Tweet
What I always thought happened , Morrison says it in a interview, Batman actually killed the joker.....
-
-
I always thought that was what Moore was doing, leaving it vague. Its not an Elseworlds, because the crippling of Batgirl was in continuity(well, until a miracle healing or whatever happened), so I figured that was why the end was left up to reader interpretation.You must try to generate happiness within yourself. If you aren't happy in one place, chances are you won't be happy anyplace. -Ernie Banks -
I'm with Smith on this one...I never got that part, I just assumed the cops took the Joker away. And since it's considered canon to the series now, I wonder if DC "moved Batman's arm down further on the silhouette. It doesn't appear near his neck. Makes more sense in what has happened to the Gordons in the story, but it's pretty vague to me (and obviously comic readers like Kevin Smith & crew).
I've read Morrison's work on Batman, and I guess the being vague part is what he's really taken from the whole thing.Comment
-
Originally "The Killing Joke" wasn't in-continuity. Although that was quickly retconned...Think OUTSIDE the Box! For the BEST in Repro & Custom Packaging!Comment
-
There was a story several years later, well after Barbara was established as Oracle, where she said she heard Batman had a laugh with the Joker after he caught him, and was disturbed by this (rightfully so).
If Bolland thinks this, then there has to be something there. I do wonder, if they moved Batman's arms up, like johnnystorm said above.
The ending with them laughing did always bother me. It kind of fit in to Batman TRYING to reach out to the Joker, like at the beginning of the story. But I can't imagine even the Bronze Age, pre-Miller Batman (which this Batman acts like more to me, throughout the story) having a laugh with the man who crippled one of his partners and tortured one of his oldest friends.
ChrisComment
-
Hmmmm....
I never got that he killed him either. Although if he DID, this'd be a way DC could weasel around it.
Even though the undergrounds catch a lot of flak for being gratuitous, you don't get questions like this....
Don C.Comment
-
I remember reading KJ for the first time. I believe I was 13 or 14 when it came out. I was puzzled whether it was in our out of continuity. When Barbara showed up crippled in the regular books, I had my answer. Back then DC would take anything Moore gave them, whether it wrecked the characters or not. Kind of like Brad Meltzer later.I just thought when the last panels were fading out, I assumed the red was Jokers blood and the abrupt silence was that Batman had killed him.....
I'm in the corner that Batman would actually kill a villain in an extreme moment......
It's funny you mention that. I recently saw a quote from Morrison, concerning fans being okay with heroes killing their enemies. He didn't understand it. BUT, I put it at the feet of writers like Moore who escalated the villains' acts to a point that the heroes NOT taking extreme action made them seem...impotent. I mean, the Joker crippled Babs, tortured Jim Gordon, killed Jason and Sarah Essen, along with hundreds of others since 1988, in the pre-New 52 universe.I'm in the corner that Batman would actually kill a villain in an extreme moment......
The heroes allowing these characters to constantly kill and destroy to the extreme, apprehend them, and then have them break out to do it again and again eventually wears down the heroes veneer. It's definitely a drawback to tight continuity, and the ever-increasing need for DC and Marvel to make EVERYTHING an event. It's the characters crumbling under the own weight of their stories.
ChrisComment
-
>It's the characters crumbling under the own weight of their stories.
Interesting way of putting it. Yeah; it's that exacerbated by the perpetual nature of the books. So, they have to keep upping the ante; not just for the story, but because of the fans getting older and wondering why Bats doesn't just finish the guy off.... but because the book is perpetual you don't get the important parts: the consequences. So if the hero does kill the bad guy they mope about it for a few issues, then it's bidness as usual. It takes away from the "event," it's not very satisfying for the reader, and it's the nature of perpetual books. Further complicating things are the inevitable reboots and rebrandings, when that sort of thing disappears. (Like reconciling original "straight-up-drop-you-off-a-ledge" Batman with post Code wacky 50's Batman: Space Cop.)
It worked fine, until the 80's when you got the "educated," long-term fans. Screwed things up 'cos you couldn't just rejigger your characters every few years after the last crop of fans moved on.
Don C.Comment
-
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/08/...and-dc-comics/
The above link goes to a bleeding cool article about another theory of how Joker's death played out in Killing Joke from a book that was published in December or January. It's more complex than Morrison's broken-neck scenario but perhaps more fitting too.
I think it's interesting that Morrison called the Killing Joke Moore's version of the last Batman story, as if the character would hang up the cape and cowl after stepping over that line or perhaps be jailed.
I do remember Denny O'Neil being emphatically quoted back in the day that Killing Joke was out of continuity, similar to Dark Knight Returns. Perhaps DC adjusted course when so few picked up on the implication of Joker's death.
I didn't get the implication of Joker's death or murder in first reading the Killing Joke either, but in looking at the silhouetted figure of Batman, it's a clear look of anger depicted when extends his arm and either chokes or stabs Joker.
I've always reconciled Batman's no-killing rule even when considering the Joker as Batman still being a wounded child inside. While he has matured in many ways and can rationalize other behavior that my be unlawful, he views killing a human in childlike black-and-white terms.
So perhaps if he did intentionally commit murder, he might give up the fight, being no longer worthy.Comment
-
Not buying the poison angle. Batman could be looking at his hand,trying to get his eyes to focus. Not looking at something in it.Comment
-
^I'm skeptical of the poison angle, too. His best point is the story's fixation on hands, which could be a clue, but the fact the weapon isn't shown in Batman's hand is problematic to me. Also, the argument that a body with rigomortis - even chemically induced - would remain standing is far fetched even for a comic book. The sense of equilibrium and muscular coordination keep people standing as much as their feet.
But in the panel where Batman makes contact with the Joker, his arm and hand seems to be positioned too low for a neck break. It's fun that this has popped up so many years later, but I don't know if it's actually between the panels.
I like the idea that Moore implied the Joker's death, but the way the story saw print, I'm not thoroughly convinced that was the intention. Maybe Moore or Bolland will eventually clear this up.Last edited by madmarva; Aug 18, '13, 6:42 AM.Comment
-
Yeah,from what I've read from the script in the one link and the Moore interview in the other,I'm not picking up any intent to kill the Joker. Besides,Frank Miller had just killed him in The Dark Knight Returns. I don't think Moore would want to do it and have people go "Oh boy. Not this again." I could be wrong on that.Comment
Comment