Ams Bond kills more people after movie by Asonejson Varies. In his 24 films to this day, Jamesiyes Bond is directly responsible for the deaths of about 597 people, up to 24,875 killing an average of up to 24.875. Meanwhile, Asoneyson only directly killed about 195 people through his 12 films, on an average of only 16.25 movie killings. And yet, the Jameseims Bond is considered an attractive, righteous hero, while Asonerson is shown as a bloody monster. Never worry that the chances are greater that you will be shot to death from a British spy than breaking into the neck of a masked super-zombie.

In films in action, violence is often considered something fair and right. The "hero" character usually has a moral license for murder and a bully whoever wants, provided their chosen victims are villains or bad guys. Superman may not want to kill dictators in his last film - he even comes out aside to save a squirrel - But Hawkgirl has no such components, killing a dictator with Glee. The killing can be heroic.

Meanwhile, in horror films, the killing is always considered frightening. Witnesses for death will include visca, bone cracking and blood. Horror movies know that death is terrible, an idea that encourages the whole genre. Of course, the audience can take care of when teenagers with bubbles are beheaded, but the directors and the audience know that the real murder is bad. We need to be afraid of death. And, if we enjoy the visceral enjoyment of horror, GoreHounds know that it is a subversive and/or disobedient excitement. Strangely, horror films are more morally high than action films.

Steven King agrees with this view. In A recent interview with the time UKThe celebrity author of Horror noted that superhero films regularly lay waste in the big cities in fiery conflicts, yet no one bleed or suffer. Superheroes want to depict all violence, but drain all the suffering to make violence more delicious.

And King has a point. Superhero films turn the destruction, murder and violence into something fun that the whole family can enjoy. The audience accepts the killings of superheroes because, well, they are heroes. We are given a fantastic parallel universe of moral absolute, where good guys are good, and morally allowed to kill bad guys. King opposes this, arguing that if you want violence in your film, you need to show it in your whole frightening glory. Showing the bloody mass destruction for pop -he feels, is a kind of gross:

"If you look at these superhero films, you'll see ... a supervisor that destroys whole city blocks, but you never see blood.

The "Long Walk", based on Steven King's story, is for a competition in which competitors have to go until they go down. If too much slow down, they are killed. If they break ankle, they should continue. Only the last person to stand victory, and he gets a huge cash prize. Neither the original novel nor the film are ashamed of the premise terror.

Of course, action movies put the deck, right? It is allowed to show the heroes who commit murder because their victims are orchestrated to be irreversible. It's okay to kill Thanos Because Thanos - and do - will kill half of the universe when there was a chance. It is okay to celebrate the destruction of cities because it is in the service of killing a bad man who would do even more destruction if they were given a chance.

But King prefer the violence to do on a more intimate basis, face to face. And he would like to see the blood. Otherwise, the film is irresponsible.