So a normie pseudo geek from my class was talking about The Killing Joke and how Batman kills the Joker in the end.
I went home to confirm that he didn't, because I really didn't get that from any point in the book, but also found out this was for some reason a debatable question where there was some people that actually thought Batman killed him.
I see the reasoning in that, he realizes Joker has absolutely no cure and flips, doing the only thing he can. However, there is nothing in the art to indicate that.
Brian Bolland is a good artist, he would be able to portray a homicide if he wanted to, even a subtle one. A hand towards the neck, anything.
So why people believe this?
People are stupid and like shock-value stuff even when it makes no sense. The killing joke is a story about proving the Joker wrong when his thesis is "everyone is capable of murder and insanity when pushed hard enough".
Gordon's not broken, and Batman doubts but is obviously not broken either. I mean, no more than he usually is.
>why people believe this?
Because Grant Morrison said that's how it ends and "it's so obvious because of the title", but you can read Moore's script and see that the ending is entirely ambiguous.
He leans his hand on his shoulder, a typical pose to portray losing your serious grip laughing, like putting two hands on your knees.
Just a popular body language form in drawn media.
The last panel there with Batman putting his hands on Joker's shoulders sort of looks like he's going to choke him. That added to Batman killing Joker and viceversa being a recurring theme in the book makes it make sense (of course the other theme is capturing the joker by law vs stepping down to his level so that ma render this moot). Besides it wasn't supposed to be canon, so it's not that unusual of an ending if it had stuck.
I personally think Batman choked or tried to choke Joker, but it's just my personal interpretation of how the scene's playing out, which is just ambiguous enough to give room to that sort of speculation- I won't argue that's absolutely what's happening because I don't have enough evidence other that how I choose to read the book.
It's similar to the "was it rape" thing with Babs, we are shown what DC and the Comics Code would allow to show so there's room for speculation based on the limitations of the work, even if the author outright said "no, that's stupid"
the light of the lantern is turned off, he fell to his death.
Alan moore wanted the story to end with joker death, thats why the story was not canon for the longest time, but once they decided to use oracle from it they stuck with it.
Your friend wasnt wrong, you are the fake geek here.
How does it feel to be a faker? You fake nerd. Pose for a lot of facebook shots with your comic books?
see the last panels? They are about the joke Joker was telling, batman has turned off the light.
it's more of a matter of the pencils, the colors, and the paper it was printed on all being made cohesively when the book was put out, and the second one being "we have better paper! let's fuck all with the planning that went into it and just go into modern, more realistic colors"
though to be fair, when car lights are yellow like that i expect the colors of the original
So Batman kills him right after he offers his help to bring him back from insanity, the Joker tells a harmless, non-creepy joke and Batman snaps his neck while laughing his ass off?
That's seriously the end people picture?
its the end shown here , not the one people picture as the final killing joke between them but the one that closes this.
He tells the joke and snaps batman. Batman has turned the light to help him cross over, but lights are out by the end.
It mirrors joker joke perfectly.
Batman casually leaning against Joker for support just feels so wrong and out of character to me. That's why I think Bolland was trying to depict it as him killing him, and I'll continue to believe it until he says otherwise.
Batman doesn't turn off any light. That's simply ending the story with the rain falling as it began. If Batman kills the Joker the Joker wins; not in a metaphysical kind of way, in a "Gordon literally spouts that if we don't bring him in alive, the Joker wins" kind of way.
The joke states that one of the inmates cares for the other and wants to help him get away; he does trust him. The other is too far gone.
What bugs me is that Brian Bolland said that the colors are closer to what he intended, when he knows damn well no one was coloring in Photoshop back in '88. If he colored it with some Doc Martin dyes I could understand, but he's redoing art that was meant to be colored a certain way in a way that wasn't considered n the whole process.
A lot of the style in older comics is based on the type of paper it was being printed on, the coloring method, the printing method, etc. Is disingenuous to try and color them like modern stuff.
The point of the joke is that both Batman and Joker can be either of the inmates, depending on who's point of view you take it from
Batman can "free Joker from insanity"
Joker can "free Batman from sanity"
They both "care" about each other and they both could never trust each other. They're also both too stubborn to escape their own personal shackles or perception
Again, her own father asks Batman to arrest the Joker proper after he's showered with naked pictures of her shot, bloody body. The Joker's whole plan is to make Gordon and Batman snap; he doesn't give a shit about his own death.
The whole point of the end is to create tension on whether Batman will truly lose it in the end, because he's been taken to the edge. If Batman snaps, it's all pointless.
But either man could be the man with the light.
Batman wants Joker to give up his murderous ways.
Joker wants Batman to give into his lunacy.
But neither dare cross the light because it'd meant he death of them,
albeit for a reason they're not actually aware of
Well the reading could be Batman's realization that Joker is truly incurable.
Not pointless, it simply means Batman loses.
The comic is even less ambiguous. The only reason this is in controversy is because there was a story of the script stating at some point that Batman killed the Joker. That story is fake but people don't care.
sorry, people form their own opinions on art!
Let's all just discuss the script, Tweets and interviews and get what happens from that.
Who needs the comic?
Different people interpreting it differently is not a controversy.
Look, faggy, I could totally accept being about Batman killing Joker. I think it would make a better non canonical story, but all of that would be assumed on panels we don't see. The panels we DO see does not indicate any of that, at all.
Your poetical interpretation can be just a visual callback to the start, it can mean Batman fell temporarily to his madness, which made him understand Joker for a second, share a laugh, not hate him, it could be anything.
There's no crack onomatopoeia, nothing. And it would go against everything that is Batman and that was stated in the book itself.
So Gordon wins, still rational, even Batman says that to Joker, but Batman loses to that?
My friend is a poser douche because he wears beanies, thick rim glasses, curly moustache, mushroom for Mario tattoos, checkered shirts, vegan, talks about coffee all the time and writes a comic about a self insert that is a serial killer of hot women. You don't need to defend him, unless you too are like that and it gets to your ego. In that case go back to Instagram, faggot.
This is so stupid.
OP, if you are an edgelord that buy things from Hot Topic, you will probably believe that Batman snapped and proved that Joker was right, but just because you think that it is soooo kool, and like a real person would act.
Nothing really indicates it, its just a urban legend that people choose to believe.
And I continue: Moore has a good opinion on humanitty, and integrity of people in the face of horror. You can read it on many of his other capeshit stories,like "For The man who had everything". This interpretation of Batman proving Joker right would be out of place.