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.
__________________ Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
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.
__________________ Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
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.
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.
__________________
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
Gender: Male Location: In Luna's mane, chasing STAAARS!
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!
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.
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by darthmaul1 on Jul 29th, 2010 at 01:09 AM
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.
__________________
Last edited by Mr Parker on Jul 29th, 2010 at 11:24 PM
KMC Community Forums
Sep 27th, 2009 07:19 PM
