I’m not so sure. I mean, it’s Golden Age Bruce. He was a bit of a…
3 Likes
I think that something a lot of writers, directors and even fans get wrong is that Batman doesn’t abstain from killing purely because it’s the moral thing to do he does it because he is a symbol of what Gotham could be. If he kills bad guys, he’s not helping Gotham become better, he’s just killing bad guys. That’s why he believes in Gordon and why Gordon believes in him. @DanOodle mentioned the “corrupt Gotham Justice system.” That’s one of the biggest plot points of Year One, Gotham, and Batman Begins. They both want to clean up the system so that Gotham can start to make itself better even without Batman. If Batman kills then he isn’t believing in Gotham, he’s believing in his own ability and judgement. Batman wouldn’t stop an execution decided on by jury or a cop defending himself. But when there are better, legal ways of punishment then he steps in. Batman doesn’t have to kill to defend himself because he’s Batman. If a criminal isn’t executed then it is believed that there is a chance for a turn around, that that person can be better. Batman Turning Points is a great example of this. The Punisher (A great character that I grew up loving to read.) is flawed because while yes he is taking care of criminals, whenever he gets killed or just gets too old, he will have changed nothing. Crime will go back to as it was before he started. Batman is trying to fix the system so that won’t happen. I think @c-m-woodworks showed a problem with this way of thinking with the Grim Knight. He took over Gotham and made people live in fear. Not what Batman is a symbol for. While As for the army that’s first of all not Gotham but also that’s assuming all casualties in war are the same.
4 Likes
I like the idea that Batman’s villains live to fight another day. Arkham is a great part of bat culture that wouldn’t need to exist if Batman snuffed everyone. What bothers me is the idea that Batman repeatedly goes out of his way to preserve the Jokers life, let’s say. And he goes around killing a lot of people And destroying lives. It’s not just Batman. Look what the Joker did to Jim Gordon’s family. I’m not saying that anyone should write the Jokers death into continuity. I’m just saying that the idea that killing the Joker is wrong…is wrong. That’s the only way to stop him from doing what he does. It’s only fiction, but this sentiment has infected our real life criminal justice system. Does life imitate art?
1 Like
Really this makes Batman the Judge, Jury, and Executioner. That’s not how Batman operates. There is no way to morally justify the existence of Batman if he murders every baddie. His existence is built around saving people. Saving them from what he had to go through. He can’t kill, that is real vigilantism. He would be an enemy of the entire state and country if he killed. It’s just not possible for Batman. Jason’s basically his son. You think he wants to see his son killing as well?
3 Likes
The problem with the Joker is that the writers of the late 1980s almost seemed to be in competition to come up with the most horrible thing the Clown Prince could do. In Frank Miller’s Batman: Hunt the Dark Knight, the Joker murders an entire studio audience, and Batman paralyzes the Joker in response (only for the Joker to finish snapping his own neck to frame Batman). Joker crossed a line by killing that many people at once, and the only ending the story could have at that point was his death. To quote Golden Age Batman, “A fitting end for his kind.”
Of course, The Dark Knight Returns is not part of mainstream continuity, so its extreme take on the Joker (and the inevitable consequences of it) could fly. That’s where The Killing Joke and especially A Death in the Family come in. The Joker had no business surviving after that one-two punch, even if Batman had no right to be his executioner. But when these beyond-the-pale Joker stories suddenly exist in the main canon, the Joker is suddenly granted immunity from dying, and the entire justice system looks incompetent, not just Batman.
3 Likes
Ok, if killing the Joker is the only way to stop him does that mean just anyone can kill him? Because that’s creating another problem. Let’s not forget that Batman is not an officer of the law. Batman is a symbol for Gothamites that anyone can make Gotham better. If he shows them that the best way to do that is killing criminals then things won’t get better. The real problem is the fact that for some reason Gotham doesn’t seem to have the death penalty, just an Asylum with not so great security measures.
2 Likes
In the Joker’s case particularly, I wouldn’t mind if any member of the Bat Family knocked him off. At this point, the writers have made the Joker such a threat that I couldn’t fault the heroes for taking him out. It was one thing when he would kill around five people a year. When he starts killing 50 people every six months or so, that’s a totally different situation.
The worst “Batman spares Joker” moment was not in Under the Hood, although he could certainly be faulted for not letting Jason just pull the trigger and end it all. Rather, it’s The Last Laugh, where he resuscitated the Joker after Nightwing had essentially killed him. Really, Bruce? I’m starting to think that you share Joker’s affection for you.
2 Likes
I’m not saying a member of the bat family. I mean any regular citizen, like Batman. Because that’s what he wants to be seen as. To us, of course there’s no problem with him killing the Joker because we’ve been with Batman through his entire journey and sure no one in Gotham will say it was a bad move but legally, Batman is still at fault that’s why he doesn’t do it. And I’m sure Gordon and any one else in the government there would look past it but Batman doesn’t want that, he wants it done by the book. However, you’re very right. Saving the Joker is just ridiculous. It makes one wonder if Batman really does enjoy having Joker around.
3 Likes
The unfortunate side effect of keeping the Joker around AND trying to make his every appearance more atrocious than the last is that it threatens to turn the audience against Batman for having the no-kill rule. And I think that’s a horrible mistake. If we have trouble buying into the hero’s ethical code (despite some of us totally agreeing with that ethical code in real-life scenarios), then how can we root for the hero? We shouldn’t be left saying, “JUST KILL HIM ALREADY!”
4 Likes
You sir, are so right. Between that and directors deciding Batman should kill on screen cough Burton and Snyder cough it’s starting to divide the fandom over something that really shouldn’t be a debate. I’m a sucker for the dark gritty Joker stories myself but I think that’s why the more mass murdery of them are out of continuity like Dark Knight Returns. As comics get more realistic its hard to make a Joker like that make sense.
2 Likes
And Schumacher and Nolan. In fact, Batman even kills some goons (unintentionally) in the 1966 film. Batman just can’t help himself. Once he gets on the silver screen, he’s overcome by bloodlust.
3 Likes
I would give Nolan and the 66 Batman a pass because they play with the same rules as comics: Even though logically that would kill someone, it doesn’t mean it did. Burton and Snyder pretty blatantly say these guys were murdered. I don’t remember too much about the takedowns in the Schumacher movies because I tend to avoid them so I can’t vouch for them.
Talia looked pretty dead to me.
Haha, looked up the same video. I think that one is up for interpretation on what the Bat’s goal was. I don’t think his plan was to guide her into a gap the perfect size for the truck so she would crash but you might disagree.
You could make the “up for interpretation” argument for pretty much any kill Batman makes in a movie, though. If the Batmobile in BvS is half as hard to drive as the Batmobile in Arkham Knight, then I’m willing to give Bruce a pass on anyone who died in the car chase scene. 
1 Like
The Joker is such a threat by this point that he should be on the FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted list. He should be hunted by the Feds, not be left to the auspices of the GCPD and Batman. The whole thing beggars credulity.
3 Likes
Even with as deranged as he is, unless a life is in imminent danger, executing him the streets is wrong and Batman wouldn’t cross that line.
At this point, not executing him in the justice system is equally wrong. The comics try to get around that by calling him insane and can’t execute a crazy person…except he’s not insane, he knows exactly what he’s doing.
And what kind of system keeps sending dangerous, disturbed individuals back to a place they keep escaping from? That doesn’t make any sense, either.
Good thing it’s just comic books!
4 Likes
Killing the Joker is the only moral decision. We’re all “ordinary citizens “. Someone needs to take him down. @AlexanderKnox is right. With his heinous crimes going unanswered it make the good guys look weak and ineffective. And less admirable.
The Joker movie and the killing Joke are examples of trying to make an audience sympathize with the Joker. I think it’s too late for that. They should at least be trying to kill him.
Anyone think Batman would have shot joe chill if he had the chance?
3 Likes
Batman: Year Two and Batman: The Dark Knight #0 both deal with this exact scenario (in case you haven’t read them).
1 Like
I was referencing year two. Even in #0 he should have pulled the trigger. A murdering drunk hobo is still a murderer