u/Late-Bowler-4068

“Superheroes don’t kill” is apparently one of the most controversial statements of all time when it comes to comic book movie fans, which has always been a bit ironic because for comic fans it’s just an accepted part of the genre. While movie fans can barely wrap their head around Batman not killing one mentally ill man, the idea that the majority of superheroes don’t kill their enemies even when universes are at stake is something that a lot of fans don’t even question. Hulk and Wolverine are treated as “rebels” when they dare to suggest Thanos should be killed in Infinity Gauntlet, while the films don’t even approach the idea that Thanos would be taken in alive. Black Widow struggled with being an Avenger in the 1960’s comics because of her willingness to kill, which she had to hide from the team and quickly left it. Of course in the films she’s a founding member of the Avengers and you wouldn’t even bother to think of her as an anti-hero, because while she DOES murder her enemies just as often as her comic counterpart, it simply doesn’t matter or stand out in a universe where the idea of Captain America, Iron Man, and Hawkeye killing henchmen is totally normal.

For a long time, when comic book movie fans aren’t outright denying that the characters have no-kill rules in the source material, the consensus they have is “No-Kill Rules don’t make sense for these characters, they only exist to keep villains alive.” And to an EXTENT, this is true - Why would Captain America, a former soldier, adopt a code against killing? Why does Thor the warrior decide to hold back against mortals? Would a billionaire weapons dealer like Tony Stark really spare the Mandarin so many times, and even try to save his life on multiple occasions? There are absolutely holes in the logic, and it might even make sense you’d remove these morals if you’re making a film trilogy where the villains aren’t needed to be reused. The problem is though, WE ARE NOT MAKING FILM TRILOGIES ANYMORE.

What’s so baffling about the current state of the superhero film genre is that it keeps trying harder and harder to embrace the comics’ idea of superheroes as an ongoing narrative, a neverending story where each film franchise can connect with one another and characters can reappear in unexpected places - They do all that, and yet they still insist on ignoring the No Kill Rules and treating them as silly. Unless you’re a hero who is far too famously associated with being against killing - Such as say Spider-Man, Superman, Daredevil, or Batman - you WILL be adapted by Hollywood into a killer. It’s the default state of superheroes in film universes, compared to comics where Punisher and Wolverine would be the outliers. And this just isn’t sustainable, to the point where even the people who vehemently insist No Kill Rules should not be embraced by adaptations unintentionally defend exactly why they’re in place.

”All the film villains are generic“ Of course they are, how can you expect them to be complex when so many of them are built around their neverending rivalry with their nemesis? What is the point of Red Skull if he’s not locked in eternal combat with Captain America, representing hate and chaos while Cap represents love and freedom? “The stakes are always the same” That’s the inevitable result when all the superhero has to do in any given conflict is defeat the opposing force. The No Kill Rules exist to give heroes parameters - It’s not about if the hero wins or not, because of course he will, it’s about HOW he will win without violating his morals. You can still make interesting stories about how heroes win without giving them a sense of ethics, but once killing is on the table it becomes vastly easier. For a superhero to be appealing, they need psychological limitations - It’s not just about having all the power in the world, it’s about using it correctly. Some will say that killing evil individuals IS using power correctly, which is fine and superhero stories have explored that, but for the sake of engaging longterm storytelling it’s for the best if the majority of superheroes believe otherwise.

When James Gunn first started doing press tours for the new DCU, one thing he mentioned that really stood out to me was the idea of “White hats, gray hats, and black hats.” In other words heroes, anti-heroes, and villains. It seemed like Gunn was going to take advantage of the MCU’s refusal to embrace the classic No Killing staple of superhero comic mythology, and finally give us a universe where we could see superheroes duke it out with anti-heroes on the best way to handle villains. No more basic hero vs villain conflicts, superheroes would evolve from being action adventures into what Elliot S! Maggin, iconic DC writer, once referred to as “moral plays.” The truth is this approach probably should’ve been taken with Marvel rather than DC, since Marvel is more known for their vast breadth of flawed heroes compared to the more altruistic nature of DC heroes, where anti-heroes are few and far between (and if they do exist, they either die, reform, or find themselves imprisoned quite quickly). But still, any attempt to evolve the genre is good progress.

Unfortunately we’re two movies in, and I think it’s safe to say by now that regardless of the quality of these films, Gunn has zero interest in portraying the morality of DC heroes any differently than the MCU did. Besides Superman, every hero has been portrayed as a killer, and even Gunn has said in interviews he’s not against the idea of even Superman himself killing if necessary. The promise of “White hats, gray hats, and black hats” has completely failed to show up in any form so far, with Superman having apparently no issue with the fact that all his friends are murderers. Unlike the comic version of Superman who warred with the Elite when they started murdering criminals, this Superman simply passively sighs when his allies solve problems with lethal force. Nothing has changed in all these years of Hollywood film adaptations, even if Gunn thinks he’s done something new.

Now, I’m not going to tell you whether or not No Kill Rules are actually morally correct, because that’s besides the point. I won’t tell you if they are necessary for every superhero film to be successful, because they aren’t. On an individual film basis, it does not matter if the superhero kills his enemies or not. But for the sake of superhero cinematic universes, it is absolutely essential that the baseline is that superheroes don’t kill. It has largely been that way for 80 years of comic history, and even the stories that seek to challenge it largely end up reinforcing how great of a well for drama it is. Superheroes that kill are not superheroes, they’re essentially generic action film protagonists. And by now it seems even general audiences are getting tired of those as well.