Fan Comic Imagines Batman & Joker's Final Deal

Fan Comic Imagines Batman & Joker's Final Deal

I do the things I do because you ...

Batman and the Joker; they've been dancing in the pale moonlight since 1940, with never an end in sight. The one won't kill, while the other does nothing but, and, in this amazing 14-page fan comic by writer Gerado Preciado and artist Daniel Bayliss, two very talented people explore what it would be like if it did end after all. It might be the Joker pressing the final button, but why does he set it all in motion? And will Batman decide to send him to Hell, or is there another way out of the paradox they find themselves in?

This one isn't for those with an aversion to violence, and its treatment of the canon is bound to upset some Batman fans. "Daniel and I are very happy and grateful for the amazing response that you guys are having with The Deal," says Preciado, adding "we will be uploading more stories very, very soon." If you're looking for concept art, head over here, where there's a whole bunch.

If you just want to get to the meat of the matter, head right over here and read The Deal.

Source: Wired

Permalink

Karloff:
and its treatment of the canon is bound to upset some Batman fans.

Canon? In terms of everyone being totally out of character, I'll agree, but in terms of messing with established events, that's the one thing this comic doesn't get wrong. Far worse is its disrespect for the tone of the source material. It's like the author wrote this story, and decided to make it about Batman afterwards.

P.S. Thanks

P.P.S. Edit: "What the hell are you talkig about?", "I'm not crazy I'm just awaken"... did anyone even proofread this? These kinds of mistakes are acceptable in forum posts and YouTube comments, but certainly not in something trying to pass itself off as worth reading.

Meh. Kinda resoundingly meh from a story standpoint, the best thing I can say about it is that the art is God damn beautiful. Shame the story's meh and out of character. Guess that's what you get for trying to write a comic in 14 pages.

I could see the Joker feeling the way he does in the comic, but I don't think he would openly express it the way he does.

Batman on the other hand, I don't see him thinking or behaving this way at all, Batman doesn't get softer as he gets older ether he gets more and more rigid from what I have seen from Batman Beyond, so I doubt he has an emotional breaking point like this displays.

Coming at this from a philosophical standpoint the idea that all things are one and that life is an illusion (Monism) is self contradictory. If all we know is an illusion then how do we know there is a oneness to be united with? If all we feel are illusions then is not love or the feeling of oneness also an illusion?

It's a popular idea, but an inherently meaningless one.

Honestly the only thing I liked about this was the Bill Hicks quote, other than that it was pretty disappointing, especially the way the characters deviated from their actual personalities. Aside from anything else why on earth would Batman's final act be to break his no killing rule? Plus personally I wasn't a fan of the joker illustrations, he just didn't look right to me.

Perhaps as a full length story it would be better but I'm just not seeing any justification for the positive response this has gotten from some people.

Not a bad attempt, but a bit blatant about themes better explored elsewhere with these characters.

One could take it as a commentary on the exhaustion of these particular characters as vehicles for this particular story as these particular archetypes. If that's the case, the violation of form makes sense...the Joker has given up trying to get Batman to get a joke the audience got years ago, so he's just explaining it outright with a bit of a nod to their being little more than characters in a story (Joker's bit, starting with 'Awaken'...he's not saying he is 'Awaken', he's breaking off his previous line at the ellipses to tell /Batman/ to wake up to what they are). Which ruins the joke, but brings the point of it into focus and suggesting that it might be time to move on from these two.

Either way, not a bad one-off shot, but it does feel like it goes out of it's way to belabor it's subject matter. Dialog, such as it is, needs work. Tries a little too hard to read 'deep'. Artistically, a good shout out to the old West era incarnation, further highlighting the notion that they've been doing this a lot longer than the modern audience tends to think.

The overall grotesque, desaturated tone works for that, as does having them fall from Joker's dirigible. Not sure how deliberate a juxtaposition that was, but it works for what they're doing.

Of course, if I'm right about any of this I've explained the joke and ruined it myself, and if I'm wrong I'm a pretentious nit digging extraneous meaning out of nothing. >.>

Anyone recommend a good hat shop?

The title page was really well illustrated. After that? Ridiculous amounts of wrinkles, weird proportions. It's only 14 pages and there's still inconsistencies in the art. Batman in chains. Not in chains. In chains. Letter by box, not by box.

Story was atrocious. I like the idea of Batman being pushed right over the edge by something Joker does but then magically handwaving that all away and replacing it with some pseudo-intellectual "Deep" nonsense? Very dissappointed.

I'd say Arkham City did it better, to be honest. At least that one made sense.

Chairman Miaow:
The title page was really well illustrated. After that? Ridiculous amounts of wrinkles, weird proportions. It's only 14 pages and there's still inconsistencies in the art. Batman in chains. Not in chains. In chains. Letter by box, not by box.

Story was atrocious. I like the idea of Batman being pushed right over the edge by something Joker does but then magically handwaving that all away and replacing it with some pseudo-intellectual "Deep" nonsense? Very dissappointed.

Actually Batman is shown to be chained up right on the title page. The only inconsistency with that appears in the last page of the first panel. That though, could always be explained away by him moving and the cape obscuring one side, while the box obscures the other.
Most likely though, its meant to be more symbolic than anything. Not everything in comics, or art, necessarily need to represent an actual physical object. The chains could easily be seen as Batman's will, his entire ethical code of honor that prohibits him from killing. Which is why he needs to do little more than stand and move for them to break, and not through the use of some tool.

And I'm guessing the complaint of the letter by box, not by box, comes from when they are falling. It's done simply to provide contrast for the white text. If you noticed, the text loses the boxes once the background becomes a simple color, which makes reading it easier on the eyes. That isn't an inconsistency.

And something I found a little interesting, but no one has brought up the fact that Batman's costume in general screams Adam West. The only thing missing, actually, is the markings on the mask. Also digging the symbolism of the ending, the bat-shaped splatter with the two connected symbolizes probably what is most iconic with Batman as a character. Batman isn't just Batman, he can't be, not without his villains, and what most anyone would likely agree on is that the Joker is the quintessential Batman villain. No other character represents such an extreme foil, or pushes the limits, like Joker does for Batman.

Vaporware pretty much said the rest of what I would. I think the major problem here is just how condensed it all feels within fourteen pages. The art did rub me a little wrong, but it isn't something I'd call atrocious. In a sense, it even reminds me a wee bit of Frank Miller's Batman comics.

I can definitely see where this comic wanted to go (both Joker and Batman are essentially fighting the inevitable[1]), but I disagree with the execution of the story. Batman wouldn't flip his opinion of the Joker so easily based on a couple lines of quasi-sincere dialogue. The comic also didn't show Batman having doubts about his morals or ideals, really leading the comic to jump tone from super-serious to philosophical.

Also, that art...is not the best, to say the least. Of course, this was completely done as a non-profit side project, so I would feel bad heavily criticizing what is essentially a fan comic.

[1] The Joker never wants to stop killing despite having no drive or motivation and Batman never wants to kill anyone despite having been proven that containing the biggest mass murderer (the Joker) is impossible.

Angelous Wang:
I could see the Joker feeling the way he does in the comic, but I don't think he would openly express it the way he does.

you must have missed the 90s :P

image

It's a good Elseworld (both stories) as a long time Batfan i approve the quote was over long but i got the overall point. This would be a good entry in the old Legend of the Dark Knight days.

Maybe I'm just too tired for this, but I didn't get it at all.
Really simple premise, I mean it's basically one single thing that completely sets Batman off, with no context around how the Joker achieved this situation, Batman completely falls apart instantly, then the Joker starts spouting some nonsense about being married to Batman, and... I just... what?

Maybe I'm just incredibly sleep deprived, but that did not catch me at all. I'll look at it again tomorrow.

Hero in a half shell:
Maybe I'm just too tired for this, but I didn't get it at all.
Really simple premise, I mean it's basically one single thing that completely sets Batman off, with no context around how the Joker achieved this situation, Batman completely falls apart instantly, then the Joker starts spouting some nonsense about being married to Batman, and... I just... what?

Maybe I'm just incredibly sleep deprived, but that did not catch me at all. I'll look at it again tomorrow.

Nah, you didn't miss anything. There's some pseudo-philosophy mixed in, but it was so meaningless that it really didn't matter.

P.S. Thanks

I liked the idea behind the story more than the story itself. Love is a complicated emotion, one that can be more than just "Sex" or "wanting to be with the other forever". How does an insane person love? The Joker loves him, hates him, and empathizes with him. After all, he understands the strain that comes with trying to keep yourself together.

Instead of breaking, the Batman struggles to hold himself together, creating a facade of rules and self-restraint. The Joker tests the Batman, pushing him constantly to his limits. Winning against the Joker validates Batman's own conviction. Losing does nothing for the Joker. He prefers the game, the period of time where they're dancing together regardless of which side succeeds. It would be so easy just to fall apart, fall into the madness than just trying to resist it.

The only way for the Joker to truly lose is for Batman to simply not play at all. The only way to finally end the cycle is by destroying the Batman persona, accept the loss of his parents, and move on by finally becoming Bruce fully. No facades, no lies or deceit behind it. There were stories where the Joker believes the Batman has died, and he basically loses any meaning he had to his actions. For the madman, he had something that held him to reality.

The Batman.

Without him, all of his games, his jokes, his crimes become utterly meaningless.

There are stories where he actually becomes sane without the Batman, or he simply falls into complete despair without him. The relationship between those two is the most convoluted, insane, but yet oddly beautiful and perfect in their own way. It's a story of two men who were driven insane by something terrible, and the steps they took to heal from that. Whether it's to give in, or resist and try to hold yourself together, both men found a way to keep going.

Well that was stupid.

"What if Batman MARRIED the Joker and ASKED to be "pushed"?"

Yeah, what if? Then you get an excuse to do whatever the heck you want with established characters, don't you?

The comic tells an old batman story. I'm sure everyone has heard this one before and I love batman stories. My only gripe is that the Joker's long dialogue is kinda confusing. His speech should resonate something higher in their relationship, but he just comes off as a weirdo to me.

And I hope someone can explain the last quote to me. I mean I think I get it, and it's not very impressive. So maybe I'm missing something.

Beautiful art, like purposefully ugly.

Sorry double post

I... don't really 'get it'

O_o

Didn't the animated series explore the "what would happen if either of them was gone/dead/gave up" scenario multiple times?

Ι see it with the Flashpoint timeline as context. Not bad. My hair went up like lightning.

What the hell did I just read?

Baldry:
Meh. Kinda resoundingly meh from a story standpoint, the best thing I can say about it is that the art is God damn beautiful. Shame the story's meh and out of character. Guess that's what you get for trying to write a comic in 14 pages.

Yeah, the art is great. We just need a writer up in here to do something with it.

Houseman:
Well that was stupid.

"What if Batman MARRIED the Joker and ASKED to be "pushed"?"

Yeah, what if? Then you get an excuse to do whatever the heck you want with established characters, don't you?

Sounds like sub-par fanfiction, doesn't it?

Houseman:
Well that was stupid.

"What if Batman MARRIED the Joker and ASKED to be "pushed"?"

Yeah, what if? Then you get an excuse to do whatever the heck you want with established characters, don't you?

I'm sure the authors recognized they were acting "out of character." And when you have things like Batman managing to break a steel chain because he is angry, or a bat-shaped blood splatter, it should set off your "fantastical" detector.

Maybe it's more of a meta-commentary on the roles of these two kind of characters. Yeah, they could have used any characters with a similar relationship throughout history, but they chose to use these two as a modern example of yin-yang, good-evil necessity. And they chose to explore it through the meaninglessness of terms of "good" and "evil."

I agree, the dialogue's a little rough, but I appreciate the ideas that went into it. And if that's not your thing, nbd.

the art was not for me and the writing... lets say i like the bill hicks quote

Well, Ive seen better... and thinking about it, I haven't seen worse...

Wow that was...
Not very good at all. And it even went political at the end and quoted Bill Hicks? Really?

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here