from finding anything worth appreciating in it. Sure, at the end of the day and after applying your own personal benchmarks of what constitutes good art, you might find yourself concluding that it was, indeed, a horrible tragedy that they had to cut down so many trees to publish that particular issue... but I think it's also important that you let the piece succeed or fail on its own, independent of assumptions regarding the creator's intent. Life's too short to not try and find as much beauty as you possibly can in the world  :)         

Oh, and I know I said in my first post that my personal opinion regarding the execution (pardon the pun) of Captain America #25 isn't really important with regards to the point of discussion, but here it is anyway, just so you know where I stand: Dialogue was good as I've come to expect from Brubaker, although there were a couple of holes in the plot big enough to crash a SHIELD helicarrier through. As usual, top-notch pencils from Steve Epting... not Brubaker's best work and the "shock" ending seems forced in light of the recent events shown in the Civil War titles, but a solid 48 pages worth of story progression. Nobody's going to be complaining about the creative team sticking to a tired status quo after reading this.

[UnfluffyBunny]

I have done a lot of thinking about this topic and the rationale for the death of Captain America. I made these feeling apparent in a drawing I made and posted.  Unfortunately this drawing was removed when a few posters aired their problems with moderators in the thread. So I am now trying to discuss this in type. I would like to keep this a a nice orderly and adult discussion of the topic. Thanks, and everyone is invited to participate.

1 poster said 1 comment that you didnt like (I presume my 1 comment about finding it distasteful, tho maybe not your oppinion, is not included in your above sentance)
you commented out at your annoyance at the 1 comment that was made.
the bandwagon followed your lead and jumped against the single post that was made.
(not the other way around as you make out)
you start an adult conversation in a very childish manner.
I send you a polite and respectful pm asking you to reconsider.
you send me 2 very insulting pm's back.
I am now asking publicly for you to reconsider the events, I am not "attempting to moderate this thread", I am not "angry" i am not "worried that people will remember the previous thread"

1 single poster made 1 single comment that 5 posters blew up
not a few posters
1
one
a single

If a moderator see's fit to remove this post then so be it, but I ask if that same moderator would also see fit to remove the first sentance of this thread, that although reworded better than it was when I asked privately last night, is still un-needed, and (admittedly much like this post) airing personal laundry.

[Mowgli]

Podmark: Again, I'm not a writer, so you have more knowledge about the process than I do. As anyone can see by what work I have produced, I create a starting point, but don't necessarily have n ending in sight. I'm not saying Brubaker didn't think this through. I just take some issue with the rather bland and unheroic death Cap suffered. I guess I (and I think many others) expected him to have a much more heroic end.

JKCarrier: I hope you're right. Almost every hero that dies returns. I was just basing his finality on what Quesada said, when he made a point to mention that Steve Rogers is dead. With any luck, he isn't.

Zuludelta: Well, you're right. I might be going too far when I assign intent to someone else's work. I guess I just thought that if it had truly been about Cap leaving the Marvel universe, it would have been handled in a different manner. The death they gave him seemed to me to be something to stir up controversy, or gain news coverage. Perhaps there was another reason to treat his death in that manner, but I can't seem to wrap my mind around it. And I understand your comparison to the film, and it's a fair comparison for the point you are making. Not to mention, the plot was my only problem. The dialogue and artwork were fine. Just the concept of his defenseless death on courtroom steps while the media took pics, etc. stood out as a bad choice in many ways.

UFB: I never mentioned you or said your name in any way. One poster made a comment and others joined in on it, that's where I got "a few". Sorry you're so angry about it, but that doesn't change the fact that that is what happened. It was pertinant to the conversation to mention that's why I am bringing up the topic again, this time in words rather than images. Bringing this out into the thread is an attempt to moderate what I have said, like what was previously done in the thread with my drawing. And neither of my Pm's were insulting, and mine didn't use profanity either.

[UnfluffyBunny]

I approached you firstly, calm and respectfully, you replied in a childish manner while managing to speak like I was under you.
-insulting-

also i'd like to re-establish AGAIN a certain point

One poster made a comment and others joined in on it,

the bandwagon followed your lead and jumped against the single post that was made.
(not the other way around as you make out)

please read this again. i'm really not sure how you remember it being the other way around.

[yell0w_lantern]

I'm not really much of  Cap fan myself but I do have some fond memories of seeing him on Saturday mornings when I was a kid. The thing that bothers me is the continued bloodshed in comics. I want my comics to be a way to get away from it all; a pleasant distraction. There is more than enough angst and depression every morning I go to work. Don't get me wrong - I don't think the stories are necessarily bad they're just not what I'm looking for. As an example, I was reading through the second hardcover collection of 'Justice' yesterday and although I thought it was an excellent story, I walked away from it feeling very disturbed. At the end of the day, I guess Marvel can do whatever it wants with its "property" but I'm simply going to ignore it and find something lighthearted. Steve Rogers will always be Captain America in my book.

[Mowgli]

 yell0w_lantern : I don't mind the bloodshed in comics marketed in that light. The Punsher as a MAX comic (I believe that's what they call it) makes sense to have some violence that is a bit more graphic. But I believe it should be clearly marked as such (hence the Max title). But when the mainstream books show these things, I think they end up selling to kids. Like 52 had Black Adam punching holes through people and literally coated in blood in the last few issues. Like you, I prefer something a little lighter. That's why I changed the comic I was working on from Ronin Lost to Zer0. And I am revamping Zer0, by removing the sword in favor of a staff. That was part of what bothered me about Cap's death as well. He was simply shot to death in front of the media by multiple gunmen (and women). It just didn't seem like a hero's end.

And yeah, Steve simply is .. Captain America. It just wouldn't be Cap if someone else grabbed the shield.  :(

[zuludelta]

And yeah, Steve simply is .. Captain America. It just wouldn't be Cap if someone else grabbed the shield.  :(

This sort of reminds me of something I noticed a couple of weeks back. It seems like the truest comic book concepts that stand the test of time are the ones that resonate most with the greatest number of readers (well, duh!). There's a reason why the film version of Spider-Man was the high school/college freshman Peter Parker: because more people can relate to the idea of being life's underdog... I don't think a lot of people find a lot of common ground with the more modern, married-to-a-smokin'-hot supermodel version of Parker.

Not saying that this is a case where an argument can be made to stick and prolong the status quo, but I think this is as good an argument as any to have simultaneous multiple interpretations of the same property, which, in practice, actually already exist in some form or another in the current marketplace:

- the regular in-continuity Spider-Man books for the people who grew up reading Spidey and now want the character to grow up and grow old with them (although the growing up and growing old in the Spidey books only happens to a certain extent).

- the Ultimate Spider-Man book for those who want to read a streamlined and modernized interpretation of the Spider-Man mythos (although the problem with the Ultimate universe is that as it goes on and the issue count climbs, their backstory has the potential to become just as intimidating and convoluted as the original "in-continuity" books, something that the Ultimate books were supposed to avoid). 

- The Marvel Adventures Spider-Man book, which showcases almost note-for-note re-tellings of classic Spider-Man stories in a format more accessible to young readers and new, older readers. In my opinion, this has largely supplanted Ultimate Spider-Man as the best book to introduce new readers to the Spidey books.

- The "movie" Spider-Man, which sort of represents the conglomerated realization of the Spider-Man character in the general public's consciousness.

I think a similar approach relying on multiple, independent interpretations of certain iconic characters would work with guys like Captain America, Wolverine, Hulk, etc., all of whom appeal to multiple demographics and perhaps for different reasons. Of course, each interpretation would have to be tailored to fit each character's strength and intended audience.

[Mowgli]

Zuludelta: That seems to be the case with most heroes. Their original story and beginnings are many times trapped in an all to real event. Tony Stark and Frank Castle started in Vietnam, etc. So these guys need to be updated with their Ultimate versions, retellings and so forth. I think the Iron Man movie is going to give him his heart injury in Afghanistan, while his Ultimate version has a brain tumor. The Punisher movie made him an FBI (or drug enforecement) agent. To set their origin in Vietnam would make them much older than they are drawn. That's one of the great things about Cap though, he could have kept going with his original storyline. He was in WWII but then frozen, and now he has that serum in his veins which may make him age slower or stay in top shape longer, etc.

But I certainly understand what you mean when you say more people identify with the original idea of Peter Parker. Obviously you are right, as that version of him is wildly popular in movies with a much wider audience than any comic.