|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 8:15:46 GMT -5
This same debate comes up in Doctor Who fandom. Three different kinds of Doctor Who stories have been written: 1) The Doctor uses guns, both firearms and sci fi weapons. 2) The Doctor doesn't use weapons but surrounds himself with those who do (UNIT, Leela, K-9, etc.) 3) The Doctor doesn't use weapons and despises those who do. But sometimes he just entombs people forever in tiny coffins sure to be torture. I'd like to share that with a friend if possible. I'll tell him it's your words. Up to you. I just know he'd appreciate it. Would you mind?
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Mar 28, 2019 8:24:06 GMT -5
This same debate comes up in Doctor Who fandom. Three different kinds of Doctor Who stories have been written: 1) The Doctor uses guns, both firearms and sci fi weapons. 2) The Doctor doesn't use weapons but surrounds himself with those who do (UNIT, Leela, K-9, etc.) 3) The Doctor doesn't use weapons and despises those who do. But sometimes he just entombs people forever in tiny coffins sure to be torture. I'd like to share that with a friend if possible. I'll tell him it's your words. Up to you. I just know he'd appreciate it. Would you mind? Be my guest!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 8:25:24 GMT -5
Thanks! He's a huge Dr. Who fan, I think he'll appreciate your views.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Mar 28, 2019 9:59:58 GMT -5
In Batman 1989 Movie ... if you watch this clip, Batman wants to kill the Joker and this made rather disappointed that no chance for a repeat role for Jack (The Joker) Nicholson to come back and haunt Batman being played either Keaton, Kilmer, and even George Clooney. Uh yeah, I think he made it pretty clear he wanted to kill the Joker when he flew into town in a fighter jet and fired a spray of machine gun bullets at him. I think for a character like Batman, having a no-kill code makes sense because he generally deals with human, street-level villains and he (mostly) works within the system. His main non-superhero ally is a police commissioner for crying out loud. The legal system generally has the means of handling his villains. Even for someone like Joker, setting aside his mental condition as a possible defense, someone like him would likely face the death penalty in some jurisdiction somewhere in the U.S. Whether or not you believe the death penalty is just, it is still very much being imposed by the legal system and not an individual's whim. For an enormously powered character like Superman who is seen as a moral paragon, when he deals with villains who are humans or otherwise vastly under-powered compared to him, a no-kill policy is almost necessary. When the hero is that powerful, he has so many ways to defuse the situation that would not require lethal force that to do so would make him appear cavalier towards human life, which undermines his role as a moral paragon. A better argument can be made that Superman occasionally has to take a life when the villain is so powerful as to be unstoppable by most human means, or when the stakes are really high. That would not be my preferred choice for a Superman story, but I think it's more justifiable because not killing can start to look irresponsible when too much is at stake. I think my biggest problem with the notion of superheroes not killing is from a more meta perspective. Writers highlight that the hero doesn't kill only when it suits the story they want to tell at that moment. Otherwise they ignore it. Season 2 of Netflix Daredevil made a big deal about how Daredevil doesn't kill and that was why he was not like the Punisher, but Daredevil regularly teams up characters that can and do kill. They never established that the Hand Ninjas were not alive, and I would challenge anyone to argue that the Defenders didn't kill at least a few of the Hand during their battles. Then you have the big screen characters. The Avengers have to have killed more than a few people during their missions, and their hero cred doesn't seem to be diminished in the least. It only becomes an issue when the writers need it to be.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 28, 2019 10:47:36 GMT -5
His code is simply incapable of working in a comic book world. This. I would be perfectly happy that in the real world the police tried to adhere to this code, because at least as far as I know, there have been no real cases of serial killers who have escaped from prison a dozen times, doing every time a carnage. Instead in the comic book Carnage and the Joker can do their thing every. Single. Time. And even if they try to kill them, they return. Every. Single. Time. If I was a citizen in the Marvel or DC universe, I would very, very, very afraid to live there. Or at least in New York City or Gotham. Why these two cities aren't ghost town in their respective universes?!?! This is all because superhero funnybook worlds are inherently silly. And any attempt to make them work like the real world just makes them that much sillier instead of being "realistic."
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 28, 2019 11:04:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 28, 2019 11:32:02 GMT -5
This. I would be perfectly happy that in the real world the police tried to adhere to this code, because at least as far as I know, there have been no real cases of serial killers who have escaped from prison a dozen times, doing every time a carnage. Instead in the comic book Carnage and the Joker can do their thing every. Single. Time. And even if they try to kill them, they return. Every. Single. Time. If I was a citizen in the Marvel or DC universe, I would very, very, very afraid to live there. Or at least in New York City or Gotham. Why these two cities aren't ghost town in their respective universes?!?! This is all because superhero funnybook worlds are inherently silly. And any attempt to make them work like the real world just makes them that much sillier instead of being "realistic." And when they want to carry the concept of "superhero in real world" as far as possible, well, that world becomes a very, very, bad place... (i.e. Watchmen)
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 28, 2019 13:27:20 GMT -5
This. I would be perfectly happy that in the real world the police tried to adhere to this code, because at least as far as I know, there have been no real cases of serial killers who have escaped from prison a dozen times, doing every time a carnage. Instead in the comic book Carnage and the Joker can do their thing every. Single. Time. And even if they try to kill them, they return. Every. Single. Time. If I was a citizen in the Marvel or DC universe, I would very, very, very afraid to live there. Or at least in New York City or Gotham. Why these two cities aren't ghost town in their respective universes?!?! This is all because superhero funnybook worlds are inherently silly. And any attempt to make them work like the real world just makes them that much sillier instead of being "realistic." That's a case by case situation. For example, deaths in superhero comics can be some of the most effective and memorable in the medium's history (e.g. the death of Captain Stacy, Gwen Stacy, et al.). While the vehicle used to kill characters is fantastic (supervillains), the world built around it is rooted in realism, so readers have a stronger emotional investment in the characters as something more than those seen as silly or "disposable" (in an entertainment sense) as Popeye or the Tick.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Mar 28, 2019 18:22:41 GMT -5
There are many different interpretations of Batman.
Some of them kill, some don't.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 28, 2019 21:40:27 GMT -5
This isn't just a problem with Batman, but with every superhero. Set aside the 'heroes don't kill' for a moment... as discussed, there's strong arguments why that's a naive and honestly silly position.
The problem is one of marketing. We all know a superhero is only as good as his villains. So you create a great arch nemesis for your hero. They fight.. someone has to win. Do you let the villain win? 'Jobbing' your hero makes him look weak in the short term, but the build can be nice. Eventually, good has to triumph... but then what? You've taken your awesome villain off the board. So don't kill him, put him in jail. THen he can escape.. but that gets to the point of absurdity quickly.
It all goes back to keeping a hero/property eternal.. you can only have so many fights with the same character until it becomes self-parody.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 22:50:57 GMT -5
It all goes back to keeping a hero/property eternal.. you can only have so many fights with the same character until it becomes self-parody. Just like in the Christopher Reeves films ... Lex Luthor was in I, II, and IV and that's why ... I didn't like III and IV at all. You are right on the self-parody bit. You need a vast variety of villains to keep the hero relevant and fresh. Marvel films did that ... not DC Comics with the exception of the 1st four Batman films ... Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, The Riddler, Two-Face, Poison Ivy, Bane, and Mr. Freeze ... all different.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 29, 2019 4:02:17 GMT -5
This isn't just a problem with Batman, but with every superhero. Set aside the 'heroes don't kill' for a moment... as discussed, there's strong arguments why that's a naive and honestly silly position. The problem is one of marketing. We all know a superhero is only as good as his villains. So you create a great arch nemesis for your hero. They fight.. someone has to win. Do you let the villain win? 'Jobbing' your hero makes him look weak in the short term, but the build can be nice. Eventually, good has to triumph... but then what? You've taken your awesome villain off the board. So don't kill him, put him in jail. THen he can escape.. but that gets to the point of absurdity quickly. It all goes back to keeping a hero/property eternal.. you can only have so many fights with the same character until it becomes self-parody. There's no greater evidence of this than how Norman Osborn died in The Amazing Spider-Man #122--undoubtedly, he was the hero's greatest enemy, but he met a real end that was swift, violent and unexpected (much like death in real life), which elevated an already masterful story. The creatives behind it took a major chance and it worked...real consequences in the hero vs villain story. ..and while Spider-Man stopped himself from beating Osborn to death, THE major villain still died. Thankfully, Spider-Man had other strong villains to deal with, so it could make that kind of big move to kill Osborn. Its just too bad Marvel had to drag Osborn back to life, nearly ruining the classic arc of #121-122 to turn Osborn into a ridiculous Luthor clone (among other things).
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 29, 2019 8:29:38 GMT -5
It all goes back to keeping a hero/property eternal.. you can only have so many fights with the same character until it becomes self-parody. This was precisely the thinking in the late 70s-early 80s when DC started launching mini-series (notably Camelot 3000): the idea that creators could tell stories with a beginning, middle, and end without worrying about how it would affect an ongoing property. Didn't work to well in practice; either people didn't want to buy an unfamiliar character untethered to the "universe" (e.g., Tailgunner Jo), minis were ancillary to ongoing series (World of Krypton/Smallville/Metropolis), or they were successful, so let's milk that cow dry (new Watchmen stories).
On the topic at hand, let's remember that these stories are made up. They don't have to be "realistic," because realism flew out of Bruce Wayne's window when that bat flew into it. DC should be able to say "Batman doesn't kill, and if you're not clever enough to write a story within that parameter--even a story that explores that very topic--we'll find somebody who can."
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Mar 29, 2019 10:56:09 GMT -5
I think we need to make distinction between "realistic" and "internally consistent" when it comes to superhero stories and other genre fiction. The realism argument is a dead end, because you're talking about a medium that inherently requires some level of suspension of disbelief, so any argument based on realism is going draw an arbitrary line on what is realistic and what is not. I prefer to talk about a story as being internally consistent -- that is, given the established ground rules and baseline suspension of disbelief for the story's inherent fantastical elements, is the remainder of the story believable as an extension of this foundation?
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Mar 29, 2019 11:28:53 GMT -5
I think Batman should be less violent than he usually is, he certainly should not become more violent.
|
|