DC's Definitive Joker origin

[jimmy]

So everyone knows, they did the Joker's origin in Countdown this week as a 2 page back up...his current Confidential story is indeed just one of the ways it could have happened, as they mention the Killing Joke origin ('So there's this comic who can't make an audience laught...I think that's how this one goes, I forget sometimes..."), his origin from the movie ("how about the one where a mob killer named Napier comes to Gotham and...no wiat, you're too young for that one."), and the Red Hood ("so a small-time yutz in a red hood walks into a factory, right?"...it then continues the rest of the origin with the chemicals and such from there, using the Red Hood stealing hte Ace Chemical payrole)...so this definitive origin isnt so definitive after all

That's the same idea I had! Very good stuff, sir.

 

[Ibn]

Suddenly, after reading the Killing Joke, I'm glad he's a bastard before he becomes Joker. I won't mind him burning in hell.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

So everyone knows, they did the Joker's origin in Countdown this week as a 2 page back up...his current Confidential story is indeed just one of the ways it could have happened, as they mention the Killing Joke origin ('So there's this comic who can't make an audience laught...I think that's how this one goes, I forget sometimes..."), his origin from the movie ("how about the one where a mob killer named Napier comes to Gotham and...no wiat, you're too young for that one."), and the Red Hood ("so a small-time yutz in a red hood walks into a factory, right?"...it then continues the rest of the origin with the chemicals and such from there, using the Red Hood stealing hte Ace Chemical payrole)...so this definitive origin isnt so definitive after all

That two-pager is really well done. And it's drawn by Bolland, which is also cool.

 

[Keyser Soze]

That two-pager is really well done. And it's drawn by Bolland, which is also cool.

I am totally indifferent to "Countdown", but after reading The Joker origin in the comic shop, I'm considering getting the latest issue just for that.

 

[Swordmaster]

Don't

Wait for someone who buys Countdown to scan it. It's not worth the money.

 

[Orko Is King]

So everyone knows, they did the Joker's origin in Countdown this week as a 2 page back up...his current Confidential story is indeed just one of the ways it could have happened, as they mention the Killing Joke origin ('So there's this comic who can't make an audience laught...I think that's how this one goes, I forget sometimes..."), his origin from the movie ("how about the one where a mob killer named Napier comes to Gotham and...no wiat, you're too young for that one."), and the Red Hood ("so a small-time yutz in a red hood walks into a factory, right?"...it then continues the rest of the origin with the chemicals and such from there, using the Red Hood stealing hte Ace Chemical payrole)...so this definitive origin isnt so definitive after all

PLEAS PLEASE PLEASE scan it!!!

 

[The Empire Ape]

this Joker story was not made to be a new origin, it was made to be sold as another tpb next to the killing joke, man who laughs,... when The Dark Knight comes out.

 

[BubbaGump]

Scan plz. I don't read Countdown anymore.

 

[Aristotle]

So everyone knows, they did the Joker's origin in Countdown this week as a 2 page back up...his current Confidential story is indeed just one of the ways it could have happened, as they mention the Killing Joke origin ('So there's this comic who can't make an audience laught...I think that's how this one goes, I forget sometimes..."), his origin from the movie ("how about the one where a mob killer named Napier comes to Gotham and...no wiat, you're too young for that one."), and the Red Hood ("so a small-time yutz in a red hood walks into a factory, right?"...it then continues the rest of the origin with the chemicals and such from there, using the Red Hood stealing hte Ace Chemical payrole)...so this definitive origin isnt so definitive after all

Thank you for reminding me of that. I feel much better now.

**** Batman Confidential.

 

[Aristotle]

That two-pager is really well done. And it's drawn by Bolland, which is also cool.

Driving home the point, all too well, that the art on this BatCon Joker arc is Godawful.

 

[Aristotle]

Scan plz. I don't read Countdown anymore.

You should, dude. It's getting good finally.

 

[The Joker]

So everyone knows, they did the Joker's origin in Countdown this week as a 2 page back up...his current Confidential story is indeed just one of the ways it could have happened, as they mention the Killing Joke origin ('So there's this comic who can't make an audience laught...I think that's how this one goes, I forget sometimes..."), his origin from the movie ("how about the one where a mob killer named Napier comes to Gotham and...no wiat, you're too young for that one."), and the Red Hood ("so a small-time yutz in a red hood walks into a factory, right?"...it then continues the rest of the origin with the chemicals and such from there, using the Red Hood stealing hte Ace Chemical payrole)...so this definitive origin isnt so definitive after all

Very glad to hear it!

 

[Mladen]

I really don't get most of you people.
Why the hell do you read comics?

Its obviously not to be entertained, since you never seem to enjoy anything (except when its from your generic 'star' creators).

Its obviously not to appreciate new and interesting forms of artwork. News flash: Jim Lee really really really isn't all that good, he's just mastered the cliched 90s comic-book style and taken it to a pedantic time-consuming extreme. And although he does a really sweet pinup, Alex Ross's sequentials are truly AWFUL (no really, they're so jarring that its impossible to read fluidly). For you people to like any book NOT drawn by either of those two, the artist has to at LEAST attempt to draw like them, right? Denys Cowan is an amazingly good artist (His work in Blind Justice for one), but he's willing to experiment and attempt something that nearly every other mainstream comic-book is too afraid to try since the majority of the fanbase fails to recognise its compositional strength. Pointing out that his anatomy is all wrong is kind of missing the point (especially when it should be exceedingly obvious from his previous work that the man knows his anatomy). Its called abstraction, and it gives a sense of movement to a scene (notice how easily your eye flows on one of his pages?). Compare the highly static work of Lee and Ross to somebody like Sienkiewicz or or pretty much anybody else (usually the folks who do non-superhero comics). One has a sense of movement and dynamism, the other doesn't. Guess which. Also, this cover is an excellent piece of graphic design, and if you can't appreciate it because of some elongated anatomy, then you have no place commenting on the quality of artwork.

You're VERY obviously not into comics to read a new story, since you'll baulk whenever a writer decides to write something slightly different about a character you've decided is set in stone (according to whatever DC editorial tells you the stone is btw). Why are ANY of you arguing that he should don the Red Hood? Besides being a (kind of stupid) 60s invention (Bring back Comet the Super-horse!) Most of the time your point is some sort of defence about Jason Todd's revenge not making sense if the Joker doesn't wear the red hood.... Wait, why are any of you defending Jason Todd's return from the dead AT ALL?

Those of you crying that his origin is different, that was the WHOLE POINT. Why on earth would they write the same Joker origin over and over again? The way he's characterised here makes SENSE in a way that Moore's poetry-laden iffy 'one-bad-day' scenario didn't. Doesn't it make more sense that Jack was already a wierd sociopath depressed master criminal BEFORE his change... Or do you all think that a failed comedian falling into a vat of acid and losing his wife and child somehow metamorphisises into master criminal GENIUS? It sounds like you just want to read Killing Joke 2007 (illustrated by Jim Lee and written by Jeph Loeb no less).
This blogger puts it beautifully: "This is not some poor slob who had "one bad day" this is a great white wolf with gleaming teeth, fire in his eyes, and a empty belly. This is a predator of men so successful that the kill retains no joy. THIS IS A VILLAIN!"

Michael Green's writing is pretty good, but some of his choices are pretty poor. He realises a chemical bath may bleach your skin and hair, but it won't give you a wicked grin. Excellent, and retains some semblance of logic. However, creating a female romantic interest character only to kill her to fuel Batman's emotions is not only cliched in the comic industry, its one of the the primary reasons female readers have such a problem with superhero comics... Think to yourself how many times a female character has been killed/raped/refriderated in order to fuel the male lead's sense of purpose... if you can't, here's a list. Either way, I'm willing to let it go because he has so little backstory to draw on (this is Batman's origins as well, after all), and Joker had no idea that she was his girlfriend.

But to all you people who can't comment on the arc's strengths and weaknessess because you're obsessed with retaining editorial continuity...
Ugh. Take up stamp collecting, you'll enjoy it more.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

cover for 12

eww

 

[Agentsands77]

However, creating a female romantic interest character only to kill her to fuel Batman's emotions is not only cliched in the comic industry, its one of the the primary reasons female readers have such a problem with superhero comics...

Yeah. Still, while it may be a cliche, it's still pretty effective as a story element.

 

[Mladen]

Yeah. Still, while it may be a cliche, it's still pretty effective as a story element.

Predictable formula-writing wears off its effectiveness pretty quickly. Theres only so many times Joker can poison Gotham resevoir or Two-face robbing the second-national bank before the reader starts to wonder why Batman is always so suprised by it... Its just a copout on the writer's end. There are other ways to motivate a character besides murdering a woman who clearly had no other value in the story from the onset. Once you think about how many other comics/films/books/videogames do the exact same thing, it starts to lose its shock value (especially when its painfully clear from her first appearance that this will be her role in the story).

Besides, I would have like to see Batman get his ass dumped for being distant and like, not calling her for like three weeks after their first date? (I'll have to reread the comic, but something like that happens doesnt it?)
Seriously though, how can you say what happened to her was effective when you saw it coming a mile away?

Also I agree, issue 12's cover is just wierd. I mean, I get the whole yin-yang thing about setting them slightly above and below one another and inverting the teeth, but its still a bit iffy. Frankly all but that first Cowan Joker iss. covers are a bit uninspired, but no less than most mainstream comicbook covers. He's obviously going for iconic, but they look too much like unfinished sketches (compare to the first Cowan BC issue, the cover is drawn 'sketch-like' but looks like he put a lot of work into it). I still like the design of Jack's face (especially pre Joker), his nose isn't utterly ridiculous like most Joker portrayals.

 

[The Empire Ape]

Why are ANY of you arguing that he should don the Red Hood? Besides being a (kind of stupid) 60s invention (Bring back Comet the Super-horse!)

That is correct. But the stupid thing is the shape of the helmet. Do wear a "mask" is normal in Gotham City. They should've just designed a "cooler" Red Hood.

And BTW, Comet the Super-Horse rocks and so do a lot of Silver Age things.

Those of you crying that his origin is different, that was the WHOLE POINT. Why on earth would they write the same Joker origin over and over again? The way he's characterised here makes SENSE in a way that Moore's poetry-laden iffy 'one-bad-day' scenario didn't. Doesn't it make more sense that Jack was already a wierd sociopath depressed master criminal BEFORE his change...

You are absolutely right. Moore's "Nice guy becomes victim of society and freaks out, society is to blame" origin is so 80s.

 

[Agentsands77]

Seriously though, how can you say what happened to her was effective when you saw it coming a mile away?

Because I didn't necessarily see it coming. Maybe I should have, but I didn't.

You are absolutely right. Moore's "Nice guy becomes victim of society and freaks out, society is to blame" origin is so 80s.

Nah, it's just remarkably unbelievable.

 

[Grim Goblin]

I really don't get most of you people.
Why the hell do you read comics?

Its obviously not to be entertained, since you never seem to enjoy anything (except when its from your generic 'star' creators).

Its obviously not to appreciate new and interesting forms of artwork. News flash: Jim Lee really really really isn't all that good, he's just mastered the cliched 90s comic-book style and taken it to a pedantic time-consuming extreme. And although he does a really sweet pinup, Alex Ross's sequentials are truly AWFUL (no really, they're so jarring that its impossible to read fluidly). For you people to like any book NOT drawn by either of those two, the artist has to at LEAST attempt to draw like them, right? Denys Cowan is an amazingly good artist (His work in Blind Justice for one), but he's willing to experiment and attempt something that nearly every other mainstream comic-book is too afraid to try since the majority of the fanbase fails to recognise its compositional strength. Pointing out that his anatomy is all wrong is kind of missing the point (especially when it should be exceedingly obvious from his previous work that the man knows his anatomy). Its called abstraction, and it gives a sense of movement to a scene (notice how easily your eye flows on one of his pages?). Compare the highly static work of Lee and Ross to somebody like Sienkiewicz or or pretty much anybody else (usually the folks who do non-superhero comics). One has a sense of movement and dynamism, the other doesn't. Guess which. Also, this cover is an excellent piece of graphic design, and if you can't appreciate it because of some elongated anatomy, then you have no place commenting on the quality of artwork.

You're VERY obviously not into comics to read a new story, since you'll baulk whenever a writer decides to write something slightly different about a character you've decided is set in stone (according to whatever DC editorial tells you the stone is btw). Why are ANY of you arguing that he should don the Red Hood? Besides being a (kind of stupid) 60s invention (Bring back Comet the Super-horse!) Most of the time your point is some sort of defence about Jason Todd's revenge not making sense if the Joker doesn't wear the red hood.... Wait, why are any of you defending Jason Todd's return from the dead AT ALL?

Those of you crying that his origin is different, that was the WHOLE POINT. Why on earth would they write the same Joker origin over and over again? The way he's characterised here makes SENSE in a way that Moore's poetry-laden iffy 'one-bad-day' scenario didn't. Doesn't it make more sense that Jack was already a wierd sociopath depressed master criminal BEFORE his change... Or do you all think that a failed comedian falling into a vat of acid and losing his wife and child somehow metamorphisises into master criminal GENIUS? It sounds like you just want to read Killing Joke 2007 (illustrated by Jim Lee and written by Jeph Loeb no less).
This blogger puts it beautifully: "This is not some poor slob who had "one bad day" this is a great white wolf with gleaming teeth, fire in his eyes, and a empty belly. This is a predator of men so successful that the kill retains no joy. THIS IS A VILLAIN!"

Michael Green's writing is pretty good, but some of his choices are pretty poor. He realises a chemical bath may bleach your skin and hair, but it won't give you a wicked grin. Excellent, and retains some semblance of logic. However, creating a female romantic interest character only to kill her to fuel Batman's emotions is not only cliched in the comic industry, its one of the the primary reasons female readers have such a problem with superhero comics... Think to yourself how many times a female character has been killed/raped/refriderated in order to fuel the male lead's sense of purpose... if you can't, here's a list. Either way, I'm willing to let it go because he has so little backstory to draw on (this is Batman's origins as well, after all), and Joker had no idea that she was his girlfriend.

But to all you people who can't comment on the arc's strengths and weaknessess because you're obsessed with retaining editorial continuity...
Ugh. Take up stamp collecting, you'll enjoy it more.

Wow, whining much there, feel any better?

So you enjoy Cowan's style? Well good for you then! But how does that give you any right to call out people on what the should or should not enjoy art-wise? Hell, I'm all for artists trying out new styles, and I've certainly seen my share of them (Arkham Asylum comes to mind) but personally I still feel like what we got here are just some really sloppy sketches. I'll agree though, that first cover and most of the actual first issue was pretty decent but damn did it go downhill from there.

As far as the story goes, it's not terrible by any means and I actually dig this new take on Pre-Joker's personallity, But the predictable tragic love story as well as the shameless nods to TDK just makes it lose a lot of power IMO. What's just wrong with this picture is that this was hyped as "Joker's definitive, cross-our-hearts-and-hope-to-die true origin, and yet they retcon in a bunch of bull**** that make no sense in continuity just to cater to the movie.

Frankly, I'll enjoy the rest of this story as an elseword thing and stick with Killing Joke for Joker's (possible) canon origin. While not perfect, it did give the Joker a lot more depth than this origin is providing.

In conclusion, feel free to enjoy whatever you like but get your head out of your ass next time you feel like attacking other people's personal tastes.

 

[Mr. Socko]

The Red Hood crook never bothered me, but the fact that he wears a bucket on his head does.

 

[Mladen]

Wow, whining much there, feel any better?

Ah, so its only whining if its NOT about how much Confidential sucks and its the worst art evars? Seriously, half the comments in this thread are whiny, "He should take some anatomy lessons" comments, and claiming its the worst arc ever after reading the first issue (I assume because its not ******ing alan moore's TKJ, which was never intended to be in continuity from the start anyway). If they get to whine, I do too.

So you enjoy Cowan's style? Well good for you then! But how does that give you any right to call out people on what the should or should not enjoy art-wise? Hell, I'm all for artists trying out new styles, and I've certainly seen my share of them (Arkham Asylum comes to mind) but personally I still feel like what we got here are just some really sloppy sketches. I'll agree though, that first cover and most of the actual first issue was pretty decent but damn did it go downhill from there.

I have the same right to call out people on what they like, since they do the same when they call out anybody who enjoyed Cowan's art. At least I've justified my reasons, since most of the comments against Cowan's art have just said that its fanart or **** and bad anatomy (which is the point), at least you gave a good reason for disliking a lot of his artwork in these issues, and I'm partially inclined to agree except I dont think the work suffers for looking sketchy (to me any panel which looks like it took half a day to draw also takes as long to read... which in a superhero comic is murder)

Dave McKean is nothing new, and there are a lot better 'alternative' artists out there but I'll assume you know that. I'll agree with what you said about the issues appearing to drop slightly in quality, and I'm not sure why they do...

As far as the story goes, it's not terrible by any means and I actually dig this new take on Pre-Joker's personallity, But the predictable tragic love story as well as the shameless nods to TDK just makes it lose a lot of power IMO. What's just wrong with this picture is that this was hyped as "Joker's definitive, cross-our-hearts-and-hope-to-die true origin, and yet they retcon in a bunch of bull**** that make no sense in continuity just to cater to the movie.

Okay, so you're bothered by the shameless nods to TDK, while everybody else here seems to want it to nod to TKJ (I hadn't really given much thought to how its similar to TDK, could you elaborate?)
Either way, I honestly don't care at all about the notion of continuity. What have they retconned besides the Red Hood (which I personally never liked), and Joker's pre-change personality and career? The new personality now makes more logical sense... I personally never bought the tragic backstory for a character so evil (at least Two-face isn't in moral control of his actions, and Mr. Freeze has the excuse that he seems to take no pleasure in it).

Frankly, I'll enjoy the rest of this story as an elseword thing and stick with Killing Joke for Joker's (possible) canon origin. While not perfect, it did give the Joker a lot more depth than this origin is providing.

Why do you need editorial to tell you whether to like a story or not? This story becoming Canon does not negate the value of Moore's TKJ. Seriously, Batman and the Joker aren't real people, they're all just stories, and they're all equally false.
I'd also disagree about depth being a good thing for the Joker, I prefer him being a bit more secretive as a character (and not so poetic as Moore wants him to be). They've given him enough depth, and a logical motivation behind his illogical nature, establishing from the outset his obsession with his nemesis (for me, moreso than TKJ). Obviously not everyone's cup of tea, and I used to prefer him the other (TKJ) way until I realised having it in mind weakened all of his post-transformation appearances.

In conclusion, feel free to enjoy whatever you like but get your head out of your ass next time you feel like attacking other people's personal tastes.

Get off your highhorse and stop imposing a double standard. This forum (and particular this thread), is all about attacking other people's personal tastes (especially, if, god-forbid, you LIKED Cowan's art). If they can dish it out, they can take it, and I at least went to the trouble of justifying why I dislike Lee and Ross instead of the ******ed reasons of "its ****" or "hur hur I could do better". You don't give a **** about anybody attacking other people's personal tastes except when that under attack is your own. So stop pretending.

 

[Joker]

The Red Hood crook never bothered me, but the fact that he wears a bucket on his head does.

it wasnt a bucket, it was two way glass ...and I think part of it's appeal was that it did look so f**king goofy, that's how you can tell either this guy isnt very good at what he's doing, or at least has a sense of humor about it.

 

[Arkard]

Confidential would actually add a GREAT explanation on why the preJoker would wear the goofy Red Hood - to mock Batman in an ironical way.

 

[Grim Goblin]

Ah, so its only whining if its NOT about how much Confidential sucks and its the worst art evars? Seriously, half the comments in this thread are whiny, "He should take some anatomy lessons" comments, and claiming its the worst arc ever after reading the first issue (I assume because its not ******ing alan moore's TKJ, which was never intended to be in continuity from the start anyway). If they get to whine, I do too.

No, it's whining because you have such a huge chunk of text that's mainly lamenting on how fans can't appreciate the merits of an "alternative" art style. While I grant you your right to enjoy said art and also the right to *****, there still is a difference between complaining about something you dislike and complaining about people who dislike what you enjoy.

I have the same right to call out people on what they like, since they do the same when they call out anybody who enjoyed Cowan's art. At least I've justified my reasons, since most of the comments against Cowan's art have just said that its fanart or **** and bad anatomy (which is the point), at least you gave a good reason for disliking a lot of his artwork in these issues, and I'm partially inclined to agree except I dont think the work suffers for looking sketchy (to me any panel which looks like it took half a day to draw also takes as long to read... which in a superhero comic is murder)

Dave McKean is nothing new, and there are a lot better 'alternative' artists out there but I'll assume you know that. I'll agree with what you said about the issues appearing to drop slightly in quality, and I'm not sure why they do...



Okay, so you're bothered by the shameless nods to TDK, while everybody else here seems to want it to nod to TKJ (I hadn't really given much thought to how its similar to TDK, could you elaborate?)
Either way, I honestly don't care at all about the notion of continuity. What have they retconned besides the Red Hood (which I personally never liked), and Joker's pre-change personality and career? The new personality now makes more logical sense... I personally never bought the tragic backstory for a character so evil (at least Two-face isn't in moral control of his actions, and Mr. Freeze has the excuse that he seems to take no pleasure in it).

The nod I was referring to is [BLACKOUT]the way Batman slices Pre=Joker's face with his batarang. It's a pointless retcon that's seems to be there only to tie in with the look of Ledger's Joker in TDK. [/BLACKOUT]As far as your personal tastes concerning Red Hood and Pre-Joker's personallity go, To each his own I say .

Why do you need editorial to tell you whether to like a story or not? This story becoming Canon does not negate the value of Moore's TKJ. Seriously, Batman and the Joker aren't real people, they're all just stories, and they're all equally false.
I'd also disagree about depth being a good thing for the Joker, I prefer him being a bit more secretive as a character (and not so poetic as Moore wants him to be). They've given him enough depth, and a logical motivation behind his illogical nature, establishing from the outset his obsession with his nemesis (for me, moreso than TKJ). Obviously not everyone's cup of tea, and I used to prefer him the other (TKJ) way until I realised having it in mind weakened all of his post-transformation appearances.

They're just stories? Why, I had no idea ... Like I said before, I do enjoy what is done with Pre-Joker's personality, it's the small details that clashes with established facts that I don't like. Again, more power to you if you prefer this version.

Get off your highhorse and stop imposing a double standard. This forum (and particular this thread), is all about attacking other people's personal tastes (especially, if, god-forbid, you LIKED Cowan's art). If they can dish it out, they can take it, and I at least went to the trouble of justifying why I dislike Lee and Ross instead of the ******ed reasons of "its ****" or "hur hur I could do better". You don't give a **** about anybody attacking other people's personal tastes except when that under attack is your own. So stop pretending.

I'm not imposing or pretending anything jackass! There's a difference between snapping back at people who attacked you directly and lashing out at people IN GENERAL because the majority don't seem to share your taste in art styles. Its not the fact that your tastes might be different than mine that made me post in the first place, it's the fact that you basically came out and dictated why we like comics, why we like certain things and why we don't get the stuff you enjoy. You spouted those assumptions like they were facts while completely disregarding the fact that we just might understand perfectly what the artist is going for and still end up hating it. You like it? Great! But some people don't and that doesn't make them less enlightened about art, deal with it!

 

[Orko Is King]

You're welcome.