ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 พ.ค. 2024
- A comment left behind by @comicfan1324 (thank you by the way) asks the questions who's moral code is the best. We have seen on countless occasions superheroes kill even those who have promised to never do so. We've also seen those heroes uphold the "no kill" standard. With little context, it's a relatively easy question to answer. However, I think context is king.
Let me know in the comments below what code you like the most and which one you want to see your heroes abide by!
All Social Media Links: www.hopp.bio/tyrellmultimedia
Join the Discord: / discord
Rapid Response playlist: • Villains That Could be...
Everything DC Playlist: • Villains That Could be... - บันเทิง
What confuses me about recent interpretations of Batman is that the most brutal, ICU inducing beatings are reserved for random thugs, and those hired guns are never realistically eating solid food or walking again, but the big crime bosses get a punch to the face and a batarang to the wrist. You would think that it’s Penguin himself that would end up in a full body cast, not some no name he paid to guard a door.
That’s funny as shit🤣 and so true
The thugs can actually fight. The crime bosses are mostly some guys in fancy suits.
Though this is what I like about Cass. She enflicts as little harm as possible and only does what is absolutely necessary to take someone out, rarely going too far.
I think I like the Superman interpretation as seen in comic where Joker comes to Metropolis. In one panel Superman says to Joker: '
You've misread this situation. You assume that because you don't know me, there isn't a me to know. But I'm not wearing a mask. I could be anyone, with this symbol, in this cape. I could be totally insane."
In the next one, Superman follows up by saying: "I don't have a code, or a limit, or rules. I just do what I think is right. That's why someone as weak, and frankly, as boring as you, should watch their step around me. Because it could end very, very badly. You smile is starting to look a little forced."
Bro put joker in his place😅
Now that's a badass Superman
i like my heroes who just kill cause thats what you gotta do. as long the hero and the story is entertaining and compelling.
Batman just not killing Joker would be one thing, but the number of times he's gone out of his way to actively save Joker from the consequences of his own actions, including saving him from a vengeful father whose child he tortured, dragging him for days through frozen tundra and even arguing for his life against the actual personified wrath of God it becomes hard to see it as anything but Batman wanting to keep playing with his favorite toy regardless of how much it's going to make everyone else suffer.
Thanks for responding to my question. I think this is a very interesting debate to be had both in and outside of the superhero universe.
I personally find heroes that believe in redemption to such a degree that they will never take a life to be more interesting but that doesn’t mean I dislike characters who are more willing to kill. After all, Captain America is my third favorite superhero and he definitely has taken lives.
Edit: also, I completely agree with the man of steel example. Zod was just as powerful as Superman and there was really nothing. Clark could do besides use lethal force to stop him at that point. Maybe if this was a more experience, Superman come up with other ways to deal with the situation, but in the heat of the moment snapping his neck was the only response he could take. And clearly, Superman regrets that he had to do that which just shows that he is a good person, despite taking a life. I think you could put super, Batman, in that position, and it would be acceptable. although after doing that, I think there should be starch where the heroes have to deal with the guilt of taking a life if they are the type that put themselves on a pedestal of preserving human life
He regrets it so much that he starts smiling in the next scene and forgot about it in BVS
Should kill is an interesting question but it ignores the very real problem of if you kill villains they are dead and your can't use them again
Characters would benefit for having screen time
that could be fixed by ending the stories and staring a new story
@@yarc9 yes i can see that
@@jmgonzales7701 they already reset the continuity every few years and people complain
I prefer killing as a last resort, if something is so powerful that they can’t be imprisoned or rehabilitated. I don’t like the idea of certain heroes not killing because once they do they won’t be able to stop, that makes them seem crazy or derranged to the point they can’t control themselves if they kill? Superheroes use to kill back in the golden age then the Comic Book Code Authority came.
I agree
The "never go back" thing makes a lot of sense. After you do it the first time, it becomes much easier to justify each subsequent time.
"Oh, just the Joker. Not Penguin, Riddler, or Dent."
Now you've killed the Joker. Good job.
Now 'the worst' is someone else. What's the justification to stop at Joker? There is none.
i don;'t think batman lets people like joker live because he subscribes to the same morals that spider-man does, because batman has never outright said "everyone can be redeemed."
For bruce, killing is the one thing that separates batman from the people he tries to put behind bars.
I think that statement was just used as a generalization to place Batman into a specific category of morality.
@@tyrellmultimedia fair enough
I'm down with no kill, but some arcs can only end with death. Like Batman and the Joker. Batman should end his arc as by killing the Joker and retiring as Batman and Bruce reconciling with his own fear of becoming a killer.
i think most his stories should end with most villains dead
I think the argument you made that Batman shouldn’t actively go out of his way to kill people but if something happens, that’s just how it is is a Fairpoint. It’s that whole “I’m not gonna kill you but that doesn’t mean I have to save you” mentality
I think my most baseline level for Batman in particular is that under specific circumstances, he should be willing to kill the very least recognize that he didn’t kill the random thug who tripped off a building, trying to swing at Batman. At that point, the criminal killed himself.
As long as Batman isn’t actively throwing bangs into peoples throats, I think it’s fine. After all, if intentionally started killing people, it would make you start to wonder why he’s willing to kill random henchman, but not the joker.
But then again, I do think there are stories where Batman could be a killer for sometimes but then decide later that he is going to stop killing people. Kind of like in the DCEU. Batman was actively killing people for a while, but eventually realized that he had gone to a dark place and needed to embrace. Hope again. There’s a brilliant story that could be told with that concept.
Dceu batman didnt stop killing😂he also literally threatened the joker in zsjl
Its called not murdering. there is a slight difference between murder and killing.
This is a moral dilemma that has always been prevelant and continues to be a reasonable topic of discussion. Its a very complex topic that I feel gets muddled sometimes and truth be told while I do think heroes like Batman, Superman, and Spiderman shouldn't kill, Im still open and even agree to heroes like Wolverine, Moon Knight, Punisher etc to kill their enemies. Regardless of what character may or not kill, they are still just fictional characters thatdo what the writer wants them to do and I dont think it needs to be taken too seriously to an extent
This.
Agreed. Unfortunately this conversation can bring alot of "rabid" responses and fans. It can be a touchy subject but I'm glad to see comments like this that bring open mindedness and understanding.
2:56-3:26 I've never understood why people hated this scene in Man of Steel so much. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but to me Superman was in a no win situation. Not only is Superman literally just stating out as hero, but Zod was gaining his powers at a frighting pace. Seeing Zod about to kill a family with his heat vision and his pleas being ignored, Superman had to make a decision and quick. So it was either kill Zod or the family would die. He didn't want to risk it, so he chose the former. But the victory is very bitter sweet as Superman screams in anguish as not only did he take a life, he now truly is the last son of Krypton.
Plus is shows that having a no kill rule is, while good to have, can be irrelevant or lead to major consequences in a dire situation like the one Superman was in.
Precisely. And for a character that is supposed to have a profound love for Humanity, he shows it by sacrificing one of his own people for us.
@@tyrellmultimedia Exactly. That's why I'm more laxed on heroes killing to an extent and not as supportive of the no kill rule. Because Spider-man, Batman( Even though their some of my favorite heroes) and other heroes like them can come off as very sanctimonious and in your face about the no kill rule.
Heck they almost did in several storylines Hush and Back in Black respectively. Batman almost kills Joker killing yet another person he knew and Spiderman was going to kill Kingpin if Aunt may didn't survive her injury.
@@tyrellmultimedia you clearly have limited understanding of superman. If you were competent you would understand what i mean when i say that but seeing some of your videos i doubt that
Killing is something very serious and dangerous. I believe that Batman Superman Spider-Man and other heroes like them don’t believe that they’ll be able to control their violent urges if they let themselves go down that path. They believe in rehabilitation and in a lot of cases that has worked out. Clayface, Harley Quinn etc. I don’t feel very comfortable with those heroes killing because they have thought me the importance of empathy kindness and forgiveness and to see them throw that away just to make their lives easier isn’t something that I would ever want to see. However there has to come a point where a superhero has to put their foot down and realise that someone like Joker needs to die. Superman in Man Of Steel had no other choice but to kill Zod. We see him realise in that moment that Zod will never stop. Zod has lost the last chance of protecting Krypton and he has nothing else to lose. He has dedicated himself to destroying humanity and killing millions if not billions. Superman had to kill Zod and it isn’t an easy choice for him. He regrets it and is in deep pain because of it. Superman never wanted to kill anyone. He believes in the sanctity of life human of non human but there has to come a point where you have to decide between killing one person or dooming an entire species.
It's an interesting matter that I often discuss with my friends. Personally, I stand between the first and second option, and I have several reasons to do so.
My opposition with the fourth option is that I believe violence can only breed more violence, and it becomes a never-ending cycle. I've seen criminals become more ingenious and violent in response to police's actions, and that's true for most heroes. Just ask yourself the following questions: how many rogues Gotham City had before Batman? If someone as monstrous and chaotic as the Joker appeared as a response to him, how would Red Hood's villains be?
And it doesn't stop with Batman, other heroes (and villains) also were indirectly responsible for the appearance of their rogues. Lex Luthor (though he was already a horrible person) wouldn't be so maniac should Superman never appear. Venom wouldn't be so butthurt if Spidey didn't rejected him, and consequently Cletus Cassidy would've never come in contact with a symbiote. Nazis made Magneto into who he is, which in turn provoked (alongside other evil mutants) humanity to produce the Sentinels.
I'm not shaming them for it; they did what they thought was right, and at the time their actions wielded results. However, eventually crime adapted and worsened as a response, and should they respond with violence, it'll keep becoming more violent as long as it's worth it. In the psychological aspect, those more prone to crime are those who have more difficulty thinking long-term and balancing risk-reward of their actions, so in some cases not even death scares them off.
And since we tackled the issue of death, how many villains came back after seemingly dying (and sometimes dying for real), be it literally or in the form of successors? Both Marvel and DC have well-known ways of returning to the land of living (Lazarus' Pits, Green Doors, cloning, machinations of a deity of death, time travel, etc), so should their heroes kill knowing full well their adversaries can come back at any moment?
I come from a religion where people reincarnate several times until they achieve perfection, so I believe no one is gone forever. Therefore, there's no point in ending a life early when the person may be able to change should the right conditions be met (even if it involves near-death experiences), allowing them to learn as much as they can in one single life.
However, I do agree there are a few, restricted situations where death is the only possible way. As it was said, there are people who don't want to change no matter what you do, and scenarios where the death of someone may come to the immediate benefit of the rest of the world or to cease the threat they pose (at least for some time). But those who find another way during those dark hours are the most clever and/or noble of us all instead of naive or stupid, and should be acknowledged as such.
10:19 - I actually really like this video and the conversation of the whole no kill rule. I was recently aiming to draw up a character and I was thinking about the rule and how practical it was to truly implement to him and if he was going to follow a set of rules then what would the guidelines be and I feel like the ideology of Captain America and Green Arrow have in regards to the rule is the most realistic for him.
While I don't think he'd blame Batman or Spiderman nor would he try to argue those points with them since they've already made their stance on the matter. What good is arguing with someone like Batman over it when his morals have been tested multiple times to no change, with that said while he wouldn't blame them he'd question Gotham or NYC's lack of involvment in handling those types of villains where the no kill rule applies.
I've personally always had the belief that no one ever has the right to take another person's life, so Batman's no kill rule has always been super appealing to me. However, I totally understand why other people might disagree and it's an interesting issue to explore through the medium of storytelling.
7:48 and considering his shield and what it does yeah I call bullshit that no one was ever killed by cap both directly and indirectly.
Question, why is it that people always have debates over Batman and Superman killing vs non killing and yet no one ever messes with Wonder Woman and her killing and there are no debates about it, and if there are why is it not as prominent as the talks about them by comparison?
I’m interested in this question being answered.
To make a real world comparison can police men fight crime without killing?
Don't get me wrong.
Some cops will go their entire carreer without actually having to fire their gun once.
And i don't believe cops should shoot to kill.
But the reality is that cops deal with criminals.
Dangerious people.
If for instance a criminal shoots at a cop.
And the cop shoots back and hits the criminal in his shoulder.
The criminal doesnt die on the spot but later in the hospital.
I think superhero's should not kill.
But its kinda inevitable to do that kind of work without killing.
These DC Villains In My Opinion Are Sympathetic/Redeemable/Honorable/Affably Evil/Tragic/Having Standards/Willing To Team Up With The Heroes Like Scarecrow, Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, Killer Moth, Parasite, Atomic Skull, Clayface, Killer Croc, Cheshire Cat, Knockout, Firefly, Kite Man, Solomon Grundy, Gentleman Ghost, Shade, Metallo, Captain Cold, Heat Wave, Weather Wizard, Mirror Master, Golden Glider, Clock King, Rag Doll, Cheetah, Man Bat, Toyman, Malcom Merlyn, Plastique, Blockbuster, Captain Boomerang, Deadshot, El Diablo, Killer Frost, Black Manta, King Shark, Copperhead, Bizarro, Giganta, Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Chemo, Bloodsport, Livewire, Silver Banshee And Bane
I feel that for Batman, there should be more than just "He who fight Monsters should take care not to become one" as to why he never kills, like maybe it's also tied to his relationship with the police, and should he start crossing the line then Gordon will have the go-to to hunt Bats down, along with the fullest extent of the law. It can be combined with the childhood trauma reason.
Same with Spider-Man, because with how much JJ has smeared his name, there can be some citizens and officers who really believe that Spidey's a menace, and seeing how he's already towing the line in his career as a "glorified vigilante" it makes it all the more important that Spidey never crosses the line to killing.
I feel like the "reputation to uphold" aspect as to why heroes don't kill isn't talked as much, at least regarding to some heroes except maybe Superman. Maybe because it just isn't as interesting as "He who Fights Monsters".
Fax
I have actually thought of that.
My thought that always comes to mind is how has joker not gotten the death penalty yet or any other of those similar types of villains
I think it depends on the context of the hero
Heroes are more concerned about the villains than the people they are supposed to protect
Thank you so much for making this video finally someone gets it.
Just wanna point out, the comment has Wondie's stance wrong. She's like cap and GA. only kill when necessary. Hell, she won't even throw a punch if she believes talking it out could work
Also, the killing thing is also a legal issue. Not just moral. Like, the only reason Gordon allows Batman to work in Gotham is BECAUSE Bruce isn't killing people. He allows the cops to still process these criminals, allows the justice system to still decide their fate. Allows THE PEOPLE. To decide. It is NOT EVER his or any other hero's responsibility to kill. And when they do, they should be willing to defend their actions in court without a mask, if only to prove that they're different from the OTHER costumed killers. Hell, they'd probably get away with it, or only get a very small punishment, but they still should, because its already hard to trust someone without a face. It is unrealistic to think the cops wouldn't look into this and be concerned (y'know since we're talking about what's "realistic" or whatever). Diana can do this because she IS "Diana of Themyscira". That is public knowledge. Batman can't just turn himself in. In injustice, in the What-If where he killed joker instead of Clark, we see him literally unmask and turn himself in, serve a jail sentence.
(Most marvel heroes are also public so like they genuinely can just be like "yeah, I did it, he would've killed me to, and everyone in the city")
Great video. Liked your take on this!!
I think Spidermans rule is the best. He wont kill but WILL put you down if you're just too much a threat or go after his family where he has no choice. Kingpin, Carnage and Green Goblin are all exempt from his no kill rule. The every day mugger, bank robber and even some murderers can be rehabilitated. But the ones who make it a business, get sick pleasure from it or their mind is shattered beyond repair. Those guys gotta go. The ones that flat out say "I will NEVER stop" should automatically be written off as too dangerous to be left alive. Heck, Spiderman has actually adjusted his rule to kill by proxy. Goblin was impaled by his own glider because Spiderman dodged it in a specific way. He could have webbed it up or caught the glider, but he didnt. Venom in the ultimate timeline stepped on an exposed power line that peter knew was there. He did nothing to keep venom away from it.
I think a "no kill" rule is a good one.
It adds depth to the heroes struggle. If they truly string they should be strong enough to save. Killing is easy.
Also, does might make right? What authority do they have? For instance, in the real world if a person took justice into their own hands what moral authority gives them to right to exercise their own justice. I think it's disingenuous and frankly immature to think that killing just because is ok.
However, with that said, what about self defense? Was there really no other way? Why can't there be a judicial system within the superhero community that investigates?
I think more can be done to explore it.
Also, I think that Batman is responsible for those that Joker has killed. He's becoming more and more permissive as time passes. He is slowly surrounding himself with criminals and stone cold killers (Selina, Harley, Jason, Damian, etc). I think he needs to have his feet held to the fire once in a while.
I think all 4 have a place and a mixture is what keeps things interesting but I love characters that try to see the best in people if it’s wrong or right.
Punisher and red hood all the way
Yes, I prefer versions of Batman kills because gives criminals more fear. He doesn't need to use guns but the idea that criminals in Gotham realize that Batman isn't playing games anymore. Maybe he let's criminals who give information alive only to be killed by their gang because Batman only let's rats live or something, similar to how in BvS Batman branded human traffickers so they would be killed later. It makes sense for an older version of Batman to do it because he might start out optimistic but eventually realize nothing is changing. Killing makes him more morally gray and would create a discussion in Gotham about whether he is right or wrong because crime is decreasing.
i think batman is ok to kill like an accident of some sorts but i don't think he should murder or actively seek for the kill shot.
Wouldn't Batman killing beat the purpose of his whole character tho?
Congratulations, you like Punisher in a funny suit.
@@bread5384 no, as I explained, he starts out as a young man who refuses to kill on principle but as he gets older and more frustrated with the criminal justice system he decides to put criminals down. His no kill rule is flawed and he would see that over time. It doesn't ruin his character it gives him change over his life. There's no reason for people like the joker to be kept alive.
@@bread5384 yes. But its time for evolution.
6:10-6:39 I suppose you have a fair point, but if I remember Batman's motive for sticking to that code as ironclad as he does, he's concerned that if he's willing to break it for a severe case (like Joker), he might become more willing to do it for any reason. In short, he's protecting himself from becoming like Red Hood or Punisher by not killing at all. As for why Gotham doesn't institute a death penalty for cases like Joker, that is a separate discussion.
Of course and I definitely understand his reasoning, given certain circumstances.
2:36 I agree, it could lead to good fights in a story and good character development
I don’t think most heroes should kill. It might be a last resort option for characters like Wonder Woman, but only a last resort. Characters like Punisher who do kill criminals are not heroes. And Batman should never kill. Ever. His worst fear would be becoming the kind of person he works tirelessly to protect Gotham against.
The only time I could see heroes actually breaking the rule of “no killing” is when they have no other option available to save the lives of the many means sacrificing the few. In Batman’s case killing the Joker would really save a lot of lives in Gotham considering he has the highest body count, but on the other side of the coin he feels that even in death the joker would win since someone as supposedly incorruptible as him would be considered no different than him.
Superman is the ultimate guy to not have a no kill rule in the first place the only time he actually broke it is when he had to fight against an unstoppable monster like doomsday to the death when he realize there was no other way if you allow this monster to continue then the lives of billions would’ve been on his head, now some would argue about his logic during the injustice universe but as I’ve always stated that the reason he was forced into that kind of position was because of Batman since he killed the joker but not just that he refused to be by his side when he did his best friend, the closest thing to a brother, he had on his shoulder to help him when he needed him the most. Even Superman‘s adopted father Jonathan Kent explains that to Bruce that was he needed was a friend and someone that can’t understand him not what he had done too him.
Now i’m not saying that every single hero should kill the villain but when the situation comes right down to it sometimes it is necessary but only as a last resort is the situation in the lives are on the line you can’t take the risk.
I think "the last resort" option needs to be explored more often. I think it offers a lot of depth in character and story.
If ya want an example of redeeming someone at the expense of everyone else going horribly wrong, I recommend Plutonian and Qubit from Irredeemable. The Plutonian is a Superman gone bad and Qubit is a Doctor Who expy trying to redeem him. Despite being unwilling to kill Plutonian, he is more than willing to let countless others die or even dispose of those who get in the way of his attempts to redeem Plutonian. By the end, Qubit acknowledges his own hypocrisy, since while he is not responsible for Plutonians murderous rampage, his unwillingness to accept how far gone his friend was effectively enabled this behavior.
BTW Has there ever been a Batman comic where a police officer tries to shoot Joker and Batman stops them, which ends up getting that officer and others killed later on? Because that policeman is legally qualified to take that kind of action, whereas Batman is an illegal vigilante operating outside of the law.
I would say only when absolutely necessary. And by that I mean, absolutely necessary to stop the villain from doing something horrible in that situation at that time. For instance, if the hero sees the villain pull out a gun on a cop and the only way to stop him from pulling the trigger is a lethal strike against the criminal, then thats justified(one might even say its unjust to not do it in those circumstances). I would also see it as just if it were the only way to stop a murderer from getting away, knowing that they are going to murder(or something else basicly as horrible as that, like rape) again.
However, I dont think its just for a hero to murder a defeated villain because the hero knows his dangerously evil history.
Using lethal force to stop a very dangerous villainfrom doing something horrible is one thing. Outright murdering someone because you know theyre evil as something else.
I feel like Batman would learn not to kill then see the way he is treating criminals in like an arkham story line and see that he is doing more damage than good and becomes less brutal and like spider man will leave the criminals in like a stunned postion thats how you handle the no kill rule with controdicting it with batman being brutal
I feel like they should only kill if it's a one shot character and what do I mean by one shot character is one of those characters that appear once and only once and never again after that because everybody in comic books has died at some point both the heroes and villains nobody's death in comic books are permanent unless of course the plot requires them to be dead like Uncle Ben
My discord got hacked again I’m just going to delete the account and I’m making a new TH-cam because this account is linked with all that weird server invite stuff now I thought it was my friends bot but I was wrong I just got hacked. I think I might have gotten token grabbed after reviewing the events.
I like your points about Batman but it had me thinking, if Batman were to kill what kind of affect would that have on Gotham PD and could that ruin his relationship with Gordan? In a way his code does hold him back but at the same time I don't think we would feel this way if Joker didn't keep escaping. If think about it it's highly unlikely that somebody could escape as many times as the joker has, so I feel like that's on the writers for going there too many times. Plus why does Batman have to be the one to kill him, like you said he should have already gotten the electric chair. I love the character but I think it's truly time to let another rogue mess with Batman and go into Arkham Asylum. And STAY in Arkham! Unless it serves to a big picture in a video game or movie, not another issue that they can just write one week to ditch it all together the next week.
The way see, all of our actions will be meaningless in a few years, so in the end, the result doesn't matter to much. But the person you were in each situation is permanent. If you kill, whatever the reason, you will always be a killer. The choice isn't between results, but actions.
I believe spiderman and Batman believe in the same thing. They don't want to be the same type of people who killed they love ones, and i agree with them.
You know I honestly think heroes should kill when absolutely necessary captain america and green arrow and also there will always be good and bad people that kill I mean think about it in real life in our worlds military they have no choice to kill because their not that well trained like batman nor are they as smart as him either and both good and evil are 2 things that can't be separated from each other and when it comes to batman using guns I only want to see him use guns on the batmobile and batwing but if he does use guns like pistols assault rifles shotguns rocket launchers and mell weapons like swords kifes axes hammers then build up to it only because I don't want to see batman carrying and toading guns, I want to Kung fu fighting martial arts batman
I agree with killing is sometimes necessary, but, consider this batman is a vigilante if he kills the bad guys he would go to jail for murder.
You could probably get away with, "he acted in self defense"
The Reality is this. The Environments of each of the Characters mentioned raised them. "Daredevil" Matt Murdock for example is a Lawyer whose father was killed. Plus, he's a Catholic. "Spider-Man" Peter Parker was a regular Young Man whose uncle was murdered. He's not gonna be too keen on killing. "Batman" Bruce Wayne trained to learn Self-Control. He watched his parents get gunned down. He has Mental Health issues. Killing is the easy route and would possibly lead to The Batman Who Laughs. "Wonder Woman" Diana is a trained Warrior. "Captain America" Steve Rogers was a Soldier. Wolverine aka Logan aka James Howlett has been in all sorts of Black Ops operations. "The Punisher" Frank Castle was an Elite Marine. The one that is very questionable is "Red Hood" Jason Todd.
a bit ranty here but I really don't get why people want batman to kill the joker so badly, his only job is to just punch criminals and the cops do the rest
"the joker will run around free if he doesn't kill him" his not??? he's not an idiot?? why would he let the joker run around if he's a dang criminal??
"the joker would always get out of prison" then that's the prison cell's problem not his??
idk this batman should kill the joker bothers me so much cuz people kinda miss the whole picture
also the joker is just a street villain?? even others want him to be a universal treat for some reason and I'm pretty sure other superheroes can take him
Are you sure you want Batman to kill? When he does, he beats people to death with his bare fists. It's hard to see that and still call him a hero.
There has 2 be a difference between heroes & villains. But Batman def needs 2 kill the Joker.
5:51 i don't think that's fair at all. He has already shown the ability to capture Joker and hand him over to the police.
That ability was never in question. The problem is needing to repeat that process over and over and over and over again.
@@tyrellmultimedia yeah but that problem is not realistic in any sense. That's my issue with the no kill rule argument, it is entirely unrealistic. Joker would not be escaping Arkham like it has a revolving door. I think it is important to point out that while not killing anyone is not viable in real life, having supervillains escape every single time is also not realistic at all.
Ok but that is the literal given circumstances of the fictional world of comic books. Villains escaping incarceration is quite a regular thing. It might not be relalistic for us but it is given the context of the world we're dealing with her, thus creating this conversation and making it viable.
@@tyrellmultimedia but another factor to consider is that within the context of their fictional universe, death is ultimately pointless as Joker will come back or just be replaced. Take a look at punisher, everyone prefers his method but i haven't read a single comic book where he actually succeeded in making the world a better place. This is because the only people that he actually kills are fodder guards. Kingpin and Jigsaw are still kicking. The same issue is with Redhood. I think that if Batman starts killing people, since within the context of their fictional universe that bad guys will just be replaced or come back, the only result would be the loss of Batman's spirit and soul gor a vain attempt at keeping Gotham city safe which will ultimately be pointless.
@@tyrellmultimedia There is actually zero evidence, even within their universe that death is the solution to the problem. This is my issue. All Redhood does is kill fodder. People get mad at Batman for beating the ever living shit out of Guards, but Jason just kills them. Why is it that when Batman beats people, that's when the readers remembers that these people are human beings too. When Jason kills them, the readers forgets it.
I don't think red hood fits the same morality as the punisher. I know a lot of people see Jason todd as DC's punisher, but I disagree with this view, jason todd has certainly shown much more mercy than frank has and has left people alive. A good example is when he shot the penguin with a blank. Some writers make frank out to be a rabid dog who will kill someone for the smallest offence and I don't think jason is the same way. I don't think jason's gonna kill someone for jaywalking. I think Red Hood's ending in injustice 2 demonstrates this, where he's not on batman's side because he feels that some bad people do deserve to die, but he's also not on superman's side because he's not a fan of government authority.
As for me, I think I share the same moral opinion that you do. I've always felt that the best morality is the balance between daredevil and the punisher. Showing mercy to someone who can be redeemed, but using lethal force against someone who's just too far gone or shows absolutely no sign of redemption. I know that may seem simple, and it's very situational, but morality is not as black and white as people might think. There are more than two sides to choose from.
It is a very slippery slope that when a Hero starts to kill, because it is a narrative line that has been crossed and it will become a feat that many readers and fans will never forget about it. Then it will become an argument for that Hero to start killing his villains or criminals, but perhaps for some fans perhaps will argue that the character has forever changed in a direction that doesn’t reflect the character they like, but there even the other fans that simply don’t care about the moral compass of the Hero and just like the imagine of that Hero taking a life. It is a very heavy topic of Hero killing their criminals and villains and it is a conversation that will have hundreds of thousands of different opinions that have many merits to them, and each one of them has their objectives and ideals that reflects on the readers point of view.
Superheroes killing is a cheap and lazy way to write a story it shows the character is weak & always seeks to take the easy way out. Why do you think the dynamic between Batman and joker works??
I think it's quite the opposite of "cheap and lazy". The point isn't to have these characters kill 24/7 but it's to have them make tough decisions in times where their options are severely limited or they simply have no options at all. It's a last case scenario that benefits all. And you could argue the Batman/Joker dynamic doesn't work and people have been questioning it for years now.
@@tyrellmultimedia To me it's an excuse to turn SUPERHEROES into generic edgy criminals & quite frankly hypocrites, if batman starts using guns he's automatically a different character cuz he contradicted the whole reason why he became batman in the first place. The only hero i accept killing somewhat is wonder woman seeing as she is a trained warrior princess
3:03 No. The kill wasn't necessary. He killed because he could. What should he have worried about? Surely not the innocents, cause if that was the case he wouldn't be in Metropolis, or on earth. There is always a way to avoid killing.
This is a comment I won't entertain. If you can't see the clear cut reasons why Superman did what he had to do, it's because you simply deny yourself the ability to see it.
@@tyrellmultimedia He had to do it because the writers wanted that to happen. It is simply bad writing.
They shouldn't have started with Zod. That was the first mistake. They begun not wanting to write a proper Superman story.
If they really wanted him having to choose to kill someone, it should have been in a sequel. Not in his first movie. Maybe the third.
There are other ways it could've ended, had they been creative and not written themselves in a corner.