Bane or the Joker?

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by Travesty

But there's a difference between how the two characters are portrayed in the mythos. The Joker literally does crazy schemes all the time, because he's The Joker. It worked for the movie, and it's the way he's portrayed in different mediums, as well. Bane, on the other hand, doesn't work that way. He's not a crazed lunatic running around, he's a smart tactitioner with a more formulated plan, which we should all know, is why Nolan wanted to use Bane, because of how different they are from each other.

Comparing the two motives, or saying "one is an absolute, therefore, the other can be too", is apples and oranges....

Well said

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Travesty

But there's a difference between how the two characters are portrayed in the mythos. The Joker literally does crazy schemes all the time, because he's The Joker. It worked for the movie, and it's the way he's portrayed in different mediums, as well. Bane, on the other hand, doesn't work that way. He's not a crazed lunatic running around, he's a smart tactitioner with a more formulated plan, which we should all know, is why Nolan wanted to use Bane, because of how different they are from each other.

Comparing the two motives, or saying "one is an absolute, therefore, the other can be too", is apples and oranges....

[Beanjuice]

Originally Posted by Travesty

But there's a difference between how the two characters are portrayed in the mythos. The Joker literally does crazy schemes all the time, because he's The Joker. It worked for the movie, and it's the way he's portrayed in different mediums, as well. Bane, on the other hand, doesn't work that way. He's not a crazed lunatic running around, he's a smart tactitioner with a more formulated plan, which we should all know, is why Nolan wanted to use Bane, because of how different they are from each other.

Comparing the two motives, or saying "one is an absolute, therefore, the other can be too", is apples and oranges....

Thread--Over.

[BatLobsterRises]

I will say though, I think another reason Nolan chose Bane was because he was a lesser known villain and he had more freedom to take artistic license with him and mold him to fit the themes of the final chapter.

[BatmanBeyond]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I will say though, I think another reason Nolan chose Bane was because he was a lesser known villain and he had more freedom to take artistic license with him and mold him to fit the themes of the final chapter.

Keeping this in mind, I thought it was rather surprising how much Nolan and Co. borrowed from some of the Bane storylines in the comics, especially the one shot that finishes the Legacy storyline: things such as wanting to finish Ra's' work by destroying Gotham with a nuclear device, giving the city an ultimatum and using it as a ruse, intending to detonate the device anyway (just like in the movie). And then of course we have the iconic Knightfall back-breaker and his association with the League of Assassins/Shadows.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by BatmanBeyond

Keeping this in mind, I thought it was rather surprising how much Nolan and Co. borrowed from some of the Bane storylines in the comics, especially the one shot that finishes the Legacy storyline: things such as wanting to finish Ra's' work by destroying Gotham with a nuclear device, giving the city an ultimatum and using it as a ruse, intending to detonate the device anyway (just like in the movie). And then of course we have the iconic Knightfall back-breaker and his association with the League of Assassins/Shadows.

Oh, I totally agree. It felt very much like they had thrown all of Bane's source material into a blender and spit it out as something fresh, but very definitive.

I think that was the benefit of using a character who hasn't been a huge presence in the Batman world and is a more recent addition to the mythos. They were able to encompass a surprisingly high percentage of his appearances into something coherent. The biggest liberties they took were probably removing Venom and replacing it with an anesthetic, and having him know and protect Talia before Ra's even know she existed.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Travesty

But there's a difference between how the two characters are portrayed in the mythos. The Joker literally does crazy schemes all the time, because he's The Joker. It worked for the movie, and it's the way he's portrayed in different mediums, as well. Bane, on the other hand, doesn't work that way. He's not a crazed lunatic running around, he's a smart tactitioner with a more formulated plan, which we should all know, is why Nolan wanted to use Bane, because of how different they are from each other.

Comparing the two motives, or saying "one is an absolute, therefore, the other can be too", is apples and oranges....

Exactly

Even with the Joker they explored his ideals on chaos.

[BlueLightning]

I think Nolan and his team took the essential of every character, with his personal spin and made it work.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Of course Joker's effect on Bruce's life was devastating.



I don't agree. I think the Joker was very interested in Gotham. He was in this for what he called a battle for Gotham's soul. He also wanted to bring Gotham a better class of criminal. Even declaring to the Chechen that "This is my city".

I think it was quite obvious Joker had big designs on Gotham and it's people.

I never saw this as him caring about Gotham, but rather him knowing it mattered to Batman. Similar to the backstories he makes up, what he's saying is not necessarily true, but a tool to get under Bruce's skin.

Ultimately I think both Joker and Bane affect Bruce equally. Joker destroys Bruce and he wins actually wins in TDK. Bane does indeed break the Bat, but Bruce is able to overcome it and come out of it, arguably being even more important to bruce's life than joker by forcing him to truly deal with his fear which was the source of his trauma from BB.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

I never saw this as him caring about Gotham, but rather him knowing it mattered to Batman. Similar to the backstories he makes up, what he's saying is not necessarily true, but a tool to get under Bruce's skin.

It had nothing to do with Batman. He conceded Batman was incorruptible at the end of TDK, but he still very much wanted to break Gotham using Harvey. "You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for Gotham's soul in a fist fight with you?". The ferries set up was "To prove that deep down everyone is as ugly as you".

So how is it about getting under Batman's skin when he believes Batman can't be corrupted? If it was about that then he wouldn't give a damn about Harvey breaking Gotham's soul when he now believed Batman couldn't be corrupted, hence why he believed they were destined to battle forever. He knew he was never going to be able to push Batman so far that he'd kill him.

The multiple back stories is a nod to the comics, The Killing Joke to be precise;



Heath Ledger said that was one of the comics he was given to read;

he has been provided with one particular comic to help him prepare for the part: Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's seminal The Killing Joke.

"The Killing Joke is the one that was handed to me. It's really good. So I think [the film] is obviously going to be a bit [about] the beginning of the Joker. I guess [The Killing Joke] explains a little bit of where he's from, but not too much. From what I've gathered, there isn't a lot of information about the Joker and it's kind of left that way."

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2006/11/0...er-talks-joker

[BatLobsterRises]

I think just because Joker knows Batman can't be corrupted, that doesn't mean he doesn't know what will severely piss ol' Bats off. He knows how to push the man's buttons to the very end, and may not have even done any of the things he did if not for the existence of the Batman.

Not saying he didn't care about Gotham, he of course did, but he also did say "I'll show ya...when the chips are down...these civilized people will eat each other." I think had his ferry plan worked out, part of the joy for him would be in showing Batman that he's wrong about Gotham/humanity and that his mission is pointless.

And can't forget that at one point he also was also trying to tempt Bats into killing him just so he'd prove his point. I think to a nihilist like The Joker, any form of optimism is a huge joke and that especially includes Batman's crusade to clean up Gotham. It's a philosophical war.

[Fudgie]

Conjecture. Joker tried to push everyone in Gotham over the edge. Bats included. He just realized that after everything he did and Bats still saved him that he was one that he wasn't gonna be able to break.

But he still wanted Dent and Gotham to be broken and corrupted. He was so damn happy when he revealed what he did to Dent and what was gonna happen to Gotham once they found out.

[BatLobsterRises]

I agree Fudgie. And he rubs it in Bats' face just how easy it was to do, too. Again, I'm not saying he didn't care about Gotham but I think TheBat812 had a valid point in that Joker loves throwing salt in the wound to Bats. I hadn't thought of it that way but I think there's a bit of truth there. I like the idea of these two larger than life figures in a philosophical battle with each other as the city's soul (manifested as Dent) hangs in the balance.

Joker and Batman are just fated to be enemies.

[The Joker]

I don't disagree Joker gets a big kick out of sticking it to Batman. After all his opposition to killing Batman is because "You're just too much fun".

But in no way can I believe that Joker did not care about Gotham and it was all done for Batman's benefit. It flies in the face of everything TDK showed so wonderfully with Joker and his maniacal zeal to break everyone around him to prove a point, and bring a better class of criminal to Gotham (I'm still disappointed Joker didn't spawn more freak criminals like him).

[BatLobsterRises]

Yeah, agreed. The way I put it is if Joker believes humanity as a whole to be easily corruptible, and Batman the one truly incorruptible person he's encountered...then Batman is pretty much Joker's target audience. Or, Gotham is...but Batman's got a reserved seat in the front row...or something.

Okay, my mind is officially tired from trying to understand what makes psychopaths tick

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Originally Posted by Robin91939

ehe League's goals became skewed and mutated under the leadership of Bane and Talia.

Under Ra's it was more clear. Crime, despair, injustice... Eradicate it. All of it. By any means necessary.

But Ra's was doing it only as a function of the greater whole of the League of Shadows... He was doing it as they had done it for centuries, no more no less. So in the end, Ra's was destroying Gotham not because he wanted to -- but because he felt that he HAD to for the greater good of the world...

Bane and Talia took this goal, but perverted it with revenge. They didn't simply want to destroy Gotham for the greater good of anybody. They were using Ra's al Ghuls' original mission as a thinly veiled excuse to reach their own selfish goals... for their own selfish reasons.

Sure, was Gotham still corrupt? Yes.
Was Gotham as bad as it was in Batman Begins? No.

Bane wanted to destroy Gotham to prove that he was worthy of having been saved by Ra's -- or to prove that he should have never been excommunicated from the League originally, or that he was even Ra's' better...

Talia wanted to destroy Gotham to honor her father and to avenge his death and kill Bruce...

Neither of these were 100% inline with the original goals of the League. Vanity, hubris and pride perverted what was once a selfless mission that the League had...


-R

Do you think Ra's would have approved of what Talia and Bane did? (with or without the revenge aspect of it. Scenario A he did die, Scenario B he didn't.

Keep in mind that Ra's also equates revenge with justice. And if Ra's was the highest authority on what the League stands for, then this is what the league stands for. I guess there's degrees though. There's taking satisfaction in enacting punishment that one deserves, but perhaps Talia and Bane's actions would be considered overkill and unjust by Ra's standards, if it was in fact only for the purpose of torturing Bruce/Gotham for 5 months (and not for the potentially 'just' cause of sending a message).

Bruce's hallucination seemed to approved of what Talia and Bane were doing. I know, it's just a hallucination. But if this is Bruce's understanding of what Ra's would do, shouldn't it be our understanding of what Ra's would do as well? Did the movie do anything to make us think that Bruce's hallucination about Ra's would be inaccurate to what Ra's actually would think?

Lastly, regarding Bane. I don't think he's a poorly written character. He got rejected by Ra's and the League, something he's clearly very passionate about, and he has a chance to prove himself.

The only thing that can be somewhat confusing is the reason why he has such animosity towards Bruce. Is it because Bruce killed Ra's, betrayed the league and thwarted their plan? Is it because Bruce was 'chosen' by Ra's, whereas Bane was cast out? Or is it because he's pissed at Bruce for killing Talia's father? Perhaps all these things?

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by FeedOnATreeFrog

Do you think Ra's would have approved of what Talia and Bane did? (with or without the revenge aspect of it. Scenario A he did die, Scenario B he didn't.

Keep in mind that Ra's also equates revenge with justice. And if Ra's was the highest authority on what the League stands for, then this is what the league stands for. I guess there's degrees though. There's taking satisfaction in enacting punishment that one deserves, but perhaps Talia and Bane's actions would be considered overkill and unjust by Ra's standards, if it was in fact only for the purpose of torturing Bruce/Gotham for 5 months (and not for the potentially 'just' cause of sending a message).

Bruce's hallucination seemed to approved of what Talia and Bane were doing. I know, it's just a hallucination. But if this is Bruce's understanding of what Ra's would do, shouldn't it be our understanding of what Ra's would do as well? Did the movie do anything to make us think that Bruce's hallucination about Ra's would be inaccurate to what Ra's actually would think?

Lastly, regarding Bane. I don't think he's a poorly written character. He got rejected by Ra's and the League, something he's clearly very passionate about, and he has a chance to prove himself.

The only thing that can be somewhat confusing is the reason why he has such animosity towards Bruce. Is it because Bruce killed Ra's, betrayed the league and thwarted their plan? Is it because Bruce was 'chosen' by Ra's, whereas Bane was cast out? Or is it because he's pissed at Bruce for killing Talia's father? Perhaps all these things?

Nice post. For me, the bolded is what makes the most sense and that is how I interpreted the movie. It fits the characterization of Bane from the comics where he wants to break Batman to prove his superiority. In this case, the fact that they were trained by the same man where one was favored over the other only adds fuel to the fire there. The fact that Bruce rejected Ra's and then later killed him is an even bigger spit in the face. Jealousy is always stronger when someone feels that the person they envy doesn't even appreciate what they have. Kinda like Amadeus/Salieri.

[Robin91939]

Originally Posted by FeedOnATreeFrog

Do you think Ra's would have approved of what Talia and Bane did? (with or without the revenge aspect of it. Scenario A he did die, Scenario B he didn't.

Keep in mind that Ra's also equates revenge with justice. And if Ra's was the highest authority on what the League stands for, then this is what the league stands for. I guess there's degrees though. There's taking satisfaction in enacting punishment that one deserves, but perhaps Talia and Bane's actions would be considered overkill and unjust by Ra's standards, if it was in fact only for the purpose of torturing Bruce/Gotham for 5 months (and not for the potentially 'just' cause of sending a message).

Bruce's hallucination seemed to approved of what Talia and Bane were doing. I know, it's just a hallucination. But if this is Bruce's understanding of what Ra's would do, shouldn't it be our understanding of what Ra's would do as well? Did the movie do anything to make us think that Bruce's hallucination about Ra's would be inaccurate to what Ra's actually would think?

Lastly, regarding Bane. I don't think he's a poorly written character. He got rejected by Ra's and the League, something he's clearly very passionate about, and he has a chance to prove himself.

The only thing that can be somewhat confusing is the reason why he has such animosity towards Bruce. Is it because Bruce killed Ra's, betrayed the league and thwarted their plan? Is it because Bruce was 'chosen' by Ra's, whereas Bane was cast out? Or is it because he's pissed at Bruce for killing Talia's father? Perhaps all these things?

I think Ra's would have approved of Talia's plan -- not Bane's. But again, he would only disagree with Bane's because it was Bane.

Bane's plan was a twist on what Talia wanted to do. It was more extreme.

Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham.
Talia wanted to destroy Gotham and punish Bruce for killing Ra's.
Bane wanted to destroy Gotham, punish Bruce and punish the entire city for its alleged sins and poison its soul.

Who knows? If Talia had been left in the Pit as long as Bane had been and then escaped "after already a [wo]man" she may have become just as cynical as Bane -- someone who loathed all of those who had hope in their lives... correction: not "hope" but attainable hope. Bane had hope -- but it was an illusion, a fantasy. He wanted to do this to the people of Gotham.

Now -- would Ra's approve of these methods? He'd probably let it happen because in the end, Gotham would be destroyed, "by any means necessary." But I don't think he'd be comfortable with them.

As far as your last point -- I think you nail it.

Bane was against Bruce for all of these reasons. I wish that they did play with the dynamic of Bruce being the chosen heir to the head of the demon and having thrown it away -- while Bane was someone who wanted that title desperately and who illegitimately inherited it but never truly earned it...

It's there -- you an infer it after watching the whole of the trilogy -- but I do wish Nolan had driven it home.

-R

[Grommers]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I don't agree. I think the Joker was very interested in Gotham. He was in this for what he called a battle for Gotham's soul. He also wanted to bring Gotham a better class of criminal. Even declaring to the Chechen that "This is my city".

See, I got the feeling that was more of a ruse, or a short term goal. Once realizing what Batman really was, how much MORE of a hero he could of been than the joker. I feel he was fixated, he knew breaking gotham would break the bat. It's part of the reason there was so much focus for him on Harvey Dent. He knew Bats would be screwed if Harvey fell.

I could be looking at it the wrong way, but I truly felt the Joker was almost obsessive over the B-man. (Which is kind of scary, because judging by my room so am I.)

The nice part with the batman that brings it, is from BB when he states the line "The first time I stole so that I wouldn't starve, yes. I lost many assumptions about the simple nature of right and wrong"

Truly one of my favorite lines, it shows how much thought he really puts into what he's doing.

The nice follow-up line in TDK, "I know what I have to become to stop men like this."

It shows a wavering in judgement, of course he ends up figuring things out, but there's almost that uncertainty for the viewer on what he means by it.





Just the more and more I discuss the joker, it reminds me of what Bane could have been. A much more in depth character had there been allowed for more screen time. I really wish they decided to split this movie up for that reason, Bane isn't a force of nature like the Joker. He needs much more screen time I think to really grasp his character and his motives etc.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I don't disagree Joker gets a big kick out of sticking it to Batman. After all his opposition to killing Batman is because "You're just too much fun".

But in no way can I believe that Joker did not care about Gotham and it was all done for Batman's benefit. It flies in the face of everything TDK showed so wonderfully with Joker and his maniacal zeal to break everyone around him to prove a point, and bring a better class of criminal to Gotham (I'm still disappointed Joker didn't spawn more freak criminals like him).

Quoted for truth.

Originally Posted by Grommers

Once realizing what Batman really was, how much MORE of a hero he could of been than the joker. I feel he was fixated, he knew breaking gotham would break the bat

'You truly are incorruptible aren't you'

I could be looking at it the wrong way, but I truly felt the Joker was almost obsessive over the B-man. (Which is kind of scary, because judging by my room so am I.)

Ya ain't wrong about him being obsessed with Batman cos he says it in the movie. He doesn't wanna kill Batman cos it's too much of a hoot to keep Batman around, but ya are wrong if ya think he was doing just because he was obsessed with Batman.

The J-Man wanted Gotham to go down as a bunch of crazy broken people so he could show that they are all as rotten as he is inside.

Just the more and more I discuss the joker, it reminds me of what Bane could have been. A much more in depth character had there been allowed for more screen time. I really wish they decided to split this movie up for that reason, Bane isn't a force of nature like the Joker. He needs much more screen time I think to really grasp his character and his motives etc.

Yup you're right on there.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Beanjuice

Thread--Over.

You would think so, but this thread continues.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Grommers

See, I got the feeling that was more of a ruse, or a short term goal. Once realizing what Batman really was, how much MORE of a hero he could of been than the joker. I feel he was fixated, he knew breaking gotham would break the bat.

Good point. It's important to remember how many times Joker's plan shifts and how many times the events of the film just play into his "schemes". Joker might have had his whole Rachel/Dent trap and ferries plans ready to go, but he was still pretty much ready to let Batman kill him in the middle of that street and consider that a win. And he was also ready to let Dent kill him for the same reason. The complete disregard for his own life made him extremely dangerous and unpredictable.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Grommers

See, I got the feeling that was more of a ruse, or a short term goal.

In what way did he give that impression?

Once realizing what Batman really was, how much MORE of a hero he could of been than the joker. I feel he was fixated, he knew breaking gotham would break the bat. It's part of the reason there was so much focus for him on Harvey Dent. He knew Bats would be screwed if Harvey fell.

Again what are you basing any of this on? Joker was targeting Harvey from the get-go. Even during the time where Joker was demanding Batman take off his mask and turn himself in.

After burning Harvey, killing Rachel (who Joker knew Batman cared about), Batman still saved his life. Joker knew Batman was the one mind he could not corrupt, and he said as much. But that did not deter him from pressing on and wanting Gotham's soul shattered thanks to Harvey's downfall. He was completely unwavering in that.

So how do you interpret that he knew Batman would be "screwed" if Harvey fell?

I could be looking at it the wrong way, but I truly felt the Joker was almost obsessive over the B-man. (Which is kind of scary, because judging by my room so am I.)

He was obsessive over Batman. He enjoyed challenging him so much that he didn't want to kill him, and he stopped Reese from exposing Batman's identity by turning him into a target for Gotham's people to kill.

But I must ask again how Joker's enjoyment of messing with Batman means his zeal to break Gotham meant it was simply for Batman's benefit?

Just the more and more I discuss the joker, it reminds me of what Bane could have been. A much more in depth character had there been allowed for more screen time. I really wish they decided to split this movie up for that reason, Bane isn't a force of nature like the Joker. He needs much more screen time I think to really grasp his character and his motives etc.

I agree. Bane being attached to Talia and the LOS really did the character no favors at all, IMO.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

You would think so, but this thread continues.

Why should this thread be over?

[Grommers]

Originally Posted by The Joker

In what way did he give that impression?

Again what are you basing any of this on? Joker was targeting Harvey from the get-go. Even during the time where Joker was demanding Batman take off his mask and turn himself in.

So how do you interpret that he knew Batman would be "screwed" if Harvey fell?

I think the lines when they are in the interrogation scene between him and bats.

The fact that he goes to the mob to bring up the batman, he doesn't mention Harvey Dent at all, that he's the force to be reckoned with, it's almost like the joker realizes, that Batman is the real problem and stopping harvey could stop everything batman has worked so hard for.

He seems to have worked out so much about batman. He looked at those as casualties, even so much as Batman (although sheer coincidence) the only one out of the three he saved was Harvey Dent, the Judge, and Commissioner both bit the bullet.



It's really hard to understand the Joker in this movie, because he's very omniscient, but part of the vibe I get is the mob, etc. That's all just to turn everything batman is doing on its side. To break the incorruptible.

I mean why else would the Joker target harvey? the mob never asked him too.
He was gothams white knight, but Joker was clear that batman was the real problem.

The Joker had even thought Harvey dent was batman, with his ideals, but once learning of the truth, things changed...forever.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Grommers

I think the lines when they are in the interrogation scene between him and bats.

Any particular ones?

The fact that he goes to the mob to bring up the batman, he doesn't mention Harvey Dent at all

"Dent, he's just the beginning"

that he's the force to be reckoned with, it's almost like the joker realizes, that Batman is the real problem and stopping harvey could stop everything batman has worked so hard for.

I think you've got that back to front. Joker does realize Batman is the real problem because he has no jurisdiction and can break boundaries Harvey Dent cannot.

Joker is basically pointing out the obvious; Batman is the reason they are afraid to go out at night, and he's the reason they meet in day time. So he's the one they need to deal with first. It's very straight forward. You deal with the most immediate threat first. That's the smart and logical thing to do. Then you deal with subsequent threats.

He seems to have worked out so much about batman.

The Joker is portrayed as extremely intelligent in general. He stays one step ahead of everyone.

What does he figure out about Batman other than he has feelings for Rachel?

He looked at those as casualties, even so much as Batman (although sheer coincidence) the only one out of the three he saved was Harvey Dent, the Judge, and Commissioner both bit the bullet.

Only because Joker sent him to Harvey's address on purpose because he wanted Dent saved so he could break him. Why did he want to break Dent? So he could break Gotham to prove a point.

Batman: "What were you trying to prove? That deep down everyone is as ugly as you? You're alone"

Again this is taken from The Killing Joke, which was directly used as an influence for this movie;




That had nothing to do with Batman in TKJ any more than Joker's plan in TDK did. Joker wanted to prove something; That everyone else was as bad as he was deep down.

It's really hard to understand the Joker in this movie, because he's very omniscient, but part of the vibe I get is the mob, etc. That's all just to turn everything batman is doing on its side. To break the incorruptible.

I mean why else would the Joker target harvey? the mob never asked him too.
He was gothams white knight, but Joker was clear that batman was the real problem.

This was all very straight forward. Batman was the more immediate problem. That's why he offered to get Batman.

Joker: "It's simple, we kill the Batman"
Maroni: "If it's so simple then why haven't you done it already?"

It's easier to make attempts on Dent's life, a public figure, than it is a mysterious vigilante who only comes out at night.

You speak as though they didn't want Dent dead. They very much did. Maroni tried to have him shot in court. Lau was moving their money and heading to Hong Kong to get out of Harvey's jurisdiction. As Joker said, Dent was just the beginning of their problems.

We haven't even gotten into the fact he takes over Gotham's underworld and intends to bring what he calls a better class of criminal to it. What has this got to do with Batman? Joker doesn't want to get rid of Batman because he's too much fun. So if Batman was "screwed" if Gotham gets broken like you suggest, then wouldn't that be the end of Batman? Is that what Joker wants? No.

He wants a broken Gotham with Batman in it. Remember what he said Gotham would be like if Batman wasn't around? "I had a vision of a world without Batman. The mob ground out a little profit and the Police tried to shut them down one block at a time. And it was so BORING!". This also ties into why he wants to bring a better class of criminal to Gotham, because the current ones just care about money. And as we saw Joker doesn't give a damn about money.

The Joker had even thought Harvey dent was batman, with his ideals, but once learning of the truth, things changed...forever.

What changed?