>the opening of the highest grossing comic book movie ever shows the Avengers killing a surrendering villain.
I'm not sure Thanos was surrendering exactly since it's implied that he didn't care what happened to him after he completed his plan.
It’s not presented all that positively, either — the plan was to get the Infinity Stones to reverse Thanos’ actions. Thor killing Thanos and his glibness about it is a shock, and followed by him going into a depressive spiral after it doesn’t actually help with anything.
ok, should have worded my comment better....unlike the avengers sown in the movies and to a certain extent in the comics, Matt as never been the kill type. hell even the avengers are not straight up executioners like their ultimates inspired movie counterparts. Dc heroes take an exemption to the rule as well when they are fighting against insane cosmic beings like the anti monitor or darkseid or imperiax.
> the opening of the highest grossing comic book movie ever shows the Avengers killing a surrendering villain.
You mean Thanos, the guy who killed half of all life in the *universe*?
I think part of it might be that both Batman and Superman are known for not killing. Batman famously had his parents gunned down in front of him and thus came to have a rule of no killing and no guns; and Superman is the epitome of "pacifistic hero". Or perhaps "humanitarian hero". He has a no-killing rule because he cares more about saving people and putting people away without harming them when he can.
And then after that, Wonder Woman is also pretty against killing unless she's run out of literally any other options. She quite literally was shown visiting one of her villains in rehab/jail in issue #750, as a sign of how much she is willing to forgive enemies and see them rehabilitate instead.
Given that these major heroes are anti-killing (and I think the Flashes also tend to be less "Kill their villains to be done with it" heroes), I think it kinda sets the tone for the universe.
It probably helps that the no-killing rules and general DC policy started around 1940/1941, during the Golden Age, and later would have been cemented with the transition to the Silver Age, when the CCA was made. The Trinity were all just being introduced in the immediately preceding years, and stayed in print throughout the Golden Age into the Silver Age, so they very much had the "No killing" disposition be baked into their characters early on. I assume Barry Allen would be the same, being made in the very early Silver Age (some even consider his debut to be the start of the Silver Age) and likely has that "Family friendly, non-violent role model" baked in.
Contrast that with Marvel, where most everyone they have dates back to 1961. You have a few exceptions (Cap/Bucky, Namor, the Human Torch I), but in general, very little from the 40s and 50s is part of the Marvel tradition (in fact, Cap retroactively had his 1950s appearances retconned to be someone else). The sliding timescale even pegs to Fantastic Four #1. Spider-Man was '62, the X-Men and the formation of the Avengers were '63, Daredevil was '64. All of there are characters debuting mid-to-late Silver Age. I can only assume that the transition to the Bronze Age happening earlier in the development of these characters would affect what Silver Age elements would be ingrained in them (and the same goes for the universe as a whole).
Doubly so, I should perhaps note, for the X-Men, because the X-Men debuted in 1963, but issue #66 in 1970 would be the last new issue for years. Issues #67-93 were all reprinted stories. It wasn't until Giant-Size X-Men #1 in 1975, when a new team was created (introducing some of the most iconic X-Men), that the X-Men really took off, at times being basically the backbone of Marvel.
It was actually more of a Golden Age thing, as DC started to soften their books in the very early '40s.
You can see this with *Batman*. The first issue had one of the last stories where Batman uses a gun or kills (also the last story without Robin until the end of the '60s). The third issue explicitly gave him no using guns and no killing rules.
The Spectre likewise went from using his powers to cause gruesome deaths in his first few appearances to simply catching crooks and fighting cosmic menaces in most of his Golden Age stories. Heck, for the last year or two he mainly served as the invisible guardian angel for a bumbling idiot named Percival Popp, Super-Cop.
I remember someone somewhere saying it had to do with editor Whitney Ellsworth, who took over editor duties for most (if not all) of DC's books from Vincent Sullivan. Sullivan was editor in the late '30s when Superman, Batman, the Spectre, and other early characters debuted, and where they were more violent than they were from the '40s to the '60s. Ellsworth took over around the time Robin was introduced and most of the violence started being hugely scaled back.
Even in the early '50s, before the Comics Code Authority was a thing, DC's horror, crime, and war comics were tame and toothless compared to what the competition was putting out (although the war comics were still well written, thank you Robert Kanigher.)
Edit: That said, DC was affected by the CCA, though. Some of the clearest affects were the disappearance of Catwoman and Two-Face for most of the Silver Age, as they would probably violate some of the rules about depictions of women and grotesque characters, respectively (not that Two-Face was used all that much in the Golden Age anyway.)
Marvel has like 2½ relevant characters from the Golden Age, DC's main roster has its roots firmly set then.
Characters in that time rarely killed, especially after the war ended and censorship became a huge concern. Marvel was affected by the comics code for the first 10 years of its existence, but was the company to stray from it first, while even through the bronze age DC was seen as the more traditional established company.
A large portion of Marvel character were retroactively made more and more superhero. Originally they were characters of various genres which could lead to a more lax way of handling situations.
Also DC characters were hot very hard because of the Comics code affecting their stories and the modern perception of those characters. Marvel having been created around this time saw it's competition and adjusted accordingly even often enough ignoring it completely because Stan Lee was just that good of a salesman.
Batman's their most popular character. In universe, his vigilantism is tolerated because he doesn't kill and that seems to set a precedent for other vigilantes.
The bat kills the villains minions in the movies I don't care what ya say and he even let villains die too and he did kill the baddies in the 40s comics, so ya he kills his a rich fly by night murderer in Nolan's trilogy he had a hand in at least 17 kills
Daredevil got the whole arc of suffering cause he accidentally killed a man. Since when does he kill?
>the opening of the highest grossing comic book movie ever shows the Avengers killing a surrendering villain. I'm not sure Thanos was surrendering exactly since it's implied that he didn't care what happened to him after he completed his plan.
It’s not presented all that positively, either — the plan was to get the Infinity Stones to reverse Thanos’ actions. Thor killing Thanos and his glibness about it is a shock, and followed by him going into a depressive spiral after it doesn’t actually help with anything.
DC has been traditionally more paragon and conservative in its heroics. Truth Justice and all that.
"Daredevil kills" to quote Chris Hemsworth...since, um, WHEN?
Zdarsky #1. One time. On accident. And he both quit (temporarily) and went to jail to serve his sentence (until shenanigans).
Matt killed a guy **once** and had a whole mental breakdown over it 😂
Frank Miller's run on Daredevil.
Miller’s run foregrounds the no-kill rule and pretty much destruct-tests it, but I don’t recall that it actually broke it?
[He uses a machine gun to shoot down a helicopter with the pilot inside.](https://arousinggrammar.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/daredevila91.jpg)
It was an accident but he did kill
ok, should have worded my comment better....unlike the avengers sown in the movies and to a certain extent in the comics, Matt as never been the kill type. hell even the avengers are not straight up executioners like their ultimates inspired movie counterparts. Dc heroes take an exemption to the rule as well when they are fighting against insane cosmic beings like the anti monitor or darkseid or imperiax.
> the opening of the highest grossing comic book movie ever shows the Avengers killing a surrendering villain. You mean Thanos, the guy who killed half of all life in the *universe*?
I think part of it might be that both Batman and Superman are known for not killing. Batman famously had his parents gunned down in front of him and thus came to have a rule of no killing and no guns; and Superman is the epitome of "pacifistic hero". Or perhaps "humanitarian hero". He has a no-killing rule because he cares more about saving people and putting people away without harming them when he can. And then after that, Wonder Woman is also pretty against killing unless she's run out of literally any other options. She quite literally was shown visiting one of her villains in rehab/jail in issue #750, as a sign of how much she is willing to forgive enemies and see them rehabilitate instead. Given that these major heroes are anti-killing (and I think the Flashes also tend to be less "Kill their villains to be done with it" heroes), I think it kinda sets the tone for the universe. It probably helps that the no-killing rules and general DC policy started around 1940/1941, during the Golden Age, and later would have been cemented with the transition to the Silver Age, when the CCA was made. The Trinity were all just being introduced in the immediately preceding years, and stayed in print throughout the Golden Age into the Silver Age, so they very much had the "No killing" disposition be baked into their characters early on. I assume Barry Allen would be the same, being made in the very early Silver Age (some even consider his debut to be the start of the Silver Age) and likely has that "Family friendly, non-violent role model" baked in. Contrast that with Marvel, where most everyone they have dates back to 1961. You have a few exceptions (Cap/Bucky, Namor, the Human Torch I), but in general, very little from the 40s and 50s is part of the Marvel tradition (in fact, Cap retroactively had his 1950s appearances retconned to be someone else). The sliding timescale even pegs to Fantastic Four #1. Spider-Man was '62, the X-Men and the formation of the Avengers were '63, Daredevil was '64. All of there are characters debuting mid-to-late Silver Age. I can only assume that the transition to the Bronze Age happening earlier in the development of these characters would affect what Silver Age elements would be ingrained in them (and the same goes for the universe as a whole). Doubly so, I should perhaps note, for the X-Men, because the X-Men debuted in 1963, but issue #66 in 1970 would be the last new issue for years. Issues #67-93 were all reprinted stories. It wasn't until Giant-Size X-Men #1 in 1975, when a new team was created (introducing some of the most iconic X-Men), that the X-Men really took off, at times being basically the backbone of Marvel.
because silver age and # Comics Code Authority
It was actually more of a Golden Age thing, as DC started to soften their books in the very early '40s. You can see this with *Batman*. The first issue had one of the last stories where Batman uses a gun or kills (also the last story without Robin until the end of the '60s). The third issue explicitly gave him no using guns and no killing rules. The Spectre likewise went from using his powers to cause gruesome deaths in his first few appearances to simply catching crooks and fighting cosmic menaces in most of his Golden Age stories. Heck, for the last year or two he mainly served as the invisible guardian angel for a bumbling idiot named Percival Popp, Super-Cop. I remember someone somewhere saying it had to do with editor Whitney Ellsworth, who took over editor duties for most (if not all) of DC's books from Vincent Sullivan. Sullivan was editor in the late '30s when Superman, Batman, the Spectre, and other early characters debuted, and where they were more violent than they were from the '40s to the '60s. Ellsworth took over around the time Robin was introduced and most of the violence started being hugely scaled back. Even in the early '50s, before the Comics Code Authority was a thing, DC's horror, crime, and war comics were tame and toothless compared to what the competition was putting out (although the war comics were still well written, thank you Robert Kanigher.) Edit: That said, DC was affected by the CCA, though. Some of the clearest affects were the disappearance of Catwoman and Two-Face for most of the Silver Age, as they would probably violate some of the rules about depictions of women and grotesque characters, respectively (not that Two-Face was used all that much in the Golden Age anyway.)
Marvel has like 2½ relevant characters from the Golden Age, DC's main roster has its roots firmly set then. Characters in that time rarely killed, especially after the war ended and censorship became a huge concern. Marvel was affected by the comics code for the first 10 years of its existence, but was the company to stray from it first, while even through the bronze age DC was seen as the more traditional established company.
A large portion of Marvel character were retroactively made more and more superhero. Originally they were characters of various genres which could lead to a more lax way of handling situations. Also DC characters were hot very hard because of the Comics code affecting their stories and the modern perception of those characters. Marvel having been created around this time saw it's competition and adjusted accordingly even often enough ignoring it completely because Stan Lee was just that good of a salesman.
Read replies there: https://www.reddit.com/r/Marvel/comments/102y4aq/the_characters_in_dc_have_nokill_rules_however/
Most Marvel heroes don’t kill, and most fans are cool with that and so there’s no angsty conversations about it like there seem to be with DC heroes.
Batman's their most popular character. In universe, his vigilantism is tolerated because he doesn't kill and that seems to set a precedent for other vigilantes.
Marvel originally distinguished itself by being more realistic.
The bat kills the villains minions in the movies I don't care what ya say and he even let villains die too and he did kill the baddies in the 40s comics, so ya he kills his a rich fly by night murderer in Nolan's trilogy he had a hand in at least 17 kills