Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Batman >> View Post
·
Post By
Blue Jay

In Reply To
Icon

Subj: Re: On the contrary, far more than you think.
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:40:12 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)
Reply Subj: Not as much as you seem to think, since you're assigning it to things that didn't use it.
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:04:50 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)

Previous Post

> > 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.


> > > 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
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software