There are fundamentally two conflicting and clashing schools of masculism in society.

One teaches that violence, strength, and destruction are paramount. That responding violently is the answer, and that most problems can be solved with brute force.

The other politely disagrees, and asserts that violence should always be the last possible resort, and every attempt should be made to resolve peacefully, and violence should be only utilized when all avenues have been exhausted. It champions patience, courage, knowledge, tactics, and empathy.

Both have plenty of examples in popular media. I'm sure anyone here can think of tommes of examples of both.

The difference is, almost always the movies in the former category must set up some form of unrealistic, incredibly violent opposing force to justify its own premise. They don't see reason, they only understand violence! Thus the protagonist must Rio and tear and kill every last one if them.

Meanwhile the latter typically focuses on more "human" interactions. The protagonist is often much more relatable and real. He doesn't want anyone to get hurt, and he wants peace and happiness.

Characters like Aang from AtLA, Spiderman, or Luffy from One Piece, all demonstrate that violence only is reserved for when it is the only remaining option, typically self defense or defending others who are weaker.

Meanwhile media like John Whick, Taken, Predator, or Game of Thrones position "unstoppable forces" as the antagonists. They cannot be reasoned with, they won't even consider it. Only violence remains from the very start.

So one has to ask themselves if there are cases of glorifying violence in media, when the protagonist could have resolved the situation peacefully?