Batman >> View Thread
1 2  >> All
Author
Blue Jay




I knew that The Dark Knight was not going to be an origin story of the Joker, but I expected Nolan to at least have quick flashbacks or cryptic clues given to the Joker's origin. Maybe such methods are still in the film to hint about the Joker's past, but Nolan's words leave me wondering what he is really up. He mentions that Joker's origin is thrilling and an important element but that he wanted to deal with Joker's rise not his origin. The Joker's origin in The Killing Joker, which is the definitive take on the Joker since there is no other acceptable origin, is what makes the Joker Batman's equal and opposite. Nolan not at least hinting at it, could really dampen the Joker's greatness. Hopefully Nolan will at the very least have some passing reference to the Joker's origin or hint at his origin being revealed in The Dark Knight. I mean the film does not need to be an origin story of Joker, to have his origin in it. It not in The Dark Knight I hope the next film will contain Joker's origin. See link below for details.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/839/839933p1.html


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
CensusTaker




> I knew that The Dark Knight was not going to be an origin story of the Joker, but I expected Nolan to at least have quick flashbacks or cryptic clues given to the Joker's origin. Maybe such methods are still in the film to hint about the Joker's past, but Nolan's words leave me wondering what he is really up. He mentions that Joker's origin is thrilling and an important element but that he wanted to deal with Joker's rise not his origin. The Joker's origin in The Killing Joker, which is the definitive take on the Joker since there is no other acceptable origin, is what makes the Joker Batman's equal and opposite. Nolan not at least hinting at it, could really dampen the Joker's greatness. Hopefully Nolan will at the very least have some passing reference to the Joker's origin or hint at his origin being revealed in The Dark Knight. I mean the film does not need to be an origin story of Joker, to have his origin in it. It not in The Dark Knight I hope the next film will contain Joker's origin. See link below for details.
>
> http://movies.ign.com/articles/839/839933p1.html


Everyone who comes here regularly knows about your Killing Joke obsession BJ, but yeah, I dont think you're going to get the Joker you want for this film. I for one dont think KJ is anywhere near as difinitive as you always say it is, and thinkt hat Joker was already established as Batmans equal and opposite long before hand, and that an `origin' isn't really important at all for the Joker as a character, what matters is who is RIGHT NOW. But I know you'll never agree with me.

Earl.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
KreeCapt




> > I knew that The Dark Knight was not going to be an origin story of the Joker, but I expected Nolan to at least have quick flashbacks or cryptic clues given to the Joker's origin. Maybe such methods are still in the film to hint about the Joker's past, but Nolan's words leave me wondering what he is really up. He mentions that Joker's origin is thrilling and an important element but that he wanted to deal with Joker's rise not his origin. The Joker's origin in The Killing Joker, which is the definitive take on the Joker since there is no other acceptable origin, is what makes the Joker Batman's equal and opposite. Nolan not at least hinting at it, could really dampen the Joker's greatness. Hopefully Nolan will at the very least have some passing reference to the Joker's origin or hint at his origin being revealed in The Dark Knight. I mean the film does not need to be an origin story of Joker, to have his origin in it. It not in The Dark Knight I hope the next film will contain Joker's origin. See link below for details.
> >
> > http://movies.ign.com/articles/839/839933p1.html
>
>
> Everyone who comes here regularly knows about your Killing Joke obsession BJ, but yeah, I dont think you're going to get the Joker you want for this film. I for one dont think KJ is anywhere near as difinitive as you always say it is, and thinkt hat Joker was already established as Batmans equal and opposite long before hand, and that an `origin' isn't really important at all for the Joker as a character, what matters is who is RIGHT NOW. But I know you'll never agree with me.
>
> Earl.

I agree with Earl.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on MacOS X
Seyg-El




> > > I knew that The Dark Knight was not going to be an origin story of the Joker, but I expected Nolan to at least have quick flashbacks or cryptic clues given to the Joker's origin. Maybe such methods are still in the film to hint about the Joker's past, but Nolan's words leave me wondering what he is really up. He mentions that Joker's origin is thrilling and an important element but that he wanted to deal with Joker's rise not his origin. The Joker's origin in The Killing Joker, which is the definitive take on the Joker since there is no other acceptable origin, is what makes the Joker Batman's equal and opposite. Nolan not at least hinting at it, could really dampen the Joker's greatness. Hopefully Nolan will at the very least have some passing reference to the Joker's origin or hint at his origin being revealed in The Dark Knight. I mean the film does not need to be an origin story of Joker, to have his origin in it. It not in The Dark Knight I hope the next film will contain Joker's origin. See link below for details.
> > >
> > > http://movies.ign.com/articles/839/839933p1.html
> >
> >
> > Everyone who comes here regularly knows about your Killing Joke obsession BJ, but yeah, I dont think you're going to get the Joker you want for this film. I for one dont think KJ is anywhere near as difinitive as you always say it is, and thinkt hat Joker was already established as Batmans equal and opposite long before hand, and that an `origin' isn't really important at all for the Joker as a character, what matters is who is RIGHT NOW. But I know you'll never agree with me.
> >
> > Earl.
>
> I agree with Earl.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Blue Jay




> > > > I knew that The Dark Knight was not going to be an origin story of the Joker, but I expected Nolan to at least have quick flashbacks or cryptic clues given to the Joker's origin. Maybe such methods are still in the film to hint about the Joker's past, but Nolan's words leave me wondering what he is really up. He mentions that Joker's origin is thrilling and an important element but that he wanted to deal with Joker's rise not his origin. The Joker's origin in The Killing Joker, which is the definitive take on the Joker since there is no other acceptable origin, is what makes the Joker Batman's equal and opposite. Nolan not at least hinting at it, could really dampen the Joker's greatness. Hopefully Nolan will at the very least have some passing reference to the Joker's origin or hint at his origin being revealed in The Dark Knight. I mean the film does not need to be an origin story of Joker, to have his origin in it. It not in The Dark Knight I hope the next film will contain Joker's origin. See link below for details.
> > > >
> > > > http://movies.ign.com/articles/839/839933p1.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Everyone who comes here regularly knows about your Killing Joke obsession BJ, but yeah, I dont think you're going to get the Joker you want for this film. I for one dont think KJ is anywhere near as difinitive as you always say it is, and thinkt hat Joker was already established as Batmans equal and opposite long before hand, and that an `origin' isn't really important at all for the Joker as a character, what matters is who is RIGHT NOW. But I know you'll never agree with me.
> > >
> > > Earl.
> >
> > I agree with Earl.

Okay, but you could say the same thing about Batman. Batman 1989 did not really have an origin for Batman and it worked just about fine.

Batman like the Joker originally barely had an origin. The Joker was just Red Hood and fell into a chemical bath. Batman was just some billionaire that lost his folks, saw a bat and decided to fight criminals.

It was not until Frank Miller's Batman: Year One, Sam Hamm's Batman: Blind Justice and Denny O'Neil's Batman: The Man Who Falls that Batman's origin was fleshed out with depth. These were all used as source material for Batman: Begins and most of the origins in these graphic novels made into Batman Begins in some form.

Alan Moore's Batman: The Killing Joke and Ed Brubaker's Batman: The Man Who Laughs did the same thing for Joker. These graphic novels fleshed out Joker's origin giving him depth and meaning, instead of just being some crazy villain.

Now, Nolan said he would use Batman: The Killing Joke as a source for The Dark Knight. So it makes he would put some form of Joker's origin in it.

I find it quite perplexing why anyone would ignored Joker's origin in Batman: The Killing Joke. It is the only origin we got of the Joker, it is one of the best written graphic novels of Batman, it has stood the test of time, and DC is even going to rerelease a hardcover of it next year. Seriously, I can understand questioning the origin, but if someone has a better origin I sure would like to see then write it for DC. Due to these reasons and since no one has come up to the challenge it is the definitive origin.

Sure Joker can work without an origin, but then you cannot really see the comparison between Joker and Batman. Having Joker's origin by way of the Killing Joke and The Man Who Laughs shows what Batman could have been could had he been had he lived another life and makes the Joker relatable. Without that the Joker's ties to Batman are tenous at best, he is not relatable, and he becomes just another crazy villain. I mean imagine not having Two-Face's origin, he would just be some wacko with two faces, instead of a scarred DA who fought for justice and used to be Bruce and Batman's friend until a tragedy happened that turned him into a monster.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
BMK!





>
> Sure Joker can work without an origin, but then you cannot really see the comparison between Joker and Batman. Having Joker's origin by way of the Killing Joke and The Man Who Laughs shows what Batman could have been could had he been had he lived another life and makes the Joker relatable. Without that the Joker's ties to Batman are tenous at best, he is not relatable, and he becomes just another crazy villain. I mean imagine not having Two-Face's origin, he would just be some wacko with two faces, instead of a scarred DA who fought for justice and used to be Bruce and Batman's friend until a tragedy happened that turned him into a monster.
>

The Joker had worked as a character concept before even his origin had even been attempted, and he was not just another "crazy villain" as you say. His first couple of appearances were chilling, to say the least, which is what serves as inspiration for the Joker in The Dark Knight. In the film the Joker represents a new breed of villain that Batman had not fully considered, (only sparked at the end of the first film)that of a man who represents anarchy at it's fullest. It is also said that the Joker is scarred, yes, but paints his face (like war paint) to undermine and create fear as much as a symbol as Batman is, and to create chaos and bloodshed, thereby making him a great polar opposite to Batman.

It is not necessary to establish an origin for the Joker in order for him to work as a concept. It is also not necessary to adapt The Killing Joke, when they are striving to create a Joker that remains true to the spirit of the character to to fit in more with the more real-world approach that Batman Begins sought after.

-BMK!-


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Blue Jay




>
> >
> > Sure Joker can work without an origin, but then you cannot really see the comparison between Joker and Batman. Having Joker's origin by way of the Killing Joke and The Man Who Laughs shows what Batman could have been could had he been had he lived another life and makes the Joker relatable. Without that the Joker's ties to Batman are tenous at best, he is not relatable, and he becomes just another crazy villain. I mean imagine not having Two-Face's origin, he would just be some wacko with two faces, instead of a scarred DA who fought for justice and used to be Bruce and Batman's friend until a tragedy happened that turned him into a monster.
> >
>
> The Joker had worked as a character concept before even his origin had even been attempted, and he was not just another "crazy villain" as you say. His first couple of appearances were chilling, to say the least, which is what serves as inspiration for the Joker in The Dark Knight. In the film the Joker represents a new breed of villain that Batman had not fully considered, (only sparked at the end of the first film)that of a man who represents anarchy at it's fullest. It is also said that the Joker is scarred, yes, but paints his face (like war paint) to undermine and create fear as much as a symbol as Batman is, and to create chaos and bloodshed, thereby making him a great polar opposite to Batman.
>
> It is not necessary to establish an origin for the Joker in order for him to work as a concept. It is also not necessary to adapt The Killing Joke, when they are striving to create a Joker that remains true to the spirit of the character to to fit in more with the more real-world approach that Batman Begins sought after.
>
> -BMK!-

Yeah, his earlier appearances were chilling, but not as chilling as his appearance in Batman: The Killing Joke. \:\-\)

Sure the Joker is Batman's opposite, but without the Joker's origin the connection is only aesthetic, it is not definitive.

I am not asking for much. All I really need is for Joker in The Dark Knight to say: "All it takes is one bad day to make a normal man go insane." and that pretty much sums up Joker's origin. It is not at all difficult for Nolan to incorporate this and for all I know he probably has.

In Batman Begins Ra's and Scarecrow's origins were hinted at and referenced. At the very least Nolan could do the same for the Joker.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Dude458




The Killing Joke isn't everything man. Shit, even Moore himself said he wasn't happy with it. It was a good story, but it doesn't mean that it has to be the basis for every single Joker adaptation from then on. I'm liking where Nolan is taking this. Hesa great director and i have tons of faith in him. If you let the fact that his Joker doesn't follow your expectations exactly the way you want him too, then i feel sorry for you. You should be open to new ideas.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Blue Jay




> The Killing Joke isn't everything man. Shit, even Moore himself said he wasn't happy with it. It was a good story, but it doesn't mean that it has to be the basis for every single Joker adaptation from then on. I'm liking where Nolan is taking this. Hesa great director and i have tons of faith in him. If you let the fact that his Joker doesn't follow your expectations exactly the way you want him too, then i feel sorry for you. You should be open to new ideas.

Moore said he was not happy with The Killing Joke because it was not as grand, complicated and meaningful as his other works, such as the Swamp Thing Saga, V for Vendetta and Watchmen.

It is like an Olympic athlete getting the gold metal at an Olympic event, but not being happy with his score. >:-)

Even so Batman: The Killing Joke is still a remarkable complicated grand amazing significant read that dwarfs the writing of nearly every comic book writer. >:-D

The Joker so far has been exceeding my expectations. I like everything I have seen, except for the Joker's skin not being permanently white. However it does not mean the Joker did not fall into a chemical bath necessarily. Further the Joker putting on makeup may be an attempt to make it more like the Joker is creating his own persona, similar to how Bruce Wayne created the batsuit. If so, this is a brilliant stroke by Nolan. \:\-\)


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
BMK!





>
> Sure the Joker is Batman's opposite, but without the Joker's origin the connection is only aesthetic, it is not definitive.
>


I disagree. The dichotomy between Batman & Joker had been established for decades before The Killing Joke, effectively and well-defined.
-BMK!-


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
BMK!




>
> >
> > Sure the Joker is Batman's opposite, but without the Joker's origin the connection is only aesthetic, it is not definitive.
> >
>
>
> I disagree. The dichotomy between Batman & Joker had been established for decades before The Killing Joke, effectively and well-defined.
> -BMK!-

In fact, I'll go as far to say that, as much as I have enjoyed the Killing Joke, it is by no means an effective or even necessary origin for a character such as the Joker.
-BMK!-


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Blue Jay




> >
> > >
> > > Sure the Joker is Batman's opposite, but without the Joker's origin the connection is only aesthetic, it is not definitive.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I disagree. The dichotomy between Batman & Joker had been established for decades before The Killing Joke, effectively and well-defined.
> > -BMK!-
>
> In fact, I'll go as far to say that, as much as I have enjoyed the Killing Joke, it is by no means an effective or even necessary origin for a character such as the Joker.
> -BMK!-

Really? The origin humanizes the Joker and makes it so that the reader realizes that just about anyone, including Bruce under the right circumstances could have become an insane monster. Without that where is the connection? Where is the motivation for Joker's insane actions? Where is the reason for Joker's and Batman's roots being tied together?

It is more than necessary, it is paramount, the same way Batman: Year One was.

It is more than effective considering it is one of the greatest Batman stories of all time, it was referenced in The Batman animated series, Christopher Nolan used it as source material for his new film, it has stood the test of time and it has been one of the big bestsellers of DC.

This is not Batman: Confidential written by Michael Green or All-Star Batman and Robin by Frank Miller, this is Batman: The Killing Joke by Alan Moore that is considered the greatest comic book writter that ever lived by most of the world.

Without Batman: The Killing Joke, we got Tim Burton's cliched ganster by a stereotypical Jack Nicholson performance of a madman and Bruce Timm's crazy mobster assasin that for no reason became a jester.

Batman: The Killing Joke is the climax of the Joker's story that brings every great Joker story in focus and concludes the Joker's story. From his first appearance, to the remake The Man Who Laughs, to the Joker's Five Way Revenge, to the Laughing Fish, The Killing Joke ties up all the threads perfectly into the ultimate ending.

After Batman: The Killing Joke there are no more great Joker stories, those stories are about an impostor, not about the real Joker.






Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Icon




> > In fact, I'll go as far to say that, as much as I have enjoyed the Killing Joke, it is by no means an effective or even necessary origin for a character such as the Joker.
> > -BMK!-
>
> Really? The origin humanizes the Joker and makes it so that the reader realizes that just about anyone, including Bruce under the right circumstances could have become an insane monster.

True, which is interesting, but not an aboslute "must have"

>Without that where is the connection?

There doesn't need to be one.

>Where is the motivation for Joker's insane actions?

You've sort of answered your own question there, he's insane.

>Where is the reason for Joker's and Batman's roots being tied together?

They weren't. The Joker's origin as the Red Hood only appeared in the 1951, prior to that, for over a decade he'd been just a crook, and insane killer.

> It is more than necessary, it is paramount, the same way Batman: Year One was.

Why?

> It is more than effective considering it is one of the greatest Batman stories of all time, it was referenced in The Batman animated series,

What? When? The BTAS origin of the Joker removes the Red Hood concept completely, and has the Joker's past life being "a nameless gunsel for the Vellestra Mob". He was a sadistic killer BEFORE he was the Joker, as seen in "Mask of the Phantasm". The only thing they have in common is a large vat of acidic chemicals being involved.

>Christopher Nolan used it as source material for his new film, it has stood the test of time and it has been one of the big bestsellers of DC.

Except he appears to be changing it again

> Without Batman: The Killing Joke, we got Tim Burton's cliched ganster by a stereotypical Jack Nicholson performance of a madman and Bruce Timm's crazy mobster assasin that for no reason became a jester.

He had as much reason as the original Joker ever had.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Blue Jay




> > > In fact, I'll go as far to say that, as much as I have enjoyed the Killing Joke, it is by no means an effective or even necessary origin for a character such as the Joker.
> > > -BMK!-
> >
> > Really? The origin humanizes the Joker and makes it so that the reader realizes that just about anyone, including Bruce under the right circumstances could have become an insane monster.
>
> True, which is interesting, but not an aboslute "must have"

That is like saying Batman does not need an origin.

> >Without that where is the connection?
>
> There doesn't need to be one.

Then the Joker cannot really be Batman's opposite and equal.

> >Where is the motivation for Joker's insane actions?
>
> You've sort of answered your own question there, he's insane.

Insane people have reasons for being insane, they are not just born insane.

> >Where is the reason for Joker's and Batman's roots being tied together?
>
> They weren't. The Joker's origin as the Red Hood only appeared in the 1951, prior to that, for over a decade he'd been just a crook, and insane killer.

True, but Batman originally also was just some vigilante that worked out and killed criminals because his parent died.

Batman's origin like the Joker's origin were fleshed out and given depth.

> > It is more than necessary, it is paramount, the same way Batman: Year One was.
>
> Why?

It makes the Joker relatable, it makes him an established opposite of Batman, it shows that the Joker is as much a product of society as the Batman and it concludes the Joke's story.

You might as well ask why have Batman: Year One, Batman: Blind Justice and Batman: The Man Who Fell?

> > It is more than effective considering it is one of the greatest Batman stories of all time, it was referenced in The Batman animated series,
>
> What? When? The BTAS origin of the Joker removes the Red Hood concept completely, and has the Joker's past life being "a nameless gunsel for the Vellestra Mob". He was a sadistic killer BEFORE he was the Joker, as seen in "Mask of the Phantasm". The only thing they have in common is a large vat of acidic chemicals being involved.

I said The Batman animated series (2004), not Batman: The Animated Series (1992).

> >Christopher Nolan used it as source material for his new film, it has stood the test of time and it has been one of the big bestsellers of DC.
>
> Except he appears to be changing it again

More like making it more realistic. We do not know at all how much of The Killing Joke is in The Dark Knight. We only know at least some of it is in The Dark Knight and that the Joker's origin is an important element of the film according to Nolan.

> > Without Batman: The Killing Joke, we got Tim Burton's cliched ganster by a stereotypical Jack Nicholson performance of a madman and Bruce Timm's crazy mobster assasin that for no reason became a jester.
>
> He had as much reason as the original Joker ever had.

Joker's origin in the comics was never explained fully until Alan Moore wrote it. Even before that though his origin was alluded to having something to do with society damming the Joker and the Joker trying to get back at society which makes much more sense than any movie or animated depiction thus far.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Icon




> > > Really? The origin humanizes the Joker and makes it so that the reader realizes that just about anyone, including Bruce under the right circumstances could have become an insane monster.
> >
> > True, which is interesting, but not an aboslute "must have"
>
> That is like saying Batman does not need an origin.

Not at all, Batman requires an origin because he is the main character. The Joker isn't so does not.

> > >Without that where is the connection?
> >
> > There doesn't need to be one.
>
> Then the Joker cannot really be Batman's opposite and equal.

Of course he can. Two chess players can grow up with no connection to each other, it's only when they play against each other there is a relationship.

> > >Where is the motivation for Joker's insane actions?
> >
> > You've sort of answered your own question there, he's insane.
>
> Insane people have reasons for being insane, they are not just born insane.

We already know that, the acid dip, the rest is irrelevant, or at least variable.

> You might as well ask why have Batman: Year One, Batman: Blind Justice and Batman: The Man Who Fell?

Actually, that's what I WAS asking. Why is "Batman: Year One" "paramount"?

> > What? When? The BTAS origin of the Joker removes the Red Hood concept completely, and has the Joker's past life being "a nameless gunsel for the Vellestra Mob". He was a sadistic killer BEFORE he was the Joker, as seen in "Mask of the Phantasm". The only thing they have in common is a large vat of acidic chemicals being involved.
>
> I said The Batman animated series (2004), not Batman: The Animated Series (1992).

When was it mentioned there, out of curiosity?

> > >Christopher Nolan used it as source material for his new film, it has stood the test of time and it has been one of the big bestsellers of DC.
> >
> > Except he appears to be changing it again
>
> More like making it more realistic.

If they were going for "realistic" they'd lose the make up, surely.

>We do not know at all how much of The Killing Joke is in The Dark Knight. We only know at least some of it is in The Dark Knight and that the Joker's origin is an important element of the film according to Nolan.

And you seem to overlook that a good chunk of the Killing Joke is taken from the 1951 story.

> Joker's origin in the comics was never explained fully until Alan Moore wrote it.

Of course it was. The only thing that changes was the career of the Red Hood. Brilliant career criminal or failed comedian.

And as you inevitably forget in these discussion, the Joker himself in TKJ says he has no clue as to what his true origin is.

>Even before that though his origin was alluded to having something to do with society damming the Joker and the Joker trying to get back at society which makes much more sense than any movie or animated depiction thus far.

And that would be the motivation for a rational man... the Joker isn't rational.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
BMK!




Where is the motivation for Joker's insane actions? >


Bruce Wayne: I knew the mob wouldn't go down without a fight. But this is different. They crossed the line.
Alfred Pennyworth: You crossed the line first, sir. You hammered them. And in their desperation they turned to a man they didn't fully understand. Some men aren't looking for anything logical. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
BMK!





> > >
> > > Really? The origin humanizes the Joker and makes it so that the reader realizes that just about anyone, including Bruce under the right circumstances could have become an insane monster.
> >

The origin humanizes him, which then also diminishes him. Again, I love The Killing Joke, but I'd rather have a Joker who represents the utter chaos that life can bring, not have a reason that NEEDS to explain why he does it. It's the same reason why some people have to prescribe the crazy thought that "everything happens for a reason", which is not always true.
-BMK!-




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Blue Jay




> Of course he can. Two chess players can grow up with no connection to each other, it's only when they play against each other there is a relationship.

Yeah, but like you said they then have no connection to one another then.

> Actually, that's what I WAS asking. Why is "Batman: Year One" "paramount"?

It redefined Bruce Wayne as a man that trained a lifetime to be Batman, started out taking small steps and evolved over time. It also establishes how Batman becomes a hero in Gotham and forms a partnership with Gordon. Much of it influenced Batman: Year One.

> When was it mentioned there, out of curiosity?

It was actually mentioned twice. Let me look up the episodes.

Once in Season One in the Rubber Face of Comedy, Part One where Joker mentions that all it takes to make a sane man crazy is one bad day and a chemical bath and in Season Two Strange Minds, were the Batman enters Joker's mind and meets a personality of the Joker that is a sane normal man that tries to help Batman. The sane normal man then falls into a chemical bath and is destroyed by the Joker.

> > > >Christopher Nolan used it as source material for his new film, it has stood the test of time and it has been one of the big bestsellers of DC.

> If they were going for "realistic" they'd lose the make up, surely.

I do not know. I mean it is somewhat hard to believe that a man that falls into a chemical bath comes out all perfectly bleached white.

Also, the makeup makes it seem like a person is becoming a monster or evolving into one over time, similar to Bruce's evolution into Batman in Batman Begins.

> And you seem to overlook that a good chunk of the Killing Joke is taken from the 1951 story.

Yeah, I think I tried to mention that when I said that the original comics alluded to similar events as those portrayed in The Killing Joke.

> And as you inevitably forget in these discussion, the Joker himself in TKJ says he has no clue as to what his true origin is.

Yeah, I do not buy that and I do not think anybody really buys that either. I look at that more as the Joker not able to accept the truth because if he ever did he would have to give up being the Joker. The same way Batman can never get over his parent's murder otherwise he would cease to be Batman and movie on.

> >Even before that though his origin was alluded to having something to do with society damming the Joker and the Joker trying to get back at society which makes much more sense than any movie or animated depiction thus far.
>
> And that would be the motivation for a rational man... the Joker isn't rational.

Insanity starts out from rational ideas that then spiral into irrationality.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Icon




> > Of course he can. Two chess players can grow up with no connection to each other, it's only when they play against each other there is a relationship.
>
> Yeah, but like you said they then have no connection to one another then.

Until they play, and then they do, but the events that lead up to it, do not need to intersect.

> > Actually, that's what I WAS asking. Why is "Batman: Year One" "paramount"?
>
> It redefined Bruce Wayne as a man that trained a lifetime to be Batman,

That was established from the start

>started out taking small steps and evolved over time.

Aside from the fact he briefly wore civvies, not that much changed.

>It also establishes how Batman becomes a hero in Gotham and forms a partnership with Gordon. Much of it influenced Batman: Year One.

Well, it would, since that's what it was! \:\) (I assume you meant Batman Begins there?)

> > When was it mentioned there, out of curiosity?
>
> It was actually mentioned twice. Let me look up the episodes.
>
> Once in Season One in the Rubber Face of Comedy, Part One where Joker mentions that all it takes to make a sane man crazy is one bad day and a chemical bath and in Season Two Strange Minds, were the Batman enters Joker's mind and meets a personality of the Joker that is a sane normal man that tries to help Batman. The sane normal man then falls into a chemical bath and is destroyed by the Joker.

Thanks, but neither of those mention Batman, so there's none of the link you seem to feel is so important.

> I do not know. I mean it is somewhat hard to believe that a man that falls into a chemical bath comes out all perfectly bleached white.

And as noted, this is comics, happens all the time, it's perhaps more surprising he didn't get superpowers out of it.

> Also, the makeup makes it seem like a person is becoming a monster or evolving into one over time, similar to Bruce's evolution into Batman in Batman Begins.

Except that misses the point of the Joker, he already IS a monster to the core.

> > And as you inevitably forget in these discussion, the Joker himself in TKJ says he has no clue as to what his true origin is.
>
> Yeah, I do not buy that and I do not think anybody really buys that either.

No, I can honestly say, hand on heart that in the 20 years since TKJ, you are about the only person I've ever come across who holds to that. Others are delighted at the very Jokerish ending with the reveal he might have been "joking" all along.

>I look at that more as the Joker not able to accept the truth because if he ever did he would have to give up being the Joker. The same way Batman can never get over his parent's murder otherwise he would cease to be Batman and movie on.

Except Batman has, when he chose to continue as Batman after his parent's murderer was caught (This was the case up until B:Y1 and since IC)

> > And that would be the motivation for a rational man... the Joker isn't rational.
>
> Insanity starts out from rational ideas that then spiral into irrationality.

But as soon as delusional behavious kicks in there's no reason for consistency either.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Omar Karindu




> > > > In fact, I'll go as far to say that, as much as I have enjoyed the Killing Joke, it is by no means an effective or even necessary origin for a character such as the Joker.
> > > > -BMK!-
> > >
> > > Really? The origin humanizes the Joker and makes it so that the reader realizes that just about anyone, including Bruce under the right circumstances could have become an insane monster.
> >
> > True, which is interesting, but not an aboslute "must have"
>
> That is like saying Batman does not need an origin.

You mean an origin like the one he didn't have in his first five stories, before Bob Kane threw together a two-page introduction for Detective Comics #32 and then no one went back to it again for story purposes until 1948?

> > >Without that where is the connection?
> >
> > There doesn't need to be one.
>
> Then the Joker cannot really be Batman's opposite and equal.

In your opinion; not so much in the opinions of several million readers for the forty-seven years in between 1941 and 1988.

> > >Where is the motivation for Joker's insane actions?
> >
> > You've sort of answered your own question there, he's insane.
>
> Insane people have reasons for being insane, they are not just born insane.

Except for those who are congenitally or hereditarily insane, and sociopaths who have no triggering event, as with Ted Bundy.

> > >Where is the reason for Joker's and Batman's roots being tied together?
> >
> > They weren't. The Joker's origin as the Red Hood only appeared in the 1951, prior to that, for over a decade he'd been just a crook, and insane killer.
>
> True, but Batman originally also was just some vigilante that worked out and killed criminals because his parent died.

And the Killing Joke is just a story about a lunatic reciting a possible fantasy of his own past to justify horrifying crimes while taunting his adversary. Comically reductive formulations sure are fun no matter what side of the debate you're on.

> Batman's origin like the Joker's origin were fleshed out and given depth.

It sure was, but strangely plenty of people enjoyed Batman stories at nearly every point during that fleshing-out process, which likewise spanned decades.

> > > It is more than necessary, it is paramount, the same way Batman: Year One was.
> >
> > Why?
>
> It makes the Joker relatable, it makes him an established opposite of Batman, it shows that the Joker is as much a product of society as the Batman and it concludes the Joke's story.

It does those things for you. There's plenty of evidence that the Joker was considered Batman's opposite number by legions of readers, writers, editors, and others for a very long time before the very, very recent stories (relative to the character's 66-history) you cite.

If you're really claiming that the Joker wasn't a popular, well-written character before 1988, or that 1988 was somehow the year he was done being developed, I'd suggest you're at war with the past and the future.

> You might as well ask why have Batman: Year One, Batman: Blind Justice and Batman: The Man Who Fell?

And indeed, that can be asked. One could just as well ask why we have 1951's "The Man in the Red Hood" or 1948's "The First Batman" or the untitled lead story in Detective Comics #27. Superhero stories are, essentially, gratuitous in their very existence.

If Batman had been cancelled in the 1950s or 1970s -- they were under threat in both eras, saved by continuing strong sales the first time against cultural pressure and saved by pop-cultural inertia and licensing money against weak sales the second time -- we'd be talking about a very different set of "definitive Batman and Joker stories" in a world otherwise no different than our own.

> > > It is more than effective considering it is one of the greatest Batman stories of all time, it was referenced in The Batman animated series,
> >
> > What? When? The BTAS origin of the Joker removes the Red Hood concept completely, and has the Joker's past life being "a nameless gunsel for the Vellestra Mob". He was a sadistic killer BEFORE he was the Joker, as seen in "Mask of the Phantasm". The only thing they have in common is a large vat of acidic chemicals being involved.
>
> I said The Batman animated series (2004), not Batman: The Animated Series (1992).

The 1992 series' official title was "Batman," for the record. And it's the one that's critically acclaimed, not the current series. Oh, had those critics only known it didn't have a throwaway line from an Alan Moore script in it somewhere, they'd reverse their judgement! The mad fools!

> > >Christopher Nolan used it as source material for his new film, it has stood the test of time and it has been one of the big bestsellers of DC.
> >
> > Except he appears to be changing it again
>
> More like making it more realistic. We do not know at all how much of The Killing Joke is in The Dark Knight. We only know at least some of it is in The Dark Knight and that the Joker's origin is an important element of the film according to Nolan.
>
> > > Without Batman: The Killing Joke, we got Tim Burton's cliched ganster by a stereotypical Jack Nicholson performance of a madman and Bruce Timm's crazy mobster assasin that for no reason became a jester.
> >
> > He had as much reason as the original Joker ever had.
>
> Joker's origin in the comics was never explained fully until Alan Moore wrote it. Even before that though his origin was alluded to having something to do with society damming the Joker and the Joker trying to get back at society which makes much more sense than any movie or animated depiction thus far.

That'll come as a surprise to Bill Finger, who wrote that origin in 1951, and to everyone in between Finger and Moore who considered it a perfectly good origin. I guess you and Moore are smarter than 99% of the human race. Luckily the rest of us don't need to agree with you to enjoy our comics.

- Omar Karindu

"A Renoir. I have three, myself. I had four, but ordered one burned...It displeased me." -- Doctor Doom

"It's not, 'Oh, they killed Sue Dibney and I always loved that character,' it's 'Oh, they broke a story engine that could have told a thousand stories in order to publish a single 'important' one.'" -- John Seavey


Posted with Apple Safari 3.0.4 on MacOS X
Blue Jay




> Until they play, and then they do, but the events that lead up to it, do not need to intersect.

Why not?

> > > Actually, that's what I WAS asking. Why is "Batman: Year One" "paramount"?
> >
> > It redefined Bruce Wayne as a man that trained a lifetime to be Batman,
>
> That was established from the start

It was established from the start that he worked a bit and took karate. Not that he trained for a lifetime under different masters, went around the world, tried to understand criminals, and sought to find himself as depicted in Batman: Year One, Batman: Blind Justice and Batman: The Man Who Falls.

> >started out taking small steps and evolved over time.
>
> Aside from the fact he briefly wore civvies, not that much changed.

In the original comic book besides the murder of his folks Batman just saw a bat and that got him to become Batman.

Batman: Year One revealed that Batman experimented several times before becoming Batman, including trying to be a vigilante without the bat symbol. Batman: The Man Who Falls revealed that Bruce's fear of bats is what led him to choose the bat symbol as a way to frigthen criminals with his own fear. It also revealed that Bruce took years to take several different disciplines under different masters to get in the right state to be able to become Batman. It was both a mental, physical and spiritual journey.

> >It also establishes how Batman becomes a hero in Gotham and forms a partnership with Gordon. Much of it influenced Batman: Year One.
>
> Well, it would, since that's what it was! \:\) (I assume you meant Batman Begins there?)

Yeah.

> > > When was it mentioned there, out of curiosity?
> >
> > It was actually mentioned twice. Let me look up the episodes.
> >
> > Once in Season One in the Rubber Face of Comedy, Part One where Joker mentions that all it takes to make a sane man crazy is one bad day and a chemical bath and in Season Two Strange Minds, were the Batman enters Joker's mind and meets a personality of the Joker that is a sane normal man that tries to help Batman. The sane normal man then falls into a chemical bath and is destroyed by the Joker.
>
> Thanks, but neither of those mention Batman, so there's none of the link you seem to feel is so important.

What do you mean? Did not both the Joker and Batman have a bad day that changed them forever. It establishes a dichotomy between the two making it very important. Further in the first episode of The Batman the Joker mentions how they are two sides of the same coin, like tragedy and comedy. He also dressed up as Batman in The Laughing Bat. What more connection do you want?

Batman 1989 had no connection at all other than Jack killing Wayne's folks and BTAS's Joker's only connection to Batman was that he killed the father of Bruce's girlfriend. Mr. Freeze in BTAS was more connected to Batman than the Joker.

> > I do not know. I mean it is somewhat hard to believe that a man that falls into a chemical bath comes out all perfectly bleached white.
>
> And as noted, this is comics, happens all the time, it's perhaps more surprising he didn't get superpowers out of it.

LOL Nolan is trying to create realism, if he were wanting to go straight for the comics he would have Batman wear pajamas with purple gloves.

> > Also, the makeup makes it seem like a person is becoming a monster or evolving into one over time, similar to Bruce's evolution into Batman in Batman Begins.
>
> Except that misses the point of the Joker, he already IS a monster to the core.

This was ever mentioned in the comics. You are mixing (1989) Batman and BTAS with the comics.

In the comics Batman never found out much about the Joker, except that he might have been Red Hood. It was not until Alan Moore's The Killing Joker that the Joke's origin was finally revealed. The only thing Batman found out is that the Joker might be REdhood. Even then Batman did not consider the Joker necessarily a monster, for if he had he would have just killed him.

> > > And as you inevitably forget in these discussion, the Joker himself in TKJ says he has no clue as to what his true origin is.
> >
> > Yeah, I do not buy that and I do not think anybody really buys that either.
>
> No, I can honestly say, hand on heart that in the 20 years since TKJ, you are about the only person I've ever come across who holds to that. Others are delighted at the very Jokerish ending with the reveal he might have been "joking" all along.

Really? Joking? He freaking had flashbacks that were the motivations for his actions. He was joking or trying to joke about the origin not being true, because to accept it means to move on. If you notice after Batman offers to help the Joker, the Joker cracks another joke. This shows that the Joker feels he cannot accept the truth and thus cannot be saved by Batman.

The Killing Joke was referenced once more in another comic book. I have only ran into a handful of people that do not see The Killing Joke as canon and most of them are on this board.

> >I look at that more as the Joker not able to accept the truth because if he ever did he would have to give up being the Joker. The same way Batman can never get over his parent's murder otherwise he would cease to be Batman and movie on.
>
> Except Batman has, when he chose to continue as Batman after his parent's murderer was caught (This was the case up until B:Y1 and since IC)

No he did not. You obviously have not beeen reading the comics. Batman's murderer originally was killed by mobsters, then retconned so that Joe Chill was killed in Batman: Year Two, then retconned so that he was never caught and just recently retconned so that he was caught an sent to prison. In Batman: Blind Justice Batman relives the deaths of his parent's murder every night. Reliving their deaths over and over again is what keeps him being Batman. If Bruce ever chose to forget about his parents' murder he would be able to movie on with his life. He has thus far never been able to do this.

> > > And that would be the motivation for a rational man... the Joker isn't rational.
> >
> > Insanity starts out from rational ideas that then spiral into irrationality.
>
> But as soon as delusional behavious kicks in there's no reason for consistency either.

Insanity also has patterns that can be detected and at times treated.

Further there are different levels of insanity as well. Some with more cognitive functions than others.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Blue Jay





> In your opinion; not so much in the opinions of several million readers for the forty-seven years in between 1941 and 1988.
>
> > > >Where is the motivation for Joker's insane actions?
> > >
> > > You've sort of answered your own question there, he's insane.
> >
> > Insane people have reasons for being insane, they are not just born insane.
>
> Except for those who are congenitally or hereditarily insane, and sociopaths who have no triggering event, as with Ted Bundy.

Bundy started out messed up, but over time he became worse and worse as you described.

The Joker did not start out as some jester. He started out as a person with reason. This goes all the way back to his original origin were he was the leader of the Red Hood gang.

> It does those things for you. There's plenty of evidence that the Joker was considered Batman's opposite number by legions of readers, writers, editors, and others for a very long time before the very, very recent stories (relative to the character's 66-history) you cite.

He was considered his opposite, but the inner connection of the character to Batman was not established.

> If you're really claiming that the Joker wasn't a popular, well-written character before 1988, or that 1988 was somehow the year he was done being developed, I'd suggest you're at war with the past and the future.

I never claimed that, the original appearance, The Laughing Fish and the Joker's Five Way Revenge all made him popular and were well written. However The Killing Joke forever established a real specific connection between the Joker and Batman that was only alluded to back when Bob Kane wrote the comic and established a definitive account of the Joker's character for all that has remained unsurpassed.

> If Batman had been cancelled in the 1950s or 1970s -- they were under threat in both eras, saved by continuing strong sales the first time against cultural pressure and saved by pop-cultural inertia and licensing money against weak sales the second time -- we'd be talking about a very different set of "definitive Batman and Joker stories" in a world otherwise no different than our own.

> That'll come as a surprise to Bill Finger, who wrote that origin in 1951, and to everyone in between Finger and Moore who considered it a perfectly good origin. I guess you and Moore are smarter than 99% of the human race. Luckily the rest of us don't need to agree with you to enjoy our comics.

Bill Finger's origin was very limited and narrow, Alan Moore fleshed it out and filled it with depth. Everyody who has read Batman: The Killing Joke knows this. I am not claiming to be smarter than anybody.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Icon




> > Until they play, and then they do, but the events that lead up to it, do not need to intersect.
>
> Why not?

Because for two chess players, their past is irrelevant, it's the game they bring to the board that counts.
> > > It redefined Bruce Wayne as a man that trained a lifetime to be Batman,
> >
> > That was established from the start
>
> It was established from the start that he worked a bit and took karate. Not that he trained for a lifetime under different masters, went around the world, tried to understand criminals, and sought to find himself as depicted in Batman: Year One, Batman: Blind Justice and Batman: The Man Who Falls.

Err, yes it was. Try "The Untold Legend of the Batman" from 1980 for a coherent putting together of any number of plot elements, including Detective Harvey Harris and why Bruce chose "Justice" over "The Law".

> > >started out taking small steps and evolved over time.
> >
> > Aside from the fact he briefly wore civvies, not that much changed.
>
> In the original comic book besides the murder of his folks Batman just saw a bat and that got him to become Batman.

Yes, and you know what, that worked just fine.

> Batman: Year One revealed that Batman experimented several times before becoming Batman, including trying to be a vigilante without the bat symbol. Batman: The Man Who Falls revealed that Bruce's fear of bats is what led him to choose the bat symbol as a way to frigthen criminals with his own fear.

Which sort of spoils the mythological "A superstitious, cowardly lot" since he's assigning that POV to himself too.

>It also revealed that Bruce took years to take several different disciplines under different masters to get in the right state to be able to become Batman. It was both a mental, physical and spiritual journey.

And utterly irrelevant. We never needed to see that, we could infer a lot of it, and not care that much about the rest.

> > Thanks, but neither of those mention Batman, so there's none of the link you seem to feel is so important.
>
> What do you mean? Did not both the Joker and Batman have a bad day that changed them forever. It establishes a dichotomy between the two making it very important.

In what way is "A child having an emotional catastrophe" that similar to "A criminal falling into a vat of toxic chemicals and being disfigured and possibly driven insane by the sheer pain, if not the toxicity of the chemicals themselves." ?

>Further in the first episode of The Batman the Joker mentions how they are two sides of the same coin, like tragedy and comedy. He also dressed up as Batman in The Laughing Bat. What more connection do you want?

More than basing it all on the ravings of a deranged mind. Did Batman go "Egad, you're right!"?

> Batman 1989 had no connection at all other than Jack killing Wayne's folks and BTAS's Joker's only connection to Batman was that he killed the father of Bruce's girlfriend. Mr. Freeze in BTAS was more connected to Batman than the Joker.

No, "Beware, the Creeper" in BTAS tells us that the "nameless gunsel" (I really should use gunman there, since gunsel means something quite different, though "The Maltese Falcon" convinced a nation otherwise, but I digress) fell into the vat of chemicals whilst part of a gang that Batman was fighting.

> > And as noted, this is comics, happens all the time, it's perhaps more surprising he didn't get superpowers out of it.
>
> LOL Nolan is trying to create realism, if he were wanting to go straight for the comics he would have Batman wear pajamas with purple gloves.

Not really, Nolan is creating as much realism as he feels is necessary, that's not realism by a long chalk.

> > Except that misses the point of the Joker, he already IS a monster to the core.
>
> This was ever mentioned in the comics. You are mixing (1989) Batman and BTAS with the comics.

Why? The Joker is a monster since his chemical skin peel to end all skin peels.

> In the comics Batman never found out much about the Joker, except that he might have been Red Hood.

No, Joker readily admitted to being the Red Hood, and it fitted every known fact about the Joker. There wasn't really any argument from either side about it.

>It was not until Alan Moore's The Killing Joker that the Joke's origin was finally revealed.

AN origin, not THE origin.

>The only thing Batman found out is that the Joker might be REdhood. Even then Batman did not consider the Joker necessarily a monster, for if he had he would have just killed him.

Again, you miss the point of Batman by a country mile. Batman never "just kills" like that.

> > No, I can honestly say, hand on heart that in the 20 years since TKJ, you are about the only person I've ever come across who holds to that. Others are delighted at the very Jokerish ending with the reveal he might have been "joking" all along.
>
> Really? Joking? He freaking had flashbacks that were the motivations for his actions.

And as many of us have pointed out to you in the past; So what? He's a delusional psychotic. As the story goes to great pains to make clear, the fact the Joker believes a particular origin completely and honestly in no way makes it A) true, or B) what he'll believe tomorrow, or in three minutes time.

>He was joking or trying to joke about the origin not being true, because to accept it means to move on.

Again, that's a perspective that's unique to you, and AFAIK not one Alan Moore supports either, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned the famous "multiple choice" bit.

>If you notice after Batman offers to help the Joker, the Joker cracks another joke. This shows that the Joker feels he cannot accept the truth and thus cannot be saved by Batman.

Which in no way means he's been telling the objective truth, only the SUBjective truth.

> The Killing Joke was referenced once more in another comic book. I have only ran into a handful of people that do not see The Killing Joke as canon and most of them are on this board.

You must move in interesting circles then.

> > Except Batman has, when he chose to continue as Batman after his parent's murderer was caught (This was the case up until B:Y1 and since IC)
>
> No he did not.

Yes, he did.

>You obviously have not beeen reading the comics.

Since roughly 1978 or so, thanks.

>Batman's murderer originally was killed by mobsters

"Caught", "Brought to justice", "Paid the price for his crimes..."

>then retconned so that Joe Chill was killed in Batman: Year Two, then retconned so that he was never caught and just recently retconned so that he was caught an sent to prison.

Yes, before Year 1, which was the first to suggest that the Wayne's murderer had NOT been caught. And the most recent retcon is since IC when he's back to having been caught and jailed.

>In Batman: Blind Justice Batman relives the deaths of his parent's murder every night. Reliving their deaths over and over again is what keeps him being Batman. If Bruce ever chose to forget about his parents' murder he would be able to movie on with his life. He has thus far never been able to do this.

Their loss motivates him sure, no argument, but Y1 (and others) implied it was the fact that his parent's murder had never been caught that drove him. That he'd never grown up and was lashing out in a rather childish way because "bad man hurt my mommy and daddy".

> > But as soon as delusional behavious kicks in there's no reason for consistency either.
>
> Insanity also has patterns that can be detected and at times treated.

And the Joker's can't, as has been stated time and again.

> Further there are different levels of insanity as well. Some with more cognitive functions than others.

Of course, and the Joker can at times be rational, but he's only ever rational on his own terms, never other peoples.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Blue Jay




> > > Until they play, and then they do, but the events that lead up to it, do not need to intersect.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because for two chess players, their past is irrelevant, it's the game they bring to the board that counts.

Except then the chess players are also irrelevant.

> Err, yes it was. Try "The Untold Legend of the Batman" from 1980 for a coherent putting together of any number of plot elements, including Detective Harvey Harris and why Bruce chose "Justice" over "The Law".

I was referring to Batman' first origin. Anything after that built on the origin as well it should.

> > > >started out taking small steps and evolved over time.
> > >
> > > Aside from the fact he briefly wore civvies, not that much changed.
> >
> > In the original comic book besides the murder of his folks Batman just saw a bat and that got him to become Batman.
>
> Yes, and you know what, that worked just fine.

Maybe for Batman (1989), but not for Batman in 1980s, 1990s, 21st century and Batman Begins.

Bob Kane and Bill Finger started the wheel but other writers made the car.

> > Batman: Year One revealed that Batman experimented several times before becoming Batman, including trying to be a vigilante without the bat symbol. Batman: The Man Who Falls revealed that Bruce's fear of bats is what led him to choose the bat symbol as a way to frigthen criminals with his own fear.
>
> Which sort of spoils the mythological "A superstitious, cowardly lot" since he's assigning that POV to himself too.

Bruce is not assiging anything to himself. He is embracing his fear, conquering it and then utilizing a mythical symbol of darkness to strike terror into the hearts of all. Obviously he has to back up his appareance with some strong arm tactics otherwise no criminals will fear him.

> >It also revealed that Bruce took years to take several different disciplines under different masters to get in the right state to be able to become Batman. It was both a mental, physical and spiritual journey.
>
> And utterly irrelevant. We never needed to see that, we could infer a lot of it, and not care that much about the rest.

Not utterly irrelevant at all, since from this we learn that Batman was not born in a single moment but was something that took time to create. We also come to relate to Batman, because we think that maybe with enough training we could aspire to something similar. Further it establishes Batman's familiarity with Henri Ducard and his training are instrumental to Batman Begins.

> > > Thanks, but neither of those mention Batman, so there's none of the link you seem to feel is so important.
> >
> > What do you mean? Did not both the Joker and Batman have a bad day that changed them forever. It establishes a dichotomy between the two making it very important.
>
> In what way is "A child having an emotional catastrophe" that similar to "A criminal falling into a vat of toxic chemicals and being disfigured and possibly driven insane by the sheer pain, if not the toxicity of the chemicals themselves." ?

Not a criminal. An average normal person that had a normal life.

> >Further in the first episode of The Batman the Joker mentions how they are two sides of the same coin, like tragedy and comedy. He also dressed up as Batman in The Laughing Bat. What more connection do you want?
>
> More than basing it all on the ravings of a deranged mind. Did Batman go "Egad, you're right!"?

You got a better origin, then let us have it. If Joker's origin in The Killing Joke was not at all important or revelant then it would not have been written in the first place and would have been quickly forgotten. Further then Alan Moore would have had Joker recall different origins in The Killing Joke instead of just one and Ed Brubaker would not have supported it in The Man Who Laughs and Gotham Knights would not have supported it either.

It is not based on the ravings of a deranged mind, it is based on the writing of Alan Moore, backed by DC, supported by Batman fans that love it to the point that The Killing Joke sells out, accepted by Christopher Nolan, accepted by the writers of The Batman, and accepted by Heath Ledger.

What more do you want? You even got Ridler saying it happened. Do you need Batman to come out an list Joker's whole life from when he was a kid to adulthood.

Batman is not supposed to figure out Joker's origin, the same way the Joker is not supposed to figure out Batman's origin, but we the audience know the truth.

> > Batman 1989 had no connection at all other than Jack killing Wayne's folks and BTAS's Joker's only connection to Batman was that he killed the father of Bruce's girlfriend. Mr. Freeze in BTAS was more connected to Batman than the Joker.
>
> No, "Beware, the Creeper" in BTAS tells us that the "nameless gunsel" (I really should use gunman there, since gunsel means something quite different, though "The Maltese Falcon" convinced a nation otherwise, but I digress) fell into the vat of chemicals whilst part of a gang that Batman was fighting.

LOL Its not the real Joker. The Joker in BTAS is not based on the Joker in the comics. He is a completely different entity who cares more about money than anything else. He is an invention of Bruce Timm that is as fake as Terry McGinniss. Timm's BTAS is more of an Elseworlds Tale.

The Batman's Joker while still not the real deal follows more closely in character the Joker from the comics.

> > > And as noted, this is comics, happens all the time, it's perhaps more surprising he didn't get superpowers out of it.
> >
> > LOL Nolan is trying to create realism, if he were wanting to go straight for the comics he would have Batman wear pajamas with purple gloves.
>
> Not really, Nolan is creating as much realism as he feels is necessary, that's not realism by a long chalk.

What more realism do you need? Batman Begins is considered the most realistic superhero movie.

> > > Except that misses the point of the Joker, he already IS a monster to the core.
> >
> > This was ever mentioned in the comics. You are mixing (1989) Batman and BTAS with the comics.
>
> Why? The Joker is a monster since his chemical skin peel to end all skin peels.

Show me where Bob Kane and Bill Finger ever said that.

You are mixing the comics with the Batman (1989) movie and BTAS that depict a completely different Joker from the comics.

> > In the comics Batman never found out much about the Joker, except that he might have been Red Hood.
>
> No, Joker readily admitted to being the Red Hood, and it fitted every known fact about the Joker. There wasn't really any argument from either side about it.
>
> >It was not until Alan Moore's The Killing Joker that the Joke's origin was finally revealed.
>
> AN origin, not THE origin.

If you got another better origin show it to me. Otherwise it is the origin.

> >The only thing Batman found out is that the Joker might be REdhood. Even then Batman did not consider the Joker necessarily a monster, for if he had he would have just killed him.
>
> Again, you miss the point of Batman by a country mile. Batman never "just kills" like that.

In the comics if Batman considers someone a monster he will kill them or let them die. In Batman: Birth of the Demon he tried to kill Ras because he considered him a monster and in Batman: Strange Apparitions he was glad when Dr. Phosphorous. In the first appearances of Batman, he killed several criminals, used a gun with silver bullets to kill vampires, and Bob Kane intended Batman to permanently have a gun.


> And as many of us have pointed out to you in the past; So what? He's a delusional psychotic. As the story goes to great pains to make clear, the fact the Joker believes a particular origin completely and honestly in no way makes it A) true, or B) what he'll believe tomorrow, or in three minutes time.

It is a story written by Alan Moore. It is the definitive Joker origin. If the origin was not relevant at all, then why even write it?


You are assuming that just because the Joker is nuts the origin makes no sense or we should not believe yet you failed to take into account that the story is not told from the Joker's perspective. The story is written from an observer's point of view by the writer. The reader witnesses past and present mingle with one another.

The very existence of Batman: The Killing Joke and the fact that no one can come up with anything better or even close also makes it the official origin.

> >He was joking or trying to joke about the origin not being true, because to accept it means to move on.
>
> Again, that's a perspective that's unique to you, and AFAIK not one Alan Moore supports either, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned the famous "multiple choice" bit.

What the heck are you talking about? You need to read: The Killing Joke again.

Let me quote the legacy of such an incredible story.

Moore's rendition uses elements of the 1951 story "The Mystery of the Red Hood" (Detective Comics #168), which established the concept of the Joker originally having been a thief known only as The Red Hood, and whose real name was unknown. The tragic and human elements of the character's story, coupled with his barbaric acts as the Joker, portray the character as less of a one-note monster and more like a three-dimensional (if irredeemable) human being. Quoting Mark Verger: The Killing Joke "provid[ed] the Joker with a sympathetic back story as it presented some of the villain's most vile offenses."

Moore only put that line about remembering his origin in different ways to show how tragic the Joker really is in that he cannot accept the truth.

Moore did for the Joker what Bruce Timm did for Mr. Freeze. Originally Mr. Freeze was a criminal with a penchant for stealing diamonds called Mr. Zero.




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
darth-sinister




The Joker in this film is also based off of Batman #1, when he first debuted in 1940 or 41. Anyway, in that issue, the Joker had no origin. That first issue was the Joker coming out of nowhere to begin a regin of terror and the Dynamic Duo had to fight him. No Red Hood. No chemical bath. The origin was tacked on later. Nolan is using elements of "The Killing Joke", but he's relying on Batman #1.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
BMK!





>
> What do you mean? Did not both the Joker and Batman have a bad day that changed them forever. It establishes a dichotomy between the two making it very important. Further in the first episode of The Batman the Joker mentions how they are two sides of the same coin, like tragedy and comedy. He also dressed up as Batman in The Laughing Bat. What more connection do you want?
>
> Batman 1989 had no connection at all other than Jack killing Wayne's folks and BTAS's Joker's only connection to Batman was that he killed the father of Bruce's girlfriend. Mr. Freeze in BTAS was more connected to Batman than the Joker.
>


Okay, according to you the fact that the Joker and Batman both had a bad day which establishes the dichotomy between the two...as you say, "What more connection do you want?", but there's not much of a connection in the case of the movie where the man who becomes the Joker KILLS Bruce Wayne's parents or where he KILLS the father of Bruce's girlfriend in BTAS continuity?
See, it's posts like these that have me thinking that you're just kidding around to watch us go all in a tizzy.
-BMK!-


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Tommmy




Thank you for posting the Nolan Interview, it was very interesting. I'm really excited about this movie & can't wait till it comes out. Everything I've read so far sounds great & I love the photos of the Joker....very cool!


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
bd2999




I am not much of a Batman fan in general, but I have liked some events in his history and also the Batman Begins and the first two Batman movies of the early 90's. I have not read the book in question but still find Joker to be very interesting, probably one of the best DC has to offer really. To be someones opposite you can either be born the opposite or forged into it.

I think Joker has established himself well as the opposite of Batman. Batman is rational and ordered. Joker is insane and unpredictable. Batman has trouble figuring out the Jokers next move and I think forh im thats not good. Joker is a crazy killer. I think thats enough really. I mean I have never gotten the impression that Joker can beat Bats hand to hand, although I am aware of several instances where he has done very well against him, but his mind and schemes are what get him by.

He is a killer and a monster. I dont see what could be more opposite. I mean in the end, for this movie he is going to be some really mentally deranged person who gets a kick out of killing and doing other things. A really sick dude. He was not designed or anything to fight Batman, but you dont have to be for two guys to not like each other. I mean straight up you have a guy dressed like a clown vs a guy in a body armor vest with gadgets and such. I mean a direct conflict should not go well for Joker. Although just from the trailers Heath Ledgers laugh is crazy.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Icon




> > Because for two chess players, their past is irrelevant, it's the game they bring to the board that counts.
>
> Except then the chess players are also irrelevant.

They are relevant as regards the game, and the game is all.

> > Err, yes it was. Try "The Untold Legend of the Batman" from 1980 for a coherent putting together of any number of plot elements, including Detective Harvey Harris and why Bruce chose "Justice" over "The Law".
>
> I was referring to Batman' first origin. Anything after that built on the origin as well it should.

And if you're read my comment you'd know that "The Untold Legend of the Batman" acknowledges that past a darn sight more faithfully than your much vaunted "Batman Year One", which ignores nearly everything the first origin had set up.

> > > In the original comic book besides the murder of his folks Batman just saw a bat and that got him to become Batman.
> >
> > Yes, and you know what, that worked just fine.
>
> Maybe for Batman (1989), but not for Batman in 1980s, 1990s, 21st century and Batman Begins.

I'll bet if you asked most comic readers Batman's origin, they'd STILL mention the "Bat through the window" rather than the Year One version. It's known to Batman fans, but the rest? Not so much

> > Which sort of spoils the mythological "A superstitious, cowardly lot" since he's assigning that POV to himself too.
>
> Bruce is not assiging anything to himself. He is embracing his fear, conquering it and then utilizing a mythical symbol of darkness to strike terror into the hearts of all. Obviously he has to back up his appareance with some strong arm tactics otherwise no criminals will fear him.


> Not utterly irrelevant at all, since from this we learn that Batman was not born in a single moment but was something that took time to create.

We'd known that for years. The Batman was born in a moment, but Bruce had already done all the legwork with his studies and training. The bat gave him a form, but he's supplied the material. anything else assigned to it is window dressing.

>We also come to relate to Batman, because we think that maybe with enough training we could aspire to something similar. Further it establishes Batman's familiarity with Henri Ducard and his training are instrumental to Batman Begins.

Except that Batman Begind created a completely DIFFERENT Ducard to anything in the comics.

> > In what way is "A child having an emotional catastrophe" that similar to "A criminal falling into a vat of toxic chemicals and being disfigured and possibly driven insane by the sheer pain, if not the toxicity of the chemicals themselves." ?
>
> Not a criminal. An average normal person that had a normal life.

Only in your incredibly narrow view of TKJ

> > More than basing it all on the ravings of a deranged mind. Did Batman go "Egad, you're right!"?
>
> You got a better origin, then let us have it. If Joker's origin in The Killing Joke was not at all important or revelant then it would not have been written in the first place and would have been quickly forgotten. Further then Alan Moore would have had Joker recall different origins in The Killing Joke instead of just one

Now I really have to agree with BMK that you're just stirring the pot for kicks and giggles because that is such a breathtakingly weird comment to make.

Moore didn't provide different explanations because none were needed, all that is needed is the realisation that the Joker could well be explaining something which is untrue. That this vast elaborate reconstruction in his mind could be completely fake. And the sad part is that he knows it could be.

>and Ed Brubaker would not have supported it in The Man Who Laughs and Gotham Knights would not have supported it either.

And find me a fan of either of those stories... They have inspired panning in any reviews I've read mostly because they DID miss the point of TKJ and imply it's facts were the one and only past of the Joker. Though even then they don't entirely support the past, only as much as Brubaker wanted.

> It is not based on the ravings of a deranged mind,

So you're telling me that a story told in the first person by the Joker isn't the product of a deranged mind? Riiiight.

>it is based on the writing of Alan Moore, backed by DC, supported by Batman fans that love it to the point that The Killing Joke sells out, accepted by Christopher Nolan, accepted by the writers of The Batman, and accepted by Heath Ledger.

What the heck has that got to do with whether it established a defintive past for the Joker? And you're overlooking the infinitely more likely scenario that they love it partly BECAUSE of it's ambiguity. The fact you like things utterly linear doesn't mean everyone else does.

> What more do you want? You even got Ridler saying it happened. Do you need Batman to come out an list Joker's whole life from when he was a kid to adulthood.

The Riddler saying it happened in a truly wretched story? I'll pass thanks. I love Brubaker in many stories, but his Batman work was... let's be kind and assume he was having that "bad day" we were talking about.

> Batman is not supposed to figure out Joker's origin, the same way the Joker is not supposed to figure out Batman's origin, but we the audience know the truth.



> > No, "Beware, the Creeper" in BTAS tells us that the "nameless gunsel" (I really should use gunman there, since gunsel means something quite different, though "The Maltese Falcon" convinced a nation otherwise, but I digress) fell into the vat of chemicals whilst part of a gang that Batman was fighting.
>
> LOL Its not the real Joker. The Joker in BTAS is not based on the Joker in the comics.

No of course not, a man who falls into a vat of chemicals, comes out defaormed, insane and using comedy based crimes has NOTHING in common with the comics. Good lord, do you realise ho anal that sounds? And besides, WHICH comics? There have been multiple iterations of the Jokers' personality in the comics too. Cold blooded assassin, playful thief, seeker of Batman's humiliation, mass murderer, gleefully killer of a teenager with a crowbar... Most of those have been since Year One and TKJ too.

>He is a completely different entity who cares more about money than anything else.

Well, A) So does the Joker in many versions of his personality and B) The BTAS Joke has indulged in non-monetary cromes too, most notably what he did to Robin. No financial gain there, just evil for the sake of evil, and sick humour.

>He is an invention of Bruce Timm that is as fake as Terry McGinniss. Timm's BTAS is more of an Elseworlds Tale.

Sadly for your POV we seem to have Terry McGuinnes being acknowledged in the DCU now.

> > Not really, Nolan is creating as much realism as he feels is necessary, that's not realism by a long chalk.
>
> What more realism do you need? Batman Begins is considered the most realistic superhero movie.

Which is a bit like describing something as being the least wet river or the least sandiest desert.

Shall we begin with a city so bereft of CCTV that no one in authority can track a car like the Tumbler?

> > > > Except that misses the point of the Joker, he already IS a monster to the core.
> > >
> > > This was ever mentioned in the comics. You are mixing (1989) Batman and BTAS with the comics.
> >
> > Why? The Joker is a monster since his chemical skin peel to end all skin peels.
>
> Show me where Bob Kane and Bill Finger ever said that.

The white skinned killer from Batman #1 exists in the same continuity as the Joker from "The Man Who Was the Red Hood". So both exist in the same person.

> > >It was not until Alan Moore's The Killing Joker that the Joke's origin was finally revealed.
> >
> > AN origin, not THE origin.
>
> If you got another better origin show it to me. Otherwise it is the origin.

And again, you laud TKJ to the skies whilst omitting one of the most important points Moore raises. You really can't have it both ways. You either accept Moore's story, including the "uncertainty principle" or you ignore it completely.

> In the comics if Batman considers someone a monster he will kill them or let them die.

Such as? Or are you going back to 1939 here?

>In Batman: Birth of the Demon he tried to kill Ras because he considered him a monster

Ah yes, killing an immortal, always a given...

>and in Batman: Strange Apparitions he was glad when Dr. Phosphorous.

Except of course, Phosphorus didn't die, and it's likely Batman knew that at some level, as so few peopel STAY dead.

>In the first appearances of Batman, he killed several criminals, used a gun with silver bullets to kill vampires, and Bob Kane intended Batman to permanently have a gun.

And that changed irrevocably, and became part of Earth 2 Batman, not Earth 1 Batman when they got around to splitting them.

> It is a story written by Alan Moore. It is the definitive Joker origin. If the origin was not relevant at all, then why even write it?

Are you really that naive? Aside from "It's how he earned his living", he wrote it because he thought it was an entertaining comic story, but did other writers the courtesy of leaving it more open ended than you seem to be able to accept.

> You are assuming that just because the Joker is nuts the origin makes no sense or we should not believe yet you failed to take into account that the story is not told from the Joker's perspective.

Rubbish. My statement has always been that the Joker's origin is UNRELIABLE in TKJ by his own admission. He might be telling the truth, he might not be, that's the whole darned point.

>The story is written from an observer's point of view by the writer. The reader witnesses past and present mingle with one another.

And in the vain hope you finally get the point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator

> The very existence of Batman: The Killing Joke and the fact that no one can come up with anything better or even close also makes it the official origin.

No one needs to co0me up with anything better, we can go with the original if we like, or make up something ourselves, or just assume the truth is so mired in madness we'll never really know.

> > Again, that's a perspective that's unique to you, and AFAIK not one Alan Moore supports either, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned the famous "multiple choice" bit.
>
> What the heck are you talking about? You need to read: The Killing Joke again.

"If I have to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice", what did you THINK I meant?

> Let me quote the legacy of such an incredible story.
>
> Moore's rendition uses elements of the 1951 story "The Mystery of the Red Hood" (Detective Comics #168), which established the concept of the Joker originally having been a thief known only as The Red Hood, and whose real name was unknown. The tragic and human elements of the character's story, coupled with his barbaric acts as the Joker, portray the character as less of a one-note monster and more like a three-dimensional (if irredeemable) human being. Quoting Mark Verger: The Killing Joke "provid[ed] the Joker with a sympathetic back story as it presented some of the villain's most vile offenses."
>
> Moore only put that line about remembering his origin in different ways to show how tragic the Joker really is in that he cannot accept the truth.

Again, your take, and AFAIK, ONLY your take.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Blue Jay




It seems this message board is filled with people that are biased against TKJ going as far as believing that the origin in it is highly questionable and not at all definitive.

What many fail to understand is that the Joker is unsure of his own origin, however TKJ is written by Alan Moore to give the audience his definitive origin of the Joker. Never has it been said anywhere that the origin of the Joker in TKJ is not definitive, in fact such an origin has been reinforced several times, only the Joker's awareness of such an origin is questionable, but everybody that has read TKJ is supposed to be aware that the origin there is true.

I only found out about Batman: The Killing Joke because everywhere I went online people lauded it as the definitive origin that cannot be questioned. By the way it is not my take on the origin, it is Alan Moore's take on the Joker origin. If anybody has a better one I would sure like to see you write it for DC, because the only origin we have is TKJ's origin.

So I am going to list different places that have fans of Batman: The Killing Joke.

http://www.dccomics.com/graphic_novels/?gn=1282

http://www.rambles.net/killing_joke.html

http://comics.ign.com/articles/618/618658p1.html

http://rajivram2.blogspot.com/2006/02/book-review-killing-joke.html

http://www.comictreadmill.com/CTMBlogarchives/2004/2004_Individual/2004_07/000473.php

Tim Burton claimed that The Killing Joke was a major influence on his film adaptation of Batman:

"I was never a giant comic book fan, but I've always loved the image of Batman and The Joker. The reason I've never been a comic book fan - and I think it started when I was a child - is because I could never tell which box I was supposed to read. I don't know if it was dyslexia or whatever, but that's why I loved The Killing Joke, because for the first time I could tell which one to read. It's my favorite. It's the first comic I've ever loved. And the success of those graphic novels made our ideas more acceptable."

Here are other quotes.

"It must be noted though, that it is in no way said that the background supplied is anything but the story told out of an observer's point of view."

"A story of the second Batman/Joker encounter later presented in issue #50 of Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight (Sept. 1993) corroborates the events of The Killing Joke as being true: when Batman faces the Joker for the first time, he recognises him as the Red Hood, whom he thought had drowned in the chemicals."

"Much of the Joker's story from The Killing Joke is also confirmed as being correct in 2004's "Pushback" (Batman: Gotham Knights #50-55; reprinted with #66 as Batman: Hush Returns, where the events are observed and reported by a third party — Edward Nigma, a.k.a. The Riddler — having no reason to lie. Nigma recounts that the Joker's wife was kidnapped and murdered by the criminals in order to force the engineer's compliance."

"Director Christopher Nolan has mentioned that The Killing Joke will serve as an influence for the version of the Joker that will appear in The Dark Knight film. Heath Ledger, who will appear in the film as the Joker, stated in an interview that he was given a copy of The Killing Joke as reference for the role."

If you do not like the Joker's origin in TKJ that is fine, but do not merely throw that origin to the wind for no reason, instead come up with your own origin that is better and then bring it out, otherwise if you cannot put out then just live with origin you have.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Blue Jay




> The Joker in this film is also based off of Batman #1, when he first debuted in 1940 or 41. Anyway, in that issue, the Joker had no origin. That first issue was the Joker coming out of nowhere to begin a regin of terror and the Dynamic Duo had to fight him. No Red Hood. No chemical bath. The origin was tacked on later. Nolan is using elements of "The Killing Joke", but he's relying on Batman #1.

According to Nolan he is using the origin of The Killing Joke to some degree in this film because he has mentioned that that origin specifically of the Joker is integral to his Joker just that he does not want to make the film all about the Joker's origin.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
1 2  >> All

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software