Matthias Wivel finds himself troubled by the casual, wholesale slaughter of Skrulls in Marvel’s Secret Invasion:
Apparently, the shape-changing little green men just don’t rate as Life Worth Preserving to any of these heroes. … Presumably writer Brian Bendis and editorial have chosen to go about the story this way for the sake of “realism” and, probably, some extra, cheap thrills, but it just seems to me wildly out of character for many of these so-called superheroes to not even stop and think about it. It is simply not addressed. At all. Anywhere that I’m aware of, that is (I’m not enough of a sucker to read all the tie-ins).
For some reason, I’m reminded of the independent-contractors-on-the-Deathstar conversation from Clerks.
But I’m also made to reconsider early comparisons of Secret Invasion to the new Battlestar Galactica (”alien” religious zealots have been infiltrating us for years): Maybe the Skrulls aren’t the Cylons at all; they’re the Bugs. That means Secret Invasion is Starship Troopers. The Paul Verhoeven version.
That makes Clint Barton … Johnnie Rico?
(Via Tom Spurgeon)
August 21st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Ummm…that’s the point. This happens in war, and these heroes will be bothered by their actions, much in the same way soldiers are…I’d really be surprised if this isn’t handled more than superficial, “oh well it’s justified”. You got Ms. Marvel “getting off” on killing all these Skrulls, Clint freaking out, Reed promising genocide, it feels like Bendis and friends made a point of showing this on purpose.
Bendis isn’t a “racist,” there’s a reason for the brutality, a message coming along with it. I feel like this has already been heavily foreshadowed. Imperialism and overreaction to threat has been practiced by every corner of this world (including us) and it’s nice to see, in SI, that no side in this conflict is clear cut.
Are super heroes appropriate for this kind of dialog? I dunno, but it has been one of the few truly interesting and ballsy moves in SI, that each side of the conflict represents the potential worst from EVERYONE in a time of war.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
The problem with saying, “it’s a war,” is that even in war, soldiers have trouble with killing. It may not keep them from doing it, but there is hesitation, mainly for soldiers who haven’t killed before. I’ve read about sergeants saying that getting someone to fire a gun at another person for the first time is a major feat.
Some of these heroes have killed before, but for some of them it’s a very rare occurrence and one that they’ve strived to avoid. If the goal is realism, then there should be some that have serious conflicts over it.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Kill ‘em all, let Kly’bn sort them out.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
I really think ‘ejulp’ hit the nail on the head. It’s all surprising and a bit shocking to see on the page, but they’re fending off a lethal invasion force. I expect to see more reflection on the brutality in SI’s aftermath. There was already a bit of it in the latest issue of Captain Britain.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
“Some of these heroes have killed before, but for some of them it’s a very rare occurrence and one that they’ve strived to avoid. If the goal is realism, then there should be some that have serious conflicts over it.”
Yeah, but who have we seen doing the killing specifically.? I haven’t really seen Spider-Man doing it…its mostly been Wolverines, Black Widows, and soldiers or shield agents like Ms. Marvel.
And yes all the Skrulls getting massacred is bothering me a lot, I am sensitive to that, but I just see that as another layer to the story he’s telling, he’s being so obvious with it that there is a point to it beyond “shock”, he’s setting up a moral dilemma for the end of the story.
One other thing, I watched a lot of the Winter Solider testimonies of Iraq and Afghanistan US soldiers, and how in that war climate, well, you find yourself in a mindset best exampled by these videos… http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier/testimony/Rules+of+Engagement%3A+Part+2
I keep thinking back to those videos (especially in that recent issue of Ms. Marvel where she actually admits to enjoying slaughtering all the Skrulls). Anyways, I feel like Bendis is channeling that mindset intentionally, but do not feel that he is doing a straight metaphor for our current imperialistic occupation of Iraq nor any other recent conflicts of terrorism by religious motivation in the world. He’s just showing us how any side of a conflict has potential to have this “timeless” worst side of human nature come out in war. So maybe our heroes in SI will stand for something better in the end, find a progressive solution, be some sort of example.
I dunno, this all is dependent on how well he can end the storyline…he might bumble it horribly (super heroes are most often times awkward and sometimes inappropriate carriers of socio-political metaphor, especially when it deals with people who lose their lives in the real world).
August 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“If the goal is realism, then there should be some that have serious conflicts over it.”
I guess I kinda never said my point, lol. My point was, inside chaos like this, most of the regret comes after the fact.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
My point was, inside chaos like this, most of the regret comes after the fact.
The only problem being that Bendis is absolute shit at providing any measure of follow-up in any of his own stories, beyond simple deus ex machina conclusions. Couple this with the fact that Marvel has been espousing a “might makes right,” “end justifies the means” ideology in its books ever since Tom Brevoort and Mark Millar claimed that Civil War “proved Tony Stark right,” and I see this as merely being a prelude to more of the same.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:20 pm
“Tom Brevoort and Mark Millar claimed that Civil War “proved Tony Stark right,”
I thought that was more of their way of balancing against the fanbase siding with the under dog, giving the story more tension.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I think you all are playing semantics with this, they want the INVADING SKRULLS dead. That’s it. Any other sentiment is heat of the moment or taken out of context. The context is simple, they want the invasion stopped and all the invaders dealt with severely. Not so much Skrulls as a whole, though they in the heat of the moment those things might be said.
When Clint says “Them” he’s referring to the invaders and their cohorts. He doesn’t say “Skrull” he says them, specifically those Skrulls involved in the invasion.
And with shapeshifters, you can’t leave even one zealot alive, he could wreak havoc with those powers.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:49 pm
@Elcoyote’s Prophet
I think the issue people have is that superheroes, specifically the Avengers, are killing period. It use to be a big deal for a superhero to cross that line, but in Secret Invasion they do it pretty casually.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:17 pm
@Lawrence
When have they had a chance to kill someone casually…
August 21st, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I thought that was more of their way of balancing against the fanbase siding with the under dog, giving the story more tension.
No, both Millar and Brevoort have been pretty unambiguous about Tony being in the moral right by supporting the SHRA (and, presumably, by releasing Norman Osborn and nearly starting a war with the Atlanteans under false pretenses, too).
Indeed, Brevoort went so far as to compare the SHRA to having National Guardsmen in airports in the post-9/11 world, to the extent that he actually said he feels better about the world, now that we have to have National Guardsmen in airports in the first place.
The degree to which everybody in America is willing, if not eager, to abdicate civil liberties almost makes me ashamed that I ever served in the military, since I served because I wanted to ensure that America would remain better than that.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
@ejulp
Any scene with Wolverine,Black Widow, and Ares. Ms. Marvel blasting skrull’s heads off. Ronin shoots Skrull Mockingbird in the head without hesitation. Zubu bites Skrull Jewel’s head.
Now I understand the rationale that in wars sometimes it’s best to shoot first and ask questions later, but this is also a superhero comic. Where there is “always another way.”
I personally had no problem with the skrull killings, especially if it’s just Wolverine, Black Widow, or Ares (it’s in-keeping with how they’ve been written in the last 10 years). I was just suggesting that the problem isn’t “they are killing skrulls,” but the larger issue of “superheroes are killing.” Secret Invasion just happens to be the most recent/popular comic where it happens.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:43 pm
K-Box, thank you for the very candid comments. Thank you for your service too. It sounds to me like you served for all the right reasons, reasons that far too many people have lost sight of this decade.
Anyhow, I agree with you about Brevoort’s comments. They’ve disturbed me as well, and I think that moral certainty has seeped into the pages of many of Marvel’s books. Norman Osborn is just one clear example. That’s not to say you won’t see that in every Marvel book, I don’t see Brubaker changing how he writes Cap, but SI’s lack of remorse, or even discussion, over killing is an indication of it in my opinion.
I’m curious to see how it plays out, but I’m not holding my breath for Bendis to follow up on any of that.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 am
@Lawrence
I’m not saying its right that they’re doing it, just that I get “it”…I said above that I hoped at the end of the crossover they figure out a more progressive answer than defensive genocide, cuz you know, they are heroes.
And these questions ppl are asking means, in some ways these are good comics to even have us raise these questions…and even if that is Brevoorts opinion, I don’t see a moral “certainty” rising in Marvel Comics…Osborne is always shown as the bastard he is, Tony has shown great regret for what happened.
@Shaun, can you give some examples? I’m curious to hear what your referring to…I thought Marvel was balancing the “red” and the “blue” of this country quite well, cuz even if i don’t agree with a character’s opinion, that diversity makes it that much more fun to read.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:06 am
“The degree to which everybody in America is willing, if not eager, to abdicate civil liberties almost makes me ashamed that I ever served in the military, since I served because I wanted to ensure that America would remain better than that.”
Truths.
The government can’t save you no matter how many guns they hand out or laws they pass.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am
I still can’t believe anyone thinks the SHRA is a bad idea.
Poorly executed, poorly written yes. But, the SHRA makes more sense than allowing hundreds, thousands of armed and super powered people run around playing vigilante.
You can’t buy a gun in this country without a waiting period, but you can walk around blasting bad guys with homemade weapons and throwing around buses with powers derived from ancient curses, alien artifacts and mutant genetics?
Really?
SHRA is not about a post 9/11 world, it’s about simple logic. When these universes were created no one considered there would be HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of these characters in each. So things didn’t seem that crazy when there was just Superman and Batman or Captain America(who was in a way, registered from the get go)
If one were building a super hero universe from scratch, the idea would HAVE TO COME UP. It would make your universe seem less realistic if it didn’t.
The question is how to integrate into a universe that already exists.
DC doesn’t have to, it’s never been rooted in the sense of reality Marvel has, Marvel has always tried to be More Realistic Than DC. Not realistic by any stretch, but more realistic than DC.
This is one obvious way to continue that.
And heroes who can’t EVER kill are not really heroic or realistic. I think Batman should be sued by victims of the Joker since he seems to REFUSE to put a rabid dog down. You put the Joker down after his first appearance, hundreds, maybe thousands of people would be alive today. The Joker has no redeeming qualities. He offers nothing but chaos and death.
But the Joker is kewl, fanboys love him, so he continues to wreak havoc and it kills any sense of realism in the DCU for him to continue to exist.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I believe people are reading too much into the “Barton kills Skrulls” sequence.
Strictly in terms of plot content, all of the “Savage Land” material was unnecessary. The Skrulls are, in theory, trying to take over the world. That entails more than fighting some heroes in the Savage Land, or fighting some other heroes in mid-Manhattan. Some tie-ins show the Skrulls active elsewhere on Earth, but the plot content of the SECRET INVASION miniseries reveals its origin as an “Avengers” storyline that was artificially turned into an “event” by having writers come up with ideas, good or bad, for tie-ins.
The main point of the Skrull imposters in the Savage Land was apparently to generate publicity and speculation about possible retcons of heroes’ lives, going back years or decades. Their actual contribution to the success of the invasion was insignificant; what happened to them, once they were revealed to be imposters, was insignificant. If their deaths were to be tragic, there would have had to be *much* more development of them as individuals. In Barton’s case, specifically, he was depicted as emotionally retarded, falling for an impersonation that was obviously false. Was the depiction of Barton as a moron accurate, or was the writing bad?
Note that elsewhere in SI #5, Richards uses a quick and dirty genetic test to determine that Brand isn’t a Skrull. That method of separating Skrulls from humans existed before SI was conceived, and should have been thought of by anyone involved in the storyline who had read about DNA testing or knew how to do it (“Gee, the Skrulls are aliens. Maybe their DNA is different from ours. . .”). All the back and forth about who’s a Skrull and who wasn’t, from the first appearance of Skrull-Elektra onwards, was the result of heroes acting ignorantly and stupidly, and, in the case of SI, a ridiculously compressed timeline.
A sequence within a story works only if the story as a whole works.
SRS
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“Strictly in terms of plot content, all of the “Savage Land” material was unnecessary. The Skrulls are, in theory, trying to take over the world. That entails more than fighting some heroes in the Savage Land, or fighting some other heroes in mid-Manhattan. Some tie-ins show the Skrulls active elsewhere on Earth, but the plot content of the SECRET INVASION miniseries reveals its origin as an “Avengers” storyline that was artificially turned into an “event” by having writers come up with ideas, good or bad, for tie-ins.”
Well that, and to get them away from the rest of the world to make the fight easier. But then I suppose you’d only know that if you, you know, read the comic.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Hi Ejulp: I don’t have all that many examples really, at least not beyond what’s already been discussed. The “Tony Was Right” line espoused by Brevoort, the Norman Osborn example already given (and his parallels to a certain soon-to-be-ex-commander in theif, er, cheif), and the lack of remorse, etc. seen in SI, and the moral certainty seen in certain major players: From Tony to Reed to Hank to Ms. Marvel.
It really does come down to the characters, and Marvel does have them across the political spectrum. So you’re right about that. Lawrence is right as well when saying some characters you can expect to be killing Skrulls without a second thought (Logan, for instance). I’ve just perceived the company line to be “Tony Was Right” since CW ended but that doesn’t mean I’m correct. I could be bringing my own ideology to that, or just letting Brevoort’s statements color my perception.