Why did anyone think killing off the Joker in the first

>>77800753
Because Burton is a Idiot that haven't readed a single cómic his whole life

>>77800753
>>77800792
Because burton isn't an idiot that reads comics.

>>77800792
>cómic

>>77800753
Burton didn't read any Batman comics until he started working on the movie. At that point, the script already had Joker receive his comeuppance.

To have Joker escape at the end would have made the movie's ending feel hollow. Bruce had revealed his secret identity and that Joker was his parent's killer. Look at the sequels that spawned, where would Joker or any other villain fit in with the continued story? The only thing that we received was a Joker outfit cameo in Arkham for Batman Forever.

File: 1376610874226.png (27KB, 349x308px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 349x308px

>>77800753
This was before TAS, when the Joker became an incredibly well known comic character.

Prior to Nicholson's portrayal, the most well-known Joker was Sid Caeser.

>>77800753
During production, someone suggested that the audience would find it more satisfying if Batman killed the Joker. Which was feasible because - unlike in the comics - the Burton Batman does not have a no-kill policy.

File: 200% sad.png (483KB, 497x732px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 497x732px

>MFW there was going to be a 5th Batman movie with Robin Williams as the Mad Hatter and Harley Quinn but Batman and Robin bombed so hard it was cancelled

>>77800936
>Batman does not have a no-kill policy.

He straight up murders a henchman in the second movie with a bomb.

>>77800922
>Sid Caeser

You mean Cesar Romero?

File: 1376416198265.jpg (22KB, 405x344px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 405x344px

>>77800976
Yeah, idk wth I was thinking.

>>77800968
I thought Howard Stern was supposed to pay Scarecrow in the fifth Batman movie

Movie makers do not think along the lines of having a villain stick around so they can have repeat appearances over and over again though a thirty year long period like in comics? They just want to make a single stand alone movie and be done with it.

>>77800908
>Burton didn't read any Batman comics until he started working on the movie. At that point, the script already had Joker receive his comeuppance.
That's a lie - he had been a big fan of The Killing Joke.

As for OP's question, they killed the Joker because they wanted to give the film a sense of finality and they probably didn't want to pay Jack Nicholson out the ass again.

>>77800753
Because the Joker is one of many villains.
I don't like
LE JOKER ULTIMATE BOSS REINCARNATION OF SATAN EVILEST OF EVILS.

It makes all other villains seem like pathetic weak fucks, since they're WORSE (like, flat out less dangerous, not even a contest) than a guy in a clown outfit with a brain disease.

>>77801116
>That's a lie - he had been a big fan of The Killing Joke.

Yes, that's the only comic he had read though. He even admitted that he wasn't too familiar with Batman outside of the Killing Joke and a few "common knowledge" items.

>>77800753
because the joker is a shitty gimmicky character

>>77800970
He murders henchmen in the FIRST movie.