I was watching this movie from the 80s called Rustlers Rhapsody. It’s a parody on westerns that follows a singing cowboy, Tom Berenger (Inception), who travels from town to town. Each town is a living cliche - a town drunk, a hooker with a heart of gold, a crooked mayor.
In fact, these towns are so familiar, the hero predicts what’s going to happen because events unfold the same way everywhere he goes. It always ends with a showdown with the villain and the hero riding off victorious. It’s a funny film. I’d seen it before but something stood out on this viewing.
You see, when Berenger’s character, Rex O’Herlihan, is forced to draw his guns, he doesn’t shoot the bad guys. He shoots the guns out of their hands. Rex isn’t out to kill them…because he’s the good guy.
Although Rhapsody is a parody, the hero trope was very present. There used to be a time, long ago, when the good guys had a line they’d never cross. That’s part of what made them the hero.
In the 80s and 90s, it was commonplace to see action heroes like Schwarzenegger and Stallone dispose of the bad guys and follow up with a clever one liner. Perhaps it’s because “The Hero Who Won’t Kill” is really only a staple in superhero comics. While, in other media, stories tend to be more lenient when it comes to their heroes’ morality.
So why is killing a bigger deal when it comes to superheroes? Well…because they’re superheroes.
BATMAN AND SUPERMAN LEAD THE WAY
Golden Age Batman began as a nod to the Shadow, carrying pistols as part of his arsenal. As the character took shape, the guns were done away with, in favor of non lethal measures. Perhaps, this was a business decision. A reassurance to parents their children were following the adventures of a true hero and not a ruthless vigilante.
As the Bat mythology grew, Bruce’s aversion to killing became a defining element of him and his origin. Batman not killing goes beyond “because he’s the good guy”.
The very fact he decides to don the cape and cowl shows how profoundly two violent acts of murder affected him.
It’s been well documented Golden Age Superman has taken a life on different occasions.
Like his World’s Finest counterpart, these were the days when the character hadn’t taken shape yet. He didn’t fly. John and Mary Kent took him to an orphanage before agreeing to adopt him.
And neither lived to see him become Superman. Very different from the story most are familiar with.
While Batman adopted the no killing philosophy a decade before the Comic Code was implemented, the Code may have influenced the shift in Superman’s character. Whatever the case, the rule helped give form to the “Boy Scout” standing for Truth, Justice and the American Way.
After Superman and Batman incorporated the No Kill Rule, it became a standard part of superhero comics. Even Marvel Comics implemented it. “With great power comes great responsibility”, Uncle Ben tells young Peter Parker.
Guys like Wolverine and the Punisher, however, get a pass. They’re exceptions. I say that because I believe it comes down to the perception of the hero and what he/she means to readers and audiences.
A NEW BREED OF ROLE MODEL
Yes, these characters weren’t real and it was impossible for a man to break the sound barrier on foot, but superheroes set examples, nonetheless. Simply put, the publishers presented them as role models. Well, some of them were.
As mentioned, the Punisher and Wolverine or even Deadpool should be considered the exception. In my humble opinion, comics like theirs serve as dark, “no mercy for the wicked”, wish fulfillment. But these characters weren’t meant to set examples. One doesn’t consider, “what would Castle do”, and then go out and act on it. At least, I hope not.
Take a character like Wonder Woman. Despite how poorly written she was at times, she was still a symbol of strength female, (and male), readers could look up to. Youths identified with Peter Parker because he was, arguably, the most similar to the people buying comics. While his actions were fantastically heroic, some of them were still obtainable.
Superheroes spoke to man’s inherent desire to do good. To better ourselves. The stories about intergalactic wars or infinite Earths were purely science fiction but they incorporated very human themes. Themes we could relate to and carry with us.
But, as the past 75 years have proven, times do change.
SUPERHEROES IN A MODERN WORLD
Comic books aren’t “just for kids” anymore. Readers are older and the good vs evil tales of yesteryear won’t suffice. Writers and artists are expected to deliver stories that better reflect the times we live in. Such was the case during World War II and the war in Vietnam.
Today, in this Call of Duty generation, there doesn’t appear to be a role for the role model. The popular characters seem to be the ones willing to get their hands dirty. Heroes who see the world in gray rather than black and white.
Some might attribute this to “post 9/11” but I respectfully disagree. Wolverine, Batman, Daredevil - these guys were more popular than do-gooders like Superman long before 2001.
Nowadays, it’s like everything has to be “grounded”. It’s about “realism” which, apparently, requires showing our heroes are willing to visit that horrible dark place every now and then. Again, I disagree.
I don’t consider Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight the holy grail of comic book movies like others do but what I did love was Batman’s need to protect Harvey Dent’s image. Best scene in the movie for me is when Batman stops Harvey’s “interrogation” of the goon in the alley. He explains if anyone saw this, everything they worked for would be undone.
“You’re the symbol of hope I can never be”.
Even though he had snapped and went all wrathful, maintaining the perception of Harvey as Gotham’s “white knight” was paramount.
I’ve got no problem with stories reflecting the times, or painting a cynical world. But you don’t have to sacrifice the characters to do so. I bring up Superman again, mainly because the No Kill Rule is most synonymous with him. It’s one of the key elements that makes him heroic.
The idea of an all-powerful alien being arriving on Earth and throwing his weight around is already scary enough. If he uses that power to kill, even if they are the bad guys, he’s established as someone willing to make the decision to dole out punishment as he deems necessary. At that point he’s no longer scary, he’s downright terrifying. He becomes an executioner. Someone to be feared, and rightfuly so.
It’s suggested if the hero kills, that makes him/her like the evil they’re protecting the world from. I agree to an extent. It doesn’t make them like the evil. It does, however, make them like the villain.
Magneto and Ra’s Al Ghul believe in their causes, be it protecting mutant kind or maintaining balance in the world at all cost. You can argue both are just. But their respective universes view these two as villains. No, murder or manslaughter doesn’t make heroes automatically evil, but it does leave little else that separates them from the likes of Magneto and Ra’s.
Some of you may insist there are actual moments when the hero has no choice but to put the villain down for the long sleep. Does the hero have a choice? Maybe. The writer? Abso-fricken-lutely.
A TIME TO KILL
I’ve seen this point brought up here several times and I couldn’t agree more - everything comes down to the writer. Comics, film, television. The characters are at the mercy of the writers.
Wonder Woman kills Maxwell Lord because the writer wanted her to not because it was her only option. Daredevil kills Bullseye in Shadowland because thats how the script was written.
The arguments I hear about superheroes killing are usually within the context of the story. But the bigger issue is the people essentially playing God with these heroes’ lives. The decision to make them kill is too easy. It’s intended for shock value. To “shake things up”. To make the story “gritty” and “realistic”.
There are rare occasions, and I do mean
RARE, when it’s handled well and actually strengthens the character, (
John Byrne in 1988).
But most of the time the characters are left tainted…until their title is relaunched and/or everything is retconned.
People can say it’s meant to show the tough decisions these characters are forced to make or how heavy of a burden they carry.
But bloodying their hands, so to speak, isn’t the best or only way to illustrate that.
Setting up two catastrophes, forcing the hero to decide who lives and who dies is effective when a writer commits to it and doesn’t cop out by saving everyone.
Let’s view the instances where superheroes are made to kill for what they are - a choice by a writer who doesn’t believe in a No Kill Code. Perhaps in their attempt to “add depth” or make them “more interesting”, they don't consider it killing or are unaware the hero just killed someone.
I’ve always believed the stronger, more difficult route is finding a way for the hero not to kill the villain. Which leads us to another popular argument - by killing the villain now the hero is saving lives in the future. Thus, making him/her responsible for every life lost afterwards, if the bad guy is spared.
That's on the writers, too.
The above notion is based on the idea mankind is powerless against these super villains. But that isn’t entirely true. Submitted for your approval…
Prisons like The Vault and Belle Reve suggest man not only has the means to incarcerate super villains but they’re bound by our laws or there’s a judicial system in place specifically for them.
There are 32 states in the U.S. that enforce Capital Punishment. If humans can be sentenced to death, doesn’t it stand to reason superhumans can be, too?
Suggesting superheroes kill in the first place means these bad guys aren’t invincible. They can die. With characters like Amanda Waller, there’s bound to be a voice claiming we don't have to rely on so called heroes to do something about superpowered repeat offenders. We can do it ourselves.
Hey, if writers can find a way for an undiscriminating alien virus to turn superheroes into flesh eating zombies, they can come up with a death penalty for super villains.
Maybe a mutant, alien or human carries within him/her a gene lethal to supers. Some brilliant mind like Lex Luthor or Reed Richards discovers it. A serum is created from the blood. Bam! SuperDeath by gas or lethal injection. Let’s see what happens when man starts executing “gods”. *BTW, if this story exists, please point me in the right direction.*
IN CLOSING
This isn’t a call for the days where every story has a happy ending. When the bad guys were locked up and the hero and sidekick laughed over a lame pun at the villains’ expense.
By all means, show us how hard it is being a superhero. They don’t have to be perfect. They don’t have to have
all the answers, making the right decision
all the time. They can be flawed and complex. Just don’t sacrifice the character in the process.
It's been said before - the powers or the saving people isn't what makes superheroes special. It’s the people themselves. Diana Prince, Steve Rogers, Clark Kent, these are exceptional people. In Thor and Green Lantern, the individual has to be worthy before they can wield power.
Some insist these characters need to be relatable and that means making superheroes more like us. And showing they’re willing to take a life seemingly plays a part in that. But I ask - if you make superheroes just like us, what’s left for man to aspire to?
What do you guys think? How do you feel about superheroes crossing the line? Sound off below and, as always, thanks for reading!