Do you like your favorite characters invincible?

[Fokken]

Flaws and limitations are EVERYTHING.

The more poweful a character, the more likely they are nerfed or sidelined or shelved or inevitably killed off.

[macjr33]

My favorite character in comics, by far, is Matt Murdock so obviously the answer to the question would be "YES!"

[phonogram12]

My favorite character in comics, by far, is Matt Murdock so obviously the answer to the question would be "YES!"

Likewise. That guy takes a beating all the time. But it's the simple act of refusing to stay down that makes me root for him all the more.

[Rosebunse]

I sort of think of Loki with this question. Given what he is, he has the potential to be one of the strongest characters in Marvel.

But his own flaws and his own thoughts on his role keep that from happening.

[Nomads1]

Well, at the end of the day, they have to be invincible, or it would not be very fun for us fans (just see the reactions at the end of Avengers Infinity War, and all the records Avengers Endgame is sure to break, so that people can see how the heroes are going to win). However, the challenge is what makes it intresting. The bigger the challenge, and the harder they have to fight to overcome it, the better the story. As someone mentioned above, this has been going on, in one way or another for decades, so it's becoming hard to find new inventive ways in which to do so. The sad result? Many cases of plot induced stupidity, so that the bad guy can show how "awsome" and "superior to the hero" he really is. A LOT of writers today go down this road, creating humongous threats and writing themselves into corners, giving us great set-ups but severely disappointing outcomes. It's taking the heroes with feet of clay a little bit too far, IMHO. Like it or not, nobody likes to root for losers. Eveybody loves winners, and maybe this explainsa bit the poor state the industry seems to be in.

Invisible is boring.

Oh, Sue Richards won't like to hear that.

Peace

[phonogram12]

Well, at the end of the day, they have to be invincible, or it would not be very fun for us fans (just see the reactions at the end of Avengers Infinity War, and all the records Avengers Endgame is sure to break, so that people can see how the heroes are going to win). However, the challenge is what makes it intresting. The bigger the challenge, and the harder they have to fight to overcome it, the better the story. As someone mentioned above, this has been going on, in one way or another for decades, so it's becoming hard to find new inventive ways in which to do so. The sad result? Many cases of plot induced stupidity, so that the bad guy can show how "awsome" and "superior to the hero" he really is. A LOT of writers today go down this road, creating humongous threats and writing themselves into corners, giving us great set-ups but severely disappointing outcomes. It's taking the heroes with feet of clay a little bit too far, IMHO. Like it or not, nobody likes to root for losers. Eveybody loves winners, and maybe this explainsa bit the poor state the industry seems to be in.




Oh, Sue Richards won't like to hear that.

Peace

I like to root for underdogs the most. For there to be any tension in the story, the villain has be a believable threat or even win against the hero at least once.

[JudicatorPrime]

It's all relative. Daredevil definitely comes across as "invincible." Realistically, no one comes back from the beatings that he's taken over the course of his career without serious long-term side effects. No one. That he so often does speaks to a degree of invincibility, doesn't it? When a character reaches the point that Death for him/her is the outlier, not the convention, that is invincibility, too, isn't it?

[XPac]

Well, at the end of the day, they have to be invincible, or it would not be very fun for us fans (just see the reactions at the end of Avengers Infinity War, and all the records Avengers Endgame is sure to break, so that people can see how the heroes are going to win). However, the challenge is what makes it intresting. The bigger the challenge, and the harder they have to fight to overcome it, the better the story. As someone mentioned above, this has been going on, in one way or another for decades, so it's becoming hard to find new inventive ways in which to do so. The sad result? Many cases of plot induced stupidity, so that the bad guy can show how "awsome" and "superior to the hero" he really is. A LOT of writers today go down this road, creating humongous threats and writing themselves into corners, giving us great set-ups but severely disappointing outcomes. It's taking the heroes with feet of clay a little bit too far, IMHO. Like it or not, nobody likes to root for losers. Eveybody loves winners, and maybe this explainsa bit the poor state the industry seems to be in.




Oh, Sue Richards won't like to hear that.

Peace

Nobody likes to root for losers, but rooting for the underdog is a different matter. There's a good healthy middle ground between being invinsible and being a loser.

Using a sports analogy, you can be outscored in every single inning of a baseball but, but still win the game in the 9th. And I think ideally that's what you want to shoot for. Heroes pretty have much have to win in the end... but they can still get struggle or even flat out get their behinds kicked before getting to that point.

[phonogram12]

It's all relative. Daredevil definitely comes across as "invincible." Realistically, no one comes back from the beatings that he's taken over the course of his career without serious long-term side effects. No one. That he so often does speaks to a degree of invincibility, doesn't it? When a character reaches the point that Death for him/her is the outlier, not the convention, that is invincibility, too, isn't it?

This is actually what the current run is addressing brilliantly, which makes me root for this particular underdog even more..

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I don’t know if Stan Lee intended Tony Stark to be Invincible when he started the Invincible Iron Man logo, but it was a very preposterous term to use. However, the longer Tony Stark’s story went on, it became clear Stark himself thought he was Invincible. I think Tony Stark does symbolise invincibility. Stark is the most determined man to be right all the time. He’s righter than Steve Rogers in Civil War, and in the Illuminati. That makes him invincible to me.

Or, it may have been nothing more than Stan using alliteration when it came to ol' Shellhead and he rolled with it because it sounded cool. Just a silly guess.

[KOSLOX]

"sort of". Black Panther is my favorite character and I like him best when he outsmarts/plans his opponents. Basically I like him to function like a good version of Verbal Klindt/Keyser Soze.

[JudicatorPrime]

The writer could build invincibility into the character by virtue of his/her attributes, then let the conflict and resolution flow logically from there. Or they could build the invincibility into the character's narrative, but actively intervene as needed to ensure the desired outcome. I'm guessing most writers prefer the latter. I prefer the former, since there are less twists and contortions required to fill the credibility gap and other challenges of maintaining the invincible narrative.

[macjr33]

It's all relative. Daredevil definitely comes across as "invincible." Realistically, no one comes back from the beatings that he's taken over the course of his career without serious long-term side effects. No one. That he so often does speaks to a degree of invincibility, doesn't it? When a character reaches the point that Death for him/her is the outlier, not the convention, that is invincibility, too, isn't it?

Interesting take as I interpreted "invincible" in a different context, i.e. does the hero fail or lose on occasion. Obviously the beatings Matt has taken would have long term affects for a normal person; however, I would not suggest he is invincible given all the loss he has experienced.

Also as phonogram12 indicated, that very issue with Matt is being addressed brilliantly in the new run.

[Tony Stark]

My favorite character in comics, by far, is Matt Murdock so obviously the answer to the question would be "YES!"

LOL. I'm completely with you. The same thing about Tony. Daredevil is on of my all time favorite characters and both he and Tony are interesting without their costumes on. They both have had terrible things happen to them . but keep fighting the good fight.

[Lee Stone]

No. I like human characters.
But, of course, humans have more layers than just 'tragedy'.

So I wouldn't want every story to be an exercise in 'how to break character x'.

I think my ideal range for superhero mortality would be Batman: Year One, Sandman Mystery Theatre or the 80s Dennis O'Neil edited books at Marvel.
Human, fallable and capable of many different emotions.