The Punisher IS a murderous psychopath. FrankenCastle, on the other hand... Who doesn't love him?
I still disagree with the word "psychopath".
M
I also disagree. I don't think, at least how he is usually written, that Castle fits with what we know of the main traits psychopathy. I think he does have empathy. Sure, not for his own victims, but he is driven by empathy for THEIR victims. He tends to be methodical and principled rather than impulsive. And his life is filled with remorse.
I mean, don't get me wrong, he doesn't make healthy or heroic choices, he is a criminal, and I wouldn't want to be him. But I think, especially when written well, that he is not as simple as "psycho" or "crazy". His violence is not senseless. And his stories are not everybody's cuppa, but there have been a lot I have found compelling. Whether as a foil for heroes that don't go as far as he does. Or as the lead in his own, dark, pulp crime stories. And in the many that Garth Ennis has written, especially his superb run on Punisher MAX, Castle became as much a vessel for telling some crime genre stories, as he was the fascinating criminal in the middle of them. Like so much of Ennis' work, the stories were violent, but also about the consequences of violence. Including Castle's own.
OK.
I don't have a handy copy of the DSM, so I'm resorting to cutting and pasting from Wikipedia. (emphasis mine.)
"...traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior. It may also be defined as a continuous aspect of personality, representing scores on different personality dimensions found throughout the population in varying combinations. The definition of psychopathy has varied significantly throughout the history of the concept; different definitions continue to be used that are only partly overlapping and sometimes appear contradictory."
I will confess I have not read very many Punisher comics, because I find the character repulsive, but every time I've read anything with him, the above description seems to apply.
Yes, the above applies to many comic book vigilantes, especially post-Dark Knight Returns. I find most of those characters repulsive as well.
When it comes down to it, I prefer my superheroes to be the ones derided as "boy scouts".
The ones who choose to do good, not those who are driven to.
The ones who resist the urge to become as dark as the things they are fighting against.
The ones who inspire hope, rather than fear.
You know...
Heroes.
As they say, 'I'm no scientist', but from my reading of the definition, as well as from Ronson's excellent book The Psychopath Test, if Castle were a psychopath, he would be less consistent and predictable in his codes and principles, he would have more self-interest than he does, and generally he would be less miserable, as he would be less haunted by guilt and remorse.
He certainly fails the hero test, and the what-you-want-to-read test, but having read a lot of Punisher, I think they write for him in a way that makes him a foil, like Conway said, a criminal, and an anti-hero. But not actually a psychopath or a sociopath. He is doing the wrong things, I believe, but he is aware of the consequences of what he is doing, and he is doing them for a reason that is rooted in the loss of his family, and what he believes about justice and society. I think he is legally sane, though not a hero.
Again, I bow to your greater knowledge of the character.
For me, the defining aspect of the character was when he was executing jaywalkers.
Seems less-than-sane to me.
Got it. Yes. In that tiny blip of the character's history, that would be insane. I haven't read those, but I would guess that was a direction for the character when they thought he would be a disposable commentary on the Death Wish trend in movies.
I thought we were talking about the 99.9% of Punisher that has come since those earliest appearances. The modern (Steven Grant-on) Punisher that was leading books. All my own comments on him are from that era onwards.
Absolutely. This would be like someone stating they dislike Superman because of his energized era.
M
Or like someone saying it's OK for Superman to kill because of a couple of no longer in-continuity stories?
To circle round to theoriginal topic of the discussion, I am sure the Punisher that will be on Netflix will be the more complicated ( and usual) version, and not the jaywalker shooter.
To circle round to theoriginal topic of the discussion, I am sure the Punisher that will be on Netflix will be the more complicated ( and usual) version, and not the jaywalker shooter.
True.
And he will provide a nice contrast to Matt's reluctance to kill.
Maybe they'll even use it as an opportunity to explore the nature of heroism.
To circle round to theoriginal topic of the discussion, I am sure the Punisher that will be on Netflix will be the more complicated ( and usual) version, and not the jaywalker shooter.
True.
And he will provide a nice contrast to Matt's reluctance to kill.
Maybe they'll even use it as an opportunity to explore the nature of heroism.
Exactly. Given how much time they spent on that issue in S1, it makes Castle an excellent foil to what Murdock is doing. Just as he was intended to be.
To circle round to theoriginal topic of the discussion, I am sure the Punisher that will be on Netflix will be the more complicated ( and usual) version, and not the jaywalker shooter.
True.
And he will provide a nice contrast to Matt's reluctance to kill.
Maybe they'll even use it as an opportunity to explore the nature of heroism.
Exactly. Given how much time they spent on that issue in S1, it makes Castle an excellent foil to what Murdock is doing. Just as he was intended to be.
I don't know if you remember, but I suggested way back toward the beginning of discussion of this series that Punisher would make a great foil.
Of course, I'm sure I said "villain" rather than "foil" and much of this same conversation ensued.
Of late, I am a bit more easily-lathered up when it comes to the subject of lone gunmen trying to cure their perceived versions of the world's problems.
To circle round to theoriginal topic of the discussion, I am sure the Punisher that will be on Netflix will be the more complicated ( and usual) version, and not the jaywalker shooter.
True.
And he will provide a nice contrast to Matt's reluctance to kill.
Maybe they'll even use it as an opportunity to explore the nature of heroism.
Exactly. Given how much time they spent on that issue in S1, it makes Castle an excellent foil to what Murdock is doing. Just as he was intended to be.
I don't know if you remember, but I suggested way back toward the beginning of discussion of this series that Punisher would make a great foil.
Of course, I'm sure I said "villain" rather than "foil" and much of this same conversation ensued.
Of late, I am a bit more easily-lathered up when it comes to the subject of lone gunmen trying to cure their perceived versions of the world's problems.
Of course. And I do get that the context of a character like the Punisher has changed, and some things now resonate differently than in the past. And this isn't to sell you on things you wouldn't enjoy, but for me it comes down to the execution (feels like a pun) of the story. Personally, my politics are very different than what he does. I don't find him heroic or aspirational, but he does drive some compelling crime genre stories I enjoy. Though, a lot of the stories I have most enjoyed are about people I don't want to be or look up to.
To circle round to theoriginal topic of the discussion, I am sure the Punisher that will be on Netflix will be the more complicated ( and usual) version, and not the jaywalker shooter.
True.
And he will provide a nice contrast to Matt's reluctance to kill.
Maybe they'll even use it as an opportunity to explore the nature of heroism.
Exactly. Given how much time they spent on that issue in S1, it makes Castle an excellent foil to what Murdock is doing. Just as he was intended to be.
I don't know if you remember, but I suggested way back toward the beginning of discussion of this series that Punisher would make a great foil.
Of course, I'm sure I said "villain" rather than "foil" and much of this same conversation ensued.
Of late, I am a bit more easily-lathered up when it comes to the subject of lone gunmen trying to cure their perceived versions of the world's problems.
Of course. And I do get that the context of a character like the Punisher has changed, and some things now resonate differently than in the past. And this isn't to sell you on things you wouldn't enjoy, but for me it comes down to the execution (feels like a pun) of the story. Personally, my politics are very different than what he does. I don't find him heroic or aspirational, but he does drive some compelling crime genre stories I enjoy. Though, a lot of the stories I have most enjoyed are about people I don't want to be or look up to.
Many of my favorite literary characters are pretty ruthless killers, I'm not sure why I'm such a hippie when it comes to characters who are presented as superheroes.
To circle round to theoriginal topic of the discussion, I am sure the Punisher that will be on Netflix will be the more complicated ( and usual) version, and not the jaywalker shooter.
True.
And he will provide a nice contrast to Matt's reluctance to kill.
Maybe they'll even use it as an opportunity to explore the nature of heroism.
Exactly. Given how much time they spent on that issue in S1, it makes Castle an excellent foil to what Murdock is doing. Just as he was intended to be.
I don't know if you remember, but I suggested way back toward the beginning of discussion of this series that Punisher would make a great foil.
Of course, I'm sure I said "villain" rather than "foil" and much of this same conversation ensued.
Of late, I am a bit more easily-lathered up when it comes to the subject of lone gunmen trying to cure their perceived versions of the world's problems.
Of course. And I do get that the context of a character like the Punisher has changed, and some things now resonate differently than in the past. And this isn't to sell you on things you wouldn't enjoy, but for me it comes down to the execution (feels like a pun) of the story. Personally, my politics are very different than what he does. I don't find him heroic or aspirational, but he does drive some compelling crime genre stories I enjoy. Though, a lot of the stories I have most enjoyed are about people I don't want to be or look up to.
Many of my favorite literary characters are pretty ruthless killers, I'm not sure why I'm such a hippie when it comes to characters who are presented as superheroes.
@David_D, I know you've heard this, but perhaps sone others would be amused by the Secret Origin of Jaywalking. (with a slight Watchmen connection to keep it slightly comics-related)
@David_D, I know you've heard this, but perhaps sone others would be amused by the Secret Origin of Jaywalking. (with a slight Watchmen connection to keep it slightly comics-related)
Agreed. And while you are there, listen to all of the rest of 99% Invisible, because it is an excellent show.
@David_D, I know you've heard this, but perhaps sone others would be amused by the Secret Origin of Jaywalking. (with a slight Watchmen connection to keep it slightly comics-related)
Agreed. And while you are there, listen to all of the rest of 99% Invisible, because it is an excellent show.
"At the opening address of the Television Critics Association press tour, Neflix’s Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos confirmed that Marvel’s Jessica Jones will premiere by the end of 2015, as expected.
He further laid out the ideal schedule for Marvel’s Defenders group lineup of shows, which is to have a new series or season premiere every six months.
Sarandos also clarified that all of these Marvel series will crossover for The Defenders after each has launched, but that some will have multiple series prior to that. Daredevil is already one example, with Season 2 planned for early 2016."
From our earlier discussion of why these Netflix shows are premiering at the pace they are, I figured they would eventually find a rollout plan like this-- it is just often enough to incentivize subscribers to stay subscribers, but not so frequent that they end up with too many shows in active production at the same time.
Why is the team called The Defenders when none of these heroes were part of the Defenders? The Defenders is Hulk, Strange, Namor and Surfer.
And these are the Avengers ;)
I get what you are saying. But as far as Marvel is concerned, it is a name they own, a good name at that, and they were never going to make an onscreen thing with the actual Defenders lineup. Therefore they can rebrand it, because, why not?
And those of us that would hear "The Defenders" and expect the original would be few in number. And would have to have ignored a lot of Netflix shows in the sloooow buildup.
I just find it weird to use the name and have none of the primary members on the team, and even give the team a different theme (the Defenders has nothing to do with "street level"). It would be like The X-Men but replace Wolverine and Cyclopes with Werewolf By Night and Morbius.
I just find it weird to use the name and have none of the primary members on the team, and even give the team a different theme (the Defenders has nothing to do with "street level"). It would be like The X-Men but replace Wolverine and Cyclopes with Werewolf By Night and Morbius.
Sure-- except that, thanks to many decades of success in media outside of comics (cartoons, video games, merchandising) a general audience would notice and be confused by that X-Men rebranding, because they actually have an awareness of what an 'X-Men' is, you know what I mean? The Defenders name has no built-in awareness in the general audience. Heck, you may be able to even stump some current comics readers with a question of who the Defenders were back in the day. So the name can easily be reused with a team, and a concept, that actually better matches what the name sounds like. (Which is to say 'Defenders' actually sounds like a street level team looking out for the common people, as opposed to a misfit group of Marvel heroes whose shtick was they didn't want to be a team). In that way, the Defenders name will fit the team it goes with better than the Avengers name fits the team and concept IT goes with (remember how far they had to stretch in the plot of the first Avengers movie to actually have the name make sense?)
I get that to some of us, the name already means something. But we are a pretty small segment of the audience they are aiming for. (And, well, I think most of us are going to watch anyway.)
Why is the team called The Defenders when none of these heroes were part of the Defenders? The Defenders is Hulk, Strange, Namor and Surfer.
Luke Cage was a member in 1974, Daredevil was a member in 1975, Iron Fist was a member for one adventure in 1978.
If you need more beyond that and the other comments between yours and mine, I refer you to pages 1 through 3 of this very thread.
I don't find that a very compelling argument, in the Marvel world just about every character has been on every team. Nevertheless when you talk about any team you are mostly referring to a handful of core characters. None of the Daredevil, Luke Cage or Iron Fist are among those.
It would be like The X-Men but replace Wolverine and Cyclopes with Werewolf By Night and Morbius.
I would watch that.
Me too, actually a Legion of Monsters (or Midnight Sons) movie/series is a pie-in-the-sky dream of mine, but now I'm worried they'll do it, but it'll be all Inhumans.
I just find it weird to use the name and have none of the primary members on the team, and even give the team a different theme (the Defenders has nothing to do with "street level"). It would be like The X-Men but replace Wolverine and Cyclopes with Werewolf By Night and Morbius.
The Defenders name has no built-in awareness in the general audience.
That argument cuts both ways; if there is no built-in awareness of The Defenders then why use the name? I'm not very familiar with most of these characters but they do team up in the comics often, is there not already a team name that's been used?
Also, I disagree that an actual Defenders franchise couldn't ever happen. 2 of the 4 most important characters are already part of the MCU, and supposedly Marvel has partial (or most) of the rights to Namor. I could easily see a team breaking out of Avengers... but now I can't.
I just find it weird to use the name and have none of the primary members on the team, and even give the team a different theme (the Defenders has nothing to do with "street level"). It would be like The X-Men but replace Wolverine and Cyclopes with Werewolf By Night and Morbius.
The Defenders name has no built-in awareness in the general audience.
That argument cuts both ways; if there is no built-in awareness of The Defenders then why use the name? I'm not very familiar with most of these characters but they do team up in the comics often, is there not already a team name that's been used?
Also, I disagree that an actual Defenders franchise couldn't ever happen. 2 of the 4 most important characters are already part of the MCU, and supposedly Marvel has partial (or most) of the rights to Namor. I could easily see a team breaking out of Avengers... but now I can't.
I think their using the name is as simple as it being a trademark they have a long history of owning, which I am not a lawyer so I couldn't explain why, but my understanding is that it is helpful; and also it is a great name.
It is familiar enough to us comic fans that we recognize it as "a Marvel thing" (even if we associate it with other characters) so there is a little bit of awareness for the core Marvel fans, but more importantly it is a trademark that has been languishing for awhile that sounds right for this new team they are building (and I think it helps that it even rhymes with Avengers- it sort of makes them sound like another kind of Avengers, and I don't think that is accidental).
So, in that case, I think the question becomes, 'Why not?' I can't think of an existing name they have and are not using that would be a better fit. And why make up something entirely new if you don't have to?
(And, personally, I don't see them ever splitting Hulk off into another team. They have branded him an Avenger now. I could see them making Dr. Strange an Avenger in the movies someday, as they have the comics. But I don't imagine we were ever going to see a Defenders team in the movies that was like the original.)
if there is no built-in awareness of The Defenders then why use the name?
1) Because it's a great name. 2) As I said way back on page 3, there have been other TV shows to use the name “Defenders,” and I'm sure Marvel would like to secure it as part of their brand before someone else uses it again.
I'm not very familiar with most of these characters but they do team up in the comics often, is there not already a team name that's been used?
Power Man and Iron Fist shared a book for many years. Power Man, of course, was in Alias, which is where their relationship was retconned into Power Man's past, and where their romance started. Daredevil has crossed paths with PM and IF as often as any other Marvel character has and more than most. But they've never been on the same team at the same time to my knowledge.
There was a series called Marvel Knights which featured a group of street-level heroes led by Daredevil, whose main purpose was to capture the Punisher. Power Man joined the team at one point, but not Iron Fist, as Shang-Chi was already on the team. And that team had no official name.
Comments
Before that, I had just encountered him as a disposable Spider-Man villain.
:D
And he will provide a nice contrast to Matt's reluctance to kill.
Maybe they'll even use it as an opportunity to explore the nature of heroism.
Of course, I'm sure I said "villain" rather than "foil" and much of this same conversation ensued.
Of late, I am a bit more easily-lathered up when it comes to the subject of lone gunmen trying to cure their perceived versions of the world's problems.
(I hope that helped. I am just trying a guess.)
Because my Dad, probably.
My dad was a classic "You do the right thing because it's the right thing to do" kind of guy. There was very little "What's in it for me?" in him.
He was definitely cut from the Uncle Ben/Pa Kent* cloth.
*Not the sad, scared Snyderverse Pa Kent!
(Fortunately, it was a town where most people drove.)
@David_D, I know you've heard this, but perhaps sone others would be amused by the Secret Origin of Jaywalking. (with a slight Watchmen connection to keep it slightly comics-related)
Thanks for pointing me to it.
But, I understand your sentiment. I have about 85% of a full run of the first 100 issues of the classic Defenders.
Don't ask me why :)
I get what you are saying. But as far as Marvel is concerned, it is a name they own, a good name at that, and they were never going to make an onscreen thing with the actual Defenders lineup. Therefore they can rebrand it, because, why not?
And those of us that would hear "The Defenders" and expect the original would be few in number. And would have to have ignored a lot of Netflix shows in the sloooow buildup.
If you need more beyond that and the other comments between yours and mine, I refer you to pages 1 through 3 of this very thread.
I get that to some of us, the name already means something. But we are a pretty small segment of the audience they are aiming for. (And, well, I think most of us are going to watch anyway.)
Also, I disagree that an actual Defenders franchise couldn't ever happen. 2 of the 4 most important characters are already part of the MCU, and supposedly Marvel has partial (or most) of the rights to Namor. I could easily see a team breaking out of Avengers... but now I can't.
It is familiar enough to us comic fans that we recognize it as "a Marvel thing" (even if we associate it with other characters) so there is a little bit of awareness for the core Marvel fans, but more importantly it is a trademark that has been languishing for awhile that sounds right for this new team they are building (and I think it helps that it even rhymes with Avengers- it sort of makes them sound like another kind of Avengers, and I don't think that is accidental).
So, in that case, I think the question becomes, 'Why not?' I can't think of an existing name they have and are not using that would be a better fit. And why make up something entirely new if you don't have to?
(And, personally, I don't see them ever splitting Hulk off into another team. They have branded him an Avenger now. I could see them making Dr. Strange an Avenger in the movies someday, as they have the comics. But I don't imagine we were ever going to see a Defenders team in the movies that was like the original.)
Power Man and Iron Fist shared a book for many years. Power Man, of course, was in Alias, which is where their relationship was retconned into Power Man's past, and where their romance started. Daredevil has crossed paths with PM and IF as often as any other Marvel character has and more than most. But they've never been on the same team at the same time to my knowledge.
There was a series called Marvel Knights which featured a group of street-level heroes led by Daredevil, whose main purpose was to capture the Punisher. Power Man joined the team at one point, but not Iron Fist, as Shang-Chi was already on the team. And that team had no official name.