Should Marvel have an event that kills off a lot of dead wood?

[Dark-Jacket]

Absolutely not, it never worked and just creates audience induced apathy

[Drops Of Venus]

If the characters aren't actively being used, there's really no need to kill them off.

This. Squirrel Girl was probably considered ''dead wood'' for many years until someone decided that hey, this a fun character. And now she's a breakout Marvel star, with a successful solo run and multiple appearences in other media. Every character Marvel has could be a farmable IP for them in the future.

[Tendrin]

This. Squirrel Girl was probably considered ''dead wood'' for many years until someone decided that hey, this a fun character. And now she's a breakout Marvel star, with a successful solo run and multiple appearences in other media. Every character Marvel has could be a farmable IP for them in the future.

The right team at the right cultural moment able to reach the right audience.

[chamber-music]

People probably wouldn't by an event book if it was just to kill off characters that were less popular or unused anyway so there would not be much point.

Plenty of 'dead wood' characters have untapped potential. Some writer could come along with a great idea or new direction for a character that could catch on.

[Chainsaw Vigilante]

No, that's a cheap and easy thing to do and it'll never last. Even Scourge's original victims from the 80's eventually came back (not that some like Basilisk and Miracle Man should have died given their power/powers).

[Raye]

I don't think you need to kill off characters when they can just kinda fade into limbo. It's not like there is some mandate that they have to use every character that's still alive or anything. There are ton of characters sitting in limbo and it at least affords them the opportunity to come back at some point if someone comes up with an idea for them without jumping through the hoops of pulling off some kind of resurrection.

Now, if someone came up with a story/event that called for some cannon fodder deaths that made the story stronger as a result, ok, i guess. Sometimes a death raises the stakes or provides an emotional beat that makes things more interesting. fine. But I really don't think that the purpose of the story should be to kill off characters.

[Glio]

All the times that similar things have been done before it has ended in a terrible way and has ended up being reversed.

But sure, let's try again, this is the good one.

[Mike_Murdock]

Back in the 80s, Marvel decided to put a lot of toys in the toybox - destroying the Savage Land, killing off a lot of villains through Skurge, etc. IMO, it was a huge mistake. There are no bad ideas, just bad writers (or writers who are a bad fit). In the case of every character, Marvel is free to not use them rather than remove them. I think they realized that too and started bringing back the characters and concepts. It's better to have them around for others to use rather than destroy them.

[Sutekh]

No. One person's dead wood is another persons favorite character.

At various times, some of my favorite characters have been used as Event Fodder, such as Madrox (who has been killed for shock value at least twice, the first time being some Legacy Virus shenanigans). And then a writer with actual talent comes along and writes a Madrox mini that leads to *another* 100+ issue X-Factor run centered around Jamie Madrox.

There are tons of characters I don't like at all, such as Squirrel Girl or Quentin Quire, but I wouldn't advocate killing them off, because *some people like them,* and I'm not a colossal dick who wants to kill off characters that other people like.

Not every character was created specifically *for me.* And to paraphrase a certain Sorcerer Supreme, "Not everything has to be."

You can have your Punisher or whoever. Just keep your hands off my Songbird. And my Stingray. And my Noh-Varr. And, and...

[Michael Watkins]

M-Day.

10 Char.

absolutely pointless when they left morts like Eye Boy, Glob Herman, Hellion, etc. there's a reason why all of these early era x-characters are returning. it's because some actual creativity spawned them.


to answer the thread topic: sure, wholesale slaughter might be beneficial. but i don't trust anyone in Marvel to do it. they've made a lot of stupid choices (like letting Bendis do whatever he wanted to).

[Snoop Dogg]

In reality, killing characters is fine even if in some alternate timeline they become dope in the future. But deaths have to be for the story (like Avengers Arena), while a story that exists for the deaths is pointless.

[Rosebunse]

This just sounds like it would be upsetting and depressing.

[U.N. Owen]

It’s also hard to prevent darkness induced audience apathy. An event dedicated to killing tends to cause people to turn and drop the book.

[Rosebunse]

It’s also hard to prevent darkness induced audience apathy. An event dedicated to killing tends to cause people to turn and drop the book.

I know I wouldn't buy it. Look at how Secret Wars went. We got through that because it was the first issue and we knew that it would be undone by the end.

[Captain Craig]

Every character has potential.

This. Just because some writer or a string of writers has a mental block creatively on how to do something new/different with a character(s) that is decades old is no reason to kill them.

Besides, haven't we all seen that the "shock value" of death to a character is meaningless when along comes a writer who wants to use them does and does so well?