Batman >> View Post
Post By
BMK!

In Reply To
Blue Jay

Subj: Re: Without Joker's Origin, he has no tie to Batman and is not relatable.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:59:22 pm EST
Reply Subj: Re: Without Joker's Origin, he has no tie to Batman and is not relatable.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:34:18 pm EST

Previous Post

> > > > 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.



>
> 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!-