People still believe Batman doesnt kill Joker in a comic called 'The Killing Joke' that has THIS as it's last page

>people still believe Batman doesnt kill Joker in a comic called 'The Killing Joke' that has THIS as it's last page

Other urls found in this thread:

inverse.com/article/14967-alan-moore-now-believes-the-killing-joke-was-melodramatic-not-interesting
twitter.com/AnonBabble

inverse.com/article/14967-alan-moore-now-believes-the-killing-joke-was-melodramatic-not-interesting

anyone who pretends he didn't kill the Joker is a just a butthurt anti-Morrisonfag

he's not wrong

Look mate it's basic literature the reason the panel goes quit and focuses on the rain is to mirror the ending implying joker was arrested,batman will visit him again and the whole thing will repeat,because the relationship is a cycle.Thats the joke,neither of them will kill each other,neither will be saved no matter how hard batman points to freedom with the flashlight.Its basic mirroring that a high schooler can get,no hidden twist,no big game changer

It's subverting that actually, dumb pleb

...

Subverting what?Batman WANTS to stop the cycle but can't and that's why the both laughs,the last panel with the rain falling silently like the first panel hints the cycle started again.Its tragic and not a subversion,the killing joke is a commentary on batman and the jokers relationship there's no subversion.Have you never done comics in a literature class before?This is one of the classics we did in highschool

joker's standing in panel 7 and Batman's hands aren't near his neck at all.

He laughs because he's actually going to do it it. The callback with the rain is subversive because the cycle is broken rather than actually starting again. You're a pleb who just listened to your teacher instead of thinking for yourself.

Do you know what a subversion is?Because there are no subversions in the killing joke,it's completely played straight.Open rain,Joker escapes prisons,commits a crime,Batman catches him and pleads him to seek help joker laughs at the idea,Que rain,end scene.What made it good was it's art and commentary on the joker/bat relationship and jokers motive,there is no grand twist,no "I did it 45 minutes ago" etc.Its why Moore doesn't consider it his best work,it's very straightforward no matter how hard Morrison wants to add a twist there that completely messes with te theme of the book

If the callback with the rain was a subversion then Moore would have had the rain stop,instead it's exactly the same as in the first page.The end is the same as the beginning.There are no subversions in te killing joke,it's very straightforward,likewise if batman kills the joker that whole motif of "two men are in an asylum joke" looses it's meaning,Batman wants to subvert the truth,but no matter how hard he flashes his flashlight,joker will never take the jump and the police will always bring him back to te asylum.Ergo why batman starts laughing when the he hears the police siren.There are no indications of that page being the finite end,or some grand twist that upends the readers expectations.The book is straightforward but batman and jokers commentary point out just how funny/tragic the cycle is,that's the joke

The rain doesn't need to stop for it to be subversion, that's just what you would do if you were scripting it. And if he kills the Joker there is no meaning lost. If anything it strengthens things, Batman is the protagonist and the reason to read Batman comics. He doesn't need the Joker for his adventures to continue, that's the joke here.

Batman wouldn't be laughing if he were killing him.
You retarded fucking subhumans.

Look man a subversion is taking the structure of a story and upending it surprise the reader,the fact that it's not explicit is proof that seeing a murder is reaching

The surprise is in that you're lead to assume it's just going to be that reflective shit where they just do the same thing over and over again but then Batman breaks the cycle.

It doesn't need to be explicit to get the message across. The laughing stops suddenly on the page before the cops actually turn off the siren and get out of the car. He's dead senpai. I don't see why you're having so much trouble with this.

>He's dead
Why are the people on this board so stupid as to state assumptions as facts despite no empirical proof?

this thread is a waste of time, its intentionally ambiguous

It's purposefully ambiguous. Now drop it.

>my intention at the end of that book was to have the two characters simply experiencing a brief moment of lucidity in their ongoing very weird and probably fatal relationship with each other, reaching a moment where they both perceive the hell that they are in, and can only laugh at their preposterous situation. A similar chuckle is shared by the doomed couple at the end of the remarkable Jim Thompson’s original novel, The Getaway.

>Have you never done comics in a literature class before?
>comics
>in a literature class
>literature
nobody cares about your shitty community college degree

Read the script, faggot

>People never stop laughing after hearing a joke

Hoo boy.

Fuck. Do you even know what a spacebar is? It's used for putting spaces after punctuation marks.

They kiss...

They want to have hot gay sex with each other until their buttholes are filled with cream.

>2017
>people still care about this
>even worse, people still care what OTHERS think about this

It's clearly seen that Batman just tickles his titties.

What da fuck can he do to kill him, rip his heart out?

>"And David, for the record, my intention at the end of that book was to have the two characters simply experiencing a brief moment of lucidity in their ongoing very weird and probably fatal relationship with each other, reaching a moment where they both perceive the hell that they are in, and can only laugh at their preposterous situation. A similar chuckle is shared by the doomed couple at the end of the remarkable Jim Thompson’s original novel, The Getaway."

Yeah, I don't think that was the intention at all, but I will say I think it makes for a much better story than the mainstream interpretation.

for fucks sake
>my intention at the end of that book was to have the two characters simply experiencing a brief moment of lucidity in their ongoing very weird and probably fatal relationship with each other, reaching a moment where they both perceive the hell that they are in, and can only laugh at their preposterous situation. A similar chuckle is shared by the doomed couple at the end of the remarkable Jim Thompson’s original novel, The Getaway.

From the fucking author himself. It is embarrassing as all hell to think that there are people who need The Killing Joke explained to them, but here it is you retards.

Because when you don't explicitly show something, it means the writers/authors think they're being so fucking clever and later with a shit eating grin will get to say "ah, but you see, we didn't actually SHOW him getting killed"
the implications should be enough, but how it should be ain't how it is

>it was a case of the author not treating the audience like children, but I clearly need regular spoonfeeding, else I'll accuse them off being pretentious

Actually they kissed

This.

>Self contained story - he killed him
>Canon story - didn't kill him

As far as I see it, there's two interpretations of the ending. Whichever one you choose decides if it's canon or not. If you don't care it's canon, then he killed the Joker.

Be careful, newfags will think you're making a John Oliver reference

>>people still believe Batman doesn't rape the Joker in a comic called 'The Raping Joke' that has THIS as it's last page

nah. that happened MAYBE once. the rest of the time, they go by the rule "if it happened off 'screen', anything goes"
believe me, i'd love something satisfying like batman uncucking himself
but the authors don't love that

Moore created the work. The events that happened occurred because he designed them that way. Moore says that the Joker wasn't killed in the Killing Joke, there's no real evidence that he died in the Killing Joke, and the only thing that points to that is symbolism which is up to interpretation. Death of the author is interesting for fun theories and stuff but that's it, the interpretation of an event doesn't change what actually happens.