Should Batman just Kill the Joker ?

[Batmannerism]

Beating the charge would require turning himself in, revealing his identity, and possibly spending a night or two in jail.

True ! It's far from a perfect solution. Although having said that Batman could possibly get both name suppression and bail.

I like to think of Gotham as Chicago, with all the corruption and everything.

From a legal point of view, it's probably not any different, I'll have a look.
But yeah, maybe Chicago is the better analogue, (of course given that they filmed TDK there helps).

I assert that to NOT kill Zod would have been murder, or at least depraved indifference.

Then you and I concur, my learned friend.


Cheers.

 

[Batmannerism]

I don't believe it's as simple as that. This varies from writer to writer, but generally speaking, Gotham isn't Detroit. It isn't small and bankrupt to the point Detroit is. It's often still a large successful metropolitan city, it just has its crime and corruption problem. Which may seem strange since crime/corruption and decay/bankruptcy are often correlated, but the other way can happen too. It has more in common with (mainly 80's) New York or Chicago in that sense. Both seen as great cities and generate income, but with some crime/corruption issues.

The reason Gotham was so full of crime and corrupt, at least initially, was due to a certain group of people that wanted it to be that way. The Falcones, the Maronis, the mayor, Police Department, and other 1%'ers who were in on it, the Court of Owls (since New 52), etc. Bruce understood those guys couldn't be beaten with money and investments, and they have those assets to certain degrees too. Rather, a symbol of fear to put them in place was needed. It was the one way to "make them afraid", as he says in Year One. Using the same fear they instilled on Gotham, that money can't buy. It's interesting you brought up the idea of Bruce supporting a politician, since he does that in various continuities with Harvey Dent. Unfortunately, even that fails, since Harvey doesn't have the same incorruptible larger-than-life nature Batman does. Thus he can be snapped a lot easier by the elites of Gotham, which was a huge theme in TDK.

You're right that Bruce can do much more with his money than with the symbol of Batman, but only at a certain point - when Batman finishes his job. Unfortunately, that point never comes due to the timing nature of comics. The DC Universe never ages past 5 - 15 years max, so we'll never see Gotham reach that point due to that fact. Also writers can contrive story reasons to prevent Batman from not being necessary anymore. Morrison's run started with Gotham finally being clean and Bruce having to relearn how to be Bruce Wayne, only for certain events to happen and have Gotham messed up again.

That's a very fair statement. It takes a multi-faceted approach to save a city. The whole "Broken Windows" thing in New York was a lot more than just the Mayor and Police force.

Still, I think that Batman provides us with the visceral satisfaction of seeing evildoers punished first-hand - it kind of plays on our need for revenge rather than our desire for improvement. Well, that's how I see it.
Which makes Batman compelling, but also a little bit disturbing.

 

[Batmannerism]

Batmannerism, you make a lot of good reasonable points., thanks for sharing the legal background about the definition of murder. I read your post about the MOS situation. I don't like the decision the filmmakers took on that, (and many others), but it is good for understanding the situation that not many of us have knowledge in that legal area.

However, we do have evidence that Bruce does good things in Gotham as a philantropist. The point of fundraising Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight, for example, is an attempt to bring a legitimate source of order in the system. Also, in Rises we learn that Bruce was helping orphanages with the Wayne Foundation. Also one of the first things he does as Batman is to find people he can trust, honest people like James Gordon. He isn't there to replace the police, he is trying to repair this broken city and giving it back to the people of Gotham.

There is for example the episode "Old Wounds" in which we learn that a disturbed Dick Grayson quits being Robin because of the harshness of Batman methods on a criminal he threatened in front of his family for working for the Joker, only to learn that Batman gave that man a job for Wayne Enterprises. There is a similar case on Batman: Noël. Also we must not forget that in the comics there is the branch of Wayne Foundation in Wayne Enterprises, the Thomas Wayne Foundation that helps in the healthcare area and the Martha Wayne Foundation that supports a variety of institutions like orphanages and schools.

So there are a lot of examples like that, but we tend to forget those because more often than not the emphasis is that Gotham is a corrupt town, and well, as you mention, Batman punching the Riddler on a weekly basis is more entertaining.

Cheers ! Just wanted to clarify the "murder" thing.

You're right, there are a lot of philanthropic enterprises that the Wayne name supports. I suppose in TDK the most obvious example is the Dent fundraiser. And I thought it was a very nice touch in TDKR that the mansion was converted into an orphanage.

You're also right that I've probably downplayed the actual non-Batman-related crime-fighting that Bruce Wayne does. But which would be more long-lasting, and sustainable ? The nightly ass-kickings or the overall contribution to improving living conditions ?

Its also that the emphasis is on the Riddler getting his weekly lumps - which for some reason never seems to get old. But hey, this is a comic book, so my criticisms aren't really intended that seriously.

Peace out Bat-maniacs !

 

[BlueLightning]

You're also right that I've probably downplayed the actual non-Batman-related crime-fighting that Bruce Wayne does. But which would be more long-lasting, and sustainable ? The nightly ass-kickings or the overall contribution to improving living conditions ?

In the case of Gotham? Perhaps both. With Gotham writers have created a sandbox in which crime thrives and there is a necessity for the Batman to enter into the fray. As some Shikamaru said before, the status of Gotham is fundamental in the surge of Batman. That is one of my favorite aspects of the character: he is born out of a need. The fact that the format is serialized makes possible a never-ending battle. That's one of the things I liked from the TDK Trilogy: a sense of fulfillment, a sense of ending.

In the point of Bruce satisfying some sense of revenge (be it for the reader, or the character himself), I don't really buy it. As much as Bruce likes to yell that "I am vengeance, I am the night...", most of the great stories don't play it like that. At least for me, I tend to lean to stories in which Bruce Wayne becomes Batman because he doesn't want to live in a world in which eight years old children lose their parents because of crime, instead of avenging his parents deaths. It is a fundamental difference.

 

[Oswald]

In the point of Bruce satisfying some sense of revenge (be it for the reader, or the character himself), I don't really buy it. As much as Bruce likes to yell that "I am vengeance, I am the night...", most of the great stories don't play it like that. At least for me, I tend to lean to stories in which Bruce Wayne becomes Batman because he doesn't want to live in a world in which eight years old children lose their parents because of crime, instead of avenging his parents deaths. It is a fundamental difference.

Curious, I've always seen the serialized Batman (not the Batman in the Nolan trilogy) like a traumatized man struggling with madness, never with a serious intention to stop his crusade. I mean, even if all the gangs and crime syndicates disappear there would still be the crazy villains, with the Joker at the head, and as Batman doesn't kill they'll always threat the city. It's a vicious circle, they exist for Batman and Batman exists to stop (but not kill) them, that's why I think he's the first lunatic who appeared in Gotham City, and after him came the rest (beginning with the Joker, of course).

 

[Batmannerism]

In the case of Gotham? Perhaps both. With Gotham writers have created a sandbox in which crime thrives and there is a necessity for the Batman to enter into the fray. As some Shikamaru said before, the status of Gotham is fundamental in the surge of Batman. That is one of my favorite aspects of the character: he is born out of a need. The fact that the format is serialized makes possible a never-ending battle. That's one of the things I liked from the TDK Trilogy: a sense of fulfillment, a sense of ending.

Yeah, that was certainly one thing I appreciated about Nolan's TDK trilogy, that it had a beginning and an ending. Only a few writers have dared to tell the story of Batman's ending, and while TDKR is probably my least favourite of the 3 films, it still does a good job of resolving most of the issues that surround Batman - and we get the emotional payoff of seeing Bruce walk away and get on with his life.

In the point of Bruce satisfying some sense of revenge (be it for the reader, or the character himself), I don't really buy it. As much as Bruce likes to yell that "I am vengeance, I am the night...", most of the great stories don't play it like that. At least for me, I tend to lean to stories in which Bruce Wayne becomes Batman because he doesn't want to live in a world in which eight years old children lose their parents because of crime, instead of avenging his parents deaths. It is a fundamental difference.

Maybe. Maybe that's the justification he uses to dress up like a Bat and fulfil his desire for revenge. Who knows ? Batman's such a complex character, that's what makes him so engaging.

I guess because Batman is serialized, as you pointed out, we never really know the net effect of his actions,

Like if we could measure all the good he does:

- like overall crime reduction

compared to all the problems he causes:

- undermining police authority (vigilantism), property damage and being the focus for villians like the Joker. Also, for every thug he takes out, another seems to take his place (so are his actions having any long-lasting effects).

What would the net result be ? There's a perception I think that Spider-Man (at least in the films) makes New York a safer place. In The Dark Knight, at the beginning there's a clear indication that Batman is having a deterrent effect on crime ( the 2 thugs conversation by the car, and the scarecrow's comment "If Batman left anyone to buy from").
Of course that all goes to hell with the Joker's arrival.

Frank Miller really captured the flavour of the debate in The Dark Knight Returns, with his representation of how the media portray Batman, saviour or sinner.

Conversely, I think the appeal of Superman is that he's a much simpler chraracter (that doesn't make him less interesting, just less complicated). Usually when Superman shows up, things have gone to hell, and he has to sort them out.
I guess the big question that hangs over Superman (which is what Tom Taylor is dealing with in the INjustice comic book) is what happens when Superman goes too far in trying to make the world a better place.
I always liked Superman IV: the quest for peace, not because it was a good film (it was crap) but because the idea, that Superman one day would say "Enough is enough, I'm going to save the world, from you idiots." was quite a compelling one.

But back to Batman, maybe what we like about the character is that he dances on the knife edge between being a greater force for evil, and a greater force for good.
Maybe that's where we like him, and that's why he can't kill the Joker.

Perhaps an interesting story would be someone impersonating Batman killing the Joker, and then Batman having to solve the murder and exonerate himself. Maybe I'd just like to see the Joker die - I remember feeling very satisfied at the end of Batman 1989, when the Joker hits the pavement.

Cheers !

 

[BlueLightning]

There is an underlying truth in all of this that I feel is being overlooked. Batman does improve Gotham. Let's say for example that in the "classic" mold of story, Batman erradicates mob bosses and regular crime in Gotham. This is good right? You could say that this gave the opportunity for the freaks to rise. Well, in one form or another, these freaks would still exist. Batman did not create them, perhaps his theatricality allowed to add the "super" adjective to the "villain" noun. But they would be still the same freaks.

Take into account the episode "Trial" from the animated series. All the freaks kidnap Batman and District Attorney Janet van Dorn, who despite his stance against the Batman is forced to defend him in a kangaroo court with the Joker as judge. In the end, all of them agree that Batman is in fact innocent, that they did what they do because they realize they became monsters by their own account. Thus, being the crooks they are, they are going to kill them both anyway. In the end Batman saves the day (night?) and Janet and him agree that they both want a city that doesn't need the Batman.

And this is the underlying truth: Gotham needs Batman. The fact that the mobs don't hold a tight grip on the city, that the Joker hasn't gassed the entire town, or the city is overrun by plants, ice or riddles is the proof that Gotham is better because of him, for one day in which the city doesn't need him anymore. You could say that Batman upped the ante. Perhaps it did, but that happens not just in comics. Life has a way to challenge us. Batman always wins, as good always triumphs over evil. It is the sacrifice that is shown more often than not that makes these stories feel authentic.

 

[Batmannerism]

There is an underlying truth in all of this that I feel is being overlooked. Batman does improve Gotham. Let's say for example that in the "classic" mold of story, Batman erradicates mob bosses and regular crime in Gotham. This is good right? You could say that this gave the opportunity for the freaks to rise. Well, in one form or another, these freaks would still exist. Batman did not create them, perhaps his theatricality allowed to add the "super" adjective to the "villain" noun. But they would be still the same freaks.


And this is the underlying truth: Gotham needs Batman. The fact that the mobs don't hold a tight grip on the city, that the Joker hasn't gassed the entire town, or the city is overrun by plants, ice or riddles is the proof that Gotham is better because of him, for one day in which the city doesn't need him anymore. You could say that Batman upped the ante. Perhaps it did, but that happens not just in comics. Life has a way to challenge us. Batman always wins, as good always triumphs over evil. It is the sacrifice that is shown more often than not that makes these stories feel authentic.

As for Batman's sacrifice. I think the real sacrifice is that he denies himself a normal life and relationships, in favour of his one man war.
I suppose if he's a sane man, it's a sacrifice, if he's insane, then it's obsession.

Either way, being Batman is a tough road. I'm not so sure you can say

Batman always wins

. some of the best Bat-stories are
about when he doesn't.
I think it's more like, Batman is willing to lose, lose everything if need be.

That's something Nolan really brought out in his films - the sacrifice- but also that at some point Bruce had to walk away, or die.
Miller did that too "This would be a good death" which is almost the catch-phrase of Dark Knight returns. Nolan also shows that while Batman is a good short-term solution, he isn't a sustainable one, well not for one person - not even someone as well trained and resourced as Bruce Wayne.

I really liked the scene where the Dr. catalogues Bruce's injury list, because if you did spend several years getting into serious fist fights every night and doing all the crazy stuff Batman does, your body
would be a wreck (of course, then Nolan kind of glosses over that with a magic knee brace) but I like the sentiment.

In the comics, Batman's war is perpetual, which keeps us reading. But the movies (of late) have tried to at least inject a little bit of realism (and that's not a bad thing at all). I wonder what Nolan was thinking when he
wrote the scene where Batman ultimately defeats the Joker (although there again, he loses, in fact at the end of TDK he's won, but also lost everything).

Just a thought. But this is why Batman is so compelling, his complexity.

Cheers!

 

[Goopy Snake]

I'm not impressed by Bruce Wayne "Doing some charity work." Batman has the resources to carpet bomb Gotham with social reform programs that could legitimately turn the city around in a generation and make Batman truly unnecessary.

But then who would he punch?

 

[BlueLightning]

As for Batman's sacrifice. I think the real sacrifice is that he denies himself a normal life and relationships, in favour of his one man war.
I suppose if he's a sane man, it's a sacrifice, if he's insane, then it's obsession.

Either way, being Batman is a tough road. I'm not so sure you can say
. some of the best Bat-stories are
about when he doesn't.
I think it's more like, Batman is willing to lose, lose everything if need be.

That's something Nolan really brought out in his films - the sacrifice- but also that at some point Bruce had to walk away, or die.
Miller did that too "This would be a good death" which is almost the catch-phrase of Dark Knight returns. Nolan also shows that while Batman is a good short-term solution, he isn't a sustainable one, well not for one person - not even someone as well trained and resourced as Bruce Wayne.

I really liked the scene where the Dr. catalogues Bruce's injury list, because if you did spend several years getting into serious fist fights every night and doing all the crazy stuff Batman does, your body
would be a wreck (of course, then Nolan kind of glosses over that with a magic knee brace) but I like the sentiment.

In the comics, Batman's war is perpetual, which keeps us reading. But the movies (of late) have tried to at least inject a little bit of realism (and that's not a bad thing at all). I wonder what Nolan was thinking when he
wrote the scene where Batman ultimately defeats the Joker (although there again, he loses, in fact at the end of TDK he's won, but also lost everything).

Just a thought. But this is why Batman is so compelling, his complexity.

Cheers!

I agree. When I said that always wins, it is because I also consider the ones in which he makes sacrifices, such as the on in TDK. In fact, those moments are the most compelling of all.

Another thought, a great example (besides the TDK trilogy) in which Bruce longs for a "normal" life can be found in Mask of the Phantasm. The scene with young Bruce at his parents grave is perhaps one of my favorite Batman sequences ever. It reminds us that his quest is not selfish, neither obsessive.

 

[Oswald]

Another thought, a great example (besides the TDK trilogy) in which Bruce longs for a "normal" life can be found in Mask of the Phantasm. The scene with young Bruce at his parents grave is perhaps one of my favorite Batman sequences ever. It reminds us that his quest is not selfish, neither obsessive.

And what would make him stop? Because he doesn't fight a type of crime or criminal, but the CRIME in general, like a child would do, and, as far as I know, violence will always exist, and will always exist in Gotham City. That's the reason behind the existence of the Joker, to remind Bruce that even if he destroys all the organized crime the individual (and as consequence the society) has violence instinct. Maybe we don't like it but is true, and trying to be scary in a bat costume won't change it, so Batman crusade is, by definition, endless and impossible to win, and more if he doesn't kill the criminals (at least the Thomas Wayne Batman of the alternative universe killed them...).

 

[BlueLightning]

Perhaps I have a different perspective on the nature of humanity.

 

[Necrosis Boy]

Never knew that there were people who take superhero comics that were never created to be more than cheap entertainment that seriously. This is fantasy, not "crime & punishment".

 

[Shikamaru]

That's a very fair statement. It takes a multi-faceted approach to save a city. The whole "Broken Windows" thing in New York was a lot more than just the Mayor and Police force.

Still, I think that Batman provides us with the visceral satisfaction of seeing evildoers punished first-hand - it kind of plays on our need for revenge rather than our desire for improvement. Well, that's how I see it.
Which makes Batman compelling, but also a little bit disturbing.

I never saw Batman as a symbol for revenge, but rather for justice. I see Batman as being the best representation of justice of all the superheroes. This is because I think he has the best balance. He knows how to get dark/broody and scare criminals the way guys like Punisher do, but has the heart of guys like Superman and knows when to not cross it.

 

[BatLobster]

Gordon should just kill The Joker. Put one right between the eyes and call it a day.

/thread

 

[Oswald]

Still, I think that Batman provides us with the visceral satisfaction of seeing evildoers punished first-hand - it kind of plays on our need for revenge rather than our desire for improvement. Well, that's how I see it.

Me too, and I think you've caught very well the Batman essence with this sentence.

 

[Batmannerism]

I never saw Batman as a symbol for revenge, but rather for justice. I see Batman as being the best representation of justice of all the superheroes. This is because I think he has the best balance. He knows how to get dark/broody and scare criminals the way guys like Punisher do, but has the heart of guys like Superman and knows when to not cross it.

Yeah, okay. But then I suppose that depends on your vision of "justice" now that's a thread all to itself.

Remember in Batman Begins Ra's Al Ghul (as Ducard) says " Justice is balance, you burnt my house and left me for dead, consider us even."

Batman bashing the crap out of crims, is a bit like that. They do wrong, so he does wrong back to them...... that's one version of Justice.

I'm not saying its wrong, just that its only one version, and its quite a satisfying one - and probably the reason we have the death penalty, because we all know its not really effective as a deterrent.

As has been suggested, maybe Bruce serving "justice" might involve him making Gotham a more equitable society - as in more jobs, better education, less poverty etc. basically closing the gap between the rich and poor a little bit.

That's a different version of justice. A society that focuses on equality rather than punishment.

But, I have to say, I cheer every time Bats kicks the crap out of the JOker.

When Red Hood smacked Joker over with that crowbar, I just about cheered.

So, what I'm saying is ...even if what Batman does isn't really serving Justice (or at least, only one form of justice), it's damn entertaining and satisfying.

cheers!


BTW - you guys all have excellent points. I don't agree with all of you, but the discussion so far has been great ! Someone needs to do a psychology PhD study
on Batman.....if someone hasn't already.

 

[Oswald]

Totally agree. Batman serves our desire of revenge against the evil doers the same way the Joker serves our desire of disobedience against the law and moral, because, let's be honest, everyone identified even a bit with him in The Dark Knight, the most realistic version of the mythos until now. Although is easier to admit the identification with Batman, both are villains in the sense both act ignoring society rules, although with opposite purposes.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Batman is more about protecting the innocent than about raw vengence.

He wants to disarm and remove criminals from the street rather than personally punish them.

 

[Oswald]

He wants to disarm and remove criminals from the street rather than personally punish them.

Then why he doesn't use his colossal wealth to get it instead of punch them? And please don't say he already does that, because the comics and series in his most part don't reflect that, but instead show Bruce dressing like a bat and chasing criminals at night.

Perhaps as you deeply think Bruce is "the good" you suppose he does all these things although we don't see them, but, man, making social reforms and reducing the social breach between rich and poor isn't a key part, even an important one, of his persona, it has never been, and the nonexistent improvement of Gotham City (apart from Nolan trilogy) proves it.

 

[BlueLightning]

Apparently it hasn't been clear that it is Gotham itself that doesn't allow these kind of reforms without some extraordinary impulse, this ultimately being Batman. And I already explained that even in comics, Bruce does good outside his Batman persona. In fact he does work to erradicate crime on everylevel, taking the comic books this ranges from low key crooks, to supervillians, to intergalactic enemies and even the social issues you mention. As another example for this being part of the character as much as the cape and the cowl is the development of Thomas and Martha Wayne, who are described as wealthy philanthropists thorough the character history. They are the figures that ultimately inspired Bruce, and he does many things to honor their legacy, sometimes even if it is their own name the one that is blemished.

But you must take into account the medium and the focus of the stories. We don't have Indiana Jones movies with Harrison Ford teaching in a university for two hours.

Sometimes I think you are describing the Punisher instead of Batman.

 

[Oswald]

Maybe Batman doesn't kill, but his meaning is the same than Punisher's: order by fear of violence. If you commit a crime the Batman will appear and will punch you, that's the basic logic behind the character, and I doubt that's a good thing, and I also find very worrying that almost everyone around here believe he's a hero. I mean, the order, the peace or whatever, must be achieved by agreement, because people understand violence isn't good, not because a freak in a Halloween costume is threatening from the shadows. The existence of Batman, instead of reducing the pre-existent violence, brought more freaks and violence to the city, and that's logical, because Batman is violent himself, and violence and fear, by nature, generates more violence and fear.

 

[shauner111]

He's a hero, and he's not a hero. He's not a black or white character. Very grey.

He isn't so selfish that he just doesn't care about Gotham or the people living in it and is just doing this to express his rage. Which is what you (Oswald) keep pointing out. Or at least it seemed like you were the last time i read your posts. Of course we agree on many things in this mythos, such as the Robin element, but this i dont think we do.

He cares a lot about his city and the people in it. But he also has his own problems. He's not insane, but sure he could use some therapy. But that doesn't make him crazy.

He needs to express his rage, and there's a certain rush he gets when he's pounding away at a criminals face who has just tried to rape an innocent. But he won't kill.

Batman convinces himself that he can do everything. He can punish criminals, scare them, help crime as both Bruce Wayne and Batman, but he can't. It's a cycle that goes on. He creates villains yet he has to stop a good amount of them at the same time. Gotham needs Batman but Gotham also needs Batman to go away at times.

It's all shades of grey. A tug of war.

He's heroic but at the same time he's not really a hero is he?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Maybe Batman doesn't kill, but his meaning is the same than Punisher's: order by fear of violence. If you commit a crime the Batman will appear and will punch you, that's the basic logic behind the character, and I doubt that's a good thing, and I also find very worrying that almost everyone around here believe he's a hero. I mean, the order, the peace or whatever, must be achieved by agreement, because people understand violence isn't good, not because a freak in a Halloween costume is threatening from the shadows. The existence of Batman, instead of reducing the pre-existent violence, brought more freaks and violence to the city, and that's logical, because Batman is violent himself, and violence and fear, by nature, generates more violence and fear.

Criminals don't really fear getting punched in the face but they fear a Bat creature who sees all and knows all who will swoop in and punish them for every transgression. That is the urban legend of Batman.

Batman is so skilled at fighting crime, criminals assume he's an avenging demon or some meta-human hunting them down.

Of course, this inspires a handful of villains to don costumes and personas but who's to say they wouldn't be dangerous criminals otherwise. In fact, crime could possibly reduce Gotham City into a failed state without Batman's war on crime.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

He's a hero, and he's not a hero. He's not a black or white character. Very grey.

He isn't so selfish that he just doesn't care about Gotham or the people living in it and is just doing this to express his rage. Which is what you (Oswald) keep pointing out. Or at least it seemed like you were the last time i read your posts. Of course we agree on many things in this mythos, such as the Robin element, but this i dont think we do.

He cares a lot about his city and the people in it. But he also has his own problems. He's not insane, but sure he could use some therapy. But that doesn't make him crazy.

He needs to express his rage, and there's a certain rush he gets when he's pounding away at a criminals face who has just tried to rape an innocent. But he won't kill.

Batman convinces himself that he can do everything. He can punish criminals, scare them, help crime as both Bruce Wayne and Batman, but he can't. It's a cycle that goes on. He creates villains yet he has to stop a good amount of them at the same time. Gotham needs Batman but Gotham also needs Batman to go away at times.

It's all shades of grey. A tug of war.

He's heroic but at the same time he's not really a hero is he?

Batman's impact may be grey but his heroics are not.

Here's someone who sacrificed a life of pampered leisure to arduously train himself in dozens of skills so he could become a highly efficient one man police force which doesn't resort to killing. He saves lives daily, getting stabbed and shot on occasion, instead of having lavish parties and having orgies with supermodels.

Is the Bat-theme unconventional? Yes, but as the corruption and hopelessness of early Gotham shows, conventional methods were not working.