TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Averting Stuffed Into The Fridge

Go To

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#51: Feb 20th 2012 at 8:34:52 AM

I don't know about him, but I am.

Sijo from Puerto Rico Since: Jan, 2001
#52: Feb 20th 2012 at 3:14:32 PM

I was asking King Zeal about his response to me, not Napoleon De Cheese.

RJSavoy Reymmã from Edinburgh Since: Apr, 2011 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
Reymmã
#53: Feb 21st 2012 at 3:54:48 AM

I don't read superhero comics much, but this is a cross-genre phenomenon, so I can say:

Killing off loved characters has obvious dangers, but so does not killing any, in certain settings. One of the problems I had with Babylon Five is that from half-way through the second season we're told there's a terrible war going on with innocent people dying all the time, but nobody from the main cast dies until the end of season four. (A few others before but they are minor.) So the war seemed like an Informed Ability on the level of the whole story.

Unfortunate Implications come up when there is a feeling that a secondary character was killed off only for the effect on the protagonist, or that it is a convenient way to write off a character whose purpose has been exhausted.

I have two criteria for how such deaths should be done: firstly, the character has to be humanised beforehand, and the death act be tragic and not just dramatic. Make them into someone with their own purpose, not just one for the story or in relation to the protagonist. And don't put the focus only on how the protagonist takes it; at the least show family and friends mourning. Acknowledge the person in their own worth, as it were.

Coming back to B5, one thing that I really hated was when in season four (when the Shadow War is over and Sheridan turns to Clark's regime), we hear of thousands of civilians killed off-screen just to motivate Sheridan. That's the worst case possible, they existed as nothing more than plot devices. And the whole thing makes no sense, politically or strategically: Clark kills all these defenceless civilians and lets footage of it escape, handing his enemies free propaganda; but he keeps Sheridan alive, supposedly to avoid making him a martyr, when the guy is a military leader and surely is seen as a threat as much as a saviour.

Secondly, the death has to make sense by the setting's logic. So a fairly realistic series can have someone die of a single bullet, but anything with superheroes or simply has people survive things they shouldn't needs something special. So in Puella Magi Madoka Magica: one thing that lessened the impact of Mami's death is that the fight goes Mami attacks doll, no resistance, doll shows its true nature, Curb-Stomp Battle, Homura comes and fights it, again seemingly with ease. It would have helped a lot if the fight had at each point both sides visibly struggling and kept up some pretence that it could go either way; as it was it gave a feeling that it all happened simply because the script said so.

A blog that gets updated on a geological timescale.
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#54: Feb 21st 2012 at 6:25:41 AM

[up]There's always going to be Red Shirts. Side-characters and extras dying to promote the danger of the setting isn't unheard of. Babylon 5 is a different kind of story, because it's a linear progression in a single continuity. One writer (or set of writers) continuing a story towards a conclusion. That isn't how comic books work.

Comic books (especially superhero comics) work on franchise characters who are Regular Callers. Their story isn't so much a progression of one overarching plot as it is someone undergoing a neverending battle to pursue a philosophical, moral, or ethical goal. Characters with single motivations don't tend to last very long. Take Silver Surfer. His original plot was that he was trying to find a way off of Earth. Just like Gilligan's Island, that falls under the problem of Failure Is the Only Option. They can't succeed, or else your main plot device is over. A rare example where it works is the X-Men, but even then, they fight more than anti-mutant groups. They've got the Brood, the Shi'ar, Mojo, Dracula, and a number of other opponents which aren't going to away even if the world suddenly turns around and loves mutants.

So, in this case, killing off characters isn't inherently necessary. In fact, killing swaths of civilians is something that should be done sparingly ("sparingly" meaning maybe once every seven years. Constantly having a superhero battle or disaster that results in the deaths of dozens, hundreds, thousands or even millions of innocent people is going to eventually break suspension of disbelief. Maybe not for the particular story where it happens (no fans really batted an eyelash when Genosha was destroyed or when Ultron destroyed a fake country) but over time, fans will eventually start to question why humanity isn't catching on that these cataclysmic events happen so often. Can you imagine what our world would be like if we knew that millions of us would be wiped out in the blink of an eye every six months or so?

So yeah, death in fiction is a unique beast when it comes to comics, and you can't treat it like any other medium. The main problem with comics creators is that they spend too much effort writing for the short-term. I get it that writers and editors want to write the best-possible story they can and make as many sales as possible, but that is what we call in economic trends a "bubble". And once that bubble pops, and you've used up every good character and resource you have telling that story, what do you have left?

VampireBuddha Calendar enthusiast from Ireland (Wise, aged troper) Relationship Status: Complex: I'm real, they are imaginary
Calendar enthusiast
#55: Feb 21st 2012 at 7:44:04 AM

@Post 50: No, I'm just saying it's not inherently necessary.

There's always going to be Red Shirts. Side-characters and extras dying to promote the danger of the setting isn't unheard of. Babylon 5 is a different kind of story, because it's a linear progression in a single continuity. One writer (or set of writers) continuing a story towards a conclusion. That isn't how comic books work.

<derail>Actually, if you look beyond Marvel and DC, you'll see it's about 50/50.</derail>

Ukrainian Red Cross
Maridee from surfside Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#56: Feb 21st 2012 at 7:52:02 AM

Killing off a character's a plot device, same as any other. The problem comes when you just use it for shock and awe, or to manipulate your audience. It can be done well - the Comedian, Wash from Firefly, Boromir, Matthew Cuthbert from Anne Of Green Gables...I can't think of any female deaths that fall under that category at the present, tho. aside from Gwen. I don't think Gwen Stacy falls under manipulating the audience, because a) it was something that had never been done before in comics, b) there's a historical context where Stan Lee was trying to push the boundaries of what was acceptable in comics, and c) she wasn't just a disposable girlfriend. Her death had meaning and impact.

edited 21st Feb '12 7:52:43 AM by Maridee

ophelia, you're breaking my heart
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#57: Feb 21st 2012 at 7:59:20 AM

That's subjective, though. Lian Harper's death had "meaning and impact"; it was just dumb.

The problem with fiction is that a writer can claim they do anything with meaning and give anything "impact". Or, fans can see those things in anything they enjoy.

Actually, if you look beyond Marvel and DC, you'll see it's about 50/50.</derail>

True enough.

edited 21st Feb '12 8:00:42 AM by KingZeal

C0mraid from Here and there Since: Aug, 2010
#58: Feb 21st 2012 at 10:51:15 AM

Anything a writer does can be done badly, killing off characters is no exception. But that's not a reason for them to stop doing it.

As for Genosha, a lot of fans, myself included, were annoyed by that. It was a great setting that had never been used to it's full potential. And I think it's things like that, rather than characters being killed off, that are damaging to the future of the industry. New characters can always be created, except when you have measures like M-Day or the regestration act which limit the types of character who can be created.

Am I a good man or a bad man?
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#59: Feb 21st 2012 at 1:52:20 PM

Anything can be done badly, but the deciding factor is doing something which has more negative risk to screwing up to positive benefit for doing correctly.

A death done correctly is tragic and leaves a strong mark upon the audience. A death done incorrectly removes a perfectly good character, disheartens those characters fans, isolate writers who may have the capability of writing that story, feels cheap and/or disrespectful, cheapens the status quo and (if reversed) discredits the reason it was done in the first place.

Gray64 Since: Dec, 1969
#60: Feb 21st 2012 at 2:53:12 PM

Let's remember that the death of Gwen Stacy was by no means a unanimous decision by Marvel editorial. There were lots of folks on the Spider-Man staff who thought, and still think, it was a bad idea. What must also be remembered is that, at the time she actually appeared in the comics, Gwen was not a terribly popular character. She was who Stan Lee wanted Peter to be with, but fans were very vocal in their preference for Mary Jane. Marvel bent over backwards to make Gwen more appealing, even redesigning her to make her look more like Mary Jane (as opposed to her original, Steve Ditko kill-you-a-cold-stare-and-arched-eyebrow look), and pointedly adding some warmth to her personality. They even went so far as to temporarily make Mary Jane more unattractive, making her frivolous and shallow and whatnot, and giving her a truly gawd-awful perm. This was apparently to no avail. Gwen has become a much more popular, much more resonant character in death than ever she was in life.

As to the larger argument, I don't think Gwen's death counts as a stuffed-in-the-fridge moment, because she wasn't created specifically to be killed. After something like 11 years as a supporting character, she failed to connect with audiences in the way Marvel wanted her to, so rather then write her out, they decided to make a compelling story out of removing her from the supporting cast.

They didn't need to kill Henry Blake when he left MASH either, but it did make his departure more resonant. I see this as the same sort of thing.

edited 21st Feb '12 2:57:03 PM by Gray64

HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#61: Feb 21st 2012 at 3:28:48 PM

A character can be 'Fridged without having been created to be 'Fridged. Take Wallflower from New X-Men. After her creators were fired from Marvel, the next team to take on the book promptly had her get shot in the head purely to give her boyfriend angst. That is a 'Fridging.

C0mraid from Here and there Since: Aug, 2010
#62: Feb 21st 2012 at 3:45:54 PM

" removes a perfectly good character, disheartens those characters fans, isolate writers who may have the capability of writing that story, feels cheap and/or disrespectful"

A roster change could do that. As could anything that changes the status quo in any marginally significant way. Death is hardly the only thing that could be badly screwed up.

Am I a good man or a bad man?
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#63: Feb 21st 2012 at 3:47:19 PM

A roster change can be reversed without fanfare. The Bus can come back. A death cannot be done the same way. Every time you undo a death, you further destroy the credibility of death as a storytelling device.

There are certain storytelling devices which you can call an "event horizon"; once you do it, you can't take it back without breaking something else. Death, by its very nature, is one of those things—because death in the real world is permanent.

edited 21st Feb '12 3:50:23 PM by KingZeal

HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#64: Feb 21st 2012 at 3:49:15 PM

[up][up] So you're saying 'Fridging isn't a problem?

C0mraid from Here and there Since: Aug, 2010
#65: Feb 21st 2012 at 3:53:16 PM

A roster snapping back to a previous incarnation can feel cheap and annoy fans, although not to the same extent. There were a few people angered by Jean Grey's speedy return to the X-Men, as they believed it was the first step towards this. The problem is more that too many characters are resurrected more than too many characters are killed.

Edit[up] I'm saying that, at least occasionaly, comic characters should be killed off. Earlier I said that I haven't encountered a difference in the way male and female characters are killed off. That said I haven't read sone of the most commonly listed examples, Wallflower among them.

Edit2: Answered. Sorry about that, I tend not to proof read my posts.

edited 21st Feb '12 4:00:09 PM by C0mraid

Am I a good man or a bad man?
HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#66: Feb 21st 2012 at 3:54:49 PM

[up] That may be true, but you didn't answer my question.

And check your grammar, by the way. "Is usually a can feel cheap?"

Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#67: Feb 21st 2012 at 4:59:56 PM

It should be noted, Fridging doesn't just refer to being killed. It can also mean depowered, injured, or otherwise screwed over as part of a plot device.

For example, Yukio has twice been badly injured and left in a wheelchair as a result of people trying to hurt Logan. She survived both times, but it could still count as Yukio being Fridged.

The Women In Refrigerators site also mentions characters like Batgirl (paralyzed, wasn't healed until the reboot a few months ago), Mockingbird (essentially raped, then killed and stayed dead for years until Secret Invasion), and Karen Page (drug addict, porn star, HIV positive, then killed).

Do similar things happen to male heroes, too? Sure. For about 5 minutes. Storm was depowered for a good few years. What's the longest a male character has lost their powers? Maybe a single arc, with them getting their powers back during the climax.

And hey, sometimes, the stories concerning what happens to the women are genuinely good and interesting. Storm's depowering led to some neat stories for her. Barbara was arguably better as Oracle than she ever was as Batgirl. But that doesn't really change the fact that things like that are done to women far more, and lasting far longer, than to men.

And the other problem is that, far too often, it's not handled all that well. Gwen Stacy's death was a powerful and emotional moment. The girl who was literally shoved in a fridge? Not so much.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#68: Feb 21st 2012 at 5:16:45 PM

A roster snapping back to a previous incarnation can feel cheap and annoy fans, although not to the same extent. There were a few people angered by Jean Grey's speedy return to the X-Men, as they believed it was the first step towards this.

Yes, but she died. And the only reason she was killed off in the first place was because the editors felt she couldn't get away with snuffing out a populated solar system scot-free.

The problem is more that too many characters are resurrected more than too many characters are killed.

So how do you enforce that? For example...Booster Gold was killed off in one part of Fifty Two with no intention of him staying dead on the writers' part. From their perspective, this wasn't really a "resurrection", because he was never really dead. But, that wasn't how they sold the story. Same deal with Magneto's death in Grant Morrison's run on New X-Men. He wasn't actually dead, but it took a damn long time to reveal that. If you're enforcing "no resurrections, ever" then that means you're enforcing every form of "death", including He's Just Hiding. There's no way for an audience member to know if this "death" is actually supposed to be death or not.

Not to mention that making death permanent only exacerbates the problem. Most comic book deaths are done by someone who isn't the person who resurrects them later. It's far, far more common for a writer to fully intend that a death be absolute and leave the character dead until the end of their run only for another writer to come by and reveal that they were "never dead". Norman Osborn is probably the most triumphant example. So basically, that doesn't mean you stop getting crap like Alpha Flight all dying at the same time to sell a crappy new villain or killing off half of the Avengers to reveal how batshit insane the Scarlet Witch is for no damn reason. Remember, both of those plots were done by Brian Michael Bendis, who is a good writer. He isn't a hack, and he can sure as hell sell books. Now, imagine that all of the characters he killed off (Hawkeye, The Vision, Jack of Hearts, Ant-Man) never coming back. Ever.

edited 21st Feb '12 5:19:44 PM by KingZeal

C0mraid from Here and there Since: Aug, 2010
#69: Feb 21st 2012 at 5:23:49 PM

[up] [up]Well Banshee was depowered for about a decade.

That's obviously too literal an answer. But the thing is I really don't think these things, rape aside(that is used too much) happen more frequently to men than women.

It's the way in which these events are used that matters more. Storm was Claremonts favourite character, and Claremont wrote almost all of her appearances from her depowering to repowering. So it's not like he ever intended the character to be negativly affected by the depowering. She's out of focus for a few issues but not too long later she beats Cyclops in a duel for leadership.

Now Captain Marvel was removed from leadership of the Avengers in a humiliating fashion, just so Captain America can be shown as the better leader. That would be fridging. But the only time I can recall a similar thing happening, at least to a character prieviously potrayed to be a competent leader, was to Havok.

edited 21st Feb '12 5:39:15 PM by C0mraid

Am I a good man or a bad man?
Gray64 Since: Dec, 1969
#70: Feb 21st 2012 at 5:34:02 PM

When Jason Todd was killed, it was intended that he stay dead; then along came Judd Winick. Does Jason's death count as being stuffed in the fridge?

Bucky stayed dead for something like...what, 40, 50 years before he was brought back. Not technically a resurrection, though, since I think they said he'd never actually been dead...

edited 21st Feb '12 5:35:38 PM by Gray64

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#71: Feb 21st 2012 at 5:41:40 PM

For all intents and purposes, Bucky's disappearance was a death. For decades, all writers involved with Cap treated Bucky as being dead.

Barbara Gordon is an interesting case where the fridging actually, for once, improves on the character- Oracle brought much more to the table than Batgirl Babs ever did.

WarriorEowyn from Victoria Since: Oct, 2010
#72: Feb 21st 2012 at 5:42:39 PM

As I understand it, fridging is when a character is seriously harmed, depowered, killed etc. specifically for the purpose of causing emotional angst to another character. If something bad happens to a character as part of their own arc, that's not fringing.

The problem with fringing is female characters being used purely to create trauma for a male character, rather than for any reason relating to the female character's story. (No, fringing needn't always be female, but it typically is.) It's annoying to people because it makes female characters only tools used to advance someone else's story arc, rather than characters in their own right.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#73: Feb 21st 2012 at 5:49:20 PM

But that's subjective, because any death is going to cause angst to a character that way. Bucky's death was arguably to give Captain America a My Greatest Failure angle to develop his character beyond just being a star-spangled do-gooder.

Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#74: Feb 21st 2012 at 5:50:47 PM

[up][up][up][up] [up]OK, Banshee was depowered for a long time. But women are still more likely to lose their powers for extended periods than men. Carol Danvers and Jessica Drew both come to mind. If I spent a couple minutes thinking about it, I'd probably think of even more. When it happens to women, it's not a single-arc deal. Even with Banshee, it wasn't that he lost his powers, it was that injuries prevented him from using them until he recovered.

And yes, how it's handled is important. Like I said, Storm losing her powers made for cool stories. But why hasn't something similar happened to a male character? Why haven't we seen Scott lose his powers for an extended period? We've had a few arcs here and there where they were cut off, but he always got them back by the end of the story. Whedon's Astonishing run deprived him of his powers for about 5 issues. Why couldn't he lose them for a couple years, the way women do?

That's ultimately the point of Women In Refrigerators. Bad things happen to all comic characters, but with women, those bad things are likely to be far more lasting. And, worse, the bad things that happen to women are usually done in order to spur the male characters. So you get the girlfriend being killed in order to drive the male hero mad with grief.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#75: Feb 21st 2012 at 5:54:29 PM

I would argue that Bucky's death is more of an origin story death. Like Uncle Ben.

Wasn't Jason Todd's death decided on by a poll?

Anyway, yes, bad things happen to men, too. But it always seems to worse, more frequent, and more lasting with women, and often for weaker reasons.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.

Total posts: 249
Top