Superman

[Set Harth]

Batman kills in most of the Batman films.

 

[YLu]

He explicitly does not kill in the Nolan films. They make a whole big thing about it and everything. And he's not a killer in the recent film either, IIRC.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Well, he won't kill you but he doesn't have to save you.

 

[YLu]

Which, if you think about it, must implicitly be Superman's stance too, since with his powers, literally every moment he's hanging as Clark Kent is one where instead he could be saving someone somewhere.

 

[cooleddie74]

I just finished Black Adam. Superman's cameo at the very end of the film during the closing credits is...interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes.

 

[Dee1891]

You can have him not kill, and still not take him to the extreme you're talking about.
There a big middle ground between the Punisher or Jack Bauer, and Mickey Mouse, and Superman can fit pretty easily into it.Yes it is handcuffing the creative avenues, but by doing that it forces the creators to come up with more interesting solutions than just killing his enemies. The biggest problem is that even if you try to limit it to him killing "only when necessary" is that once you start that, you end up on a slippery slope, and before you know every arc will end with the creator coming up with a situation where it's necessary. Well I think the biggest reason people aren't as bothered by Cap killing, is that he's basically a soldier, and soldiers kill. And then there's the fact that he's a lot more limited in his options, since he's basically just a slightly enhanced normal human, without Superman's invulnerability and with a lot less powers.




He could have covered his eyes, he could have used his superspeed to block them, or he could have brought that part of roof down on Zod.






The problem with trying to take the character back to what he was like in 1938, is that it's not 1938 now, and world, the character, and the way we tell stories has changed a lot in the last 84 years. I'd hate to see any character be forced to be the exact same character they were that long ago, and not be allowed to change with the times.

I agree.

 

[Tosk]

He explicitly does not kill in the Nolan films.

I especially like how in Begins, he refuses to kill a criminal...and then causes a fire/explosion that almost certainly killed several.

 

[Set Harth]

He explicitly does not kill in the Nolan films.

Spoken like someone who hasn't seen them. He explicitly is made to "break his one rule". They made a whole big thing about it and everything. And then he kills in the next film as well. As for the Batman Does Not Kill crowd, they'll always have Clooney.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Spoken like someone who hasn't seen them. He explicitly is made to "break his one rule". They made a whole big thing about it and everything. And then he kills in the next film as well. As for the Batman Does Not Kill crowd, they'll always have Clooney.

Remind me who he kills?

Google says that the many deaths were unintentional or knock on effects, but no actual intentional murdering.

I just watched a clip of the death of two face.

Looks 50/50.

 

[YLu]

Spoken like someone who hasn't seen them. He explicitly is made to "break his one rule". They made a whole big thing about it and everything. And then he kills in the next film as well. As for the Batman Does Not Kill crowd, they'll always have Clooney.

Mea culpa if I'm wrong. It's been ages since I saw those movies. Regardless, my point isn't specifically about that example. Just substitute, I don't know, the Raimi Spider-Man films in my sentence instead*. The point is the general audience is clearly fine with heroes who don't have to kill.

*Now watch, someone's going to remind me that I completely forgot a scene where Tobey Maguire decapitates a fool or something.

 

[Tosk]

*Now watch, someone's going to remind me that I completely forgot a scene where Tobey Maguire decapitates a fool or something.

He pretty much kills the very first guy he ever chases down. They give him the ever-so-slight 'out' of him just not saving him though, so Batman of him.

 

[Set Harth]

Remind me who he kills?

Google says that the many deaths were unintentional or knock on effects, but no actual intentional murdering.

I just watched a clip of the death of two face.

Looks 50/50.

In TDKR he fires a lot of bullets right at the truck and the truck driver dies, I'd call that a kill.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Are there really masses of people who see the super-strong flying due with laser eyes and go, "Plausible," but upon seeing him knock out a villain without killing him decide, "Nope, now this is just ridiculous"?

Readers accepted your "super strong flying dude" occasionally killing--instead of knocking out--regular human villains in the early comics. Those who understood the pointed, easy to understand Man of Steel scene accept him doing it now, save for those trying to permanently handcuff him into a Daddy/Santa position.

but given how popular the Batman films are, clearly the general audience doesn't share your inability to buy into a hero who does not have to kill

...er...

Batman kills in most of the Batman films.

Especially in his film appearances in the 21st century. Who missed that?

I don't see many people saying those movies are just like Super Friends.

Because they are not like that Hanna-Barbera dreck for endless reasons, so audiences would never say that about the great handling of the character in most of his 21st century outings.

 

[Anwar]

He explicitly does not kill in the Nolan films. They make a whole big thing about it and everything. And he's not a killer in the recent film either, IIRC.

No, he doesn't kill directly. He just abandons you to die or gives you coma-inducing brain damage via massive beatings...

 

[Dee1891]

Spoken like someone who hasn't seen them. He explicitly is made to "break his one rule". They made a whole big thing about it and everything. And then he kills in the next film as well. As for the Batman Does Not Kill crowd, they'll always have Clooney.

I do recall Batman refusing to save Ra's Al Ghul's life near the end of "Batman Begins", which would be considered a crime in France. I don't know about the U.S. or other countries. But I don't recall him killing or refusing to save bad guys in the other Dark Knight Trilogy movies. Although, I don't really see the point of this rule. I figured if you're going to be a vigilante who goes after vicious killers and other bad guys, sooner or later you might find yourself being forced to kill someone.

 

[fireproof78]

Works for Black Adam.

Thing is, almost all superhero powers are pretty much magic, you've mentioned Jim Butcher, having never read his works what exactly do you think they should be doing differently with that?

Explain it reasonably. Shazam and Dr. Strange did it well enough. Butcher notes how things works. He doesn't take his audience for granted and assume that "because magic" is good enough.

 

[YLu]

Readers accepted your "super strong flying dude" occasionally killing--instead of knocking out--regular human villains in the early comics.

Nobody said the audience can't accept a Superman who kills. People are just expressing their *preference* for the alternative. The only one here claiming the audience can only accept their preference seems to be you, with your insistence that modern audiences could never buy a superhero who doesn't have to kill, which stuff like the Nolan Reeves Batman shows just isn't true.

 

[fireproof78]

By and large, if the story is well told majority of the audience will be strangely accepting. It's weird, I know.

 

[Guy Gardener]

In TDKR he fires a lot of bullets right at the truck and the truck driver dies, I'd call that a kill.

Bruce Wayne is legally permitted to kill anyone who takes a life insurance policy out with Wayne Mutual.

 

[JD]

I find it a little ironic that pretty much the darkest and most brutal Batman movie, is one where he explicitly does not kill anyone.