Drew's Batman Article

[Al]

theluckyone said:

I guess I don't get why it would be any different for movies than it is in comics, tv shows, etc... what is it about movies that necessitates villains get killed off instead of just locked away?

I thought Joss Whedon put it rather well: the difference between a television show and a movie is that tv is all about questions and a movie is all about answers. Movie logic tends to dictate that jail simply isn't a solution for these criminals, there is only one way their stories can end. Sending The Joker to jail isn't terribly dramatic; plummetting off a clock tower, however, is a bit more fitting a climax.

Al

[PoolMan]

I agree, Al. Comics and TV have the benefit of being much more serialized, you can tell a story over a long period of time. Put a character in Arkham until he needs to escape for dramatic necessity. Comic fans LOVE that stuff.

But with movies, how many can you really make? If you're going to go for a trilogy, do you WANT the same villain three times over? Sometimes, maybe. I'd make a case for a trilogy involving the Joker, where each movie racheted up the tension between the two characters. But a lot of Batman's rogues gallery doesn't support that in a film translation. Three films with the Riddler would get OLD. So it kind of stands to reason that if you don't want the same villain over and over again in film, you've got to DO something with them, and as Al points out, putting them in the paddywagon doesn't do much for an audience, emotionally.

Again, I totally understand why this all miffs you, Drew. I just think it's dramatic necessity for the format of cinema versus something more long running.