Amazing Spider-Man 2 Thread Drift: Should Heroes Kill?

[Mister Mets]

Wait a minute, Electro died in this movie? I honestly didn't notice, probably because they jumped straight to Spider-Man vs. Green Goblin immediately afterwards.

Besides, Electro is a key part of the Sinister Six. Does anyone actually think that they killed him? After all the effort they went to in order to set the stage for the SS?

It's obvious to any viewer who knows about the Sinister Six or Jamie Foxx's comments about how energy doesn't appear that Electro's not necessarily gone for good. However, it isn't obvious to Spider-Man.

The best argument for the method Spider-Man used to dispatch Electro was that Dillon had been transformed into a monster, so permanent solutions were acceptable.

[Scott Taylor]

Its not obvious to Spider-Man, but the movie did not show him having any remorse one way or another. If he thought he killed the guy, he should have at least taken a moment of thinking "well, thats a pity" or something like it.

Webb's intent may not have been to kill Electro, but merely to dispatch him temporarily.

[Captain Haddock]

I thought that Gwen/Pete had between them already realised/decided that overloading Max was the ONLY way to actually stop him - he was essentially a sentient bolt of lightning, punching him would not work and they had no way to cut him off from just absorbing more power whenever the heck he wanted more juice - they had one option only. Pete didn't just decide on a whim to wipe the dude out, he set out specifically to stop him the only way he knew would work, and did it. Seems pretty heroic to me. From the lack of reaction I always thought that Pete didn't see it as killing Max anyway, hence his total lack of angst.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

In regards to the thread's question, I think the answer is both yes.... and no.

It largely depends on the hero. I used to feel that superheroes should not kill. Ever. At all. But then I came around and started to feel that it really limited a lot of characterization. That notion really leads more to trying to live up to an ideal, rather than what makes the best story possible. Superman never killing is a great ideal. But someone with the moral composure of Superman, who tries to save as much life possible, being forced to kill? That has a lot of dramatic possibilities.

And it depends upon the hero. Someone like Batman probably shouldn't kill. Yes, there is the argument that not taking care of the Joker permanently does more harm than good. But it's important to look at the hero's motivations and their goals in doing what they are doing when taking into consideration whether or not they should kill. Bruce Wayne became Batman to help clean up Gotham, to help serve as a better example and help set the city right after. More importantly, he is often compared to the villains he fights. That he is no different than the Joker, or Two Face, or Poison Ivy, or any other psycho that litters the streets. The key difference, however, is that he does not kill. That is the thing that separates him from his enemies, and shows him not to be a psycho in a mask, but someone who legitimately wants to make the city a better place, as there is a line he will not cross.

With Spider-Man, him not killing is important along pretty much the same lines. He is often regarded as a villain by the public at large. He is called a menace by the media and is often treated like a criminal by the police. All of this despite the fact that he routinely acts like a hero and goes above and beyond the call of duty to save lives and help people. In addition, Spider-Man has been repeatedly accused of murder. Were Spider-Man to kill, it would essentially make these accusations about him correct. That he is a criminal, that he is a killer. They may not be accurate about one death, but they are accurate in the fact that he would be complicit in taking the life of another. That would potentially then color the rest of his actions- if he is guilty of murder, then what else is he guilty of? It also goes back to the fact that Peter didn't resolve to be the moral authority over the entire city, but merely use his abilities responsibly. He doesn't want to be judge, jury and executioner. He just wants to help.

With Wolverine, it makes sense that he would kill. He's not living up to any ideal. He's not trying to be a better example. He was someone who was turned into a weapon, who happened to fall into being a superhero. He's more aware of the moral grey in the world, and more willing to put an end to things rather than have them keep playing out. He didn't commit himself to cleaning up the city or trying to serve as a greater example, so there is less willingness on his part to continue with standing by a set of morals and shoulder the burden of being a superhero. He doesn't regard himself as a superhero, just someone who is able to do the things others can't

When it comes to guys like Superman and Captain America, I think that it's less of a problem for them to kill, because for them they don't take the act casually. Cap is a soldier, someone who went to war. He knows that sometimes one has to take a life if the situation requires it. He doesn't do so proudly. He doesn't do so with a witty remark or a sly aside. He does so with grim purpose, because he knows that he didn't have any other options and he needed to end the threat now. Whether this means decapitating Baron Blood or gunning down a member of ULTIMATUM who was opening fire on a crowd, Cap doesn't like to kill, but he knows sometimes he doesn't have a lot of other options. With Superman, he has made a moral vow to use his abilities responsibly, and to serve "Truth, Justice and the American Way." But there is some tragedy in the notion that someone with as many as abilities as Superman, is given little option. And when Superman kills, it's given a lot more dramatic weight. He's not just going to ignore it. He's not just going to treat it like it is the first and only option. He's going to acknowledge it as a horrible, desperate act. But because Superman acknowledges it, the act holds a lot more weight than it would had it come by someone like the Punisher.

As I said, it just goes back to who the hero is and what their character is like. The focus shouldn't be on what is morally responsible, because this is a fictional reality, and there are very little real world comparisons. We rarely have someone like the Joker terrorizing an entire city, and never have him facing off against a costumed hero who continually brings him in to be incarcerated only to see him continually escape. The focus should be on what makes the better story, and what serves the character better. In real life, it may be morally irresponsible for Batman to continually let the Joker escape with his life. But in the realm of fiction, it might make a better story if Superman is forced to take the life of his enemy.

[AJBopp]

But then I came around and started to feel that it really limited a lot of characterization. That notion really leads more to trying to live up to an ideal, rather than what makes the best story possible. Superman never killing is a great ideal. But someone with the moral composure of Superman, who tries to save as much life possible, being forced to kill? That has a lot of dramatic possibilities.

Serving the best interests of the story, rather than reflecting reality as closely as possible, is always the more important focus, and I like your reasoning. Those who would criticize heroes for not killing often overlook this.

Were Spider-Man to kill, it would essentially make these accusations about him correct. That he is a criminal, that he is a killer. They may not be accurate about one death, but they are accurate in the fact that he would be complicit in taking the life of another. That would potentially then color the rest of his actions- if he is guilty of murder, then what else is he guilty of?

With Wolverine, it makes sense that he would kill. He's not living up to any ideal. He's not trying to be a better example.

From a storytelling perspective, having Wolverine be more casual about the lives of those he is fighting against becomes problematic when he and Spider-man start participating on the same team. Spider-man just sort of looks the other way and as near as I can tell works pretty well with Wolverine. But cooperation with a man like that legitimately raises questions the public might ask about Spider-man's complicity in or agreement with questionable (at best) actions Wolverine has taken, because they are teammates. The narrative of these two characters becomes really incredulous when you try to put them on the same team, and suddenly the notion of what limits characterization is turned on its head. Now the "killing is necessary" aspect of Wolverine becomes a really limiting factor for both him and Spider-man

When it comes to guys like Superman and Captain America, I think that it's less of a problem for them to kill, because for them they don't take the act casually. Cap is a soldier, someone who went to war. He knows that sometimes one has to take a life if the situation requires it. He doesn't do so proudly. He doesn't do so with a witty remark or a sly aside. He does so with grim purpose, because he knows that he didn't have any other options and he needed to end the threat now.

But when written properly, I believe Captain America would be the first to argue that he shouldn't kill without the express authorization of the government, as soldiers have, except it cases of self defense. Taken to a logical conclusion, it devolves into a silly Civil War type of thing where there's an international convention regarding the conduct of super humans, and I don't think any of us want to go there. Better by far to just remove the question from the story and say "No killing." Ultimately, this expands the characterization rather than limits it.

[Keeper of the Crows]

In regards to the thread's question, I think the answer is both yes.... and no.

It largely depends on the hero. I used to feel that superheroes should not kill. Ever. At all. But then I came around and started to feel that it really limited a lot of characterization. That notion really leads more to trying to live up to an ideal, rather than what makes the best story possible. Superman never killing is a great ideal. But someone with the moral composure of Superman, who tries to save as much life possible, being forced to kill? That has a lot of dramatic possibilities.

And it depends upon the hero. Someone like Batman probably shouldn't kill. Yes, there is the argument that not taking care of the Joker permanently does more harm than good. But it's important to look at the hero's motivations and their goals in doing what they are doing when taking into consideration whether or not they should kill. Bruce Wayne became Batman to help clean up Gotham, to help serve as a better example and help set the city right after. More importantly, he is often compared to the villains he fights. That he is no different than the Joker, or Two Face, or Poison Ivy, or any other psycho that litters the streets. The key difference, however, is that he does not kill. That is the thing that separates him from his enemies, and shows him not to be a psycho in a mask, but someone who legitimately wants to make the city a better place, as there is a line he will not cross.

With Spider-Man, him not killing is important along pretty much the same lines. He is often regarded as a villain by the public at large. He is called a menace by the media and is often treated like a criminal by the police. All of this despite the fact that he routinely acts like a hero and goes above and beyond the call of duty to save lives and help people. In addition, Spider-Man has been repeatedly accused of murder. Were Spider-Man to kill, it would essentially make these accusations about him correct. That he is a criminal, that he is a killer. They may not be accurate about one death, but they are accurate in the fact that he would be complicit in taking the life of another. That would potentially then color the rest of his actions- if he is guilty of murder, then what else is he guilty of? It also goes back to the fact that Peter didn't resolve to be the moral authority over the entire city, but merely use his abilities responsibly. He doesn't want to be judge, jury and executioner. He just wants to help.

With Wolverine, it makes sense that he would kill. He's not living up to any ideal. He's not trying to be a better example. He was someone who was turned into a weapon, who happened to fall into being a superhero. He's more aware of the moral grey in the world, and more willing to put an end to things rather than have them keep playing out. He didn't commit himself to cleaning up the city or trying to serve as a greater example, so there is less willingness on his part to continue with standing by a set of morals and shoulder the burden of being a superhero. He doesn't regard himself as a superhero, just someone who is able to do the things others can't

When it comes to guys like Superman and Captain America, I think that it's less of a problem for them to kill, because for them they don't take the act casually. Cap is a soldier, someone who went to war. He knows that sometimes one has to take a life if the situation requires it. He doesn't do so proudly. He doesn't do so with a witty remark or a sly aside. He does so with grim purpose, because he knows that he didn't have any other options and he needed to end the threat now. Whether this means decapitating Baron Blood or gunning down a member of ULTIMATUM who was opening fire on a crowd, Cap doesn't like to kill, but he knows sometimes he doesn't have a lot of other options. With Superman, he has made a moral vow to use his abilities responsibly, and to serve "Truth, Justice and the American Way." But there is some tragedy in the notion that someone with as many as abilities as Superman, is given little option. And when Superman kills, it's given a lot more dramatic weight. He's not just going to ignore it. He's not just going to treat it like it is the first and only option. He's going to acknowledge it as a horrible, desperate act. But because Superman acknowledges it, the act holds a lot more weight than it would had it come by someone like the Punisher.

As I said, it just goes back to who the hero is and what their character is like. The focus shouldn't be on what is morally responsible, because this is a fictional reality, and there are very little real world comparisons. We rarely have someone like the Joker terrorizing an entire city, and never have him facing off against a costumed hero who continually brings him in to be incarcerated only to see him continually escape. The focus should be on what makes the better story, and what serves the character better. In real life, it may be morally irresponsible for Batman to continually let the Joker escape with his life. But in the realm of fiction, it might make a better story if Superman is forced to take the life of his enemy.

Nothing to add--I just wanted to say that this is an exceptionally well thought out and well articulated post, and not just because I agree with most of it. Well said!

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

From a storytelling perspective, having Wolverine be more casual about the lives of those he is fighting against becomes problematic when he and Spider-man start participating on the same team. Spider-man just sort of looks the other way and as near as I can tell works pretty well with Wolverine. But cooperation with a man like that legitimately raises questions the public might ask about Spider-man's complicity in or agreement with questionable (at best) actions Wolverine has taken, because they are teammates. The narrative of these two characters becomes really incredulous when you try to put them on the same team, and suddenly the notion of what limits characterization is turned on its head. Now the "killing is necessary" aspect of Wolverine becomes a really limiting factor for both him and Spider-man

But it's those problems that create dramatic storytelling possibilities. Spider-Man and Wolverine have two very different ways of approaching things. Spider-Man is more idealistic. Wolverine's more pragmatic. Spider-Man will try to save everyone. Wolverine is comfortable taking a life if it means saving a hundred. It's that conflict that can drive a lot of stories. And has.

I think that these problems are mitigated in that while Wolverine is OK with killing, he doesn't insist on doing it all the time. If someone asks him, he will not kill. So he is capable of working with others. He's not like the Punisher, or how the Punisher became, where he insisted that death was the only way to deal with criminals.

But when written properly, I believe Captain America would be the first to argue that he shouldn't kill without the express authorization of the government, as soldiers have, except it cases of self defense. Taken to a logical conclusion, it devolves into a silly Civil War type of thing where there's an international convention regarding the conduct of super humans, and I don't think any of us want to go there. Better by far to just remove the question from the story and say "No killing." Ultimately, this expands the characterization rather than limits it.

I'm not entirely sure about that. When Cap killed Baron Blood, or the member of ULTIMATUM, he didn't do so under the express authority of the government. He did so because lives were at stake and options were low. For Blood's case, the sun was setting and he was reviving, after already giving Cap and Union Jake a hard time. For the ULTIMATUM soldier, he was firing into a crowd, endangering the lives of civilians. It wasn't like Cap was given express authority to kill in these circumstances. Quite the opposite, the reason he killed was because he didn't have time to get authority.

But I do agree that when written correctly, Cap would be the first to argue about not killing. He accepts it because he is a soldier. But he does insist, when with other heroes, that it is important to try and save as many lives as possible and not to resort to killing as a first option. I think he understands the burden he is willing to bear, but doesn't insist everyone else come around to his way of thinking.

[AJBopp]

But it's those problems that create dramatic storytelling possibilities. Spider-Man and Wolverine have two very different ways of approaching things. Spider-Man is more idealistic. Wolverine's more pragmatic. Spider-Man will try to save everyone. Wolverine is comfortable taking a life if it means saving a hundred. It's that conflict that can drive a lot of stories. And has.

Shortly after BND, there was an issue of Avengers in which the team was sitting around the kitchen table drinking coffee and having an informal chat. Now, one can reasonably argue that it's a terrible scene to include in a story about The Avengers under any circumstances, but beyond that, it's just not reasonable to suggest that Spider-man and Wolverine can exist socially at that level of acceptance.

Are there additional dramatic possibilities? Not really. If you explore the conflict between the two, it will eventually escalate to silly proportions that cannot ever be resolved and cannot ever result in these two being on the same team. Or Spider-man being on a team at all that would allow Wolverine to be a part of it.

If you ignore the conflict between the two and have them work cooperatively, then you toss their personalities aside and simply don't address the potential stories.

If you want the characters to work together, the additional story possibilities only really happen if they both have a no-kill policy. They can both have that while still using tactics that the other doesn't agree with. Then you have real possibilities for character development.