Writer Dan Slott talks about Spider-Man's "Instant-Kill Mode" (all MCU Spoilers)

Breqesk

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,995
All the best versions of Spider-Man are pro police state. You take the good with the bad.
That + 'Spider-Cop' and the general treatment of prisoners as a sort of zombie-esque disposable fodder enemy - with basically no more sympathetic moments to contrast - really sucked. 'Specially since I really liked a lot of other stuff about that take on the character.

I think it's possible they'll interrogate some of this in the sequel at least, which is more than I can say for where cinematic Spider-Man's currently at. (I liked Homecoming quite a bit but everything since has just gotten increasingly eh.)
 

Deepwater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,768
I don't think that's the last we'll see of it.

There's no way that folks like Rhodey don't have access to EDITH and it raises a lot of very serious questions just for existing because Stark must have made it after The Snap. So in those five years, he didn't just make powerful new suits for himself and Pepper but a drone system with extremely high firepower?

Maybe they'll explain all this stuff in another movie, considering the implications of a guy that turned his back on the world so he could apparently focus on building weapons.
There was two years in between Civil War and Infinity War, in which Tony could have built his drones(presuming he built the drones specifically for Peter)

the easiest explanation is that it’s one of his failsafes since The Avengers, but Sony only conceived Edith/FFH with the outline from IW and Endgame...so if someone is forced to explain it, likely it is he built it sometime after meeting Peter but before they fought Thanos.
 

jph139

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,045
Massachusetts
I don't think it's a huge deal - it's made pretty clear that the Outriders are like, mindless genetically engineered soldiers. But I agree with Slott on principal. Spidey's actually pretty unique among Marvel heroes where he draws that hard line. I'd like the MCU to push that more rather than having him cut from the same cloth as the Avengers.

I think they easily could have written that scene in a way where Spidey is just barely getting by with his spider-sense and webs and other miscellaneous Iron Spider stuff. Like, they captured that really well with his trying to save everyone in Infinity War after Thanos chucks a moon at them.
 

Gustaf

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,348
Tony creating Edith is simply him finally agreeing with Steve, that their hands are the safest.
 

ElBoxyBrown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,063
I think the scene in retrospect can be used as a haunting foreshadowing for Peter. Like, there's an interesting story arc where Peter's suit is pushing him to go too far and he has to reject it. I don't see it happening.
 

VeryHighlander

The Fallen
May 9, 2018
1,417
He’s not wrong. Instakill/iron spidey suit remains the worst aspect of the new spiderman. Far from home was finally ignoring that stupid shit though so were on the right track.
 

RadCatDad

Member
Feb 27, 2019
620
Dude was holding the gauntlet. Ain’t no way he letting anyone on team Thanos touch that. Seems perfectly valid that he would utilize instakill, especially against an enemy already shown to kill itself out of mindless bloodlust.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,842
England
It's never ok for Batman to kill. The big 3 do not kill. There are exceptions and those exceptions are heavily scrutinized as much as this.
Of course Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman kill. In fact Diana is especially good at it. The difference is they don't kill unnecessarily - they minimise casualties as much as possible.

That's why Batman was so clearly shaken by Superman just massacring all those aliens, because that's not what Superman does. He's the guiding light, not the encroaching shadow. Batman is the sort of person that would kill an army to save Earth and he'd shoulder that burden, no matter how much it hurts... but the world can't see Superman do that because Superman is better than that. In Batman's own words...

BATMAN: They'll buy us some time.
CATWOMAN: But this is Superman.
BATMAN: Yes, and if he wanted, we'd be dead already. Deep down, he's a good person.

And deep down... I'm not.
 

Aprikurt

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,777
I mean these are creatures that push themselves through laser walls to please their master. Okoye expresses horror at their mindless sacrifice, and from that it's pretty clear that killing these guys? It's effectively a kindness. Like there is no stopping, slowing them down, or reasoning with them in any way.
 

Shroki

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,679
Alien hordes and monsters don't even count for Batman, let alone Spider-Man.

No problem with it.
 

ElBoxyBrown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,063
That's kind of a lame cop out argument considering in the greater context of the MCU, it's already been established that Peter isn't a fan of killing and that the Outriders aren't even sentient beings.
Peter could have at least commented on it like, "Whoa, that was crazy and violent. I can't have this much power."
 

modoversus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,132
México
That's kind of a lame cop out argument considering in the greater context of the MCU, it's already been established that Peter isn't a fan of killing and that the Outriders aren't even sentient beings.
No, what I meant is that people are acting as if the events of the movie were facts instead of fiction that can be written in different ways. "There was no other option for Peter". Well, writters could change the circumstances for the character and the choices the character does.

It's like with Man of Steel. "Superman had to kill Zod, what other options he had?" Well, Superman is not a real person, but a fictional character who is acting according to a movie. And the movie script could have offered many better options for a resolution that made more sense.
 

Gustaf

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,348
No, what I meant is that people are acting as if the events of the movie were facts instead of fiction that can be written in different ways. "There was no other option for Peter". Well, writters could change the circumstances for the character and the choices the character does.

It's like with Man of Steel. "Superman had to kill Zod, what other options he had?" Well, Superman is not a real person, but a fictional character who is acting according to a movie. And the movie script could have offered many better options for a resolution that made more sense.
the "its fiction" argument continues to be the most stupid thing people said when criticizing something.
 

shaneo632

Member
Oct 29, 2017
11,371
Essex, UK
Rigid no kill rules in the movies are dopey as hell. "Real life" isn't that simple and there's always gonna be a scenario where you've just gotta kill.
 

Sephzilla

Herald of Stoptimus Crime
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,165
Where the hell are these nitpickers every time Batman kills someone in every one of his movies? (Seriously, Batman & Robin is the only one where Batman doesn't deliberately kill someone)

No, what I meant is that people are acting as if the events of the movie were facts instead of fiction that can be written in different ways. "There was no other option for Peter". Well, writters could change the circumstances for the character and the choices the character does.

It's like with Man of Steel. "Superman had to kill Zod, what other options he had?" Well, Superman is not a real person, but a fictional character who is acting according to a movie. And the movie script could have offered many better options for a resolution that made more sense.
The "it's fiction" argument in general is a lame cop out because it essentially boils down to "why didn't the writers just rewrite this entire chunk of the movie to cater to this one specific scenario?". The situation was as dire as it possibly could be, Peter (who's already established as not wanting to kill) decides to activate the big red button to fight off non-sentient animals in order to make sure that Thanos doesn't get the Infinity Gauntlet that is literally right there in Peters hands. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not out of character for Peter.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,425
Atlanta GA
modoversus

that tells me nothing. how is peter going to drop the infinity gauntlet to hand to hand combat dozens of swarming outriders with enough care as to not kill them?

you can't just pick and choose a single moment in this climactic battle that you want to nitpick and rewrite, it's part of an entire sequence of events that leaves Peter guarding the gauntlet from an overwhelming force of brutal killer alien dogs and not a lot of options. he can't rely on anyone else there, he can't put down the gauntlet, he has to get it to its destination immediately before he gets mauled and shredded to death within literal seconds, which would result in the entire universe being murdered

"just knock them out" isn't good writing
 
Last edited:

Youngfossil

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,318
Peter is also a veteran in the comics, he's been doing it for years. In the MCU he's still wet behind the ears. Hell he had trouble with fricken mysetrio. He's a push over for him in the comics now
 

Alienous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,551


If anything I think a "No kill" moral code loses weight when it applies also to dire situations with predator animals.
 
Last edited:

Mudcrab

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
1,768
Ed Brubaker wrote Daredevil and Captain America for a long time. The MCU Cap is basically an adaptation of his Captain America run. He left Twitter a while ago, but that's still one of the funniest mentions of Slott ever.
Yeah I get all that I just didn't know what the tweet had to do with anything other than maybe suggesting Spider-man should kill because Brubaker was willing to murder Slott so he could take ASM for himself lol
 

ElBoxyBrown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,063
Of course Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman kill. In fact Diana is especially good at it. The difference is they don't kill unnecessarily - they minimise casualties as much as possible.

That's why Batman was so clearly shaken by Superman just massacring all those aliens, because that's not what Superman does. He's the guiding light, not the encroaching shadow. Batman is the sort of person that would kill an army to save Earth and he'd shoulder that burden, no matter how much it hurts... but the world can't see Superman do that because Superman is better than that. In Batman's own words...
In main DC continuity these heroes are suppose to be better than that. Diana can be ruthless but most of her kills are from gods and demons.
 

Dullahan

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,654
I'm perfectly fine with Spidey icing these alien beasts, especially considering the stakes at play.
 

PR_rambo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,631
I always forget how much Etcetera likes to make out Tony Stark to be a villain , shine on you crazy diamonds.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,019
Thise things were savage beasts looking to tear him to pieces.

Killing them while in a desperate battle in no way against Peter's character.
 

Promathia

Member
Dec 3, 2018
8
I think no kill rules are stupid, especially in the context of the situation.

Superman was right to kill Zod too.


Not killing criminals is one thing, killing something that threatens the whole planet/universe is another.
 

MadLaughter

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,026
I think Dan Slott's ideal of the character holds some water for me, but I wish he held every character to a similar standard. His heel turn of the Black Cat was one of the worst character assassinations I've seen in comics.
 

modoversus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,132
México
Where the hell are these nitpickers every time Batman kills someone in every one of his movies? (Seriously, Batman & Robin is the only one where Batman doesn't deliberately kill someone)



The "it's fiction" argument in general is a lame cop out because it essentially boils down to "why didn't the writers just rewrite this entire chunk of the movie to cater to this one specific scenario?". The situation was as dire as it possibly could be, Peter (who's already established as not wanting to kill) decides to activate the big red button to fight off non-sentient animals in order to make sure that Thanos doesn't get the Infinity Gauntlet that is literally right there in Peters hands. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not out of character for Peter.
It's not lame, because what I am arguing is from the point of view of creation of fiction, and what you are arguing is from the point of view the finished movie where things cannot be changed and are taken as fact.
 

jph139

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,045
Massachusetts
modoversus

that tells me nothing. how is peter going to drop the infinity gauntlet to hand to hand combat dozens of swarming outriders with enough care as to not kill them?
Like, he's Spider-Man dude, he can just do Spider-Man stuff. He can like, dodge them and shoot webs and swing away with some cool CG and a well shot action sequence.

If he didn't use instant kill and somehow got away just using his wit and powers, and someone posted a thread saying "how come Spider-Man didn't use his fancy instant kill mode in Endgame" we would rightly be laughing at them because that's a "why aren't the other Avengers helping" lazy-ass criticism.

You can put Spidey in a situation where he's clearly up against the wall without him shredding dudes with his super suit. That's usually how it goes.