Chessack wrote:Except that character death should be something of weight and consequence.
In your opinion. Look, this isn't a universe that has been around for the better part of a century, hell, it hasn't even been around for 20 years yet. Some characters are more important than others and while Kirkman does a great job building up secondary and tertiary characters, he can't force every character into a role of importance. If an important character dies in Invincible, that character's death is felt by the other characters and it has consequences. If a character who we were just introduced to or know very little about dies, then we just move on. You know...kinda like in real life when a person who we don't know dies. You can't sit around and mourn everyone and ponder their significance to you or the rest of the world.
This isn't old school DC or Marvel, where every character has to adhere to a strict set of guidelines and every story has to follow a precise direction. Part of what makes Invincible so great is how often Kirkman takes the traditional tropes and cliches of the comics industry and flips them on their heads.
If you don't like the series, fine. Just don't try and make it into something it's not because it's not what you want it to be.
One-panel death doesn't make the death "realistic" - it trivializes it.
I would urge you to go back and watch (or rewatch) Serenity then. There was a particularly powerful death scene in that movie and it wasn't some ridiculously long drawn out process. The character was there...then they weren't. Oh and that was a main character too, not just some random guy who we knew very little about but were suddenly expected to give two shits if they were still around.