|
"Why doesn't Batman just, like, kill The Joker, man?" simply shouldn't be entertained to begin with; you might as well ask why The Road Runner doesn't kill the Wile E. Coyote. Where Snyder hosed up is in acknowledging the question at all. It's not something that can be adequately explored through in-continuity logic because the DC universe doesn't operate on the basis of anything like realism, and when you start making up answers to questions that suppose it does you just look silly. The general metatextual thrust of Snyder's answer is correct, that there will always be another villain regardless of how many you wipe from existence, but the idea of Batman being hyperaware enough to acknowledge this but also 'afraid' of what might replace The Joker makes no sense without him also acknowledging that his existing villains are constantly being reinterpreted and coming back different and possibly more cruel than before anyways. The Joker, of all villains, isn't The Devil You Know because he is explicitly the character who is constantly reinventing himself. It's such a stupid question on its face anyways. The person who asks this doesn't ask, "Why doesn't Bruce invest in improving the security at Arkham Asylum?" or "Why doesn't Batman just get Superman to put Joker in The Phantom Zone?" No, their grand theory of justice is to have Batman murder a comic book character, like that would stop The Joker from coming back anymore than locking him up in a prison on Planet X would. Problem solved! The Joker's cyclical relationship with Batman only exists because these are cartoon characters trapped in an absurdist reality where Gotham City is leveled and rebuilt every other year. Batman doesn't kill The Joker because he literally can't. If he could, he wouldn't need to.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
I agree that the whole "why shouldn't Batman kill the Joker" thing shouldn't be acknowledged, and by acknowledging it, for me, just makes Batman seem incompetent and useless. The whole idea of Batman not killing the Joker made a whole lot more sense in the past before every writer decided to make the Joker a supernatural killing machine. Basically the Joker has now turned into someone who scores body counts in the dozens and every time 50 odd people get killed in one issue of one arc you are left wondering why Batman didn't save these people by doing something about the Joker, and this is where the problem lies. You can say "Batman doesn't kill the Joker because Batman doesn't kill", but for a character who has bloody contingencies for if his own friends go rogue, why doesn't Batman do anything to ensure that the Joker doesn't kill again. I know comics are cyclical and depend on Batman and Joker fighting every 5th or so story arc and the stakes have to be higher than they were before, but every time that happens I just think Batman is the worst hero there is because oh no the Joker has escaped from Arkham (again), and has killed scores of people (again) and Batman has to stop him (again) and explain why he won't break his oath (again) and then we will repeat it all later on. I am saying in-universe it makes sense for Batman not to kill Joker, but it would also make sense for Batman to do something that would ensure that the Joker doesn't keep killing the people Batman has sworn to protect. Really the only comic that came close to doing this Endgame where Batman basically thought he was going to die anyway, but it shouldn't have to come down to that to make Batman think "maybe I should try something different here".
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
I agree that "Why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker" isn't a question that should be asked and definitely shouldn't be a question that should be textually answered, but DC's creative directive of heightening the Joker necessitates the former as a question even a total non-sperg comics fan would reasonably ask, which has put pressure on the comics themselves to perform the latter. And until Snyder we got two super bad excuses - "My code", which is an excuse that we've addressed its central tautological failure as a justification ad nauseum, or "Slippery slope", which is the by-far most cynical and regressive justification ever. Like, you want to talk cynical interpretations of Batman, "slippery slope" makes it explicitly clear that the only thing separating Joker and Batman is the latter's "Batman doesn't kill" rule. Not because Batman doesn't want to kill people, because "slippery slope" makes it overtly stated that he does, not because Batman and/or Bruce Wayne has compassion or a genuine desire to improve the lives of the people of Gotham, because they are justifications transparently attempting to backhandedly justify his desires for violence, not for any other reason than Bruce Wayne's infantile desire for vengeance. And not even vengeance, because the term implies justice, it's revenge. That's all it is. The slippery slope argument turns Batman into a literal knockoff Punisher, when the best and most layered version of Batman actually has a sense of morality and genuine desire to do good over dressing up like a Dracula to punch bad guys because his parents are dead.Equilibrium posted:The general metatextual thrust of Snyder's answer is correct, that there will always be another villain regardless of how many you wipe from existence, but the idea of Batman being hyperaware enough to acknowledge this but also 'afraid' of what might replace The Joker makes no sense without him also acknowledging that his existing villains are constantly being reinterpreted and coming back different and possibly more cruel than before anyways. This is coming off a run of comics where Batman recognizes that the only person that's able to defeat Batman is Batman so creates a backup personality within his psyche that is only unleashed when Batman is defeated. And that's widely (and correctly) considered the best Batman story of this century and arguably of all time. I fail to see how "Batman becomes metatextually aware that he would beat anybody except for himself" is less insanely hyperaware then "Batman looks around at how his rogues gallery has been acting for the past half-decade and realizes that things will only continue on a downward trajectory". I'm not saying Death of the Family is as good as R.I.P., because that's loving insane, but there's nothing that Snyder's Batman does that's any less believable/presents Batman as some overly Machiavellian mastermind that Morrison didn't do. I mean, gently caress, he gets shot backwards in time and he's able to create a stable closed time loop that assures his existence with the assistance of the metatextual realization that "[Batman] was never alone". That ship long done sailed by the time Snyder got to pilot it. And, needless to say, Morrison's the one who came up with the "Hyper Sanity" theorem which is 100% the modern definition of Joker, which is some of the most metatextual bullshit ever and largely why the Joker's such a mess to begin with. I like Hyper Sanity and it justifies a lot of Joker's more outrageous elements, but it also completely and totally gives him a free moral pass to do whatever he wants because he's aware that his universe is a fiction. NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
The slippery slope argument doesn't state that Batman wants to kill the Joker, it acknowledges that it would probably be better for everyone if he did. Everyone except for Batman, who would become the thing he hates most in the world. Batman doesn't want to kill anybody, but I think he'd be willing to bear that burden for the good of the city, even being hated and hunted for it (see: the end of Dark Knight) but once you kill one of the lunatics with a body count in the thousands, people are going to start asking why you haven't killed the others. Two-Face has killed hundreds of people. The Scarecrow has probably caused hundreds of panic related fatalities. Killer Croc eats people, for gently caress's sake. The line isn't easily drawn at "just Joker, then we're done killing" because people are still suffering and dying. And in Batman's mind, he's already done the unthinkable, he's already irredeemable, might as well keep saving lives and dealing with these guys once and for all. That's the slippery slope argument, not that Batman's a bloodthirsty killbot held at bay only by his own flimsy moral code. Jeez.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
The writers aren't obligated to answer questions about the universe if they aren't helpful to the storytelling. If they can't provide a good answer to the question, leave it in the air. Especially if the answer they have is as bad as Snyder's. I know the modern DCU is leaning heavy into meta stuff, but not everything has to be metatextual. I mean you're not wrong that the two major answers to the question are bad. I just totally disagree that this third option is any better and you haven't said a word as to why that's an incorrect conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:I mean you're not wrong that the two major answers to the question are bad. I just totally disagree that this third option is any better and you haven't said a word as to why that's an incorrect conclusion. Toxxupation posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
The best in-text answer to that question is that Batman doesn't kill the Joker because that's what the Joker wants him to do, and the Joker wins forever if Batman kills him. At this point that is also probably what most citizens of Gotham City want him to do too, but again he never should have gotten to this point in the first place. VV I like how you edited out the second sentence in my post that addresses how the people of Gotham would feel about this purple death ray fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:The best in-text answer to that question is that Batman doesn't kill the Joker because that's what the Joker wants him to do, and the Joker wins forever if Batman kills him. That makes Batman look super loving petty, and obfuscates his entire directive of being a public good. It sorta works in the sense that it's in-character to most interpretations of Batman, but I would argue that it's some cold loving comfort to the people of Gotham that the one loving dude who could actually kill the Joker doesn't because it would make him feel bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Yes, none of that addresses "coward" or "cynic". The only two objections I raised. You ignored both. I'd hardly call "It wouldn't be worth it because I don't think it will be" smart or pragmatic. Toxxupation posted:That makes Batman look super loving petty, and obfuscates his entire directive of being a public good. It sorta works in the sense that it's in-character to most interpretations of Batman, but I would argue that it's some cold loving comfort to the people of Gotham that the one loving dude who could actually kill the Joker doesn't because it would make him feel bad. That seems harsh on Bats. Tons of cops and guards have had Joker at gunpoint. No court would convict them. Anyone could kill Joker. They all choose not to. And this rabbit hole is why this question does not work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:
I edited it out because it specifically invalidates your point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:08
|
|
SonicRulez posted:That seems harsh on Bats. Tons of cops and guards have had Joker at gunpoint. No court would convict them. Anyone could kill Joker. They all choose not to. And this rabbit hole is why this question does not work. The most unbelievable thing about the Batman universe is that Joker never got shanked to death by some random guy who's niece he poisoned the few times he was in jail instead of Arkham.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
I seem to remember multiple actual attempts to surrepetitiously kill the Joker in jail or in Arkham, all of which end up going Extremely Bad for the person attempting to do so. If I remember correctly, one of the guards during Morrison's run attempts it only to die because the Joker's blood is some crazy lethal poison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Yes, none of that addresses "coward" or "cynic". The only two objections I raised. You ignored both. I'd hardly call "It wouldn't be worth it because I don't think it will be" smart or pragmatic. Yeah, I've always thought the bigger question is "why hasn't the state given Joker the death penalty?" Want that actually Nolan's in universe answer for where the Joker was in TDKR? He got executed between films.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Yeah that was Nolan and it's amazing. That's exactly how it'd go in his Universe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:This is coming off a run of comics where Batman recognizes that the only person that's able to defeat Batman is Batman so creates a backup personality within his psyche that is only unleashed when Batman is defeated. And that's widely (and correctly) considered the best Batman story of this century and arguably of all time. I fail to see how "Batman becomes metatextually aware that he would beat anybody except for himself" is less insanely hyperaware then "Batman looks around at how his rogues gallery has been acting for the past half-decade and realizes that things will only continue on a downward trajectory". The problem here isn't about believability or whether Batman should have any particular strain of metatextual awareness but that Snyder's answer makes no sense. A new interpretation of The Joker has just as much potential to be as horrifying as any new villain and so all Snyder's done here is given Batman another existential crisis that can't be satisfactorily answered. It's Batman acknowledging that his greatest supervillain is Bad Writing, which is something Batman can't possibly do anything about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
I can't believe this devolved into a "why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker??" argument in 2016 c'mon y'all I thought we were past that
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:I edited it out because it specifically invalidates your point. Oh, thanks. I really shot myself in the foot on that one. I'd sure have a hard time keeping up with the discourse without your help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Dacap posted:Yeah, I've always thought the bigger question is "why hasn't the state given Joker the death penalty?" Nope. He simply vanishes in the movie but in the novelization is stated no one really knows what happened to him. quote:“The worst of the worst were sent here, except for the Joker, who, rumour had it, was locked away as Arkham’s sole remaining inmate. Or perhaps he had escaped. Nobody was really even sure. Not even Selina” http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/07/26/joker-mentioned-in-dark-knight-rises-novel
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:
I like RIP, but you are the only person I have ever heard describe it as the best Batman story according to any context. It's not even the best Batman story written by Grant Morrison within the same run.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
OP doesn't mention a single Golden/Silver Age story. Not the moral grandeur of "The Origin of the Batman", the roguish satire of "The Underworld Bank", nor the bawdy genius of "Joker's Comedy of Errors". Not even a grudging acknowledgement of the Black Casebook! Shameful, just shameful. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Chaos Hippy posted:I like RIP, but you are the only person I have ever heard describe it as the best Batman story according to any context. It's not even the best Batman story written by Grant Morrison within the same run. Obviously imprecise and anecdotal, but the poll I ran a couple of weeks ago places R.I.P. as a solid number two above virtually everything else and only behind Year One, which is...you know, Year One. And I placed every single other major Morrison Batman story on that list besides his Batman and Robin run which is less a story and more "What Dick and Damian do after FC", and only Inc scored anywhere near as high, and it still got less than half of the votes for R.I.P. By BSS's standards, at least, R.I.P. is Morrison's best work, and it's definitely the story I hear associated most closely with his run.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
All I know is that if anyone says they like Grant Morrison making Joker some weird hyper aware mastermind who knows Batman keeps changing but doesn't like Snyder making Batman cognizant of the fact that his hosed up universe will conjure an even-worse villain if Joker's gone, then you're a hypocrite. I mean they're very very close to the same thing.
TwoPair fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Dang, Year One is the forum's favorite Batman story? Maybe I just don't "get" Batman. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 20:30
|
|
Dacap posted:Yeah, I've always thought the bigger question is "why hasn't the state given Joker the death penalty?" Yeah, honestly, the idea that Joker somehow gets declared legally insane when the standard is so high for that in court and he's clearly able to execute complex schemes, hold long conversations about morality, do comedy routines live on the air, etc. is completely ridiculous.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Dang, Year One is the forum's favorite Batman story? Maybe I just don't "get" Batman. What are your favorite Batman stories?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Dang, Year One is the forum's favorite Batman story? Maybe I just don't "get" Batman. It's a poll of a hundred or so people, it's worthless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:What are your favorite Batman stories? I guess I don't have any that I'd put up along side my favorites from other books. I've kept trying to find a way in over the years, and I haven't found it. Batman was my first favorite superhero. I grew up watching reruns of '60s Batman, and as a six year old with no sense of camp or irony, I thought it was the coolest poo poo ever. I like corny funny Batman. Then as a teenager there was the Timmverse Batman, which was just about perfect. When I started reading graphic novels I remember really enjoying TDKR, too. So in principle I'm down with a variety of Batmen. But when I try reading the big arcs I usually seem to lose interest fast. And I hated Year One in particular. I thought it was plodding and self-serious to the point of pretentiousness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Some great stuff in the Batman Day sale, like a 530 page Elseworlds collection for $6. https://www.comixology.com/Road-to-Batman-Sale/page/11925?ref=c2l0ZS9pbmRleC9kZXNrdG9wL3NtYWxsQ2Fyb3VzZWw
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I guess I don't have any that I'd put up along side my favorites from other books. I've kept trying to find a way in over the years, and I haven't found it. Are you thinking of Zero Year? Year One was four issues. As much as I like Morrison's run, I think Year One hits all the notes that make Batman great in what would be considered a brief story these day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
I would suggest you check out the comics based directly on the 60s Batman and the Timmverse. There's tons of great comics in the B:TAS style that are basically one-and-done stories in each issue that you can hopefully get your feet in the pool without feeling like you're stuck in a long, plodding story arc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Also if you haven't seen Brave and the Bold you should check it out, since it's very silly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
It's only kind of a Batman comic but I just read Paul Dini's autobiographical graphic novel, Dark Night jeeeeeeeeeeez
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
My buddies girlfriend was just telling me about going to high school with Dini's wife. I only missed her by like six years. Besides that whole incident that graphic novel is based off of, Paul Dini is a lucky man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Die Laughing posted:My buddies girlfriend was just telling me about going to high school with Dini's wife. I only missed her by like six years. well, events both the mugging and the (spoiling this because it's one of the most "jesus christ" parts of the book) SELF-HARMING WITH HIS TINY TOONS EMMY
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
I've got a question about the new Detective Comics that I'm going to spoiler because it involves the very end of the issue: Where is Tim? Who has him? Is it something I'd know about if I kept up with Justice League or something? Or doesn't anyone know?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
monkeu posted:I've got a question about the new Detective Comics that I'm going to spoiler because it involves the very end of the issue: Mr Oz who up to this point has only been in Superman books. Popular theory points to him possibly being Ozymandias from Watchmen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
It's more than obvious now with the speech he gave sticking to all the Rebirth antagonist points. monkeu, you should read that DC Universe Rebirth Special.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Yeah I was leaning to it being too obvious as a misdirect until his scene at the end of this issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
Snyder is obviously having a good time writing the other Batman comic. He just introduced Bat Shark Repellent to the modern DCU. edit: Also having a guy shot in the dick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:Snyder is obviously having a good time writing the other Batman comic. Yeah All Star is a goddamn rollercoaster. Fuckin A getting to see KGBeast and Amygdala, and Egghead even as a name dropped in a comic in 2016. Detective was really good, as usual. I kind of knew Tim wasn't going to die, just because I don't think DC would let that happen without a bunch of fanfare and tie-in comics and stuff months in advance. And seeing Bruce actually emotionally affected was such a welcome change. Tynion is writing the Batman I want to read about more than anybody else since Morrison's run got started. Though I wonder if they'll put anyone else on the team in Tim's place until he gets rescued.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 13:10
|
|