Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
In the case of Jessica, her use of lethal force actually clarifies a legitimate reason for the no-killing rule: by killing Kilgrave she kills all possible evidence of his crimes with him, so all the other people he manipulated and torture during his life will never get legal closure because without Kilgrave there is no evidence.
DD's reason for not killing is both because he is deeply religious and because of that. If he hadn't arrested Wilson Fisk in the first season none of Fisk's many victims would have gotten any sort of legal closure or financial reparations for what he's done.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."
I liked that the show actually took the time to point that out. Didn't stop people from going "well she should have just killed him the first chance she got." But after a certain point, Jessica realizes getting him to sit down and confess isn't going to happen.
RE Matt and killing: there's also the issue that, if you hit someone hard enough in a fight or toss them a few stories off a building, you can very well kill them. Superhero fiction in general seems to forget that's a thing.
Luke's reasons for not killing are similar to Superman: He's invincible (which greatly expands his options for a non-lethal takedown) and people are already scared of him—killing would just make it worse. You'll note that Luke was making quite a bit of progress against Cottonmouth before he got usurped. He initially tried to talk down Diamondback because of their connection, and by the time he was willing to beat him to a bloody pulp, Diamondback had the super suit so he survived.
Danny's moral question is similar to Matt's: What is the difference between justice and murder? We don't get a full answer, but Colleen decides that it's a question of passion; if you're killing someone because they wronged you, then you're just doing it because you want to murder them. Justice is more dispassionate.
Matt, of course, is just the eye-rolling "killing is a sin, always, but I guess I can ignore it as long as I'm not actually the one doing it." Claire also believes killing is always wrong, no exceptions, but at least she refuses to let other people kill either, so she's not a hypocrite.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.DD has the excuse he has super senses so he presumably can detect how much punishment his victim can take. But yes, he is famously lousy at keeping his one rule.
Not at Batman levels yet, but getting there.
Also: Matt keeps trying to stop people from killing people. Both when fighting alongside Stick and Elektra he tries to contain them several times. He stops during the final fight because by this point he's running on fumes and barely even awake.
edited 3rd Apr '17 8:22:14 AM by Gaon
"All you Fascists bound to lose."I've found it funny that Matt will toss people from several stories up and not count that as killing. I'm just like, what do you think happens to people you do that to, Matt? Do you honestly think they survived that? I would find it irritating if I didn't find it so funny.
When we're done, there won't be anything left.One of the worst flaws in superhero media is the tendency to treat killing as if it is always a choice and not something that simply happens as a consequence of violence. Superhero stories have a habit of treating characters as though they have an HP meter and when it hits 0, no matter how much damage put them there, they are stunned and set up for either handcuffs or a killshot.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Well, they do.
They just end up in a coma they may never wake up from and clearly that is morally superior and the right thing to do.
Not quite what you're talking about but I thought the Busiek run handled it pretty well when Carol Danvers killed the Master of the World in the course of thwarting him.
edited 3rd Apr '17 8:33:39 AM by Bocaj
Forever liveblogging the AvengersS2 Daredevil has Matt get even more angsty about whether or not killing people is right, but he really should be angsting over whether or not he could stop himself— that's his real conflict, the fact that he wants to but knows he shouldn't. I'd also like to know where Matt stands on self-defense.
And throwing that guy off a building nothin', he drops a fire extinguishing on the guy from like five storeys up. You'd better be pretty confident of your supersenses if you're predicting a guy's going to survive that.
Ranking the Defenders themselves:
Jessica, Danny, Luke, Matt
Ranking the top ten of the supporting cast of the Defenders (not villains):
Trish (I love Trish!!!! I want to see more of Trish!)
Ward
Colleen
Claire (she would rank higher, but she is me a little bit too perfect sometimes...it wouldn't hurt to have a wrong once in a while to be honest)
Misty
Foggy
Hogarth
Joy
Malcolm
Stick (who I would like much better if he would actually do expositions with explanations instead of without)
Special shot out to Barbershop guy, who didn't make the list because I couldn't remember his name (I like him, but that is a clear mark against him), Mahoney, who just doesn't have enough scenes about himself, Turk, who isn't quite a good guy and our RIP's, who deserve a list of their own if I can ever bring myself to write it. Somehow Daddy Murdock ended up my favourite character from the whole season one of Daredevil! Oh, and let's not forget Marcy! I wish that there were more of here. But not Karen. I kind of can't stand Karen most of the time she is on screen. I want to like her, but they make it so difficult for me to do so.....
Best Main Villain:
Kilgrave (no question there)
Kingpin (as of season 2)
Gao (in all her versions)
Harold Meachum (delightfully manipulative)
Mariah and Shades (have the potential to be higher in the future but until we have seen more or them....)
Cottonmouth
The Hand version 2.1 (thank you Iron Fist for Fixing that particular mess of a villain)
Diamondback
The Hand Daredevil-style (they suck! Hard!)
Special shot out to the Punisher, who is more an antagonist, and the IGH or whatever it is called...Simmons was a great start, but they don't quite count as a main villain just yet.
edited 3rd Apr '17 9:47:15 AM by Swanpride
A lot of what we see of The Hand in Iron Fist retroactively makes their antics in Daredevil S2 make sense.
Not that that's an excuse for them being poorly-written back then, but at least now we have answers.
As for the no-killing codes...
Matt wants to let loose and kill people, but he knows he'd be doing it for his own satisfaction as much as pursuit of justice, and fears that, much like a can of Pringles, once he starts he won't stop. Not even once, "as an exception". Though the Season 2 finale suggests he threw Nobu off the roof with full intent to kill. Like Punisher said, "you're one bad day away from being me". We haven't seen him since then, but it'll be interesting to see how that action (plus the tacit acceptance of his allies killing their enemies) affects his philosophy going forward. Unless they just sweep it under the rug like the last time he killed Nobu.
Jessica doesn't really have much information to go on. Most of her enemies are mind-controlled so of course she's not going to kill them, and Kilgrave is Too Powerful to Live both in- and out-of-universe, so I'd imagine pretty much anyone would have just killed him when left with no other way to stop him. Her dealings with Simpson are the only real fair indicator of her code on killing. It's been a while since I watched them tussle, but I remember she never really had a chance to kill him even if she wanted to.
Luke's a lot like Superman, yeah. People already fear superfreaks like him. If he kills someone- even in a justifiable situation -it'll just turn him into even more of a boogeyman. On the plus side, his nigh-invulnerability means that there's very few "my life or his" situations for him to agonize over. As long as he keeps civilians out of harm's way he doesn't have much of a reason to kill in self-defense. As such, the primary objective of his moral code is to just get innocents away. Once he's alone with the threats, he can neutralize them with as little force as necessary.
Danny is pretty similar to Matt (one of my main criticisms with Iron Fist; it feels a little too similar to Daredevil). Though it seems like less of a "once I give in to temptation and start making exceptions for the real scumbags, where do I draw the line?" and more of a plain ol' "I really just don't want to kill people if I don't have to, period". Between him, Luke, and Matt, he's probably the most likely to not agonize over killing a particularly dangerous enemy, though.
edited 3rd Apr '17 2:04:03 PM by Anomalocaris20
You cannot firmly grasp the true form of Squidward's technique!Details on Spider-Man's new suit
. Shades of Ultimate Spider-Man. I'm sure the hardcore fanboys will totally not freak.
edited 3rd Apr '17 4:52:29 PM by comicwriter
Someone mentioned this a while back, and I want to touch upon it: that it is the Peacekeeper's duty to sacrifice themself if the Perpetrator is targeting Civillians, and there's no other choice. To counter this point: I've definitely seen the narrative of "No, Superhero, don't sacrifice yourself for me; you shouldn't throw away all your future crime-fighting work in exchange for this."
This is an interesting concept: that a Superhero's life is inherently worth more than the Average Joe's is, specifically because the Superhero's life being forfeit means that potentially countless Average Joes could die in some future disaster that the Superhero might've been able to prevent. Needs of the many vs needs of the few, except the Superhero's life represents the needs of the many.
This is a fascinating (albeit dark) concept, and it's been something I've wanted to see explored for a while now. Like, someone asks Batman how many innocent lives he's worth, and Batman actually has done the math and he has a concrete number as an answer.
x5 Interesting. Reminds me of how Tony programmed JARVIS to broadcast on the Spider-Tracers' frequency to talk to Peter in one episode of The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes.
Our first glimpse of the Defenders.
Why the hell is Matt wearing that silly mask? He's wearing Danny's mask instead of his own! Also, the footage ends at the timestamp "08:18:20:17" which people are taking to mean the show will drop on 8/18/17.
edited 4th Apr '17 6:51:19 AM by alliterator
Looks like something he improvised. He is still the only one of them with a secret ID
Forever liveblogging the AvengersAlso, the IP address in the corner leads to this website.
Which then leads to this website.
edited 4th Apr '17 6:53:37 AM by alliterator

If he was trying to mind-rape as well as physically rape her friend and she didn't see another way to prevent it? Abso-f*cking-lutely.
This gets into a popular conversation topic: the difference between superheroes using lethal force and using necessary force. Having a No-Kill Code is ultimately as misguided as having an Always-Kill Code. A keeper of the peace is expected to prioritize:
If the perpetrator is presenting a dangerous threat to either civilian lives or peacekeeper lives and the only way to stop him is to put a bullet through his face, then he simply doesn't get to wake up tomorrow.
Meanwhile, if it's a choice between saving lives and staying safe, the peacekeeper is expected to die for those people. That's the risk you accept when you put on that uniform and go out every day. But the peacekeeper is not expected to die for the perpetrator.
Neutralizing the perpetrator without killing him is preferable, but only where it does not compromise the lives of everyone else. To put it simply, if you're standing in a plaza screaming threats with a gun clipped to your belt, it is the responsibility of a peacekeeper to approach you carefully and try to talk you down, and/or find an alternate method to nonlethally incapacitate you.
But if you draw that gun and try to point it at someone, the negotiation ends and you start eating bullets.
But if you didn't have a gun at all and just lunged at somebody, then shooting you would be excessive. It's an expectation for peacekeepers to be able to handle a violent encounter such as this without resorting to lethal force, whereas firearms are considered a more immediate threat.
Applying superpowers to the mix blurs the line between what necessitates a lethal response versus a nonlethal one but the premise is ultimately the same: when it is not possible to ensure both the perpetrator's safety and that of the people around him, it is the responsibility of the peacekeeper to put him down.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.