I can't stand the hypocrisy of Ollie stopping a killer vigilante
-
Hiragana_Kanji — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 11:28 PM)
The only time I can agree with this is with the Huntress, she was only killing bad guys.
This new guy was putting innocents in harms way. If that wasn't the case I would be the first to agree with you.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -
Hiragana_Kanji — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 11:39 PM)
I don't remember that. If so then that even takes out the Huntress. I remember at the time complaining that Oliver was being a hypocrite. So I could have messed that in my first viewing.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -
ziotheabyss — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 06:32 PM)
A character change they probably only introduced to make her more clear cut as in the wrong. In the original two-parter with her, Oliver's rationale for stopping her was pretty insane, as she literally ONLY dispatched various gangs to set them against each other, and Oliver's "I only kill as a last resort" bit was hard to swallow.
It seems like in "The Huntress Returns" they decided to, much like what they did with Vigilante, stack the deck as much as possible to make it clear that Oliver has the moral high ground. -
ziotheabyss — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 06:29 PM)
I don't really feel as though Oliver "flip-flops" that much. The dude was definitely a Punisher-style killer in Season 1, but aside from Ra's (who he killed in a duel to the death) he was strictly against killing all the way till the end of Season 4.
I agree that the "collateral damage" thing seems like a way of making it too cut and dry, but even if that weren't present I think Oliver would still justifiably object. It should also be considered that even in the beginning of his "Hood" era, Oliver was nowhere near as bloodthirsty and merciless as Vigilante, who just wipes out literally everyone in his path.