am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

[BatmanGoesToRio]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Joker originally was just like any other villain. He showed up, caused trouble, and Batman had to deal with him. This special 'relationship' they had was invented decades later.

Of course he was. Everything needs a start. And I agree: The special relationship was something they invented in the 70s. But it works so damn well.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

"YOU COMPLETE ME!"

You know what I'm talking about, c'mon..

That is exactly what I'm talking about. Joker's been wanting to keep Batman around for fun since the 70's. See the infamous 'The Laughing Fish' story for example.

Or I can show you come scans if you want. I always have the proof to back these things up.

I don't always trust wikipedia so I looked it up and you're right.. But it's not that much of a retcon since it is still an accident that creates Freeze, just the circumstances are different.

What you mean like the Waynes are shot down in an alley by a gun man, only this guy turns out to be the Joker years later? You mean different circumstances like that?

One comic book panel isn't going to make much of a difference, for a character named MR ZERO (so the character had already been changed by that point). And was also a completely dead character who was only revived because of the Animated Series.

Don't try and split hairs. His origin in the comics was established. Dini found his character and origin really lacking in depth and dimension so he rewrote it. Fans loved it. DC loved it. They put it in the comics.

Joe Chill first showed up in '39, and had several appearances after that. Most recently (before '89) in post-Crisis 1987 storyline Batman: Year Two - so a little harder to retcon than Mr Freeze at that point.

It's not harder at all. Why would it be? The length of time it was around has no bearing. A retcon is a retcon. You're changing something in established continuity.

Adding something is different to changing something.

That is a change. Joker having a love interest he met in Arkham. Harley appeared out of the blue as Joker's girl in the middle of the big 'No Man's Land' storyline. In the year after it ended, they wrote a back story for her on how she first met him.

[The Joker]

Here I'll post them anyway, especially for OutRiddled. I'll even be nice and give you two examples for variety. One from the 70's and one from the 80's:

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

That is exactly what I'm talking about. Joker's been wanting to keep Batman around for fun since the 70's. See the infamous 'The Laughing Fish' story for example.

Or I can show you come scans if you want. I always have the proof to back these things up.

Ok, man, I believe you, but that wasn't my point anyway. It's an interesting new twist, and at least some of it was incorporated into Batman '89.

What you mean like the Waynes and their son are shot down in an alley by a gun man, only this guy turns out to be the Joker years later? You mean different circumstances like that?

Well it's not that they get abducted by aliens or something..

Don't try and split hairs. His origin in the comics was established. Dini found his character and origin really lacking in depth and dimension so he rewrote it. Fans loved it. DC loved it. They put it in the comics.

No, MR ZERO'S origin was established. Yeah, same character, but the same thing was done with Mad Hatter, who was retconned into an imposter for the new interpretation.

It's not harder at all. Why would it be? The length of time it was around has no bearing. A retcon is a retcon. You're changing something in established continuity.

It does make a difference if it's just a joke villain who only had one or two appearances in the comics in a short time span VERSUS a solid piece of the mythos around since '39 and had lasted way longer, up until recently. A BIG DIFFERENCE.

That is a change. Joker having a love interest he met in Arkham. Harley appeared out of the blue as Joker's girl in the middle of the big 'No Man's Land' storyline. In the year after it ended, they wrote a back story for her on how she first met him.

It's not affecting the established continuity, though. It doesn't change the origin of Joker, for example.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

Ok, man, I believe you, but that wasn't my point anyway. It's an interesting new twist, and at least some of it was incorporated into Batman '89.

But it wasn't incorporated into Batman '89. Joker just wanted Batman dead in that. No different to any other villain.

Well it's not that they get abducted by aliens or something.

Funny, but you see how it's the same type of continuity change.

No, MR ZERO'S origin was established.

It's the same character. This hang up over the name won't change that any more than The Cat still being Catwoman, or Harvey Kent still being Two Face.

It does make a difference if it's just a joke villain who only had one or two appearances in the comics in a short time span VERSUS a solid piece of the mythos around since '39 and had lasted way longer, up until recently. A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Two things:

1. He was among one of the most prominent villains, especially after the 60's TV show utilized him three times and catapulted his status, just like with the Riddler.
2. Before the 60's show he only had like two appearances. After it he had many appearances.

It's not affecting the established continuity, though. It doesn't change the origin of Joker, for example.

That's because Joker doesn't have a definitive origin. You're missing the point....AGAIN. They took something from a media adaption of Batman and dropped it into continuity.

It was a retcon in terms that suddenly Joker had a girlfriend and a hench wench. Anyone not familiar with BTAS wouldn't have a clue who she is or what her story was. They didn't reveal it until a year or so after she appeared in a spin off story called 'Harley Quinn'.

[BatmanGoesToRio]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Here I'll post them anyway, especially for OutRiddled. I'll even be nice and give you two examples for variety. One from the 70's and one from the 80's:

Yesss. That's MY kind of The Joker. Though I was a bit disappointed by TDKs view on Mr J the battle of wits was one of the things they got right in this movie.

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Two things:

1. He was among one of the most prominent villains, especially after the 60's TV show utilized him three times and catapulted his status, just like with the Riddler.
2. Before the 60's show he only had like two appearances. After it he had many appearances.

After the 60's show (and before the DC Animated retcon) he had like 3 or 4 major appearances (not including cameos), which isn't many, and he still isn't a vital part of Batman's origin story.

http://www.comicvine.com/mr-freeze/4.../issues-cover/

That's because Joker doesn't have a definitive origin.

Another retcon!

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

That's because Batman '89 didn't need pages of exposition ala Nolan. It told the story it needed to and that's it. Some things work better kept as a mystery.

You were the one just arguing everything had to make sense and no loose ends could be left for a stand alone movie. I'm not even saying it's a "bad" thing that we didn't get more insight into Batman's origins, I'm just illustrating a point that the movie didn't become some "Prometheus" type movie because it left things unanswered, like you were trying to imply keeping the murder of Bruce's parents unresolved would have done. Funny how you pick and choose what's acceptable to be kept mysterious and what needs to be spelled out for us when it comes to Batman 89.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

After the 60's show (and before the DC Animated retcon) he had like 3 or 4 major appearances

Where in your link does it show that lol? He had way more major appearances than that.

Another retcon!

That's not a retcon. The chemical bath origin was ALWAYS part of his origin. That comic is the first time the concept was introduced. It's who he was before it that is the difference in origin.

[BatmanGoesToRio]

Originally Posted by OutRiddled

After the 60's show (and before the DC Animated retcon) he had like 3 or 4 major appearances (not including cameos), which isn't many, and he still isn't a vital part of Batman's origin story.

I have to agree. As far as I know The Joker had his big comeback in the 70s. And this was the time "the battle of wists" was invented. In the 60s he was just a harmless prank. He became big in the 70s. And the Joker of the 70s and 80s is still my favorite interpretation of the character. I hate what he became nowadays (especially the Leatherface look).

[OutRiddled]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

You were the one just arguing everything had to make sense and no loose ends could be left for a stand alone movie. I'm not even saying it's a "bad" thing that we didn't get more insight into Batman's origins, I'm just illustrating a point that the movie didn't become some "Prometheus" type movie because it left things unanswered, like you were trying to imply keeping the murder of Bruce's parents unresolved would have done. Funny how you pick and choose what's acceptable to be kept mysterious and what needs to be spelled out for us when it comes to Batman 89.

No, there's a difference between mystery and loose plot threads. To use Alien as an example as I brought up Prometheus; it wasn't necessary to explain what the Space Jockey was in the movie Alien.. it was irrelevant to the plot. Just like how it was irrelevant to show Batman's training and all that. His parents murder was a part of the plot (the whole investigation by Vicki), so you couldn't leave it a loose end.

Originally Posted by BatmanGoesToRio

I have to agree. As far as I know The Joker had his big comeback in the 70s. And this was the time "the battle of wists" was invented. In the 60s he was just a harmless prank. He became big in the 70s. And the Joker of the 70s and 80s is still my favorite interpretation of the character. I hate what he became nowadays (especially the Leatherface look).

I was talking about Freeze...

[BatmanGoesToRio]

Originally Posted by The Joker

That's not a retcon. The chemical bath origin was ALWAYS part of his origin. That comic is the first time the concept was introduced. It's who he was before it that is the difference in origin.

It was some kind of a retcon. A gangster called The Red Hood or a harmless comedian who had to wear the red hood because of some unfortunate circumstances is a difference. I prefer TKJ's origin, though. And I love Joker's line about his past as "multiple choice". A Joker WITHOUT a certain origin is so much more intimidating IMHO.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by BatmanGoesToRio

It was some kind of a retcon. A gangster called The Red Hood or a harmless comedian who had to wear the red hood because of some unfortunate circumstances is a difference. I prefer TKJ's origin, though. And I love Joker's line about his past as "multiple choice". A Joker WITHOUT a certain origin is so much more intimidating IMHO.

Agreed. That's the way it is and the way it should stay .

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by BatmanGoesToRio

It was some kind of a retcon. A gangster called The Red Hood or a harmless comedian who had to wear the red hood because of some unfortunate circumstances is a difference.

That's not a retcon. They're not saying it didn't happen. It's just one of his possible origins. Maybe he was a gangster, maybe he was a comedian. Nobody knows. Not even Joker. He remembers his past differently all the time.

A Joker WITHOUT a certain origin is so much more intimidating IMHO.

Amen to that

[Lord]

One thing that is certain though is that Red Hood existed and was a big thing back in Batman's first year, which is why i'm disapointed there hasn't been made a story for that point of time in Batman's perspective (this way Joker's involvement remains unclear) yet.

[Shikamaru]

It was established that the Red Hood was an alias used by multiple people.

[Skrilla31]

I don't even know where this discussion is heading right now. Look it was 1989. The landscape of the superhero film genre was vastly different than it is now. They were never going to give us a panel for panel re-telling of the Batman mythos. It was never their intent to bring the Batman comic to life on the big screen. It was about making a movie. And not just a movie comic geeks could salivate over, but something everyone could enjoy.

Personally I think he did a damn fine job. Gotham looked fantastical like it did in the comics and yet the world he created was still modern enough and real enough so as to bring Batman up to date. People laugh at the Prince music but it was little touches like that which made the movie resonate with the modern audience. A nice blend of fantasy and reality, as if to say "in a world not so unlike out own". That image of Joker smiling maniacally as he showers the crowd with money is about as pitch perfect as you could get.

[milost]

Most of them all took the plunge into the vat of chemicals though. Well, until recently. I'm also pretty sure the Killing Joke origin of him with his pregnant wife is true with the flashback. Other people in the story like Batman and Gordon don't know that though of course, only the Joker. Hence his great "multiple choice" line to Batman. I do think he was originally that comedian that was forced into the heist who lost his wife and child and had his skin bleached in a vat of chemicals.


Everything changes with the times though. Hell, Joker doesn't even have his face attached naturally any more!



And also, not every version of the Joker wants to keep Batman alive. Even the ones that do change it up and change their mind. Hell, look at the great Animated Series Joker? Nothing would please him more than giving Batman a cyanide/acid pie to the face. There are plenty of Jokers that want to kill him one day, then keep him alive the next. Part of that is so that they can continue to have an infinite amount of stories for the comics. It wouldn't surprise me if the TDK Joker just woke up one day and said, "ya know what, I wanna kill Batman". Hell, he wanted to as much before the interrogation. He's supposed to be unpredictable after all, a wild card. Nothing he does or says should make sense really, only to him.









It just depends on who's writing him. That actually applies to all this stuff. No body here is really wrong.






I think the only Joker that doesn't really do anything for me is the barefoot, "The Batman" Joker with the dreadlocks. Weird stuff.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by milost

Most of them all took the plunge into the vat of chemicals though. Well, until recently. I'm also pretty sure the Killing Joke origin of him with his pregnant wife is true with the flashback. Other people in the story like Batman and Gordon don't know that though of course, only the Joker. Hence his great "multiple choice" line to Batman. I do think he was originally that comedian that was forced into the heist who lost his wife and child and had his skin bleached in a vat of chemicals.

There is no solid proof that any of the Joker's origins is true. Even the Joker himself doesn't know how he came to be hence the "multiple choice" line.

[milost]

Yes there is, the fact that we see page after page of a pre-dip Joker struggling as a no named Joe, whether that's intended to be a real flashback or imagine. That's entirely up to the viewer. There are like 10 pages showing what happened to him, and just one little panel that suggests that it varies from time to time. Let's remember, he also states that line to Batman. The Joker is a liar. One minute the character thinks this way, the next another. So who knows. The Joker wouldn't tell Batman the truth, why would he? It'd make him vulnerable.


I think (I think) the whole flashback after he's looking all sad in his reflection at the carnival is true. He had a pregnant wife, he was a ****** comedian, some guys tricked him into the Red Hood gig, he ran into Batman, and fell into the chemicals. All the events of that day/week drove him mad. Didn't Alan Moore even say that's what he intended? Those that think it's true aren't interpreting it wrong and vice versa.

That was his "bad day". The day he tried to give to Gordon. The day Batman had when he was a child.


Of course, the Joker being as crazy as he is might have put that in the back of his head and forgot who he really is. Or maybe he wants to try and impress Batman with his insanity like "HEY MAN, LOOK HOW CRAZY I AM, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I WAS BEFORE THIS". Who knows.




Point is, there's nothing definitive from story to story. Writers write what they want and fans interpret it how they will.


The Joker is Jack Napier, the mob hood that's dropped into a vat of chemicals by Batman. The Joker was the Red Hood, he was dropped into the chemicals by Batman. The Joker was a guy that suffered from a persona trauma from his scarring and was inspired by Batman. The Joker has an origin story. The Joker doesn't have an origin story. The Joker has bleached skin. The Joker puts on make up.

All these things above are true.

With thousands of stories out there written by all sorts of different creative minds, nothing is definitive. That's it really, origin or not.






If I'm going to have a favorite Joker interpretation, I prefer it to be multiple choice. Whether his origin is real or made up, whether he's bleached or puts on make up.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

There is no solid proof that any of the Joker's origins is true. Even the Joker himself doesn't know how he came to be hence the "multiple choice" line.

Exactly. The most recent origin he got in Batman Confidential a few years ago had him as a professional unbalanced criminal (not a gangster), and it didn't even feature the Red Hood part. Just the same common denominator; the chemical bath.

[Bruce Malone]

A pretty interesting nicholson joker impression

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Brain Damage]

What did I just watch?

[Lord]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

It was established that the Red Hood was an alias used by multiple people.

Geez, you're so smart for figuring that out, congratulations.

Let me repeat myself, Batman's earliest years of crime fighting have almost completelly been covered, however his time fighting the Red Hood criminal, AKA, Red Hood Gang was only featured in fast flashbacks, we never got a complete story in Batman's persepective of the Red Hood case in Year One, then again i have stoped reading Batman comics so i don't know if the recent storyline has covered it already.

[Gotham's Knight]

Originally Posted by Lord

Geez, you're so smart for figuring that out, congratulations.

Let me repeat myself, Batman's earliest years of crime fighting have almost completelly been covered, however his time fighting the Red Hood criminal, AKA, Red Hood Gang was only featured in fast flashbacks, we never got a complete story in Batman's persepective of the Red Hood case in Year One, then again i have stoped reading Batman comics so i don't know if the recent storyline has covered it already.

Funny you should mention that. Scott Snyder's Batman #0 involved Bruce infiltrating the Red Hood Gang and his upcoming "The Zero Year" arc may involve the gang once more.