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

kiguel182

Member
Oct 31, 2017
3,509
I kind of agree in retrospect.

I don’t have a problem with the tech suit and all of that but the kill mode is weird and him using it is weird.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,401
Brooklyn, NY


I always found Peter wanting to kill Venom very off-putting in this comic only because it was his fault for immediately trying to ditch it. It's sentient and stated to Peter that it hurt being abandoned and left to die without a host on an unfamiliar world once it got corrupted into being Venom. It did care for Peter but Peter never tried understanding it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,423
Atlanta GA
I haven't seen endgame but I think Slott makes an important point. People love to put superheroes who aren't killers in situations where it's impossible for them not to kill and then say: "now what?" Those type of questions have never been interesting as far as i'm concerned.

It's also a little tiring that people nitpick a character's strict no-kill code as if all characters are supposed to share the same logical processes as it's readers.
Slott is ignoring the context of the scene. There's no question being raised here in this scene. Peter has the Infinity Gauntlet and is trying to get it away from Thanos' army. Thanos' army is swarming Peter and will maul him to death brutally if he doesn't escape immediately. he has to kill a few of those mindless brutes to escape and get the gauntlet to safety, less the entire universe be destroyed.

anyone trying to look at that scene as some sort of morality play is ignoring the context of the scene, the movie, and the movie that came before it.

Now that I think about it, the first time was Peter Parker's plan. "Have you seen this really old movie, Aliens?"
lol seriously. are people going to start saying that scene was Peter premeditating assisted murder?

"no kill" rules are for people who can be saved. Peter refuses to give up on someone if he sees an opportunity for them to repent and do the right thing. it's why he's better than them. alien warlords planning to destroy the universe or murder trillions don't get the benefit of the doubt, it's that simple.

Does anyone here think, given the opportunity, that Peter would spare Thanos' life in this fight?
 
Last edited:

Yasuke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,882
I’d understand the argument if Peter had been fighting a member of the Black Order, even with him getting mauled to death. Killing a sentient being isn’t something he should be readily cool with doing yet.

But the aliens he was fighting were essentially mindless drones.
 

Cipherr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,098
I have no problem with this criticism and I loved Endgame. I agree with him even though I didnt mind the moment.

Is Slott trying to argue that Peter should have just let himself be mauled to death? Like, it was a pretty desperate moment.

I would have honestly just been okay with Peter kicking ass. If Winter Soldier can fight against Thanos army with a damn machine gun, then Peter Parker as strong as he is should be able to whip some serious ass in a montage like the rest of them. Even Rescue was kicking ass... I wont accept that Pete couldn't manage the same.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,401
Brooklyn, NY
I would have honestly just been okay with Peter kicking ass. If Winter Soldier can fight against Thanos army with a damn machine gun, then Peter Parker as strong as he is should be able to whip some serious ass in a montage like the rest of them. Even Rescue was kicking ass... I wont accept that Pete couldn't manage the same.
He's not an experienced soldier like Bucky. He's a kid trying to keep a reality altering gauntlet from enemies while trying not to get mauled to death for it. The others are adults. He may be strong and gifted but he's still a kid and was in a panic.
 

Yasuke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,882
If Winter Soldier can fight against Thanos army with a damn machine gun, then Peter Parker as strong as he is should be able to whip some serious ass in a montage like the rest of them.
It’s almost like Bucky never got swarmed by a gang of them because he never carried the gauntlet.
 

DanGo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,437
Even with Slott’s proposed changes, Spider-Man would still be fighting beside people who were slaughtering the alien enemies. The moral and ethical distinction would be pretty minimal.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,893
tbh, despite the name, I never actually took "kill mode" to be as literal as it sounds.
 

Tace

Avenger
Nov 1, 2017
3,690
I like Slott’s run because it mixes things up. It made it a fresh story and made me really hooked to see how things were going to pan out. With Spencer it just seems like business as usual.
In all fairness that’s by design. Spencer wanted to go back to basics after Slott. I’m glad he did, I think Slott was getting away from what made Spider-Man, Spider-Man.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,288
"ACTIVATE INSTANT INCAPACITATE! But no serious injuries. And no brain damage. Also make sure they dont wake up for a small amount of time. And apologize to that ant I stepped over."
 

Azuran

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
996
Dan Slott was the worst Spider-Man writer. How the fuck he remained for so long in that book is beyond me.

No one should take his opinion seriously.
 

ElBoxyBrown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,063
Instead of having a kill mode it could have been a mode that puts all of the suits energy into one big sound blast.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,423
Atlanta GA
Yes. I don't think Peter has it in him to kill organic life that can think for itself.
So if Peter and Tony were swapped in that final moment, he wouldn't snap the army away?

Actually curious about this because IIRC comics Peter has never been put in such a position, where it's either kill the villains now or the entire universe dies

Maybe he doesn't kill The Black Order since they were kinda victims of Thanos to start with. But they were fighting a losing battle, with that whole army on the field
 

Cipherr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,098
It’s almost like Bucky never got swarmed by a gang of them because he never carried the gauntlet.
The writers designed the scene. They could just as easily given him a scene where he fought off minions one at a time. He went kill mode against a swarm because they decided they wanted him to do that. It wasn't predestined.

Im okay with it because of the callback to the first MCU spiderman, but I would have preferred that scene showing Pete kicking ass. I'm not buying this "he isn't experienced enough" by that point. Dude had been to space and already fought freaking Thanos once.

That scene lands just fine with a solo Pete kicking ass and slinging bodies instead of a Tony Stark invented instakill mode.
 

Seesaw15

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,650
Instead of having a kill mode it could have been a mode that puts all of the suits energy into one big sound blast.
For one that's already more or less Black Panthers thing visually. Character wise it makes sense for Tony to put lethal options in Peters suit since he's an irresponsible mentor who was grooming Peter as his replacement.
 

ElBoxyBrown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,063
So if Peter and Tony were swapped in that final moment, he wouldn't snap the army away?

Actually curious about this because IIRC comics Peter has never been put in such a position, where it's either kill the villains now or the entire universe dies

Maybe he doesn't kill The Black Order since they were kinda victims of Thanos to start with. But they weren't winning that fight eventually, with that whole army on the field.
It's not something a writer has to worry about cuz Peter is never strong enough to fight villains like Thanos. It'll never be his decision to decide their fate. I guess idk, cuz how villains are dealt with in movies and comics are completely different. I expect Batman to kill Darkseid in a live-action movie while comic Batman spares him for the 100th time. In most superhero movies the villain always dies when the hero has no other options left, and rightfully some people are annoyed with that. Yeah, MCU Peter would snap Thanos and his army away, but it feels weird that you can believe this version would do that. I can understand why this bothers Slott cuz the last thing you want Spider-Man to say and do is "kill".
 

Calvarok

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,890
mcu peter parker is iron man jr. he has wacky hijinks with predator missiles instead of web balls. It sucks ass.
 

Whompa

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,175
He responded to the response to his tweet with a pretty justified response too.

Maybe you should include that
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,423
Atlanta GA
It's not something a writer has to worry about cuz Peter is never strong enough to fight villains like Thanos. It'll never be his decision to decide their fate. I guess idk, cuz how villains are dealt with in movies and comics are completely different. I expect Batman to kill Darkseid in a live-action movie while comic Batman spares him for the 100th time. In most superhero movies the villain always dies when the hero has no other options left, and rightfully some people are annoyed with that. Yeah, MCU Peter would snap Thanos and his army away, but it feel weird that you can believe this version would do that. I can understand why this bothers Slott cuz the last thing you want Spider-Man to say is "kill".
yeah it definitely had to be Tony, but hypothetically I can see this MCU version of Peter doing the same thing and I wouldn't have a problem with it (he was okay with killing Ebony Maw to save Strange and the Time Stone so...)

He responded to the response to his tweet with a pretty justified response too.

Maybe you should include that
Was it justified? He's comparing a hypothetical scenario in which Spider-Man can come up with a Very Peter Parker Solution to "an alien invader" versus the context of the scene, which is that Peter is a target for Thanos' mindless murderdog army because he is holding the Infinity Gauntlet, and the fate of the universe, in his hands. In this scene, he simply didn't have the time to fight them off, he needed the AI suit to do its thing so he could escape immediately with the gauntlet. otherwise he would have been torn to shreds.

he's very much ignoring the context of the movie and the final battle scene to try and say he would write a more Spider-Man-like solution to a very specific moment in which Peter is forced to resort to fatal violence in order to save the universe.
 

Masterz1337

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,099
That's the weird thing, y'know?

Like, Far From Home features a Stark killsat and all-encompassing surveillance system that puts Batman's sonar phone thingy from The Dark Knight to shame... But Peter has no issue with it whatsoever, and neither does anyone else, seemingly? Like, Mysterio gets hold of it and that's presented as a bad thing, but the film doesn't actually seem to take any issue with the fact that Stark built it in the first place, and Peter still has access to most of it - all the surveillance stuff at least - as of the end of the movie.

Like I genuinely thought they were gonna build up to some big, 'Pete breaks the glasses; no one should have this power' moment, sorta like when Alfred types in his name and the sonar system self-destructs... But they never did.
To be fair, post snap meant that anything went if it kept people safe. I doubt after that people would care what had to be done in order to survive another threat. Probably is why Dark Avengers will be a thing
 

Breqesk

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,995
To be fair, post snap meant that anything went if it kept people safe. I doubt after that people would care what had to be done in order to survive another threat. Probably is why Dark Avengers will be a thing
Right, and the fact that the film fails to interrogate or criticise any of this is my issue.
 

PanzerKraken

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,660
Daredevil killed a bunch of dudes in Fear Itself despite his no kill policy. Those mecha he shot apart with a friggin giant gatling gun were piloted by humans.
 

Cipherr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,098
If he’d had it, guess what would’ve happened to him.
Whatever they decided they wanted to happen to him, including him fighting off minions by himself. Not sure why we are meant to pretend this would have been an unrealistic outcome when it happened no less than 10 times in this very sequence.

And calm down and stop being so damn aggressive. Some of you really need to chill out. Getting legit hot under the collar because someone would have liked a movie scene to play out a different way is a waste of emotion.
 

Yasuke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,882
Not sure why we are meant to pretend this would have been an unrealistic outcome when it happened no less than 10 times in this very sequence
Now you’re just lying.

Absolutely nobody in this movie succeeded at holding off Thanos or his minions when they had the gauntlet in their hands; Iron Man, Hawkeye, Black Panther, Spider-Man, even Captain Marvel, all failed at it, because the gauntlet was all that mattered. Once any of them got it, the weight of Thanos and his army fell on them and they needed to be bailed out.

Did you even watch the movie? Or are you just into lying on Ultron’s Internet?
 

Keldroc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,028
Does Spider-Man have a no-kill rule in the MCU? Almost nobody else in the MCU does. Certainly MCU Spidey doesn't want to kill anyone but honestly I can't blame him for deciding that auto-stabbing the slavering alien monsters trying to bite his head off doesn't count as murder.
 

Yasuke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,882
he couldn’t see what he was doing.
Holy shit.

That's the weird thing, y'know?

Like, Far From Home features a Stark killsat and all-encompassing surveillance system that puts Batman's sonar phone thingy from The Dark Knight to shame... But Peter has no issue with it whatsoever, and neither does anyone else, seemingly? Like, Mysterio gets hold of it and that's presented as a bad thing, but the film doesn't actually seem to take any issue with the fact that Stark built it in the first place, and Peter still has access to most of it - all the surveillance stuff at least - as of the end of the movie.

Like I genuinely thought they were gonna build up to some big, 'Pete breaks the glasses; no one should have this power' moment, sorta like when Alfred types in his name and the sonar system self-destructs... But they never did.
I don’t get how you can think Peter has no problem with the drones when he never purposely uses them himself, and actually gives them away soon after receiving them because he doesn’t think he’s the person who should wield that power.
 

Soupman Prime

The Fallen
Nov 8, 2017
2,731
Boston, MA
I don't mind super hero having a "no kill" ideal.
I don't think such ideal should ever last more than a second in the face of saving the entirety of the universe.
One of my favorite scenes is Tony killing the dude on the plane with an up close unibeam in Iron Man 3. I don’t mind heroes killing at all but I guess the issue with DC is it was Bats who’s no kill rule is a big thing and Supes who also really isn’t a killer.
 

WarRock

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,584
The same Slott that wrote a much older Peter being okay with a little kid dying without brain surgery just so he would keep being a presence in Ottavius head? That Slott?
The very same one thinks a 0 experience Peter going against cosmic level threats in highschool age should put the life of genocidal aliens above his?

Excuse me if I don't value his criticism at all even if I agree Peter should not kill, then.
 

Breqesk

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,995
Holy shit.

I don’t get how you can think Peter has no problem with the drones when he never purposely uses them himself, and actually gives them away soon after receiving them because he doesn’t think he’s the person who should wield that power.
If he had a problem with the drones - and the rest of Stark’s surveillance, assassination, and information control network - he wouldn’t have given them away; he’d have destroyed them. His giving them away actually demonstrates that he had no issue with the fundamental concept—as you say, ‘he doesn’t think he’s the person who should wield that power’, but he does think it’s a power someone should wield.

And again, my issue is less with the stance any individual character takes on this stuff than it is the position of the movie as a whole.
 

Yasuke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,882
If he had a problem with the drones - and the rest of Stark’s surveillance, assassination, and information control network - he wouldn’t have given them away; he’d have destroyed them. His giving them away actually demonstrates that he had no issue with the fundamental concept—as you say, ‘he doesn’t think he’s the person who should wield that power’, but he does think it’s a power someone should wield.

And again, my issue is less with the stance any individual character takes on this stuff than it is the position of the movie as a whole.
Why? Because you say so?

He doesn’t need to have an issue with the concept (just not be down with using them himself), and there’s absolutely no reason to believe he should given what he’s just lived through.

Imagine coming face to face with Thanos and his army and not understanding why EDITH might be a necessary tool, in the right hands. The entire reason he gives them to Beck is he believes Beck is the next Iron Man, ie, the man that designed EDITH and just saved the universe.

Him waxing poetic about the drones being irresponsible would be tonally inconsistent with the character, at best.
 

SKOL

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
660
Mmmm I don't see the problem with it, these were ravenous, feral alien beasts who would have killed him and his allies on the battlefield without hesitation.
He was literally holding the fate of their planet in his hands but more than anything, it was just a funny callback to Homecoming.
I loved it.
 

Yasuke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,882
I'm more bothered that Peter would be fine with a "Kill Mode" installed into his suit.
The one time he’s ever used it was to kill oversized roaches that can’t think for themselves, lest he be killed and the universe destroyed.

He loudly objects to the idea of using it the one other time it comes up.

He’s not “fine” with it.