My views on Batman 17 and DOTF.

Posted by sj_esposito (457 posts) - - Show Bio

With all the talk about Batman 17, and after listening to the most recent podcast today, I want to air my view of the issue, the story arc, Snyder's Batman, and storytelling in comics in a more general sense.

Firstly, whatever you feel about 17 and DOTF, we must recognize that having fans react so strongly in any way is a mark of honor for the storytellers and it's something that ought to be commended. Any time a comic can completely divide and polarize the fan base is really a good time for comics--it gets us talking and thinking about how stories are told in comics and it's usually the time when most of us bare our true colors in terms of our passion and love for the characters.

Secondly, I don't think anyone can deny that DOTF has been a wild ride and a great Batman tale. Surely, years from now, we will look back upon Snyder and Capullo's run and talk about this story. Do I think this is Snyder's best arc? No; so far, The Black Mirror still reigns from on high for me. Do I think it's better than 90% of the books DC has put out in the past ~2 years? Absolutely. Is Greg Capullo the best penciller working today? Quite possibly. There's also the matter of Snyder-fanboyism. A lot of people are starting to throw around the notion that Snyder is overhyped and that certain comic book reviewers have conflated their personal feelings with Mr. Snyder with their professional opinions of his work. I won't address the latter part, because frankly, we'll never know if that's the case and it's really none of my business--or anyone elses--to simply speculate; let's give the professional reviewers the benefit of the doubt here. They definitely deserve it. I, personally, do not believe Snyder to be the best writer right now, but he certainly holds a spot in the top 5. My complaints with his work are not many, but I do have certain reservations about his work that don't allow him to occupy the number 1 spot in my list. The major issue that I have is that a lot of his work is thematically redundant. For example, every time a new story is being hyped up by the DC propaganda machine, Snyder is always recorded in interviews saying something very similar to "...it's going to be twisted/frightening/dark/etc..." Twisted and dark is his thing, I get that. That's what he does best, and honestly, I wouldn't want to read anyone else for that type of stuff. But, there's a certain point where that type of story becomes overdone and unnecessary. Snyder has been doing dark and twisted in Gotham since he started The Black Mirror--save for maybe a single issue, which featured Harper Row--and I do at times yearn to see what else he has in his tool bag. At this point, no one is really sure if he can do any other type of story and execute it well. I'm not saying I want any Batman story to be light-hearted or anything like that. But I think it would be interesting to see where Snyder can take Batman outside of what scares Bruce and what brings out his weaknesses. Batman is a character with so many dimensions, and if you take a long look at the whole of Snyder's run so far, a lot of it is focused on examining a very narrow portion of the character in a fun house mirror. I want more. I want to see how Snyder invisions Batman in totality. I'm counting on the Riddler story that he's got planned to bring out Batman's intellectual side, and I'm looking forward to the future to see what other aspects of Batman's character Snyder can tease out in the months ahead.

As for the events of 17, I think it's unfair and stupid to say that nothing happened, and I don't really want to have a conversation about whether or not something did or didn't happen or whether or not fans were purposefully misled. We don't need physical death in comics in order for something to be a big deal. The very notion that we do is hobbling to the industry and, as fans, we should be insulted by any reliance on the "comic book death." We should demand that writers stive for more mature and hard-hitting stories; stories that move us in ways that the death of a character could never do. And that's what Snyder has done with DOTF. He deserves much commendation for trying to break the mold.

The final moments of 17 disturbed me deeply. I was left thinking about them long after I closed the book and I found myself enamored by what the Joker did. In a lot of ways, it shows the worst parts of a sadistic man, and all the faults that Batman possesses as a character. Bruce is so badly emotionally damaged, and to see that be his ultimate downfall here is something very, very disturbing.

That said, I wanted nothing more than to have Batman kill the Joker in 17. I thought it would be the perfect beat for the story to take and it would introduce possibly years of new, interesting stories into the Batman mythos. When he said "No. Not like this. Not by accident." when Joker came to the cliff, my heart dropped, and I smiled a bit. I was rooting for Batman to do what he has never been able to do. I wanted him to pull the Joker off the edge and beat him to death with his bare hands in a fit of rage; the ultimate show of weakness and strength all at the same time.

But, it never happened. Instead, Batman did what no man would ever do in the face of such tragedy and emotional havoc. He totally gave up. He completely lost his nerve and as a consequence, it came off--to me--as a total moment of weakness and cowardice. How could anyone look to a man that not only allows a murdering psychopath to live and torture his loved ones, but actually saves him from certain death? This was such a disappointing moment for me in terms of how I view Batman as a hero. I completely lost faith in him.

Perhaps I'm too violent a man. Maybe I want my heroes to take vengeance rather than justice. But, whatever the case, I saw Bruce's inability to put the Joker down like a rabid dog as a fatal flaw. On the podcast, the conversation was about how Batman killing Joker would have been a show of weakness, and something that would make for interesting stories. And, to a certain extent, I agree. However, I think there's something to be said for it being a show of absolute strength as well. It would be Batman breaking his own personal code for the safety of his family. It would have been a man doing what he had to do, and Batman's most relateable characteristic is that he is just a man. Instead, we see Batman completely wimp out, and show his hand as an emotionally damaged man without the capability to handle the threats that he faces for real.

One more thing I want to touch on is something Tony said. That if Batman were to kill Joker, it would lead to a domino effect of him just killing other enemies. I disagree. If a man kills someone--especially with just cause, in defense of his loved ones--that doesn't make him automatically someone who will kill again. If someone broke into your home and you killed him in self defense, are you going to now go out and murder other criminals at night? Not likely. There's no reason why Bruce couldn't have killed the Joker in cold blood and not be turned into the Punisher.

Think of all the interesting stories that could be told with Batman trying to deal with crossing that line. The possibilities are endless. However, I don't let my disappointment in Batman ruin the consequences of the issue for me. I think Joker having driven a wedge between Bruce and the rest of the family is deliciously evil and I'm excited to see the fallout. However, I think all of that could have remained the same and hit harder and closer to home if Batman had actually done what any man would do.

#1 Posted by JamesKM716 (1992 posts) - - Show Bio

My problem with Death of the Family, is that the status quo is more or less the same. That, and if Joker doesn't know their identities, then why did he attack Babs' mom and Rayna? That doesn't make any sense. Thirdly, The supposed wedge that occured.... first of all, what caused it? that Batman was withholding secrets? That's his nature. Is it the stuff that Joker supposedly told them off panel? If so that's incredibly stupid because it happened off panel.

IT was also over hyped, adn that didn't help matters.

#2 Posted by ccraft (5077 posts) - - Show Bio

I agree with most of what you have stated, but would I like to see the Batman kill Joker? Yes and no. I would have liked to see Batman drop the joker and think he killed Joker, but didn't. And thinking that he did would make Batman more violent if not murderous. So it would be to soon for Batman to kill the Joker, and if he did I do think he would kill again.

Yeah you have a point, with the whole home intrusion and self defense thing. But most likely your not facing a burglar every night. What I mean by that is if your like Batman and make morals for yourself, your not gonna kill after facing a criminal. I mean if your not gonna kill someone after killing your adopted son (Jason) your not gonna kill him if he attacks your whole family, but not really hurting them (DOTF).

So yeah, I loved Batman 17, I thought it was pretty perfect. But what makes Batman so murderous in issue 18?

#3 Posted by TDK_1997 (14471 posts) - - Show Bio

The biggest problems I had was that in the end almost nothing happened it looked like the Bat-family is torn apart but this isn't the first time Batman doesn't tell them something that happens.Why Joker cut off his face is still a mystery and we just want his face back on.And the story in the befinning wasn't that bad but in the end Snyder ruined it on his own.

#4 Posted by sinestro_GL (3066 posts) - - Show Bio

@TDK_1997 said:

The biggest problems I had was that in the end almost nothing happened it looked like the Bat-family is torn apart but this isn't the first time Batman doesn't tell them something that happens.Why Joker cut off his face is still a mystery and we just want his face back on.And the story in the befinning wasn't that bad but in the end Snyder ruined it on his own.

Joker had his face cut off in Detective Comics, in the early days of the new 52 by the Dollmaker (issue: Detective Comics #1).

...and part of the reason why the family is torn apart is also because of the team's refusal to believe Bruce. Bruce said it was impossible that Joker could have gotten into the Bat-Cave. They refused to believe him. Also, the team were all worried that the Joker knew their secret identities, but as we saw at the end of Batman #17, Bruce knows that this is something that the Joker doesn't actually care about...so it's more or less the Joker taunting the Bat-Family, whilst the team think that Bruce is being arrogant.

#5 Edited by sj_esposito (457 posts) - - Show Bio

@JamesKM716 said:

My problem with Death of the Family, is that the status quo is more or less the same. That, and if Joker doesn't know their identities, then why did he attack Babs' mom and Rayna? That doesn't make any sense. Thirdly, The supposed wedge that occured.... first of all, what caused it? that Batman was withholding secrets? That's his nature. Is it the stuff that Joker supposedly told them off panel? If so that's incredibly stupid because it happened off panel.

IT was also over hyped, adn that didn't help matters.

Well, we don't really know what shape the status quo is in, because we've yet to see any follow up to 17. The wedge could be a major or a minor thing, but it's all riding on what future writers are willing to do with it. We just don't know yet how big the fallout from 17 will be. And, I too believe that it was way overhyped, but only in the sense that DC--and, unfortunately, Snyder (listen to the interview on the podcast before 17)--kept pushing the idea of a death.

@ccraft said:

Yeah you have a point, with the whole home intrusion and self defense thing. But most likely your not facing a burglar every night. What I mean by that is if your like Batman and make morals for yourself, your not gonna kill after facing a criminal. I mean if your not gonna kill someone after killing your adopted son (Jason) your not gonna kill him if he attacks your whole family, but not really hurting them (DOTF).

So yeah, I loved Batman 17, I thought it was pretty perfect. But what makes Batman so murderous in issue 18?

I get what you're saying about Batman having to face criminals every night and all that, and it's a fair argument to make, but I still don't think that if Batman killed Joker, he would automatically go on a killing spree. I think it would haunt him and chill him to the bone, that he wouldn't be able to handle the psychological side effects of what he'd done, that he'd have to cope with the fact that the Joker forced his hand and that he's broken his vow to his parents and Gotham. But at the same time, he'd be dealing with the feeling that he had absolutely no other choice and that he did the only thing he could do to keep his family safe.

@TDK_1997 said:

The biggest problems I had was that in the end almost nothing happened it looked like the Bat-family is torn apart but this isn't the first time Batman doesn't tell them something that happens.Why Joker cut off his face is still a mystery and we just want his face back on.And the story in the befinning wasn't that bad but in the end Snyder ruined it on his own.

Again, to reiterate, I think it's totally nonsensical to say that nothing happened. That's just a false statement. Joker tearing the family apart at the seams is most definitely 'something.' And, to add to what said, we also don't know what Joker told the family in the dark. We have to wait and see just how deep this cuts.

#6 Posted by Decoy Elite (30041 posts) - - Show Bio

Joker tore the family apart by telling spooky stories we never saw.

I found that pretty dumb personally.

#7 Posted by sj_esposito (457 posts) - - Show Bio

@Decoy Elite said:

Joker tore the family apart by telling spooky stories we never saw.

I found that pretty dumb personally.

That's a gross oversimplification of the events of DOTF. He tormented Batman and the family physically, mentally and emotionally, and we saw a great deal of what he did. Snyder leaving a few things off panel for now is undoubtedly for a bigger purpose later on, and even so, it's a disturbing way to end the story.

#8 Posted by Decoy Elite (30041 posts) - - Show Bio

@sEsposito7 said:

@Decoy Elite said:

Joker tore the family apart by telling spooky stories we never saw.

I found that pretty dumb personally.

That's a gross oversimplification of the events of DOTF. He tormented Batman and the family physically, mentally and emotionally, and we saw a great deal of what he did. Snyder leaving a few things off panel for now is undoubtedly for a bigger purpose later on, and even so, it's a disturbing way to end the story.

No it's a way to set yourself up for an a$$ pull later on. Why in the world would any of the Bat family listen to Joker? What could he possibly say? How the heck is it Batman's fault? For letting Joker live? Because Todd's the only one lacking a no kill code IIRC.

#9 Posted by sj_esposito (457 posts) - - Show Bio

@Decoy Elite said:

No it's a way to set yourself up for an a$$ pull later on. Why in the world would any of the Bat family listen to Joker? What could he possibly say? How the heck is it Batman's fault? For letting Joker live? Because Todd's the only one lacking a no kill code IIRC.

Why would they listen to him? Maybe because something he said actually made sense to them and planted a seed of doubt or made a feeling that they were already feeling worse. Again, we don't know why until we know what he said. And it is Batman's fault for letting Joker live. The lives of every single person Joker has killed is blood on Batman's hand because he doesn't have it in him to put an end to the madness. 17 showed us that Batman is too weak to do what's necessary for the greater good. His excuse--that he's afraid something worse would come--is bullshit. That's a total cop out and way for Batman to rationalize his inability to kill a man.

#10 Posted by Decoy Elite (30041 posts) - - Show Bio

@sEsposito7: It's the Joker. They are members of the Bat family. Joker killed Jason for goodness sake! They should know everything he says is crazy bulls***. And it's not Batman's fault because you know what, they all let him live? Even Jason did not do what needs to be done. At least Batman gives a reason. Why didn't Dick do it? Because Batman stopped him once? He could always try again. Why not Tim? Because he's too young? Why not Babs? Because she's fine now that her legs work? Why not Todd? Because...because he's an idiot? The only two with remotely good reasons are Batman(because as almost every alt reality has shown when he does kill he really does kill everyone) and Damian(because he doesn't want to disappoint Bruce). And really I can't stress this enough, it's the freakin' Joker, every single one of them should know better. They shouldn't have trusted him for a second and all this stuff about Bruce needed the Joker, that's the contrived bulls***, man. Joker needs Bats, Bats doesn't need Joker.

And hiding what happened from the readers doesn't make the family turning their back on Bats make any more sense.

Especially Damian, seriously that kid is all about getting Bats approval.

#11 Posted by TDK_1997 (14471 posts) - - Show Bio

@sinestro_GL said:

@TDK_1997 said:

The biggest problems I had was that in the end almost nothing happened it looked like the Bat-family is torn apart but this isn't the first time Batman doesn't tell them something that happens.Why Joker cut off his face is still a mystery and we just want his face back on.And the story in the befinning wasn't that bad but in the end Snyder ruined it on his own.

Joker had his face cut off in Detective Comics, in the early days of the new 52 by the Dollmaker (issue: Detective Comics #1).

...and part of the reason why the family is torn apart is also because of the team's refusal to believe Bruce. Bruce said it was impossible that Joker could have gotten into the Bat-Cave. They refused to believe him. Also, the team were all worried that the Joker knew their secret identities, but as we saw at the end of Batman #17, Bruce knows that this is something that the Joker doesn't actually care about...so it's more or less the Joker taunting the Bat-Family, whilst the team think that Bruce is being arrogant.

I know when his face was cut off but the actual reason is still a mystery and as you know everyone has an opinion.

#12 Posted by entropy_aegis (14471 posts) - - Show Bio

@sEsposito7 said:

@Decoy Elite said:

No it's a way to set yourself up for an a$$ pull later on. Why in the world would any of the Bat family listen to Joker? What could he possibly say? How the heck is it Batman's fault? For letting Joker live? Because Todd's the only one lacking a no kill code IIRC.

Why would they listen to him? Maybe because something he said actually made sense to them and planted a seed of doubt or made a feeling that they were already feeling worse. Again, we don't know why until we know what he said. And it is Batman's fault for letting Joker live. The lives of every single person Joker has killed is blood on Batman's hand because he doesn't have it in him to put an end to the madness. 17 showed us that Batman is too weak to do what's necessary for the greater good. His excuse--that he's afraid something worse would come--is bullshit. That's a total cop out and way for Batman to rationalize his inability to kill a man.

And what exactly is this seed of doubt? read Nightwing,TT and Batgirl to find out? No thanks.

#13 Posted by Humanoid (132 posts) - - Show Bio

So why did Joker cut off his face? Also what did the Joker tell the bat-family that made them so horrible to Bruce and Alfred? Alfred is just back after being kidnapped, you douchebags.

#14 Posted by sj_esposito (457 posts) - - Show Bio

@entropy_aegis said:

@sEsposito7 said:

@Decoy Elite said:

No it's a way to set yourself up for an a$$ pull later on. Why in the world would any of the Bat family listen to Joker? What could he possibly say? How the heck is it Batman's fault? For letting Joker live? Because Todd's the only one lacking a no kill code IIRC.

Why would they listen to him? Maybe because something he said actually made sense to them and planted a seed of doubt or made a feeling that they were already feeling worse. Again, we don't know why until we know what he said. And it is Batman's fault for letting Joker live. The lives of every single person Joker has killed is blood on Batman's hand because he doesn't have it in him to put an end to the madness. 17 showed us that Batman is too weak to do what's necessary for the greater good. His excuse--that he's afraid something worse would come--is bullshit. That's a total cop out and way for Batman to rationalize his inability to kill a man.

And what exactly is this seed of doubt? read Nightwing,TT and Batgirl to find out? No thanks.

I did not read any of the tie in books, but I'm pretty sure the answers do not lie within their respective stories. I think Snyder will develop his story further in future arcs and we'll find out exactly what Joker did or said to make them distance themselves from Bruce.

#15 Edited by havoc1201 (491 posts) - - Show Bio

everyone is so impatient when it comes to Snyders archs we waited a year most of the time with Morrisons "epic" archs this story took 4 issues, give it time to develop, the after effects are going to be the main issues now so lets see where it goes. A lot of people think when you kill off a character it is a epic and forever change in the title but really it is a easy and cheap way to make a ending bc we all know that when someone dies in comics they allows return so it is not a really change, This arch went the psyhcological appoarch and from here on out the characters are changed we just have to wait and see just how much has changed and what the Joker said to cause it, also you do not have to keep reading the other books to see what happens just read the books you usually do and see how the character you read has been effected. Death for the sake of shock is pointless and a cliche. One more thing i saw on here a few people saying Batman lost his nerve to kill the joker but really the joker took away Batmans chance by slipping away and failing off the cliff bc Batman was going to break him and then kill him, but joker was afraid when batman started talking about his past and how the joker really was so he jumped.

#16 Posted by sj_esposito (457 posts) - - Show Bio

@havoc1201 said:

everyone is so impatient when it comes to Snyders archs we waited a year most of the time with Morrisons "epic" archs this story took 4 issues, give it time to develop, the after effects are going to be the main issues now so lets see where it goes. A lot of people think when you kill off a character it is a epic and forever change in the title but really it is a easy and cheap way to make a ending bc we all know that when someone dies in comics they allows return so it is not a really change, This arch went the psyhcological appoarch and from here on out the characters are changed we just have to wait and see just how much has changed and what the Joker said to cause it, also you do not have to keep reading the other books to see what happens just read the books you usually do and see how the character you read has been effected. Death for the sake of shock is pointless and a cliche. One more thing i saw on here a few people saying Batman lost his nerve to kill the joker but really the joker took away Batmans chance by slipping away and failing off the cliff bc Batman was going to break him and then kill him, but joker was afraid when batman started talking about his past and how the joker really was so he jumped.

You raise an interesting point... I guess it's possible that Batman was going to kill Joker after he told him his true identity... Although, it doesn't really seem like it, and, furthermore, I go the impression that Bruce was bluffing about knowing Joker's identity and past. Which leads me to believe that he was counting on Joker jumping off the ledge, so that he didn't have to kill him. And the last thing that made me think Batman had no intention of killing Joker was when he told Alfred that he's afraid to kill him because of what may show up after the fact if he did.

#17 Posted by leejunfan83 (123 posts) - - Show Bio

@sEsposito7 said:

With all the talk about Batman 17, and after listening to the most recent podcast today, I want to air my view of the issue, the story arc, Snyder's Batman, and storytelling in comics in a more general sense.

Firstly, whatever you feel about 17 and DOTF, we must recognize that having fans react so strongly in any way is a mark of honor for the storytellers and it's something that ought to be commended. Any time a comic can completely divide and polarize the fan base is really a good time for comics--it gets us talking and thinking about how stories are told in comics and it's usually the time when most of us bare our true colors in terms of our passion and love for the characters.

Secondly, I don't think anyone can deny that DOTF has been a wild ride and a great Batman tale. Surely, years from now, we will look back upon Snyder and Capullo's run and talk about this story. Do I think this is Snyder's best arc? No; so far, The Black Mirror still reigns from on high for me. Do I think it's better than 90% of the books DC has put out in the past ~2 years? Absolutely. Is Greg Capullo the best penciller working today? Quite possibly. There's also the matter of Snyder-fanboyism. A lot of people are starting to throw around the notion that Snyder is overhyped and that certain comic book reviewers have conflated their personal feelings with Mr. Snyder with their professional opinions of his work. I won't address the latter part, because frankly, we'll never know if that's the case and it's really none of my business--or anyone elses--to simply speculate; let's give the professional reviewers the benefit of the doubt here. They definitely deserve it. I, personally, do not believe Snyder to be the best writer right now, but he certainly holds a spot in the top 5. My complaints with his work are not many, but I do have certain reservations about his work that don't allow him to occupy the number 1 spot in my list. The major issue that I have is that a lot of his work is thematically redundant. For example, every time a new story is being hyped up by the DC propaganda machine, Snyder is always recorded in interviews saying something very similar to "...it's going to be twisted/frightening/dark/etc..." Twisted and dark is his thing, I get that. That's what he does best, and honestly, I wouldn't want to read anyone else for that type of stuff. But, there's a certain point where that type of story becomes overdone and unnecessary. Snyder has been doing dark and twisted in Gotham since he started The Black Mirror--save for maybe a single issue, which featured Harper Row--and I do at times yearn to see what else he has in his tool bag. At this point, no one is really sure if he can do any other type of story and execute it well. I'm not saying I want any Batman story to be light-hearted or anything like that. But I think it would be interesting to see where Snyder can take Batman outside of what scares Bruce and what brings out his weaknesses. Batman is a character with so many dimensions, and if you take a long look at the whole of Snyder's run so far, a lot of it is focused on examining a very narrow portion of the character in a fun house mirror. I want more. I want to see how Snyder invisions Batman in totality. I'm counting on the Riddler story that he's got planned to bring out Batman's intellectual side, and I'm looking forward to the future to see what other aspects of Batman's character Snyder can tease out in the months ahead.

As for the events of 17, I think it's unfair and stupid to say that nothing happened, and I don't really want to have a conversation about whether or not something did or didn't happen or whether or not fans were purposefully misled. We don't need physical death in comics in order for something to be a big deal. The very notion that we do is hobbling to the industry and, as fans, we should be insulted by any reliance on the "comic book death." We should demand that writers stive for more mature and hard-hitting stories; stories that move us in ways that the death of a character could never do. And that's what Snyder has done with DOTF. He deserves much commendation for trying to break the mold.

The final moments of 17 disturbed me deeply. I was left thinking about them long after I closed the book and I found myself enamored by what the Joker did. In a lot of ways, it shows the worst parts of a sadistic man, and all the faults that Batman possesses as a character. Bruce is so badly emotionally damaged, and to see that be his ultimate downfall here is something very, very disturbing.

That said, I wanted nothing more than to have Batman kill the Joker in 17. I thought it would be the perfect beat for the story to take and it would introduce possibly years of new, interesting stories into the Batman mythos. When he said "No. Not like this. Not by accident." when Joker came to the cliff, my heart dropped, and I smiled a bit. I was rooting for Batman to do what he has never been able to do. I wanted him to pull the Joker off the edge and beat him to death with his bare hands in a fit of rage; the ultimate show of weakness and strength all at the same time.

But, it never happened. Instead, Batman did what no man would ever do in the face of such tragedy and emotional havoc. He totally gave up. He completely lost his nerve and as a consequence, it came off--to me--as a total moment of weakness and cowardice. How could anyone look to a man that not only allows a murdering psychopath to live and torture his loved ones, but actually saves him from certain death? This was such a disappointing moment for me in terms of how I view Batman as a hero. I completely lost faith in him.

Perhaps I'm too violent a man. Maybe I want my heroes to take vengeance rather than justice. But, whatever the case, I saw Bruce's inability to put the Joker down like a rabid dog as a fatal flaw. On the podcast, the conversation was about how Batman killing Joker would have been a show of weakness, and something that would make for interesting stories. And, to a certain extent, I agree. However, I think there's something to be said for it being a show of absolute strength as well. It would be Batman breaking his own personal code for the safety of his family. It would have been a man doing what he had to do, and Batman's most relateable characteristic is that he is just a man. Instead, we see Batman completely wimp out, and show his hand as an emotionally damaged man without the capability to handle the threats that he faces for real.

One more thing I want to touch on is something Tony said. That if Batman were to kill Joker, it would lead to a domino effect of him just killing other enemies. I disagree. If a man kills someone--especially with just cause, in defense of his loved ones--that doesn't make him automatically someone who will kill again. If someone broke into your home and you killed him in self defense, are you going to now go out and murder other criminals at night? Not likely. There's no reason why Bruce couldn't have killed the Joker in cold blood and not be turned into the Punisher.

Think of all the interesting stories that could be told with Batman trying to deal with crossing that line. The possibilities are endless. However, I don't let my disappointment in Batman ruin the consequences of the issue for me. I think Joker having driven a wedge between Bruce and the rest of the family is deliciously evil and I'm excited to see the fallout. However, I think all of that could have remained the same and hit harder and closer to home if Batman had actually done what any man would do.

Thank you

#18 Posted by sj_esposito (457 posts) - - Show Bio

@leejunfan83: My pleasure. :)

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.