|
Extra, Extra, Grant Morrison and Brian Azzarello team up to ruin good Batman story!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
I apologize for misreading it then. I just always took the sudden stop to laughter to imply a strangling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
redbackground posted:Is she just laid out in the hospital at the end the end of the movie or what? Do we even go back to her once Bats and Joker laugh together for a bit? Yes, there's a stinger where she wheels herself into her closet and goes down a secret compartment with computers and the Oracle symbol, and she says "Good to be back!" or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
That reading improves the story. Because then Joker really caused Batman to snap, in the perfect way possible. What I find tragic about the Batgirl brouhaha that it ends up diluting the story. It's obscured the actual adaptation in discussion. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Black Mage Knight posted:I apologize for misreading it then. I just always took the sudden stop to laughter to imply a strangling. This has been a nerd debate for years, but after looking at the original script, it's pretty much false. Batman doesn't kill Joker. He does kill his three dwarf goons in the movie, though, by throwing them in a pit of spikes. Which is weird, because they seem to be mentally handicapped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:That reading improves the story. Because then Joker really caused Batman to snap, in the perfect way possible. Batman has seen countless people killed, some he knew, some he had no connection to, for his entire life, by any number of regular criminals and superfreaks alike, but THIS TIME it's murder'o'clock! The Arkham games were hit and miss on how they handled certain characters, but they got it absolutely right when at the end of City, Batman says he would still have tried to save Joker's life with the antidote, even after all that had happened. The Joker causing Batman to snap and start killing is the dumbest and laziest possible story beat. Black Mage Knight posted:I apologize for misreading it then. I just always took the sudden stop to laughter to imply a strangling. redbackground fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Batman's whole arc in TKJ is to save Joker so their cycle of violence doesn't end in death. Ending it with Batman killing the Joker after the Joker explains that they are basically the same person who chose different paths is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
The reading means that Batman snaps not because he's worn down by death and tragedy, but because he actually connects with Joker. He takes the lesson of the joke to heart, and decides to end the charade of two lunatics reinforcing each others' delusions. But really, the page doesn't support that reading very well. The more accurate reading is that Batman snaps, but doesn't kill the Joker. The page emphasises that they''re both cracked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
I've never thought Batman killed Joker cause that's not what he does and "Show him our way works", but to act like the ending isn't intentionally ambiguous is pretty pretentious. It's up for debate and has been for like 30 years. The only reason it's become certain that Batman didn't kill Joker is because later writers decided to (stupidly) fold The Killing Joke into standard DC canon. If it had stayed an Elseworlds story, it would be much more likely that Bats had had enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Black Mage Knight posted:So does the movie even end with Batman strangling Joker? Because that was kinda part of the point of TKJ (alongside why it was meant to just be a what if story). That alongside exploring Jokers backstory it was showing what it would take for Joker to get Batman to finally kill. That isn't what happened in the book. We have actual script pages showing that. SonicRulez posted:I've never thought Batman killed Joker cause that's not what he does and "Show him our way works", but to act like the ending isn't intentionally ambiguous is pretty pretentious. It's up for debate and has been for like 30 years. The only reason it's become certain that Batman didn't kill Joker is because later writers decided to (stupidly) fold The Killing Joke into standard DC canon. If it had stayed an Elseworlds story, it would be much more likely that Bats had had enough. No it isn't. We have the script of The Killing Joke. quote:“Now just a half figure or head and shoulders shot of the Batman from the front. The absurdity of the situation comes homes to him, and one corner of his mouth twitches upwards. He and The Joker are going to kill each other one day. It’s preordained. They may as well enjoy this one rare moment of contact while it lasts.” It isn't ambiguous. The reason it became a 'thing' is because Grant Morrison brought it up. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
redbackground posted:The Arkham games were hit and miss on how they handled certain characters, but they got it absolutely right when at the end of City, Batman says he would still have tried to save Joker's life with the antidote, even after all that had happened. I get Batman not killing, but you know what, let the Joker dying of an illness thing play itself out. It's like if Superman used his X-Ray vision to find out that the Joker had cancer and Batman captured the guy to force chemo treatment on him. Like imagine living in Gotham and finding out the Joker was dying of supervillain AIDS and Batman saved him. That's insane. And I'm someone who hates the Snyder stuff for the killing. ImpAtom posted:That isn't what happened in the book. We have actual script pages showing that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:There's nothing on the page to explicitly support it, but it's not an invalid reading. Timeless Appeal posted:I get Batman not killing, but you know what, let the Joker dying of an illness thing play itself out. It's like if Superman used his X-Ray vision to find out that the Joker had cancer and Batman captured the guy to force chemo treatment on him. redbackground fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
redbackground posted:"I'm squeezing your arms as hard as I can, why are you still breathing?!" quote:I don't think Batman would do anything like that, as saving the Joker throughout the game is not a goal. It's just he wouldn't have kept the antidote to himself if he knew he had the option to administer it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I get that for a normal person, but it's more or less a serial killer. redbackground fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Dude chill. I'm not fond of the Batman kills the Joker thing, but it's a work of art and it's open to interpretation. It's a Black Gatsby type deal. There's nothing on the page to explicitly support it, but it's not an invalid reading. Just because a work is open to to interpretation doesn't mean that any interpretation is "correct" or "valid". It still must have evidence within the context of the story. And in this case, Batman is actively working to avoid killing the Joker. So when he finally confronts the Joker, the Joker pauses, and shakes his head that it's too late. He is lucid, he is calm, and he is for once being upfront with Batman. And he says that they're the same person, that they both have suffered, but one chose to embrace insanity to cope with the pain, while the other decides to fight for what he believes in to cope with the pain. He is acknowledging that they are both broken, but Joker doesn't believe he can be saved, nor does he really want to. Batman confronts with his biggest foe, finds a lucid, relateable human. The insanity has been his coping mechanism, and he knows it. And they are able to share a moment, an absurd moment where they devolve into laughter. And Batman's laughter lingers, because it's his world view that has been shaken, and this level of insight has been delivered by one of the most evil men he has ever encountered. So why, given the idea of Batman as a character, context of the story and how it's been portrayed, would someone think that Batman then killing the Joker is an acceptable interpretation? This isn't High School AP Lit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Dude chill. I'm not fond of the Batman kills the Joker thing, but it's a work of art and it's open to interpretation. It's a Black Gatsby type deal. There's nothing on the page to explicitly support it, but it's not an invalid reading. It is an invalid reading when you're going "it's intentionally ambiguous, these people misunderstood the story, how dumb are they?!" I have no problems with alternate readings of stories but when it devolves into "my reading is right 100% and anyone who disagrees is wrong" then it stops being an alternate reading and starts being asserting a one correct reading. And when you start asserting a one correct reading then it's very different indeed. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:That isn't what happened in the book. We have actual script pages showing that. The script isn't in the copy of The Killing Joke that I read. That's not really relevant. Same way that the story being canon and Joker being alive is irrelevant. The comic itself leaves the ending ambiguous and open for interpretation. That's all I was saying. Redbackground being all "Lel ur wrong you misread it" is what I took issue with. I think most people here believe Batman didn't kill Joker or interpreted the story that way. It's debatable though in the context of JUST the story and no other supplementary material. It's not like the story doesn't have other moments that are left up in the air.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:The script isn't in the copy of The Killing Joke that I read. That's not really relevant. Same way that the story being canon and Joker being alive is irrelevant. The comic itself leaves the ending ambiguous and open for interpretation. That's all I was saying. Redbackground being all "Lel ur wrong you misread it" is what I took issue with. I think most people here believe Batman didn't kill Joker or interpreted the story that way. It's debatable though in the context of JUST the story and no other supplementary material. It's not like the story doesn't have other moments that are left up in the air. It's a shoddy interpretation because the panels obviously show a quick progression from friendly tickling to serious make-out session.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
I would have liked to see Barbara fleshed out with a prologue resembling her Brave & The Bold issue with Wonder Woman and Zatanna where they take her out for a night on the town. One of them has a prophecy that something terrible will happen to Barbara soon, but they don't know the exact nature of the threat, so they give her a girls' night out to at least express some sisterly love. It would have set up Barbara's character and given her lots to say/do that don't involve catching bullets or dicks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
redbackground posted:It's a shoddy interpretation because the panels obviously show a quick progression from friendly tickling to serious make-out session. The real question that's left up to interpretation is whether or not Batman removes the glove before getting knuckles deep.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:The script isn't in the copy of The Killing Joke that I read. That's not really relevant. Same way that the story being canon and Joker being alive is irrelevant. No, it is absolutely relevant. You're free to have your own readings of a story. That is a good part of fiction. When you say "it was INTENDED to be (x) and anyone who disagrees is wrong" then you're speaking for the author and at that point the author's word becomes relevant. (That said these guys poo poo all over the story anyway so... welp.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
For what it's worth, which I'm aware is nothing, I also always took the abrupt laughter ending as Joker dying. I don't think that's "right" or that it's the only way to take it. And even after reading all the other stuff that just says "nah he was ok and nothing changed" That's the what I get from those panels. I mean it's comics, stories don't have to mean the same thing to everyone that reads them imo. That said gently caress Timm for this stupid romance and literally nobody else I explain this too sees an issue with it and it's horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No, it is absolutely relevant. You're free to have your own readings of a story. That is a good part of fiction. When you say "it was INTENDED to be (x) and anyone who disagrees is wrong" then you're speaking for the author and at that point the author's word becomes relevant. You got hung up on the least important part of my sentence and you put words in my mouth. TokenTrevor posted:That said gently caress Timm for this stupid romance and literally nobody else I explain this too sees an issue with it and it's horrifying. I think Barbara being Batgirl probably leads people to already assume they're romantically linked in some way. Like Goyer's random assumption that She-Hulk is Hulk's sexual partner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
I've heard that part of the reason why they added Batgirl to the TV show back in '66 because they recast Catwoman with Eartha Kitt and they couldn't continue to use her for Batman's heterosexual credentials because it was the 60s and interracial flirtation was a no-no? Granted that does not justify Bruce/Barbara in its more recent form at all (or really back then, either). Yvonmukluk fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No, it is absolutely relevant. You're free to have your own readings of a story. That is a good part of fiction. When you say "it was INTENDED to be (x) and anyone who disagrees is wrong" then you're speaking for the author and at that point the author's word becomes relevant. You are the comic book nerd, from the simpsons
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
The whole point of Gordon yelling "BY THE BOOK, YOU HEAR?" "WE HAVE TO SHOW HIM!" "WE HAVE TO SHOW HIM OUR WAY WORKS!" is to call attention to the fact that Batman might not handle it by the book. Batman subdues Joker, says that they're running out of alternatives to inevitably killing one another and "MAYBE IT ALL HINGES ON TONIGHT". Batman presents The Joker with a final chance at redemption. Joker doesn't take it, and makes one last joke about one asylum inmate killing another by turning out the light. In the middle panel of the last page Batman is silhouetted to look like a grinning mad demon who grabs?(it's ambiguous) The Joker, after which the laughter stops and the light goes out in the final panel. It's stupid to say it's not ambiguous. Brian Bolland even calls attention to its ambiguity as a gag in the afterward of the deluxe edition and repeats a picture of the middle panel from the last page. The leaked script doesn't even deny this, but rather explicitly states that their last conversation is about both of them inevitably killing one another. Batman literally kills the Joker, and Joker metaphorically kills the Batman. Even if Batman doesn't literally kill the Joker in that scene, the point of the conversation is to say That Joker and Batman have crossed a threshold and there's no going back. One or both of them will die after this, it doesn't really matter if it's on that page or in some other imagined story. I think people react badly to this because it's cynical and that's fair, but it's just one guy's idea of the final Batman story. It's not canon. I never much liked The Killing Joke either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:What I find tragic about the Batgirl brouhaha that it ends up diluting the story. It's obscured the actual adaptation in discussion. Yeah, someone said it in the last thread, but by making Barbara and Bruce gently caress-buddies they change the story from being about Joker torturing Gordon by hurting his daughter to being about Joker torturing Gordon as well as Batman by hurting Barbara, since now she's Batman's lover. It essentially makes Gordon less important despite the fact that he's one of the central characters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:You got hung up on the least important part of my sentence and you put words in my mouth. Then I legitimately don't know the point you're trying to make, sorry. A Gnarlacious Bro posted:You are the comic book nerd, from the simpsons Yes, the comic book guy from the simpsons is well known for... I don't even know what you're trying to reference here actually? Equilibrium posted:I think people react badly to this because it's cynical and that's fair, but it's just one guy's idea of the final Batman story. It's not canon. I never much liked The Killing Joke either. I don't think there's any reason to react badly to that interpretation to be honest. It's not even an uncommon one. (Basically every other Batman Elseworlds is "Batman kills The Joker/vice-versa") I'm not even sure it's cynical in that even if you assume Batman kills The Joker, Gordon shows that he escapes the cycle. It's a Batman story about how Batman is fundamentally doomed to failure but at this point I think that's kind of accepted as being an inevitable ending for Batman. Even the most optimistic of the optimistic Batman stories never really assume a 'happy' ending for Batman. The happiest is probably The Dark Knight Rises where he retires and gives up. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yes, the comic book guy from the simpsons is well known for... I don't even know what you're trying to reference here actually? You being a shrill dweeb
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
A Gnarlacious Bro posted:You being a shrill dweeb Man, you went for the comic book guy for "'shrill dweeb" over all the better choices in The Simpson? Shameful. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Jokes on me
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I don't think there's any reason to react badly to that interpretation to be honest. It's not even an uncommon one. (Basically every other Batman Elseworlds is "Batman kills The Joker/vice-versa") I'm not even sure it's cynical in that even if you assume Batman kills The Joker, Gordon shows that he escapes the cycle. I think people react badly for a similar reason that people reacted badly to the end of Man of Steel-- people like to imagine that Batman will always finds another way. And he does of course, because he's a comic book character. It's cynical in so far as it presents the final solution to the cycle of order vs chaos they represent as a violent suicide pact. Even if Bruce is now 'free' psychologically, the price he pays is to betray what he represents and becomes a 90s Image character (the ultimate death, in comics). Dark Knight Rises is the most optimistic for Bruce because it acknowledges that you can't actually break the cycle, there will always be a Joker and a Bane and other madmen, and Dick Grayson takes up his mantle. Bruce retires, but Batman doesn't die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Then I legitimately don't know the point you're trying to make, sorry. Equilibrium articulated it better, I guess. My only point was that The Killing Joke has an ambiguous ending and acting like it doesn't and going further by saying people who feel that way are wrong and dumb is pretentious. The ambiguity of the ending is cleared up by supplemental material and later writing, but the book itself is open to interpretation. That's all. Equilibrium posted:and Dick Grayson takes up his mantle. Bruce retires, but Batman doesn't die. You mean Robin John Blake. Explicitly not Dick Grayson
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Wasn't there a comic where a bitter, wheelchair-bound Barbara called out Batman for sharing a laugh with the Joker after he crippled her? I seem to remember a panel where she mentions this and Batman is ashamed or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
The Killing Joke had a weird message. Gordon insists that Batman take the Joker alive "to prove that the system works". Except it doesn't work. The Joker escaped from Arkham Asylum, and nobody saw through his double's pathetic disguise, so the guards are incompetent. Batman himself isn't part of the system, he is a vigilante who didn't wait for police back-up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
It's not "the system" that Gordon is defending. It's "Our way". The way of trying to do the right thing and not crossing lines. The way of holding oneself to a higher standard, of not doing what your enemy does just to "win".
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
BioTech posted:Wasn't there a comic where a bitter, wheelchair-bound Barbara called out Batman for sharing a laugh with the Joker after he crippled her? I seem to remember a panel where she mentions this and Batman is ashamed or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:It's not "the system" that Gordon is defending. It's "Our way". The way of trying to do the right thing and not crossing lines. The way of holding oneself to a higher standard, of not doing what your enemy does just to "win".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:I wonder why it was so important for him to prove that to the Joker. I think it's more he's trying to prove it to himself. His world view has been distorted, his life at that point is full of suffering, and his best companion's trust and intentions has been called into question. The only way he can cling to his sanity is to believe that his life hasn't been lived in vain, and that their way works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
I interpreted it as a subtle dig at past Batman conventions. This was a couple of years after Moore wrote, Watchmen, remember. Perhaps Moore was mocking the ridiculousness of a city official having an open relationship with a vigilante and pretending it was all legal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 13:21
|
|