A Fantastic Fatality

With the release of Fantastic Four #587 (in stores Tuesday), one of the members of Marvel Comics' First Family will perish in the concluding issue of the storyline titled "Three." I'm pretty sure that Reed Richards has already died before and returned and whoever bites it this time (my bet is on The Human Torch) will probably be back within a year or so but I say this with no sense of cynicism.

Yes, death in comics has been utilized as an attention-grabbing stunt since the famous Death of Superman storyline back in 1992 (an event that Marvel is recalling with FF #587 by shipping the issue in sealed plastic bags with a "3" logo on it, in the same way that Superman #75 originally came packaged in black bags with a blood-red Superman "S") but I say: "what's wrong with grabbing some attention?"

The most common complaint about these high-profile, heavily-hyped deaths is that they never prove to be permanent. Superman eventually returned; Batman recently died and has just come back. The same goes for Captain America. A more dedicated follower of the X-Men franchise could tell you how many times Jean Grey aka Phoenix has been killed and resurrected but I'm guessing the number on that must be creeping towards the double-digits. With all these death-defying comebacks, the gripe is that because these characters don't stay dead that the death is meaningless - that, essentially, the reader has been ripped off. I say that's bullshit. I think that attitude mostly comes from the investor mentality - fans who jump to buy these "death" issues because of the imagined value they think these issues will have only to have the character's return thwart that.

Personally, I enjoy these storylines. The normal rules of mortality don't apply to superheroes and that's part of their appeal. Even the street-level hero Frank Castle aka The Punisher recently died (torn to pieces by Wolverine's sociopathic son Daken) only to be resurrected as a Frankenstein-esque monster (in a truly gonzo arc dubbed, naturally, "Franken-Castle") before becoming whole again.


That's the kind of story that's uniquely suited to the anything-goes world of comics. So why not take advantage of that? Punisher writer Rick Remender really ran with that unlikely plotline and it was a great read from start to finish, taking Frank Castle on a truly wild journey.

FF writer Jonathan Hickman has been weaving a complex run on the book so far and based on that I feel safe in saying that "Three" and its resulting fallout won't be an act of hackery. In comics, it's just the name of the game that a character's death will only be the halfway point of the story.

Even the recently deceased Brother Voodoo won't be gone for good.

Well, actually...that's one death that might stick for awhile.

Sorry, Brother. R.I.P.

A Glutton For Punisher

With all the attention-getting news out of Comic-Con, it's hard to say what was most exciting. I mean, when you get a glimpse of The Infinity Gauntlet it's tough to focus on anything else. But I was especially stoked to learn that Marvel now controls the movie rights to The Punisher. I suspect most people would say that three Punisher movies were more than enough - maybe even two too many - but I'll respectfully disagree. I'm a nut for The Punisher and I'll welcome as many attempts to film the character as possible. I guess I feel the same way about any comic character (guess who's pumped for Ghost Rider 2?) but I really love seeing Frank Castle go to war with the scum of the Earth.

Starting with the 1989 Dolph Lungren Punisher, I've mostly dug how Marvel's vigilante has been depicted on screen. I mean, I did raise an eyebrow at such elements as Lungren's Frank Castle spending so much time naked in a sewer and the absence of his signature chest skull but overall, that first movie was true to The Punisher. That's the thing about The Punisher, he's hard to entirely screw up. The only thing that could make a Punisher movie utterly fail is if he decided to go soft on crime.

While Lungren's film was an adequate attempt (especially for the '80s, not a great time for Marvel characters on film), the 2004 reboot, with Thomas Jane, was an improvement. It wasn't quite perfect but it was solid. Jane was a nice pick as Castle and having Roy Scheider as his dad was cool. Not so cool was John Travolta as a weak adversary. Also not so cool was the sometimes curious tactics employed by this Punisher. I just can't wrap my head around why anyone involved with this film thought it'd be smart to have the Punisher bring down Travolta's character through an elaborate scheme involving a fake fire hydrant and a series of traffic tickets for his wife. It seems more like Ashton Kutcher's M.O. rather than Frank Castle's. Not very Punisher-y at all.

That said, most of the 2004 Punisher was commendable. The film didn't quite recapture the right darkly absurd tone from the Garth Ennis-penned comic tales that they lifted most of the supporting characters from (like Joan and Spacker Dave) but at least the movie acknowledged the comics and it felt like an old-school action movie so props to director Jonathan Hensleigh for that.

The real motherload came in 2008 with Punisher: War Zone. It would've been cool to see what would've happened had Hensleigh and Jane reunited. It would've been cool to see what a Punisher movie could've been like with a more layered, literate script. But none of those things happened on this troubled production. On the upside, director Lexi Alexander cast a total beast as Castle (the imposing Ray Stevenson), indulged in more stylized comic book visuals, gave the Punisher his most famous foe from the comics (the maimed and mutilated Jigsaw), and served up all-out violence. Even better, the MPAA let it all slide by with an R. Whereas previously this movie would've been hacked down to a twenty-minute short, Punisher: War Zone went to theaters apparently untouched by the ratings board. Nice!

The fact the movie tanked (not surprising, given Lionsgate's half-hearted marketing) didn't give me much hope of ever seeing The Punisher on film again but I'm glad to find out that won't be the case. I'm not sure how Marvel will handle a Punisher movie on their own that is substantially different than any of the three films that have come before it but I'm interested to find out. The obvious way to approach it would be to take some of Garth Ennis' stories (like "The Slavers") and really stick to them. Ennis' lengthy Punisher run is one of the all-time greats, a run I'd put up against Frank Miller's Daredevil or Walt Simonson's Thor.

If they stuck to Ennis' ultra-grim version of the character and its despicable roster of villains, you'd have something really special. It also might be too rough for most audiences but who knows?

As a fan, I have to say I don't much care how well the next movie is received by the general public. History tells me that even if it bombs, I can still look forward to much more punishment at the movies.

Go Frank, go!

Going For The Kill Shot

At first glance, Marvel Comics' hard-hitting vigilante The Punisher (aka Frank Castle) seems like he'd be the easiest of characters to translate to film. After all, the character's Death Wish-esque origin in which his family is felled in the crossfire of a mob hit doesn't call for any suspension of disbelief and his goal of killing all criminals is easily understood.

But yet the release of Punisher: War Zone tomorrow marks the third attempt to get the character right on screen with both the 1989 version starring Dolph Lungren and the 2004 version starring Thomas Jane not quite hitting their target. Lungren's version fared better overall - despite Lungren's inappropriate accent, the lack of the Punisher's iconic chest skull and the fact that Frank Castle shouldn't be spending so much time meditating naked in the sewer.

With Jane's Punisher, tone was an issue in that the filmmakers awkwardly tried to take comedic elements from early on in writer Garth Ennis' run on the Punisher (in the form of the surrogate family that Castle meets in his apartment building) and ply them with the grimmer direction Ennis had since moved the book into. It also didn't help that somebody involved in that adaptation - whether it be the writers or the director - was confused as to the Punisher's M.O..
Sure, they still had him emptying rounds in plenty of scumbags but to have Castle spending weeks putting a fake fire hydrant in front of Laura Harring's character car so she can get ticketed by the police, which in turn leads John Travolta as her onscreen husband to suspect that her and his best friend are having an affair and then gunning both of them down in a jealous rage is a lot of roundabout bullshit. That's just not how The Punisher rolls. He doesn't need to engage in that kind of prolonged manipulation - he'll just end you. That skull on his chest isn't just empty advertising.

In the real world, a person like Castle would be a sociopath rather than someone to cheer for but in the world of comics and movies where motives can be kept clear-cut, there's no need to wear kid gloves. While Batman is on too many T-shirts and lunchboxes to let his inner psycho loose, here's hoping that Punisher: War Zone lets Castle rack up the spectacular cinematic body count that comic fans are counting on.