Remind me of what I'm missing cuz it doesn't change the fact that he said it, which means he knew about it.
Regardless, it shouldn't be brought back in future movies.
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Writer Dan Slott talks about Spider-Man's "Instant-Kill Mode" (all MCU Spoilers)
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
Not true. He probably shouldn't have been on Spider-Man for so long though.
He can do great work. Silver Surfer is a good comic.
You know what, you're right. That's just my Spider-Man fanboyism talking.
Pretty sure I said the same thing multiple times over the course of his Spidey run XD
But it has some great highs despite the lows. Did I mention Silver Surfer
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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:
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".
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:
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
There's also Beetle, Chameleon, Jackal and probably a lot others I'm forgetting.
Slot made Spider-Man kill. Sure it was SpiderOck but the line was crossed and the people of 616 know that SM kills now.
Yup. Outriders, canonically, don't posses free will. They're essentially fleshy robots.
Peter Parker is not dumb enough to put the lives of non-sentient attack dogs above the fate of the entire universe.
Which is why he used the kill mode.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Speaking of Aliens, they planted the seeds for Peter's murder streak in IW where he's the mastermind for Ebony Maw's death.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh.... Then who cares then? Slott picked the wrong fight here.
It is surprising to me he latched onto this, and not Peter devising the plan to kill Ebony Maw in Infinity War
I still think Peter made the right call there but that debate would have more merit for discussion.
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.
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
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.
