Born #2

[Warlord]

Back on Track...

Could it not be supposed that this born series is what laid the foundation for the punisher to snap when his familly was killed?

 

Maybey he was allways Jungle psycho and this just shows it.

When he leave the army he represses it.

 

But then the death of his famiily brings it to the surface again!

And this time for good

 

Maybe it's just another hack-job, ret-con intended to make Jemas even more green-backs?

 

Or maybe, just maybe it might be a comic that is well-written and enjoyable? Jesus, Vince - do you like any comics published today?

 

I'm with JC giving this one a thumbs-down based on a quick look-see.

I riffled through #1 and #2 at the local comics shop. Didn't see anything appealing. Put 'em back. No greenbacks for Jemas from me!

[500Club]

I think "Born" is interesting as a Vietnam/war book, but as "the origin of the Punisher", it completely blows. Just as with "Trouble", there is NO WAY I am accepting this as part of "official" continuity. As far as I'm concerned, the killing of Frank Castle's family by the Mob pushed him over the edge into becoming the Punisher, end of story. No way am I accepting that he was a bloodthirsty psychopath during Vietnam. SCREW YOU GARTH ENNIS!!!

 

He was rigidly moralistic. He was also not afraid to kill for his beliefs.

 

Psychologically, this is an accurate portrayal of the character of a person who could become the Punisher.

[500Club]

The Punisher has long been a good man caught up in the aftermath of his family's death, not some rampant psycho on a death-dealing mission. Death-dealing psychos are a dime a dozen, but a good guy with a shadow driving his (sometimes questionable) actions is a bit more special and intriguing.

 

BORN shows the shadow that has always been there.

[delekkerste]

Psychologically, this is an accurate portrayal of the character of a person who could become the Punisher.

 

Doc, "accuracy"! This is the Marvel Universe we're talking about here. This supposedly psychologically "accurate portrayal of a person who could become the Punisher" is destroying the very essence of the character we have come to know and love over the past 29 years. Frank Castle is supposed to be a devoted husband and loving father driven over the edge by what happened to his family. Yes, his methods of retribution are extreme, but the reader can look past that to see the good man underneath.

 

In "Born", Frank Castle is a disgusting sociopath and cold-blooded killer well before his family is killed. He gets that bigwig killed in the first issue, kills a member of his platoon in the second issue and considers fragging an officer in the third. Sorry, *my* Frank Castle wouldn't do that. This is just sensationalist, revisionst . The only redeeming feature is that it does read well as a war story - only, it should have been called "The 'Nam" volume 2, not "Born".

 

Gene

[joe_collector]

BORN shows the shadow that has always been there.

 

Excuse me, but was Ennis writing comics for Marvel when the Punisher was introduced in ASM 129?

 

I don't think he was....

[500Club]

Psychologically, this is an accurate portrayal of the character of a person who could become the Punisher.

 

Doc, "accuracy"! This is the Marvel Universe we're talking about here. This supposedly psychologically "accurate portrayal of a person who could become the Punisher" is destroying the very essence of the character we have come to know and love over the past 29 years. Frank Castle is supposed to be a devoted husband and loving father driven over the edge by what happened to his family. Yes, his methods of retribution are extreme, but the reader can look past that to see the good man underneath.

 

I'll stand by my statement. Suspension of disbelief works much better if minimal suspension is required. In this case, the character of the Punisher established by Ennis is accurate. It does not undermine the fact that Frank was a devoted husband/father, driven over the edge by what happened to his family. It simply shows where that edge would lie for a person like Frank.

[500Club]

BORN shows the shadow that has always been there.

 

Excuse me, but was Ennis writing comics for Marvel when the Punisher was introduced in ASM 129?

 

I don't think he was....

 

I'm speaking in terms of Frank's character, Vince.

[joe_collector]

[Excuse me, but was Ennis writing comics for Marvel when the Punisher was introduced in ASM 129?

 

I don't think he was....

 

I'm speaking in terms of Frank's character, Vince.

 

I know, but I hope the point was made. These retro-[!@#%^&^]-cons are always promoted as something that "was always there", and although these are fictional characters, it gets tired after awhile to see layer upon layer of contradictory backstory put onto what was once a pretty compelling character design. It's kinda like those hacks taking over the Sherlock Holmes franchise, and basically killing the character in a literary sense.

 

Good literature looks forward not back, and creates something new and refreshing. That's even the "Marvel Way" as Stan describes it, but the "Jemas/Joe Q Way" is to regurgitate the successes of the past, and put a slightly new spin on them. They achieve some success with the old, tired formula, and then decide to take it one step further, then another, until we're seeing bizarro revisions like happened (and was soon forgotten) in Captain America, and now Punisher.

 

It is very dangerous to toy with the base concept of any character, and Marvel is definitely doing this with Born. No surprise, as it's all about the greenbacks and old fogie readers want something "new and innovative, yet familiar as an old sock". So Marvel guts their characters to please the hardened fan and make some short-term cash.

 

It's like their movie revenue, there is a limited number of characters popular enough to run another Origin series with and rake in the cash. At a certain point, they'll be forced to develop "definitive origin" revamps of these "definitive origin" revamps which were based on previous "definitive origin" revamps, which should make for an interesting time.

[Warlord]

The Punisher has long been a good man caught up in the aftermath of his family's death, not some rampant psycho on a death-dealing mission. Death-dealing psychos are a dime a dozen, but a good guy with a shadow driving his (sometimes questionable) actions is a bit more special and intriguing.

 

BORN shows the shadow that has always been there.

 

BORN is WAY to blatant for a "shadow". Shoulda been a very subtle shadow not, to borrow the phrase, a death-dealing psycho.

[500Club]

I know, but I hope the point was made. These retro-[!@#%^&^]-cons are always promoted as something that "was always there", and although these are fictional characters, it gets tired after awhile to see layer upon layer of contradictory backstory put onto what was once a pretty compelling character design. It's kinda like those hacks taking over the Sherlock Holmes franchise, and basically killing the character in a literary sense.

 

THIS is a point we are fully agreed upon. I just feel that Frank's character couldn't have been anything except the way it is portrayed in BORN, though, and thus feel that the story simply fleshes out Frank's history.

 

I'd like to see a 'move-forward' approach as well, though.

[500Club]

BORN is WAY to blatant for a "shadow". Shoulda been a very subtle shadow not, to borrow the phrase, a death-dealing psycho.

 

Yes, yes... of course.... Frank would have been more subtle, in the middle of the Vietnam war.