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
Their stories maybe. The characters, not really.
Not all of them.
1) You never made that distinction.
2) I also mentioned Guy Gardner who is a Silver Age character in origin. I also mentioned the Titans which include Dick Grayson who tends to be plagued by doubts about his independence and heir to the Bat mantle, Wally West who started out as an angry, womanizing jerk with doubts and Roy Harper well known for being a drug addict. Not to mention the Golden Age versions of how Batman and Superman started out.
Not killing the villains has always seemed like a fruitless debate when there's a big reason the heroes don't kill them: money. Batman doesn't let the Joker live because he's opposed to ending life. He lets the Joker live because the Joker nets the company millions of dollars. Even Injustice, where they did kill him, brought him back in a manner for the sequel. You're basically trying to have an ethical argument about something that is ultimately governed by simple economics.
Which of course points out the big flaw with Punisher as a character. He's a big bad motherfucker when he's mowing down generic cannon fodder or baddies invented specifically for him, yet strangely, actual horrible criminals he could be going after like the Kingpin or Norman Osborn remain untouched.
edited 2nd Jun '17 9:30:48 AM by comicwriter
Yup, the only superheroes that still mantain that ridiculous "no-kill" rule without any real reason are Batman and Superman.
Pickpockets? Yeah, that's not true, as stated above. And drug dealers and pimps... well, hard to feel bad about them, really.
So? I don't understand what are you getting at. Is he brutal? Yes. Does he care about criminals' lives? No. Are the lengths he sometimes goes to make criminals pay sometimes ridiculous? Absolutely.
Yes, there's a difference. But superheroes are not cops, they are vigilantes. They are ilegally interfering, detaining, assaulting and sometimes killing criminals. Spin it the way you want it, but most superheroes (at least at street level) not only react to crime, they also actively seek it out. That's why no lawyer would even dare to call what they do "self-defense". Because they're not acting in "self-defense", they are commiting an act of "vigilantism". And vigilantism is ilegal.
We're talking about the narrative reasons and ideological ideas behind why superheroes don't kill villains, or why they believe killing is wrong as a whole.
Well, to be fair, I think there's a couple stories about Punisher killing some big-name crooks like Kingpin and so on (not canon, tho). If we wanna get technical, most of those guys are either:
- Very powerful in their own right for them to simply be killed by Frank.
or
- Have lots of bodyguards that are on the level of Frank.
On the other hand, one could maybe assume (and that's a big maybe) that the Punisher, while killing criminals indiscriminately, is not stupid enough to kill a big name crook such as Kingpin. Why? Because killing Big-K would leave a massive power vacuum that every single criminal wannabe will want to fill. That'd mean that New York would plunge into an all-out war of organized crime, and innocent people will die. And not only that, it'd pin every single criminal against him. Frank may not like it, but he cannot just do that shit without it blowing up in his face.
Frank's completely bonkers, but I don't think he has ever been portrayed as being a moron with a big gun, nor is he (at least not in the MCU) an amoral, homicidal dick who tramples criminals and innocent bystanders alike.
edited 2nd Jun '17 9:47:41 AM by ExplosiveLion
An argument we wouldn't be having if the writers would stop bringing it up.
What I'm trying to explain (something I thought was self-evident, really) is that there's a world of legal and moral difference between being a vigilante who beats up people and, at best, kills them when innocent lives are in direct risk, and going out of your way to conduct mass-murdering campaigns on every single man and woman vaguely involved with any sort of criminal outfit, regardless of the fact many of them don't even wield weapons or present any sort of physical threat to anyone (like consiglieres and mafia lawyers). My point about the anecdotal story is not to point out how brutal Punisher is, but to point out any criminal in his path is dead meat, regardless of the crime committed. If a pickpocket mildly inconveniences him the Punisher will riddle him with bullets.
But I think this:
Kind of illustrates that you probably won't understand the difference even if I actually kill them myself in front of you.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."Speaking as someone who lives in one of the countries with the biggest issues of organized crime and that has, sadly, seen first hand both what both drug dealers and pimps are capable of doing and the consequences of living in a society of cowardly idiots, I stand by what I've said. It may be harsh, but drug dealers, pimps, kidnappers, extortionists, and so on have destroyed so many lives that I honestly can't say I wouldn't kill one of them if given the chance.
Maybe some countries need people like Superman or Daredevil, but my country seriously needs someone like the Punisher.
edited 2nd Jun '17 10:01:03 AM by ExplosiveLion
Morrison is not the only person who wrote Batman and Superman. Al Ewing's Ultimates could also easily be called a DC book or what people feel is a DC book. I also refer you to Rucka's first WW run.
And Thor, Nova, Dr Strange, Captain Marvel, Adam Warlock, the Ultimates want me to go on?
Gardner was created in 1968. The Silver Age covers 1956 - c.1970.
Again, you did not make that distinction.
I live in a country with the same problems and I have personally seen strife and death at the hands of organized crime, including having my own brother and my father being shot by this kind of person. And I stand by what I've said as well. No country needs a Punisher.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."They survived and fully recovered (though now that I re-read, my wording implies they died. my bad). so it's not that bad. But thanks, mate.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."As for the Ultimates, that actually has a lot more in common with the Fantastic Four. It's not about power levels; it's about the characters.
edited 2nd Jun '17 11:52:25 AM by alliterator
Okay, okay, let's work through the whole "killing" thing and how it is portrayed in the MCU:
Ironman: Tony kills exactly twice. The first time is entirely justified, because the terrorists have captured him and will kill him if he doesn't find a way to escape. The second time isn't quite justified, since he is flying to a village in a foreign country in order to intervene, but the people he does kill are again terrorists who are in the process of killing the villagers. From a political point of view what he does is very questionable, but from a moral point of view this is a situation which has been going on for days and the local authorities couldn't solve. So it falls overall into a grey area. And Stane, well, he is actually killed by Pepper, in order to rescue Tony.
Ironman 2: Tony kills exactly one person, since most of his enemies are Robots. Vanko somehow survives to get hit by a car multiple times (and even if he didn't, he attacked Tony, not the other way around), and Tony makes no move to kill him. It is only when both he and Rhodey are about to get killed by him when they kill him together in self-defence.
Ironman 3: Tony is killing nobody, even his most memorable action scenes shows him rescuing people! The people who die explode on their own accord and Killian is killed by Pepper (honestly, she should be the one with PTSD).
The First Avenger: Steve is a soldier, so it is pretty useless to put a kill-count out on him. This is his duty and he has the approval of the government. The one fight scene he has outside of the army involves him trying to rescue the bad guy (after said bad guy killed someone close to him!!!) who then kills himself with poison.
The Winter Soldier: Steve (and Natasha) start out working as spies, though even then we see them on a rescue mission and it doesn't look like they are actually out to kill anyone during it unless they have to. Steve is smashing in a number of heads, but there is actually no killing whatsoever going on until they get attacked on the bridge and then again when they fight Hydra. In both cases it is self-defence.
Civil War: None of the Avengers are killing anyone - not for the lack of trying on Tony's part, but Black Panther even goes and plays suicide watch. Lots of damage all around, but no actual kill-count (and no, the movie isn't weak because of this). And Steve does a lot of head smashing again, but his main directive is to avoid anyone dying. And no, I don't count the people who fell victim to either bomb, because none of them were built or set-off by the Avengers.
Thor: Thor is killing fairly freely in the beginning of the movie, but this is a typical case of value dissonance. Thor sees himself as a warrior and the ice giants as lesser beings. Plus, the whole point is that he is learning better during the movie, even though he is still happily acting out the warrior part in Thor: The Dark World. All the killing he does there falls either under soldiering or self-defence.
The Incredible Hulk: The whole point of the movie is that Banner doesn't want to hurt anyone but the military just has to trigger the Hulk again and again for questionable purposes.
Ant-man: Well, now it gets dicey....because Scott does participate in a terrorist attack, with bomb and all. Sure, they get the people out of the building and they have good reasons to destroy the servers, but of all the movie heroes, his actions are easily the most questionable. Falcon is also not exactly easy on Scott when he tries to break in, unless the guns were somehow night-night guns. Scott killing Cross is self-defence, though.
Doctor Strange: Not only is Steven only killing in self-defence, he has a break-down after it because he is a doctor and has sworn an oath to protect people, not to kill them.
The Avengers movies: Well, Clint aside (since he is brainwashed when he kills the other agents), they are only killing aliens, and they have a damned good reason for it. Clear case of self defence. And in Age of Ultron they are only killing robots. The Hydra agents they attack in the beginning, they try to impair, not to kill. Tony is even deliberately shooting at their legs. Again, you could argue if they have the right to conduct a military mission in Sokovia, but that is another discussion compared to "are the Avengers killers". One which happened in Civil War.
Bottom line: No, the movies don't suggest that killing is fine. And neither do the TV shows. Ao S even has a whole story-arc about Coulson killing someone for the wrong reason and how much of a sin it was.
John Byrne's run on Superman is also long and influential. Diana wasn't larger than life under Perez being written as needing to grow out of her naivety. Even Rucka's version grew more humanised over time. Marvel and DC have been written as larger than and grounded and everything in between. Remember that the two companies have had the same writers at times.
Tony deliberately lures Stane into a trap and he's not the one who gives the order to Pepper. I don't get why you have to point out Ultron and the Chitauri aren't human. What does that matter?
The message seems to be killing is fine as long as it is justified. Don't know why that's so controversial.
![]()
![]()
It does matter because the Chitauri have no business to go on a foreign planet and attack. This is not a "well, maybe the attackers are justified" situation. And the robots are exactly that, robots. The actual killing of Ultron is done by Vision, and he does it because it is the only option to stop Ultron.
Sure it should. There's literally a whole trope for it. Who gives a shit about some CGI aliens?
edited 2nd Jun '17 1:10:06 PM by comicwriter

edited 2nd Jun '17 9:19:40 AM by alliterator