TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Why doesn't Batman kill Joker? Because this.

Go To

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#301: Jun 30th 2013 at 10:17:31 AM

I agree the Joker has become too one-dimensional. The best Batman villains tend to work on some element of tragedy, and it'd be nice to see another story that shows how, yes, underneath it all, there are some traces of a man who was so completely wrecked by life to become a monster. That'd be far scarier than a simple walking machine of murder.

But of course, fandom would start whining about how they have RUIIIIIIIIINED him because it's sooooooooooo important he remains a shallow shell because FOOOOORCE OF NATUUUUUURE, MAAAAAAAN. And now you WEEEEEEEENT and made him a pussy because you MADE HIM TRAAAAAAAAAGIC. Never mind the fact having a pitiable more or less solid background hasn't made anyone else in the Rogues Gallery laughable (those who have become jokes have fallen to other issues instead).

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#302: Jun 30th 2013 at 10:19:24 AM

As I said before, we really don't care about the Joker's victims. Especially when they're not people we know like Batgirl or Jason Todd. I mentioned before that people really don't watch those sorts of stories to empathize with victims.

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#303: Jun 30th 2013 at 10:45:43 AM

So, we're not supposed to care about the lives of innocents... in a comic about a guy devoted to protecting them. Sounds legit.

[up][up]Alternatively, the Joker would serve better as a nihilistic counterpoint to Batman, if he limits himself to pushing people around, to see if they'd snap, rather than killing them himself. A manipulator, rather than a murderer. This both lowers his physical threat so as not to warrant the death penalty, and yet makes him much more dangerous on a philosophical level.

Furthermore, Gotham itself need only start as a Vice City, to contrast improvements under Batman's influence. It keeping its crapsack status just makes the guy look useless and redundant.

Conversely, I don't think it's the fans that would riot at such developments. It's the writers. I'd love to see their faces if they're told they have to adhere to some common standards, if they want to use these characters.

edited 30th Jun '13 10:47:13 AM by indiana404

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#304: Jun 30th 2013 at 10:48:02 AM

As I mentioned before, protecting innocents and preventing the suffering of others is more of a center point for the story, to give us a conflict we can understand. Once again, did you really care about any of the people who died in a story about the Zombie Apocalpse? Or in a Godzilla movie? The destruction and death is simply to provide a crisis to project ourselves into the Power Fantasy. Nothing else.

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#305: Jun 30th 2013 at 2:26:24 PM

Say, how much do we usually worry about all the people left behind in the wake of Hulk's tantrums? Even buying the 'he's never killed anyone while wrecking complete cities' BS, we should care about everyone who loses their belongings and homes because of Our Hero... nah.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#306: Jun 30th 2013 at 3:06:23 PM

[up][up] Readers may not care about the Joker's victims, but Batman cares about the Joker's victims, and the readers care about Batman, so the readers care about the victims by proxy.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#307: Jun 30th 2013 at 4:10:39 PM

Exactly. Like I said, though—you can compare that to Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum smoking cigars after nuking a mothership. Yeah, billions of people are dead, but—fuck yeah, those alien bastards got taken down a peg!

Similarly, we care about the victims when Batman cares, but we get a sense of victory and closure when he punches that clown in the face.

Noaqiyeum we must dissent (it/they) from across the gulf of space (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
we must dissent (it/they)
#308: Jun 30th 2013 at 4:23:59 PM

There is, I feel, a common trait shared by all these interpretations - motivation. In today's times of Anti Villains and complex moralities, the Joker still hasn't grown beyond his For the Evulz antics, making Batman's reluctance to end him seem naive and impotent. Consequently, as the clown's otherwise progressed to more and more devastating violent crimes despite his cartoonish motivation, the lack of corresponding reaction from not just Batman, but the Justice League or US government in general seems pretty apathetic, and just... inhuman. Unrelatable, as DC's often accused of in general. It's not just him and the Bat that have to be cardboard props in order to support such a broken dynamic, but the world around them as a whole.
Alternatively, the Joker would serve better as a nihilistic counterpoint to Batman, if he limits himself to pushing people around, to see if they'd snap, rather than killing them himself. A manipulator, rather than a murderer. This both lowers his physical threat so as not to warrant the death penalty, and yet makes him much more dangerous on a philosophical level.

These. The most celebrated Jokers do have motivations beyond For the Evulz or All About Me, and methods beyond Kill Em All. It's basically a case of flanderisation taken to the point of breaking Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NO
vicarious vicarious from NC, USA Since: Feb, 2013
vicarious
#309: Jun 30th 2013 at 5:35:21 PM

Then the story needs to end. No shame in providing a conclusion to a character. This conversation is really fascinating to me since the genre has those Necessary Weasels that have been exposed and pushed too much past its limits.

Maybe at the very least, the writing of Batman shouldn't play him up as the standard against crime, no more than Frank Castle should be touted as the solution.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#310: Jun 30th 2013 at 5:45:13 PM

Double post

edited 30th Jun '13 6:11:28 PM by KingZeal

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#311: Jun 30th 2013 at 5:46:00 PM

With that, I can agree. The thing that most upsets me about Cosmic Retcons like the New 52 is that I never got closure for the stories told with the old characters. It would be one thing if DC actually ended the old stories, or stated that the new verse was just another in the larger multiverse.

But instead, the reset is the story continuation. So basically, Lois and Clark's marriage was erased, Superboy no longer exists (the new version is NOT the same person), and Obsidian/Jade were erased because Alan Scott is gay.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#312: Jun 30th 2013 at 6:28:05 PM

Exactly. Like I said, though—you can compare that to Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum smoking cigars after nuking a mothership. Yeah, billions of people are dead, but—fuck yeah, those alien bastards got taken down a peg!

Similarly, we care about the victims when Batman cares, but we get a sense of victory and closure when he punches that clown in the face.

But whenever writers do a "Batman catches the Joker but makes a point of not killing him" story, Batman doesn't feel victory and closure, because he knows the Joker will escape and kill again. Those stories are about Batman feeling powerless, about him sticking to his code against killing, even when he knows the horrible consequences that mercy will bring.

Yes, most supervillains eventually escape from prison to do more damage, but that's not normally acknowledged in-story; we're supposed to accept the hero's triumph over the villain as a conclusive victory, and ignore the inevitablity of their return like we do other pieces of Fridge Logic. But with the Joker, that Fridge Logic is explicitely pointed out by characters in the story: they talk about how Batman and Joker have tangled umpteen times before, and will continue to tangle umpteen times in the future, because Batman will never kill the Joker, and the Joker will never go away. If they just had Batman capture the Joker non-lethally, but didn't make such a big to-do about it, I doubt it would bother people so much.

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#313: Jun 30th 2013 at 6:59:29 PM

Then the story needs to end. No shame in providing a conclusion to a character.

Yeah, well, good luck convincing DC.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#314: Jul 1st 2013 at 9:52:45 AM

But whenever writers do a "Batman catches the Joker but makes a point of not killing him" story, Batman doesn't feel victory and closure, because he knows the Joker will escape and kill again. Those stories are about Batman feeling powerless, about him sticking to his code against killing, even when he knows the horrible consequences that mercy will bring.

Just because the never-ending battle is depicted as, in fact, never-ending doesn't mean that no closure is provided. As I mentioned before, comics have gone from portraying their superheroes as beings that make their world better into keystones that prevent it from becoming worse. The darker Batman stories, thus, hold a position that although Gotham is still a shithole and one lucky psycho can still nuke the place off the map any day, that day isn't today—thanks to Batman. Hooray for our brave defender!

The storytelling process gives lip service to the fact that the overall story isn't over, but it tends to end once the main conflict ends. As long as the heroes are still fighting the good fight, we treat each battle as a victory in spite of the still-ongoing war.

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#315: Jul 3rd 2013 at 12:25:43 PM

Then the story needs to end. No shame in providing a conclusion to a character.
Yeah, well, good luck convincing DC.
Alternatively, provide a conclusion to a characterization. The more popular versions of the Joker revolve around a specific moral or existential question to ask, and usually this question is answered at the end of the ark. Is a mere bad day enough to turn anyone into a maniac? No, it ain't. End of story. Is the Joker actually satisfied with anything other than tormenting the Bat? No, he ain't. End of story. And so on, and so forth.

As it stands now, I think the slasher interpretation has worn out its welcome, inconclusively or not. It's clear that whatever lows the clown sinks to, Batman will not follow suit. End of story. Thus, as DC explicitly runs on Hypertime, the next encounter with the Joker wouldn't do wrong to play down the whole "killed a zillion people" thing in favor of another moral question, preferably one where the answer isn't a Foregone Conclusion like "should Batman remain Batman" or somesuch.

edited 3rd Jul '13 12:26:31 PM by indiana404

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#316: Jul 3rd 2013 at 1:06:26 PM

[up]Now, on this, you and I completely agree.[tup]

Noaqiyeum we must dissent (it/they) from across the gulf of space (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#318: Aug 16th 2013 at 7:08:33 AM

So, I was thinking about a character from Order Of The Stick today, Tarquin, and it got me thinking about characters like Carnage and the Joker. Why does it matter so much whether or not Batman kills the Joker? Why is there not a bunch of discussions on why Batman doesn't kill Poison Ivy, or Bane, or the Penguin? Why just the Joker?

During discussions in the Order Of The Stick thread on Tarquin, the point was made that the audience craves catharsis. It's not enough to see the hero prevail; the audience wants to see the villain lose. They want to see him beaten down, his will and spirit broken, crawling on the ground lamenting his sins to an uncaring world. The visionary sees his dreams brought to ruin, the warlord sees his empire rise up and overthrow him, etc. etc. The audience craves that catharsis; they need it in order to walk away feeling like the villain didn't win.

This becomes a problem with villains such as Carnage and the Joker, whose motivations are so simple that the very act of being the villain fulfills them. Carnage just wants to kill folk. No matter how hard you kick his ass at the end of the story, if a single person died over the course of the story, Carnage won. The Joker wants to kill folk, stir up trouble, and fight Batman. No matter how thoroughly Batman defeats him at the end, if folk are dead, trouble is stirred, and he got to fight Batman, the Joker won.

There is no catharsis with villains like this, because they've won from the moment the story begins. Without that catharsis, sending them to prison just feels like putting them back into their box until they can jump out and start mauling people again. They're villains who can't ever truly be defeated.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#319: Aug 16th 2013 at 7:54:35 AM

Indeed. Which is why I pressed the point on characterization, since a flat murderous Joker is not just undefeatable, but simply bland. Carnage is already a low screen-time D-lister, not because he's less dangerous than the likes of Doc Ock or Venom, but because he's boring. The Joker, however, is best portrayed as killing for a reason; trying to make a point - and it is that point that can be proven wrong, which is what defeats him. Alas, ever since The Killing Joke, most writers put that point as "you can't kill me, har har har" - the one idea he can't hold, if he's supposed to be able to lose.

edited 16th Aug '13 7:54:58 AM by indiana404

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#320: Aug 16th 2013 at 10:02:04 AM

. No matter how hard you kick his ass at the end of the story, if a single person died over the course of the story, Carnage won. The Joker wants to kill folk, stir up trouble, and fight Batman. No matter how thoroughly Batman defeats him at the end, if folk are dead, trouble is stirred, and he got to fight Batman, the Joker won.

Frankly, I find this to be a problem inherent in the audience—not the characters. Yeah, people love catharsis, to the point that they crave it even when it makes no sense or when it's logically unsound. I see similar problems with other issues.

It's endemic of the false assumption that "justice" = "catharsis", which is apparent even in the Real Life prison systems. It kind of devalues prevention and deterrence.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#321: Aug 16th 2013 at 10:36:17 AM

It is inherent to the audience, but that's just it: audiences don't like to walk away knowing the villain won, especially when the villain continues to win every time he's involved in a story. It doesn't sit well with the audience that the Joker has a pretty sweet life. He commits any atrocity he wants and never suffers any punishment for it, with no incentive to change or redeem himself, and no reason to ever stop. The Joker is easily the happiest person in the entire Bat franchise, and that's upsetting for some people.

If they can't have catharsis, and they can't take away the Joker's constant victories, and the Joker himself won't ever change, then they just want to cut their losses, kill him, and be done with him, because nothing good ever comes of him, and never will. Otherwise, the Joker's just going to keep right on winning all the time and devaluing Batman's entire conflict in the process, because the only character who actually has joy in his life is the most sadistic, psychopathic monster in the franchise.

edited 16th Aug '13 10:38:49 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#322: Aug 16th 2013 at 10:41:02 AM

Well, the Batman universe is supposed to be a tragical one...

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#323: Aug 16th 2013 at 11:09:09 AM

audiences don't like to walk away knowing the villain won

But that, itself, is false. That's why I said it was cynical—because if your reaction is "this bad guy wanted to do this bad thing, and thus wins because he did this bad thing", then victory in itself is impossible for you because it's all or nothing.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#324: Aug 16th 2013 at 11:15:13 AM

Typically, preventing the villain from doing whatever bad thing he is trying to accomplish is the purpose of the plot. Fin Fang Foom wants to put the world in his pants, and the heroes' task is to stop him from putting the world in his pants. If the story ends with the world in Fin Fang Foom's pants, then the heroes have failed and evil has triumphed.

What makes this tricky with characters like the Joker is that they aren't quite as aspirational. The Joker is a simple creature. He wants to cause problems and fight Batman. This makes it difficult to create a conflict around, "Stop the Joker from accomplishing X," because the very act of fighting him fulfills his goals. Every time the Joker does anything, it's a Win/Win situation, where if he succeeds, then he wins, and if he fails, then he also wins.

Eventually, the audience grows tired of, "And then the Joker won again for the 87th time. The Joker always wins. Even when he loses, he wins." And if Batman killed him, hey, Joker STILL wins, because Batman compromised himself to do it. It can be very frustrating.

edited 16th Aug '13 11:16:37 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Noaqiyeum we must dissent (it/they) from across the gulf of space (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
we must dissent (it/they)
#325: Aug 16th 2013 at 11:57:05 AM

That is an interesting connection to make, and I think you're right that the lack of catharsis is probably an element of the Joker's ongoing loss of appeal. A good story can still be built around the idea that sometimes catharsis isn't to be had, but it would take a good writer, and it would probably play back into the Status Quo Is God issue that DC seems to have a problem with. (Though I guess you could have the Joker be foiled by someone besides Batman or one of his victims, someone who doesn't have a personal investment in stopping him or avenging against him. ...and now I'm imagining Joker being arrested by an utterly-detached and uninfuriable Emotionless Girl, and it's hilarious.)

I think the solution to that problem is the same as has already been discussed, though - write the Joker's character differently, with motives beyond mere shock and mayhem.

ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NO

Total posts: 394
Top