Burton's Batman didn't kill anyone.

[TheBatman072]

Yes, and he does every single day. He admitted that to Jason Todd when Jason confronted him over not avenging his death at the hands of the Joker.

But Batman will not kill anyone whether they deserve it or not.

I love that exchange.

 

[Jokey]

But Batman will not kill anyone whether they deserve it or not.

In the newer comics.

 

[The Joker]

In the newer comics.

If you call the last 50+ years worth of comics the newer comics, then yes.

 

[Johnny Drama]

The surreal and perhaps supernatural nature of Burton's Batman leads me to believe that Batman didn't kill anyone. If the Burton films were striving to for realism like Nolan's films were, then I would agree that he killed people. But it was striving for a more fantastical setting, so I'm going to assume that he didn't kill anyone.

Yeah, that fat clown survived the bomb on his stomache, and The Joker will be just okay...

 

[Fresh Prince]

Yeah, that fat clown survived the bomb on his stomache, and The Joker will be just okay...

Yeah Joker was not dead he was just smiling he survived.

 

[Jokey]

If you call the last 50+ years worth of comics the newer comics, then yes.

I do call them that.

 

[Bathead]

In the newer comics.

You mean since like 1942? You realize Batman has only killed about half a dozen times even in that 3 year period? And not always deliberately. If you people are gonna keep using Kane's early stories as an excuse for Batman killing, whether it's for Burton's movies or whatever, at least do your research, then maybe you'll understand it's not that compelling an excuse.

 

[The Joker]

I do call them that.

Your definition of new comics is absurd.

 

[El Payaso]

You mean since like 1942? You realize Batman has only killed about half a dozen times even in that 3 year period? And not always deliberately. If you people are gonna keep using Kane's early stories as an excuse for Batman killing, whether it's for Burton's movies or whatever, at least do your research, then maybe you'll understand it's not that compelling an excuse.

That has never been an excuse but a reason. B89 was always supposed to portray the first Batman. And the end of the killing Batman was purely a editorial move in order to avoid parents' complaints, not an artistic choice, so it's not that compelling an excuse. Or reason.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Maybe the extreme ones. You see what the Joker's done throughout the series of the comics and wonder why Batman hasn't at least crippled him (TDKR's notwithstanding). Especially in the one-shot where he skinned a guy, raped a woman and murdered an old couple. Of course, killing Joker would take him out of the comics, which nobody would want, but should Batman even entertain the thought?

And that's exactly the problem. It begins to get rather ridiculous after awhile. The Joker kills a a bunch of people. Batman beats him up. They throw him in Arkham. He escape. He kills double the previous amount of people. Batman beats him up. They throw him in Arkham. He escapes. He kills even more people. Batman beats him up. They throw him in Arkham.

It's too unrealistic, even by comic standards. This guy CONTINUALLY escapes, his violence rises every time. And the city REFUSES to kill the guy. Batman refuses to cripple the guy or kill him EVERY TIME! I mean, really? It gets old. That's what happens when you rely so much on one character and milk him for all he's worth. You begin to over-do everything. So DC won't kill the character because of loss of money. But i think a story in which Batman finally decides to kill him would be very interesting. How would that effect Bruce and co.? And being as how DC would never keep him dead, how would The Joker's return throw any changes made into chaos?

 

[Infinity9999x]

And that's exactly the problem. It begins to get rather ridiculous after awhile. The Joker kills a a bunch of people. Batman beats him up. They throw him in Arkham. He escape. He kills double the previous amount of people. Batman beats him up. They throw him in Arkham. He escapes. He kills even more people. Batman beats him up. They throw him in Arkham.

It's too unrealistic, even by comic standards. This guy CONTINUALLY escapes, his violence rises every time. And the city REFUSES to kill the guy. Batman refuses to cripple the guy or kill him EVERY TIME! I mean, really? It gets old. That's what happens when you rely so much on one character and milk him for all he's worth. You begin to over-do everything. So DC won't kill the character because of loss of money. But i think a story in which Batman finally decides to kill him would be very interesting. How would that effect Bruce and co.? And being as how DC would never keep him dead, how would The Joker's return throw any changes made into chaos?

....yeahhhh. If you were talking about a one-shot, or an elseworlds, then yes, it would be a great idea. You could do some really interesting things with it.

But you have to remember that comics are a medium that never stop. Killing the Joker would be a great one-shot. Notice the use of ONE. There. Because that's all it would be. Once. And then you can't do anything. And if you were just going to have him come back, then why do it at all, because if you make a huge deal of his death, only to have him come back, the entire story you built around his death is pointless, since it really has no effect on the characters in the long term at all.

And you think a criminal who escapes continually is more unrealistic than Batman conversing with a man who's from another planet, yet looks just like a human but can fly, shoot lazers out of his eyes, has super strength, speed, x-ray vision, and can freeze people with his breath...or the fact that their universe used to be seperated into multiple realities and there were multiple versions of the DC heroes, or the fact that Batman has somehow managed to master almost every form of martial arts, while still being a master of crimonolgy, multiple scienes, has olympic level dexterity and acrobatic ability and yet can somehow still bench over 500lbs....

I could go on and on. It's a comic book. The very character of Batman himself defies all logic. They're FANTASY. Yeah, in real life the Joker would be dead, but he's not dead right now because he's one of the most compelling fictional villains ever created. You don't kill off villains like that.

 

[El Payaso]

Yeah, in real life the Joker would be dead, but he's not dead right now because he's one of the most compelling fictional villains ever created. You don't kill off villains like that.

Yes you do. But not when you have to keep selling comic books for the decades to come.

 

[lzzy]

And that's exactly the problem. It begins to get rather ridiculous after awhile. The Joker kills a a bunch of people. Batman beats him up. They throw him in Arkham. He escape. He kills double the previous amount of people. Batman beats him up. They throw him in Arkham. He escapes. He kills even more people. Batman beats him up. They throw him in Arkham.

It's too unrealistic, even by comic standards. This guy CONTINUALLY escapes, his violence rises every time. And the city REFUSES to kill the guy. Batman refuses to cripple the guy or kill him EVERY TIME! I mean, really? It gets old. That's what happens when you rely so much on one character and milk him for all he's worth. You begin to over-do everything. So DC won't kill the character because of loss of money. But i think a story in which Batman finally decides to kill him would be very interesting. How would that effect Bruce and co.? And being as how DC would never keep him dead, how would The Joker's return throw any changes made into chaos?

TDKR eventually killed the Joker, though not by Batman's hand. Joker broke himself, which was a very fitting end. TAS even killed Joker (though again, not by Batman's hand, and they brought him back in Batman Beyond).

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Five pages for a three word answer? Well allow me...

Yes, he did.

 

[Jokey]

Your definition of new comics is absurd.

You are absurd. Cut out the attitude. Stop being so self important and superior.

 

[The Joker]

You are absurd.

In what way?

Cut out the attitude. Stop being so self important and superior.

What attitude? You call the comics of the last 60 years where Batman stopped killing the newer comics. I'm sorry, but that is absurd. That's like saying Casablanca or Psycho are some of the latest movies.

 

[Jokey]

I didn't ask for your approval to call them the newer comics. Because I don't need your approval. But that didn't stop you from shooting your mouth, did it?

You call my use of newer comics absurd. So if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me to label you absurd. Lighten up. It's hardly something to have a war over.

 

[The Joker]

I didn't ask for your approval to call them the newer comics. Because I don't need your approval.

I wasn't giving you my approval. I was stating my opinion on your definition of "new" comics. When you post your opinion on a public forum, it's subject to scrutiny and criticism.

But that didn't stop you from shooting your mouth, did it?

If you consider stating an opinion as shooting my mouth off, then you need to develop a thicker skin. You're acting like I just insulted your family or something.

You call my use of newer comics absurd. So if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me to label you absurd.

The glaring difference being that you calling me absurd was just a childish baseless insult to having your definition criticized.

You and I both know that they're not newer comics, anymore than movies going back 50+ years are the latest movies.

Batman's no killing rule has been there since the Golden age. There's nothing new about it.

Lighten up. It's hardly something to have a war over.

I am fully lightened up. Always am. You should take your own advice. You're the one who started the name calling and hostilities.

 

[Jokey]

You and I both knew what I meant when I called them "newer comics".

I will call them what I wish. It's not that much of a big deal.

Yet, you thought otherwise and posted your little remark.

A remark that was nothing but petty and annoying.

It's getting bogged down in side topics and not debating the main topic at hand.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Yes you do. But not when you have to keep selling comic books for the decades to come.

No, I'm not going to be supportive of Joker being killed in any way by Bats, unless it's a movie like TDKR or BB:ROTJ. I love B89, but that was one of it's flaws. Killing Joker was a bad idea, especially since it was their first confrontation. That's just bad planning. I don't mind Bats killing in B89, and I don't mind him trying to kill the Joker, but they should have left it ambiguous so he should could have come back.

 

[The Joker]

You and I both knew what I meant when I called them "newer comics".

Yes, the comics going back the last five decades apparently. You said so yourself: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=17643894&postcount=106

I will call them what I wish. It's not that much of a big deal.

No, it's not. You can call the comics from the 1940's last week's issues for all I care. You're the one who made an issue of it by getting hostile because I found your definition absurd.

Yet, you thought otherwise and posted your little remark.

It's called stating an opinion. It's what these boards are for.

A remark that was nothing but petty and annoying.

Like I said, develop a thicker skin. If you can't take a criticism about a definition of new comics, then you're not cut out for posting on public message boards.

It's getting bogged down in side topics and not debating the main topic at hand.

Finally we agree on something.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

My God, both of you are way off topic and just plain trolling. Stop...please?

 

[Bathead]

I didn't ask for your approval to call them the newer comics. Because I don't need your approval. But that didn't stop you from shooting your mouth, did it?

You call my use of newer comics absurd. So if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me to label you absurd. Lighten up. It's hardly something to have a war over.

Then why are you starting a fight?

 

[C. Lee]

Batman doesn't kill people...Batbullets and Batbombs do....he can't control what they do after he fires them at groups of people.

 

[El Payaso]

No, I'm not going to be supportive of Joker being killed in any way by Bats, unless it's a movie like TDKR or BB:ROTJ. I love B89, but that was one of it's flaws. Killing Joker was a bad idea, especially since it was their first confrontation. That's just bad planning. I don't mind Bats killing in B89, and I don't mind him trying to kill the Joker, but they should have left it ambiguous so he should could have come back.

Accept it man. They weren't going to pay Nicholson so much money again.

Now the same happened with Two-Face and he didn't even have as much screentime as Jack's Joker. He ended up dead by Batman's actions after their first confrontation. But what a great story it was.

In many good stories villiains are killed at the end. There's no rule about it. But as I said, in comics they simply acn't do that. B89 was thought by Burton as a self-contained story, not a first part of something bigger. It was much later than Burton even considered to make a second one.