Batman >> View Post
·
Post By
Blue Jay

In Reply To
Icon

Subj: Re: Hmmmmmm
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 05:50:09 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)
Reply Subj: Re: On the contrary, far more than you think.
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 04:23:40 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)

Previous Post

> > > 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.

> 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
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software