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

Batman >> View Post
·
Post By
Blue Jay

In Reply To
Icon

Subj: Re: Hmmmmmm
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:50:19 pm EST
Reply Subj: Re: Hmmmmmm
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 08:46:12 pm EST

Previous Post

> > 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.

> > > 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
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