Why hasn't most of Batman's Rogues Gallery been given the Electric Chair?

[byrd156]

It's not the answer to the real question being asked.

I don't mind if people point out the real world reasons as an aside, but Jim Kelly was acting like it a silly question to ask.

Well I gave two answers that fit.

[Restingvoice]

Again, with this kind of question, just like with the question of why Batman doesn't just kill his villain question, I can't ignore outside reasoning. As in, the company needs these characters to be alive as long as possible and keep them interesting, even when it means a lot of them end up becoming mass murderers.

That's the main reason, and when that's the main reason, I kinda don't care what kind of justification they made in story to preserve that, because it was never an in story problem, it's an out of story problem.

[phantom1592]

Again, with this kind of question, just like with the question of why Batman doesn't just kill his villain question, I can't ignore outside reasoning. As in, the company needs these characters to be alive as long as possible and keep them interesting, even when it means a lot of them end up becoming mass murderers.

That's the main reason, and when that's the main reason, I kinda don't care what kind of justification they made in story to preserve that, because it was never an in story problem, it's an out of story problem.

Frankly that's not particularly true either though. The company doesnt' actually NEED these villains. They can and HAVE made new ones. Why does Marvel not allow Daredevil or Spider-man to kill their villains in the street... but Punisher and Moon Knight can and do? Saying that the company needs the villains to make the money... doesn't fit. If they did they wouldn't allow ANY of them to be killed.It would be an all or nothing thing.

Batman and Gotham COULD execute his villains and they COULD just replace them. A quick wiki search shows that there have been at least EIGHT different Clayfaces?!?? (honestly when I looked I thought there were like three or four tops...) Why don't they execute a few of them?? Batman:White Knight introduced the idea of two Harley's... Flash has had multiple Mirror Masters and Tricksters... So the idea of a villain dying isn't off the table 'financially speaking'.

Scarecrow, Penguin, Riddler, even Joker are more 'gimmicks' than characters. If you killed off Edward Nygma and some new super-genius obsessed with puzzles picked up that gimmick the comics wouldn't miss a beat. One of the neat ideas behind 'the three Jokers' concept for me. If you told me that the crowbar wielding Joker of Death in the Family.... and cuts off his own face and wears it like a mask Joker were two completely different characters running around with the same name... that sounds pretty legit to me.

[Jackalope89]

Why? This is why;

[Baseman]

Frankly that's not particularly true either though. The company doesnt' actually NEED these villains. They can and HAVE made new ones. Why does Marvel not allow Daredevil or Spider-man to kill their villains in the street... but Punisher and Moon Knight can and do? Saying that the company needs the villains to make the money... doesn't fit. If they did they wouldn't allow ANY of them to be killed.It would be an all or nothing thing.

Batman and Gotham COULD execute his villains and they COULD just replace them. A quick wiki search shows that there have been at least EIGHT different Clayfaces?!?? (honestly when I looked I thought there were like three or four tops...) Why don't they execute a few of them?? Batman:White Knight introduced the idea of two Harley's... Flash has had multiple Mirror Masters and Tricksters... So the idea of a villain dying isn't off the table 'financially speaking'.

Scarecrow, Penguin, Riddler, even Joker are more 'gimmicks' than characters. If you killed off Edward Nygma and some new super-genius obsessed with puzzles picked up that gimmick the comics wouldn't miss a beat. One of the neat ideas behind 'the three Jokers' concept for me. If you told me that the crowbar wielding Joker of Death in the Family.... and cuts off his own face and wears it like a mask Joker were two completely different characters running around with the same name... that sounds pretty legit to me.

.They get away with it because the writers create their own villains to kill off.But there are villains in the Marvel universe they aren't allowed to kill (Kingpin for example).Popular villains can't be killed because their of their popularity.

I feel that idea,while good once and a while,is going to get old if the writers start using it often .Whats the point of killing of the character if your just going to replace them with a similar character a few issues down the road?It kills the tension. Not to mention the problem that some people just aren't going to fans of the newer versions of theses characters.

[byrd156]

Why? This is why;

Whether you like Tom King or not, his Kite-Man stuff is great.

[Restingvoice]

Frankly that's not particularly true either though. The company doesnt' actually NEED these villains. They can and HAVE made new ones. Why does Marvel not allow Daredevil or Spider-man to kill their villains in the street... but Punisher and Moon Knight can and do? Saying that the company needs the villains to make the money... doesn't fit. If they did they wouldn't allow ANY of them to be killed.It would be an all or nothing thing.

Batman and Gotham COULD execute his villains and they COULD just replace them. A quick wiki search shows that there have been at least EIGHT different Clayfaces?!?? (honestly when I looked I thought there were like three or four tops...) Why don't they execute a few of them?? Batman:White Knight introduced the idea of two Harley's... Flash has had multiple Mirror Masters and Tricksters... So the idea of a villain dying isn't off the table 'financially speaking'.

Scarecrow, Penguin, Riddler, even Joker are more 'gimmicks' than characters. If you killed off Edward Nygma and some new super-genius obsessed with puzzles picked up that gimmick the comics wouldn't miss a beat. One of the neat ideas behind 'the three Jokers' concept for me. If you told me that the crowbar wielding Joker of Death in the Family.... and cuts off his own face and wears it like a mask Joker were two completely different characters running around with the same name... that sounds pretty legit to me.

Need, want, or whether they are gimmicks or not... the result is the same. DC is keeping these characters alive, even knowing that there are multiple Clayfaces, they decided to simplify it into just one, or in the case of Joker, multiply them. So knowing that's what they're doing, whatever the reason, it's hard to make me care how they justify it inside the comic.

[dancj]

Well I gave two answers that fit.

You gave one answer that fits the real question, which was what's the reason in the story.

You also gave the real world answer - and that's fine, but the way Jim Kelly answered was dismissive and ignored the real question. That's what I was pointing out.

[Mistah K88]

I like the idea of the corrupt politicians keeping some of the Arkhamites from going to the chair to distract everyone from what is really going on...

I think the problem that most readers have is how every villain in Gotham needs to be a mass murderer...It then gets harder to believe that they shouldn't get put down.

[theoneandonly]

probably because they would rig the thing to blow up everything along with they themselves. remember when Jason got jailed in a regular correctional facility?