A hot button topic in modern superhero movies - particularly DC movies directed by Zack Snyder - is the 'No kill' policy: that idea that certain characters draw a moral line in the sand that they will never under any circumstances cross.
In general I prefer stories in which the protagonist isn't a cold blooded killer. That said, I enjoy mindless action pictures like James Bond and Indiana Jones. That type of movie tends to have a high body count. So I don't tend to loose my mind if an action movie has a bit of carnage and the protagonist is the one responsible.
The 2013 film 'Man of Steel' is quite controversial largely due to the fact that Superman - all American boy-scout - is shown to take a life. And from hearing disillusioned fans talk about it, they made it sound like a straight up act of murder. Superman taking out General Zod the way he did is an inexcusable act. But when I saw the movie for myself I had to ask: did I even watch the same movie as these fans? Yes, Supes snapped Zod's neck like it was a twig. He did it to save a bunch of kids. No, it wasn't a decision he was happy with. Yes, it was the only option in that scenario, other than to 'just let people die' when there was something he could do to prevent it.
Fast-forward to 2016. 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' is in theaters, and audience response is mixed at best. One significant complaint is that Zack Snyder's interpretation of Batman doesn't have a no kill policy. In the months since the movie's release this has become one of the first things to come up when people state there reasons for hating the movie. Personally, I didn't even notice that Batman killed anyone. It wasn't until watching compilation videos such as this one that it became evident to me that, yeah, Batman is responsible for a good bit of carnage in downtown Metropolis. However, I'm not quite sure why this is the one thing fans fixated on?
Granted, Batman's no kill policy in the comics is pretty much the only reason Joker is still alive. There are fans who think that it's inconsistent to have Joker - who has murdered one of the Robins in this continuity - running around Gotham and have Batman be ready and willing to take out Superman 'If there's even a 1% chance' that he's a threat. There's much more than a 1% chance that Joker is a threat.However, the 'Batman never kills rule' has never been a set rule in the movies. Particularly not in the Tim Burton movies. Even in the climax of Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins' there's that bit between Batman and Ra's al Ghul - 'I won't kill you...But I don't have to save you!' Morally speaking having the ability to save an individual's life, but standing back and allowing them to die...well at the very least it's obeying the letter of the law rather than the spirit.
But lets take a look at the MCU for a sec. The fun loving kid friendly Marvel movies. In the context of the movies, does it make sense for The Avengers to have a no kill policy? ...Not really? And they don't seem to. Let's take a look at Captain America. He is by definition a Super-Soldier. From WW2. He's seen action. In 'The First Avenger' you see him chuck a live grenade down the open hatch of an occupied tank. He also casually tosses Hydra agents out of an airplane. Cap doesn't seem to have a no kill policy, and in the context of a soldier in an action movie, he probably shouldn't.
Thor. Thor is basically Conan the Barbarian, but with a bigger vocabulary. He's a mighty warrior. True, usually when he does battle it's with Frost Giants or some other mythic entity, but these are still sentient beings, right?
Iron Man. Let's see, Tony Stark starts out his heroic journey as the head of a weapons manufacturing company. Series villains Obadiah Stain, Whiplash, and Aldrich Killian all fail to live through the climaxes of their respective movies.
Black Widow. She's an ex-assassin and a super-spy. Need I say more?
Back to BvS: It looks like most of the times Batman 'kills' it's usually more public endangerment and property damage rather than intentional homicide. A car chase in a James Bond movie would have the same type of body count. Ol' Bats should probably have his drivers license revoked. The other main 'Batman is a murderer!' scene is the one where Batman is beating up Lex Luthor's thugs in a warehouse. And while this fight scene is rather brutal, how is it different than Captain America or Thor on the battlefield?
It's fine with me if you don't like Batman v Superman. I jut wish people would either say that they don't like it because they just don't like it, or give a better thought out reason than 'Batman doesn't kill people!' I feel like the superhero 'no kill policy' is an odd thing to fixate on in a summer blockbuster style action movie.
One of the best on-screen adaptions of the superhero no kill policy is the Netflix Daredevil series. And the reason it works is that the no kill policy is highlighted and shown to be a big deal. It's a major issue that Matt Murdock is wrestling with. It's a line that he comes dangerously close to crossing multiple times over the course of the first season. Because of this the last couple of episodes are really intense because you are aware that Matt is capable of killing and at this point you really really don't want him to. And this is the way it should be done. If you are going to bother with a no kill policy you should have something to say with it. Otherwise what's the point? The no kill policy isn't something that is addressed in most of the Marvel movies because that's not the story they're trying to tell. I personally don't think it's the story Zack Snyder was trying to tell in BvS either.
-Geekboy.
