Keeping Joker Alive: A Stupid Move?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Nemesis X
I'm a Joker fan like anyone else but even I know that this is ridiculous. Joker is a twisted homicidal maniac and neither Batman or the police will kill him. In reality, if we had a person like Joker, cops would obviously fry or hang him to death but in the comics, Joker gets captured and is put behind bars and they do nothing after that and as always, the clown breaks out and goes on yet another killing spree. He's never been sent to death row and he sometimes gives Batman a chance to finish him but the dark knight keeps chickening out as always and either gives Joker the KO or has to catch him through a long period of time and through that long period of time, Joker kills even more people. Joker has killed citizens, doctors, police and maybe children and yet the clown prince of crime is still on the loose because no one has the guts to kill him.

So is keeping Joker alive smart or just plain stupid?


Don't get me wrong. I like Joker and he is one of my most favorite villians in the DC Universe but I think it's just stupid that they keep him alive when they know that he'll easily break out of jail again and go kill more innocents (again).

Micheal_Myers
Killing the Joker would cause a pretty outrageous fan reaction. Even if he was killed he would be brought back with some sort of stupid excuse. So its pointless. Though I do agree they should at least make some plots where Joker IS actually on deathrow.

Kovacs86
There is a story where Joker is sentenced to death. However, Batman believes that for the particular crime he's been convicted of, he's innocent and thus sets out to prove The Joker's innocence. It's called Devil's Advocate.

BruceSkywalker
Originally posted by Nemesis X
I'm a Joker fan like anyone else but even I know that this is ridiculous. Joker is a twisted homicidal maniac and neither Batman or the police will kill him. In reality, if we had a person like Joker, cops would obviously fry or hang him to death but in the comics, Joker gets captured and is put behind bars and they do nothing after that and as always, the clown breaks out and goes on yet another killing spree. He's never been sent to death row and he sometimes gives Batman a chance to finish him but the dark knight keeps chickening out as always and either gives Joker the KO or has to catch him through a long period of time and through that long period of time, Joker kills even more people. Joker has killed citizens, doctors, police and maybe children and yet the clown prince of crime is still on the loose because no one has the guts to kill him.

So is keeping Joker alive smart or just plain stupid?


Don't get me wrong. I like Joker and he is one of my most favorite villians in the DC Universe but I think it's just stupid that they keep him alive when they know that he'll easily break out of jail again and go kill more innocents (again).

the joker will never die

Nemesis X
Originally posted by Kovacs86
There is a story where Joker is sentenced to death. However, Batman believes that for the particular crime he's been convicted of, he's innocent and thus sets out to prove The Joker's innocence. It's called Devil's Advocate.

So Joker was gonna get the chair until Batman stopped it? That's stupid.

Ridley_Prime
Originally posted by Nemesis X
So Joker was gonna get the chair until Batman stopped it? That's stupid.
Agreed, but yeah. I suppose it's because of the fans' reactions that they'll never actually kill the Joker (despite Bruce being killed by Darkseid no expression)...

Micheal_Myers
I read about another story where Joker was actually sentenced to death but he escaped by faking his own death. Seems a little more plausible than Batman trying to save him from the Justice system.

siriuswriter
keeping him as a character : incredibly smart

the one thing, though, is that the suspension of disbelief that the joker can continually break out of jail and that batman can never ever catch him simply... it's cool the first million times. but then people start thinking 'um, reality?' thus breaking the suspension of disbelief and we make a thread like this. smile

i think that keeping him as an unseen threat for a while would be a smart decision. if he's in the playing field, then the story has to be around him. but have him move to canada or metropolis and let the GPD hear about his horrendous crimes in the newspapers, so that the joker is still a threat, just not an impending one. then batman gets a chance to play with other villians for a bit.

starlock
Yes its stupid, the old joke about superman being the boyscout...is now bruces moniker.....in this day and age who is afraid of batman anymore...oh he might hang me from a building or punch my nose.....i think his aura has been diminished,its one of the reasons i cant read his stuff anymore...though i am liking Dick Grayson at this time.....Bruce lost his edge to me....kill the joker and make people really afraid of him......i would not be surprised if they make bruce more cutthroat when he returns...but i dont think they will have him kill the joker, maybe they can get that waste of a character Jason Todd to do it?

DarthLazious
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
the joker will never die

Indeed.

PRAYERRUN
Honestly, I know that Joker would be sent to the electric chair in real life. But in comic book life, if the killed him, Batman wouldn't have a true arc enemy to fight. It's like if you killed Lex Luthor in the Superman comics.

Davis Bloome
If the Joker were real, he'd be sitting in a sanitarium if he proved to be truly insane. As far as I know insane people don't get the death penalty, but it'd be really pointless to kill the Joker off, seeing as he'll only come back, but if it were meant to mean the character will be retired and gone forever, practically everyone on the planet would go nuts. There can't be a Batman without the Joker, that's a fact.

Darth Jello
I do kinda feel like every Joker story that can be told, has been told other than his origin which many would argue should never be definitively told and that even the stuff about his wife etc. was too much.

I would definitely kill him off but I would do it in a random, anticlimactic way, not in some dramatic battle or some crap in order to reflect his personality.

Like he escapes from Arkham, gets in a fight with Batman and as he's running away, he's hit by a car. Like that would be appropriate. A lot of writers really use the Joker as a crutch or gimmick to make an interesting story instead of either exploring other characters more or coming up with new ones. I mean has there really been a new villain since Onomatopoeia?

I guess its part of the reason why I was always more of a Daredevil fan than Batman because they don't overstate villains, but they do explore old ones while coming up with new ones like Lady Bullseye and Johnny Sockets.

~The Wickerman~
........has NOBODY read Kingdom Come? erm

rockycairns
Yeah but they can't ever bring him back into the Nolan films, they could never replace Heath Ledger because the actor who did play the Joker would just have a backlash against them.

Grifter21
The same can be asked for every hero's arch-enemy

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Kovacs86
There is a story where Joker is sentenced to death. However, Batman believes that for the particular crime he's been convicted of, he's innocent and thus sets out to prove The Joker's innocence. It's called Devil's Advocate.

F*king hell Batman...retarded.

Icy Ninja
I always thought he got let off for claiming insanity which is true erm

Kovacs86
Originally posted by Icy Ninja
I always thought he got let off for claiming insanity which is true erm

That is true. I'm sure that's been mentioned a load of times. Besides, who knows if whichever state Gotham's in uses the death penalty?

-Pr-
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
F*king hell Batman...retarded.

He wasn't going to allow someone to be punished for a crime they didn't commit.

Kris Blaze
Time to take ol' Joker out behind the shack and give him the ol' yella treatment.

basy133
joker gets the Lenny Smalls treatment laughing

srankmissingnin
Batman should make his own damn prison. He doesn't trust the law enforcement to catch criminals so he dishes out some vigilante justice, but then he hands the criminals he apprehends over to the same law enforcement officers that he doesn't trust to catch them... and their revolving door prison system? Yeah... it just doesn't make any sense. The GCPD has a better track record catching criminals than it does keeping them behind bars. Whats the deal, Batman?

Philosophía
This problem has been adressed in comics.

http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/tt19/Max_Eisenhardt/th_BatmanEndBeginning1.jpghttp://i593.photobucket.com/albums/tt19/Max_Eisenhardt/th_BatmanEndBeginning2.jpg

basy133

srankmissingnin
It seems like faulty logic. Why is apprehending a criminal more acceptable to Batman than incarcerating him? He sees a fault in the justice systems ability to catch criminals, and he has no problem remedying it... but they have a problem keeping criminals behind bars, and that is out of his hands?

Philosophía
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Why is apprehending a criminal more acceptable to Batman than incarcerating him?
Seriously ?

srankmissingnin

Philosophía
You're missing the point and coming up with arguments that make me question your logic. There's a difference between helping the justice system (flawed as it might be) and effectivly replacing it. The scans I posted above show exactly his purpose in this whole structure.

srankmissingnin

Philosophía
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
So once again: what's the rational behind this belief? Batman feels it's necessary to apprehend criminals because the Police Force can't, but he doesn't feel it's necessary (in fact he feels its wrong) to incarcerate criminals even though the Police Force has a worse track record holding the criminals than they do keeping them. Incarcerating criminals isn't more inherently wrong that beating the crap out of them with some favourable vigilante justice. The sort of personality that he would have to have in order the think Phase 1 was necessary would inevitably lead him to Phase 2.

Batman doesn't incarcerate criminals because of the shaky reason in the scans you provided, he doesn't do it because if he did they wouldn't escape... and I mean that from a DC perspective not a insane "Batman needs criminals" point of view.

It's not a matter of how efficient Batman would be holding criminals in comparison to the police/Arkham Asylum etc, it's about him doing what he can to help the system apprehend this criminals, and not replacing it. This doesn't seem to sink in. He is not judge, jury and executioner. His purpose isn't to punish the criminals, only to help the police and those working within the confines of the law while he is outside of it.

You're arguments are non-existent and you're clinging on a strawman stance saying that just because Batman breaks the law by helping those working under it capture various criminals, he logically should replace it entirely aswell because..well, I'm not sure.

srankmissingnin

Philosophía
That is one of the worst kind of logics and backpedalling I've ever seen.

"Batman isn't helping the justice system, the one designed to help the citizens by protecting them from, apprehending and judging criminals! He is just helping normal citizens, let down by the system (!!!) by protecting them from and apprehending the criminals, afterwards handing them over to the justice system! Uhm.. yeah!

And why shouldn't Batman judge and incarcerate criminals ?! He already helps the police and courts by catching criminals, saving people and then letting the legal system run its course.. why not ignore the system entirely and be a one-man judge, jury and executioner! It's only logical .. the sort of personality required for the first one would obviously do the second one!!"

I'm sorry Srank, but this discussion is just too stupid to further pursue.

Later.

srankmissingnin

HueyFreeman
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Batman doesn't exist to help the justice system. He exists to help civilians that the justice system has let down. He doesn't go where the Police can't go for the benefit of the Police, he does it to help the average person affected by crime. Other than the fact that they are mostly good men trying to protect people, Batman could give a crap about the Police Department. He doesn't fallow procedure, he doesn't fallow protocol, Batman's whole mission is to plug the gaps that he sees in Justice System, and the suggest that Batman doesn't confine criminals because he has some perceived allegiance to the prison system is faulty, and flat out wrong.

This is the same man who built a satellite to spy on every single person on earth, after the Justice League let him down once. Do you really think after the second time Joker escaped from prison Batman wouldn't insure that it wouldn't happened again? Stop making sense srank. Dammit.

Philosophía
Originally posted by HueyFreeman
Stop making sense srank. Dammit.

Expand.

You think it's only normal Batman starts judging and incarcerating criminals by himself, effectivly replacing the whole system/law, because he is currently helping it ? Or that apparently Batman isn't helping the system (the one who is supposed to protect citizens & capture and judge criminals) by protecting citizens, capturing criminals and handing them over to the police ?

Or you're here only for cheerleading ?

-Pr-
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
It's really not a mater for debate. /shrug

"Uhuh like, Batman is a good person, and like... I don't know... I don't think he would want to do that... judge... um... jury... um you know... I think its wrong." Said in the best Ross from Friends voice, isn't much of an argument. Just a quick analyse of Batman's character would tell you that. He isn't some meek pussy, and he doesn't [email protected] around. I suppose a very poor case could be made around the idea that maybe Batman might think its too much power for one person... but this is the same dude that made Brother Eye. He'll do whatever he fells is necessary to keep people safe.

he did that to keep tabs on the justice league. it wasn't for the benefit of people like joker.

batman respects the law, and it's why he works with gordon instead of not doing it.

srankmissingnin
Originally posted by -Pr-
he did that to keep tabs on the justice league. it wasn't for the benefit of people like joker.

batman respects the law, and it's why he works with gordon instead of not doing it.

He made it because he is a control freak and felt that since several members of the Justice League couldn't be trusted, by extension no one could, so he needed monitor everyone. I pretty sure Brother Eye was monitoring the world goverments as well as just people.

Batman works with Gordon because he respect the man, not his office. This should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when several GCPD (not all of them corrupt), put out Shoot to Kill orders on Batman and all vigilantes, Batman still went out and did his job anyway. Any help the police department get from Batman is a happy side effect from him helping civilians or his respect for Gordon, not his intended purpose like some people are suggesting.

... and when I said people, I wasn't talking about the Joker. wacko

-Pr-
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
He made it because he is a control freak and felt that since several members of the Justice League couldn't be trusted, by extension no one could, so he needed monitor everyone. I pretty sure Brother Eye was monitoring the world goverments as well as just people.

Batman works with Gordon because he respect the man, not his office. This should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when several GCPD (not all of them corrupt), put out Shoot to Kill orders on Batman and all vigilantes, Batman still went out and did his job anyway. Any help the police department get from Batman is a happy side effect from him helping civilians or his respect for Gordon, not his intended purpose like some people are suggesting.

... and when I said people, I wasn't talking about the Joker. wacko

how, though? how can you know that he set it up for that unless it was stated? it was largely after maxwell lord got his hands on it that he widened the net, iirc.

having respect for the police themselves and respect for the laws/justice is two different things. if batman knows he's innocent, then it's up to him to prove it and to continue to do his job.

srankmissingnin
Originally posted by -Pr-
how, though? how can you know that he set it up for that unless it was stated? it was largely after maxwell lord got his hands on it that he widened the net, iirc.

having respect for the police themselves and respect for the laws/justice is two different things. if batman knows he's innocent, then it's up to him to prove it and to continue to do his job.

He did say something though. I can't remember the exact quote but it was something like "It didn't mater who did, because one of us couldn't be trusted, none of us could. It didnt matter who it was, only that it happened, and I would never let it happen again."

The difference between respect for certain police officers and the justice system as a whole was my intire point...

roughrider
They're painted themselves into a corner ever since Jason Todd was murdered in 1988. The explanations and rationalizing since then borders on nonsensical - it's less important that the authorities don't give in to Joker (by killing him) than to protect the lives of the hundreds he has ruined?
Back in the late 40's, they pulled back on Joker's homicidal tendencies, because it just made Batman look impotent by not dealing with him harshly. It's been two decades since The Dark Knight Returns, and things have escalated ever since. Joker is just going to have to be killed, then come back in a cloned body or something. The shoe has been waiting to drop for decades.

srankmissingnin
Originally posted by roughrider
They're painted themselves into a corner ever since Jason Todd was murdered in 1988. The explanations and rationalizing since then borders on nonsensical - it's less important that the authorities don't give in to Joker (by killing him) than to protect the lives of the hundreds he has ruined?
Back in the late 40's, they pulled back on Joker's homicidal tendencies, because it just made Batman look impotent by not dealing with him harshly. It's been two decades since The Dark Knight Returns, and things have escalated ever since. Joker is just going to have to be killed, then come back in a cloned body or something. The shoe has been waiting to drop for decades.

The problem is that Batman is governed by a flawed sense of moral absolutism focus mainly around the belief that murder is wrong regardless of the circumstance, and Joker exists solely to challenge Batman's core belief structure. If Batman kills Joker - like Joker believes is necessary - then Joker wins. Killing the Joker proves his point, and so Batman can't kill the him or the Joker ultimately wins and Batman is destroyed. Since Batman's world is so black and white, if he kills the Joker, he becomes a villian in his own mind, and a villian can't be trusted to be Batman. The kicker of course is that in the end it is absolutely necessary...

Someone needs to kill Joker, it just can't be Batman.

EDIT: Batman needs therapy

-Pr-
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
He did say something though. I can't remember the exact quote but it was something like "It didn't mater who did, because one of us couldn't be trusted, none of us could. It didnt matter who it was, only that it happened, and I would never let it happen again."

The difference between respect for certain police officers and the justice system as a whole was my intire point...

i don't recall the statement, but if it was something to that effect, then it strengthens my point, imo.

yes, i know, but it's like philo said: batman doesn't want to replace the system. he wants to augment it. make it more efficient, but still governed by those in authority.

HueyFreeman

siriuswriter
Originally posted by Icy Ninja
I always thought he got let off for claiming insanity which is true erm

i always thought pleading insanity means the criminal had no criminal intent and they didn't know what they were doing and/or the consequences of what they're doing.

by those standards, the joker is incredibly stone-cold sane.

roughrider
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
The problem is that Batman is governed by a flawed sense of moral absolutism focus mainly around the belief that murder is wrong regardless of the circumstance, and Joker exists solely to challenge Batman's core belief structure. If Batman kills Joker - like Joker believes is necessary - then Joker wins. Killing the Joker proves his point, and so Batman can't kill the him or the Joker ultimately wins and Batman is destroyed. Since Batman's world is so black and white, if he kills the Joker, he becomes a villian in his own mind, and a villian can't be trusted to be Batman. The kicker of course is that in the end it is absolutely necessary...

Someone needs to kill Joker, it just can't be Batman.

EDIT: Batman needs therapy

Yet you notice how quick writers & editors allow Joker to be killed once they are out of regular DC continuity - The Dark Knight Returns, Kingdom Come. In Dark Knight, Batman definitely feels responsible for the Joker: "I'll add them to the list, Joker. The list of all the people I've murdered - by letting you live." And "How many more...until I finally do it?"(Kill Joker)
It's been the argument for decades that they can't kill Joker because it just would be proving him right, somehow...plus because he's insane, he can't be held responsible for his actions. You wonder when someone other than Batman is just going to say enough is enough.

Batman isn't alone in this dilemma. Daredevil has this problem with the Kingpin & Bullseye, where's he stuck in a cycle he can't break with them. Of course, he has his day job as a lawyer that makes him even more committed to society's due process, than Batman does.

Phantom Zone

Darth Jello
Originally posted by roughrider
Yet you notice how quick writers & editors allow Joker to be killed once they are out of regular DC continuity - The Dark Knight Returns, Kingdom Come. In Dark Knight, Batman definitely feels responsible for the Joker: "I'll add them to the list, Joker. The list of all the people I've murdered - by letting you live." And "How many more...until I finally do it?"(Kill Joker)
It's been the argument for decades that they can't kill Joker because it just would be proving him right, somehow...plus because he's insane, he can't be held responsible for his actions. You wonder when someone other than Batman is just going to say enough is enough.

Batman isn't alone in this dilemma. Daredevil has this problem with the Kingpin & Bullseye, where's he stuck in a cycle he can't break with them. Of course, he has his day job as a lawyer that makes him even more committed to society's due process, than Batman does.

I think it's an issue of the writers clutching at straws, especially with the whole insanity defense thing. Daredevil has used a level of force that Batman would never stoop to and actually has tried to kill both the Kingpin and Bullseye before and has tortured and killed other villains on occasion. Whether he was in his right mind or not (typically not) at the time is another question. I think its arguable that given the current scenario, Batman almost has a duty to kill the Joker.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Jesus said I am the light truth and the way. Basically some DC fans lose the ability to use any common sense because they are in love with the DCU. DC can come up with any excuse and it will be accepted. Hate to break it to you but its a fictional universe Batman does certain things becaue we need to keep seeing the villaiins again not because it makes any sense. doh



So what?

so what what?

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by -Pr-
so what what?

Nevermind its ahile back I dont think you remember what we were talking about.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Nevermind its ahile back I dont think you remember what we were talking about.

the fact that batman cleared the joker of a crime he didn't commit...

Philosophía
Originally posted by HueyFreeman
Batman's mere existence represents a failure of the system. His reasons for not incarcerating the joker in his own prison are at best laughable. Batman breaks so many laws everyday but he still feels he has no right to pronounce sentence on a criminal like the Joker is stupid. Hes pretty much a hypocrite with a flawed sense of self righteousness that breaks the law when its convenient for his own moral code. Jokers not some low level hood. In our society he would make Bundy, BTK, and Gacy look tame in comparison. Theres no justifiable way of keeping someone like him alive.

His reasons for not incarcerating Joker is because he is not the law and what happens to him after he is apprehended is, like I and the scans I posted point out, none of his business. He is only there to help the system, not to become it. Period.

Saying that the reasons for Batman not becoming the judge, jury and executioner in a system separate from the current one, making his own prison and deeming sentences as he sees fit are 'laughable at best' shows a lack of knowledge on the character and logic.

Even moreso, you seem to miss the point that this is not just about Joker. Why stop there ? Two-Face. Zsasz. Random supervillain X. Is he dangerous to the society ? Check. Have they escaped many times and performed murderous deeds ? Check. Let's have Batman shove them all into the prison he builds outside of the system.

I should have stopped when I first told Srank that this is becoming too stupid to further pursue and it has become even stupider, funnily enough. So I will stop now.

starlock

HueyFreeman

Shen-long
I do not exactly remember where but I have read that Batman feels that its wrong to kill. however he is willing to do everything else. that includes beating someone to whithin an inch of their lives!!!!

also the Joker has become a veritable plot device. the kind of mindset one has these days while reading batman(well before his death) is "blame it on the Joker"mad
Some step has to be taken.Something like having Dick kill him and on his death , the emergence of his secretly hidden son who is just as twisted as him or something.eek!
Thing is once batman or dick or anyone he's tought crosses the line they won't be able to trust themselves with the mantle of the Bat anymore.

Phantom Zone

jalek moye
Originally posted by Phantom Zone




Exactly. Oh and apparently Batman thinks it ok to kill aliens...apparently.

I find that funny when characters that are against killing, kill aliens and other intellgent life sometimes

willRules
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
The problem is that Batman is governed by a flawed sense of moral absolutism focus mainly around the belief that murder is wrong regardless of the circumstance, and Joker exists solely to challenge Batman's core belief structure. If Batman kills Joker - like Joker believes is necessary - then Joker wins. Killing the Joker proves his point, and so Batman can't kill the him or the Joker ultimately wins and Batman is destroyed. Since Batman's world is so black and white, if he kills the Joker, he becomes a villian in his own mind, and a villian can't be trusted to be Batman. The kicker of course is that in the end it is absolutely necessary...

Someone needs to kill Joker, it just can't be Batman.

EDIT: Batman needs therapy


That doesn't make Batman's sense of Moral absolutism flawed at all. In fact it means every time Batman has a chance to kill Joker but doesn't, it's Batman who wins.

When you ask yourself what truly makes Batman different from the Joker, the lines start to blur. They both are insane. They both dress up in eccentric outfits and go out committing acts that is frowned upon by society. What makes them different is their sense of morality. They are loonies on either side of the moral fence. Joker's always trying to prove murder works, whereas Batman is motivated by his parents deaths to prevent murder. Therefore every time Batman doesn't kill he proves his point to Joker. If he were to kill, like you say, Joker wins. But that's the entire point, Batman doesn't kill and so Joker doesn't win.

From a moral standpoint, anyone else Joker kills as a result is on the Joker's head, not Batman's. Batman does all he can by apprehension, hence the entertaining comics.

willRules
Originally posted by HueyFreeman
Lets not kid our selves. He breaks the law whenever it suits his need. Hes an obstruction as well albeit a good one. Hes not helping the law along, hes demonstrating why the system is ****ed up. His stance is hypocritical. Hes okay with breaking the law to instill fear in others but at the same time he feels hes not above the law? Please, what a load of horse shit. His stance has nothing to do with the law but his own set of morale. If he can hack classified information, break into buildings, commit assault on a daily bases than he does feel hes above the law otherwise he wouldn't you know "break the law"! You either accept the law or you don't. Theres no in-between. Also your wrong, I perfectly understand his character and his logic, I am saying his logic is stupid.

Agreed. That's the irony behind every hero/villain, which is only more obvious in the Punisher, because he actually kills.

For every single Superhero, if they were to ever lock up all their villains, would have to lastly commit themselves.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by willRules

From a moral standpoint, anyone else Joker kills as a result is on the Joker's head, not Batman's. Batman does all he can by apprehension, hence the entertaining comics.

Not at all Batman could have stopped the Joker from killing therefore hes responsible. 1 or 2 times or even several but Joker and Batman have done this 100s of times. Also Batman has no problem with killing other lifeforms.

The Heap
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Not at all Batman could have stopped the Joker from killing therefore hes responsible. 1 or 2 times or even several but Joker and Batman have done this 100s of times. Also Batman has no problem with killing other lifeforms.

Batman isn't responsible for what the Joker does at all. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

And if your referring to Darkseid, like someone above posted, "anyone in their right mind would try to kill Darkseid".

Despite his rules, even Batman realized that.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by The Heap
Batman isn't responsible for what the Joker does at all. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.



Yeah they are but when you are responsible for stopping ciminals from hurting and killing people you are responsible for stopping the criminal. Sorry that logic doesnt work at all, some people actual have some responibility to other people.

willRules
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yeah they are but when you are responsible for stopping ciminals from hurting and killing people you are responsible for stopping the criminal. Sorry that logic doesnt work at all, some people actual have some responibility to other people.


But we aren't talking about any example, it's specifically Batman vs Joker. Are you saying if Joker kills someone, it's Batman's fault? Because by that logic, nobody else who was capable stopped Joker. By that line of reasoning it's everyone fault with the possible exception of Joker, if they fail to stop Joker from killing.

That to me sounds illogical and morally redundant. It's Joker's fault, not Batman.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by willRules
But we aren't talking about any example, it's specifically Batman vs Joker. Are you saying if Joker kills someone, it's Batman's fault? Because by that logic, nobody else who was capable stopped Joker. By that line of reasoning it's everyone fault with the possible exception of Joker, if they fail to stop Joker from killing.

That to me sounds illogical and morally redundant. It's Joker's fault, not Batman.

Im not even sure if I got all that. Not everybody has the power to stop the Joker but Batman has therefore its his responsibiltiy. I don't see whats so complicated.

The Heap
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Im not even sure if I got all that. Not everybody has the power to stop the Joker but Batman has therefore its his responsibiltiy. I don't see whats so complicated.

Whats to stop Comm. Gordon from capping Joker? Or Nightwing from putting him in hospital?

Hardly Batman's fault. Joker doesn't have a label above his ass saying "property of Wayne Industries".

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by The Heap
Whats to stop Comm. Gordon from capping Joker? Or Nightwing from putting him in hospital?

Hardly Batman's fault. Joker doesn't have a label above his ass saying "property of Wayne Industries".

They are just as responsible as Batman, just because they haven't done it doesn't mean Batmans not responsible.

jayce78
Great move to keep Joker alive in the movie. I'm getting so sick of the villians always kicking the bucket at the end of the movie. It's getting to be such a repetitive formula.

lord xyz
In the Dark Knight, if Batman kills the Joker, the Joker wins.

If the police killed the Joker in the Dark Knight, both Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes would've died.

Killing the bad guy destroys all your information on the guy.

roughrider
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
........has NOBODY read Kingdom Come? erm

There you go. Kingdom Come showed Magog killing a helpless Joker in public, in front of police who had him in custody, and was found Not Guilty by a jury. Because you're not going to find a jury who will convict you for killing the Joker - that's how much the public fears and despises him.
I understand Batman's motives and need for rules, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Nemesis X
So everyone will hate Batman if he kills Joker, the psychopath who has murdered their friends, family and neighbors? That is so retarded. Why oh why did DC writers make their comic universe so stupid? I suppose if Superman kills Darkseid, everybody will give him the finger? Gay!

sylvanelf
Note: Short attention spans, please move to the next post.

The DC Universe is written in a recognizable way to us, in that the overall structure of reality is intact, the physical world maintains the same look and feel, and people are people (more or less). We can assume that there is gravity and physical substance and hunger. The things we take for granted in the real world are present, but not typically as a centerpiece in comics.
Also present are fantasy elements to make the stories appealing to readers. We read because amazing things happen in comics, not because the content matches real life so well. Even characters like Batman who aren't superhuman are fascinating because they still achieve "amazement" levels through their intellect, determination and resourcefulness.
The reality and fantasy in comics are meshed by writers who don't necessarily have a complete and thorough understanding of their topics in the real world, and therefore have to contrive justification for what happens via the fantasy elements. Additionally, they write within the framework of comics being a business. They have a job. Stories must be written, but deadlines must be met so that comic books can be sold. Neither a consistent and accurate characterization nor maintenance of continuity are entirely possible. We talk about CIS and PIS to cover these very things.

So a discussion about how Batman should handle the Joker must be done within the context of it being a comic book story written by people in the real world who want to continue to have jobs. Is Batman's logic about killing going to be absolutely sound?
It's easy enough to look at one element of a character and make a decision about what "ought to be done", and even if that decision is justifiable on its own, the impact to the rest of the comic book world in which that character lives has to be taken into account. The writers are effectively the (albeit, imperfect) gods of their comic book universes, which you might look at as a struggling pantheon, since they each have control only over certain characters and themes. But they have to consider the butterfly effect of those characters' actions, and the more major the action, the worse the effects would be.

I mean, holy crap. Trying to juggle what's exciting, cool, intriguing, reasonable, in-character and consistent ain't easy. Of course they screw it up sometimes, but such a major move like Batman (or anyone) killing the Joker takes some serious consideration.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
Killing the Joker would cause a pretty outrageous fan reaction. Even if he was killed he would be brought back with some sort of stupid excuse. So its pointless. Though I do agree they should at least make some plots where Joker IS actually on deathrow.

exactly.thats why The Burton Batman movies suck because they betrayed the comics with him killing his arch enemy The Joker.In Real life that would be smart to kill the joker if this really went on, but it would disgrace the comics and the new Batman movies if Batman ever killed the joker like he did in those disgraceful Burton Batman movies because Batman hates to kill.Even in the early Batman comics when he originally did kill,he only did so when there was no other way out.The Batman in the comics would have tried to save Joker.He wouldnt have let him fall to his death like that and he would never cause him to fall to his death like that either. mad

darthmaul1
In Tim burtons batman, it's not as if he threw him off the building and killed him.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by darthmaul1
In Tim burtons batman, it's not as if he threw him off the building and killed him.

I know that but like i said,he made no attempt to even try to rescue him.Thats not Batman.

Tron
Originally posted by Mr Parker
I know that but like i said,he made no attempt to even try to rescue him.Thats not Batman.

Well, to be fair, he was kind of busy making sure a certain blonde didn't fall to her death. But yeah, Batman totally killed Joker.

darthmaul1
Originally posted by Tron
Well, to be fair, he was kind of busy making sure a certain blonde didn't fall to her death. But yeah, Batman totally killed Joker.
Technically the ground killed him.
I think Burton was trying to make it as dark as possible. And didn't batman use a gun in the early comics? But then they changed it. Look at it this way lotr movies weren't done exactly the same as the books but they were close. So you can read the books and get a slightly different expwrience than watching the movie.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by darthmaul1
Technically the ground killed him.
I think Burton was trying to make it as dark as possible. And didn't batman use a gun in the early comics? But then they changed it. Look at it this way lotr movies weren't done exactly the same as the books but they were close. So you can read the books and get a slightly different expwrience than watching the movie.

Yeah he did use a gun in the early comics and shot and killed people but even then,he only shot and killed people when he had to and there was not other way.that was the thing that was stupid about Batman 89 is it wasnt realistic.He killed the Joker and he should have been wanted for murder at the end regardless of The Jokers past actions.

Instead they treated him like a damn hero even though he murdered his goons in that warehouse dropping that bomb in front of them like that.In Batman Begins he didnt kill anybody and he was STILL wanted by the police.THAT was realistic.the Batman from the comics would have had his batmobile go in and release sleeping gas or something like that.That was an instance where he could easily have avoided killing but did not do so.Batman works with the police,he isnt allowed to take the law into his own hands and kill people as he wishes.

The Burton movies were not Batman movies at all.They more like a James Bond flick.Having a licence to kill.He also recklessly endangered the lives of civilians when he was in his batplane and he shot those bullets at the joker and missed him.There were civilians there and he could have EASILY had one of those bullets richochet and kill them.

Also Batman had already saved Basinger and had her put away to safety,so he still killed him not even trying to save him like he could have.Like I said before,regardless of the jokers past actions,he still killed him and he still should have been tried for murder at the end.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.