Should Batman just Kill the Joker ?

[The Batman]

Don't worry, Batsy, I've never read any story that implies Batman doesn't kill Joker because of that. That's the Joker's reason for not wanting to kill Batman;

I've never read a comic that suggested that either. Sadly, the Arkham City game didn't do any favors when they had Batman show more grief about Joker's death than they do Talia's, to the point that its Joker's body that Batman carries out at the end. I...think I understand why they did that, but still.

I must add that your scans make me miss the old Batman/Joker dynamic: less about who Joker can kill/traumatize from the Bat Family and more a straight up battle between two enemies.

No offense, but I stopped reading your post here.

I've found that Batman is the one superhero where some of his own fans don't seem to get him, where some fans try to paint him as more unstable than he actually is.

So many Batman fans forget that Batman is a superHERO.

 

[Tanin]

The question isn't why doesn't Batman kill the Joker... but why does Gotham keep sending the Joker back to a prison he keeps escaping from. They need to either kill him themselves or find a more suitable location to house him.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I agreed with Jason Todd, and I still do. We're not talking about killing The Riddler, or Two-Face, or Firefly. Just him.

The thing is... other villains' plots usually aren't all about the murder. The Joker is, and has been since about A Death in the Family. The Joker deserved to be killed by Batman ever since then, and it's disparaging to me about the character that he won't do what's necessary. The Joker makes himself into a special case, and frankly, I blame Batman for every death the Joker's caused since about then (1988).

It's even more frustrating because they have had it come close, or hinted that perhaps it's the right thing ever since Miller wrote those lines in TDKR. The thing is, if you've got a portrayal of the Joker that's like the 1970s version from Strange Apparitions, where the Joker has bigger plans and kills a few people along the way, that's fine. Perhaps Batman should do it, but the Joker's not a nightmarish beast with a Die Hard-style body count, he just kills people occasionally, and most of the time Batman saves them.

But when you've got a character not unlike Nicholson's portrayal (who killed dozens and dozens even BEFORE the parade to gas half the city), or like in Arkham Origins who leaves dozens of corpses whereever he goes.... Batman's a putz for not killing him, and he's failing the city by letting him live.

 

[shauner111]

I disagree that Batman doesn't care about the people living in Gotham. That's a huge reason for why he's doing this. He's off the wall, unorthodox, but he's not completely insane. Nor is he 100 percent selfish.

He has selfishness inside him because he's human and we all do. But he's not Dexter. Hell, even Dexter isn't completely selfish. Batman is more human than Dexter Morgan.

He does this for himself and for Gotham. I don't think he brings Robin into this because he doesn't give a **** about the kids in Gotham (orphans especially) but that's why i think it's always been out of place. He shouldn't have sidekicks, Robins, Batgirls. I understand that he takes these kids in so they don't become criminals in the future, but i still think it's messed up since Bruce should be aware that he's putting them in danger. So i dont believe he's doing it because he's oblivious, stupid, or that he just doesn't give a damn about a child. I just believe that it doesn't make sense in general to have sidekicks going out as Robin so young in the first place. It's not logical and it was only done in the comics to bring in more young readers. And later in the movies to sell more toys. So to me it's out of place all together.

If Robin starts going out to battle with Batman as a 16. 17 year old or something then that would make sense.

Batman doesn't kill Joker. It's very complicated. They need each other in a twisted way but it's because Batman is stubborn and somehow believes he could reform. Should he kill Joker? Probably. But he won't.

 

[jonathancrane]

In The Widening Gyre, Smith gave a terrific explanation for why Batman refuses to kill Joker: the Joker's death would create a huge vacuum in the criminal underworld and all of the rogues would scramble to fill it, turning Gotham into a true hell.

 

[The Joker]

I've never read a comic that suggested that either. Sadly, the Arkham City game didn't do any favors when they had Batman show more grief about Joker's death than they do Talia's, to the point that its Joker's body that Batman carries out at the end. I...think I understand why they did that, but still.

That was bad writing all around. As much as I love AC the story is really weak. The weakest of the trio of the games. Two Face is a cameo who is easily whupped by Catwoman twice, Bane is pathetically defeated by being trapped behind a metal gate (which he should be able to rip down without blinking), Hugo Strange is just a pawn to Ra's, Batman spends most of the game running around like a headless chicken looking for a cure etc.

Batman makes it so clear that he loves Talia, and was even willing to let Protocol 10 go ahead in favor of rescuing Talia from Joker until Alfred talks sense into him. Then she goes and dies and he carries out the body of her murderer instead of her? Ridiculous.

I must add that your scans make me miss the old Batman/Joker dynamic: less about who Joker can kill/traumatize from the Bat Family and more a straight up battle between two enemies.

Likewise. I love me some homicidal Joker, but when it's in service of a grand plan that isn't just about killing everyone just because it's funny. That's just shallow and weak. Joker is better than that.

I've found that Batman is the one superhero where some of his own fans don't seem to get him, where some fans try to paint him as more unstable than he actually is.

So many Batman fans forget that Batman is a superHERO.

Yeah I thought I was seeing things when I saw that sentence about Batman not caring about Gotham. If he didn't care about Gotham he would be crime fighting all over the country, or even the world. He wouldn't be concentrated in Gotham. Gotham is his city. His home. He cares about it and it's people.

Simple as that.

 

[The Batman]

That was bad writing all around. As much as I love AC the story is really weak. The weakest of the trio of the games. Two Face is a cameo who is easily whupped by Catwoman twice, Bane is pathetically defeated by being trapped behind a metal gate (which he should be able to rip down without blinking), Hugo Strange is just a pawn to Ra's, Batman spends most of the game running around like a headless chicken looking for a cure etc.

Too true. Paul Dini should've known better, really. The gameplay is truly the saving grace of that franchise.

Batman makes it so clear that he loves Talia, and was even willing to let Protocol 10 go ahead in favor of rescuing Talia from Joker until Alfred talks sense into him. Then she goes and dies and he carries out the body of her murderer instead of her? Ridiculous.

I feel like they only had him carry out Joker's body because they wanted The Joker's death to be one big melodramatic moment. But story wise, it dosen't make sense.

Likewise. I love me some homicidal Joker, but when it's in service of a grand plan that isn't just about killing everyone just because it's funny. That's just shallow and weak. Joker is better than that.

Agreed. I think the last time I enjoyed a Joker story was when he was in Grant Morrison's Batman and Robin storyarc. Grant really knew how to use him, as he does most Bat characters.

Yeah I thought I was reading things when I saw that sentence about Batman not caring about Gotham. If he didn't care about Gotham he would be crime fighting all over the country, or even the world. He wouldn't be concentrated in Gotham. Gotham is his city. His home. He cares about it and it's people.

Simple as that.

Exactly. I've never seen a version of Batman that didn't care about Gotham and its people. Never.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

There's an essay written about this subject in Batman and Philosophy. A cool read if you're a big Bat fan.

 

[Oswald]

I disagree that Batman doesn't care about the people living in Gotham. That's a huge reason for why he's doing this. He's off the wall, unorthodox, but he's not completely insane. Nor is he 100 percent selfish.

Batman is concerned about ONE problem in Gotham, the crime, and concretely the violent crime, which is only due to his childhood trauma. He doesn't worry about the reasons which pushes people to commit crimes, he simply punches them and then puts them in prison/sanatory. Simply as that. The work of Batman finishes when the criminal is behind bars, mostly having commited a murder (because obviously Bats can't avoid all the murders, and he knows it). The only thing Batman does that police don't is being an irrational hideous figure with the alleged purpose of dissuade people of commiting crimes (something he hasn't achieved, according to the crime rate in Gotham City). His social usefulness is very arguable, to the point I think he has made more damage than good to the city.

Batman doesn't kill Joker. It's very complicated. They need each other in a twisted way but it's because Batman is stubborn and somehow believes he could reform. Should he kill Joker? Probably. But he won't.

I don't think Batman believes he could reform. He has never cared about the reasons why the Joker is a vicious murderer (except in The Killing Joke, and it was for the brilliant mind of Alan Moore), he just focuses in how horrible the clown is and how to stop him. I've never seen (Alan Moore apart) Batman looking for a way to fix the Joker's mind, and I don't blame him, he has enough with his own traumatized psyche...

 

[The Batman]

Nope...its not like we haven't seen various versions of Batman where Bruce tries to reform criminals, forms philanthropic organizations, or just finished an entire movie trilogy where Bruce mainly becomes Batman so that the people of Gotham could have a symbol to rally behind, a version of Bruce who was so pissed that his energy project, his non batman related way of helping people, was found to be weaponizable that he became reclusive.

Nope...Bruce only cares about crime because someone on the internet likes passing off his opinion as fact.

 

[Oswald]

Yeah I thought I was seeing things when I saw that sentence about Batman not caring about Gotham. If he didn't care about Gotham he would be crime fighting all over the country, or even the world. He wouldn't be concentrated in Gotham. Gotham is his city. His home. He cares about it and it's people.

No, Bruce Wayne doesn't care about people in general and the world in general. He's concentrated in Gotham because there lies his trauma, his parents were killed in a dirty alley of Gotham at night and he acts as Batman in the streets of Gotham at night, but not because of the people, but because of him and his trauma. Has the presence of Batman changed anything in the city? No, and if so it was a change to worse. Then why he doesn't hang the cowl? To stop the villains, of course, the villains his presence inspired in first place, and we already have the vicious circle...

 

[The Joker]

Nope...its not like we haven't seen various versions of Batman where Bruce tries to reform criminals, forms philanthropic organizations, or just finished an entire movie trilogy where Bruce mainly becomes Batman so that the people of Gotham could have a symbol to rally behind, a version of Bruce who was so pissed that his energy project, his non batman related way of helping people, was found to be weaponizable that he became reclusive.

Nope...Bruce only cares about crime because someone on the internet likes passing off his opinion as fact.

Hear hear

Oswald, again no offense but I don't know what version of Batman you're talking about but it's sure not the mainstream comics, the movies, BTAS, or any other version of Batman I've seen.

Even Keaton's Batman, who never shied away from murder, wanted to help Gotham by hosting a fund raiser for the city's 200th anniversary festival, and fighting against Schreck's needless power plant for Gotham.

These are not the actions of a man who doesn't care about the city beyond it's crime problem.

 

[Oswald]

Nope...its not like we haven't seen Bruce try to reform criminals, form philanthropic organizations, or just finished an entire movie trilogy where Bruce only become Batman so that the people of Gotham could have a symbol to rally behind.

Yes, he makes all those things from the comfort of his mansion outside the city, like the rich who gives alms to a homeless to feel better with himself. Please, Bruce Wayne is part of the 1% of the population, perhaps the benevolent 1% which stands for giving work and not killing of hungry the working class, but a representative of the oppressive rich class anyway.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Some people are willing to commit murder and others aren't.

I don't know why it's assumed that Batman would be willing to kill as if it's something every logical person would consider.

Is it that hard to imagine an intelligent person would have a strong stance against killing another human being?

 

[The Batman]

Yes, he makes all those things from the comfort of his mansion outside the city, like the rich who gives alms to a homeless to feel better with himself.

Answer my question: Have you even watched or read the things I mentioned?

How much Batman have you actually read or watched in general?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

What makes Batman a badass is that he can take out an entire squad of SWAT team members without any deadly weapons.

Batman resorting to killing ruins the character. It's an act of desperation that Batman can easily avoid because he's so good.

He's above killing in every sense of the word.

 

[BlueLightning]

Too many good points above.

As for Batman being dependent of the Joker, it is the other way around. It is the Joker the one who needs Batman to exist. If crime is the reason Batman exists, the rise of the Joker is the escalation resulted in opposition to Batman. If Batman finally eradicated crime on Gotham, he would had no need to keep being Batman. In my opinion, thats precisely what Batman is looking for: a city that doesn't need him. With the Joker is the same, though the ultimate victory over Batman the Joker could have would be if Batman just killed him.

Batman is more than just a vigilante, as mentioned in the previous posts, he is a superhero. More than that, a hero who is defined by the murder of his parents. If he is going to try to avoid murder and death... why would he pursue it?

 

[Necrosis Boy]

Oswald has the strangest opinion on Batman I've ever seen. In the late-60s they introduced things like the Wayne Foundation and the VIP programme to address these kind of "social" things, Batman fighting crime by night and by day.

But Batman is an action/detective comics, so that is what it is. That is the focus of the stories. It is not a guide to save the world. And opinions like the "opressive upper class" are just too simplistic. Just like many criminals are born to be criminals and not everyone is the result of "circumstances". In the end, villains do not die because Batman is serially published, multiple stories each month. It is not some sort of epic story. Modern Joker is pretty much forgettable, ever since "Death In The Family" and "Killing Joke" it is about how personal it is and how "crazy" the Joker is (funnily enough, Death In The Family Joker isn't even that crazy and compared the Joker from TKJ is a sad slob, unlike the modern Joker who is just a vile creature)

 

[Oswald]

Answer my question: Have you even watched or read the things I mentioned?

How much Batman have you actually read or watched in general?

Believe me, a lot. Obviously I can't prove it, but before I've signed some examples which support my theory about Batman and his dependence on the Joker.

About the other, I know Bruce Wayne has funded charity organisations and other good works, so? That's like putting a strip over a wound, doesn't fix the root of the problem. Crime (as said in Batman Begins) is generated by a classist system which allows a little number of persons to enrich at the expense of majority, and ultimately and despite his charity fundations Bruce is accomplice of this system. But, hey, dressing like a bat and beating criminals makes the city a better place, sure.

 

[THE J0KER]

when oswald is... ashes. then he has my permission to talk about batman.

 

[AnneFan]

Aside from the obvious fact that Batman doesn't kill, he also doesn't kill the Joker because he feels that if he does, if he goes into that place then he'll never come back.

Also if Batman kills him, the Joker wins.

Yes, and also, I think there's an angle that he fears what would sprout up to replace Joker if he indeed lost control and killed the guy.

The whole 'devil you know' thing.

 

[Batmannerism]

Man I am so glad I started this thread. Batman fans get so passionate about Batman, and to a similar degree his nemesis. You guys are awesome. Superman fans tend to forgive Superman for anything (I should know, I'm Superman fan) but hardcore Bat-fans tend take a different approach and defend Batman's honour -nothing wrong with that, Batman is the coolest comic book character ever created.

All the reasons for and against are pretty good !

I like the variety of interpretations for why Batman doesn't kill him, from dependency to moral sanctity to well.....it's all interesting.

That whole thing where Gordon would hunt Bats down if he killed the Joker.....well that doesn't really convince me. I'm sure Gordon himself has shot plenty of perps in his career, and none of them as reprehensible as the Joker.

I did like the comparison between Bats and the Punisher though. This is a "slippery slope" argument really, as in if Bats starts killing, with the Joker, where does it end ?

However, I think if we look hard enough we can find examples in the comics of Batman either indirectly killing people or allowing people to be killed.

Check these out:

http://www.newsarama.com/19848-worl...n-and-superman-have-killed-their-enemies.html

and this : http://gothamalleys.blogspot.co.nz/2010/11/killer-batman.html


But in the films Batman kills quite a few people
- Batman 1989, when he strafes the parade you actually see him gun down henchmen (and then in the tower he tosses that guy to his death, and of course he's pretty much responsible for the Joker's death too).

- Batman returns, bomb down the pants.
- Batman forever and Batman and Robin...........sorry I can't bring myself to re-watch them.

Batman Begins......well, he's pretty much responsible for killing faux Ra's Al Ghul and any ninjas that didn't escape the explosion at the monastery.
Also he leaves Ducard to his death at the end.

Dark Knight.......... he kills Harvey Dent at the end by tackling him over the side of the building.

Dark Knight rises, he pretty much kills Talia and the driver of the truck.


So the idea that Batman doesn't kill, well........he kind of does, when he has to. He clearly tries to avoid it, but I think it's fair to say he's killed before.


As such, the question remains, Should Batman just kill the Joker ?

Although having said that, I like that people have raised the question that is closely linked to this one "Why doesn't Batman kill the Joker ?"

Keep talking about it Bat-fans. As long as the Joker sells copy, he'll never be gone for good, no matter how much he deserves it.

 

[The Endless]

Some people are willing to commit murder and others aren't.

I don't know why it's assumed that Batman would be willing to kill as if it's something every logical person would consider.

Is it that hard to imagine an intelligent person would have a strong stance against killing another human being?

Joker shouldn't be considered human though.

 

[Oswald]

Batman Begins......well, he's pretty much responsible for killing faux Ra's Al Ghul and any ninjas that didn't escape the explosion at the monastery.
Also he leaves Ducard to his death at the end.

In Batman Begins Batman KILLS Rha's Al Ghul by not saving him, but in The Dark Knight saves the Joker in a similar situation... Curious, isn't it?

Although having said that, I like that people have raised the question that is closely linked to this one "Why doesn't Batman kill the Joker ?"

I'd say better "Why Batman doesn't let the Joker die?"

 

[BlueLightning]

Well Batmannerism, that's another area of the spectrum.

Batman will not kill, but the consequences of his actions is another deal entirely. For example: sometimes is not a matter of "I will kill Harvey Dent because he is gonna kill that Gordon's son" it is more like "I have to save Gordon son..."

I added the ellipsis because I don't think Batman want to reach that sort of "whatever it takes" train of thought. It is obviously a focal point of the film "Does the Batman has limits?" Of course he does. And most of the great Batman stories that deal with this matter make this reasoning distinctive. In TDK, Batman is put to the limit and all he can do is save Gordon's son. He didn't have anything left, if he could have hold both James Jr and Harvey, he would have done it. Whit Ra's in Begins is different because he hasn't developed that reasoning yet. And it comes to bite him later in Rises.