• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

"Did Batman Kill The Joker At The End Of ‘The Killing Joke’?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dalek

Member
Did Batman Kill The Joker At The End Of ‘The Killing Joke’?

YES-I realize this is an old article, but I've never heard this theory before, and my mind is blown. This is Grant Morrison's take on the classic story "The Killing Joke".

The-Killing-Joke.jpg


For Batman fans, The Killing Joke needs no introduction; more than twenty years after being published, Alan Moore’s graphic novel remains one of the all-time iconic clashes between The Joker and the Dark Knight, and perhaps the definitive tale of the Clown Prince of Crime’s tragic origin. With the oft-mimicked but unmatched style found in Moore’s intricate dialogue and Brian Bolland’s vibrant artwork, as well as the story’s in-depth exploration of the divisions that separate the arch-nemeses from one another, it’s easy to see why The Killing Joke maintains a high level esteem even today. In fact, the story has influenced the Batman vs. Joker stories in both Tim Burton’s Batman and Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight.

But what if readers have been misinterpreting its conclusion since 1988? What if The Killing Joke‘s climactic panels depict Bruce Wayne reaching out and taking the life of his oldest foe, rather than a shared moment of madness between both men? Could Moore’s one-shot comic really be the final Joker yarn, the one where he succeeds in breaking Batman and pushes the world’s greatest detective so far over the edge that he breaks his most sacred rule?

According to comic book writer and author of numerous Batman titles, Grant Morrison, that’s exactly what happens at the end of The Killing Joke. In a recent interview with Kevin Smith about his new Wonder Woman project, Morrison spoke about Moore’s work and offered his own take on what happens as Batman and The Joker laugh maniacally together in the rain, suggesting that the former actually murders the latter. Here are Morrison’s words from the ‘Fatman on Batman’ podcast:

That’s why it’s called ‘The Killing Joke.’ The Joker tells the ‘Killing Joke’ at the end, Batman reaches out and breaks his neck, and that’s why the laughter stops and the light goes out, ’cause that was the last chance at crossing that bridge. And Alan Moore wrote the ultimate Batman/Joker story — he finished it.

Here's the final page:

killing-joke-ending-570x891.jpg


It’s difficult to look at that polyptych keeping Morrison’s words in mind without seeing exactly what he’s talking about. In panel five, Batman reaches his arm out toward The Joker before the laughter cuts two panels later and the headlights shut off; the pictures almost speak for themselves. In the aftermath of what The Joker has put Batman – not to mention Jim and Barbara Gordon – through over the course of the narrative, one may wonder how The Killing Joke could end any other way. How can Batman possibly justify doing things “by the book,” as Gordon implores him to, this time?

On the other hand, the art alone appears to debunk that reading just based on where Batman places his hand, which comes to rest on The Joker’s shoulder rather than wrap around his throat as Morrison states. Moreover, the script doesn’t indicate anything as far as Batman strangling The Joker goes. (Though in fairness, there’s a lot that can happen off the page between writer and artist.)

Check out the script page below

The-Killing-Joke-Script-Page-550x1024.jpg


Some have pointed out that the best evidence against Morrison’s point is Barbara Gordon. During The Killing Joke‘s events, The Joker shoots her through the spine, paralyzing her below the waist – and setting the foundation for her transformation into the Oracle. The fact that the Oracle repeatedly shows up in subsequent Batman features and that The Joker continues to be a thorn in Batman’s side solidifies The Killing Joke‘s events as canon. Then again, Alan Moore himself has indicated that he never intended for the book to be in continuity – that was DC’s idea.
 

munchie64

Member
I feel like we had this thread and it was disproven by the script.

Edit: Not that the script really matters with audience interpretation. If want to view it that way you should, but if you want a definitive answer it's there.
 

Shaanyboi

Banned
I don't know what was the thought at DC at the time, but I always just assumed it was an "elseworlds" story where he totally kills the Joker, but they clearly liked the idea of putting Barbara Gordon in a wheelchair so they selectively chose to make that part canon as opposed to the vague interpretation of the ending.
 

Stet

Banned
Alan Moore and Grant Morrison aren't exactly on the best of terms either, so I'm not sure I want to hear their interpretations of each others' work.
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
I don't think Alan Moore would have given a shit if the story was "canon" to the rest of the DC universe, or if they continued on from the story, so I'm going to say he probably did intend Joker to die.

Also it's fucking called the Killing Joke.
 

Savitar

Member
I took it to mean they did.

What he did with Barbs and Jim went too far. When he refused Batmans offer to end it without someone dying pretty much sealed it.
 
Within the confines of the story itself, yes he did. That was certainly Moore's intention.

But in order to cater to the larger continuity no, he did not. Just depends on how you want to read The Killing Joke.
 

Maddocks

Member
No. Jim Gordon made it very clear to batman to not go over the edge and to bring him in by the book. The whole point was to show that one bad day can turn you insane, but Jim didn't go insane, he proved the joker wrong.
 
I don't know what was the thought at DC at the time, but I always just assumed it was an "elseworlds" story where he totally kills the Joker, but they liked the idea of putting Barbara Gordon in a wheelchair so they selectively chose to make that part canon as opposed to the vague interpretation of the ending.

From what I understand it was originally an else worlds story but because it sold well, had an ambiguous ending, and people liked the story DC squeezed it into canon.
 

A-V-B

Member
though now I look at it, just seems like Batman's holding onto Joker for support as they both laugh each other's asses off
 

ezekial45

Banned
Yes. However since this story was incorporated into canon after it ended up being extremely popular and DC kept Barbara in a wheelchair, I think they retconned it and kept Joker alive. But since this story was a one-shot and intended to be stand alone, I'm inclined to think he did.

I'm very curious to see how the animated movie will portray this ending.
 
How can people look at that and not obviously see that it is intentionally ambiguous?

It's not ambiguous at all. He didn't do it. It's only ambiguous because Grant Morrison put it out there for people to ooh and aaah at.

It's like saying Up is ambiguous because someone put together a badly compressed jpeg on facebook suggesting everything after the opening 10 minutes is a dream that Carl is having in the chair.
 
the light going out is the last semblance of bruce's sanity finally fading after killing the joker. he fades into the darkness that has been consuming him for a long time

It's right there.

anyone who refutes this basically needs to have every ounce of a story spelled out to them
 

Garlador

Member
Super old news, but, no, he didn't.
Batman Didn't Kill the Joker

Unless he leaned on him to death.

Honestly, Joker's done FAR worse than just cripple Barbara and mess with Gordon. If Batman was ever going to kill the Joker, it would have been during a different story...
2715467772_fc851a03fe.jpg
 
not at all

it speaks more to who the batman is if he doesn't. it's more of an inability to act even when given the ability. if he were just to kill the joker after joker cripples babs, then what's his excuse when joker killed dozens before? they were just not close to him, is that the excuse? that's incredibly selfish of him to think and that's not what the batman is.

no, he refuses to kill the joker because he can't. killing the joker would betray who he really is, undermine the whole point of his mission. he isn't a madman out there killing people, adding more violence to the violence filled streets. he's a man showing gotham hope, showing that there's a way to fix this, to clean everything and still do the right thing.
 
It's not ambiguous at all. He didn't do it. It's only ambiguous because Grant Morrison put it out there for people to ooh and aaah at.

It's like saying Up is ambiguous because someone put together a badly compressed jpeg on facebook suggesting everything after the opening 10 minutes is a dream that Carl is having in the chair.

Grant Morrison has nothing to do with it. Many people interpreted it as Batman killing Joker at the end (It's even in the fucking title) especially since it was originally an else worlds story.
 

A-V-B

Member
not at all

it speaks more to who the batman is if he doesn't. it's more of an inability to act even when given the ability. if he were just to kill the joker after joker cripples babs, then what's his excuse when joker killed dozens before? they were just not close to him, is that the excuse? that's incredibly selfish of him to think and that's not what the batman is.

no, he refuses to kill the joker because he can't. killing the joker would betray who he really is, undermine the whole point of his mission. he isn't a madman out there killing people, adding more violence to the violence filled streets. he's a man showing gotham hope, showing that there's a way to fix this, to clean everything and still do the right thing.

He's still a madman.

He just happens to be on our side.
 

Dalek

Member
not at all

it speaks more to who the batman is if he doesn't. it's more of an inability to act even when given the ability. if he were just to kill the joker after joker cripples babs, then what's his excuse when joker killed dozens before? they were just not close to him, is that the excuse? that's incredibly selfish of him to think and that's not what the batman is.

no, he refuses to kill the joker because he can't. killing the joker would betray who he really is, undermine the whole point of his mission. he isn't a madman out there killing people, adding more violence to the violence filled streets. he's a man showing gotham hope, showing that there's a way to fix this, to clean everything and still do the right thing.

This is how I always took it-I never even considered he did until Morrison brought it up, like Bobby Roberts said.
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
It doesn't matter.

The important theme of the story is that the Joker cannot break Gordon, Batman and Joker were fractured after bad days, Gordon wasn't. Because Jim Gordon, for all his flaws, is the one guy in the DC universe who personifies heroism and selfless sacrifice.
 
He's still a madman.

He just happens to be on our side.

is he though? yes, he might be crazy in that he dresses as a bat and fights crime, but everything he does, everything in his life is a calculated war against the forces that tore his parents away from him. i would argue that crazy is doing things for nonsensical reasons or doing things for the harm of society simply because it harms society. but the batman, his reasons are that he wants to drive fear into criminals and do it in a way that brings hope to a dark and desolate city, a city always on the brink of the abyss. and he's been effective at it, showing that he knows what he's doing.
 

Stet

Banned
It doesn't matter.

The important theme of the story is that the Joker cannot break Gordon, Batman and Joker were fractured after bad days, Gordon wasn't. Because Jim Gordon, for all his flaws, is the one guy in the DC universe who personifies heroism and selfless sacrifice.

Except, you know, Superman.
 

WanderingWind

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
It doesn't matter.

The important theme of the story is that the Joker cannot break Gordon, Batman and Joker were fractured after bad days, Gordon wasn't. Because Jim Gordon, for all his flaws, is the one guy in the DC universe who personifies heroism and selfless sacrifice.

And now he has a mohawk and fights crime in a mecha.
 

Dysun

Member
I didn't get the impression that he killed him until I read Morrison's opinion about it. It does seem kinda vague and open to interpretation
 

MC Safety

Member
Also it's fucking called the Killing Joke.

Well, you've got an entendre there.

A joke that kills isn't fatal.

It's been years since I've read the book, but I think Gordon tells Batman something to the effect of, "we have to show him our way is right." So I just assumed the story ended with a killer joke and not a joke and a killing.
 

phanphare

Banned
the thought never crossed my mind that Batman killed Joker

I took that moment to be one of the handful of instances where Batman and Joker realize, to use a cliche, that they're not so different after all. kind of like Arkham Asylum where Joker tries to prove to Batman that he indeed belongs in Arkham with the rest of them. I always liked when they would show the thin line between what Batman is and what the Joker is.
 

Bit-Bit

Member
When I read this years ago, I always thought that Batman chokes the Joker at the end and that's why the laughter stops.

I had no idea that it was taken any other way.

I mean, I thought that Batman laughing along shows that he finally cracked. That he has indeed had enough of Joker's shit. And that's why it all goes quiet so fast.

I like to think that after Batman does the one thing he says he would never do, he either turns himself in to Gotham police or retire forever.
 

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
Its left open to interpretation. Whether it affirms or rejects the rest of the comic doesnt matter because both are very interesting to think about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom