Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman29758
jamesCameronOnl- I don't remember but I think there was a chemical bath in there
|
You mean in B&B #31? Nah, its not there
Quote:
|
and I like that classic Joker scene and the only live action Joker that cared about money was Cesar Romero and then the cartoon Jokers were more or less caring about money and diamonds.
|
Right, all the cartoon Jokers up till Hamill were also after $.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Jack
Joker's one of the few villains I can think of that truly benefits from having an anti-backstory. He's such an over-the-top, theatrical character that it's always a bit hard to swallow that he was ever a relatively average mob enforcer/crook/comedian/whatever. When you remove all of that (or at least make it very vague) it liberates him in a sense, to be less of an identifiable man and more of an anarchic counterbalance. Plus it plants for firmly in opposition to Batman, who of course has a very detailed and rich origin.
|
Hmm, I cant agree or disagree since Im a huge fan of both approaches. Like I said, Joker was always my fave villain and I just love the O'neil/Moore Joker, which includes the origins. I agree with Burton and Nolan's take that its a bit of a stretch for a good person to go so nuts after the chemical bath (although The Killing Joke made it very believable) so Im fine with their backstories of a nutty mobster (he was already unstable, the accident inly amplified it) and someone who was abused as a child and comes from pathological family