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

ElBoxyBrown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,063
Did you watch Spider-Man Homecoming?
Remind me of what I'm missing cuz it doesn't change the fact that he said it, which means he knew about it.
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.
Regardless, it shouldn't be brought back in future movies.
 
Last edited:

Einchy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,288
Peter straight up murdered Squidward. Spidey ain't fuckjing with no alien mothafuckas.
 

Nostremitus

Member
Nov 15, 2017
3,564
Remind me of what I'm missing cuz it doesn't change the fact that he said it, which means he knew about it.
He discovered it in his old suit and it scared the shit out of him and had his AI permanently deactivate it. In Endgame he'd had the new suit for all of a day and had been fighting most of the time from his chronological point of view. He didn't know instant kill was there, but in that moment I'm sure he hoped it was.
 

ElBoxyBrown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,063
He discovered it in his old suit and it scared the shit out of him and had his AI permanently deactivate it. In Endgame he'd had the new suit for all of a day and had been fighting most of the time from his chronological point of view. He didn't know instant kill was there, but in that moment I'm sure he hoped it was.
It's all designed by Tony so safe to assume he knew stuff would carry over.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,425
Atlanta GA
He discovered it in his old suit and it scared the shit out of him and had his AI permanently deactivate it. In Endgame he'd had the new suit for all of a day and had been fighting most of the time from his chronological point of view. He didn't know instant kill was there, but in that moment I'm sure he hoped it was.
He knew about it. He needed it.

It's abundantly simple - murderous feral spacedogs fighting on behalf of an insane alien warlord who has already murdered half the universe and intends to finish the job just don't count in the "no kill" rule, and that's 100% fine. it shouldn't even be a question of morality here, this is a superhero actively working to save the universe from complete and total erasure.

Once again, Peter premeditated the killing of a sentient alien enemy in the previous movie. He did it because it was worth it to try and keep the Time Stone out of Thanos' hands. This is not the same Peter as in the comics because he isn't being brought up in the same circumstances. He went from a normal day at school to fighting a desperate battle for the fate of the universe in a day (and 5 years). And if anyone is gonna try and tell me he was wrong for helping Tony off The Ebony Maw...bygollygosh...
 
Last edited:

ElBoxyBrown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,063
It's safe to assume that he hoped it did. Tony could have seen that it was permanently disabled and removed it in the upgrade. Pete had no way of knowing for sure.
Peter had no way of knowing cuz he didn't want to activate it, and it also wasn't on his mind since he had things under control. It doesn't really matter if he wasn't 100% convinced it was installed. He knew about the mode, he said it, and it worked.
 
Last edited:

Arthands

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,773
Suggesting that the writer don't put him into that situation is a lazy cop-out. That create no conflicts and totally misunderstand the point of the no-kill moral.

I... actually like that.

One thing that I see a lot with the relationship between Batman and Superman is that they see each other as two sides of the same coin - Superman exists to inspire others and Batman exists to terrify them.

So while it's okay for Batman to be "bad", Superman can't be. The world follows where Superman goes and if the most powerful of us goes bad, don't we all?
There wasn't any option, and Batman with his infallible moral compass certainly isn't working at all. There's no room for such silly philosophy talk when humanity is on the brink of getting slaughtered. The world wouldn't even exist, let alone follow Superman if he didn't do that.

Feels like some people are so entrenched blindly in the 'no-killing' policy itself and neglect why they erect such no-kill moral compass in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Z-Beat

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,211
Those things were even less sentient than the chitauri, which were basically space bees.

Also it was his idea to throw Maw out the airlock
 

JetmanJay

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,111
I mean, this current Parker sucks anyways. He was gonna let the entire earth get turned to ash so he could maybe kiss a girl on the Eiffel Tower.
Might as well give give him all kinds of Instant Kill Modes on his new Spidey suit and make him War Machine Jr.
 

Spring

Member
Oct 31, 2017
155
Oh, come on. It's like he wanted to nitpick just so he could act like he knows how to write Spider-Man better.

Thanos's dogs are mindless monsters. Nobody's gonna lose any sleep if Peter kills some of them. He also helped Iron-Man kill Ebony Maw in Infinity War, and I don't see anyone complaining about that.
Agree with this
 

Sacul64

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,560
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.
IIRC that was Lucius not Alfred.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,500
Arizona
What a dumb argument to make. The fate of the entire universe was at stake and the dude is gonna get worried over some bad guys getting got?


Seriously?
I mean, not even “bad guys”. Generic alien monster things. Not even the most anti-kill Batman incarnation is gonna look at those things and be all “ALL LIFE IS SACRED”.

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 honest, most (keyword here, before someone jumps down my throat) of the MCU isn’t exactly strong at really anything beyond the surface level. There’s not exactly high level theme work, any kind of real reflection, introspection, or thoughtful messaging throughout a lot of it. It’s just not what most of these writers and directors are going for, so you often get a lot of stuff that’s thrown in because it’s cool or makes for a funny moment that’s kind of side-eye if you actually try to analyze it.
 
Last edited:

Mugman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
354
It's a silly argument when your enemy is trying to destroy the entire universe. Peter also already experienced what it was like to slowly fade into nothingness after losing a fight to the same enemy. The use of instant kill was a sign of just how dire the situation was. If you want to argue that the aftermath of that decision should have been explored more that's fair, but it was pretty clearly the right call in his situation
 

JDSN

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
2,108
Whatever, MCU Spider-Man is his own thing to the point it shares more with Batman Beyond.
 

Coyote Starrk

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
17,428
DFW, Texas
Spider-Man always finds a way. He doesn't compromise. That's his character.

Non-sentient? Is that an assumption, or you have a source on that? I don't recall that part.
Several people have made that case so far in the thread. They are basically mindless beasts set loose. To think Peter Parker should gamble the fate of the entire universe on the lives of animals that are currently trying to kill him and everyone he cares about is one of the stupidest things i have ever heard.
 

Aizō

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
4,997
ほぼ真ん中の方
Several people have made that case so far in the thread. They are basically mindless attack dogs. To think Peter Parker should gamble the fate of the entire universe on the lives of animals that are currently trying to kill him and everyone he cares about is one of the stupidest things i have ever heard.
So you have no evidence. Okay.

I'm not saying it's the decision I would make. I'm saying Peter Parker as a character would not make those decisions. He wouldn't "gamble." He would find an alternate solution where he's not taking lives. You're acting like this is the real world and actually happened. The plot can be whatever. He's fictional. He always finds a way.

Dan Slott is arguing the character he knows and wrote for years wouldn't do that, and I agree. If you wanna argue this isn't Peter from the comics, and doesn't care about that, then at least that argument is sound and not based on assumptions about the sentience of creatures he kills when nothing is stated to support that argument.
 

Coyote Starrk

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
17,428
DFW, Texas
So you have no evidence. Okay.

I'm not saying it's the decision I would make. I'm saying Peter Parker as a character would not make those decisions. He wouldn't "gamble." He would find an alternate solution where he's not taking lives. You're acting like this is the real world and actually happened. The plot can be whatever. He's fictional. He always finds a way.

Dan Slott is arguing the character he knows and wrote for years wouldn't do that, and I agree. If you wanna argue this isn't Peter from the comics, and doesn't care about that, then at least that argument is sound and not based on assumptions about the sentience of creatures he kills when nothing is stated to support that argument.
There is plenty of evidence that supports it. The biggest example being when they they mindlessly claw and kill themselves attacking the barrier in Wakanda. There was no intelligence. They basically threw themselves at a wall repeatedly until they died or dismembered themselves. Does that scream "intelligent creature" to you?


If you don't like the decision then that's fine, but in my opinion saying he should have figured out a way to not kill them while they were trying to literally eat him alive and that people should be upset about it is monumentally stupid and shortsighted. The fate of the universe was at stake and he was about to die. It made perfect sense to do what he did.
 

Khanimus

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
14,808
Greater Vancouver
This is like watching Aliens and being upset that they don't just try to reason with the xenomorphs. Like, this is a full-on war against ravenous space monsters and an evil space god who literally succeeded in killing half of all life, including himself.

So when he pulls Obsidian away from Tony, only for Ant-Man to step on him, is Peter supposed to go into a moral panic? Like these ain't some petty street-level muggers. It's not like Peter is apathetic to murder, he literally tries his hardest to save Vulture at the end of Homecoming, despite getting beaten into the ground 20 seconds earlier. But like... pick your battles. The 'superheroes don't kill' thing gets real fucking stupid when you are literally facing down intergalactic genocide and you want to moralize about mindless spacehounds.
 

Aizō

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
4,997
ほぼ真ん中の方
If you don't like the decision then that's fine, but in my opinion saying he should have figured out a way to not kill them while they were trying to literally eat him and that people should be upset about it is monumentally stupid.
Again, it's not about how smart it is. I wouldn't do it. You keep trying to call me an idiot by proxy of the argument, but your misrepresenting what I'm saying. I would kill monsters to save humans. It's about how faithful it is to the character. Them being stupid monsters that die without logic doesn't excuse the fact that they're alive, and I cannot see Spider-Man taking any lives.
 

ShaunB

Member
Oct 25, 2017
265
Speaking of Aliens, they planted the seeds for Peter's murder streak in IW where he's the mastermind for Ebony Maw's death.
 

Thatonedice1

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,067
Working on that also.
This criticism kinda ignores the scene in infinity war were these things were literally killing themselves to pass through Wakanda's shield. Those things don't even have self preservation in mind. I think of them as mindless killing machines to be honest. I don't know why it's bad to let the no killing rule slide for that. But Peter being "Yeah let's kill this thing, lol" towards venom is fucked up. He knows the symbiote can do some good and bad. Being ok with killing it is just fucking cruel.
 

Coyote Starrk

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
17,428
DFW, Texas
Again, it's not about how smart it is. I wouldn't do it. You keep trying to call me an idiot by proxy of the argument, but your misrepresenting what I'm saying. I would kill monsters to save humans. It's about how faithful it is to the character. Them being stupid monsters that die without logic doesn't excuse the fact that they're alive, and I cannot see Spider-Man taking any lives.
You said I had no evidence. I was just pointing out that I did have some. I don't really care what you would do. And I am telling you that I can easily see it happening with Peter. Peter Parker is not a fool. If it came down to the lives of the beasts trying to eat him vs the ENTIRE population of the universe I am pretty sure he would be logical enough to know that kill or be killed is an appropriate course of action at that point. Yes Spiderman never kills people. But these weren't people and the circumstances were wildly out of his control and far and away beyond anything he normally deals with.


It's not like he whipped out a Bazooka and started to go CoD on people laughing maniacally while he did it. And it's not like he activated kill mode first chance he got. He was literally about to die and with him so would the entire universe. There was no other option for him in that moment other than what he did. The fact that some people are trying to hold that against him is ridiculous.
 

MisterHero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,756
real people, good and bad, have lives of others in their hands, all the time. to invent a fictional character and insist they can handle anything a real person can, but better, is insulting.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,425
Atlanta GA
This criticism kinda ignores the scene in infinity war were these things were literally killing themselves to pass through Wakanda's shield. Those things don't even have self preservation in mind. I think of them as mindless killing machines to be honest. I don't know why it's bad to let the no killing rule slide for that. But Peter being "Yeah let's kill this thing, lol" towards venom is fucked up. He knows the symbiote can do some good and bad. Being ok with killing it is just fucking cruel.
They are literally that. Thanos breeds them and augments them to be mindless subservient killing machines. They have no instinct other than to attack and kill.
 

Punished Snaku

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,867
NoVA
Batman is the singular superhero that has a character defining no-kill/no-gun rule in my mind. It’s literally who he is. And I didn’t even bat an eye when he shot Darkseid dead. There are just some threats and situations that require lethal force, and saving billions of lives from an insane god ticks one of those boxes.

 

Aizō

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
4,997
ほぼ真ん中の方
You said I had no evidence. I was just pointing out that I did have some. I don't really care what you would do. And I am telling you that I can easily see it happening with Peter. Peter Parker is not a fool. If it came down to the lives of the beasts trying to eat him vs the ENTIRE population of the universe I am pretty sure he would be logical enough to know that kill or be killed is an appropriate course of action at that point. Yes Spiderman never kills people. But these weren't people and the circumstances were wildly out of his control and far and away beyond anything he normally deals with.


It's not like he whipped out a Bazooka and started to go CoD on people laughing maniacally while he did it. And it's not like he activated kill mode first chance he got. He was literally about to die and with him so would the entire universe. There was no other option for him in that moment other than what he did. The fact that some people are trying to hold that against him is ridiculous.
I'm not holding it against him as a character. I think it was just an odd choice for the writers. Even in the event that he had absolutely zero other solution... then why did writers choose that for Spider-Man when it isn't even a major character moment that he's bothered by?

I get you. I do. I just think it was a weird choice from the writing staff, so I don't think they get Spider-Man.
 

Arthands

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,773
I'm not holding it against him as a character. I think it was just an odd choice for the writers. Even in the event that he had absolutely zero other solution... then why did writers choose that for Spider-Man when it isn't even a major character moment that he's bothered by?

I get you. I do. I just think it was a weird choice from the writing staff, so I don't think they get Spider-Man.
So the writers should avoid writing the character into a no-win situation that the character have no choice other than sliding his moral code and do the right thing, just so the character can preserve his precious moral code? That's a cop-out for no reason.
 
OP
OP
Dalek

Dalek

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,121
I'm not holding it against him as a character. I think it was just an odd choice for the writers. Even in the event that he had absolutely zero other solution... then why did writers choose that for Spider-Man when it isn't even a major character moment that he's bothered by?

I get you. I do. I just think it was a weird choice from the writing staff, so I don't think they get Spider-Man.
I agree with you.
 

Aizō

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
4,997
ほぼ真ん中の方
So the writers should avoid writing the character into a no-win situation that the character have no choice other than sliding his moral code and do the right thing, just so the character can preserve his precious moral code? That's a cop-out for no reason.
Are you now talking about this moment or hypothetically in general?

Like I said, if it's done, it should be a major character moment. Make it meaningful. I'm down for that kind of story if it has impact and is done well. I just think that Spider-Man, like Batman and Superman, would find another way no matter what (mostly talking about taking human lives for the general hypothetical here).

Regarding this film, it didn't feel meaningful to me, personally. I just feel like a lot of people here don't give a fuck about the character that was established in the comics decades ago and are just going by this situation in the film as if it's real life and he had to do it. The Spider-Man I know would have done it differently, and I think that's a failing of the writing.

I think I've said about all I can about this.
 

Trike

The Fallen
Nov 6, 2017
602
I mean he killed Gwen Stacy in comics and film so he started off his murdering career pretty hardcore. If anything MCU Spidey getting his first kill was his induction to becoming a real movie Spider-Man, who all have been murderers.
 

Tace

Avenger
Nov 1, 2017
3,690
I'm not holding it against him as a character. I think it was just an odd choice for the writers. Even in the event that he had absolutely zero other solution... then why did writers choose that for Spider-Man when it isn't even a major character moment that he's bothered by?

I get you. I do. I just think it was a weird choice from the writing staff, so I don't think they get Spider-Man.
Hard disagree.