Batman: The Killing Joke (Higgins & Bolland)

[Leo656]

He can say what he likes, Brian Bolland did not write the script. He could have chosen to draw it that way for any number of reasons, but that doesn't make his word on the subject the final one.

It's fine that people choose to interpret it "their way" but that doesn't mean that's what Moore intended when he wrote it.

I'm factoring in the way he writes stories in general, the things detailed (or not) in the script itself, what Moore himself says we're meant to take from it, and the fact that in 30 years he himself has never done much more than chuckle or roll his eyes when the subject comes up. One would think by now, especially given his disdain (or at the minimum, his disinterest) for that particular piece of work, that he'd have "spilled the beans" by now if he wrote that scene with killing the Joker in mind. That, combined with his long-running feud with DC, maybe more than anything damns the theory. He likely would have said, "Yeah, I wanted to kill the Joker but DC wouldn't let me" by now if it were true. Instead, he just asks "Why do so many people care about this dumb little story I wrote forever ago? Why do they insist on making it more important than it was ever meant to be? It's not very important and not very good." I'm paraphrasing, but that IS generally how the man describes the piece in his own vocal opinion of it.

I disagree with him that it's dumb, I think it's very good. BUT. What I'm saying is, his words are NOT the words of a man who had such a grand ambition in his mind when he penned the tale. This leads me, once again, to believe that it's not of his design but rather just something people made up and cling to because it "sounded cool".

Similar to Bolland playing up the story's "ambiguous" nature because it keeps conversation going and serves his interest (since he's more willing to talk about the work nowadays than Moore is), Jake Gyllenhaal still says he doesn't get what "Donnie Darko" is about, despite the fact that it's rather clear what it's about (while not everything within it is explained in detail). In both cases, maybe they want to keep conversation going because it's fun to engage with people, and maybe they just don't "get it" themselves.

In either case, I'd argue that the work makes itself clear enough without any external projections about what may or may not be in there. With regard to that film, some people insist it's NOT about time travel and pocket universes despite the fact that it very explicitly is about that. If some people WANT to insist that it's all just a nightmare/hallucination or whatever that was had by a schizophrenic kid right before he dies and the entire movie happens only in his imagination - as some people have suggested as one of many theories - then that's entirely their prerogative and you can read it that way if you want to, sure. You just have to ignore an awful lot both inside and outside of the story in order to make that specific theory work. And I feel that it's kind of the same thing with the ending of "Killing Joke": You can read it that way but it's not the intended reading and it's maybe better off not projecting that onto it, for multiple reasons.

BUT, people can think whatever they want. I just think it's MOSTLY people projecting their own ideas about what would be "cool", more than it is anything on the page that leads them there. The sound effects thing, to me, is incidental and circumstantial. Could be that from the reader's perspective we simply "moved beyond earshot" and could no longer hear them. That to me seems just as plausible, probably more so, than anything else.

I don't think it helps the story one bit and it kind of baffles me why people are so often insistent about it being "what REALLY happened". Even on the 1% chance it WAS meant to be read that way, the book was immediately made Hard Canon so all speculation as to what the ending "really means" is therefore irrelevant. Joker's still alive and everything in the book has been acknowledged within the DCU multiple times, thus the "Batman killed Joker" ending couldn't have happened even if it was meant to be so at one point.

Doesn't matter if it was meant to be "outside of canon", events since then have made the entire story Very Hard Canon. Just like the first "Back to the Future"; it wasn't MEANT to be "Part 1 of 3", and you can watch it as a stand-alone movie if you choose, sure. But since then it BECAME "Part 1 of 3" and remains so whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not. A person can SAY, "I disregard that, I only acknowledge Part 1, and in my head Doc and Marty went off and had a bunch of other adventures unrelated to anything we later saw in II and III because That's What I Choose To Believe." Just like a person can SAY, "In my head, Killing Joke is non-canon and Batman killed the Joker because I Prefer It That Way." But in either case, they're jumping through serious hoops to justify their own headcanon, at that point.

As contrite and petty as it may be, the simple fact that Killing Joke IS canon renders the entire debate irrelevant. He PROBABLY wasn't scripted to kill him, but even if he WAS, it entirely doesn't matter anymore, and it stopped mattering the second that the book was adopted into canon lore. Which was like five minutes after it was printed.

I don't know, is it even really THAT intriguing of a theory? I don't think so. When I read it that way, it just seems like they didn't know how to end it, "So f*ck it, just kill him, that'd be funny." Doesn't play well for me at all. Again, I feel like some people just fell in love with the idea, apropos of nothing, and then went about trying to find all the reasons it MIGHT be true even though it really doesn't do much to improve anything even if it was. And that the entire thing is really a bit of a reach anyway.

Spitballing is fun and all, but at the end of the day the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If we factor in authorial intent, authorial discussion both contemporary and in hindsight, real-world factors and so on and so forth, it becomes much easier to accept that he didn't kill him more so than entertaining the notion that he may have, or even may have been intended to do so at some point.

"He Didn't" simply makes far more sense, for multiple reason both inside and outside of the story itself, rather than "He Did".

Not that any of that will stop anyone from reading it any way they choose, and I'm aware of that. I'm Just Saying.

((Shrug))

[AquaParade]

Yeah, I definitely think it's meant to be ambiguous. It keeps people discussing and leaves you thinking. Moore has never commented on the theory that Batman killed Joker as far as I've seen. He derives the work for being too dark, and for being general superhero wankery when he is feeling extra cranky.

And, to be clear, I don't think the ending is "Batman killed the Joker". The ending is whatever you see in it.

[Leo656]

Off-topic, but I'm still reading that article when I remember about it, and I must say I do admire Morrison's perseverance during his first few years trying to get work in the comics business. When I was in Junior High I briefly had notions of working in comics as either a writer or artist, but the more I looked into it, the more it all seemed like a gigantic pain in the ass with very little upside. I very much enjoy the act of creating, but I have very little patience for rejection/failure or feeling like I'm not moving forward, and it seems like in that field that's 99% of the game unless you're lucky enough to be a Lee or McFarlane type. And so much of that is really just dumb luck. I mean McFarlane's the industry "rock star" but he was never all that great of a penciller in my opinion and his writing is pretty amateurish. Yet he's made more money in the game than any hundred more talented people combined. There's really no logical path to success in the field, it's all so random and arbitrary.

We'll never know now of course, but I kind of feel like had I pursued that field I would have been absolutely miserable and washed out very quickly. When I hear these "starving artist" stories it pretty much reinforces my feelings about it. I just can't thrive in an environment where I feel like I'm busting my ass and getting nothing to show for it, even if there's a carrot on a stick reminding me that it might all work out eventually.

It obviously all worked out for him, thankfully, but in truth it might not have, just as easily. I'unno, just came to mind as I was reading the article. My guidance counselors used to tell me that it was a foolish endeavor to pursue and the chances were far greater to starve than to ever make any money, and I guess I'm glad I let it finally sink in. Grant's path sounds frustrating as hell and knowing myself as I do, I never could have stuck it out as long waiting for something to finally go my way.

Good for him, I guess.

[AquaParade]

In his book "Supergods", Morrison tells a sweet story of his dad buying him a typewriter with the note "The world is waiting to hear from you, son" attached. That seemed to be a source of inspiration for Grant. I've always liked that.

I definitely recommend that book for either fans of Morrison or fans or comics. You basically get the history of the industry, as told by Morrison, along with his insane notions of what it all means, but the book morphs into becoming a fascinating autobiography as well as a meditation on the effect superheroes are having on our culture. Book ends on a high note. It's good stuff.

And yeah, I admire his tenacity too. Although you can never be sure when he might be embellishing. Someone once said Grant's greatest piece of art was himself, and I can see some truth in that.

[Coola Yagami]

I mean if the story was a stand-alone, it does look like Batman finally kills the Joker at the end. Especially since the story started with the theme that their dance couldn't last forever, and unless something changed, it would only end with one of the two killing the other. Then Batman offered Joker that final chance and he turned it down...

I still get a laugh thinking back when I saw the animated version with my girl at the time, like she didn't know about Batgirl filler and she never read the book, but she had heard from reviews that there was filler in the movie and nobody liked it and whatnot. When Batman was offering Joker the chance to actually help him instead of just locking him up as usual, she turned me asking 'was this in the comic?' cause yeah, after years of those two just going at it, it was different seeing Batman and Joker actual hold a calm conversion. I mean imagine if after all their battles, all Batman needed to do to stop the Joker for good was to just reason with him.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Off-topic, but I'm still reading that article when I remember about it, and I must say I do admire Morrison's perseverance during his first few years trying to get work in the comics business. When I was in Junior High I briefly had notions of working in comics as either a writer or artist, but the more I looked into it, the more it all seemed like a gigantic pain in the ass with very little upside. I very much enjoy the act of creating, but I have very little patience for rejection/failure or feeling like I'm not moving forward, and it seems like in that field that's 99% of the game unless you're lucky enough to be a Lee or McFarlane type. And so much of that is really just dumb luck. I mean McFarlane's the industry "rock star" but he was never all that great of a penciller in my opinion and his writing is pretty amateurish. Yet he's made more money in the game than any hundred more talented people combined. There's really no logical path to success in the field, it's all so random and arbitrary.

We'll never know now of course, but I kind of feel like had I pursued that field I would have been absolutely miserable and washed out very quickly. When I hear these "starving artist" stories it pretty much reinforces my feelings about it. I just can't thrive in an environment where I feel like I'm busting my ass and getting nothing to show for it, even if there's a carrot on a stick reminding me that it might all work out eventually.

It obviously all worked out for him, thankfully, but in truth it might not have, just as easily. I'unno, just came to mind as I was reading the article. My guidance counselors used to tell me that it was a foolish endeavor to pursue and the chances were far greater to starve than to ever make any money, and I guess I'm glad I let it finally sink in. Grant's path sounds frustrating as hell and knowing myself as I do, I never could have stuck it out as long waiting for something to finally go my way.

Good for him, I guess.

Plus all the drugs it took Morrison to make Morrison into Morrison... it's a risky proposition, to be sure.

[Leo656]

That f*cking Batgirl preamble was HORRIBLE. By the time the "real" movie started I didn't even wanna watch it anymore.

It didn't feel like an organic part of the story. It felt like the dirt-worst episode of Batman: TAS that someone just finally got around to making. But it damn sure didn't feel like it belonged there.

That adaptation pisses me off to no end. What a blown opportunity. STOP trying to add or change things on an iconic story that was written by someone a million times smarter than you, you hacks; just tell the f*cking story straight, please.

One chance. People were waiting 20+ years to watch it. And... they completely sh*t the bed.

I guess there's a small chance someone will do a live-action adaptation one day, but... odds are they'll completely f*ck THAT up, too, so I don't even want them to try. Just leave it alone.

Having a good friend turn down an offer at being given a copy of the book after watching that piece of sh*t was heartbreaking. They'd never read the book before, watched the film to "get a feel" for it and see if he'd like it. Afterwards, I offered to give him a copy of the book. "Nah, I get the gist of it. Didn't much care for it."

That's why I hate these awful "adaptations" of great comic book stories. At their worst, they turn people off from ever reading the far-superior printed works. And that should be a crime punishable by law.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Plus all the drugs it took Morrison to make Morrison into Morrison... it's a risky proposition, to be sure.

He was Morrison before the drugs actually, but it's a common misconception. In the early days of his writing, he was "straight edge" and still wrote some pretty batshit stuff. Animal Man for instance.