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.