Iron Man question.

[Krypto]

Would you rather the Superheroes kill the bad guys?
Or make them go to sleep, so they can wake up again and start
killing people again?

... That's what I thought.

I'd rather they be intelligent moral and responsible individuals and not take human lives in the process of fulfilling their destiny as heroes.

 

[spartan]

Or he could have simply equipped his shoulder guns with some kind of sleeping dart that would knock them out for several hours while the locals imprisoned them.

While the locals imprisoned them??
These people have the guns, they have a small military on stand by, and you think the locals would have the power to imprison them?
And as for the sleeping darts, that wouldn't really be practical, he would have to find flesh as a target every time. And they are there to serve in a variety of situations anyway, not just against humans, perhaps he had them there to shoot missiles that might be fired against him. In this instance he discovered another use...

 

[The Tuggernaut]

I'd rather they be intelligent moral and responsible individuals and not take human lives in the process of fulfilling their destiny as heroes.

Yes, but that's probably the only way.
Killing the bad guys.

Are you saying you wouldn't kill Bin Laden if you saw him?

 

[DinoLast]

I'd rather they be intelligent moral and responsible individuals and not take human lives in the process of fulfilling their destiny as heroes.

So you would like them to be all the same. One dimensional.

 

[Krypto]

Yes, but that's probably the only way.
Killing the bad guys.

Are you saying you wouldn't kill Bin Laden if you saw him?

No, I wouldn't. There's more important things in solving a conflict than simply pulling a trigger. That's the coward's way out of the situation and by doing so, I would be no better than him.

While the locals imprisoned them??
These people have the guns, they have a small military on stand by, and you think the locals would have the power to imprison them?
And as for the sleeping darts, that wouldn't really be practical, he would have to find flesh as a target every time. And they are there to serve in a variety of situations anyway, not just against humans, perhaps he had them there to shoot missiles that might be fired against him. In this instance he discovered another use...

And I guarantee they'll be twice as many more men back within a day or two to take the place of the men Tony killed to cause more damage and likely kill the villagers. Violence only begets more violence. Simply killing them is not the way to solve the problem, it only creates more of the same.

Tony made a suit that can fly and go super-sonic, yet he can't find room in there for some high-powered sleeping darts that could knock someone out for possible 24 hours?

 

[Krypto]

So you would like them to be all the same. One dimensional.

Explain to me how being moral and upright is one-dimensional. You could make the claim that it's bland or boring if you're into hyper-violence, but it's definitely not one-dimensional. If handled properly, it would be the exact opposite and only bring up more moral complications that our hero would have to overcome in order to be the bigger person.

 

[The Tuggernaut]

No, I wouldn't. There's more important things in solving a conflict than simply pulling a trigger. That's the coward's way out of the situation and by doing so, I would be no better than him.

Not necessarily. I wouldn't say coward, I would say... easy.
And it WOULD make you better than him... he's dead.

 

[DinoLast]

Krypto, I see you have James Bond as your Avatar. Have you checked out his body count from the Bond Movies? Especially Roger moor look at the way he killed people as bond.

 

[The Tuggernaut]

Krypto, I see you have James Bond as your Avatar. Have you checked out his body count from the Bond Movies? Especially Roger moor look at the way he killed people as bond.

 

[Krypto]

Krypto, I see you have James Bond as your Avatar. Have you checked out his body count from the Bond Movies? Especially Roger moor look at the way he killed people as bond.

Different kind of hero (different time for that matter) and he's definitely not super-powered or aided by gadget-ladened armor. Bond is an assassin. Plain and simple. Although many of the films do not play up this angle, in certain films, he definitely comes across as a complex individual who walks that narrow road of moral uncertainty. Nevertheless, Moore played it for laughs and the films followed suit for the most part. There was violence and Bond did kill people. Of that there's no denying, but he never did it under the guise of being an upright superhero.

Not necessarily. I wouldn't say coward, I would say... easy.
And it WOULD make you better than him... he's dead.

I certainly hope you're joking.

 

[The Tuggernaut]

Different kind of hero (different time for that matter) and he's definitely not super-powered or aided by gadget-ladened armor. Bond is an assassin. Plain and simple. Although many of the films do not play up this angle, in certain films, he definitely comes across as a complex individual who walks that narrow road of moral uncertainty. Nevertheless, Moore played it for laughs and the films followed suit for the most part. There was violence and Bond did kill people. Of that there's no denying, but he never did it under the guise of being an upright superhero.



I certainly hope you're joking.

Of course I am.

BUT, in some cases... violence is necessary.

 

[spartan]

No, I wouldn't. There's more important things in solving a conflict than simply pulling a trigger. That's the coward's way out of the situation and by doing so, I would be no better than him.



And I guarantee they'll be twice as many more men back within a day or two to take the place of the men Tony killed to cause more damage and likely kill the villagers. Violence only begets more violence. Simply killing them is not the way to solve the problem, it only creates more of the same.

Tony made a suit that can fly and go super-sonic, yet he can't find room in there for some high-powered sleeping darts that could knock someone out for possible 24 hours?

ok so he puts them to sleep and then what?

like you said they are going to come back anyway, but at least now they know they have some strong opposition. now they have it at the back of their head that they could die... that may not put off the commanders, but it will certainly make the small time criminals shaky.

some people only understand you when you speak their language...

and like someone else pointed out, heroes are not prefect people, they make mistakes and they cross over to being criminals very often. i have always found the classic scene of the hero not being able to pull the trigger on the bad guy very patronising. those are not heroes. they are images of idealism. an idealist hero is of no use to me because he is detached from the weaknesses of the real human condition.

 

[Krypto]

ok so he puts them to sleep and then what?

like you said they are going to come back anyway, but at least now they know they have some strong opposition. now they have it at the back of their head that they could die... that may not put off the commanders, but it will certainly make the small time criminals shaky.

What does Stark Industries do? Weapon manufacturing, right? Why not arm the civilians and villagers and have them fight for their land and lives, instead of simply killing any and all terrorists that come in your way. It's not much better, but it's better than the "fire first, ask questions later" attitude that Stark has. The more logical and intelligent thing to do would be to simply disarm the terrorists. He has this amazing suit. He can fly and lift extremely heavy objects without breaking a sweat. He can do all of these things, so the easiest thing would be to simply disarm the people doing the killing. I guess in a roundabout way, Stark unknowingly does this by making his company halt production of weapons, giving Stain nowhere to sell his companies goods. But in that context, he simply replaces all of the weapons he built for the military that would aide and protect them and simply puts it in a suit that he uses as a one-man army. His object seems to be to be the hero and makeup for the things his company as done over the years, but the message is lost since his ultimate weapon (the suit) does the exact same thing that all of his weapons did, only here he has direct control over it and has to suffer the moral complications that would arise from such a conflict. Unfortunately, there isn't a conflict and the movie side-steps this important issue in favor of a banal Hollywood finale.

some people only understand you when you speak their language...

Speaking their language drops you to their level.

and like someone else pointed out, heroes are not prefect people, they make mistakes and they cross over to being criminals very often. i have always found the classic scene of the hero not being able to pull the trigger on the bad guy very patronising. those are not heroes. they are images of idealism. an idealist hero is of no use to me because he is detached from the weaknesses of the real human condition.

That's a very cynical outlook on life. I'm glad the majority of heroes don't share that same point of view. We need them to be idealists and optimists. We need them to serve as a role model for young minds. They are an important part of our society and turning them into murderers is not something I'm comfortable with at all.

A hero not pulling the trigger on a criminal is of use to you. And it's not detached from the weakness of the human condition. Quite the opposite in fact. By showing his or her willingness to point the gun, the weakness of the human condition is evident. The only thing left is to pull the trigger and that thing in the back of your mind that tells you that this is deeply wrong is what makes you the hero. We all have that. Some choose to use it and some don't. I don't need to explain to you which is which in this instance.

 

[Krypto]

Of course I am.

BUT, in some cases... violence is necessary.

Violence is necessary. Stopping an armed criminal, you have to subdue them somehow. But murder is on an entirely different playing field. Superheroes aren't the law. They are outside of the law and at some point, in order to be a superhero, they must transfer that authority over to the law once the crime as been stopped.

 

[The Tuggernaut]

Violence is necessary. Stopping an armed criminal, you have to subdue them somehow. But murder is on an entirely different playing field. Superheroes aren't the law. They are outside of the law and at some point, in order to be a superhero, they must transfer that authority over to the law once the crime as been stopped.

It's not entirely different if you need self defense.
You might accidently kill the person.

 

[spartan]

What does Stark Industries do? Weapon manufacturing, right? Why not arm the civilians and villagers and have them fight for their land and lives, instead of simply killing any and all terrorists that come in your way.

I guess what you are saying is that he should give the people the weapons to do the killing themselves, to liberate themselves and to "earn" their democracy and liberty. I agree with that view. However, not all people have the guts and heart to do what needs to be done, even if their freedom and life is at stake. You could say "well tough, then they dont deserve to be free of those *******s", which to a certain degree is true. But isn't that what heroes have done throughout human history? Aren't heroes the guys that do the "dirty deed" for us all? so we don't have to sleep with a murderer's guilt every night?....
and any how, that part of the movie was simply commentary on american foreigh policy.

the message is lost since his ultimate weapon (the suit) does the exact same thing that all of his weapons did, only here he has direct control over it and has to suffer the moral complications that would arise from such a conflict.

Well good! I want a hero to suffer the moral complications that arise from his actions and his use of weapons. He basically stopped the "anonymous" killing, the sale of weapons that ultimately find their way in the hands of the enemy, and took personal responsibility of his own technology. He stopped using it to get riches and put it to use for a what he thought was good cause. You may argue about whether he has the right to interfere or not, about whether the cause was good or not, but you cant knock him for putting himself as the sole entity that is responsible for how his technology is used. His technology was faceless and available for sale to all and everybody that had the money. Now he stopped that, and I think that is a good thing.

Speaking their language drops you to their level.

No. I dont agree with your use of the word "drop". What you are saying is that you should rise above them and stay there no matter what. By speaking their language you are not "dropping" to their level, you are simply speaking to them in terms that they can "understand" and comprehend. You can always come back to your level after you have made yourself clear and understood. But you cant be stubborn about maintaining your "level" when people are dying...
I'll give you an example. A friend of mine had an abusive father. For ages he would find his mum with bruses. And he would say nothing... And all this time he tried to change his dad by talking, by explaining, by encouraging good behaviour. But his dad continued the battering. And he did it when my friend was not present cause he was a coward. But then one day the boy grew up... He finds his mum battered again... But this time, he did no talking. This time he beat his father to the ground, he beat his dad so hard that if i was not there to stop him he would have probably done some serious brain damage. And in the end he told the old man that if he so much as lift a finger on his mum again, he would be beaten just like that, again and again and again.
Well it has been 10 years now, and that old man became the most loving and caring husband the wife could have ever prayed for...
You could say the son "dropped" to his dad's level or you could say that he "spoke" to his dad in the only language the old man understood. Its interesting to hear the old man speak about it nowadays, cause he always says that he acted that way cause there was no one there to stop him. And he is glad it was his son that ended it... They are now best mates...

That's a very cynical outlook on life. I'm glad the majority of heroes don't share that same point of view. We need them to be idealists and optimists. We need them to serve as a role model for young minds. They are an important part of our society and turning them into murderers is not something I'm comfortable with at all.

I'm not comfortable with murderers as heroes neither. I dont like, for example, how Captain America now carries a gun... But I want my heroes to make some of the mistakes that most of us make. I want them to serve the good cause "subconsciously", take every instance as it comes, do the good thing because it feels good and not because they abide by a general moral framework of "ideals" and how they see themselves. I think it would be good for children to see their heroes make mistakes and then apologize for them, that teaches them something. That brings them closer to their heroes, I want that rather than the untouchable heights of a perfect idealist hero...

A hero not pulling the trigger on a criminal is of use to you. And it's not detached from the weakness of the human condition. Quite the opposite in fact. By showing his or her willingness to point the gun, the weakness of the human condition is evident. The only thing left is to pull the trigger and that thing in the back of your mind that tells you that this is deeply wrong is what makes you the hero. We all have that. Some choose to use it and some don't. I don't need to explain to you which is which in this instance.

In the scene that you described, the hero was presented with a choice. Kill the terrorists or let the people die. He didnt have the sleeping darts. To a certain degree he placed himself in that situation by being there in the first place, but the particular choice was brought about by the terrorists. Now, a normal person, as you said, would find killing deeply wrong... but a hero is someone that is prepared to put up with his conscience for the sake of others. The terrorists brought about the oldest trick in the book and this time it didnt work.
Again, this is simply commentary on how american foreign policy is opperating at the moment. There are hostages and civilians being killed and more others threatened with death, and yet the american troops are still there chasing the "bad guys". the movie doesnt necessarily say it was the right choice, that is up to you to decide.

 

[Nacho]

Violence is necessary. Stopping an armed criminal, you have to subdue them somehow. But murder is on an entirely different playing field. Superheroes aren't the law. They are outside of the law and at some point, in order to be a superhero, they must transfer that authority over to the law once the crime as been stopped.

In a country run by terrorists there is no law and the only law that is in place
is that of the terrorists, these civillians have no rights, they dont get to vote
they only get told what to do and if they dissagree they get killed.
I do agree that killing is wrong but not in the movies. Every one excluding yourself loves to see thier hero's wack the bad guys and if a few deaths are
involved the better, it brings relife, excitement and closure and most of all its what sells. No one want's to see sleeping darts we just want to see blood because at the end of the day the more action the better.
I would hate to see Iron man making citizens arrests that would just be borring and it would loose customer interest, yes in reality that would be the right thing to do but not in an action movie.
I suggest you stay away from these movie as you will never be satisfied.

 

[Krypto]

I guess what you are saying is that he should give the people the weapons to do the killing themselves, to liberate themselves and to "earn" their democracy and liberty. I agree with that view. However, not all people have the guts and heart to do what needs to be done, even if their freedom and life is at stake. You could say "well tough, then they dont deserve to be free of those *******s", which to a certain degree is true. But isn't that what heroes have done throughout human history? Aren't heroes the guys that do the "dirty deed" for us all? so we don't have to sleep with a murderer's guilt every night?....
and any how, that part of the movie was simply commentary on american foreigh policy.

You have a perverse idea of what a hero is. A hero isn't someone who does the "dirty deeds" for us. They help us and save lives and serve as an inspiration in some sense for the rest of us. Not really as a role model in the purest of sense, but as someone to look up to in a way.

That scene in the movie contained no social or political commentary at all. It was a simple and straightforward "blow-em up" scene.

Well good! I want a hero to suffer the moral complications that arise from his actions and his use of weapons. He basically stopped the "anonymous" killing, the sale of weapons that ultimately find their way in the hands of the enemy, and took personal responsibility of his own technology. He stopped using it to get riches and put it to use for a what he thought was good cause. You may argue about whether he has the right to interfere or not, about whether the cause was good or not, but you cant knock him for putting himself as the sole entity that is responsible for how his technology is used. His technology was faceless and available for sale to all and everybody that had the money. Now he stopped that, and I think that is a good thing.

From a certain perspective, it's a good thing I suppose. But in the end, he's just replacing lots of weapons with one big one when all he does is stroll into town like John Wayne and blow the bad guys away.

No. I dont agree with your use of the word "drop". What you are saying is that you should rise above them and stay there no matter what. By speaking their language you are not "dropping" to their level, you are simply speaking to them in terms that they can "understand" and comprehend. You can always come back to your level after you have made yourself clear and understood. But you cant be stubborn about maintaining your "level" when people are dying...

Except the "language" in this case involved guns and murder. Little bit different and much more complicated than you would believe.

I'll give you an example. A friend of mine had an abusive father. For ages he would find his mum with bruses. And he would say nothing... And all this time he tried to change his dad by talking, by explaining, by encouraging good behaviour. But his dad continued the battering. And he did it when my friend was not present cause he was a coward. But then one day the boy grew up... He finds his mum battered again... But this time, he did no talking. This time he beat his father to the ground, he beat his dad so hard that if i was not there to stop him he would have probably done some serious brain damage. And in the end he told the old man that if he so much as lift a finger on his mum again, he would be beaten just like that, again and again and again.
Well it has been 10 years now, and that old man became the most loving and caring husband the wife could have ever prayed for...
You could say the son "dropped" to his dad's level or you could say that he "spoke" to his dad in the only language the old man understood. Its interesting to hear the old man speak about it nowadays, cause he always says that he acted that way cause there was no one there to stop him. And he is glad it was his son that ended it... They are now best mates...

No, he dropped to his level. The proper thing to do would have been to have reported it to the police and press charges. I'm sorry that situation ever occured, but there's a right way to go about it and there's a wrong way. You're friend chose the wrong way unfortunately. But I'm glad things are going well. Sad that the only way the situation was resolved was with fists.

I'm not comfortable with murderers as heroes neither. I dont like, for example, how Captain America now carries a gun... But I want my heroes to make some of the mistakes that most of us make. I want them to serve the good cause "subconsciously", take every instance as it comes, do the good thing because it feels good and not because they abide by a general moral framework of "ideals" and how they see themselves. I think it would be good for children to see their heroes make mistakes and then apologize for them, that teaches them something. That brings them closer to their heroes, I want that rather than the untouchable heights of a perfect idealist hero...

Who's talking about a perfect hero? I'm not. None of them are perfect, even Superman, who makes mistakes quite a bit. Mistakes are fine, as long as the hero recognizes them and remedies them with honesty and virtue.

In the scene that you described, the hero was presented with a choice. Kill the terrorists or let the people die. He didnt have the sleeping darts. To a certain degree he placed himself in that situation by being there in the first place, but the particular choice was brought about by the terrorists. Now, a normal person, as you said, would find killing deeply wrong... but a hero is someone that is prepared to put up with his conscience for the sake of others. The terrorists brought about the oldest trick in the book and this time it didnt work.

A superhero doesn't kill people. He should be above it. He should find the quickest and safest way to end the situation where no one gets hurt, even the criminals.

Again, this is simply commentary on how american foreign policy is opperating at the moment. There are hostages and civilians being killed and more others threatened with death, and yet the american troops are still there chasing the "bad guys". the movie doesnt necessarily say it was the right choice, that is up to you to decide.

You're giving the movie way to much credit.

 

[The Mike]

All right. (Cracks knuckles) I'm a huge Iron Man fan, my favorite character, so I'll see if I can add some insight.

During the sequence when he goes back to Afghanistan to save the small village, he shoots five or six guys with guns out of his chest or shoulders (don't remember which). Now, does anyone know if these were actual guns using bullets that almost certainly killed these men or were they some kind of sleeping dart or something similar? If it's the latter, no problem, but if it's the former, then I have some major problems with this film and it'll certainly knock it down a peg or two in my eyes. Any ideas?

There are Iron Man discussion threads, quite a few in the Marvel section, but this is fine. He did kill those men with bullets.

I don't think Iron Man is worried about killing.

Nope, Iron Man never has had or will have the same strict moral code as Batman or Superman for example where killing isn't an option. He gets the job done no matter what it takes. Its that flawed morality that Marvel breeds their heroes from, DC creates Gods that look down on humanity and save it while Marvel looks to humans who are given extraordinary gifts or talents but are still very human in their thinking and actions. Tony Stark has no issues with killing terrorists and so neither does Iron Man. There isn't a duality like there is with Batman/Bruce Wayne or even Superman/Clark Kent. He is still the same persona inside and out.

Or he could have simply equipped his shoulder guns with some kind of sleeping dart that would knock them out for several hours while the locals imprisoned them.

He could have, but Iron Man fights to save the innocent, he didn't see the terrorists as such and so used deadly force to defuse the situation as quickly as possible, he didn't want to risk missing or hitting one of them and not knocking them out completely which could have lead to them killing a hostage. Its like the police department, a friend of mine is going through the academy and they are told when they shoot they shoot to kill, they are told its their last resort but they are told that when deadly force is needed and evident to use it.

Yet Batman did not kill Joker. He saw fit to be the bigger more responsible man, to not start down that downward spiral that leads to mayhem and murder. That's what makes him a hero.

This is arguable. Its true that in none of his incarnations Batman has ever physically done the killing but he doesn't save which means he is allowing death to occur. In BB he doesn't save Ras, it saves the blood from being on his hands but it still leads to Ras' death which means essentially Batman is being Judge and Jury and allowing the natural momentum of the situation be the Executioner. One could very well argue that the firm knowledge that the man will die and the conscious effort not to intervene is unintentional manslaughter in the eyes of the law. Batman isn't a killer, but he isn't clean of the deaths either. In one sequence he is fighting thugs who are shooting and he grabs the arm and pulls it aside while he continues to shoot, he shoots another thug who dies, this is still by defintion an assisted killing at the very least. I get what you are saying because there is an instilled moral code in Batman and Superman that makes them seem heroic above anyone or anything else but Batman at least usually dances the line which makes him a deeper and more dynamic character IMHO.

I'd rather they be intelligent moral and responsible individuals and not take human lives in the process of fulfilling their destiny as heroes.

Its their humanistic flaws that make them interesting and dynamic. Captain America for example would disarm and disable before killing, while Tony and Wolverine for example wouldn't, this creates tension amongst team members as well as colleagues and each doesn't understand the others points, much like real life. Many would say "Person A" is okay to kill if the situation warrants it, while "Person B" is not even if the situations are identical. Its those judgments and individuality that makes Marvel such a rich character driven company (well....it used to be) some of the best DC stories are when those Gods are dealing with real human emotions, problems and mistakes and there is a reason why. When Superman fails to save someone he internalizes the loss as if he personally killed them by not saving them, its one of his fatal flaws, while Batman choose who to save and not to save based on situation and intention of the person. Same moral code, different sides of the coin.

What does Stark Industries do? Weapon manufacturing, right? Why not arm the civilians and villagers and have them fight for their land and lives, instead of simply killing any and all terrorists that come in your way. It's not much better, but it's better than the "fire first, ask questions later" attitude that Stark has.

Stark while having an enlightening to his duties in life is still a businessman and wouldn't just give away expensive weaponry, one could argue why doesn't Batman just arm the citizens of Gotham with his toys and watch from the sidelines, the other side to that point is if the villagers don't know how to use it then it becomes a point of weakness for these weapons to be taken and still used to kill innocents. Stark wants to shut down the weapons division of Stark Industries by the mid film and use his armor as the last line of defense. Stark Industries like Wayne Enterprises has their hands in many different arenas, the weapons creation division is just the most moneymaking.

The more logical and intelligent thing to do would be to simply disarm the terrorists. He has this amazing suit. He can fly and lift extremely heavy objects without breaking a sweat. He can do all of these things, so the easiest thing would be to simply disarm the people doing the killing.

Terrorist breed fear, its their tool. Disarming them and allowing them to go away or be arrested or even be at the mercy of the villagers still keeps them operating. Much like Batman utilizes fear, Iron Man knew if he showed Deadly Force then the terrorists would understand and think twice about engagement. Its the old make an example ideal. Not the most ethical ideal but effective nonetheless.

I guess in a roundabout way, Stark unknowingly does this by making his company halt production of weapons, giving Stain nowhere to sell his companies goods. But in that context, he simply replaces all of the weapons he built for the military that would aide and protect them and simply puts it in a suit that he uses as a one-man army. His object seems to be to be the hero and makeup for the things his company as done over the years, but the message is lost since his ultimate weapon (the suit) does the exact same thing that all of his weapons did, only here he has direct control over it and has to suffer the moral complications that would arise from such a conflict. Unfortunately, there isn't a conflict and the movie side-steps this important issue in favor of a banal Hollywood finale.

Tony sees the errors in his ways but not to the point of looking solely to being a non lethal fighter. He sees it more that Stane was selling these to both sides and taking whatever money is green. He wants to remove the terrorist from his company's weaponry but he is still producing for the government. Nowhere in the film or in the character's lineage does it say he stops producing completely. He feels Iron Man is a watchdog of sorts, that if the tech gets into the wrong hands he can personally clean it up.

Tony Stark is a flawed human, he has dealt with womanizing, alcoholism etc all while wearing the suit. Its these flaws that separate him from the rest and make him more unique. Tony Stark could care less what people think of him, he does what he feels is right. Putting on the suit doesn't change his perspective like it does for other heroes who feel that their alter-ego should be a beacon of hope or a role model to the masses, he puts on the suit to "go to work" and get the job done. Then gets back to his billionaire lifestyle. While Batman looks at Bruce Wayne as a means to an end, a persona to put on so people do not get wind of his situation and a way to continue operations, in reality Bruce would love to get rid of the Bruce Wayne "character" and be Batman full time. Tony Stark doesn't see that duality, instead he just sees it as an extension of himself, flaws and all.

 

[Krypto]

\
Nope, Iron Man never has had or will have the same strict moral code as Batman or Superman for example where killing isn't an option. He gets the job done no matter what it takes. Its that flawed morality that Marvel breeds their heroes from, DC creates Gods that look down on humanity and save it while Marvel looks to humans who are given extraordinary gifts or talents but are still very human in their thinking and actions. Tony Stark has no issues with killing terrorists and so neither does Iron Man. There isn't a duality like there is with Batman/Bruce Wayne or even Superman/Clark Kent. He is still the same persona inside and out.

This is really my problem with Marvel - the characters don't really have any kind of heroic code for the most part. I guess Spider-Man does and maybe Captain America, but I think I saw Captain America decapitate someone his sheild recently. They're not really superheroes, IMO. They're super...people I guess.

He could have, but Iron Man fights to save the innocent, he didn't see the terrorists as such and so used deadly force to defuse the situation as quickly as possible, he didn't want to risk missing or hitting one of them and not knocking them out completely which could have lead to them killing a hostage. Its like the police department, a friend of mine is going through the academy and they are told when they shoot they shoot to kill, they are told its their last resort but they are told that when deadly force is needed and evident to use it.

Since when did the police department adopt the motto "shoot to kill"? Are we Nazi's now? I'm pretty sure they're trained to shoot an extremity like in the shoulder or leg. At least, I really hope so.

This is arguable. Its true that in none of his incarnations Batman has ever physically done the killing but he doesn't save which means he is allowing death to occur. In BB he doesn't save Ras, it saves the blood from being on his hands but it still leads to Ras' death which means essentially Batman is being Judge and Jury and allowing the natural momentum of the situation be the Executioner. One could very well argue that the firm knowledge that the man will die and the conscious effort not to intervene is unintentional manslaughter in the eyes of the law. Batman isn't a killer, but he isn't clean of the deaths either. In one sequence he is fighting thugs who are shooting and he grabs the arm and pulls it aside while he continues to shoot, he shoots another thug who dies, this is still by defintion an assisted killing at the very least. I get what you are saying because there is an instilled moral code in Batman and Superman that makes them seem heroic above anyone or anything else but Batman at least usually dances the line which makes him a deeper and more dynamic character IMHO.

Batman isn't entirely clean, but he doesn't kill and he didn't kill Ra's. He saved Ra's life once and Ra's returned the favor by leaving Bruce for dead in his mansion. It's more about balance than anything. If Ra's truly wanted to escape he could have, but the look on his face, almost at peace with the ending of his life at the hands of his own creation, leads me to believe that he may have been at peace in some sense. Either way, Batman didn't kill him.

Terrorist breed fear, its their tool. Disarming them and allowing them to go away or be arrested or even be at the mercy of the villagers still keeps them operating. Much like Batman utilizes fear, Iron Man knew if he showed Deadly Force then the terrorists would understand and think twice about engagement. Its the old make an example ideal. Not the most ethical ideal but effective nonetheless.

I just have a basic problem of superheroes getting involved in real-life conflicts. I find it disrespectful to what's going on over there. There's a reason DC never had Superman go over to Europe and wipe up the Nazi menace in an afternoon. It was disrespectful to the men and women dying over there.

The problem with this sequence from Iron Man is that it's never followed through. If the filmmakers had legitimized the sequence within Stark's mind instead of just having him watch a terrorist message on the evening news and getting angry enough to suit up and go and kill the terrorists, then I might be okay with it. But the sequence plays out like a typical Rambo-style action sequence where just swoops in, kills some bad guys, blows some stuff up, and goes home. Nothings said. No problems are solved. It's done for cheap thrills, nothing more.

Tony sees the errors in his ways but not to the point of looking solely to being a non lethal fighter. He sees it more that Stane was selling these to both sides and taking whatever money is green. He wants to remove the terrorist from his company's weaponry but he is still producing for the government. Nowhere in the film or in the character's lineage does it say he stops producing completely. He feels Iron Man is a watchdog of sorts, that if the tech gets into the wrong hands he can personally clean it up.

None of this is really in the film, especially the latter part of this paragraph.

Also, he says he'll stop producing weapons when he returns during the press conference.

[quoteTony Stark is a flawed human, he has dealt with womanizing, alcoholism etc all while wearing the suit. Its these flaws that separate him from the rest and make him more unique. Tony Stark could care less what people think of him, he does what he feels is right. Putting on the suit doesn't change his perspective like it does for other heroes who feel that their alter-ego should be a beacon of hope or a role model to the masses, he puts on the suit to "go to work" and get the job done. Then gets back to his billionaire lifestyle. While Batman looks at Bruce Wayne as a means to an end, a persona to put on so people do not get wind of his situation and a way to continue operations, in reality Bruce would love to get rid of the Bruce Wayne "character" and be Batman full time. Tony Stark doesn't see that duality, instead he just sees it as an extension of himself, flaws and all.[/QUOTE]

Then that kind of makes him one-dimensional in a sense. If there's no identity issues, no sense of duality, then he's just...a rich guy killing terrorists. There's nothing really internal going on other than the kind of superficial stuff that we normally get out of superhero comics.