The comics, being comics, bring his super senses up as a weakness rather regularly. I'd say roughly 40% of solo Daredevil comics feature villains or circumstances that directly challenge his sensory apparatus in some way, whether it's with something that he actually needs to be able to see to deal with or non-visual inputs leading him astray or even just straight hurting him through his hearing or sense of smell.
I would love to see some of that in the show, but they seem to be avoiding treating Matt as having any real weaknesses that aren't psychological.
There's a great scene in a recent Daredevil where he's fighting a new villain who somehow has his powers. Matt equalizes the fight by making the sprinkler come on, since he's learned to fight through the noise and figures this new guy hasn't mastered his powers yet, giving him an advantage.
I actually just read that whole run over the last week. There were tons of scenes where Matt's blindness or super senses got used against him.
I also liked how they made a big deal out of how important it was that he had a good baseline for the place he was operating in. Not knowing which sounds or smells were out of place, or which buildings were good reflectors of sound, was a huge problem for him for a while.
I think separating a bit from reality is usually a given in super hero shows.
I don't mean that in a facetious way either like "people have super powers and you're caught up on the medical science!?! hurrdurr"
I just mean that in order for maximum punch punch entertainment you have to let some of that go. And most people are looking for that punch punch entertainment. The idea is that they aren't being killed. It doesn't matter if it would have possibly killed people off screen in real life. We know that's not what's happening here. Maybe that's not for everyone that's what this is and what plenty of people want. Because god dammit we like our punch punch comic book dudes.
Is anyone really wedded to "I want to see this guy punch miscreants, but I really hope they don't die" for any reason other than canon?
The comics, being comics, bring his super senses up as a weakness rather regularly. I'd say roughly 40% of solo Daredevil comics feature villains or circumstances that directly challenge his sensory apparatus in some way, whether it's with something that he actually needs to be able to see to deal with or non-visual inputs leading him astray or even just straight hurting him through his hearing or sense of smell.
I would love to see some of that in the show, but they seem to be avoiding treating Matt as having any real weaknesses that aren't psychological.
That sounds awful and tedious. "Oh no, my weakness" is the worst trope/crutch, it is conceptually incoherent and always bad.
I'd say it can be bad, often in cases where someone has a specific weakness ie 'Oh no this guy just happens to have a stockpile of kryptonite'.
I thought it was a bit weak in this season with
Matt not being able to sense the ninjas because they had developed Matt-sense stealth abilities.
But having a character fully realised with both strengths and weaknesses that both come in to play at different times is not 'always bad'.
Matt doesn't have a "weakness." He's blind. The first season did a better job of incorporating what that meant, and the second put it on the backburner.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I actually liked the fact that
these ninjas were right there in plain sight, but he couldn't see them. It treated his blindness as an actual weakness.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
they make a big deal out of the ninjas figuring out not to draw their swords, for example
I think they probably don't do more of it just because they have so many other plot points they're trying to find time for. In the comics 'daredevil's radar is disrupted by something!' is a subplot that can fill 3/4 of an issue, but the show doesn't really have that much spare time.
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
they make a big deal out of the ninjas figuring out not to draw their swords, for example
I think they probably don't do more of it just because they have so many other plot points they're trying to find time for. In the comics 'daredevil's radar is disrupted by something!' is a subplot that can fill 3/4 of an issue, but the show doesn't really have that much spare time.
One thing the comics have worked with that I find interesting is how Matt is really isolated by being blind without many of the limitations shared by other blind people. He can't see, although a lot of writers tend to portray him as a "fake" blind man, and that sets him apart from others.
It's been awhile, so I can't remember the issues (and they have probably dated badly), but the comics had him dating a blind woman for awhile. The fact that he had to put a constant performance on, including pretending to share limitations he did not have, was of course a major source of guilt.
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
I feel the silly "no kill" superhero rule is best satirized with a little known hero called "ShadowHawk". He doesn't kill anyone, just paralyzes them for life. But they are not dead, so it's all good.
That said, I really like how DareDevil is turning the stupid superhero conceit of "good guys don't kill, only bad guys kill" on its head with one of its arguably strongest characters
Karen.
Unlike Matty D, Karen has killed (twice) and she's a better person than Matt is in every respect. It could even be argued that her killing Fisks's Butt Buddy in Season 1 had the greatest effect in taking Fisk down than anything Matty D had done. The show is like, here's a character who has killed: once by accident and once on purpose. See how she's not some stupid psycho like Elektra or the Punisher? See how stupid this conceit is?
Eh, Karen isn't a superhero though. Also she isn't exactly a murderer. Yes, she did blow Fisk's goon away intentionally but even if she probably couldn't have gotten acquitted in a court, the audience understands it was self defense.
Or possibly suicide. I mean, he's the one who laid the gun on the table and then threatened her and everyone she cared about. He deserved to die by every metric from moral repugnance to unbelievable arrogance to sheer stupidity. Fuck that guy.
That said, I really like how DareDevil is turning the stupid superhero conceit of "good guys don't kill, only bad guys kill" on its head with one of its arguably strongest characters
Karen.
Unlike Matty D, Karen has killed (twice) and she's a better person than Matt is in every respect. It could even be argued that her killing Fisks's Butt Buddy in Season 1 had the greatest effect in taking Fisk down than anything Matty D had done. The show is like, here's a character who has killed: once by accident and once on purpose. See how she's not some stupid psycho like Elektra or the Punisher? See how stupid this conceit is?
you could argue that part of wanting to be a superhero is being an idealistic moron.
+5
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Geth, roll 2d10
2d1014 [2d10=7, 7]
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Win!
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Eh, Karen isn't a superhero though. Also she isn't exactly a murderer. Yes, she did blow Fisk's goon away intentionally but even if she probably couldn't have gotten acquitted in a court, the audience understands it was self defense.
Or possibly suicide. I mean, he's the one who laid the gun on the table and then threatened her and everyone she cared about. He deserved to die by every metric from moral repugnance to unbelievable arrogance to sheer stupidity. Fuck that guy.
I think the point is Matty D is given that choice multiple times and never picks up the gun and shoots. Same thing with Batman or other heroes with the "no kill" code.
I don't think it's self defense. She could have taken the gun and just walked out. And then if he tried to stop her physically, it's self defense. No, she point blank picked the gun up and murdered the dude.
these ninjas were right there in plain sight, but he couldn't see them. It treated his blindness as an actual weakness.
At the same time though, I'd presume listening for breath would be the FIRST way matt would have learned to detect people, before hearing their heartbeats. And that holding your breath would be easier than quieting your heartbeat.
That could even have been an opportunity for him to branch out to using sense of smell, rather than hearing.
Eh, Karen isn't a superhero though. Also she isn't exactly a murderer. Yes, she did blow Fisk's goon away intentionally but even if she probably couldn't have gotten acquitted in a court, the audience understands it was self defense.
Or possibly suicide. I mean, he's the one who laid the gun on the table and then threatened her and everyone she cared about. He deserved to die by every metric from moral repugnance to unbelievable arrogance to sheer stupidity. Fuck that guy.
I think the point is Matty D is given that choice multiple times and never picks up the gun and shoots. Same thing with Batman or other heroes with the "no kill" code.
I don't think it's self defense. She could have taken the gun and just walked out. And then if he tried to stop her physically, it's self defense. No, she point blank picked the gun up and murdered the dude.
I doubt she would have gotten convicted. A scary man involved with a criminal organization pointed a gun at her, threatened her life, then put the gun on the table. She grabbed it and fired. How could she know if he had another weapon?
She'd need a good lawyer, but I think she has that covered.
The no killing thing it's a product of almost a century of industry standards. The CCA gave us a lot of what we now recognize as stereotypical superhero behavior.
After that ended, not killing became the way that heroes differentiated themselves from villains and often from just regular people. Batman can get away with not killing because he's just that good, but commissioner Gordon, who is clearly a heroic figure but not a superhero, still carries a gun and occasionally uses it. In that case, it's a means of showcasing the superiority of the superhero, in at least a technical sense.
As comics shifted to more realistic portrayals, not killing moved more to being a practical concern. Beating up criminals so they can be arrested is much less likely to result in social backlash than dropping a ton of bodies in the streets. Better to stay a violent folk hero than become a mass murderer.
Modern properties interact with these standards inn whatever way is narratively useful. Daredevil occasionally makes it a huge plot point, though in the comics it's such an ingrained assumption with him that it comes up fairly rarely. More violent and edgier books like the various Punisher titles will often either go out of their way to humanize the criminals before they're killed or stack so much brutal violence up that it just becomes an absurdity to be laughed at, sometimes both. Lots of titles will skirt the issue all together through the choice of opposition (robots don't count). Others just never show death and don't worry too much about it because the assumption is that it isn't happening.
The no killing thing it's a product of almost a century of industry standards. The CCA gave us a lot of what we now recognize as stereotypical superhero behavior.
After that ended, not killing became the way that heroes differentiated themselves from villains and often from just regular people. Batman can get away with not killing because he's just that good, but commissioner Gordon, who is clearly a heroic figure but not a superhero, still carries a gun and occasionally uses it. In that case, it's a means of showcasing the superiority of the superhero, in at least a technical sense.
As comics shifted to more realistic portrayals, not killing moved more to being a practical concern. Beating up criminals so they can be arrested is much less likely to result in social backlash than dropping a ton of bodies in the streets. Better to stay a violent folk hero than become a mass murderer.
Modern properties interact with these standards inn whatever way is narratively useful. Daredevil occasionally makes it a huge plot point, though in the comics it's such an ingrained assumption with him that it comes up fairly rarely. More violent and edgier books like the various Punisher titles will often either go out of their way to humanize the criminals before they're killed or stack so much brutal violence up that it just becomes an absurdity to be laughed at, sometimes both. Lots of titles will skirt the issue all together through the choice of opposition (robots don't count). Others just never show death and don't worry too much about it because the assumption is that it isn't happening.
Setting also matters. If you have a space hero, then they can pew pew away at bad guys to their hearts content. Likewise with spy heroes, comic Western superheroes and such.
The no killing thing it's a product of almost a century of industry standards. The CCA gave us a lot of what we now recognize as stereotypical superhero behavior.
After that ended, not killing became the way that heroes differentiated themselves from villains and often from just regular people. Batman can get away with not killing because he's just that good, but commissioner Gordon, who is clearly a heroic figure but not a superhero, still carries a gun and occasionally uses it. In that case, it's a means of showcasing the superiority of the superhero, in at least a technical sense.
As comics shifted to more realistic portrayals, not killing moved more to being a practical concern. Beating up criminals so they can be arrested is much less likely to result in social backlash than dropping a ton of bodies in the streets. Better to stay a violent folk hero than become a mass murderer.
Modern properties interact with these standards inn whatever way is narratively useful. Daredevil occasionally makes it a huge plot point, though in the comics it's such an ingrained assumption with him that it comes up fairly rarely. More violent and edgier books like the various Punisher titles will often either go out of their way to humanize the criminals before they're killed or stack so much brutal violence up that it just becomes an absurdity to be laughed at, sometimes both. Lots of titles will skirt the issue all together through the choice of opposition (robots don't count). Others just never show death and don't worry too much about it because the assumption is that it isn't happening.
Setting also matters. If you have a space hero, then they can pew pew away at bad guys to their hearts content. Likewise with spy heroes, comic Western superheroes and such.
Aliens only count if they're sympathetic, I think.
Green Lantern or Nova can wreck whole fleets of alien spaceships if they're painted as the aggressors in the story.
And in any genre where there is already a pulpy, pop culture precedent, that takes primacy. Gunslingers shoot people, samurai slash people, soldiers kill, that's all fine.
The no killing thing it's a product of almost a century of industry standards. The CCA gave us a lot of what we now recognize as stereotypical superhero behavior.
After that ended, not killing became the way that heroes differentiated themselves from villains and often from just regular people. Batman can get away with not killing because he's just that good, but commissioner Gordon, who is clearly a heroic figure but not a superhero, still carries a gun and occasionally uses it. In that case, it's a means of showcasing the superiority of the superhero, in at least a technical sense.
As comics shifted to more realistic portrayals, not killing moved more to being a practical concern. Beating up criminals so they can be arrested is much less likely to result in social backlash than dropping a ton of bodies in the streets. Better to stay a violent folk hero than become a mass murderer.
Modern properties interact with these standards inn whatever way is narratively useful. Daredevil occasionally makes it a huge plot point, though in the comics it's such an ingrained assumption with him that it comes up fairly rarely. More violent and edgier books like the various Punisher titles will often either go out of their way to humanize the criminals before they're killed or stack so much brutal violence up that it just becomes an absurdity to be laughed at, sometimes both. Lots of titles will skirt the issue all together through the choice of opposition (robots don't count). Others just never show death and don't worry too much about it because the assumption is that it isn't happening.
Setting also matters. If you have a space hero, then they can pew pew away at bad guys to their hearts content. Likewise with spy heroes, comic Western superheroes and such.
Aliens only count if they're sympathetic, I think.
Green Lantern or Nova can wreck whole fleets of alien spaceships if they're painted as the aggressors in the story.
And in any genre where there is already a pulpy, pop culture precedent, that takes primacy. Gunslingers shoot people, samurai slash people, soldiers kill, that's all fine.
Yup. That's how SHIELD can be the good guys, while dropping mooks in every episode.
The no killing thing it's a product of almost a century of industry standards. The CCA gave us a lot of what we now recognize as stereotypical superhero behavior.
After that ended, not killing became the way that heroes differentiated themselves from villains and often from just regular people. Batman can get away with not killing because he's just that good, but commissioner Gordon, who is clearly a heroic figure but not a superhero, still carries a gun and occasionally uses it. In that case, it's a means of showcasing the superiority of the superhero, in at least a technical sense.
As comics shifted to more realistic portrayals, not killing moved more to being a practical concern. Beating up criminals so they can be arrested is much less likely to result in social backlash than dropping a ton of bodies in the streets. Better to stay a violent folk hero than become a mass murderer.
Modern properties interact with these standards inn whatever way is narratively useful. Daredevil occasionally makes it a huge plot point, though in the comics it's such an ingrained assumption with him that it comes up fairly rarely. More violent and edgier books like the various Punisher titles will often either go out of their way to humanize the criminals before they're killed or stack so much brutal violence up that it just becomes an absurdity to be laughed at, sometimes both. Lots of titles will skirt the issue all together through the choice of opposition (robots don't count). Others just never show death and don't worry too much about it because the assumption is that it isn't happening.
Setting also matters. If you have a space hero, then they can pew pew away at bad guys to their hearts content. Likewise with spy heroes, comic Western superheroes and such.
Aliens only count if they're sympathetic, I think.
Green Lantern or Nova can wreck whole fleets of alien spaceships if they're painted as the aggressors in the story.
And in any genre where there is already a pulpy, pop culture precedent, that takes primacy. Gunslingers shoot people, samurai slash people, soldiers kill, that's all fine.
Yup. That's how SHIELD can be the good guys, while dropping mooks in every episode.
In defense of SHIELD the very first episode's plot hinged on developing a non-lethal bullet, which they quickly adapted for common use, and now pretty much use exclusively
The no killing thing it's a product of almost a century of industry standards. The CCA gave us a lot of what we now recognize as stereotypical superhero behavior.
After that ended, not killing became the way that heroes differentiated themselves from villains and often from just regular people. Batman can get away with not killing because he's just that good, but commissioner Gordon, who is clearly a heroic figure but not a superhero, still carries a gun and occasionally uses it. In that case, it's a means of showcasing the superiority of the superhero, in at least a technical sense.
As comics shifted to more realistic portrayals, not killing moved more to being a practical concern. Beating up criminals so they can be arrested is much less likely to result in social backlash than dropping a ton of bodies in the streets. Better to stay a violent folk hero than become a mass murderer.
Modern properties interact with these standards inn whatever way is narratively useful. Daredevil occasionally makes it a huge plot point, though in the comics it's such an ingrained assumption with him that it comes up fairly rarely. More violent and edgier books like the various Punisher titles will often either go out of their way to humanize the criminals before they're killed or stack so much brutal violence up that it just becomes an absurdity to be laughed at, sometimes both. Lots of titles will skirt the issue all together through the choice of opposition (robots don't count). Others just never show death and don't worry too much about it because the assumption is that it isn't happening.
Setting also matters. If you have a space hero, then they can pew pew away at bad guys to their hearts content. Likewise with spy heroes, comic Western superheroes and such.
Aliens only count if they're sympathetic, I think.
Green Lantern or Nova can wreck whole fleets of alien spaceships if they're painted as the aggressors in the story.
And in any genre where there is already a pulpy, pop culture precedent, that takes primacy. Gunslingers shoot people, samurai slash people, soldiers kill, that's all fine.
Yup. That's how SHIELD can be the good guys, while dropping mooks in every episode.
In defense of SHIELD the very first episode's plot hinged on developing a non-lethal bullet, which they quickly adapted for common use, and now pretty much use exclusively
Not against Hydra. They always use live rounds against those guys, although that's probably because the night-night rounds don't work against body armor.
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I don't know what the fuck's going on here so I'm going to talk about how I just finished season 2 and IT WAS FUCKING AWESOME. I wanted to share some random thoughts I had as I watched.
I didn't think they could one up that hallway fight, but GOD DAMN DID THEY EVER. I like how most of it was edited into one continuous shot.
I was SUPER skeptical about Punisher. I am a fan of the MAX comics and was worried they wouldn't do him justice. Was I ever wrong. This is, hands down, my favorite Punisher set to film. That early scene
where he gets caught and is being tortured. Right before drill meet foot, was classic Punisher. The truck blowing up was the perfect icing on the cake.
I was also super skeptical about Electra. I REALLY didn't like her character at first but I think that was kind of the point. I started out feeling like she had no place there and should just go away.
And they totally redeemed her character by the end. That scene in the hallway before the final showdown hit me right in the feels. I was actually kind of sad she died. Totally wasn't expecting that either. I hate that she's being resurrected and will inevitably turn bad but again, I feel like that's kind of the point.
Charlie Cox yet again proves he was born to play Daredevil. He's got the right build, the right voice and the right moves. It must have been so hard to stare in just the wrong way like that. They must have had a que light or something for him to stare at because he knew exactly where to look in every scene.
This Netflix marvel universe they are building has been fan-fucking-tastic so far. All of these show have been awesome. I can not WAIT for Luke Cage later this year.
I don't get Foggy's problem (and random other thoughts on season 2):
He acts like Matt is off getting drunk for real. He's out saving lives. Saving the city. So your unwinnable case loses and your shit firm you don't get paid for looks bad. Oh noes! CW drama crap.
Karen should have been the one riding the "Where the hell are you Matt?!" train. Hopefully she doesn't flip out with the reveal.
Elektra isn't anywhere near as bad as she thinks. Or wasn't. This will probably change when she wakes up, sadly.
Frank was awesome. Upthread someone asked why would he keep going- why would he stop? Nothing changed for him really since he started. There are still targets out there.
Matt was lucky Stick was waiting around on the ground!
Bring on season 3 and a Punisher series.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I don't get Foggy's problem (and random other thoughts on season 2):
He acts like Matt is off getting drunk for real. He's out saving lives. Saving the city. So your unwinnable case loses and your shit firm you don't get paid for looks bad. Oh noes! CW drama crap.
Karen should have been the one riding the "Where the hell are you Matt?!" train. Hopefully she doesn't flip out with the reveal.
Elektra isn't anywhere near as bad as she thinks. Or wasn't. This will probably change when she wakes up, sadly.
Frank was awesome. Upthread someone asked why would he keep going- why would he stop? Nothing changed for him really since he started. There are still targets out there.
Matt was lucky Stick was waiting around on the ground!
Bring on season 3 and a Punisher series.
I'm sympathetic to Foggy.
The Punisher situation was loser of a case that would piss off the DA (who can drive their firm out of business by making it clear that any clients of theirs will have the full weight of the DA's office thrown at them), and taking the case was all Matt's idea. Foggy agrees to the case, busts his ass to research and plan, and then Matt basically flakes for the entire trial. Including not showing up for the opening argument, which he had promised he would handle. So I don't have a problem with Foggy being pissed, since Matt is basically risking the future of the firm on a trial and then not even helping out with the trial work.
Playing up the parallels between Matt's face-punching and drug addiction is solid storytelling. Matt isn't beating up criminals in Hell's Kitchen because it needs to be done, he's doing it because he needs to punch bad people.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I think separating a bit from reality is usually a given in super hero shows.
I don't mean that in a facetious way either like "people have super powers and you're caught up on the medical science!?! hurrdurr"
I just mean that in order for maximum punch punch entertainment you have to let some of that go. And most people are looking for that punch punch entertainment. The idea is that they aren't being killed. It doesn't matter if it would have possibly killed people off screen in real life. We know that's not what's happening here. Maybe that's not for everyone that's what this is and what plenty of people want. Because god dammit we like our punch punch comic book dudes.
Is anyone really wedded to "I want to see this guy punch miscreants, but I really hope they don't die" for any reason other than canon?
The comics, being comics, bring his super senses up as a weakness rather regularly. I'd say roughly 40% of solo Daredevil comics feature villains or circumstances that directly challenge his sensory apparatus in some way, whether it's with something that he actually needs to be able to see to deal with or non-visual inputs leading him astray or even just straight hurting him through his hearing or sense of smell.
I would love to see some of that in the show, but they seem to be avoiding treating Matt as having any real weaknesses that aren't psychological.
That sounds awful and tedious. "Oh no, my weakness" is the worst trope/crutch, it is conceptually incoherent and always bad.
Posts
There's a great scene in a recent Daredevil where he's fighting a new villain who somehow has his powers. Matt equalizes the fight by making the sprinkler come on, since he's learned to fight through the noise and figures this new guy hasn't mastered his powers yet, giving him an advantage.
I also liked how they made a big deal out of how important it was that he had a good baseline for the place he was operating in. Not knowing which sounds or smells were out of place, or which buildings were good reflectors of sound, was a huge problem for him for a while.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Is anyone really wedded to "I want to see this guy punch miscreants, but I really hope they don't die" for any reason other than canon?
That sounds awful and tedious. "Oh no, my weakness" is the worst trope/crutch, it is conceptually incoherent and always bad.
I thought it was a bit weak in this season with
But having a character fully realised with both strengths and weaknesses that both come in to play at different times is not 'always bad'.
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
Matt doesn't have a "weakness." He's blind. The first season did a better job of incorporating what that meant, and the second put it on the backburner.
I think they probably don't do more of it just because they have so many other plot points they're trying to find time for. In the comics 'daredevil's radar is disrupted by something!' is a subplot that can fill 3/4 of an issue, but the show doesn't really have that much spare time.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
One thing the comics have worked with that I find interesting is how Matt is really isolated by being blind without many of the limitations shared by other blind people. He can't see, although a lot of writers tend to portray him as a "fake" blind man, and that sets him apart from others.
It's been awhile, so I can't remember the issues (and they have probably dated badly), but the comics had him dating a blind woman for awhile. The fact that he had to put a constant performance on, including pretending to share limitations he did not have, was of course a major source of guilt.
7 aaaand... 7.
Huh.
Why I fear the ocean.
does that work?
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
shouldn't it be like metaphysically impossible or something
uhhh
it's kind of like
their thing
Unlike Matty D, Karen has killed (twice) and she's a better person than Matt is in every respect. It could even be argued that her killing Fisks's Butt Buddy in Season 1 had the greatest effect in taking Fisk down than anything Matty D had done. The show is like, here's a character who has killed: once by accident and once on purpose. See how she's not some stupid psycho like Elektra or the Punisher? See how stupid this conceit is?
Or possibly suicide. I mean, he's the one who laid the gun on the table and then threatened her and everyone she cared about. He deserved to die by every metric from moral repugnance to unbelievable arrogance to sheer stupidity. Fuck that guy.
you could argue that part of wanting to be a superhero is being an idealistic moron.
I think the point is Matty D is given that choice multiple times and never picks up the gun and shoots. Same thing with Batman or other heroes with the "no kill" code.
I don't think it's self defense. She could have taken the gun and just walked out. And then if he tried to stop her physically, it's self defense. No, she point blank picked the gun up and murdered the dude.
That could even have been an opportunity for him to branch out to using sense of smell, rather than hearing.
I doubt she would have gotten convicted. A scary man involved with a criminal organization pointed a gun at her, threatened her life, then put the gun on the table. She grabbed it and fired. How could she know if he had another weapon?
She'd need a good lawyer, but I think she has that covered.
After that ended, not killing became the way that heroes differentiated themselves from villains and often from just regular people. Batman can get away with not killing because he's just that good, but commissioner Gordon, who is clearly a heroic figure but not a superhero, still carries a gun and occasionally uses it. In that case, it's a means of showcasing the superiority of the superhero, in at least a technical sense.
As comics shifted to more realistic portrayals, not killing moved more to being a practical concern. Beating up criminals so they can be arrested is much less likely to result in social backlash than dropping a ton of bodies in the streets. Better to stay a violent folk hero than become a mass murderer.
Modern properties interact with these standards inn whatever way is narratively useful. Daredevil occasionally makes it a huge plot point, though in the comics it's such an ingrained assumption with him that it comes up fairly rarely. More violent and edgier books like the various Punisher titles will often either go out of their way to humanize the criminals before they're killed or stack so much brutal violence up that it just becomes an absurdity to be laughed at, sometimes both. Lots of titles will skirt the issue all together through the choice of opposition (robots don't count). Others just never show death and don't worry too much about it because the assumption is that it isn't happening.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Setting also matters. If you have a space hero, then they can pew pew away at bad guys to their hearts content. Likewise with spy heroes, comic Western superheroes and such.
Aliens only count if they're sympathetic, I think.
Green Lantern or Nova can wreck whole fleets of alien spaceships if they're painted as the aggressors in the story.
And in any genre where there is already a pulpy, pop culture precedent, that takes primacy. Gunslingers shoot people, samurai slash people, soldiers kill, that's all fine.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yup. That's how SHIELD can be the good guys, while dropping mooks in every episode.
is the implication that the hand's activities are sanctioned by our lord and saviour jesus christ
In defense of SHIELD the very first episode's plot hinged on developing a non-lethal bullet, which they quickly adapted for common use, and now pretty much use exclusively
Not against Hydra. They always use live rounds against those guys, although that's probably because the night-night rounds don't work against body armor.
Robots inspire more sympathy when killed.
Hoping for 7,5
Geth, roll 2#1d10 for random vigilante encounter
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
I didn't think they could one up that hallway fight, but GOD DAMN DID THEY EVER. I like how most of it was edited into one continuous shot.
I was SUPER skeptical about Punisher. I am a fan of the MAX comics and was worried they wouldn't do him justice. Was I ever wrong. This is, hands down, my favorite Punisher set to film. That early scene
I was also super skeptical about Electra. I REALLY didn't like her character at first but I think that was kind of the point. I started out feeling like she had no place there and should just go away.
Charlie Cox yet again proves he was born to play Daredevil. He's got the right build, the right voice and the right moves. It must have been so hard to stare in just the wrong way like that. They must have had a que light or something for him to stare at because he knew exactly where to look in every scene.
This Netflix marvel universe they are building has been fan-fucking-tastic so far. All of these show have been awesome. I can not WAIT for Luke Cage later this year.
Karen should have been the one riding the "Where the hell are you Matt?!" train. Hopefully she doesn't flip out with the reveal.
Elektra isn't anywhere near as bad as she thinks. Or wasn't. This will probably change when she wakes up, sadly.
Frank was awesome. Upthread someone asked why would he keep going- why would he stop? Nothing changed for him really since he started. There are still targets out there.
Matt was lucky Stick was waiting around on the ground!
Bring on season 3 and a Punisher series.
I'm sympathetic to Foggy.
Playing up the parallels between Matt's face-punching and drug addiction is solid storytelling. Matt isn't beating up criminals in Hell's Kitchen because it needs to be done, he's doing it because he needs to punch bad people.
It can work sometimes.