How is it possible that people don't see what is going on in this page? How can people be so blind?

>Besides if Moore said there was no choking then there was no choking, end of story.
Comics are collaborative, user. If the writer has a stance and the artist prefers ambiguity, what you're left with is ambiguity with an author preference.

Sorry the fact that more than one interpretation exists and was intended by one of the creators triggers you.

>Just seems like reaching
It isn't reaching at all. Like I said, it's not what Alan Moore's statement says, but it also isn't some crazy fringe theory either. It was an intentional ambiguity Bolland drew into the ending.
>Bats went super out of character
He went super out of character no matter how you read it. It's not in character for him to share a nice long laugh with the serial killer who just shot Barbara and tortured Gordon in a dilapidated amusement park with giant photographs of her post-shooting and then release him to the authorities for the night.

>No future story treats that as a thing, despite Killing Joke being canon to a lot of a shit cause of crippled Barbs.
Which is entirely retroactive and not what was originally intended at all. So of course he didn't kill him in regards to future canon. That's not what people mean when they ask what happened or think that was the intent/better ending.

>So what more is there to talk about?
I'm not the one who made this thread. What I'm taking about is how it's stupid to pretend the murder ending isn't a very obvious interpretation given Bolland himself pointed out he drew the ending ambiguously.

But there isn't any ambiguity.
Killing joke was brought into canon and Batman didn't kill Joker. That's it, end of story. There's no way for him to have.
Sorry that cold hard facts or the fact that Batman doesn't existing in a bubble triggers you.
see above.
Joker is still alive and Batman didn't murder him. It's not even a debate
But it is what happened.
>it's not what people mean when they ask what happened
It literally is
>or think that was the intent/better ending
True but that's just fanfic and not canon. Batman didn't kill the joker, end of story

>"Death of the Author is for faggots and Fahrenheit 451 is a bad book."

>Death of the Author is for faggots
Most of the time, yeah. It's just people whining and wanting their versions to be the real one despite that not being their choice

>The author's intent matters!
>Except when future writers decide they want to change something!
Either it's definitively a shared laugh and you don't pull the "muh canon" card or it was ambiguous and future writers dictated the outcome by incorporating it despite Alan (non-canon one off) and Brain (ambiguity)'s original intent.

Don't play both sides, faggot.

>It's not even a debate
The debate part is OP asking how anyone could possibly make the interpretation that's really obviously drawn in as one of two possibilities with the art at the end.
Like I've said repeatedly now, it's stupid to pretend that's not an obvious interpretation to make or that anyone's reaching by making it. Different argument from the question of what the official canon result of the story is or what Alan Moore's statement about it is.
Don't make threads pretending obvious things aren't obvious and I won't have to make posts pointing out that's wrong.

>Art has a CORRECT AND TRUE version and how DARE you see anything other than the most prominent version of the ideas presented! MY CANON REEEEEE!
I can smell the autism from here.

>or that anyone's reaching by making it.
They are when they know what happens.
No one cares about your fanfic, user

>Any sort of thought beyond blind consumption is fanfiction.
Remember to buy Doomsday Clock, OP. You don't want to miss out on how Geoff redefines the DCU.

>They are when they know what happens.
That's not the OP argument. OP argument is that you're "blind" if you don't make one of the two obvious possible interpretations drawn into the ending. Which is stupid and wrong.

They know what half of the creative team intended and what a company thought was easier to use on future stories. Why do you treat Brian Bolland like he doesn't matter, user?

They both got run over by a car.
You see the headlights, and the weeeeeeee sound as it comes, hits them, and leaves.

>The creator confirmed it didn't happen
>BUT IT TOTALLY HAPPENED AND HERE'S WHY
Please stop being an idiot.

>One creator says "Nah."
>One creator shrugs.
>HOW DARE YOU THINK THE ANSWER COULD EVER BE YES.
Stop ignoring Bolland because it's convenient, OP.

The writer said it didn't happen. In case you're confused: the writer creates events and what transpires in the comic -- id est: they're in charge of the "writing." I know that's an alien concept to someone like you who can't read, but Alan Moore is, in fact, the writer and has the ultimate say in what happened in the comic.

Since when was Brian Bolland an authority on anything anyway? He's the dipshit that thought it needed a recolor.

The 9-panel system deliberately obfuscates cognitive process. Your mind wants to see a unified picture but it is scrambled into a 3x3 grid. Trying to come to grips with it generates linear interpolations to view collumns, rows, diagonals and even L or T shapes to better visualize the event. Ultimately the process fails and the mind deteriorates, carrying away nothing from the page.
Watchmen fails for the same reason.

BUT IT LOOKS MORE REALISTIC.

AND UUUH... SHITTIER!
BUT FUCK YOU.

You don't understand my argument. I'm not saying "it totally happened." Like I've said, repeatedly now, my point is just that it's stupid to pretend it's crazy to interpret an intentionally ambiguous scene in one of the two obvious ways it was set up to be ambiguous about.

Oh yeah, titally, the artist is just a d of who does the grunt work while the writer deserves all the credit, there's absolutely no collaboration and nothing is told visually or added/interpreted by the artist. I'm glad we all understand that only the creator who agrees with me matters and there's no room for ambiguity because only THEY matter.

I'm sure you feel the same way about Kirby and Ditko's output. Fuck off you disingenuous shit.

Cause he's a nobody whose opinion doesn't matter

death of the author, comrade

Read the script you brain-dead fuck. Nowhere does it say "Batman puts his hands on Joker's neck." It took over two decades of idiots like you constantly bugging Moore about this MatPat-tier falsely theorized horseshit for him to say that it clearly wasn't part of the story.

And the artist does have their place. WITH THE ART. But since you want to talk about the art then let's talk about how Bolland ruined every future printing of Killing Joke. Surely he should have more merit for retroactively ruining the one-shot? Where's the credit for the man with the plan? Why does nobody like poor old him as much as Moore? ;(

>immediately going for the "shill" card.
That deleted thread was right, Yea Forums IS where criticism comes to die.

ngl out of context it looks like batman is about to rape him

is that so..

Attached: commissioner gordan.jpg (300x225, 15K)

>Alan is in charge of the script.
Yeah, and if this wasn't a visual medium, that would be the end of it. But comics convey information visually, and The Killing Joke ends on a visually ambiguous page, as confirmed by the man who created that page. This is a fact, regardless of your opinion and company politics. Killing Joke, the script, was not intended to be ambiguous. Killing Joke, the comic book, has an ambiguous final page due to a liberty taken by the artist.

This is an immutable fact.
Sorry it triggers you.

>"Consume slop, pig" = "Shill"
Sorry you can't read, but the implication was that user does not have any discerning taste if he regards interpretation as fanfiction.

This is a pretty simple argument to solve.
If the page was written to have a certain and correct message the author and artist meant to convey, and it comes across as ambiguous, then it's bad.
If the page was made by the author and the artist to be ambiguous, and the message they meant to convey is also ambiguous, then it's good.
This is as quantitative a judgment as you can make on this subject.
So for those arguing that we know the author's intent, but it is not conveyed properly in the page, then you agree with no reservations that Killing Joke's ending is shit.

Attached: 1555129867748.jpg (531x374, 34K)

Two different creators have two different ideas (one concrete, one ambiguous) and the ending is ambiguous but slanted towards the correct one.
Where does that leave us?

gordon is already naked in that story. joker's first mistake.

They are clearly kissing.

I think that the page wants to show how batman gets some of the jokers insanity more than the debate of killing him or not. Showing it by switching off the ray of light of the floor. The light is dividing the two of them, but at the end, it goes off and all the darkness of both mix.