Since pretty much nobody is sacrosanct (though I don't think Marvel has ever brought Uncle Ben back, have they?), the issue becomes twofold: (1) are the resurrections handled well in a literary sense (no lazy deus ex machina chrono-cosmic vortices and miracle tecnology need apply) and (2) are the resurrections / returns themselves in the service of worthwhile stories?
Most comics fall flat on #1 (whether the return is planned or not) — Superman and Captain America come to mind here. #2 is more interesting to me in some ways, in terms of whether there are more good, visionary stories to tell with the character to make their resurrection worthy (esp. if their death was somehow epic). Jason Todd? Yeah. Barry Allen? Not so much.
In the case of Damian Wayne (the current and now-deceased Robin) — meh. Didn't much care for the character, and the plot hole left to bring him back (the al-Ghul legacy) is so wide open as to barely warrant a yawn. But, then, I've been mostly staying away from the Bat-books for some time now
8 Absolutely Ridiculous Ways Comic Book Characters have been Brought Back from the Dead
Robin will be killed off in an upcoming issue of the Batman comic book series. If history is any guide, he’ll be resurrected via an absurd plot device soon enough
One of the reasons I don't collect comics is because of the tendency to kill off and resurrect characters whenever they feel they need to bump up sales. The death of Superman was just stupid (They beat each other to death? Apparently this is a new definition of "invulnerable" I'm not familiar with.) and The X-Men are notorious for killing people off and bringing them back over and over and over. The one death/resurrection I thought was done properly was when Kraven the Hunter "killed" Spider-Man to take his place. Other than that, 9 times out of 10, the story is shit.
Now, you may be wondering how I know these stories if I don't collect comics. Well, I have friends who do and who often discuss them and I occasionally will read one of their comics while visiting when thrust upon me because it's "so awesome."
While there were some interesting side aspects to the Death of Superman, it really was a pretty awful early 90s publicity stunt. And, yes, "death" as a dramatic element has lost its sting in the comic book world to a large degree (and to the extent that it's subject to "meta" comments by characters in comics.)
But that's largely because, too often, it doesn't matter, which is the greatest danger of the comic book realm. You know that DC will, only in the greatest extremities, do anything permanent (to the extent that word means anything) with Superman. If he dies, you know he'll be back. If he loses his powers, you know he'll get them back. He provides money as is, so they aren't going to dick around with him. (The recent reboot of the DC Universe notwithstanding — there he's still pretty much the same character just less pleasant.)
On the other hand, for all I initially objected to the recent "Death of Spider-Man" gimmick, the stories that have opened up from that have actually been pretty good. I'd bet $100 that Peter Parker will be back, but I hope it's later vs. sooner.
I have to admit that I have come across Spider-Man's latest round of being dead, but I'm sure someone will make me read it before too long. The Kraven storyline I mentioned happened quite some time ago. Early 90's I think.
Yup.
And yet, many fans do react as if these changes are permanent. The letter columns are full of people who will "never rad another issue" because the creators have "destroyed the character" by "killing" him. People are refusing to even read the new Spider-Man series, when they might very well have enjoyed what is sure to be a temporary situation if they had just picked up the first issue. Dan Slott is a darned fine writer, and he's turning in some good stories. Like it or not, Spider-Man's "death" is responsible for some creative approaches to the character.
While I object to death-and-resurrection as a plot device, it's certainly handled better by some than others.
I agree that people go strangely crazy over these sorts of things — probably less because of the event itself (though usually the "This is just a cynical killing to raise ratings; Captain Egnarts will be back in six months, just you wait") but because they (say) the want the same thing all the time (but more exciting!). You'll see similar things said when people change costumes, when they change their situation ("How could you make Captain Egnarts leave his job as school counsellor? I hate you!"), etc.
Interestingly, on the flip side to this question, we have "Avengers Arena" — which is drawing heat because (among other things) of the threat that the deaths in it are "real" and the kids being gacked by each other or by Arcade are, in fact, not coming back.
Part of me still hopes that Avengers Arena is one of Arcade's games and that this is all a very realistic simulation or something. Another part of me instinctually cries "cop-out" at that thought.
Agreed on both counts. (They actually touch on that possibility, in passing, in the most recent issue.)