Should Batman just Kill the Joker ?

[shauner111]

Amen!

 

[Oswald]

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.

That's exactly what I said, a monster hidden in darkness threatening people, that's maintaining order by fear and I don't see it as a good thing. That's the basis of the fascist regimes, threatening people with punishment if they don't act properly, and Batman carries that philosophy to a new irrational level.

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.

The fact they didn't exist prior to Batman appearance, that says it. In fact, the only villain who existed AND operated (it's very important) before Batman was Ra's Al Ghul, the others maybe were deranged people but wouldn't have acted If Batman had not shown. And there are some villains whose violent acts are directly related with him, beginning for the Joker, obviously, but also Two-Face, Bane, the Riddler, Red Hood and some more I don't remember now.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

That's exactly what I said, a monster hidden in darkness threatening people, that's maintaining order by fear and I don't see it as a good thing. That's the basis of the fascist regimes, threatening people with punishment if they don't act properly, and Batman carries that philosophy to a new irrational level.

Fascist regimes oppress innocent people.

Unless their crime is victimless, criminals are not innocent.

The fact they didn't exist prior to Batman appearance, that says it. In fact, the only villain who existed AND operated (it's very important) before Batman was Ra's Al Ghul, the others maybe were deranged people but wouldn't have acted If Batman had not shown. And there are some villains whose violent acts are directly related with him, beginning for the Joker, obviously, but also Two-Face, Bane, the Riddler, Red Hood and some more I don't remember now.

Most of those criminals had a tragic back story unrelated to Batman. Their path towards crime was already set.

The only thing that would be missing would be their colorful costume we assume was inspired by Batman.

 

[Batmannerism]

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.

The opinions and thoughts expressed so far show just what a great character Batma n is. I don't agree with many of you, but it's great hearing everyone's take on the Dark Knight (he is just so cool, and always will be....unless they put Joel Schumacher back in charge).

Peace out Bat fans !

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?

Wow ! I agree with about 90% of that, but even with the bits I disagree on I think you've don a great job of summarizing Batman's dilemma.

I totally agree that Batman's heroism is not black and white (which would be the most stark point of contrast with Superman, which makes Batman a more nuanced character, maybe Superman is more fun, but Batman is maybe more compelling).


As far as Batman's sanity....I think his obsession is at least borderline madness. He has a real messianic complex, it's like nobody else can save Gotham but him - and anyone who tries to save Gotham, using methods he doesn't agree with (i.e. his methods) he has to take down.

I go back and forth on the Batman sanity issue, but I would say at the very least that Bruce's sanity teeters on a knife's edge, sometimes it wobbles towards full blown madness, sometimes it wobbles towards being balanced and normal, but more often than not its struggling to stay between the two.

Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

As far as Batman's villiains, this goes back to the reason I started this thread, most of them do have tragic tales and they have their own agendas, of which Batman is standing in the way. Should Bats just kill the Riddler, no. He's a crook (not sure if he's actually a murderer) but doesn't deserve death.

The Joker is an exception, because he doesn't have his own agenda. His agenda is to amuse himself by messing with Batman.

If you flip my question around, what would happen to the Joker if Batman died ? Would he keep going, or just stop.

Frank Miller had a definite view on this. I suppose that's the next thread to follow up this one. What would the Joker do if something happened to Batman ?
- would he just give up being a murdering psychopath and just sit around drooling ?
- would he try and live a normal life ?
- would he find some new super-hero to torture ?

Anyway, because the Joker is a Batman specific villain (kind of like the reason Lex Luthor doesn't cure cancer, is that he's too busy trying to bring down Superman) maybe Batman should take an exceptional response to the threat he poses, and end him.

This is the direction I'm coming from, but I like where the debate has gone because you can't address that question without taking a really hard look at Batman and what he's about.

Me, I'm somewhere between the saint/sinner divide, and I do believe he could probably achieve more with his billions than his fists - but at the same time would find it a lot less entertaining if he did-


I loved this.....

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.

All very true, the guy's got more money than Tony Stark, and doesn't actually enjoy a penny of it, unless he's buying new Bat gear.

I don't totally agree that that alone makes him heroic. By comparison, one of the things that makes Superman so heroic is that he doesn't use his godlike power for personal gain or to subjugate mankind ( e.g. Injustice:Gods among us........which all starts with the Joker). Instead he selflessly uses it to help people.

I think there's a subtle distinction between Bats not enjoying his wealth, and Superman not abusing his power. Mostly because Batman's lack of excess stems from his obsession. You can't say Superman has a messianic complex, because he literally is a kind of messiah, so when he thinks he's the one person who can save the world, usually he's right. Batman.....not so much.

By the way, I'm not saying Supes is a better character at all, in many ways Batman's inner conflicts and morally ambiguous nature make him more interesting (still, I love Superman, always have, but for different reasons).

How do you all feel about this statement ?

Being somebody Superman cares about is like having a guardian angel, because except in the absolute worst circumstances, he'll be there to save you.

Being somebody Batman cares about (in the Marvel universe, this would be Spider Man) is a curse, because sooner or later one of his enemies will come looking for you to try and get to Batman.

While this is true for Superman as well, Superman will likely save or protect you, but Batman, he's more likely to avenge you.


Is that fair, it feels somewhat fair, but I think it ties in to the whole "what kind of hero is Batman?" debate, which is part of the whole "should he kill the Joker ?" thing.

 

[Lord]

He shouldn't kill the Joker, but he probably should stop going that far to save him.

 

[The Batman]

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.

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.

 

[Oswald]

If you flip my question around, what would happen to the Joker if Batman died ? Would he keep going, or just stop.

Frank Miller had a definite view on this. I suppose that's the next thread to follow up this one. What would the Joker do if something happened to Batman ?
- would he just give up being a murdering psychopath and just sit around drooling ?
- would he try and live a normal life ?
- would he find some new super-hero to torture ?

Have you read Cacophony, of Kevin Smith and Walt Flanagan? I recommend it very much because Smith gives answer to your question, which I completely share. Batman visits the Joker in the hospital after saving his life to have a normal conversation, since he is drugged and mentally stabilized (momentarily). Bruce asks his enemy if he really wants to kill him, and this is the answer:

 

[Shikamaru]

Oswald, you don't even realize it, but people like you are part of the reason why I find Batman such a fascinating character.

You say Batman is a fascist to an extreme irrational level, and there are many people who agree with you, but the truth is there are just as many people that would disagree with you. Not in the sense that he's a great hero, but in the sense that he's not extreme enough. There's just as many fans on the net - including in this thread (just go a few pages back) - who think Batman is too "soft" to get the job done. Some have went as far as to say they're absolutely disgusted by Batman not killing the Joker, arguing he's too anti-gun control, even citing these things as the main reason(s) they don't like Batman as a character.

You don't have to agree with them, but don't you find that interesting? The vast majority of characters often get an either/or criticism. Punisher is almost universally criticized for being too extreme, Superman is almost universally criticized for being too much of a boyscout, Green Arrow is almost universally criticized by non-liberals, etc. However, Batman is perhaps the one character to get as much criticism for being too extreme as he gets for not being extreme enough. This is the case even within the DCU itself, as shown in stories like Miller's DKR. You had the more left-wing people calling him a fascist and branding him responsible for all the crime in Gotham, while the more right-wing people said he wasn't extreme enough and were hoping "[he'd go] after the homo's next!"

Essentially this is a guy no one understands. Arguably he's one of comics' most apolitical characters, and possesses a "balance" not many heroes have.

 

[Oswald]

I don't think Batman can't be understood, I see him very clearly: a man who tries to get over the murder of his parents by attacking murderers and saving (when is possible) innocents. For me, the interest of Batman resides in the villains, which represent parts of his (unstable) mind, and the conflicts with them his struggle with madness.

 

[BlueLightning]

I was thinking about his yesterday precisely Shikamaru.

Imagine a version of TDKReturns where a few panels are from this same discussion, among the interviews to the citizens and the debates of Wolper and Lang.

 

[Batmannerism]

Have you read Cacophony, of Kevin Smith and Walt Flanagan? I recommend it very much because Smith gives answer to your question, which I completely share. Batman visits the Joker in the hospital after saving his life to have a normal conversation, since he is drugged and mentally stabilized (momentarily). Bruce asks his enemy if he really wants to kill him, and this is the answer:

Thanks dude ! That's some heavy stuff. And also a great way to get us back to the whole point of this thread.

If it were me hearing that (as Batman) I'd definitely re-think my whole "No killing the Joker" stance, hey, there are exceptions to every rule. I'd be thinking about the old "air bubble in the IV" trick.

It doesn't get any more explicit than that, that the Joker's whole raison d'etre, and his whole reason to hurt innocent people, is to mess with Batman. Doesn't that merit just such an exception to the rule ?

On the facist thing, Miller's Batman has some facist tendencies, but I see those as part of the whole messianic complex, as in he's got to save the city his way ( Nolan picked that up in TDKR, speaking to the audience through Alfred, in fact in the whole Nolan trilogy, pretty much everything would have been okay if Bruce had always listened to Alfred).

Personally, I'm not sure facism is the right way to describe Batman's behaviour, because like Shikamaru, I don't see Batman as political, but I'm on the same page in terms of Bats dancing on the line between sanity and madness (and regularly stepping over the line on the madness side). Some Batman stories portray him as genuinely heroic, even Miller in Batman:Year One writes Bruce as a very idealistic and heroic character. But I'm sure we could find plenty of examples of Batman doing very questionable things, that don't seem heroic at all. It's what makes him such a great character .

 

[Oswald]

If it were me hearing that (as Batman) I'd definitely re-think my whole "No killing the Joker" stance, hey, there are exceptions to every rule. I'd be thinking about the old "air bubble in the IV" trick.

It doesn't get any more explicit than that, that the Joker's whole raison d'etre, and his whole reason to hurt innocent people, is to mess with Batman. Doesn't that merit just such an exception to the rule ?

The thing is, as Batman says in the first panel of the pages I put, that he doesn't want to see death first hand again, and doesn't care about who dies, even if is the Joker. So he isn't just not gonna kill the Joker, but he is gonna save him if he can. And that's because he isn't a hero, he is a madman whose craziness casually fits with a behaviour we consider heroic. But that's an accident: Batman isn't heroic, is mad.

 

[BlueLightning]

There is one thing though, not every incarnation of the Joker is rendered useless after the Batman is gone.

Remember the episode "The Man Who Killed Batman".

[YT]Ld0uIhst3TA[/YT]

Here we have a Joker whose motivation is to defeat Batman. And this defeat comes in a variety of flavors. In the end, "Well that was fun. Who's for chinese?" only hints that the Joker would keep being the Joker.

Another example (go to 4:50)
[YT]VzmoE9SKlDg[/YT]
This is a Joker who is fixated on defeating the Batman in any way. Sometimes Batman is an obstacle to the Joker's fun. For example, James Gordon has the second spot in the Joker's list of greatest enemies. You could make a case for Harvey Dent too in the third spot. He is a creature who thrives in corrupting everything he touches. (Another example: Harley Quinn)

He enjoys mayhem, anarchy. But he also enjoys taking Batman, his greatest obstacle, to the breaking point. He is the top prize. If he can bring Batman to his level, he wins. But he can conform himself if he kills him too. For the Joker, defeating Batman comes in different ways : Corrupting him, killing him, torturing him through others...
[YT]Etst4t3ES8Y[/YT]

and even humiliating him...
[YT]UM7BDNbHatc[/YT]


It's funny because that list is perhaps his list of priorities. Funny that he tries all of that in TDK.

Of course, this varies from incarnation to incarnation but that's the thing. Isn't the Joker in the comics a super-sane person. Who is to say that if the Batman is gone, the Joker would be gone too? Perhaps he changes his mind, he is prone to it.

In the end it is the same thing, for the Joker the continuous battle only will end when Batman kills him, or if the Batman is defeated, which both ends with the Joker winning. Batman wins when he chooses life over death, when he saves the people the Joker puts in peril, which are more of those stories than you'd imagine. People make a lot of fuss when a tree falls, but none of the hundred of trees that are being planted.

 

[Oswald]

In the Animated Series, in the same episode of which you put the first video, there's a scene where Joker and his band rob in a jewelry shop, and when Batman doesn't appear after the alarms sound he becomes sad and says "Without Batman, crime has no punchline":

[YT]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdXCUHk1pg8[/YT]

That's the child-like way of the series to express that the reason of the Joker's crimes is Batman, and without him he doesn't have any motivation to break the laws or kill people.

In The Dark Knight Returns, a Batman very far from the animated series, the Joker doesn't act while Batman doesn't act, resting comatose and hurting no one. The reason of the Joker's murderous madness is Batman, he wasn't a monster prior and won't be a monster after Batman dies, Kevin Smith just gave him an opportunity to talk like a normal person to express the reason of his behaviour, and I think he totally hit the target, because the death of Batman is the one way to destroy what he represents for the Joker, this is, order by fear.

 

[Oswald]

Sorry, it looks the video doesn't load, I don't know how make it visible...

 

[Batmannerism]

The thing is, as Batman says in the first panel of the pages I put, that he doesn't want to see death first hand again, and doesn't care about who dies, even if is the Joker. So he isn't just not gonna kill the Joker, but he is gonna save him if he can. And that's because he isn't a hero, he is a madman whose craziness casually fits with a behaviour we consider heroic. But that's an accident: Batman isn't heroic, is mad.

Well I agree with you about a few things, but I think that's a bit harsh.
first I'm not convinced Bats is totally mad, again, I see him on the knife edge
teetering back and forth, with mad periods and sane periods.

However, even in his mad periods I think Batman still has a heroic quality about him. True, a lot of that comes from his obsession, but I think that Bruce is a fundamentally good person, not just a lunatic.

Even when he's at his craziest, Batman often does the right thing, maybe not for the right reasons, but still the right thing.

You do make a strong case for Bats being crazy, in terms of what
Einstein said about insanity being doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Or , if Batman does the same thing, and knows the Joker will never change, that might be even crazier - mostly because he's playing with other people's lives.

It's not like the Joker is just going to break out and paint a smile on the town clock, he's going to ruin a bunch of lives every time he gets free. I keep going on about Miller's Batman in Dark Knight returns, but he really captures everything that's essential about Batman, the heroic quality, but also the obsession and the guilt (particularly guilt over what his no-killing stance has allowed the Joker to get away with).

he is a madman whose craziness casually fits with a behaviour we consider heroic

did you mean "causally" instead of "casually" because that's a possibility that the the cause of his heroics are his craziness.....although I like to think its more than that. I think Batman has endured 75 + years because we know that he's a good man.....troubled, maybe borderline, but still good.

However, "good" can mean a lot of things. I still think he can be a good man, and send the Joker on a one way trip to hell.

IMO. cheers !

 

[Goopy Snake]

It doesn't get any more explicit than that, that the Joker's whole raison d'etre, and his whole reason to hurt innocent people, is to mess with Batman. Doesn't that merit just such an exception to the rule ?

I'm inclined to think it more readily merits suicide.

Of course, even - perhaps especially - while lucid, Joker could be deliberately lying through his teeth as just another way to f%#@ with Batman's head.

 

[Oswald]

I'm inclined to think it more readily merits suicide.

What do you mean? That Bruce commits suicide? If that's your point I share it, because if he is a real hero he would kill himself after that conversation with the Joker in the hospital (in Cacophony).

Of course, even - perhaps especially - while lucid, Joker could be deliberately lying through his teeth as just another way to f%#@ with Batman's head.

Even if that's the case it really doesn't matter: the undeniable fact is the Joker didn't exist before Batman, and all his evil acts, although hurting other people, are oriented to mess with him. If Batman dies the fun is over, and that's what he means in the hospital scene.

In any case, I think he was being totally honest with Bats... which is worse than attack him with violence

 

[Batmannerism]

What do you mean? That Bruce commits suicide? If that's your point I share it, because if he is a real hero he would kill himself after that conversation with the Joker in the hospital (in Cacophony).



Even if that's the case it really doesn't matter: the undeniable fact is the Joker didn't exist before Batman, and all his evil acts, although hurting other people, are oriented to mess with him. If Batman dies the fun is over, and that's what he means in the hospital scene.

In any case, I think he was being totally honest with Bats... which is worse than attack him with violence

Maybe so, but maybe that could have been a turning point in Batman's writing, where he finally wakes up to the fact that the madness has to end,
one way or another. As far as Batman killing himself.......I could see Batman
sacrificing himself to save somebody else, but suicide, nope - because part of what makes Batman ...Batman, is that he never gives up.

I suppose I could also see Batman sacrificing himself to take the Joker out, if it would save innocent lives.

I guess I'm just kind of tired of the pattern where the Joker does a whole bunch of terrible things, kills a bunch of innocent people, then Batman intervenes, and actually ends up saving Joker's life, for the pattern to repeat again. I suppose that DC have created a lot of other very engaging Batman villains over the years, but the Joker, while entertaining, is a bit predictable - all that seems to change is the level of depravity that he'll stoop to.

Sure there's the old chestnut where the Joker seems to perish in an explosion or apparently falls off a cliff or whatever, but we never see a body. I think it would put a bit of freshness back into Batman, to have him either NOT save the Joker, or actually finish the Joker off....and for those who are really hung up on Batman not killing - there are lots of ways it could play out,
so as not to make Bats out to not be a cold blooded killer.

As for the media, well I find it hard to accept (even in a world such as ours, where so many blindly believe the crap they're fed) that the media could turn public opinion utterly against Batman for killing the Joker. That's a bit like saying that public opinion of the Seals went down when they took out Osama Bin Laden.

 

[Oswald]

Maybe so, but maybe that could have been a turning point in Batman's writing, where he finally wakes up to the fact that the madness has to end,
one way or another. As far as Batman killing himself.......I could see Batman
sacrificing himself to save somebody else, but suicide, nope - because part of what makes Batman ...Batman, is that he never gives up.

You've got a point here: Batman never gives up because that's his obsession, fighting criminals, not killing them, not ending crime with his money and resources, just fight them, fight them until... what? The Batman's mission doesn't have an end, the only end is his own death, that's why I think he's a passive-aggressive suicidal; he wants a criminal to kill him, as he feels should've happened the night his parents died, and the Joker is the perfect embodiment of that criminal, the perfect representation of the chaos and violence which traumatized him and which drives his madness. That's the reason he wants the Joker alive, he gives Batman purpose and meaning, without a monster like the Joker Batman is just another lunatic and the Joker knows that, that's the meaning of his penultimate sentence in the pages I put:

"And then? Then we'll both finally be free"

Curiously the Joker is the person who most known Bruce Wayne, and the one who knows death is the only way to give him peace.

 

[SlamAdams]

I would love to see the story that would lead to Batman finally making the decision to just off The Joker. For all intents and purposes, it should (not will) be awesome, but at the same time, there is no amount of awesome story-telling that will ever convince some fans it was worth it. And lately I have grown cynical of the kind of fans who have to rage against every hair out place that it would be fun to watch them squirm.

On the other hand, I am actually quite satisfied by Morrison's interpretation of The Killing Joke

 

[Dark Guardian]

The Batman does not kill. Period.
It's not that the Joker's specific relationship to Batman keeps Batman from killing him. It's that Batman has set the bar at killing no-one. And the Joker strives to be the guy that lowers the bar. But by Batman maintaining his oath, he continues to defeat the Joker in the only battle the Joker is really hoping to win.

The choice not to kill is not just a personal choice by Batman or any other hero, it's a reflection on what every human beings view on killing should be. And in the case of Batman, his choice reflects the idea that as a people, we too should choose to be above killing.

Thus you can tell a lot about people by their agreement or disagreement with his choice.

 

[SlamAdams]

This is what always confuses me. Everyone says the best thing about Batman is that he is human. That he is not an alien or god or whatever. But to be human is to err, and the one thing Batman's fans don't like him to do is to err.

 

[The Joker]

Batman fans have no problem with him erring. You can be human and err without killing people.

 

[SlamAdams]

Batman fans have no problem with him erring. You can be human and err without killing people.

You and I can be human and err without killing people. That's just being a regular person who's breaking point is never challenged. Batman's not regular. Batman's a violent fear-mongering vigilante who faces against the worst of the worst criminals, criminals so bad it is impossible to fathom. He quite literally holds the fate of some people's lives in his hand, it is hard for me to imagine he couldn't be pushed to murder AS A RULE.