Do "Heros" see the greater good?(Daredevil reference)

Why is it I feel that the word hero which use to be so cool, is now lame and without point?  Is the hero not the one who saves and protects the innocent?  Is a hero only a hero based off of what length he/she goes to protect the innocent?  Or is a hero someone who obeys the laws of man to the letter while he protects?  what am I getting at you ask?  A very familiar yet somewhat controversial subject within extremely heroic characters, killing.  When a hero steps over that line is there ever really a greater good?  I would like to reference "Batman under the red hood", how many of you have seen it?  And those of you who saw it did you see the slightest point in what Jason Todd was saying, why let some of these lunatics live just to have them come back and take more lives? prison can't hold them and seldom changes them for the better.  Maybe these villians need to stay alive to give our "hero" something to do.  Were not talking about Ted Bundy serial killers we're talking superhuman killers and terrorists trained in everything from espionage and hand to hand combat to escape, definitely to dangerous to let live or let free regardless of sentence or Jury.   If Batman just did away with the Joker Barbara Gordon would be able to walk, Jason Todd would  never have gone through his ordeal amongst other things.  If DD would have dealt the death blow to BE a little sooner maybe Robert Reynolds wife would be alive and he wouldn't have gone power crazy, maybe those innocence blown up by BE would still be alive.  Maybe those soldiers BE killed to escape in shadowland would be alive.  Now I understand circumstance dictate logic and there are some pretty twisted things associated with hero's that do kill in the MU, deadpool, punisher they are eccentric.  However despite how crazy they are in a heartbeat they'll dish out a shell if it will solve an ultimate or potential mass problem.  Now if you look at it from a writers point a view I guess if every hero did that we would have a million villians because one would need to be created after every major story line, so keeping them alive does give us as readers something to look forward too but is that enough?  Is creating new villian a little more often so bad?  Am I the only one who gets tired of some villians, will they just be putting them behind bars again and again and again until they are to old to do anything about it or the hero's are?  Is this a hero's greater good?  what's your view?


Marvel and Daddy issue.........

Is it me or does Marvel have a  nack for creating beings that astrive for greatness in heroism.  Despite all the great deed these "Heroes" do they produce son's that constantly want to kill them, isn't this getting a bit old to anyone else?  Skaar's situation is understandable although a bit childish and so is he, this keeps me from liking his character because I'm tired of the spoiled overpowered baby thing in comics Superboy Prime is another good example of this. I will admit I love Daken and his character but his reasoning makes less and less sense to me, I must admit Erista would have been an easier fit and probably better to explain.  Maybe Erista will be the one of the sons that doesn't want revenge, that is if they ever bring him out. Creators need to find new purposes for these charcaters other than cliched fueds with thier fathers, who were to busy being heroes or being mind controlled to raise them.  Now Hiro-Kala is a possible son of hulk by his own decree, does his charcater won't revenge on the Hulk?  Not from what I've read so far not saying that couldn't change, but I think not making him want revenge will keep his character fresh because skaar is already getting old to me.  I personally will be looking into the character of Hiro Kala more to see how much depth can be put into one of these "Marvel Hero sons" without them seeking revenge against "Daddy". I guess my question is do you like the angle marvel touches on with father son issues, or is it getting old to you?  Any other comments are always welcome...

What's Daken's Angle?

So far I've found that there is always a motive to Daken's cold malice.  The writers portray him as a character who's similiar to a lion, meaning his lethal methods are just a part of his nature and are beyound good and evil.  His moral mainly consists of domination mentally and if applicable physically over anyone or thing to suit his endeavors.  So what would he gain out of attacking Osborn, a conflict of interest maybe?
  • 13 results
  • 1
  • 2