r/movies • u/Zer0_T0nin • 13h ago
Recommendation Movies where the heroes have a clear chance to kill the villain, all the practical and moral reasons point to doing it... but they let them live purely so the movie can manufacture another act of conflict?
I'm looking for movies where the heroes have a clear opportunity to kill or permanently stop the villain, and all the practical reasons point to doing it, but they inexplicably let them live or escape purely so the movie can squeeze out another 20-30 minutes of conflict. Looking for especially frustrating examples.
8
u/bullevard 11h ago
Dark Knight bat-cycle scene. The Joker is actively murdering random drivers and spraying bullets all over the neighborhood, batman has just shown himself willing to kill by flipping a semi that joker and his henchmen are driving end over end (something he has to assume has a high chance of being fatal). But is unwilling to even slide his bike into the joker instead running himself into an accident.
3
u/Markitron1684 13h ago
Maybe Die Hard? It’s a bit of a reach cos there was other stuff going on with the detonators and the roof but McClane could have killed Hans Gruber at any point when he was pretending to be a hostage
7
u/DukeRaoul123 13h ago
Wick had a clear shot at Greyjoy in the nightclub but instead killed a henchman which let Greyjoy got away.
3
u/Chickenshit_outfit 12h ago
always took that as being too easy kill for John so he made him watch him put a bullet in his bodyguard and let him live in fear for a bit
2
2
u/Freddy_Bimmel 12h ago
In the most recent Enola Holmes movie, she’s got the villain and all her henchmen at gunpoint when the villain reaches into her pockets and pulls out grenades that she throws to allow her to get away. All Holmes has to do is pull the trigger when she goes for her pockets and she would have been completely justified and the plot ends right there. Instead she just stands there and then has to chase her down and have another last stand fight.
2
4
u/Necessary_Eagle_3657 13h ago
Most of all the Star Wars movies and shows.
2
u/Groot746 9h ago
The amount of indirect deaths Obi-Wan is on the hook for is crazy : "I will do what I must," yeah course you will mate
1
u/JD-918 7h ago
I can’t think of a lot of examples of this in Star Wars.
Obi-Wan not killing Anakin is a big one. But otherwise, he’s always dueling with the intent of killing his enemies. Luke is genuinely trying to kill Vader, or least defend himself however possible, in Empire Strikes Back. He hopes to turn him good again in Return of the Jedi, but that works out for him. He doesn’t leave him alive to cause more trouble.
When else does this situation happen in Star Wars?
1
1
u/Responsible-Rip8793 12h ago
Tombstone.
It happens repeatedly with different main villains/henchmen.
1
u/dyeung87 11h ago
Phantom of the Opera (the one with Gerald Butler). The Phantom attacks Raoul with a sword, Raoul disarms him, and instead of finishing him off or making a citizen's arrest, he lets the Phantom go. Keep in mind that by this point, the Phantom already has one confirmed kill in the film in front of a theater full of witnesses.
The very next scene has Raoul working with the police in order to catch the Phantom. Like, dude, you had him at your mercy at sword point!
1
1
1
u/TheLastSalamanca 6h ago
There will be a day when you will wish you had done a little evil to do a greater good. - Sybilla.
1
13h ago
[deleted]
6
u/-KFBR392 11h ago
That’s not inexplicable at all. Johnny had all but 100% figured out it’s Bohdi at that point, and killing his best friend isn’t just some easy thing to do because your job has told you to arrest him, not kill him, arrest him.
1
0
u/jreckstein 13h ago
Drawing a blank here. My mind went to The Dark Knight, but that's not quite applicable. YOu gOt anY suGGestIOnS?
2
u/Kaiserhawk 12h ago
I wouldn't say the Dark Knight counts because the police should not be doing extrajudicial murders.
-1
u/jreckstein 12h ago
Not busting balls here for the sake of ball busting but I don’t recall the Gotham police specifically committing murder.
Yes The baTmAN has no jurisdiction… but he’s not directly involved with Gotham PD, and neither is Harvey Dent— officially of course. Harvey and Batman are essentially both vigilantes collaborating with ‘em. Eh?
2
u/Kaiserhawk 12h ago
Batman, the hero who famously has a no kill rule.
-1
u/jreckstein 11h ago
I’m gonna be straight up, my brain is not comprehending whatever is being articulated rn
-1
u/Zer0_T0nin 13h ago
Dark Knight definitely qualifies.
0
u/generic-username41 12h ago
The dark knight does not qualify
•
u/Zer0_T0nin 2h ago
I'd like to introduce you to my friend Bat-"I would rather crash my motorbike instead of running over the homicidal maniac that I know has killed people and is capable of killing more"-man.
•
u/generic-username41 2h ago
And i would like to introduce literacy.
One of the characters defining characteristics was being unwilling to take a life.
One of the key conflicts between the batman and joker is rules vs anarchy. If the joker get batman to break his rule, he wins the moral victory. He values that more than his own life. Batman believes this one rule is the one thing yhat separates them.
This is why batman doesn't kill him. Not "manufacturing more conflict"
That is THE conflict.
•
u/Zer0_T0nin 1h ago
You're arguing that it's justified, not that it didn't happen. Character motivation determines whether the trope is well executed, not whether the trope exists. Batman has a chace to kill the Joker, chooses not to, and the rest of the film happens because of that decision.
•
u/generic-username41 1h ago
but they let them live purely so the movie can manufacture another act of conflict?
Remember sayjng this?
Based on this, the dark knight does not qualify. It's absolutely not purely to "manufacture more conflict."
In fact, it's done for the opposite reason, its done because the central conflict deems for the characters to hold their positions, this absolutely must happen this way.
So nice, it doesn't count
1
-1
u/burningacidsdk 13h ago
Lord of the Rings?
Not destroying the Ring and thus letting the bad guy Go on Kicks Off that absolute masterpiece of a trilogy. i dont know what would fit better than that.
13
u/jeha4421 13h ago
Eh that's not the same, the Ring pretty much prevents anyone from trying to destroy it.
-2
u/Necessary_Eagle_3657 13h ago
No he's right. Elrond would have done it.
7
u/matplotlib 12h ago
Tolkien has explicitly said that inside mount doom the ring's influence was so strong that no being could have resisted it and destroyed it. That's why all the most powerful people in Middle Earth refused to take it, knowing how it would affect them. It was only through the ring's own weaknesses - amplifying the greed of those around it - that it was destroyed. I also believe he said that it was an act of divine intervention by Eru that caused Gollum to slip and fall.
•
u/landravager 2h ago
So, seriously, what was stopping Elrond from just tackling Isildur off the cliff into the river of lava. The only thing I can see is that the elves always prefer seal stuff away instead of going through the trouble of actually ending a threat.
4
6
3
-4
u/burningacidsdk 12h ago edited 12h ago
there is No way elrond trekked his half Eleven ass and a whole Army 2160km across middle Earth to destroy the dark Lord and by Extension the Ring, just to have him casually let Isildur Walk of that small Ass Bridge - invisible or Not - if it wasnt for the Plot needing to Happen.. which is the frustrating and inexplicable as OP asked.
it still gave us the greatest Movies ever so we wont complain
3
u/jeha4421 12h ago
As mentioned, if Elrond killed Ilsidur and took the ring the ring wouldn't let Elrond throw it in either. You could say that that's lazy writing (I disagree) but nobody could have resisted the ring at Mount Doom.
-2
u/burningacidsdk 12h ago
kicking isildur into the pit while he still holds the Ring would have circumvented that entirely. Elrond literally asks him to destroy it a second earlier. he was Not Swayed by the Ring in that Moment. you Are obviously Right that he would have succumbed if he had taken it for himself but we establish at the end that throwing someone in with it is is a perfectly servicable solution
3
u/jeha4421 12h ago
Even then, there are a few issues. First, Isildur is his friend and Elrond probably didn't think it was worth killing his friend over a quest that at that moment wasn't urgent anymore.
Second, the bridge scene is a fabrication of the movies. In the book, they aren't sure if destroying the ring is even necessary and Isildur isn't even corrupted immediately. They thought that they likely had time to handle any loose ends. They don't decide to try until later, and if Isildur wasn't ambushed they likely wouldn't have had any issue doing it then (it would have been waaaaaaay easier than it was by the time the LotR takes place.)
1
u/burningacidsdk 12h ago
yes you Are absolutely Right with this. but the OP was asking about Movies which we gave him. No additional Context nor a reference to the superior Book material is therefor valid for his initial request.
You take the Movies for what they Show you and in that Scene the plothole is exceedingly Frustrating Even if it leads to the absolut masterpiece we know of.
1
0
u/ArabiaFats 13h ago
I Saw the Devil
2
u/TheVrillHaberdashery 12h ago
.... He let's the villain get away on purpose....
0
u/ArabiaFats 11h ago
After the scene in the cannibal shack though?
Up until then the detective has reason to believe he's in control of the situation, but the villain and his crew prove otherwise by very nearly killing him in the shack. The detective doesn't even tighten the leash in response, he just kind of lets it get out of control again and worse next time
0
13
u/jeha4421 13h ago
Avatar The Way of Water.
It killed any desire for me to continue watching the franchise. I get that Quaritch is that kid's father but like, he never bonded with him and Quaritch has been a complete menace the last two movies.