DC/WB Films/Worlds (No Spoilers)

[Frontier]

Don't really want to comment too much on the whole killing debate but I have to say this is one of my favorite scenes in any superhero movie ever. You can feel the pure rage from Stark here. Another great scene is when he first breaks out of prison and murks everyone trying to stop him. Iron Man having a no-kill rule never made sense to me even in the comics and the MCU version feels more true to what a guy like Stark would be then early 616 who often felt constrained by comic book tropes and codes

I feel like personally I would prefer someone in Iron Man's position to be careful with their lethality rather than get a free pass to kill with impunity...

[charliehustle415]

I feel like personally I would prefer someone in Iron Man's position to be careful with their lethality rather than get a free pass to kill with impunity...

exactly, yes Stark kills, but he doesn't shoot wildly into a populated area.

As opposed to...

[Tofali]

exactly, yes Stark kills, but he doesn't shoot wildly into a populated area.

As opposed to...

Why are ppl drawing comparisons? Stark and his company were in the business of killing ppl. Batman will never catch up to the body counts if this is what we're comparing.

[Frontier]

I gotta be honest, the amount of people Iron Man killed in IM1 kind of slipped my mind when I first watched it.

[charliehustle415]

Why are ppl drawing comparisons? Stark and his company were in the business of killing ppl. Batman will never catch up to the body counts if this is what we're comparing.

because Iron Man is a WARMONGER so it makes sense he is a killer, but not for Batman who suffered from gun violence.

Bruce's entire ethos is an anthesis of what is depicted in these god awful Snyder films.

[Tofali]

because Iron Man is a WARMONGER so it makes sense he is a killer, but not for Batman who suffered from gun violence.

Bruce's entire ethos is an anthesis of what is depicted in these god awful Snyder films.

I agree with you wholeheartedly

[manwhohaseverything]

I mean, Lois Lane exists in the DC Universe, so that's power of the press right there. But I wasn't talking about blanket registration but more the kind of stuff the protagonists get away with without being addressed in-depth. I felt this a lot in the recent Hawkeye show when it came to the stuff the Hawkeye's were doing and how they handled the fallout of Clint as Ronin.

I think it comes down to a matter of degrees and execution.

I'm always kind of confused about secret identities in MHA because it seems like some heroes operate incognito without people necesarilly knowing who they are or their civilian identities, although I guess the government is aware of them because they have to go to UA or school with their Quirks.

I know Vigilante's exist because I read the manga () but I think they operate in a similar way to DC/Marvel vigilante's as well.

I think there are some baseline stuff people can generally agree is wrong and not something that should be done under any circumstance.

It's been a long time and a lot of adult writers have written the characters that way with a strict moral code. Characters back that up with their actions and by being true to who they are.

Lois and the daily planet staff are a joke.They are Personally involved.Their "objective" assessments are never good.Although,i must say perry is far more objective than anyone.He does take superman's collateral damage seriously.Well,hawkeye happens after registration act.There is already a mechanism in place.hawkeye is about spies and the underworld.who knows what's happening.They do address thing way down the line.I mean,civil war happened in third phase.That was adressing the mounting unaccountable actions that's happening in mcu.

Heroes are celebrities.Their masks are just for fashion.No, vigilante's and heroes are different in mha.Specifically done so for reasons.

There might be.Unless it's tested in the real world and yields good results it ain't worth squat.On top of that baseline needs to actually have a standard.You can't cater to lowest denominator.That would mean baddest things from higher view point gets left behind.We can't sit together and have discussion these things.On top of that it has to be acceptable by the people and doesn't make their life hell.So far i would say there are no objective standards to morality.

I am sorry.If someone comes to kill you and you defend resulting in death of the person.If that's bad,i would happily live as the devil.

It has been a long time.It has been a preachy long time.No writer has made me feel good about code in anerican comic.None.(I love the elric brothers in fullmetal alchemist franchise.So that's my standard)

Clark has never been put under the same constraints and not broken his Golden rules.You look at whatever happened to man of tomorrow or even byrne.Morality that ain't rooted in action and isn't practical is no morality is my take.Clark being an ideal for mankind has never been backed up.He preaches.That's it.A man of action,he is not..

These rules are supposed to be low base line.But,people can't meet it.As said,there is war, disease,poverty..etc in this world.What am i supposed to do? Say these factors don't exist.That doesn't mean they quit(whatever happened) or live a life of guilt and suppression(exile).There should be better means than that.

Edit-
People are comparing kill counts to and justifiying killing.Yet they say "there is some ideal" or objective morality.yeah! It's joke.Moral relativism is the playing field.You can hate it.But, that's the truth.

[charliehustle415]

Edit-People are comparing kill counts to and justifiying killing.Yet they say "there is some ideal" or objective morality.yeah! It's joke.Moral relativism is the playing field.You can hate it.But, that's the truth.

You do realize that comics are "make believe"?

Why would I want realism in my funny books?
Why would I want my heroes be just as bad as real people?
Why would I want my heroes to be in the mud and muck with the rest of us?


If I want morally compromised individuals, then I have a million pieces of fiction that I can read, watch, or listen to.

I don't know what you look for in superhero books, I look for optimism and what human beings can be.

I want them to be ideals of humanity, the best of us, and writers can make them into whatever their imagination wants.

*as the great Grant Morrison said, "they're just paper."

[manwhohaseverything]

You do realize that comics are "make believe"?

Why would I want realism in my funny books?
Why would I want my heroes be just as bad as real people?
Why would I want my heroes to be in the mud and muck with the rest of us?


If I want morally compromised individuals, then I have a million pieces of fiction that I can read, watch, or listen to.

I don't know what you look for in superhero books, I look for optimism and what human beings can be.

I don't care about realism or what not .I am merely saying a story about masked vigilante's aren't going to produce magical unicorn that is objective good or jesus in this case.Maybe it can.It certainly tries to.it fails time and time again.

If you think superman(the ideal of superheroes they claim) has been anything entertainment related.You haven't been reading superman.his stories aren't funny nor would i say superman has been good person.He has been precisely a stick in the mud unless select few write him.So your whole assumption is false.(ideal heroes providing entertainment and fun)

I despise the very concept of moral authorities.I wouldn't feel offended if superheroes aren't.But,this insistance of making them one would have me hating superheroes as a concept as well.

That depends on what you mean by optimism.If you mean by optimism aw! Shucks..ha!hey!hey! Preachy nonsense then that would mean i am out.I wouldn't call an ostrich optimistic.Human beings can be kickass go getters.They don't need books or comic heroes(laughable) or other people for that(prescribed role models).Individuals have their own fate in their own hands.American comic book Ideal heroes aren't ideal enough for me.

[Frontier]

Lois and the daily planet staff are a joke.They are Personally involved.Their "objective" assessments are never good.Although,i must say perry is far more objective than anyone.He does take superman's collateral damage seriously.Well,hawkeye happens after registration act.There is already a mechanism in place.hawkeye is about spies and the underworld.who knows what's happening.They do address thing way down the line.I mean,civil war happened in third phase.That was adressing the mounting unaccountable actions that's happening in mcu.

I mean, I trust Lois Lane's judgement when it comes to stuff even if she more often than not has personal feelings for Superman. She still has a strong moral character to rival Clark's. Of course, the amount of collateral damage Superman does depends on the story and it's usually not that severe.

Yeah, but Clint basically got to get a pass for everything he did as Ronin because he helped save the universe, got his family back, and the one person who tried to hold him accountable for murdering her father stopped because she literally couldn't beat him. The Accords didn't stop Wanda either.

Heroes are celebrities.Their masks are just for fashion.No, vigilante's and heroes are different in mha.Specifically done so for reasons.

In their Hero Identities. It doesn't mean they're promoting their actual public identities for everyone to see. Lord knows what would happen if anyone looked too deeply into Endeavor's personal life.

There might be.Unless it's tested in the real world and yields good results it ain't worth squat.On top of that baseline needs to actually have a standard.You can't cater to lowest denominator.That would mean baddest things from higher view point gets left behind.We can't sit together and have discussion these things.On top of that it has to be acceptable by the people and doesn't make their life hell.So far i would say there are no objective standards to morality.

I mean, I think it's basically how our society functions, so...yeah? I don't think anything bad should be looked over no matter how big or small, and that's generally how heroes operate.

I am sorry.If someone comes to kill you and you defend resulting in death of the person.If that's bad,i would happily live as the devil.

I'm not arguing against self-defense, I just think the expectation is different when you put superpowers and crime-fighting into the equation.

It has been a long time.It has been a preachy long time.No writer has made me feel good about code in anerican comic.None.(I love the elric brothers in fullmetal alchemist franchise.So that's my standard)

I don't need it to be preached, I just think it's necesarilly expected that the heroes don't need to kill their bad guys to stop them in Superhero stories. At least that's what I grew up with. I don't hold other series or franchises by that same standard since they're different stories.

Clark has never been put under the same constraints and not broken his Golden rules.You look at whatever happened to man of tomorrow or even byrne.Morality that ain't rooted in action and is practical is no morality is my take.Clark being an ideal for mankind has never been backed up.He preaches.That's it.A man of action,he is not..

If he wasn't a man of action he'd literally do nothing. We can debate what he is depicted as doing and whether it's what we want to see him doing, but it's still something that results in a net good on a general basis.

These rules are supposed to be low base line.But,people can't meet it.As said,there is war, disease,poverty..etc in this world.What am i supposed to do? Say these factors don't exist.That doesn't mean they quit(whatever happened) or live a life of guilt and suppression(exile).There should be better means than that.

Isn't that what Superheroes do...?

Edit-
People are comparing kill counts to and justifiying killing.Yet they say "there is some ideal" or objective morality.yeah! It's joke.Moral relativism is the playing field.You can hate it.But, that's the truth.

Seems pretty dark.

I don't care about realism or what not .I am merely saying a story about masked vigilante's aren't going to produce magical unicorn that is objective good or jesus in this case.Maybe it can.It certainly tries to.it fails time and time again.

If you think superman(the ideal of superheroes they claim) has been anything entertainment related.You haven't been reading superman.his stories aren't funny nor would i say superman has been good person.He has been precisely a stick in the mud unless select few write him.So your whole assumption is false.(ideal heroes providing entertainment and fun)

I guess it all comes down to a matter of taste.

I despise the very concept of moral authorities.I wouldn't feel offended if superheroes aren't.But,this insistance of making them one would have me hating superheroes as a concept as well.

That depends on what you mean by optimism.If you mean by optimism aw! Shucks..ha!hey!hey! Preachy nonsense then that would mean i am out.I wouldn't call an ostrich optimistic.Human beings can be kickass go getters.They don't need books or comic heroes(laughable) or other people for that(prescribed role models).Individuals have their own fate in their own hands.American comic book Ideal heroes aren't ideal enough for me.

I mean, they basically are one way or another.

[charliehustle415]

I don't care about realism or what not .I am merely saying a story about masked vigilante's aren't going to produce magical unicorn that is objective good or jesus in this case.Maybe it can.It certainly tries to.it fails time and time again.

If you think superman(the ideal of superheroes they claim) has been anything entertainment related.You haven't been reading superman.his stories aren't funny nor would i say superman has been good person.He has been precisely a stick in the mud unless select few write him.So your whole assumption is false.(ideal heroes providing entertainment and fun)

I despise the very concept of moral authorities.I wouldn't feel offended if superheroes aren't.But,this insistance of making them one would have me hating superheroes as a concept as well.

That depends on what you mean by optimism.If you mean by optimism aw! Shucks..ha!hey!hey! Preachy nonsense then that would mean i am out.I wouldn't call an ostrich optimistic.Human beings can be kickass go getters.They don't need books or comic heroes(laughable) or other people for that(prescribed role models).Individuals have their own fate in their own hands.American comic book Ideal heroes aren't ideal enough for me.

uh.. okay... you do you....

[Tofali]

In comic book Isn’t the whole point of heroes and more so for superheroes to have moral authority over the villains they fight? If that isn’t the case then what have ppl been reading in the last 80+ years?

[Agent Z]

exactly, yes Stark kills, but he doesn't shoot wildly into a populated area.

As opposed to...

As opposed to what? The only people we see Bruce shooting at are the ones already shooting at him.

Never mind that this is far from the first time Batman has killed in a movie.

[Agent Z]

You do realize that comics are "make believe"?

Why would I want realism in my funny books?
Why would I want my heroes be just as bad as real people?
Why would I want my heroes to be in the mud and muck with the rest of us?


If I want morally compromised individuals, then I have a million pieces of fiction that I can read, watch, or listen to.

I don't know what you look for in superhero books, I look for optimism and what human beings can be.

I want them to be ideals of humanity, the best of us, and writers can make them into whatever their imagination wants.

*as the great Grant Morrison said, "they're just paper."

And yet, here you are defending Iron Manand other Marvel characters who use lethal force and do far, far worse than DC characters. Why does this standard apply to DC and no one else?

[charliehustle415]

And yet, here you are defending Iron Manand other Marvel characters who use lethal force and do far, far worse than DC characters. Why does this standard apply to DC and no one else?

In a previous post in this very thread Marvel heroes aren't meant to be paragons, but DC heroes are and they have been from the very beginning.

DC heroes are meant to be mythic, read anything by the greats and they never depict them as heroes who take glee in hurting people let alone killing.

Nevertheless, I feel like the thread is devolving into circular argumentation.

You all enjoy your "heroes"