The Punisher Netflix series

Pretty much this. I mean, I'd love to see comics where the villains are significantly lightened up, and consequently the Punisher's methods would be needlessly brutal and counter-productive for lasting peace and order on the streets. Unfortunately, ever since Watchmen and The Killing Joke, writers have spent half their time creating or revamping villains each more atrocious than the last, while heroes have generally devolved into petty jerks with only token self-restraint. For all the mockery of the Dark Age, few people seem to realize that this is the attitude that created it. This is the attitude that made the Punisher from an intended villain into a hero in his own right. And this is the attitude that gave him his own series now.

When I say that heroes are quick to denounce and denigrate villains, but loath to deal with them, I mean precisely that writers seem to enjoy creating antagonists with no redeemable qualities, and then milk every excuse for keeping them around, until the whole thing starts looking like a more violent version of the Aristocrats. And then they wonder why people flock to the few anti-heroes who buck the trend and respond to such villains proportionately to their crimes.

Here's a tip: It's overall pointless to engage in a debate with Indiana about anything. If he wants to view Lord of the Rings as a pro-Nazi work he will, logic being at best a secondary concern. It's best to just let him rant on his own otherwise we'll just keep on a pointless back-and-forth of "But that's not true" "technically not but you see the author clearly intended this..." that usually goes in these arguments.

The amount of threads vaguely involving the word "superhero" that Indiana keeps stitching with mile-long posts about how much superheroes suck is beyond human capacities of counting. Just let him do his thoughtpieces on the side, read it if you like, and move along, because debating him is just going to drag this thread down with insipid debates.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."

The issue is that both companies keep escalating things. The "darker/edgier is better" attitude feels like it's in play a lot. So now every villain needs to be a mass murderer with a ridiculously high body count, the threats must always be "bigger" and more destructive, and things are just general more cynical in-general.

And at the same time, out of universe factors come into play as well. They won't let the villains stay gone for very long because, well they make too much money off of them. So you have justice systems in-universe that are ludicrously revolving-door like, and the heroes often come across like self-righteous douches for expecting that SOMEHOW this time will be any different from all the other ones in that regard.

So in the real world, it's not hard at all to make a convincing argument for why someone like The Punisher wouldn't necessarily be a good thing for society. BUT, in the comic world, where things have become far more heightened and with far more cases of widespread death and destruction, AND with a justice system that is so ineffective that it makes our own look positively airtight by comparison, that it becomes a lot more difficult to make "Frank's methods are wrong" sound credible, imo.

AND add onto to that the fact that a lot of writers lack the nuance to make said arguments. Often their give reasons for why Frank is "wrong" end up sounding like meaningless platitudes. "Killing is wrong, well just because it is" basically.

Daredevil Season 2 had this problem. The show kind of dropped the ball in giving Matt a convincing argument against Frank, or really diving into his POV in this regard. And add onto that that Matt ended the season by intentionally killing one of his enemies, and many were left wondering "why should I be on his side in this again?" By contrast, Frank's POV and why he is the way that he is was given a lot more effective attention, so it's easier for some to identify with him.

Precisely. Writers essentially corner themselves into situations so violent, that non-violent solutions stop seeming rational. More to the point, they don't really offer much in the way of catharsis in the problem - tension - catharsis storytelling model. Right now, the situation is more problem - tension - tension - tension - some more tension - even more tension - realize that tension ain't going anywhere and drop the title. As far as business models go, this has been the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever. Speaking of which...

Or, in an age where superhero comic sales remain low despite successful film adaptation, while the net abounds with editorials about why such-and-such superhero isn't popular anymore, it might be a better idea to try and listen to those few who bother to voice any criticism, in light of the many who have abandoned the industry wholesale. Like I said, my guy Castle here just got his own series, while Deadpool was the dark horse hit of last year. As far as I'm concerned, that trend works pretty well for me.

edited 3rd Oct '17 8:45:19 AM by indiana404

The main appeal of the Punisher for me isn't really his methods or what he does- rather what's interesting to me is exploring what exactly is inside him that causes him to act that way. In Daredevil, they introduced him almost as a force of nature, this juggernaut who kills all these criminals by himself with military precision and is shown to be capable of great brutality. However, while he IS that, he is also a grieving family man who shows emotional vulnerability and sympathy towards civilians. The contrast between those aspects and Joe Bernthal's performance ultimately make him a complex character - his actions may be excessive and cruel, but it's hard not to be invested in him.

Not to be rude, but I think you're missing his and Very Melon's point, which is that you do this a lot and it gets a little old.

There's also the fact that Marvel has traditionally wanted it's heroes to be a bit more flawed when compared to DC (not so much these days, but in the past).

So when you have characters like Black Widow, or Thor, or Wolverine, etc, who have little problem with killing if they feel it necessary on the Avenger, or a big chunk of the X-Men made up of ex-villains, or at least people who also don't have an issue with killing, it further muddies the waters when it comes to this matter.

edited 3rd Oct '17 10:49:09 AM by Punisher286

Another detail is that Marvel villains tend to be consistently more powerful than the heroes, meaning most of the action concerns the good guys trying to overpower and apprehend them. DC capes are almost taken for granted as able to wipe the floor with most of their foes, which tends to result in increasingly counter-intuitive excuses as to why they're still operational.

To contrast, that's two more problems the Punisher lacks. Training aside, he's outgunned far more often than not... resulting in rather amusing use of improvised weapons, such as power tools, farming implements, polar bears - nice touches all around. And he's not tied to any particular villain, so there's no forced drama in keeping those around any longer than necessary.

Notice the irony that the thread was sleepy for almost a week, while the post to awaken it was half-about complaining over my suspected (and wrongly at that) tastes? You'd think that expressing preference for the Punisher in a thread about the Punisher would be the least of causes for complaint.

edited 3rd Oct '17 11:51:17 AM by indiana404

It's always been my opinion that the question, "Should superheroes kill?" is a debate held by two equal and opposite extremes that are both problematic in their own way. The question itself is the problem. It's treated as a binary choice. Yes or No, should superheroes kill?

On the one side, you have the No votes. This side says that under no circumstances should a superhero ever use lethal force. Superheroes are supposed to be beacons of moral righteousness and killing is 100% always an unacceptable crossing of a moral line. Even when lives are in danger, the hero must exclusively attempt to use nonlethal force at all times, because the hero's moral high ground is the most important thing in a crisis situation.

On the other side, you have the Yes votes. This side says that heroes should just kill all the villains. All of them. Supervillains break out of prison all the time. They can't be contained. Heroes should just be murdering villains left and right, every chance they get, because it's the only way anything gets done.

Every time the question gets brought up, it's like watching two Strawmen go at each other. This is a problem inherent to the question itself. It is impossible to answer it correctly because the question itself is wrong. The question should not be, "Should heroes kill?" It should be, "Under what circumstances is it acceptable for heroes to kill?"

The answer to which, in my opinion, is "When and only when it is a necessary step to ending a threat of violence and saving lives." Between lethal force and nonlethal force is a middle ground known as reasonable force. It empowers you to use the amount of force within sound human judgment that is necessary for a given situation.

It's the guideline law enforcement is supposed to operate under. Failures to do so are certainly controversial and a subject of heated debate today, but the principle is sound.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

The interesting thing is that American superhero comics seem to monopolize this issue in a way. I've read quite a bit of manga, and some European comics as well. And they both tend to take the more nuanced view on the "killing debate."

Some American indie comics do as well for that matter.

I reckon the matter is compounded by two more aspects. For one, tales which explicitly reference cardboard prisons and revolving door courts do make it seem like the more pacifistic heroes are only deluding themselves, never mind essentially becoming shaggy dog stories which are insulting to read.

A more serious problem nowadays is that there are other unwholesome methods for which the same question must be applied. When is it okay to employ torture? When is it okay to violate privacy? When is it okay to subvert civil authority? Legally speaking, all of these are much more troubling than just pulling a gun and killing a rampaging axe murderer. And all of these have become standard for superheroes in general, to nobody's protest. Never mind the Punisher, that's a level of warped that would make even Deadpool cringe.

The weird thing is that the rest of the MCU takes a more nuanced approach to killing. The Avengers are basically soldiers, so they kill as a first resort, but will avoid it when practical. SHIELD is a police organization, so they go for a non-lethal resort to start, but aren't shy about killing when things get out of hand. No one considers either of these stances to be odd; people were mad at the Avengers for collateral damage, and at SHIELD for their secrets.

It's just the Netflix shows that insist on moralizing. Jessica and Luke aren't too bad about it, but it still comes up on occasion, and of course Matt is horrible about it. It only comes up for Danny (tagged for Tobias since he still hasn't finished Iron Fist) in the last episode, with the kinda out of nowhere "corrupted chi" thing.

Well the difference is between 'killing' and 'murder'.

Captain America shoots a gun at goons in the Avengers, fine. But if he had say, taken a pistol and shot Rumlow in the head after the elevator fight in CA 2, that probably would have provoked some outrage.

But its exactly the kind of thing the Punisher would do.

And its weird that, for all his 'no-nonsense, everybody dies even if you helped me-a lot-before' attitude, Castle does still have that one nemesis who the writers refuse to kill off. I mean, maybe if they had at least given him a healing factor, that would make some sense.

Yeah Matt is as far as I can tell the only person in the MCU with a huge hangup about killing in all circumstances.

It helps that the MCU doesn't have cardboard prisons as best I can tell, nor are the police or legal authorities generally incapable of dealing with threats. The Avengers exist for bigger threats, the Defenders are limited to New York (so instead of all police being incompetent or corrupt it's just the NYPD), Strange and Thor are outside existing legal systems, Spidy actually could just coordinate with the police but didn't want to, SHEILD are the system working.

I'd be interested to see a discussion in comics about how with cardboard prisons being a thing there's an argument for capital punishment, since it's proven that supervillans cant be kept locked up for long.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Adaptations generally don't have cardboard prisons because the stories can end.

Quite. Castle is firmly in the "Kill all the bad guys" camp, which is what makes him such an unheroic character.

The best counter-argument in that regard that I've heard is that capital punishment has lost all meaning in a world where everyone gets resurrected five minutes later anyway. At least when the Joker's in prison, you can be certain he's temporarily off the field. Kill him and you're not going to have the slightest clue what he's planning until, like, he invades your Batcave with an army of demon-spawn or some shit.

edited 4th Oct '17 7:18:25 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

I'd say the difference is writers haven't (so far) begun abusing character immortality for drama. Nor is it relevant to a real-life problem, as revolving door justice systems are. Meanwhile, everyone has tried to ape Alan Moore and present new solutions to the Joker conundrum, even though it's one of those things that never should've been mentioned in-story. It's kinda like how the various registration debates tried to take a serious look on vigilantism and self-appointed counter-terrorism... and aggressively looked away when the conclusions shaping up weren't in line with industry policy. All in all, it's not the audience's fault that creators write checks they can't cash.

edited 4th Oct '17 10:22:20 AM by indiana404

Jigsaw's first death involved being brought back by potentially demonic magic. Bit of a personal head canon is that he retained some of it and that it "kicked in" and revived him all of the other times that he's died or been killed.

That makes a certain amount of sense, yeah.

I don't think we'll be seeing the Rev (who brought Jigsaw back to life-and fixed his face, too I think) or his patron Belasco anytime soon on Netflix, though.

I wonder when we'll get a proper Jigsaw, though. He might not be horribly maimed until the last episode or so.

I am pretty sure that Peter would have a hang-up about this too - I mean, he rescues even criminals who know his true identity. It just never comes up with him because he uses non-lethal webbing.

And most of his rogues are considerably more nuanced than the array of mass murderers and serial killers Batman spends as much time saving as he does fighting. While I realize why the Punisher doing his meat-grinder impersonation in a mob mansion or crackhouse might not be to everyone's tastes, I'm even more aghast at the crowd that tries justifying stories where psychotic lunatics treat imprisonment as a vacation where they can plan their next massacre. After a while, that gets old too.

Speaking of Jigsaw, I notice they're doing a Burton Joker number with Billy Russo, giving him a personal relationship with Castle... never mind turning him from a mobster into a private military contractor. I dunno about it being a proper Punisher series, but so far, it's shaping up to be a pretty good Max Payne adaptation.

As a heads-up: In light of the tragic Las Vegas incident, The Punisher panel in this week's New York Comic Con has been canceled.

I could see the Rev working for a mini-arc or something if it was based on his initial two-part appearance, where he was just a transparent Jim Jones-analogue cult leader and it was left ambiguous as to whether or not he had actual powers or was simply so charismatic that he made people (including Frank) think that he did.

Aaaaaand we finally have a release date: November 17

Well... there's still pretty huge risk of another mass shooting incident around this time... Damn you, 'Murrica!

I'm somewhat amused by the series apparently setting up the old "army made you into a killer" cliche, in light of how the comics have Frank already be the kind of soldier that black ops teams tell scary stories about. Dude makes Chris Kyle look restrained... never mind Seal Teams actually donning the Punisher logo in real life.

Now, if he was being tricked into killing innocents, that would be an interesting spin. Most superheroes can't recover from something like that. In that regard, he can truly go to places they can't.

edited 19th Oct '17 1:42:33 PM by indiana404