Flash Vs Spider-Verse: The morality of not saving someone

[MetalSkulkBane]

(SObviouslypoilers for "Flash" and "Across the Spider-verse")

So I finally saw the Flash. Yes, it's much worse than Spider-Verse. In fact, it's just not very good.

But what really intrigued me about this movie is the very obvious parallels to this year's adventure of Miles Morales. Both movies face exactly the same moral dilemma: can you not save one person, if it saves the entire universe? And more interestingly, both movies pick opposite sides.

So why the heck no one is talking about this? Well, maybe I'll start. (And just to repeat, I'm intrigued by the moral conundrum, not the quality of both movies).

Here are my thoughts on Friendly Neighbor. I'm using spoiler boxes to the first post doesn't look Too Long to Read

Spoiler

Honestly, I was with Miguel. We literally saw with Spider-Man India that the threat was real. Imagine if Spider Society failed. If we actually see that dimension die. Then Miles would look like an asshole. But no, Pavitr Prabhakar is totally on his side, despite his world being one step from dying.

And I get it. If you know Spider-man's origin, you know that he just can't stand by and do nothing. Never again. But that just makes it so jarring that the army of Spider-Mans (including Spectacular, Insomniac, etc. You know, Spider-mans we as the audience know) would go with it. I assumed that they did their homework and they are 100% sure there are only 2 options: one person dies or everybody dies. Heroes always want to save everyone, that's what makes them heroes. They never go with villains "muahahaha, pick who you safe". But logically there must be situations when they must pick.

And I know, we're still waiting for the next movie, so we don't know all the answers. But the fact that Gwen's dad retired heavily implies there is a 3rd way and that Miles will save everyone. Because bloody of course, in the end, this is a cartoon with kids in mind. I'm 99,9999% sure the lesson will be that Miguel was wrong. That's how stories for kids work. But without being the all-knowing audience, if I was a person living in that world? I would side with Spider-man 2099.

And on Fastest Man Alive

Spoiler

So the fastest person alive, with the power of time travel just can't save 2 people, despite trying countless number of times. Logically, it's impossible. And then I could point out many inconsistencies, like Barry saving his dad, so clearly not learning a lesson. Or question why Zod keeps killing Supergirl, but not Flash.

But that's my opinion about the movie, not the dilemma. We're dealing with Doctor Who-esque "Fixed Point in Time" sorta thing. Even will happen, no matter the amount of time travel. So Flash must either let Zod blow up Earth or let his mom die.

The big difference between this and Spider-Verse is that Barry's mom is already dead. Saving lives is always good, but most heroes draw a line on necromancy. And time travel makes that line very hard to see.

Since Flash actually tried a bunch of times, he knew there is no cheat-cheat 3rd way like Miles will have. So really, letting his mom die was the only option he had, no matter how it hurt. But I am curious: what if there was no "necromancy" so to speak? What if his mom was actually alive and he had to kill her, (Infinite War style)? Or at the very least, watch her getting killed and do nothing? In theory, it doesn't change anything, it's still the same situation, where there is only one way out. And yet, if feels completely different, right?

Overall, both situations are kinda too crazy to consider in real life. it's like those questions "Would you be okay with being blind if I pay you 1 million bucks". Fun to ponder, but will never happen in real life.

And we all know that a hero should always look for that 3rd way, manage to save everybody. But if there is no 3rd way? Spide-Verse is a better movie, but I'm in a Flash camp.

[Sega DogTagz]

If your looking for another recent-ish fixed-point-in-time example of this this dilemma, you can check out Marvel "What-if" series. Specifically, the one about Doctor Strange.

 

Doc Strange

Spoilers to follow
 

Spoiler

The events of the episode follow the first Dr Movie closely enough. Strange gets in a car crash, but this time, he survives more or less intact, but his girlfriend dies. He goes on a journey, secretly obsessed with finding a way to bring her back and obtains all the Mystic powers he has today, and then some via powerup thru desperate and dubious means.

Doc travels back in time, but no matter how many re-tries he takes - his girlfriend ends up dead. Either they get in a car accident somewhere else, or she has a heart attack, or she gets shot by a stay bullet in a robbery ect, ect. It is explained to Doc that her death is a fixed point in time, but he doesn't want to hear that. He uses all the power in his disposal to try and shift and control the flow of fate, but more or less ends up nuking his own timeline into oblivion.

 

In terms of how the situation is presented I think you just have to draw a line between heroes that can make the choice for the greater good, and heroes that can't or wont. Both are heroic choices, but only one asks of a hero to balance the value of their decisions and make a choice based on the impact of the world at large. I think the moral of the story in any case is that neither side is wrong, it just takes a different kind of person to choose sides.

Miguel had been in Miles shoes before. He had made the choice and it cost him losing everything for a second time. Its much easier for him to choose the sacrifice route because he had been at rock bottom. He has seen the consequences of being the hero and wanting to have it all. To be able to save everyone. He understood the value of many over the few because he has actually lived through a life where choosing the opposite left him alone. Miles has never faced that. Its much easier to understand his viewpoint as the naive hero who even if he knows he can't save everyone - its still in his nature to try. He'd rather die on his feet doing the impossible - than suffer his own guilt of letting something bad happen to someone when he didn't do everything in his power to prevent it.

Its selfish to choose 1 person over the world, but its equally as selfish to be blessed with the power to do something and then do nothing. With Great Power comes Great Responsibility. Miguel see's that as the responsibility to make the impossible choice for the greater good. Miles interprets that as the resolve to never sit on the sidelines. Both are right.

as for the other spiders in the spider society - you again can look at the same two sides of the same coin argument. Neither side is in the wrong here, so it doesn't take much to sway the other spiders into inaction. Miguel is an awe-inspiring leadership type. He's passionate and motivated. It makes sense that other spiders would fall in line with the guy taking point. Plus, he's got catastrophic data points to back up his claim. Its also why its believable that Miles inner-circle, the people he connected with most, would be willing to defect to his side. The anguish of someone they cherish was enough to change their minds.

 

Flash's situation is a tiny bit different. It something that has come up in the comics often. He has the power to change the past, but there are usually some butterfly effect horrible consequences for doing so - So eventually, he has to come to the conclusion to let the past be. Its similar to Miles moral issue, save for the prospect of time. By stepping into the past, he's doing less hero work, and more of something akin to playing God - and thats the line that can't be crossed. In that case, He's using his powers to choose who lives or dies, rather than either fighting to save everyone he can, or acting in the intent of the greater good. Doctor Strange ran into this. Where by trying to be a god and have control over life and fate, he ends up ripping up the fabric of reality.

 

Its a moral question that gets bounced around a ton in Hero circles. Even Sonic touches on this in the comics. By being a hero that does what he feels is right, Sonic's choices often deviates away from the greater good. He wasn't willing to take the life or freedom away from Doctor Tinker even though by doing so it would ensure the continued safe existence of everyone. Characters like Shadow, who is much closer aligned to the greater good would have jumped on that opportunity, and sacrificed the one for the good of the many. Again, both viewpoints aren't wrong - its just a matter of what kind of hero is dealing with the situation. Even if the narrative wants to "pick sides" you can never truly label either side as wrong.