|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 27, 2019 16:55:24 GMT -5
But if lived in the DC Universe, I would have a hard time defending my beliefs. Not because The Joker or Zsasz deserve to be killed (none deserve it) but because the authorities can't keep them behind bars. Every second which those people are alive some innocent is risking his/her life. Which is the very reason Batman having an absolutist policy on killing makes no sense, and I'm not talking about hunting villains to prevent a crime, but what he will not do while in conflict with a criminal who had brought death to others. That is a fundamental problem in some Batman lore, as it handcuffs him, while providing him with situations that conveniently allow him to exercise his unrealistic policy, or he had the most unrealistic responses to deadly situations.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Mar 27, 2019 17:10:37 GMT -5
Of course a lot of this has to do with one's preferred version of Batman. Mine would only kill it on the dance floor.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 27, 2019 17:35:40 GMT -5
By the way, there is a version of Batman who is very happy to kill his enemies. Very. Grim Knight
|
|
|
Post by String on Mar 27, 2019 17:59:49 GMT -5
While writing Robin some years back, Bill Willingham put forth an interesting note that may pertain to this matter.
My memory may be suspect but I seem to recall when asked why he and Batman don't use guns, Tim Drake responded that, while actually being excellent marksmen, the reason is due to the legal ramifications of such an act. If they shot, injured, or even killed a criminal or suspect then they would have to answer for that action in legal court forcing them to possible reveal their identities and so forth. The legal hassles is one potential reason holding them back from doing so.
Now, I'm not sure if this qualifies as what some here alluded to earlier as 'sloppy writing' but I think it raises a valid point. Say Batman does finally kill Joker to prevent a larger catastrophe what then? Gordon forced to try and bring Batman in for murder? Batman surrender to face proper judgement for his crime? If he kills then he takes the law into his own hands which is what a vigilante does, right? If he doesn't kill, if Batman abides by the inherent tenets of the law then he's not really a vigilante in the purest sense, hm?
I can see possible reasons for his committing such an act but the further question is, would he take legal and moral responsibility for that act even if it ends his costumed career?
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Mar 27, 2019 20:29:53 GMT -5
Batman's code against killing started as "Batman doesn't need to kill; he will always find a way to stop the threat without resorting to murder". Eventually however this has morphed into "Batman will never kill; even if doing so means saving lives" which is ridiculous.
I like the solution Vincent Sullivan came up with in 1940/41 - Batman will never kill, but neither will his recurring foes. Sure he still faced killers, but those guys usually died at story's end or were sent to the chair - problem solved. The Joker for instance, didn't kill a single person between 1941 or so and 1973. Whether this was more a result of DC deciding to lighten their stories for their young audience or a realisation that having The Joker killing people every month or so makes Batman look incompetent, I don't know, but it worked. Batman gave as good as he got.
However...
Several years ago, DC had Batman deliver his usual "If I kill you, then I'm no better than you" speech over in his regular titles the same month an issue of Action Comics had Lex Luthor (I believe it was Luthor) relate a story about how The Joker murdered a baby and force fed his eyeballs to the infant's father. I guess that's what passes for entertainment over at DC these days (I came across this online - I wouldn't touch a DC comic these days for any reason) and it pretty much sums up the problem with Batman - well, his writers anyway.
If you want Batman to look noble by having him declare that he'll never resort to murder, that is perfectly fine and even laudable, but don't draw attention to how ineffective that code is by having The Joker or Two-Face or whoever blow up orphanages and hospitals or whatever every couple of months. There's a big difference between "Batman won't kill because Batman is smart and resourceful enough to come up with a Plan B" and "Batman would rather The Joker force feed an infant's eyeballs to his father every month than resort to murder".
I think there's an attitude out there that you'd have to be a sick, twisted individual to want to see Batman kill but crap like I mentioned above kind of forces you to wonder if Batman's code is all that wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Mar 27, 2019 21:04:50 GMT -5
Batman's code against killing started as "Batman doesn't need to kill; he will always find a way to stop the threat without resorting to murder". Eventually however this has morphed into "Batman will never kill; even if doing so means saving lives" which is ridiculous. I like the solution Vincent Sullivan came up with in 1940/41 - Batman will never kill, but neither will his recurring foes. Sure he still faced killers, but those guys usually died at story's end or were sent to the chair - problem solved. The Joker for instance, didn't kill a single person between 1941 or so and 1973. Whether this was more a result of DC deciding to lighten their stories for their young audience or a realisation that having The Joker killing people every month or so makes Batman look incompetent, I don't know, but it worked. Batman gave as good as he got. However... Several years ago, DC had Batman deliver his usual "If I kill you, then I'm no better than you" speech over in his regular titles the same month an issue of Action Comics had Lex Luthor (I believe it was Luthor) relate a story about how The Joker murdered a baby and force fed his eyeballs to the infant's father. I guess that's what passes for entertainment over at DC these days (I came across this online - I wouldn't touch a DC comic these days for any reason) and it pretty much sums up the problem with Batman - well, his writers anyway. If you want Batman to look noble by having him declare that he'll never resort to murder, that is perfectly fine and even laudable, but don't draw attention to how ineffective that code is by having The Joker or Two-Face or whoever blow up orphanages and hospitals or whatever every couple of months. There's a big difference between "Batman won't kill because Batman is smart and resourceful enough to come up with a Plan B" and "Batman would rather The Joker force feed an infant's eyeballs to his father every month than resort to murder". I think there's an attitude out there that you'd have to be a sick, twisted individual to want to see Batman kill but crap like I mentioned above kind of forces you to wonder if Batman's code is all that wonderful. You'd be a sick and twisted individual to create scenarios in which The Joker force feeds an infant's eyeballs to his father every month so it goes without saying what we're talking about are the overall rules of the narrative universe one creates. Mine has no room for extreme human depravity. That's why I'm a Silver Age guy all the way. But to each his own!
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,902
Member is Online
|
Post by Crimebuster on Mar 27, 2019 21:19:00 GMT -5
Snyder sucks, and his explanation is complete asshattery. I will never understand why they chose someone who doesn't believe in heroes to be in charge of a superhero universe.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Mar 28, 2019 0:11:53 GMT -5
Batman's code against killing started as "Batman doesn't need to kill; he will always find a way to stop the threat without resorting to murder". Eventually however this has morphed into "Batman will never kill; even if doing so means saving lives" which is ridiculous. I like the solution Vincent Sullivan came up with in 1940/41 - Batman will never kill, but neither will his recurring foes. Sure he still faced killers, but those guys usually died at story's end or were sent to the chair - problem solved. The Joker for instance, didn't kill a single person between 1941 or so and 1973. Whether this was more a result of DC deciding to lighten their stories for their young audience or a realisation that having The Joker killing people every month or so makes Batman look incompetent, I don't know, but it worked. Batman gave as good as he got. However... Several years ago, DC had Batman deliver his usual "If I kill you, then I'm no better than you" speech over in his regular titles the same month an issue of Action Comics had Lex Luthor (I believe it was Luthor) relate a story about how The Joker murdered a baby and force fed his eyeballs to the infant's father. I guess that's what passes for entertainment over at DC these days (I came across this online - I wouldn't touch a DC comic these days for any reason) and it pretty much sums up the problem with Batman - well, his writers anyway. If you want Batman to look noble by having him declare that he'll never resort to murder, that is perfectly fine and even laudable, but don't draw attention to how ineffective that code is by having The Joker or Two-Face or whoever blow up orphanages and hospitals or whatever every couple of months. There's a big difference between "Batman won't kill because Batman is smart and resourceful enough to come up with a Plan B" and "Batman would rather The Joker force feed an infant's eyeballs to his father every month than resort to murder". I think there's an attitude out there that you'd have to be a sick, twisted individual to want to see Batman kill but crap like I mentioned above kind of forces you to wonder if Batman's code is all that wonderful. You'd be a sick and twisted individual to create scenarios in which The Joker force feeds an infant's eyeballs to his father Or a scenario where the Joker tears off his own face and wears it as a mask. Modern DC is reprehensible garbage.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 28, 2019 0:55:05 GMT -5
By the way, there is a version of Batman who is very happy to kill his enemies. Very. Grim KnightBless their little hearts, they're trying SO HARD! This is adorable. I want to pinch their little cheeks. Hooza grim and gritty l'il guy. Is it you? Are you a grim and gritty little guy? Are you witing comic bookes for adultsy-wultsies? God that's precious.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 28, 2019 5:42:35 GMT -5
Bless their little hearts, they're trying SO HARD! This is adorable. I want to pinch their little cheeks. Hooza grim and gritty l'il guy. Is it you? Are you a grim and gritty little guy? Are you witing comic bookes for adultsy-wultsies? God that's precious. Ok, I read this issue and I have to defend them. Here the grimness and the grit is deliberately over the top. This version of Batman is almost a caricature, I suppose this is a deliberate jab against all people who ask why Batman doesn't kill his enemies. Don't judge a comic from its cover.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 28, 2019 5:55:17 GMT -5
Batman's code against killing started as "Batman doesn't need to kill; he will always find a way to stop the threat without resorting to murder". Eventually however this has morphed into "Batman will never kill; even if doing so means saving lives" which is ridiculous. Agreed. His code is simply incapable of working in a comic book world. For all of the threats he's faced solo, with Robin, in team ups, with the JLA, the Outsiders or any other partnership combination, are readers expected to believe they all just so happened to be of a perfect storm of structure/set-up that allowed Batman to maintain that code? That's the worst kind of plotting convenience. Again I point to Captain America, who I consider one of the few truly virtuous characters from any publisher, yet he always knew that certain threats had to be settled with lethal force. He's not glorifying it, not enjoying it, or anything else, but his actions acknowledge the reality of conflict and uncompromising danger. Whether the "Batman does not kill" advocates realize it or not, they've placed him the same kind of characterization box as his Super Friends namesake--a boy scout who will talk and gadget his way out of every situation.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 28, 2019 6:05:56 GMT -5
His code is simply incapable of working in a comic book world. This. I would be perfectly happy that in the real world the police tried to adhere to this code, because at least as far as I know, there have been no real cases of serial killers who have escaped from prison a dozen times, doing every time a carnage. Instead in the comic book Carnage and the Joker can do their thing every. Single. Time. And even if they try to kill them, they return. Every. Single. Time. If I was a citizen in the Marvel or DC universe, I would very, very, very afraid to live there. Or at least in New York City or Gotham. Why these two cities aren't ghost town in their respective universes?!?!
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Mar 28, 2019 6:28:17 GMT -5
His code is simply incapable of working in a comic book world. This. I would be perfectly happy that in the real world the police tried to adhere to this code, because at least as far as I know, there have been no real cases of serial killers who have escaped from prison a dozen times, doing every time a carnage. Instead in the comic book Carnage and the Joker can do their thing every. Single. Time. And even if they try to kill them, they return. Every. Single. Time. If I was a citizen in the Marvel or DC universe, I would very, very, very afraid to live there. Or at least in New York City or Gotham. Why these two cities aren't ghost town in their respective universes?!?! Again, these are fictions that operate according to storyworld rules as determined by creators. A writer can choose to depict a Joker who wreaks fatal carnage on Gotham or one who squirts Wayne Manor with giant tubes of paint. I prefer the giant tubes of paint guy. But there's been an apparent bloodlust in many superhero comic book readers for a long time, informed by a perspective that equates homicide with content that is "adult, mature, gritty, realistic," etc. (we know the drill). For me, the pleasure in the patently absurd figure of the superhero is that they are super in both physical and mental abilities as well as in moral terms. They are fictional ideals. And I idealize the choice not to kill. Per the logic of the iterative narrative, the Joker perpetually returns to test Batman's resolve not to kill. That's one of the primary, dream-logic values of the superhero genre: the recursive threat is always kept at bay but it must necessarily return, as one's moral choices must always be tested in order to reaffirm their value to the individual and the society at large. For all of the affirmations that Batman should kill, no one is advocating that Batman kill the Joker, just secondary evil-doers. That's a cheat because it circumvents the essential logic behind "Batman sometimes must kill" (okay then, if so, your first target must be the Joker). And it deprives Batman of any moral high ground. So what you end up with is simply an indulgence in gratuitous fatal violence by the ostensible hero.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Mar 28, 2019 7:07:10 GMT -5
His code is simply incapable of working in a comic book world. This. I would be perfectly happy that in the real world the police tried to adhere to this code, because at least as far as I know, there have been no real cases of serial killers who have escaped from prison a dozen times, doing every time a carnage. Instead in the comic book Carnage and the Joker can do their thing every. Single. Time. And even if they try to kill them, they return. Every. Single. Time. If I was a citizen in the Marvel or DC universe, I would very, very, very afraid to live there. Or at least in New York City or Gotham. Why these two cities aren't ghost town in their respective universes?!?! Kurt Busiek makes this very point in Astro City Vol 1 #4. Marta lives in Shadow Hill, which is basically Cthulhuville, full of mystic horrors lurking in the shadows. She knows all the right charms to stay safe in such a terrible place. But when she takes a job in the big city, she is almost immediately caught in an fight between supervillains and superheroes, and nearly raped. She resolves to stay in the 'safety' of Shadow Hill after that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 8:12:56 GMT -5
In Batman 1989 Movie ... if you watch this clip, Batman wants to kill the Joker and this made rather disappointed that no chance for a repeat role for Jack (The Joker) Nicholson to come back and haunt Batman being played either Keaton, Kilmer, and even George Clooney.
|
|