When Eric attacks Shaw on the boat, he tells Emma that "We don't harm our kind", but then he kills Darwin, who didn't even attack him.

How does that fit into his character?

  • 12
    Sometimes, in movies, the bad guy actually lies. Commented Jul 28, 2022 at 9:59
  • 1
    Nando Vs Movies has a good video explaining how Sebastian Shaw isn't Sebastian Shaw (the film character is a composite of other comicbook characters). It's likely the inconsistency came from there.
    – AncientSwordRage
    Commented Jul 28, 2022 at 13:09

1 Answer 1


Shaw's background is working for the Nazis during WW2. He observes to Eric that their methods work.

The one thing I can say for the Nazis is their methods seem to produce results.

Shaw then puts Eric's mother in mortal danger.

Here's what we're going to do. I'm going to count to three… …and you're going to move the coin. You don't move the coin, I pull the trigger.

He then shoots Eric's mother producing the desired result of energising Eric's gift:

Understand?[ ..............] So we unlock your gift with anger. Anger and pain. You and me, we're going to have a lot of fun together.

From Script

Shaw asks Darwin what his ability is:

I adapt to survive.

When the crunch time comes and they face off, Shaw easily absorbs the energy from Darwin's punch, leaving Darwin nonplussed for a moment.

Shaw recognises and acknowledges Darwin's ability, and gives him a chance to prove himself:

Adapt to this.

and pops an energy-ball into Darwin's mouth without apparent rancour.

Shaw uses the tried and tested method to unlock the gift as before. The fact it doesn't have sufficient effect would seem to just be the outcome of natural selection - quite in line with Darwin's name, the method being nothing beyond what the Nazis found to be effective.

Darwin is just collateral damage, one of the failed experiments. An evolutionary dead-end. Fun over.

  • 4
    I don't remember Shaw implying that 'their kind' had to be 'worthy' anywhere... Is this backed up elsewhere in the movie?
    – AncientSwordRage
    Commented Jul 28, 2022 at 13:10
  • A better answer now that I'm more awake. Edited @AncientSwordRage . Commented Jul 28, 2022 at 17:48
  • So do you mean he didn't mean to kill him?
    – Didi Kohen
    Commented Jul 31, 2022 at 12:08
  • 1
    That's what I mean. To him it was fun. He was able to justify his behaviour to himself as effective in making people reach their potential. Sadism and psychopathy aside, I don't think there was malice. @DidiKohen Commented Jul 31, 2022 at 13:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.