Superheroes Don't Kill

[Bob_McMillan]

It's one of the oldest, most sacred tenets of a superhero. No killing, because that makes you like them.

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/comicsalliance.com/files/2011/04/killer06.jpg

Yet in the Marvel movies, arguably the most successful division of Marvel comics, life isn't held in such high regard.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111118857/4226397-6923126145-iron-.gif

It's something I realized some time ago, and was brought back to memory by that recent Man of Steel article.

When Man of Steel came out, I realized that the only superheroes on film that didn't kill were Batman and Spider-man. The Avengers, Supes, the X-men, they've all taken lives.

I've always wondered why no one really ever had problems with this, despite it being so important in the comics. When someone starts dropping bodies in the comics, you know shit is going down. In the movies, it happens every 5 minutes. It's funny, Batman and Spider-man were supposed to be all dark and gritty, yet their heroes stuck to the golden rule. In the much more lighthearted, even comedic, Marvel movies, our favorite crime fighters are ending some poor goon's sad little life like they would a fly. Some happen in pretty horrible ways, Cap threw a Nazi out of a fucking plane.

In conclusion, why do you think these movies were so successful despite ignoring one of the most important qualities of heroics?

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's a stupid rule. Now, not murdering the Joker even if it's easier, that's fair enough. You've got the US government to kill him once he's in prison anyway.

Not killing him to prevent him killing others, the reason the police are armed. No...you're not going to have a miracle pop up every time to dodge the moral issue. You're going to have to kill him sooner or later.

 

[tippy2k2]

I think it's half this...

Not killing him to prevent him killing others, the reason the police are armed. No...you're not going to have a miracle pop up every time to dodge the moral issue. You're going to have to kill him sooner or later.

and half that movies don't have to worry all that much about keeping bad guys alive. Cynical as it may be, I think that most of the big bad guys being allowed to live is less about Batman not wanting to kill and more about The Joker sells comics.

Movies don't have to have monthly issues put out so they can play a lot more loose with their characters than comics can. The movies are years apart so even if you killed a major bad guy in every single one, you'd still have at least a decade of known bad guys (and even longer if you go with B & C list bad guys) of characters.

 

[kris40k]

Well, Wolverine guts ninjas like fish in the comics, so no big deal there. He was always one of the few in the X-Men comics that didn't shy away from killing, although team members generally tried to reign him in. It the MCU movies, I think that they are playing a mix of the Ultimate and Earth-616 (Main) universes. In the Ultimate universe, people tend to be a bit more brutal. For instance, in the main continuity, Captain America holds to the "no killing" rule, however in the Ultimate universe, he is a soldier, and soldiers are sometimes required to kill and he does not shy away from that when its called for.

 

[Seishisha]

I think the reason the marvel movies are sucessful is because they are for the most part very comic accurate, they draw from the source materiel and respect it instead of shunning it. Generaly speaking somthing is only changed if it is too complex to explain to the average consumer, yet the movies themseleves contain huge amount of references to the marvel universe as a whole. A great way to appease both long term fans and casual movie goers.

I think it helps alot that when making the films they hold the goofy elements from the comics in one hand and the serious in the other, somehow mashing both together to create an enjoyable product.

An example of somthing stupid from the first iron man movie.

Spoiler: I know iron man is an old film now but spoiler just incase

Tony stark had a piece of shrapnel in his chest and they fix him by wiring a car battery and an electromagnet to his chest.

That is the sort of thing that pretty much only works in comic books yet they make it work in the film.

This is pretty much the main reason i dislike the nolan batman movies, they ignore all of the silly things from batman in favour of a boiled down "realistic" version. I realy want to see Ra's al Ghul going fucking bonkers after he ressurects from the lazarus pit and mudering some random league member before they can get him undercontrol. Give me a batman movie with that in and i will sing it's praises all day.

I don't think the killing or not killing realy has anything todo with the success or failure of a movie, afterall alot of people have many problems with man of steel not just the ending battle. Personaly though i liked man of steel because i dont like the traditional comic book version of superman. I find the idea of a flawed hero more interesting than a perfect one. I suppose that is realy a different subject though.

 

[Thaluikhain]

How many more innocent deaths could Batman have prevented if he killed the Joker?

The other thing that annoys me with that, is that, if Batman won't murder the Joker in the same way that police aren't supposed to, the US (amongst others) spends an awful lot of money on assassinating people they've much less reason to want dead. It's not if the Joker would be killed, it's which branch or department of which nation would do it.

 

[Fox12]

The rule only exists because of old censorship rules.

If it's an important part of the character, then it makes sense, but otherwise I don't think it matters. In Batman it was the central theme of the first two films. Bruce didn't kill the mob boss, and he didn't kill The Joker. That's because he draws a moral line between justice and revenge, as established in the first movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQqj9CYOHn8

If he killed The Joker, then he would be betraying Rachel. This is important, because Two Face does kill people, and we see where that goes. He's a foil for batman, and represent what he could become if Batman went down the path of revenge. The first film also brings up the simple fact that some villains are created by circumstance. Does it make sense for batman to beat Jean Valjean to death, when he was just getting bread for his sisters child? Some crimes are a result of complex problems that are beyond anyone's control or understanding. That's why Batman is built as a symbol, or an example. He can't fix all of crime. The best he can do is go after the head of the snake, and inspire others to do what he can't.

There's also the simple question of who has the right to kill? Not a vigilante. We developed laws and criminal justice systems for a reason. A realistic depiction of this issue would be Rorshach, from Watchmen.

In another story would benefit from ignoring the golden rule, or if it wants to explore different issues, then I say toss it. Of course, something tells me that batman won't care so much about killing in his new movie.

Spoiler

Drrrrk N' Grrrrrty Grrrrrrrrr

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm not a big reader of comics, but I'm guessing that's not something that's ever brought up either?

Not that I know of, no.

I'd find Batman way more interesting if he killed often, but refused to kill Joker because of some weird bond or something. Like how the Joker refuses to kill Batman because he has too much fun fucking with him and would be a bit lost without such a tough foe.

Hmmm...I guess, but hard to do right.

 

[Risingblade]

Cap was a soldier during a war so of course he killed people. I never understood why people wanted Batman to become judge, jury and executioner.

 

[spartenX]

To be honest, I think that people were more alright with most marvel heroes killing than they would with anyone else, if only because of the circumstance. Cap was in a war, Iron man was fighting terrorists, black widow and hawkeye are government agents, Hulk is....well a giant green rage monster who is barely in control of himself, and Thor comes from a different world entirely. Plus, they were all fighting an alien invasion. the X-men.....Wolverine I think gets a pass because he has always been more willing to kill, the whole "I'm the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" thing. Plus, alot of the time these guys are put in positions where they don't have much choice but to kill in the movies. Another important detail is that these guys would be more willing to kill even in the comics (although I don know they go back and forthe on whether or cap killed anyone in the war or if the Hulk killed anyone in his rampages). Plus, alot of the time these guys are put in positions where they don't have much choice but to kill in the movies

Now compare that to how people reacted to superman killing Zod. People flipped because that is just not superman. Superman (alongside batman), is pretty much the embodiment of "though shalt not kill" in all other versions, only ever resorting to killing in the most extreme circumstances. Spidey is also the marvel character who more or less embodies that idea (though this does depend on if its a day where the writers say cap did or din't kill in the war).

However, I think people losing their shit over supes killing zod proves that even if you make a movie about a hero who doesn't follow the golden rule, It can still be successful.



However, in looking through the comments here, it astounds me to see people saying that the heroes should be the ones to kill people, instead of just letting them get the death penalty. I've never really gotten why people think its so much better for one man to decide whether someone should live or die, instead of whatever the law says should happen them. It almost seems like people just want to take the responsibility of taking the life o a criminal that deserves to die from the system that we use, and give it to someone who is outside the system simply because we don't like how the system works.

a super hero can save the world, but they can't fix it. that is ultimately left up to society, which seems ready to give that responsibility to a super hero at every opportunity.

 

[spartenX]

Cap was a soldier during a war so of course he killed people. I never understood why people wanted Batman to become judge, jury and executioner.

I don't get it either. personally, I think sooner or later someone at DC will adapt the knight fall arc, just to remind people what happened the last time people kept asking for batman to be the punisher.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I see it more of a reputation to that superhero.

I mean we all know that Superman and Batman has a "no kill" rule so when Man of Steel came out, there was justify shitstorm about it (well ok more like Superman did cared about the damaged he cause in the city). However when does that ever apply to Iron Man at all given his origin is not the most noble trait to be a superhero (granted I still appricated that he was pretty much trying to redeem himself for the past careless and selfish actions)???

Even then I view the whole "no kill" thing doesn't apply to every single superheroes out there since Wolverine is pretty much well known for his killing and he was a badass for it. Even then it's kind of a flaw mindset that it kind of ok to killed as long it's a "badguy". I suppose you could say he was in "self defence" (yes a bullshit reason I know) or you could view them as soldiers in a way (well Cap was a soldier).

 

[spartenX]

To be honest, I think that people were more alright with most marvel heroes killing than they would with anyone else, if only because of the circumstance. Cap was in a war, Iron man was fighting terrorists, black widow and hawkeye are government agents, Hulk is....well a giant green rage monster who is barely in control of himself, and Thor comes from a different world entirely. Plus, they were all fighting an alien invasion. the X-men.....Wolverine I think gets a pass because he has always been more willing to kill, the whole "I'm the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" thing. Plus, alot of the time these guys are put in positions where they don't have much choice but to kill in the movies. Another important detail is that these guys would be more willing to kill even in the comics (although I don know they go back and forthe on whether or cap killed anyone in the war or if the Hulk killed anyone in his rampages). Plus, alot of the time these guys are put in positions where they don't have much choice but to kill in the movies

Now compare that to how people reacted to superman killing Zod. People flipped because that is just not superman. Superman (alongside batman), is pretty much the embodiment of "though shalt not kill" in all other versions, only ever resorting to killing in the most extreme circumstances. Spidey is also the marvel character who more or less embodies that idea (though this does depend on if its a day where the writers say cap did or din't kill in the war).

However, I think people losing their shit over supes killing zod proves that even if you make a movie about a hero who doesn't follow the golden rule, It can still be successful.



However, in looking through the comments here, it astounds me to see people saying that the heroes should be the ones to kill people, instead of just letting them get the death penalty. I've never really gotten why people think its so much better for one man to decide whether someone should live or die, instead of whatever the law says should happen them. It almost seems like people just want to take the responsibility of taking the life o a criminal that deserves to die from the system that we use, and give it to someone who is outside the system simply because we don't like how the system works.

a super hero can save the world, but they can't fix it. that is ultimately left up to society, which seems ready to give that responsibility to a super hero at every opportunity.

Batman sees a criminal brutally murder a bunch of innocents, literally sees with his own eyes what that person has done.

Random civilians chosen to be a jury sit in a courtroom and are told of the facts second hand by some lawyers.

Why are they a better choice to decide the mans fate than Batman is?

Society can fix the world, but how many times does it fail? How many times has the Joker been sent to an Asylum or been given a prison sentence only to be put back into the world and continue to be responsible for the death of how many innocents?

so if I see a person kill a man, that gives me the right to then kill them?

even a police officer can't do that, unless he thinks that person is immediately about to try and kill someone else, so what gives batman that right?

as for why a jury is the better judge, the same reason that you don't have witnesses act a jury in a trial, the people judging whether someone has committed a crime and how they should be punished for it must be impartial and objective so that they aren't biased about their decision.

as for the joker, that really does more have to do with comic book writing necessitating that he stay alive, no matter how much logic dictates that the system would have said "fuck it" and given him the death penalty by this point.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well, superheroes like Batman, Superman and Spider-Man are like glorified police officers. They're purpose is to uphold the law, not to dispense justice. They serve the law, they don't stand above it.

With the Marvel movies you don't have Iron Man or Captain America patroling the streets, they're basically at war with Evil forces.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I'm not a fan of the notion, if only because I believe that certain evil individuals should be put down.

Admittedly, it has to do with comic book censorship, and was later justified in-universe as "being better than the villain" and out-of-universe as "keeping them alive so they can reappear again".

And yes, I agree with the post above me that superheroes are essentially police officers... so why can't the government lock the super villains away for life of just execute them? Superhero comics are already unrealistic...

 

[maninahat]

It really bothered me in Man of Steel that superman was depicted as being so upset at having to kill Zod. It was never established anywhere in this movie that Superman was against killing. For all we know, he might have had a temporary spin in the army, amongst being a fisherman/lumberjack/manly-job-man. With all the stupid long talks he had with his idiot dad, you'd think they'd have a scene in which they would actually discuss what it is to kill, thus setting up the actual dilemma superman was supposed to face at the end with Zod.

As a rule, I think it is perfectly good. I think the idea is that people like Batman and Superman are meant to be so good at what they do, they can stop a villain's mass murder plots and put them behind bars, mitigating any need to execute them. Had Arkham Asylum been anything other than a revolving door prison, Batman couldn't be blamed for his no kill policy.

The thing as well is that there is always a totalitarian bent in the premise of superheroes. They are people who operate beyond accountability and the law, often with a ridiculous amount of power in their hands alone. It's bad enough that Batman thinks its justified to torture criminals, spy on the public, or extradite foreign citizens, imagine how much worse it would be if he essentially went full Judge Dredd mode and started executing criminals?

That's why I like Kingdom Come, in which Superman has to grapple with this very issue. He ends up having to round up all the edgy, 90s superheroes and lock them away because they keep murdering each other (and causing terrible collateral damage).

 

[SidheKnight]

It's a stupid rule. Now, not murdering the Joker even if it's easier, that's fair enough. You've got the US government to kill him once he's in prison anyway.

Not killing him to prevent him killing others, the reason the police are armed. No...you're not going to have a miracle pop up every time to dodge the moral issue. You're going to have to kill him sooner or later.

Agreed.

I think it depends a lot on the particular superhero, but a good rule of thumb is "don't kill unless you absolutely have to", you know, just like real people.

If a criminal kidnapped my kids and threatened to kill them in front of me, I would not hesitate to kill him before he gets the chance, assuming I had a gun of course.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

"The rule" pretty much exists for 2 reasons:
1: Old comic book censorship rules, from back when comics were aimed strictly at kids.
2: It's difficult to make good villains if the hero continuously kills them.

I remember reading an interview with the guys who created "The Punisher" and they said one of the difficult things with the character was that it was tough to have recurring villains, because Castle just killed all the baddies, and so they basically had to choose between not putting a ton of thought into the bad guys, or continuously finding ways for them to cheat death (which would get dumb pretty quickly).

Does it get sort of ridiculous that Batman just keeps locking up his villians, only to have them escape prison over and over and over again? Yep, but considering the Villains are the big draw of Batman anyway, the writers want to keep them alive for as long as possible.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

I really hate it, I absolutely loved the Daredevil series, but I hated his stupid rule on killing. I think it's what made the first season of Arrow (aside from how the writing and other things bogged the series down in later seasons) so good is that we finally had a Vigilante who just mowed down criminals instead of sticking to some bullshit moral code. It's also why I love the Punisher.

Killing being some sacred line you can't cross is bullshit. "No one deserves death" is bullshit too. How many more innocent deaths could Batman have prevented if he killed the Joker? Or if Daredevil wasted Kingpin?

Violence is a necessity (especially in todays world), sometimes taking a live is necessary. Some people just deserve to die.

I never got the logic that some Heroes who actually witness the atrocities the Villains commit are in less of a place to judge them than a Judge and Jury are only hearing accounts of what they did.

Here's the thing: what somebody deserves or doesn't deserve is not an objective truth; it varies from person to person. I may think this person deserves something, but someone else is bound to disagree. I honestly believe no one deserves to die, and while I understand that killing may be a necessity sometimes, it should never be viewed in a positive light.

Many criminals genuinely believe the people they hurt deserved their fate (why hurt them otherwise?), but that doesn't give them the right to hurt them; a number of crimes it's easy to understand why the person did what they did, but we still have to punish them.

One of the in-universe reasons for superheroes not killing is, as Bruce Wayne says in Batman Begins, is that compassion separates them from the villains. If villains resort to murder to accomplish their aims, and a superhero resorts to murder as well to accomplish their aims, what's the difference between a superhero and a villain? If Batman started killing, people might fear him the same way they fear the Joker or another villain.

In Injustice, Superman says that superheroes aren't gods and they don't have the right to determine who lives and dies, and Shazam says that there have to be limits on what superpowered beings can do.

There's a number of factors that enter into the question of whether superheroes should kill or not. Killing is a big deal, and should never be viewed lightly.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I really hate it, I absolutely loved the Daredevil series, but I hated his stupid rule on killing. I think it's what made the first season of Arrow (aside from how the writing and other things bogged the series down in later seasons) so good is that we finally had a Vigilante who just mowed down criminals instead of sticking to some bullshit moral code. It's also why I love the Punisher.

Killing being some sacred line you can't cross is bullshit. "No one deserves death" is bullshit too. How many more innocent deaths could Batman have prevented if he killed the Joker? Or if Daredevil wasted Kingpin?

Violence is a necessity (especially in todays world), sometimes taking a live is necessary. Some people just deserve to die.

I never got the logic that some Heroes who actually witness the atrocities the Villains commit are in less of a place to judge them than a Judge and Jury are only hearing accounts of what they did.

Defence of Daredevil; as they point out in the show a lot of that is his catholic upbringing (can't remember the actual line but I think Foggy said words to the effect the catholic guilt would practically kill him if he did murder Fisk) and that's always been on the edge of how Daredevil handles things both in comics and the TV series. It's not a bullshit moral code, it's something Murdock holds deadly important; it's how he can justify doing what he does when he compares himself to the Russian, he isn't just another criminal vying for control of the city, he lets the cops and due process handle things and when that's corrupt? He'll find a way to make it work, he's a lawyer for christ's sake, he can work out how to use the law to his advantage and will actually try to work within it (beating up criminals and getting them arrested? You're dispensing vigilante justice. Killing criminals for crimes? then you're a fucking SERIAL KILLER).

OT: With a few exceptions (Wolverine and the Punisher most importantly) superheroes are meant to be a kind of idealised stand-in for morality so we strive not to kill them. The movie versions do tend to be a little bit more... loose with the whole killing people thing, though usually in justified scenarios (i.e. Cap VS Nazis or Cap VS trained military operatives in a open combat); which they sort of lampshade in Age of Ultron (Cap at the very least seems aware that they are killers, Banner feels incredibly guilty for his rampage.)

It helps that not ALL super villains are raging psychotics. The Joker is a special case of 'absolutely should be executed, jesus christ, why do you keep sending him to Arkham Asylum, it's his fucking holiday home', but the bulk of Batman's rogue's gallery (focusing on him since Joker is the go to for this stuff) are legitimately mentally ill. Maxie Zeus who believes is the Greek God of Lightning, the man is sick, I'm not comfortable with him being murdered in the street because he robbed a few banks. Mr Freeze, the guy who desperately wants to save his wife, beaten to death in an alley for stealing some diamond. Two-face who has been succesfully reformed by the system until a relapse was triggered? Should all these guys be killed by Batman?

Or, hey, what about the Flash's rogue gallery? the Rogues who all try incredibly hard not to murder victims in their crimes. I mean, they're just guys with guns, Allen could kill them in microseconds, who cares right?

This is kind of the issue with Superhero morality, it's very easy to black/white it because that's how they're written. But some other writers have made an effort to show how that standard is kind of f*cked up. I mean, the Punisher at one point had a breakdown and mowed down anyone he saw JAYWALKING. That whole storyline felt like it was mean to be pointing out the hypocrisy in rooting for him. Unless your name is Judge Dredd (who actually IS Judge, Jury and Executioner) then the 'hero' usually comes off as a goddamn serial killer. Which is cool if you're the Punisher since that's his deal but is kinda f*cked if a normal hero is beating someone to death for robbing a bank.