General Batman discussion thread.

[FaxModem1]

Edit: Regarding the previous post's comment on the need for Batman to have compassion and intelligence, not be just a thug, I agree.

This is why I think the no killing rule is so important, even if it wasn't originally part of the character, is often dropped for films, and is somewhat implausible. Because that is the hard line that separates Batman from even a lot ofthe more sympathetic of his villains, and shows that, while his parents' murder may have driven him to become Batman, its about more than just anger or pay back- that he responds to senseless death by trying to prevent more senseless death. Its absolutely key to the character, in my opinion.

Deleted the last bit for being in the wrong thread. Apologies.

This is the key reason I think Frank Miller, while adding to the mythos of the character a bit, is absolutely horrible in writing him. The Dark Knight Returns, which I still think is one of his best works, makes it an integral part of his character that Bruce needs to fight people or take risks to feel alive, with not doing so being a horrible thing. I'm not a fan of Batman being such a psychopathic nut, even to a mild degree.

--------

On another topic, who is everybody's favorite Batman villain, and why?

[The Romulan Republic]

Joker. He's just such a perfect foil for Batman.

Harley is interesting, but very hard to do well, in my opinion. She's both villain and victim, but too often is played for fan service or comedy, which given that she's essential a domestic abuse victim with psychological problems, is frankly degrading.

That's pretty nearly it, for me. I don't find a lot of Batman rogues that compelling, at least in their basic concept (most or all of them could be executed well, with sufficient talent and effort).

[SlackerinDeNile]

In my opinion, the best Batman has intelligence and compassion. Without that, he's a rich guy beating up poor people because of his issues.

I also agree with this. I know that people love to deconstruct Batman or make him weird, dark, edgy or whatever, but ideally he is supposed to be a brave, compassionate human being, a symbol of hope who is taking back the night (and also taking back the day in Gotham as Bruce Wayne, savvy businessman and industrialist with a heart) for good and innocent people. Having him be an aggressive, thrill-seeking killer not only destroys any respect or credibility that a decent person would have for the character but it also emphasises the fact that he is an insane, traumatised furry who should be locked up and rehabilitated.

[Rocketboy1313]

I literally just wrote a blog titled "The Core Appeal of Batman".
And I talked about what aspects of the character are considered core to him and the mythos and how they can be somewhat ranked in the popular mindset.
http://rocketboy1313.blogspot.com/2017/ ... atman.html

Ultimately, I went with Kevin Conroy in "Batman the Animated Series" and to a lesser extent the "Arkham" video games.

[Rodan56]

The reason Batman should not kill is purely for the sake of who the majority of his rogue's gallery is. Most of those people are mentally ill or just normal people who had terrible things happen to them. Batman killing them out of the justification that "it's the only way to stop them for good" is stupid. Most of them aren't monsters, they are damaged. The criticism lobbied against Batman is that he either creates these villains or somehow only makes them worse. That dressing up as a bat and punching crazy people isn't going to stop crime or cure them. They need professional help. Batman tries to keep them from killing innocents and tries as Bruce Wayne to get them help through various donations, charity groups and city development projects aimed at creating jobs, improving mental wellness and in general just making Gotham less of a crap hole.

Unfortunately, a lot of people have an investment in Gotham being a crap hole so they undermine those projects and abilities. The point is though, Batman knows killing the mentally ill will not fix the problems Gotham has. And that killing them is essentially him being a hypocrite. He was a child who watched his parents die in front of him. Clearly that carries some emotional scars. Murdering them would be like killing himself. He knows they just need help, kinda like what he needed at that young age. He needs to see the good in them, otherwise what hope does he have?

But what about the Joker you ask? Why not kill him? He's clearly the worst of the lot and irredemable as hell. Why save him? Why not kill him? That's the wrong question. The real one is... why does Batman have to do it? If Gotham wanted Joker gone so badly, they could handle him themselves. Simple case of changing the laws to legalize the death penalty for this one person. Or a Cop can just kill him while he's tied up in the back seat of some paddywagon and claim he was trying to escape. Any sniper on a Swat Team could shoot him during a hostage crisis. Anyone, literally anyone, could kill him and claim self-defense and given the layers of corruption and perception of Cops as heroes and the hatred of the Joker, they could get away with it.

It seems like when people in comics and outside of the universe ask for Joker to be killed by Batman, they're mostly just shifting who they wish would bloody their hands. Batman is chosen to be the executioner because he stops him the most, but literally anyone else could do it for him. They simply seem to wish Batman would do it so THEY don't have compromise their own conscience. And that is so incredibly unfair to the character, to think it's Bruce's responsibility to decide Joker needs to die. As if he's the only one who can arbitrate justice. But Batman doesn't do that. He doesn't make the rules, he merely upholds them. He's not the final word, he's there to clean up a mess. It's not his job to fix everything, the people of Gotham have to do that themselves to a degree.

Also, you kill the Joker and you lose one of the most popular villains out there, it's never gonna happen ever in any kind of meta sense.

[Madner Kami]

Playing devil's advocate here (I am strictly against a death penalty on the basis that if killing people is wrong, then killing any people is wrong): Joker and Co are an extraordinary threat precisely due to the lack of proper treatment. Their very ability to repeatedly and seemingly endlessly escape captivity is the true and forever unsolved and probably forever unsolvable problem. Killing the Joker (and other villains, but he in particular) becomes ever increasingly more rational, with every successful escape-attempt and following murder-spree.

[The Romulan Republic]

In a realistic world, it would be entirely possible to keep someone like the Joker securely locked up, either in a prison or a mental health facility.

In the comic book world, of course he's going to break out, but the same also applies to him coming back if killed.

The seeming impossibility of containing the Joker is a product of the franchise system, not some trait that makes him impossible to incarcerate. If you're going to use that for an argument for killing him, then I can just as easily argue that killing him is pointless, because he'll always come back to life.

At least in prison you generally know when he breaks out, as opposed to him resurrecting after "death".

But all that dodges the point raised above: why is it Batman's job to kill him? Shouldn't that, you know, be the court's job? Or, hell, any of the superheroes/villains who actually are on the government's payroll as spies/assassins/commandoes, and actually have "kill terrorists" as a part of their job description?

Why put it all on one vigilante, who has excellent reasons personal, ethical, and pragmatic not to become an executioner?

[Madner Kami]

The seeming impossibility of containing the Joker is a product of the franchise system, not some trait that makes him impossible to incarcerate. If you're going to use that for an argument for killing him, then I can just as easily argue that killing him is pointless, because he'll always come back to life.

So, whether he kills or imprisons him, he essentially kinda only gives Joker a timeout? Doesn't that kinda make the No Kill Rule completely pointless?

[The Romulan Republic]

The seeming impossibility of containing the Joker is a product of the franchise system, not some trait that makes him impossible to incarcerate. If you're going to use that for an argument for killing him, then I can just as easily argue that killing him is pointless, because he'll always come back to life.

So, whether he kills or imprisons him, he essentially kinda only gives Joker a timeout? Doesn't that kinda make the No Kill Rule completely pointless?

No. When ordinary people die, they tend to stay dead (barring some reboot of reality, anyway). Its only major/popular characters who get a "get out of mortality free" card.

Besides, has Batman ever shown an ability to see the fourth wall?

But, seriously, it comes down to the fact that a) he has strong personal reasons not to kill, b) its not his job to do it, and c) he has allies that would turn on him if he did. That's more than reason enough for me.

[Madner Kami]

The seeming impossibility of containing the Joker is a product of the franchise system, not some trait that makes him impossible to incarcerate. If you're going to use that for an argument for killing him, then I can just as easily argue that killing him is pointless, because he'll always come back to life.

So, whether he kills or imprisons him, he essentially kinda only gives Joker a timeout? Doesn't that kinda make the No Kill Rule completely pointless?

No. When ordinary people die, they tend to stay dead (barring some reboot of reality, anyway). Its only major/popular characters who get a "get out of mortality free" card.

Besides, has Batman ever shown an ability to see the fourth wall?

But, seriously, it comes down to the fact that a) he has strong personal reasons not to kill, its not his job to do it, and he has allies that would turn on him if he did. That's more than reason enough for me.

P.S.: I didn't say anywhere, that Batman's "job" is to kill the Joker or any villain. My point was, that it becomes increasingly more sensible to just kill the fucker and be done with it, precisely because imprisonment or treatment doesn't fix the problem. Of course your point of that being pointless in the first place due to comic-book logic applies, but by the same measure, incarcerating the Joker is equally without point, because he inevitably escapes. Whether Batman does anything or does nothing, is completely irrelevant to the situation in Gotham. That is some Grade A mindfuck.