Now that I think about it, the first time was Peter Parker's plan. "Have you seen this really old movie, Aliens?"
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.
Now that I think about it, the first time was Peter Parker's plan. "Have you seen this really old movie, Aliens?"
Is Slott trying to argue that Peter should have just let himself be mauled to death? Like, it was a pretty desperate moment.
Oh, come on. It's like he wanted to nitpick just so he could act like he knows how to write Spider-Man better
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.
First degree murder, why couldn't he just knock him out?Now that I think about it, the first time was Peter Parker's plan. "Have you seen this really old movie, Aliens?"
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.
tbh, despite the name, I never actually took "kill mode" to be as literal as it sounds.
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.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.
Yes. I don't think Peter has it in him to kill organic life that can think for itself.Does anyone here think, given the opportunity, that Peter would spare Thanos' life in this fight?
"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."
we're essentially talking about the moral equivalent of destroying ultron drones
they aren't sentient
Yes. I don't think Peter has it in him to kill organic life that can think for itself.
It's almost like Bucky never got swarmed by a gang of them because he never carried the gauntlet.
Dude had been to space and already fought freaking Thanos once.
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.Instead of having a kill mode it could have been a mode that puts all of the suits energy into one big sound blast.
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".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 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".
He responded to the response to his tweet with a pretty justified response too.
Maybe you should include that
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 thingThat'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.
Right, and the fact that the film fails to interrogate or criticise any of this is my issue.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
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
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Did you watch Spider-Man Homecoming?
I'm more bothered that Peter would be fine with a "Kill Mode" installed into his suit.