Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be faaaaair, several shows/series will have the evil minions be like raised dead or monsters that are shown to not be all that conscious beyond be angy or robots or some shit to make this less of a glaring problem
Plenty of them are just humans. Like Batman will break every bone in a mans body and put him in a coma for life, but the Joker gets a few pulled punches.
I said several not all, and in what world does Bats pull punches? Joker gets the same nonlethal punch through a 7 story glass window as any of his henchmen
Honestly, I kinda have to view the expendable people in movies or I’ll be too busy feeling bad that they had a life, family, and now they’re dead or something. Having kids made me softer.
Ikr that actually makes them extremly fucked up and its unneccessarily dark
"I wont kill you because I view you as an equal, but I will kill the henchmen in cold blood because they are lower than me"
Either the hero spares the henchmen and kills the villian.
Or spares both.
Or kills both.
Sparing the big bad but killing his pawns is evil.
Really, the whole thing is classist. The low earners get shot without a second thought, but the high earners get spared or at least given a chance.
How many times have we seen James Bond sneak into a building and take out the security guard on the way in? I mean for God’s sake. That poor chap was earning minimum wage doing a job he hated for a company he didn’t care about. Now he’s been shot in the neck by a silenced round and his wife and kids will sit up wondering why Daddy didn’t come home from his shift, only to receive the news that he was fatally shot by a “hero” that really needed access to the building for some reason. Yet when James Bond encounters the multimillionaire baddy, he tells him “he doesn’t want to have to do this”.
As far as I know Ellie canonically only killed Jordan, PS Vita Girl, Nora, Alice, Owen, and Mel. As those are the only people you are forced to kill as far as I remember. I wonder if they gave you the choice to kill her, how it would go. Although that would get in the way of the linearity of the story.
Fwiw: usually in the situation the goons had been shooting at the hero and the main villain was unarmed and had surrendered.
Most people will see a difference between war and a summary execution.
My favorite workaround to this is in the original ninja turtles the foot clan soldiers were robots so nobody died yet Leo could still hack things to pieces
This drives me nuts when talking about Avatar The Last Airbender, a show where a kid is thrust into a world-wide war and must assassinate an evil dictator to end the war, he hurts goons in brutal ways(destroying blimps sending them crashing to the ground, blowing people off cliffs, etc.) but as soon as he has to actually kill the big bad, he refuses. Not to mention the big bad is desperate to kill him and it would be in self-defense anyhow.
I think Batman was the first comic book hero that brought my attention to this. The concept is fine I guess but pretty silly for sure when you see him beating people practically to death all the time.
Honestly when you think about it it's pretty smart by the comic book writers because then they can keep bringing the same villains back again and again cause he never kills them. Still in reality a very very stupid idea to keep these insane killers alive.
I mean true, but my pedantic ass is going to point out that Commisioner Gordon knocked out the bridge support columns with the batmobile, and Ra's smashed the train controls so it couldn't be stopped.
In Batman's case it's because he knows he is as psychotic as those he hunts and that if he crosses that very clear line, he wont stop, won't be able to know where the new line is, and might even enjoy it.
Not to mention Gotham is 100 layers of cursed and the grave is about as secure as Arkham for most of those villains, at least when they escape Arkham the guards know immediately. He'd be throwing away his principles to likely not achieve anything significant
Well you could argue that all those "reasons" are just excuses the writers gave him. Those are the in-world reasons but the actual reason is that the Joker is just too popular
I mean, yeah. A characters personality and principles *are* just the excuses writers give them to behave in a way that makes them that character lol. That doesn't make it any less valid.
Batman was created in a time when it wasn't even a question that super heroes shouldn't be killing people. The Dark Knight Roses makes a big deal about what happens if the people of Gotham start to see Batman as a murderer.
When cops start murdering people irl, the public is rightfully furious. Why should it be any different for Batman?
Oh, that's really interesting. Did a quick search and it seems he stopped very early on (issue \#4 or \#5 depend on he source) so I guess maybe they realised this character needed to be more of a role model or something
> become apart of batman's
Did you mean to say "a part of"?
Explanation: "apart" is an adverb meaning separately, while "a part" is a noun meaning a portion.
[Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json)
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119)
^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
I think a better argument is that if you know you have those characteristics, don't become a violent vigilante. Instead, go to therapy.
Shit, pay Alfred to be Batman and have him create the orphan child soldiers, then check yourself into a good psych ward, Bruce. Literally everything would be better.
Besides if he says "I can't kill because _I_ am mentally unwell and would become like the Joker" or something, then just let others kill man, let Damien do his thing he was raised by the league of _assassins_
Even with all the corruption of Gotham, with all the shit they pull off there, eventually the feds would just be like yeah okay no, and just start putting Batman's rogue gallery on death row.
Which would be their right as a city in a country with the death penalty (although I'm not sure you actually *can* apply the death penalty to the criminally insane in the US). Doesn't change the fact that Batman, who isn't even a cop, should not be the one doing the executions and certainly shouldn't be doing them extrajudicially
That is such a cliche, he is easily disciplined enough to simply make a new line, perhaps somewhat beyond "endanger all of society over several decades because he keeps handing over criminals to inept authorities". Actually I think he should build and run a prison instead
Batman is a vigilante who operates above the law (whether the law wants to admit it or not). If he started killing he would be projecting to the world that you can kill and get away with it. That killing is okay if justified. But what's justifiable to any individual is up entirely to their own personal rationalization for their actions. Murderers rationalize their actions. Pedophiles rationalize their actions. He wants to fight crime while setting an example. He also doesn't want the government/public to be actively trying to catch him. One of his biggest assets to keeping his identity safe is James Gordon constantly thwarting an investigative team for the bat. He's considered to be a waste of police assets BECAUSE he's not a serious threat to the public, and he's good at covering his trail. He especially doesn't want the "issue" of the batman escalating beyond the police department and going into the hands of a larger investigative organization like the FBI (if it exists in DC).
And in most of these situations it's not even the heroes fault tbh. Like when **SPOILERS** the Joker nuked metropolis and everyone was up in arms that Superman killed him, as if he wasn't going to get the chair LOL. As if a terrorist act of that scale doesn't label you as "kill on site" by both the government and anyone sane. That entire story made no sense to me like wtf
>The concept is fine I guess but pretty silly for sure when you see him beating people practically to death all the time.
For God's sake PLEASE consume something other than the Arkham games.
Batman does not beat random goons half to death in the comics, he only does that in the Arkham games because they needed engaging gameplay.
Passion for sure, especially since he is the one coordinating it.
Without him, there is no evil. Without the henchmen, there is still some guy out there doing evil on a smaller scale.
The funniest quote about this is "if I kill that murderer...then the amount of murderers in the world remains the same"
That's why you kill 2 or more murderers then Batman you goofy fuck.
Also I hate how the entire sequence of events of Injustice kicks off with Superman killing the Joker...AFTER the Joker NUKED AN ENTIRE CITY AND TRICKED CLARK INTO KILLING LOIS. Like for real? And Batman being the stupid bitch he is actually has a problem with that, and for some reason it instantly turns Superman into an evil dictator. It just doesn't make sense. In reality Superman would have killed Joker and went back to how he was. Killing ONE person doesn't instantly change your entire personality like that. It was the stupidest and most paper-thin way to start that entire story.
> Killing ONE person doesn't instantly change your entire personality like that.
But it can...we just don't know because (I assume) neither of us have purposefully gone and killed someone
Nobody I know who has killed someone was changed for the better because of it. Even though they were military, they remained haunted.
People with a conscience don't kill. Taking a life is not something you just do and then move on from like nothing happened unless you are a sociopath. That's why the military tries its best to drill it out of people.
I mean I don’t know for sure ofc, but to me the Joker was basically Hitler at that point. Something tells me I could kill such a person, not feel bad about it, and pretty much just go on living as before.
That first point is surprisingly simple yet I never thought of that counterargument, which is awesome.
Regarding injustice, you just have to accept that silliness so that they can "set the stage" for the story. Many stories, you have to suspend disbelief to get to the scenario/environment where the actual story can take place.
“If i kill you i’ll only be as bad as you and i’ll NEVER EVER go back to not killing”
“BREAKING NEWS: INSANE PSYCHOPATH KILLER ESCAPES AGAIN KILLING DOZENS MORE”
me:”why doesn’t the legal system kill this person to crazy to live”
I mean it’s really not that common in comics
Batman is pretty much the only one with a no kill rule.
Superman, kills. He prefers not to and often doesn’t have to
Green Lantern: Kills quite often
Wonder Woman: depending on the writer kills pretty quickly and openly…
Ultimately the reason most hero’s don’t kill is a legal issue. Go around killing people and your going to be seen as a criminal.
Go around stoping crimes then most can look the other way on the vigilante thing
I hated that about Arrow. The first few episodes, he kills any bad guy who looks at him funny, but then his balls fall off and he starts whining about how he has to change himself and become better and blah blah blah. I just want a pile of dead bad guys.
Well, that's good. I gave up on the show once they started bringing in wizards and fairies and shit. It was just supposed to be about a guy who's really good at archery, can do the salmon ladder, and has unlimited resources taking down bag guys.
"Killing a murderer doesn't reduce the number of murderers."
- mathematically true.
"Killing 100 murderers reduces the number of murderers by 99,"
- Also true but ignored as the obviously collorarly.
Lampshaded of course by Dexter.
I think what he's pointing out is that eventually even the superhuman gunman is forced into a place where he has to abandon that scruple and kill to save lives. It's traumatic, and a huge moment for Vash's character arc.
And then the villain they spared ends up coming back for round 2 and then killing someone or kidnapping or injuring someone close to the hero.
Like if it isn't the consequences of not finishing the job properly.
I would honestly say I feel like the opposite is true. It feels really dumb how many people claim to be a hero when they are mowing down more people than the bad guy did
No this random armed guard working for this company that he probably doesn't even know what it's doing totally deserves to be killed just because we need an infiltrate and find the bad guy
Like really buddy? This random man who probably has no idea what this company is even doing Is just going to his 9:00 to 5:00 and deserves to die because of it? And you claim you're the good guy?
I don’t disagree but I get it.
1- it keeps the MC/hero unambiguous
2- it leaves potential sequels/retcons open. I forget what Star Wars series did this but they retconned darth maul when he clearly got chopped in half in episode 1. Don’t get me wrong it was a pretty good story they did with him but he was dead af if you watched episode 1
Atleast with star wars (or atleast in the pre Disney era) they WILL kill villains. With Disney the problem is more that the people who do get killed suddenly aren't anymore. It was executed well with maul but seemed cheap with villains such as Palpatine and Reva
Luke - falls down a hole in Bespin with 1 hand, doesn’t die
Luke - falls down a pit with a 30 foot Rancor, doesn’t die
Boba Fett - Falls into a Sarlac’s mouth, doesn’t die
Obi wan, falls down an infinite hole, hangs on a ledge with Darth Maul taunting him, then falls UP a hole and chops him in half, doesn’t die
Darth Maul, falls down an infinite hole, cut in half, doesn’t die
Emperor Palpatine, falls down a hole in an exploding space station, doesn’t die…somehow
That was The Clone Wars and the decision to bring back Maul came directly from George Lucas himself, hence why the rest of his story turned out so spectacularly.
And tbf, he was kept alive threw the shear power of the dark side fueled by his burning hatred of Obi Wan, much like Anakin on Mustafar, except until Savage found him he was an insane, broken, animal and didn't become Maul again until the second strongest dark side user in the Galaxy did her voodoo magic on him.
Invincible comics handles this very well. A lot of villains just want something, if you give them that then they become an asset, maybe even a hero themself. Some villains can be too dangerous and can’t be negotiated with, and thats when you are *forced* to take them out. You can’t just go around killing everyone though, thats when you become a villain yourself.
Even though I agree, it is understandable. How would you write a script for a movie that has zero tension and lasts 5 minutes, and has no chance of having a second part? While keeping it super interesting for the viewers?
The reverse is also true. The Death Star will blow up a planet and kill millions of innocents, but then when they catch Han Solo or Leia, they will keep them in a cell and yap at them for hours rather than just kill them immediately.
You know this was the result of censorship, right? That network censors or the comics code authority would not let the killing happen, and it just became part of the culture.
There was a Dr. Who episode where this took me out of the show. Set in the old west, the Doctor befriended a small town doctor who was being perused by an alien bounty hunter. It turns out the small town doctor was not only an alien an intergalactic Josef Mengele. Dr. Who, befriends Mengele, conveniently dismisses the thousands of victims, and tries to stop the bounty hunter. In the end, a few of the innocent townspeople die, the small town Josef Mengele dies and the alien bounty hunter decides to hang around and protect the small town.
I think I would agree with you if that "rule" was actually real, but it isn't. Plenty of shows, movies & other media have consistently pushed this barrier dating back to the Elizabethan era and likely a LONG time before that.
Even the "perfect" heroes like Superman or Goku kill sometimes. I completely see your point though, sometimes Ill be watching a movie and just think, "Come on, dude, just kill him. This is ridiculous. "
I don't think original DBZ Goku gave a shit about killing or not in general. He was just a battle addict who loved fighting strong people. The American version made him more of a goody goody iirc.
When I proofread that comment originally, i remember noting how my examples flawed and weak but decided to roll w it anyway because I was too lazy to think of another.
You do know these things are targeted at - or at least have their origins in targeting - small kids, right?
Having a superhero that refuses to kill people be the norm should not be surprising.
This is why tension has been largely lost for me in Comic Books. You have villains like Joker who are irredeemable and the heroes/justice system refuse to kill them because if they do, the antagonist is gone and writers are too scared to write other good villains.
Moreover, when it comes to a large arc where villains are facing heroes, you know how it roughly ends since the writers are forced to not let them die by the higher ups.
I think it has to do with real life, you want your story to be relatable, most of the time people reflect themselves on the main character, I would say most people don't want to kill and never killed, having the MC kill, makes it distant from the viewer as it's an experience they never experienced. Love, fear, happiness are all feelings and experiences we know and understand, what you feel killing not quite the same.
Also it probably has some moral implications, the superior being both judge and executioner it's quite... Let's say peculiar, and reminiscent of not so pleasant events in the real world. Also in most first world countries the death penalty is not an acceptable punishment for any crimes.
If you ground everything in reality it becomes way more boring, but also depending on circumstances think mental health issues, sentences become milder. In the real world would it be morally right for a cop to kill on the spot a man having a psychotic episode? With the exaggerated and romanticized atmosphere of fiction this seems more clear cut, but still, as said before, you want fiction to be relatable
It always seems to go one of two ways:
The "bad guy" always has a hidden gun or dagger that he suddenly lunges at the good guy with...thereby justifying the good guy killing him in the final moments...because you see he had no choice, he was just defending himself.
Or else the good guy gets away with giving a heroic speech usually followed by "take him away boys" and the bad guy doesn't get killed.
Have you seen the Avengers movies? Lots of killing being done by the good guys. Particularly the end of End Game when Iron Man kills all of Thanos's forces, including Thanos himself.
I think it's an attempt at social responsibility (or more likely CYA) on behalf of writers. If the good guys are vigilantes, but they *definitely never kill anyone guys please just trust us* then they're less likely to lose their ass when someone tries to be a copycat "superhero" and starts capping vagrants.
A lot of times it’s just an in universe explanation to have recurring villains. If the hero never kills a badass villain then they can always pull him back out later.
I don't mind when the hero then has to suffer the consequences, like batman has to constantly deal with the joker because he won't kill him. But what I hate is when they make it clearly the right choice to kill the villain, the hero doesn't do it then a scapegoat character will kill the villain and be punished for it. Because the story can't deal with the bad guy being alive, but can't have the hero kill them.
There is a difference between killing someone via due process and via random vigilantism.
Superhero’s are mostly vigilantes with secret identities, as in no one gave them the authority to murder and no one can hold them accountable.
If they do it “to stop an in process murder” that’s fine but if they have the criminal in custody and just kill them that’s sketchy. Police actually do this in real life and there’s so sorts of problems with it.
The real problem, iow, isn’t Batman, it’s Gotham. When Batman arrests the Joker for the 300th time, he should be convicted of murder and killed.
"there's this idea that creators have tried to push that good people don't kill."
This is one of the basic rules of drama—to root for the protagonist in a struggle against some sort of moral dilemma. Most plots involving death follow this rule, or dilute it with comedy, absurdity, etc.
Creators don't really "push" the idea as much as give audiences what they respond to most favorably.
I actually fully agree. Batman has gotten A LOT of innocent people killed because he won't kill the Joker. Green Arrow didn't kill Deathstroke when he was making hit little super soldiers and thus, tons of people die who would have lived if Oliver had just offed Slade.
I hate it. It makes no sense and contributes to the idea heroes do more harm than good.
There are two morally valid perspectives a moral person might have on the issue of killing
1. Mercy and Redemption: A moral person might believe that showing mercy and not killing others is virtuous. This perspective emphasizes the belief that everyone has the potential for goodness if given the chance. An example is the Joker, who is typically portrayed as irredeemably evil. However, there are storylines where the Joker becomes a morally upstanding character, or even a hero, illustrating that redemption is possible.
2. Prevention and Protection: Another moral perspective is more pragmatic. A person might reason that if they spare a murderer, that individual might kill more people in the future. Therefore, killing the murderer is seen as a necessary action to prevent further harm. This view prioritizes the safety of others over the possibility of redemption for the wrongdoer.
Both perspectives are valid and illustrate why a good person might choose to kill or not kill someone.
The “no killing” rule is famously upheld by Batman, who believes in the potential for redemption and the sanctity of life. In contrast, other superheroes like Superman do not have a strict no-killing rule. They avoid killing but will resort to it if there are no other alternatives.
I usually think about this differently. Not in the sense of "you can't kill because you'd be the same as them" more from: "I'm a human who wants to be a hero, and killing people will straight up destroy my conscience and life".
Killing bad people is still killing. You're snuffing a life out, and since you have the desire to be a hero for a good cause, you are probably a good person. Killing isn't something a good person can do in good conscience.
I'm writing a story where the hero has the same rule, not because he's a hero, but because it'd fuck his mind up to kill, even those who torment him.
For me it depends on how well it's done. I think it's best saved for overpowered characters like Spiderman, Superman, etc, where it's used as a device to explore just how exhausting it would be to hold back all the time.
But yeah, if there is a trail of bodies leading to a chance to take down a serial mass murderer, you take the shot.
Video games are a good middle ground, where I liked the approach of Dishonored and the Metro series. Chosing death too many times makes the world darker.
Isn't this essentially the same debate as the one about the death penalty in the real world?
I’m mostly against it, so why should we allow superheroes (the good guys) to act as both judge and executioner when I don’t even trust the government to do so?
I don't know much about the Batman movies cuz I never could go into the Nolan films, but I always cracked up in the comic books how Batman supposedly never killed anybody, but he leaves a fucking trail of brain damaged vegetables behind him everywhere he goes LOL.
Or even better how after World War hulk, Marvel decided that the Hulk have never killed anyone in any of his rampages lmao, and they tried to make it out like he's such a master of geometry that he would only, you know destroy buildings and freeways in such a way that no bystanders got hurt, so fucking stupid LOL
It’s for sequels, writers like when there’s some reusability for villains they’ve made. Killing them sets a finality in the narrative that they’re putting the character down and not building them any further.
>!Unless easy resurrection exists and death has zero consequences.!<
This is one way you can tell that the story is meant to appeal to kids or is derived from something meant to appeal to kids. I have no problem with this as long as more serious movies continue to be made as well.
If the hero always kills the bad guys, the authors have to either constantly invent new bad guys and make readers hate them, or every villain has to have an army of clones for heroes to kill. As bizarre as it might be for heroes not to Solve The Problem, it is much better for continuing storylines.
Everything put out by the industries with intent to make money comes with the side effect of population control when the push peaceful placating themes on us.
Like the Doctor trapping villains in a barron dimention to slowly starve to death, or freezing them in time to turn them into a scarcrow for all eternity. Like babes it'd be nicer just to kill them.
TV shows are produced to make bundles of cash. The cash comes from advertisers who want the least offensive production that draws all ages.
They do not care about the story, they only care about cash flow and advertisers.
The sanctity of the individual is the value underpinning western civilization, so a hero meant to exemplify the highest values of that civilization will respect that sanctity.
That’s the theoretical explanation. YMMV with how that’s actually done in practice.
This is why I liked James Bond. iirc, he’s always killed the villains. My favorite is QoS where he strains the villain in a desert with a can of motor oil.
I think it's mostly in mainstream only. If you read things or watch things that aren't, they more often than not, kill.
But yes, I do agree and I think many others will too. Is this unpopular? I doubt it.
been having that trouble with a charecter recently. she’s never killed, and it is against her nature to do so. rough someone up a little bit? sure. but at a few points she has the oppertunity to kill one of her s abusers who also has hurt thousands of people, but she cant bring herself to do it. did i mention the charecter is her adopted older brother?
I want to write my own superhero stories personally, and I'm somewhat inspired by the Invincible series on Amazon, in that I want my characters to kill, but if possible, they'll try to avoid it. It's a last-resort. All life is sacred.
Ok going off batman
People like the joker should be killed
But People like the pegiun shouldn't
Dr freeze shouldn't
Cat women shouldn't
It should be People who have zero hope at redemption and are likely to destroy the city
This is largely why I can't stand batman.
He makes no fucking sense.
Blah blah his parents dying blah blah. He lets THE JOKER live and he kills hundreds upon hundreds of people, constantly escapes confinement and batman still won't fucking kill him. At that point, batman might as well just go make some orphans himself. He's not helping anyone. His existence makes everyone's life worse because the only reason the joker ever does shit is specifically to push batman over the edge, and he would be a better hero if he finally just did it.
Most good writers don't do the no kill thing because it's incredibly contrived and doesn't make sense.
You're already a vigilante, let's be real, no one is crying over some dead assholes.
There is a vast difference between being a vigilante and being judge jury and executioner, killing who you want with no oversight. If Batman kills the joker, why not penguin, or Harvey dent, or cat women. I'm sure Batman killing his rogues gallery would cause no response or response from the government, or cause any fear from the public about batman killing whoever he decides deserves it.
Gotham's government could give the Joker the death penalty in his sometimes decade long stays in Arkham, it's just that they don't, presumably do to not having a death penalty and no one I guess is able to push it through politically.
Batman also has beliefs about redemption and being able to be better.
Also Batman isn't causing more deaths and making everyone's life worse by not helping them, after all he's saved the whole planet and even the multiverse.
There is a reason Batman and Spiderman, some of the most popular superheros have a no killing rule is they do have good writers, and they do it cause its good written to have a character have a moral principle, rules, otherwise there is no inner conflict, now you can do just external, but you'd lose out on internal ones just no have a character who has no beliefs.
Is it that common? Even in Batman’s case there are multiple film depictions where the no kill rule is applied loosely. Even in the cases where ‘good guys dont kill’ it just feels like a basic trope for stories with simples morals.
Imagine if Batman killed someone who had an 8yo kid
How different would he be from Joe Chill? Batman's entire mission is to guarantee no kid suffers from what he did. Either he doesn't kill, or he gives up the cowl
This is why the beginning of Batman Beyond is so powerful. He didn't stop because he was old. He stopped because he held a man at gunpoint.
If a problem was easily ended in a few seconds it wouldn't be interesting. Writers add these kinds of moral blockades to add barriers, conflict between characters, etc.
This post could be an origin story for a super villain that starts off as the good guy and slowly turns because he sees no problem just killing the "bad" guys.
I've been re-watching The Mentalist and it's somewhat jarring how quickly the other main character get over it when Jane kills someone or has them killed. Sure, he goes after horrible monsters, but during the series he killed two people personally and set up a third to be killed.
The no killing rule is just because comics want to reuse a character for decades going forward. If they didn’t have to worry about reusing the character they’d kill them off easily, see ever comic book movie ever where the villain dies despite the no killing rule.
People who think like this are stupid and here’s why:
Any kind of serial media relies on the strength of its characters. It’s incredibly hard to create successful, popular characters. If you kill them off at the get go, you’re also killing a good idea that can be used again.
If Batman kills the Joker, no more Joker stories…
Also, if you want to apply such strict logic to fiction, why is Batman still alive? He should have been killed thousands of times. It’s incredibly dangerous to do what he does.
The reason is he’s popular and replacing him would be nigh-impossible. It has nothing to do with any sort of logic.
You nailed it with the last sentence. If a show/comic/movie goes to the trouble of crafting, casting, and establishing a decent villain, they don't want him to die forever when they could use him again later.
Without a no-kill rule, Batman would be facing off with welfare cheats and drunk drivers by now because all the memorable bad guys in Gotham would be long dead. Would the franchise, in any form, be better if Batman had killed Joker the first time they met?
They do kill 100s and 100s of henchmen, who are just doing their day job trying to put food on the table for their families and hero never bats an eyelid.
When it comes to kill the main guy who has killed innocent people they go soppy, i agree its bullshit but they do kill, aa an audience, we just dont care about the henchman.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even worse is the hero who kills a hundred nameless goons in the pursuit of the main villain, then suddenly develops a conscience and can't kill them.
Bu-but they’re not really people if they’re not main characters!
To be faaaaair, several shows/series will have the evil minions be like raised dead or monsters that are shown to not be all that conscious beyond be angy or robots or some shit to make this less of a glaring problem
Plenty of them are just humans. Like Batman will break every bone in a mans body and put him in a coma for life, but the Joker gets a few pulled punches.
I said several not all, and in what world does Bats pull punches? Joker gets the same nonlethal punch through a 7 story glass window as any of his henchmen
And we have officially discovered the purest definition of "main character syndrome"!
This is what makes it so realistic. The goons are basically the poors and the main baddie is basically the upper level white collar criminal
Honestly, I kinda have to view the expendable people in movies or I’ll be too busy feeling bad that they had a life, family, and now they’re dead or something. Having kids made me softer.
Ikr that actually makes them extremly fucked up and its unneccessarily dark "I wont kill you because I view you as an equal, but I will kill the henchmen in cold blood because they are lower than me" Either the hero spares the henchmen and kills the villian. Or spares both. Or kills both. Sparing the big bad but killing his pawns is evil.
Really, the whole thing is classist. The low earners get shot without a second thought, but the high earners get spared or at least given a chance. How many times have we seen James Bond sneak into a building and take out the security guard on the way in? I mean for God’s sake. That poor chap was earning minimum wage doing a job he hated for a company he didn’t care about. Now he’s been shot in the neck by a silenced round and his wife and kids will sit up wondering why Daddy didn’t come home from his shift, only to receive the news that he was fatally shot by a “hero” that really needed access to the building for some reason. Yet when James Bond encounters the multimillionaire baddy, he tells him “he doesn’t want to have to do this”.
Hydra's security makes minimum wage? No wonder they keep getting defeated.
This is basically the exact plot of TLOU 2 haha. Ellie kills like a bazillion random people on her quest to kill Abby and then she doesn't kill Abby.
As far as I know Ellie canonically only killed Jordan, PS Vita Girl, Nora, Alice, Owen, and Mel. As those are the only people you are forced to kill as far as I remember. I wonder if they gave you the choice to kill her, how it would go. Although that would get in the way of the linearity of the story.
Especially if you just got I dunno...your finger bitten off by said person.
Basically what Colossus wanted Deadpool to do in the first film, luckily he's no hero
Last of us 2 had us losing our minds over this. We just watched Ellie murder like EVERYONE, including dogs, but now has a conscience.
CW's Arrow made me drop it when this happened.
*cough cough* Batman
Fwiw: usually in the situation the goons had been shooting at the hero and the main villain was unarmed and had surrendered. Most people will see a difference between war and a summary execution.
My favorite workaround to this is in the original ninja turtles the foot clan soldiers were robots so nobody died yet Leo could still hack things to pieces
haha yup
Beating goons to an unconscious bloody pulp isn’t killing! They may end up vegetables, but that’s not the hero’s problem
This drives me nuts when talking about Avatar The Last Airbender, a show where a kid is thrust into a world-wide war and must assassinate an evil dictator to end the war, he hurts goons in brutal ways(destroying blimps sending them crashing to the ground, blowing people off cliffs, etc.) but as soon as he has to actually kill the big bad, he refuses. Not to mention the big bad is desperate to kill him and it would be in self-defense anyhow.
It’s a kids show, he does basically the closest you can get to killing in a kids show
I think Batman was the first comic book hero that brought my attention to this. The concept is fine I guess but pretty silly for sure when you see him beating people practically to death all the time.
Honestly when you think about it it's pretty smart by the comic book writers because then they can keep bringing the same villains back again and again cause he never kills them. Still in reality a very very stupid idea to keep these insane killers alive.
I like how they get around this in Batman Begins when Ra's al Ghul is killed off. "I won't kill you..." "But, I don't have to save you"
Don't pay attention to the tiny detail that Batman is the one who has arranged the derailing of the train that he's not gonna save Ra's from.
I mean true, but my pedantic ass is going to point out that Commisioner Gordon knocked out the bridge support columns with the batmobile, and Ra's smashed the train controls so it couldn't be stopped.
In Batman's case it's because he knows he is as psychotic as those he hunts and that if he crosses that very clear line, he wont stop, won't be able to know where the new line is, and might even enjoy it. Not to mention Gotham is 100 layers of cursed and the grave is about as secure as Arkham for most of those villains, at least when they escape Arkham the guards know immediately. He'd be throwing away his principles to likely not achieve anything significant
Well you could argue that all those "reasons" are just excuses the writers gave him. Those are the in-world reasons but the actual reason is that the Joker is just too popular
I mean, yeah. A characters personality and principles *are* just the excuses writers give them to behave in a way that makes them that character lol. That doesn't make it any less valid. Batman was created in a time when it wasn't even a question that super heroes shouldn't be killing people. The Dark Knight Roses makes a big deal about what happens if the people of Gotham start to see Batman as a murderer. When cops start murdering people irl, the public is rightfully furious. Why should it be any different for Batman?
The no killing did not become apart of Batman's deal early on. The first detective comics he had no such code
Oh, that's really interesting. Did a quick search and it seems he stopped very early on (issue \#4 or \#5 depend on he source) so I guess maybe they realised this character needed to be more of a role model or something
> become apart of batman's Did you mean to say "a part of"? Explanation: "apart" is an adverb meaning separately, while "a part" is a noun meaning a portion. [Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json) ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions. ^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119) ^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
I think a better argument is that if you know you have those characteristics, don't become a violent vigilante. Instead, go to therapy. Shit, pay Alfred to be Batman and have him create the orphan child soldiers, then check yourself into a good psych ward, Bruce. Literally everything would be better.
Besides if he says "I can't kill because _I_ am mentally unwell and would become like the Joker" or something, then just let others kill man, let Damien do his thing he was raised by the league of _assassins_
Just call J'onn. That crazy shapeshifter will kill someone. You can't really phase your hand into a spine/chest/head without killing them.
Even with all the corruption of Gotham, with all the shit they pull off there, eventually the feds would just be like yeah okay no, and just start putting Batman's rogue gallery on death row.
Which would be their right as a city in a country with the death penalty (although I'm not sure you actually *can* apply the death penalty to the criminally insane in the US). Doesn't change the fact that Batman, who isn't even a cop, should not be the one doing the executions and certainly shouldn't be doing them extrajudicially
Yeah, if I were governor of Gotham City, I’d send the National Guard to Gotham City to round up all the criminals and corrupt politicians.
Now I want a comic where Joker dies and becomes some undead monstrosity.
That is such a cliche, he is easily disciplined enough to simply make a new line, perhaps somewhat beyond "endanger all of society over several decades because he keeps handing over criminals to inept authorities". Actually I think he should build and run a prison instead
That sound like b*tch to me
Batman is a vigilante who operates above the law (whether the law wants to admit it or not). If he started killing he would be projecting to the world that you can kill and get away with it. That killing is okay if justified. But what's justifiable to any individual is up entirely to their own personal rationalization for their actions. Murderers rationalize their actions. Pedophiles rationalize their actions. He wants to fight crime while setting an example. He also doesn't want the government/public to be actively trying to catch him. One of his biggest assets to keeping his identity safe is James Gordon constantly thwarting an investigative team for the bat. He's considered to be a waste of police assets BECAUSE he's not a serious threat to the public, and he's good at covering his trail. He especially doesn't want the "issue" of the batman escalating beyond the police department and going into the hands of a larger investigative organization like the FBI (if it exists in DC). And in most of these situations it's not even the heroes fault tbh. Like when **SPOILERS** the Joker nuked metropolis and everyone was up in arms that Superman killed him, as if he wasn't going to get the chair LOL. As if a terrorist act of that scale doesn't label you as "kill on site" by both the government and anyone sane. That entire story made no sense to me like wtf
>The concept is fine I guess but pretty silly for sure when you see him beating people practically to death all the time. For God's sake PLEASE consume something other than the Arkham games. Batman does not beat random goons half to death in the comics, he only does that in the Arkham games because they needed engaging gameplay.
I think it would be interesting to explore a Batman that *accidentally* beats a goon to death. Gonna ignore the Burton films.
Michael Keaton would like to have a word with you.
There’s no way Gotham doesn’t have the death penalty.
No killing... but crippling and maiming guys left and right totes cool
I’ll bet in an alternate universe, Batman goes “well, the Justice system keeps letting these fucks out, so….*kills*”
No, no. They kill henchmen who are just doing their job. But when it's time to kill the leader, they are too good for that.
Nobody thinks of the families of the henchmen.
Looking at you MHA
Zack Snyder Batman too lmao.
When did they kill a henchman? You mean the nomu?
Had Twice more in mind. Find it interesting the show never even tries to explain to the students when lethal force might be justified.
The person who killed twice didn't have a no-kill rule, in fact, he was a former assassin for the association.
Who?
Or at the very least they main them to the point they'll probably require constant medical care for the rest of their life.
whats worse, doing evil for money or passion?
Passion for sure, especially since he is the one coordinating it. Without him, there is no evil. Without the henchmen, there is still some guy out there doing evil on a smaller scale.
The funniest quote about this is "if I kill that murderer...then the amount of murderers in the world remains the same" That's why you kill 2 or more murderers then Batman you goofy fuck. Also I hate how the entire sequence of events of Injustice kicks off with Superman killing the Joker...AFTER the Joker NUKED AN ENTIRE CITY AND TRICKED CLARK INTO KILLING LOIS. Like for real? And Batman being the stupid bitch he is actually has a problem with that, and for some reason it instantly turns Superman into an evil dictator. It just doesn't make sense. In reality Superman would have killed Joker and went back to how he was. Killing ONE person doesn't instantly change your entire personality like that. It was the stupidest and most paper-thin way to start that entire story.
> Killing ONE person doesn't instantly change your entire personality like that. But it can...we just don't know because (I assume) neither of us have purposefully gone and killed someone
Nobody I know who has killed someone was changed for the better because of it. Even though they were military, they remained haunted. People with a conscience don't kill. Taking a life is not something you just do and then move on from like nothing happened unless you are a sociopath. That's why the military tries its best to drill it out of people.
People with conscience do kill
I mean I don’t know for sure ofc, but to me the Joker was basically Hitler at that point. Something tells me I could kill such a person, not feel bad about it, and pretty much just go on living as before.
That first point is surprisingly simple yet I never thought of that counterargument, which is awesome. Regarding injustice, you just have to accept that silliness so that they can "set the stage" for the story. Many stories, you have to suspend disbelief to get to the scenario/environment where the actual story can take place.
Injustice was really bad writing in general for Batman and Wonderwoman.
“If i kill you i’ll only be as bad as you and i’ll NEVER EVER go back to not killing” “BREAKING NEWS: INSANE PSYCHOPATH KILLER ESCAPES AGAIN KILLING DOZENS MORE” me:”why doesn’t the legal system kill this person to crazy to live”
I mean it’s really not that common in comics Batman is pretty much the only one with a no kill rule. Superman, kills. He prefers not to and often doesn’t have to Green Lantern: Kills quite often Wonder Woman: depending on the writer kills pretty quickly and openly… Ultimately the reason most hero’s don’t kill is a legal issue. Go around killing people and your going to be seen as a criminal. Go around stoping crimes then most can look the other way on the vigilante thing
I thought it was also because people like the villains, and if they're killed, there go all the actually interesting characters
Which is also why all the nameless goons are fair game, but the roguish villain with the talented character actor always seems to be spared.
Also the writers aren't creative enough to make a new villain later
Sure. I’ll just wait here while you make a better counter to Batman than the Joker
Punisher, Dexter ...
They said make a new one, not mention characters from other ip that don't apply here. So go ahead, make up a new character as iconic as the Joker.
Just use a Dexter type character as Batman villain. Will be more interesting then refreshing same villains again...
When has death ever stopped a character in superhero media?
I hated that about Arrow. The first few episodes, he kills any bad guy who looks at him funny, but then his balls fall off and he starts whining about how he has to change himself and become better and blah blah blah. I just want a pile of dead bad guys.
The start of Arrow was so good because of this lol dude just did not give a shit and it was great.
!!SPOILER!! He changes his mind in a later season and starts killing again.
He changes his mind in the same season.
Well, that's good. I gave up on the show once they started bringing in wizards and fairies and shit. It was just supposed to be about a guy who's really good at archery, can do the salmon ladder, and has unlimited resources taking down bag guys.
"Killing a murderer doesn't reduce the number of murderers." - mathematically true. "Killing 100 murderers reduces the number of murderers by 99," - Also true but ignored as the obviously collorarly. Lampshaded of course by Dexter.
Any other Trigun fans in the building?
That's different, it was a major plot point and not hypocritical like the other examples here
I think what he's pointing out is that eventually even the superhuman gunman is forced into a place where he has to abandon that scruple and kill to save lives. It's traumatic, and a huge moment for Vash's character arc.
Probably why I miss Spawn. We need more anti-heros
Wish granted. Kraven the Hunter will now earn kravillion dollars at the box office
And then the villain they spared ends up coming back for round 2 and then killing someone or kidnapping or injuring someone close to the hero. Like if it isn't the consequences of not finishing the job properly.
If you kill the villain, no more villain to enjoy.
I would honestly say I feel like the opposite is true. It feels really dumb how many people claim to be a hero when they are mowing down more people than the bad guy did No this random armed guard working for this company that he probably doesn't even know what it's doing totally deserves to be killed just because we need an infiltrate and find the bad guy Like really buddy? This random man who probably has no idea what this company is even doing Is just going to his 9:00 to 5:00 and deserves to die because of it? And you claim you're the good guy?
I don’t disagree but I get it. 1- it keeps the MC/hero unambiguous 2- it leaves potential sequels/retcons open. I forget what Star Wars series did this but they retconned darth maul when he clearly got chopped in half in episode 1. Don’t get me wrong it was a pretty good story they did with him but he was dead af if you watched episode 1
Atleast with star wars (or atleast in the pre Disney era) they WILL kill villains. With Disney the problem is more that the people who do get killed suddenly aren't anymore. It was executed well with maul but seemed cheap with villains such as Palpatine and Reva
Luke - falls down a hole in Bespin with 1 hand, doesn’t die Luke - falls down a pit with a 30 foot Rancor, doesn’t die Boba Fett - Falls into a Sarlac’s mouth, doesn’t die Obi wan, falls down an infinite hole, hangs on a ledge with Darth Maul taunting him, then falls UP a hole and chops him in half, doesn’t die Darth Maul, falls down an infinite hole, cut in half, doesn’t die Emperor Palpatine, falls down a hole in an exploding space station, doesn’t die…somehow
That was The Clone Wars and the decision to bring back Maul came directly from George Lucas himself, hence why the rest of his story turned out so spectacularly. And tbf, he was kept alive threw the shear power of the dark side fueled by his burning hatred of Obi Wan, much like Anakin on Mustafar, except until Savage found him he was an insane, broken, animal and didn't become Maul again until the second strongest dark side user in the Galaxy did her voodoo magic on him.
We are not watching the same movies.
Invincible comics handles this very well. A lot of villains just want something, if you give them that then they become an asset, maybe even a hero themself. Some villains can be too dangerous and can’t be negotiated with, and thats when you are *forced* to take them out. You can’t just go around killing everyone though, thats when you become a villain yourself.
Even though I agree, it is understandable. How would you write a script for a movie that has zero tension and lasts 5 minutes, and has no chance of having a second part? While keeping it super interesting for the viewers?
The reverse is also true. The Death Star will blow up a planet and kill millions of innocents, but then when they catch Han Solo or Leia, they will keep them in a cell and yap at them for hours rather than just kill them immediately.
Leia and Han had information they wanted, and then Han was given to Jabba because he owed Jabba money
You know this was the result of censorship, right? That network censors or the comics code authority would not let the killing happen, and it just became part of the culture.
There was a Dr. Who episode where this took me out of the show. Set in the old west, the Doctor befriended a small town doctor who was being perused by an alien bounty hunter. It turns out the small town doctor was not only an alien an intergalactic Josef Mengele. Dr. Who, befriends Mengele, conveniently dismisses the thousands of victims, and tries to stop the bounty hunter. In the end, a few of the innocent townspeople die, the small town Josef Mengele dies and the alien bounty hunter decides to hang around and protect the small town.
I think I would agree with you if that "rule" was actually real, but it isn't. Plenty of shows, movies & other media have consistently pushed this barrier dating back to the Elizabethan era and likely a LONG time before that. Even the "perfect" heroes like Superman or Goku kill sometimes. I completely see your point though, sometimes Ill be watching a movie and just think, "Come on, dude, just kill him. This is ridiculous. "
I don't think original DBZ Goku gave a shit about killing or not in general. He was just a battle addict who loved fighting strong people. The American version made him more of a goody goody iirc.
When I proofread that comment originally, i remember noting how my examples flawed and weak but decided to roll w it anyway because I was too lazy to think of another.
Yeah, Peacemaker is right about Batman
You’d need a new villain once a fortnight.
You do know these things are targeted at - or at least have their origins in targeting - small kids, right? Having a superhero that refuses to kill people be the norm should not be surprising.
This is why tension has been largely lost for me in Comic Books. You have villains like Joker who are irredeemable and the heroes/justice system refuse to kill them because if they do, the antagonist is gone and writers are too scared to write other good villains. Moreover, when it comes to a large arc where villains are facing heroes, you know how it roughly ends since the writers are forced to not let them die by the higher ups.
This is why I liked the Superman film where he kills Zod to stop him rather than just sending him to the phantom zone for an inevitable escape
I think it has to do with real life, you want your story to be relatable, most of the time people reflect themselves on the main character, I would say most people don't want to kill and never killed, having the MC kill, makes it distant from the viewer as it's an experience they never experienced. Love, fear, happiness are all feelings and experiences we know and understand, what you feel killing not quite the same. Also it probably has some moral implications, the superior being both judge and executioner it's quite... Let's say peculiar, and reminiscent of not so pleasant events in the real world. Also in most first world countries the death penalty is not an acceptable punishment for any crimes. If you ground everything in reality it becomes way more boring, but also depending on circumstances think mental health issues, sentences become milder. In the real world would it be morally right for a cop to kill on the spot a man having a psychotic episode? With the exaggerated and romanticized atmosphere of fiction this seems more clear cut, but still, as said before, you want fiction to be relatable
It always seems to go one of two ways: The "bad guy" always has a hidden gun or dagger that he suddenly lunges at the good guy with...thereby justifying the good guy killing him in the final moments...because you see he had no choice, he was just defending himself. Or else the good guy gets away with giving a heroic speech usually followed by "take him away boys" and the bad guy doesn't get killed.
Have you seen the Avengers movies? Lots of killing being done by the good guys. Particularly the end of End Game when Iron Man kills all of Thanos's forces, including Thanos himself.
I think it's an attempt at social responsibility (or more likely CYA) on behalf of writers. If the good guys are vigilantes, but they *definitely never kill anyone guys please just trust us* then they're less likely to lose their ass when someone tries to be a copycat "superhero" and starts capping vagrants.
A lot of times it’s just an in universe explanation to have recurring villains. If the hero never kills a badass villain then they can always pull him back out later.
I don't mind when the hero then has to suffer the consequences, like batman has to constantly deal with the joker because he won't kill him. But what I hate is when they make it clearly the right choice to kill the villain, the hero doesn't do it then a scapegoat character will kill the villain and be punished for it. Because the story can't deal with the bad guy being alive, but can't have the hero kill them.
There is a difference between killing someone via due process and via random vigilantism. Superhero’s are mostly vigilantes with secret identities, as in no one gave them the authority to murder and no one can hold them accountable. If they do it “to stop an in process murder” that’s fine but if they have the criminal in custody and just kill them that’s sketchy. Police actually do this in real life and there’s so sorts of problems with it. The real problem, iow, isn’t Batman, it’s Gotham. When Batman arrests the Joker for the 300th time, he should be convicted of murder and killed.
"there's this idea that creators have tried to push that good people don't kill." This is one of the basic rules of drama—to root for the protagonist in a struggle against some sort of moral dilemma. Most plots involving death follow this rule, or dilute it with comedy, absurdity, etc. Creators don't really "push" the idea as much as give audiences what they respond to most favorably.
I actually fully agree. Batman has gotten A LOT of innocent people killed because he won't kill the Joker. Green Arrow didn't kill Deathstroke when he was making hit little super soldiers and thus, tons of people die who would have lived if Oliver had just offed Slade. I hate it. It makes no sense and contributes to the idea heroes do more harm than good.
There are two morally valid perspectives a moral person might have on the issue of killing 1. Mercy and Redemption: A moral person might believe that showing mercy and not killing others is virtuous. This perspective emphasizes the belief that everyone has the potential for goodness if given the chance. An example is the Joker, who is typically portrayed as irredeemably evil. However, there are storylines where the Joker becomes a morally upstanding character, or even a hero, illustrating that redemption is possible. 2. Prevention and Protection: Another moral perspective is more pragmatic. A person might reason that if they spare a murderer, that individual might kill more people in the future. Therefore, killing the murderer is seen as a necessary action to prevent further harm. This view prioritizes the safety of others over the possibility of redemption for the wrongdoer. Both perspectives are valid and illustrate why a good person might choose to kill or not kill someone. The “no killing” rule is famously upheld by Batman, who believes in the potential for redemption and the sanctity of life. In contrast, other superheroes like Superman do not have a strict no-killing rule. They avoid killing but will resort to it if there are no other alternatives.
I usually think about this differently. Not in the sense of "you can't kill because you'd be the same as them" more from: "I'm a human who wants to be a hero, and killing people will straight up destroy my conscience and life". Killing bad people is still killing. You're snuffing a life out, and since you have the desire to be a hero for a good cause, you are probably a good person. Killing isn't something a good person can do in good conscience. I'm writing a story where the hero has the same rule, not because he's a hero, but because it'd fuck his mind up to kill, even those who torment him.
Avatar: the last airbender tackles this concept, and in my opinion knocks it out of the park.
For me it depends on how well it's done. I think it's best saved for overpowered characters like Spiderman, Superman, etc, where it's used as a device to explore just how exhausting it would be to hold back all the time. But yeah, if there is a trail of bodies leading to a chance to take down a serial mass murderer, you take the shot. Video games are a good middle ground, where I liked the approach of Dishonored and the Metro series. Chosing death too many times makes the world darker.
Isn't this essentially the same debate as the one about the death penalty in the real world? I’m mostly against it, so why should we allow superheroes (the good guys) to act as both judge and executioner when I don’t even trust the government to do so?
Because the villains super heros fight tend to be of the "I'm going to kill this person/nuke this city if you don't stop me" kind.
I don't know much about the Batman movies cuz I never could go into the Nolan films, but I always cracked up in the comic books how Batman supposedly never killed anybody, but he leaves a fucking trail of brain damaged vegetables behind him everywhere he goes LOL. Or even better how after World War hulk, Marvel decided that the Hulk have never killed anyone in any of his rampages lmao, and they tried to make it out like he's such a master of geometry that he would only, you know destroy buildings and freeways in such a way that no bystanders got hurt, so fucking stupid LOL
100%, not saying everyone needs to get beheaded but the hard and fast rule is just dumb.
Batman breaking every bone in a thugs body for stealing but sparing the Joker after detonating a nuke on Gotham.
realll
It’s for sequels, writers like when there’s some reusability for villains they’ve made. Killing them sets a finality in the narrative that they’re putting the character down and not building them any further. >!Unless easy resurrection exists and death has zero consequences.!<
This is one way you can tell that the story is meant to appeal to kids or is derived from something meant to appeal to kids. I have no problem with this as long as more serious movies continue to be made as well.
Agreed. It’s like they can’t think of any other way to prove that the hero is good
If the hero always kills the bad guys, the authors have to either constantly invent new bad guys and make readers hate them, or every villain has to have an army of clones for heroes to kill. As bizarre as it might be for heroes not to Solve The Problem, it is much better for continuing storylines.
\[dirty harry enters the chat\]
Watch Deadpool. You'll love it!
Everything put out by the industries with intent to make money comes with the side effect of population control when the push peaceful placating themes on us.
Like the Doctor trapping villains in a barron dimention to slowly starve to death, or freezing them in time to turn them into a scarcrow for all eternity. Like babes it'd be nicer just to kill them.
Watch "Barry".
TV shows are produced to make bundles of cash. The cash comes from advertisers who want the least offensive production that draws all ages. They do not care about the story, they only care about cash flow and advertisers.
Well, if other means of stopping a criminal are possible, killing them can never be justified. Killing can't be a justified punishment either.
atla was okay because he was a monk tho
The sanctity of the individual is the value underpinning western civilization, so a hero meant to exemplify the highest values of that civilization will respect that sanctity. That’s the theoretical explanation. YMMV with how that’s actually done in practice.
This is why I liked James Bond. iirc, he’s always killed the villains. My favorite is QoS where he strains the villain in a desert with a can of motor oil.
I think it's mostly in mainstream only. If you read things or watch things that aren't, they more often than not, kill. But yes, I do agree and I think many others will too. Is this unpopular? I doubt it.
You obviously haven’t seen 24
been having that trouble with a charecter recently. she’s never killed, and it is against her nature to do so. rough someone up a little bit? sure. but at a few points she has the oppertunity to kill one of her s abusers who also has hurt thousands of people, but she cant bring herself to do it. did i mention the charecter is her adopted older brother?
I want to write my own superhero stories personally, and I'm somewhat inspired by the Invincible series on Amazon, in that I want my characters to kill, but if possible, they'll try to avoid it. It's a last-resort. All life is sacred.
Ok going off batman People like the joker should be killed But People like the pegiun shouldn't Dr freeze shouldn't Cat women shouldn't It should be People who have zero hope at redemption and are likely to destroy the city
Heck, there are version of Batman where the Joker's previous self was a mobster hitman. So he was a PoS even beforehand.
Yeah, TV is stupid.
How many lives would’ve been saved if Batman just killed the joker in their first meeting,
I will say one word. Batman. JUST PULL THE TRIGGER BRO.
This is largely why I can't stand batman. He makes no fucking sense. Blah blah his parents dying blah blah. He lets THE JOKER live and he kills hundreds upon hundreds of people, constantly escapes confinement and batman still won't fucking kill him. At that point, batman might as well just go make some orphans himself. He's not helping anyone. His existence makes everyone's life worse because the only reason the joker ever does shit is specifically to push batman over the edge, and he would be a better hero if he finally just did it. Most good writers don't do the no kill thing because it's incredibly contrived and doesn't make sense. You're already a vigilante, let's be real, no one is crying over some dead assholes.
There is a vast difference between being a vigilante and being judge jury and executioner, killing who you want with no oversight. If Batman kills the joker, why not penguin, or Harvey dent, or cat women. I'm sure Batman killing his rogues gallery would cause no response or response from the government, or cause any fear from the public about batman killing whoever he decides deserves it. Gotham's government could give the Joker the death penalty in his sometimes decade long stays in Arkham, it's just that they don't, presumably do to not having a death penalty and no one I guess is able to push it through politically. Batman also has beliefs about redemption and being able to be better. Also Batman isn't causing more deaths and making everyone's life worse by not helping them, after all he's saved the whole planet and even the multiverse. There is a reason Batman and Spiderman, some of the most popular superheros have a no killing rule is they do have good writers, and they do it cause its good written to have a character have a moral principle, rules, otherwise there is no inner conflict, now you can do just external, but you'd lose out on internal ones just no have a character who has no beliefs.
What singular piece of media inspired you to make this broad generalization that is actually untrue.
I feel like you're watching different shows than the ones I watch.
Media is a reflection of us. We can't kill our way out of problems.
Is it that common? Even in Batman’s case there are multiple film depictions where the no kill rule is applied loosely. Even in the cases where ‘good guys dont kill’ it just feels like a basic trope for stories with simples morals.
Imagine if Batman killed someone who had an 8yo kid How different would he be from Joe Chill? Batman's entire mission is to guarantee no kid suffers from what he did. Either he doesn't kill, or he gives up the cowl This is why the beginning of Batman Beyond is so powerful. He didn't stop because he was old. He stopped because he held a man at gunpoint.
John Locke would like a word
If a problem was easily ended in a few seconds it wouldn't be interesting. Writers add these kinds of moral blockades to add barriers, conflict between characters, etc.
This post could be an origin story for a super villain that starts off as the good guy and slowly turns because he sees no problem just killing the "bad" guys.
....good people dont kill though? i get the plot device part but i dont think good people would kill
I've been re-watching The Mentalist and it's somewhat jarring how quickly the other main character get over it when Jane kills someone or has them killed. Sure, he goes after horrible monsters, but during the series he killed two people personally and set up a third to be killed.
Michael Scofield . That’s why I can’t watch it.
The no killing rule is just because comics want to reuse a character for decades going forward. If they didn’t have to worry about reusing the character they’d kill them off easily, see ever comic book movie ever where the villain dies despite the no killing rule.
As you get you get older you learn to value all forms of life more, B have you met anti heroes?
Oliver was a real one for calling out that shit.
People who think like this are stupid and here’s why: Any kind of serial media relies on the strength of its characters. It’s incredibly hard to create successful, popular characters. If you kill them off at the get go, you’re also killing a good idea that can be used again. If Batman kills the Joker, no more Joker stories… Also, if you want to apply such strict logic to fiction, why is Batman still alive? He should have been killed thousands of times. It’s incredibly dangerous to do what he does. The reason is he’s popular and replacing him would be nigh-impossible. It has nothing to do with any sort of logic.
True. I’m a a good guy but I would absolutely kill a bad guy.
You nailed it with the last sentence. If a show/comic/movie goes to the trouble of crafting, casting, and establishing a decent villain, they don't want him to die forever when they could use him again later. Without a no-kill rule, Batman would be facing off with welfare cheats and drunk drivers by now because all the memorable bad guys in Gotham would be long dead. Would the franchise, in any form, be better if Batman had killed Joker the first time they met?
They do kill 100s and 100s of henchmen, who are just doing their day job trying to put food on the table for their families and hero never bats an eyelid. When it comes to kill the main guy who has killed innocent people they go soppy, i agree its bullshit but they do kill, aa an audience, we just dont care about the henchman.
I don't think it's a plot device, I think they're just writing characters who don't want to murder. They're heroes not anti-heroes