Cyclops had his own hit squad up until a few years ago.
-
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.
Why don't people care that most Comic Book characters don't kill their villains?
- Thread starter Aaron-Lagann
- Start date
- Status
Cyclops had his own hit squad up until a few years ago.
Comic book writers create new villains all the time. It's just sometimes, you really want to take your shot at the old classics.
Itchy//Tasty
Member
Jensen Ackles does great work in this film. Shame I can't unhear Bender as Joker though.
Moria.
zero shift
Banned
Again and again and again and again, etc.
Aaron-Lagann
Banned
Moria wasn't an issue, he was pretty much present and treated like a bitch, then
got killed shortly there after.
But they do .
Luffy didn't kill him.
He came back.
Just because someone else took care of the problem for him doesn't change that fact.
fredrancour
Member
There are countless comic books that do this. Even the major heroes have completely standalone stories with definite ends not mixed up in the mess of perpetually-running monthly continuity.
Wiktor
Member
If each time he gets into the jail he escapes and before returning to your house he kills some innocents, then yeah, after couple times it is your fault for not killing him. You might say it's illegal to kill the guy, but the whole superhero thing is illegal too.
because then you get something stupid like
< a real spoiler, so if there's a superhero movie you didn't see don't view it
also, as much of a badass Oliver Queen was in the first season of Arrow, it also did a great job showing how people would react if superheroes went around killing people.
Man of Steel
also, as much of a badass Oliver Queen was in the first season of Arrow, it also did a great job showing how people would react if superheroes went around killing people.
Wiktor
Member
Except live adaptations actually show how stupid the rule is, because in any longer series pretty much every hero eventually kills somebody. Which shows that it's just artificial limitation put on by publishers. There isn't any real story reason.
Your example is pretty weird, because the hero in that movie sure as hell had no choice but to kill.
If that's the logic you are going with, then I would still put the blame on the people who were his jury not giving orders to execute the person. They are appointed to pass judgement on a person, so if killing the criminal is the right thing to do, then it's up to them to make that call. And honestly, I think that's more respectable. Because by doing this, Batman gives power to the city. They are made up to make the choice for themselves. He's not a tyrant seeking to become ruler of Gotham, and that's what essentially makes him different from the other criminals.
But on a general level, that logic doesn't work for me. If you are tasked with doing one job, and the person you work with keeps fucking up his end of the deal, it is not your moral responsibility to do his work for him. The people of Gotham have the right to decide what to do about the criminals in their town. And if they decide that it's better to let the Joker rot in jail and risk his escape...well, even if Batman wanted to kill the Joker, it's not his call.
This. There's tons of comics with definite endings with, even in the cape comics. And not just standalone stuff either; you can read things like Grant Morrison's X-Men run or "Court or Owls," go no further, and still get a complete and satisfying story.
Riposte
Member
I think Grant Morrison once gave a great answer to this question, but I forget what it was.
People who ask this question are missing the point of superheroes. Though it can an interesting concept in itself, for the most part it will only serve to make the stories and characters worse, both on an individual and continuity level. You're debasing the idealism and charming elements by trying to inject rigid realism into it. It is just something you shouldn't mind, just like you shouldn't mind that there isn't enough time in the the ten or twenty years heroes have been active for all these stories to happen, let alone in a semi-realistic manner. Reality in comic books is weird and floaty, time scales and shifts subtlety, and concepts drop in and out as convenient. They at most make sense (though they don't need to) on the arc to arc level, with a single writer, but DC/Marvel verse are more than a single story by a single writer.
People who ask this question are missing the point of superheroes. Though it can an interesting concept in itself, for the most part it will only serve to make the stories and characters worse, both on an individual and continuity level. You're debasing the idealism and charming elements by trying to inject rigid realism into it. It is just something you shouldn't mind, just like you shouldn't mind that there isn't enough time in the the ten or twenty years heroes have been active for all these stories to happen, let alone in a semi-realistic manner. Reality in comic books is weird and floaty, time scales and shifts subtlety, and concepts drop in and out as convenient. They at most make sense (though they don't need to) on the arc to arc level, with a single writer, but DC/Marvel verse are more than a single story by a single writer.
Rice-Eater
Member
Was he suppose to beat him up and the tell him to be a good boy from now on or else? How ridiculous would that look in a live action film and what kind of jail could hold such a super powered being.
captainnapalm
Member
Yup. Obviously if you look at Batman over his publishing history, then it appears crazy how many times the Joker has escaped from confinement. But you're not meant to read the entire canon in that way. Any new story is new and current, and then you can basically go back a few years for recent continuity, and any really big events from prior to that stay in continuity as well. But the Joker hasn't escaped 50 times or something. It would just be stupid to read it like that.
Aside from that, I really don't get why people do not understand why superheroes do not become killers. They are supposed to stand for an ideal and something greater. I guess this bloodlust amongst fans is a result of an era where leaders think its totally ok to be killers, even if its just in a preventative sense, in the name of ill-defined and nebulous goals. But those people aren't heroes or real leaders of men, they are scumbags.
googleplex
Member
The question isn't why doesn't Batman kill the Joker. The question should be, "Why doesn't what ever the State that Gotham City is in have a death penalty?" The Joker has killed multi hundreds of people's. But the good people of the state haven't petitioned to have the death penalty as an option for these mother fucker?
Batman shouldn't have to kill the Joker. The state should have stuck a needle in his arm YEARS ago.
Batman shouldn't have to kill the Joker. The state should have stuck a needle in his arm YEARS ago.
captainnapalm
Member
The Joker is criminally insane. That's why he gets sent to Arkham and not Blackgate. You can't execute people who are insane. Unless you're in Texas.
Yep.
The only reason it would be desirable for comic book heroes to kill is because comic book prisons are incompetent and there is no death penalty so they basically can't even trust the courts. The reason why comic book prisons are useless is because villains have to be reused, and the reason why heroes don't normally kill is because villains have to be reused.
As said before, even when villains do die, they still come back months later.
Moria escaped Doflamingo, iirc.
Also, the author said in an interview that Luffy intentionally doesn't kill because he instead crushes his foes' dreams.
The Joker doesn't come close to any of the real world definitions for criminally insane. He's lucid enough to understand the nature of his actions perfectly fine.
captainnapalm
Member
Depends how good the writing is. I prefer it when Joker is written as genuinely insane, and not just a flamboyant gangster who enjoys dressing up and cracking jokes.
The Joker doesn't have any real world mental disorder is what he means to say. People call him crazy because he acts outrageously out of the ordinary, but I'm not identifying schizophrenia or bipolar or Schizoaffective. His most prominent symptoms are a daily retrograde amnesia and a lack of conscience and empathy. The closest I see is antisocial personality disorder/psychopathy, but even there he displays qualities that he subverts, like his careful planning and patience.
There is no formal diagnosis for him. Without even that much, the insanity defense would have trouble making it's case.
captainnapalm
Member
You'd have to assume there is a diagnosis because the decision is made to send him to Arkham and not Blackgate. I'm not sure how clearly this has ever been examined in the comics. Probably not much, as people really aren't that interested in how a real world diagnosis could be applied in the heightened reality and fantasy of a place Gotham City. Suffice it to say, he, along with a number of Batman's other foes, is viewed as insane by the Gotham authorities.
I don't mind at all thst heroes often don't kill the bad guys. But I dislike it when the bad guy dies, had a great plot arc with a suitable ending only for them to randomly come back years later with a crappy plot.
Also some characters like Bane probably should have been killed off after their initial arc. If the story is great surely that character will still have a good legacy regardless. It doesn't do them much good when they stick around and become a joke.
Also some characters like Bane probably should have been killed off after their initial arc. If the story is great surely that character will still have a good legacy regardless. It doesn't do them much good when they stick around and become a joke.
Aaron-Lagann
Banned
He came back for pretty much one scene where everyone treated him like a bitch for getting beat, then he got killed without doing anything. Not remotely comparable the Joker constantly breaking out of prison and doing shit.
BoosterDuck
Banned
That was Thomas Wayne Batman who killed him.
Vermillion
Banned
Legal insanity doesn't require a formal diagnosis, IIRC.
No, but legal insanity does require one to not be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. Joker can and does, he just doesn't care.
Look at those goal posts go...
Aaron-Lagann
Banned
I saw those afterwards. Either way, he's effectively dead to the story since he hasn't shown up or been referenced since. The point is that One Piece enemies are only actual enemies once.
It's one of the main differences that make me more interested in Manga compared to Marvel or DC. Naruto, One Piece and Bleach find ways to be long running while also not just repeating the same villains over and over.
At one point they invented a diagnosis for him in the form of "Supersane", which I thought was fitting because there should be nobody else like the Joker in the world. His brand of crazy should be entirely his own.
Although I'd say that if there was a real-life mass murderer who once tried to copyright fish because he tainted the water supply and made them resemble his distinctive face, we'd all think he's crazy as shit - diagnosis or not.
I like it when Scarecrow tied to use the fear gas on Joker just to see what he feared and Joker just laughed and beat Scarecrow with a chair.
fredrancour
Member
Eh. Even though I still read both naruto and one piece, shonen gives me even more "not this shit again" feelings than any american comic.
With american comics, I feel like different stories by different authors are wholly independent stuff, like the history of the character is really only the greatest hits no matter how many filler books get churned out to take up shelf space.
With a shonen manga, any single arc out of a larger series typically feels pretty similar to all the other ones. Variation is pretty superficial. This makes things feel 1000 times more futile and annoying for me if I happen to not enjoy a given arc. Yet it's all one cohesive story, so the shit arcs bring the whole thing now. With batman I can just say, I love batman, and list off my favorite stories. It doesn't matter that a decade after a story I like was written, a different author put out a turd using the same brand name. If naruto worked similarly to an american comic, I could say "I love naruto! The land of mist and the chunin exam by kishimoto were sweet comics, and the gaara rescue thing was pretty sweet too" and the bizarre ninja war arc by replacement author q would just implicitly not matter. Instead, the conversations always go like, "man naruto has really gone to shit, this scenario feels like a 12 year old's fan fiction." Or "fuck that might have gone ok but naruto talking his way into friendship with a bad guy barely felt ok last time, another case of that is just stupid. Stab his face to death." Sasuke can't just have a shitty phase where a bad author got ahold of him; instead, his character arc simply goes down as an annoying one that makes me wish for a painful death.
(One piece is generally fantastic and exempt from this but damn idk why i still follow naruto)
The Living Tribunal
Member
Aaron-Lagann
Banned
I recently caught back up on Naruto, and yeah, it's not exactly a good example of shonen stories since it feels entirely made up on the spot (
Meteor no jutsu
Yup.
X-Force, the wetwork squad. Hope that X-Force movie is decent . . .
Haven't read that one but now I want to. Was that a general Batman comic?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
But the only reason they don't stay locked up is to have reoccurring characters. If you take the need for status quo out of the equation then maybe the more likely scenario is that villains stay locked up instead of the heroes start killing.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Also, it's important to note that unless you're 90 years old, you came in the middle of the characters and had to discover, read and ultimately get bored with Joker, Green Goblin, etc.
The characters have been around longer than you and hopefully will outlive us all. The next generation deserves their chance to be able to discover a Joker storyline and wait for the next issue to be beamed directly into their heads, just like us. Well, you know what I mean.
The characters have been around longer than you and hopefully will outlive us all. The next generation deserves their chance to be able to discover a Joker storyline and wait for the next issue to be beamed directly into their heads, just like us. Well, you know what I mean.
I find this a really hard OP to answer....I mean I just find the concept odd.
Then again I come at it from the point of view of a nation where there's not only no death penalty, no debate on a death penalty but in 2011/12 there were a total of 2 fatal police shootings...and for a population of 60m that doesn't seem to be a bad statistic.
Add to this the fact that you've got Batman on one hand who believes in justice, and refuses to kill because that would make him one of the things he's protecting the city from and on the other you have Dredd, a mockery of brutal police tactics in Britain in the 70s taken to an extreme...
I suppose the only answer I can give is that it just never occurred to me. It's shocking when Batman does kill Joke in Dark Knight, and on the other hand Dredd's even-handed death dealing solves nothing for him.
Then again I come at it from the point of view of a nation where there's not only no death penalty, no debate on a death penalty but in 2011/12 there were a total of 2 fatal police shootings...and for a population of 60m that doesn't seem to be a bad statistic.
Add to this the fact that you've got Batman on one hand who believes in justice, and refuses to kill because that would make him one of the things he's protecting the city from and on the other you have Dredd, a mockery of brutal police tactics in Britain in the 70s taken to an extreme...
I suppose the only answer I can give is that it just never occurred to me. It's shocking when Batman does kill Joke in Dark Knight, and on the other hand Dredd's even-handed death dealing solves nothing for him.
megashock5
Member
Yeesh. This is why I read OLD comics. That's not the Marvel I grew up with in the 70s and 80s. They used to imply the violence instead of covering every panel in blood splatter.
Now, get off my lawn.
Vermillion
Banned
...This is true.
- Status