Ikoma wrote:I actually really liked Quicksilver's death for a variety of reasons (not that I hated the character). But I totally can see why some people are bothered by it.
Fair enough on the CritFic point. But Whedon has stated that "it [Quicksilver's death] would be resonant and it would make everything work and matter more…" He's said that he needed to show a death to demonstrate this is war and their are 'stakes'. Whedon has expressed this idea before with regards to Wash's death and others. This isn't the critic writing fiction about what Whedon intends. It's his stated goal. Kill character A in order to have an impact on character B.
And it works. A few times. But it gets old when you use the same tool over and over (see adage about hammers and nails). Future uses not only don't have the same impact, they reduce impacts retroactively as the audience learns what you do. Whedon is great. One of the best. So come up with a new way to show there are stakes. Because the consequence is that you drive a wedge of distance between people and new characters/works you create as your audience begins the death pool at the opening credits.
 http://www.blastr.com/2015-5-4/joss-whe ... ate-ending
Those are good criticisms. And I will certainly admit that it's a storytelling tactic that Whedon has used often. I'm not inured to it at this point. I,e, it still works for me.