Why are superheroes that kill more interesting than superheroes who don't?

Because they aren't

"...devotes his abilities to racket-busting."

No strictly true. He also fought spies and 5th columnists.
But Stardust debuted in 1939.
Why didn't he end WW2 in 5 minutes, sending Hitler and the other leaders to the Axis to gruesome fates?
Superman had the "excuse" of inadvertently reading the eye chart in the next room.
What was Stardust's?
If you're going to draw insane power fantasies, why not go all the way?

Because blood and killing gives it some sort of realism "that really hurt them" and make the action dangerous "characters die, so the important ones could die too".
Only at a certain point your brain learns that its smoke and mirror in the story you read.
Thats why Games of Thrones is so acclaimed even its not the highest prosa.

Nothing. That user is just too limited to understand its not "anti-heroes are edgy" but "when can somebody write an anti-hero good"
Its like the CGI hater, its not the tool but the people behind it, when they use it as a gimmick.

Because heroes that don't kill are associated with corporate suits trying to file things down for children these days. Heroes that do kill were actually the norm back then until the Comic Codes came around and changed all that.

Because Fletcher Hanks was a small time, drunk, narcissistic shit heel of a man who couldn't see beyond his own flawed sense of fire and brimstone morality.

How Kamen Riders aren't seen as anti heroes when they kill Shocker agents? Yeah, they're monsters but they were humans who modded themselves first.

So? There isn't anything morally wrong with killing evil terrorists.

Superheroes don't have a no kill rule for any real moral reason, capeshit just needs to reuse villains. Thats it. Of course no one wants spiderman to start punching holes in petty thieves but there is no real reason to not kill the the psychopathic killers like Bullseye, Joker, Carnage etc.

He already did Dude!
Stardust came to young Hitler and made him gas from the inside untill he puked his own organs!

Honestly or they do something like the Lego Batman movie and make all the villains lighthearted and not a real threat but villains for game and heroes for game or if you have a realistic settings such as The Dark Knight and Daredevil you have to kill these fuckers, not only because if the Supers don't do it then the governement would, but because you already know who can be saved (Riddler, Clayface, Mr Freeze, Lizard, Electro) and who is someone that jail will never fix and will keep killing if out (Joker, Carnage, Bullseye, Cheetah)

>Because blood and killing gives it some sort of realism "that really hurt them" and make the action dangerous "characters die, so the important ones could die too".
Why can't writers just make this?
I literally can't be invested in comics anymore since I know the Big Ones will ressurect and their death will just be used fr buy-bait and then ressurected or retconned to happened in another universe

Fear of loosing readers. What if the replacement character is not good enough or the legacy character is what pulls people?
So they try to give the illusion of progression but without destroying the concept it made so popular.

>What if the replacement character is not good enough or the legacy character is what pulls people?
>So they try to give the illusion of progression but without destroying the concept it made so popular.
I remember Batman and Superman: Generations that did this with Bruce and Clark's grankids just being overshawed by their grandparents.
It's a good representation of comics legacies today

They shouldn't get away with this so easily.
Even in the Silver Age they wanted to make a comic where Dick Grayson become Batman and Bruce Wayne Jr. become the new Robin.
Sad to see the Silver Age was more kino than this

Sometimes replacements stick, see flash. Many still like Barry.
But sometimes they dont. Companies like to play it safe.

>Namor
>Interesting

>Even in the Silver Age they wanted to make a comic where Dick Grayson become Batman and Bruce Wayne Jr. become the new Robin
Isn't that what Morrison did?

The silverage was very experimental. But it had less continuity or constant superpower sets. And it was the reason for DCs Multiversity problems.

>Isn't that what Morrison did?
Where? In Generations?

Batman and Robin? Granted it's Damian instead of Bruce Wayne Jr. but that sounds just like what Morrison did.

Stardust isn't interesting because he kills people, he's interesting because he's written by a crazy person.

Because you desperately wish you had the ability or chance to take a life without repercussions, because you're fucked in the head.

They're more rare. They're as incompetently written as the ones who don't kill though.

>109775975
I just read most of volume four of the All Winners Comics collections the other day and he seemed pretty damn heroic there.

>Batman and Robin? Granted it's Damian instead of Bruce Wayne Jr. but that sounds just like what Morrison did.
Well, only if you put it like this.

>Why are superheroes that kill more interesting than superheroes who don't?

both are necessary

Attached: Power+pack_75c692_7108106.jpg (1200x606, 147K)

because if they kill the villain then the creator has to come up with a new and better one so better make it count when you show him/them off

Attached: Minions.png (1067x367, 697K)