The Dark Knight Should the Joker die?

[ang_hulk]

no.constant villian changes and deaths bother me about super hero flicks.he needs to stick around.

 

[Eros]

Well, you're changing your argument now, as you made the point by saying it was something that always bothered you about the COMICS, but the point still stands.

A character can serve their purpose, and finish their story, without being killed off. Send them to Arkham, or have them disappear, or whatever. That way, you are "completing their story", without totally cutting off the possibility of a new story. You're leaving your options open. With a franchise like Batman, the best option is leaving villains like The Joker in a situation where they COULD come back, even if they ultimately don't. That way, everyone's happy.

I still say kill them off.

 

[DV8]

don't kill him . . . you heartless bastards . . .

 

[Keyser Soze]

I still say kill them off.

How would you do it then?

NOT killing them is pretty straightforward. Worked fine for Scarecrow in "Batman Begins", don't see people complaining about his fate. Aside from him being owned by a girl, that is. It's killing them that's an uphill battle.

It's alright if it's like "Sin City", or "Die Hard", or a world where villains are expected to die. But Batman isn't going to say "Yippeekayay muthafunka!" and blow Joker away with an Uzi. In Batman's mythos - and more specifically, in the continuity established in the first film - Batman will not kill. It is against everything he stands for. So right away you've got the obstacle of how do you go about having your main protagonist act out of character to do something the majority of the film's viewership don't even want him to do?

With Ra's al Ghul, they just about pulled it off with the "I don't have to save you", act. But that's a little loophole that's going to get worn pretty thin if Batman relies on it too much. Having Batman place his enemies in situations where he "doesn't have to save them" is just as - if not more - contrived than him letting his enemies live. At least when he lets them live, he's acting in character.

 

[Eros]

How would you do it then?

NOT killing them is pretty straightforward. Worked fine for Scarecrow in "Batman Begins", don't see people complaining about his fate. Aside from him being owned by a girl, that is. It's killing them that's an uphill battle.

It's alright if it's like "Sin City", or "Die Hard", or a world where villains are expected to die. But Batman isn't going to say "Yippeekayay muthafunka!" and blow Joker away with an Uzi. In Batman's mythos - and more specifically, in the continuity established in the first film - Batman will not kill. It is against everything he stands for. So right away you've got the obstacle of how do you go about having your main protagonist act out of character to do something the majority of the film's viewership don't even want him to do?

With Ra's al Ghul, they just about pulled it off with the "I don't have to save you", act. But that's a little loophole that's going to get worn pretty thin if Batman relies on it too much. Having Batman place his enemies in situations where he "doesn't have to save them" is just as - if not more - contrived than him letting his enemies live. At least when he lets them live, he's acting in character.

all those times, Joker was thought to be dead in comics, but later turned out to have survived later on. He gets caught in a burning building, falls down a elevator shaft etc, their are lots of ways to make it so Joker "dies" in the movies.

 

[Speedball]

http://www.batman-on-film.com/batmovies_thedarkknight_2008.html

This was said in 2005, even if the script changed a bit but i know that Joker won't die.

Well... They killed Ra's Al Ghul, who can come back.

Killing the Joker is one of the big problems I have with B89.
Burton killed off Batman's big arch-nemesis, which I feel is a big no-no.
He could have had potential to use him for future films where he blows up Robin and paralysis' Barbara Gordon.

 

[Rynan]

you seem to attack people that have a different opinion then yourself, but serously dude, let it go.

Howzabout you let it go and we see where the peace talks go from there.

 

[hannya]

One of the reasons I started this thread (apart from the fact that I can't get enough Joker at the moment!) was to see what everybody thought about the lifespan of the franchise.
I really hope this Batman series doesn't go the way of the first. No movie franchise in history has ever been able to resist the urge to cram sequels with villains and side-kicks. The more villains there are, the more toys you can sell.
I mean Venom...WTF?
A three-movie story arc which ends with some kind of resolution: Joker dead/Joker locked up, Batman triumphant, would prevent greedy WB executives from milking the franchise until it's warped it's way into Joel Shumacher ('spit' - excuse me, sudden unpleasant taste in my mouth) territory.
I personally don't want to see Catwoman (yawn). Or Robin (obvious reasons). Or the Penguin (unless he's a realistic gangster figure). Or Bane (come ON!). Or Riddler (what's the point?) . Okay then maybe Killer Croc... no no, be strong. NO minor villains!!!
Let's have three great movies and be done with it. Joker in this one, Joker and Two-Face in the final climactic showdown in the third.

 

[Comic Book Boy]

What I liked about the X-MEN films is the villians were consistent. It made them more important. I'm glad Magneto didn't die in the first film or something. Villians coming back is epic.

 

[Keyser Soze]

One of the reasons I started this thread (apart from the fact that I can't get enough Joker at the moment!) was to see what everybody thought about the lifespan of the franchise.
I really hope this Batman series doesn't go the way of the first. No movie franchise in history has ever been able to resist the urge to cram sequels with villains and side-kicks. The more villains there are, the more toys you can sell.
I mean Venom...WTF?
A three-movie story arc which ends with some kind of resolution: Joker dead/Joker locked up, Batman triumphant, would prevent greedy WB executives from milking the franchise until it's warped it's way into Joel Shumacher ('spit' - excuse me, sudden unpleasant taste in my mouth) territory.
I personally don't want to see Catwoman (yawn). Or Robin (obvious reasons). Or the Penguin (unless he's a realistic gangster figure). Or Bane (come ON!). Or Riddler (what's the point?) . Okay then maybe Killer Croc... no no, be strong. NO minor villains!!!
Let's have three great movies and be done with it. Joker in this one, Joker and Two-Face in the final climactic showdown in the third.

I think with the direction they're headed, this Batman franchise has the best shot of beating the "Part 3 Curse" which seems to plague the superhero genre. And so, I'd end the series there, on a dizzying high. No need to drag on the series after that, making it a film series that was great once, rather than leaving it as an all-time great trilogy.

And Eros, those situations you mentioned only worked because they were ambiguous. Joker's body not found, or him surfacing alive later, etc etc. So, once again, we return to the idea of leaving a suggestion that the character MIGHT come back...

 

[Steelsheen]

i dont want Joker to die in this film. after all, Batman is just starting out and there are still many more gloriously malevolent years to go before either of them kicks the bucket.

 

[superglowy]

Absolutely!

http://www.comicbookgirl.com/posts/*****.gif

Is this like a fan-made joke or was this actually a Batman comic strip?!?

 

[Nepenthes]

That is 100% real. It goes on for the whole story, every third word being *****.

 

[IndianaJones]

Okay, then what the hell is the second context of '*****' that I am obviously missing here?

...and I would not like to see Joker die. Cart him off to Arkham, dammit!

 

[StorminNorman]

***** is like a mistake

A big, hard, mistake.

 

[Katsuro]

The third frame by itself is the single greatest frame in comic book history.

"This emphasis on boners has given me an idea for a new adventure in crime! Gotham City will rue the day it mentioned the word '*****'"!

 

[user123456789]

He shouldn't and i don't think he will if the premise for Batman 3 has remained intact. Like other classic villains such as Lex Luthor, Dr. Doom and Magneto the Joker should IMO always remain a thorn in Batman's kevlar side.

whats the premise for batman 3?

 

[Slipping_Halo]

Killing any of the villains is a HUGE mistake. HUGE. The first franchise went downhill straight from Joker's death. You don't kill off the villains. It's a really, really, REALLY bad idea. It's not really that they have to use them again, it's just so the possibility to bring them back is there. I like knowing that Ra's Al Ghul and the Scarecrow CAN possibly come back even if they never do.

 

[StorminNorman]

whats the premise for batman 3?

From what very very very little we know:

Two-Face V. Joker V. Batman

 

[regwec]

I personally don't want to see Catwoman (yawn).

Why hannya, I had no idea your bread was buttered that way.

 

[hannya]

Why hannya, I had no idea your bread was buttered that way.

You misunderstand yet again, oh Tedious Pompious.
I'm very much enamoured with the concept of a curvy catsuit lying next to me.
But rubbish pointless titillation in an otherwise interesting movie franchise: nay nay.
I suggest you renew your subscription to www.halleyberrynude.com

 

[Steelsheen]

^^ you two have a history together?

 

[hannya]

^^ you two have a history together?

I'm sure Regwec says as much to the other hag-queens in his bridge club.

 

[regwec]

hannya, I honestly made the "gay" comment in the spirit of the gentlest possible teasing. I am not a homophobe and I am genuinely sorry if you took offense to any reference to prejudice of that nature.

 

[hannya]

hannya, I honestly made the "gay" comment in the spirit of the gentlest possible teasing. I am not a homophobe and I am genuinely sorry if you took offense to any reference to prejudice of that nature.

Forgive my over-reaction. I was freshly worked up over a tv footie match. You are a gentleman and a scholar. No harm done