DC's Definitive Joker origin

[The Joker]

You're welcome.

Awesome

Thanks a mil, Orko

 

[BubbaGump]

I can't stop staring at Brian Bolland's Joker. That's my definitive right there.

 

[BubbaGump]

edit

 

[Keyser Soze]

Love the Joker Profile art! t:

Back on-topic, this MLaden guy may have some ideas that I disagree with, but he also brings up some good points. For example, the fact that comic fans need to start appreciating a story on its own merits, rather than on how rigourously it sticks to past continuity. It is saddening to see great writing and characterisation overlooked over complaints that Green isn't just telling the same story we've heard over and over for decades. Yes, the story is different. Yes, Batman and Joker are acting in ways we wouldn't expect them to. That's part of the fun of reading a NEW story.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I can't stop staring at Brian Bolland's Joker. That's my definitive right there.

Completely agree. Now THAT is damn good art. Bolland's Joker is perfect in every way

 

[jimmy]

You're welcome.

What is that from?!!?

 

[BubbaGump]

What is that from?!!?

Countdown.

 

[jimmy]

Countdown.

Which one? I don't remember seeing it.

 

[Kraven]

Brian Bolland's Joker is by far my favorite. Nothing can top his work for that particular character, IMO.

 

[Joker]

Which one? I don't remember seeing it.

last weeks issue...it was the back up.

 

[Agentsands77]

Brian Bolland's Joker is by far my favorite. Nothing can top his work for that particular character, IMO.

I do think Bolland's Joker is the best "classic" Joker around. It couldn't be done any better. That said, I think his Joker from COUNTDOWN isn't exactly up to his standard.

 

[Joker]

I would love a poster of the "pick a card, any card" page, without the rest of the dialouge...it would look great in between my Killing Joke and Last Laugh #1 cover posters...

 

[Mladen]

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.

What 'facts' would these be? My point about them all being 'just stories' means that there is no such thing as a 'fact' about a fictional character. Its all made up, so saying one is an 'established fact' is really odd (especially when 'established fact' is whatever editorial says it is anyway). They're ALL versions, so you can't dismiss one for being 'untrue'.
What is your specific problem with how Joker aquires his smile in this book? In both methods (TKJ and BC) Batman is the cause? Does it specifically matter if its acid or a batarang? In BC the line between the character of Joker and Jack is blurred, helped by the fact that his transformation isn't a single 'event' like it is in TKJ. Having him physically deformed in seperate stages reinforces this idea. Why would you weaken it just to stay true to an origin which honestly isn't integral to who he is as a character (at least not in the way that say Two-face or Batman's origins are)? Its that kind of demand from pedantic fans which is killing superhero comics since you refuse to let them write anything knew.

Would you like it more if it was 'in continuity' or 'elseworlds'? I want to know why should it matter? They're both meaningless concepts since ITS ALL MADE UP. Why would your enjoyment of the story matter in the slightest if you were told by some editorial people whether its 'real' or 'untrue', despite both concepts being meaningless in the tales of a fictional character?

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!

I was adressing the people who seem to HATE everything except Hush, TKJ, TDKR, and Year One, Dark Victory and whatever else I missed which make up the usual list (most of which I personally agree are great/good books, but not the best superhero comic-books have to offer). A lot of these books were founded in a spirit of exploration, but their current majority fan-base is made up of people who are afraid of exploration, and will only read the one sort of niche comic (the superhero, illustrated by either Alex Ross or Jim Lee or somebody who draws like them). Yes, to me this makes them less enlightened about art, especially when they refuse to look at anything else, and i honestly don't care if you think this makes me a jackass.

So yes, it gets me pissed off and whiny, but no more than any other person whining in these forums, and at least I gave a reason and justification for it. Which is more than I recieve when I have to put up with stupid threads to rag on a book which half the commenters aren't even buying (they're downloading it online), and the other half have clearly failed to realise the point of some feature of the book (in this case: that Cowan's abstraction is intentional, and that hating a book for presenting a different origin raises the question of why are you bothering reading it AT ALL if you just want to be told the same thing over and over again, like a child).

Just how many of the people who posted in this thread understood what Cowan was going for with his art (like you say they did)? If they did understand, comments like "He cannot draw" and "His anatomy is wrong therefore it is bad art!" say otherwise. My post was addressing them, not you, since you've obviously given some thought to why you dislike this story and haven't just jumped at attacking it because the Joker's nose is a little different. I wanted to say there are other ways to draw a comic-book story besides the ultra-polished, shiny colored, and muscle-perfect methods of guys like Lee and Ross. To somebody who thinks they are the mastery of art, no, I'm not suprised they HATE something which looks a little different, and yes, I'm going to call them out on being closed-minded, ignorant of whats available around them, and refusing to acknowledge the artistic worth of another artist's work. I'm going to tell them to look outside their box, and I don't give a **** if it hurts their feelings since they don't give a **** that they always yell the loudest and their close-minded opinions is hurting the possibility of variety in the industry.

The two artists I've picked to rag on, I honestly do not like, and I have a reason. Lee because he defined his bombastic 90s style about ten years ago, and since then I could cut and paste any panel from any one of his comics in the last decade (except for a couple of exceptions), change the outfits on the characters and re-arrange them without a problem since everybody has the same body and face, and Ross because his superhero work is very pretty but really jarring to read (though his non-superhero comics are actually quite nice).
How am I any different to any of the posts on here which have said outright after reading issue one of the Joker arc, "I did not like this book for some reason. Therefore it is worthless, and all opinions to the contrary are worthless."

I've stated clearly why I like comics, which therefore explains why I could appreciate what BC is (mostly) trying to offer (its definately readable). If you read comics for some reason (to be told the same comforting story over and over again, with no variation in artistic style between issues or even within the same issue, no variations in story, or no variations in theme) which is the complete opposite to why I read them, I'm going to tell you that I think your loud demands are impeding what comics have to offer, and you're damaging public perception of the medium (scaring away new readers in the bargain and helping kill independant publishers). And I don't give a **** if it hurts your feelings, because I see you as a damaging force working against everything comicbooks could be.

I'm not wailing on some innocent minority here. I'm attacking a loud and close-minded majority which is currently seeing to it that I'll never be able to read a Batman story which is not illustrated Jim Lee or written by Jeph Loeb.

 

[Aristotle]

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

It's pretty funny that I probably fall into that category in your mind. Funny, because I've been accused of being a total DC fanboy.

Its obviously not to appreciate new and interesting forms of artwork.

Superhero comic books are not the showcase for that! That's what other sectors of the genre are for. Unless the story explicitly calls for a style of artwork (stories rarely do), it shouldn't be employed. Sam Keith's artwork for Secrets? Ridiculous pairing. Cowan for this Joker arc? What the hell sense does that make? Given, especially, that pretty much the definitive Joker art is Brian Bolland?

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.

Jim Lee is very good at doing superheroes. The ideal superhero artist goes for as much realism as he can consistently muster without too much difficulty, and otherwise does not distract from the action.

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).

Getting back to that idea of pairing an artist with a story, Ross does quite well for the substance of his stories. Those stories are often not so much about a fluid, average-comic-book experience, so much as about hitting the reader with repeated iconic, intense imagery. Ross would not be a good choice for the majority of superhero books, really not for any monthlies, but when the story calls for him (or he calls for the story, more likely), he's perfect.

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.

Why are straight-up, action-packed superhero stories the place to do a thing like experimenting? That's not what they're for! They're for relatively cheap, relatively dumb, hellofalotta fun entertainment. And did you really just say "compositional strength" in reference to superhero art?

Pointing out that his anatomy is all wrong is kind of missing the point

When I want Picasso, I'll go find some Picasso. When I want the definitive origin of the Joker, I won't expect to open up one of the issues and find that one of the Joker's eyes is substantially lower than his other one.

Its called abstraction, and it gives a sense of movement to a scene

Not in superhero books. That sort of abstraction would have much more of a place in a different setting. In superhero comics, the style that's used is very kinetic. Way too kinetic for it to be useful in any other genre. To put that on hold and start trying to convey that kind of hypermovement through abstraction is ludicrous and ill-advised.

notice how easily your eye flows on one of his pages?

Noticed quite the opposite.

somebody like Sienkiewicz or or pretty much anybody else (usually the folks who do non-superhero comics

You've just hit upon the crux of the matter, there, haven't you?

One has a sense of movement and dynamism, the other doesn't.

One has an insanely exaggerated sense of movement and dynamism. One has a sense of movement and dynamism that makes more sense for the vast majority of visual art styles.

if you can't appreciate it because of some elongated anatomy, then you have no place commenting on the quality of artwork.

When I want to be a part of the pretentious, wanky, elitist art culture that uses art as a secret language of cultural oppression to create a form of cultural classism, I'll go join PretentiousArtHype.com's forums. But when I'm looking to talk about superhero comics and have an actual good time, I'll be here.

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

Oh, yes, "new story" pretty much is a synonym for "taking an existing story and completely throwing it out because I think it's better my way." If nobody cares about continuity, then what is the point of having ANY continuity? **** it! Throw out the shared universe concept! We'll just write whatever the **** stories we want, with no basis in history, no continuity, and absolutely ZERO character development!

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!)

Because, as he has a habit of doing, Alan Moore made that 60s invention pretty damned amazing.

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?

First of all, because except for the explanation, it wasn't a bad story. Secondly, because it happened. That's continuity. It's people like you that keep ****ing everything up by being loose with continuity, making any story that is the slightest bit old entirely meaningless, since it soon will have no real foundation on any kind of bedrock continuity.

Those of you crying that his origin is different, that was the WHOLE POINT.

Definitive is not the same word as different.

Why on earth would they write the same Joker origin over and over again?

Because that origin was never even completed? It was told in bits and pieces over years, and they could have used this opportunity to standardize it (in half the issue count, I'd bet. How the **** is this arc still going?)

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?

First of all, Moore's story, while revealing the character's origins, kept so much of the mystique of the character alive. What HAPPENED in that man's head, down in those chemicals? How much weight must have been on his shoulders, to have snapped so cleanly and completely? Green's version: a guy who's really good at killing people gets mad that Batman looks ridiculous but manages to stop him.

Secondly, what makes Joker a genius isn't some sort of tactical planning or intense scientific knowledge. He farms that out to underlings. What makes him a criminal genius is a complete lack of scruples, a healthy sense of ambition, and what Morrison's Arkham Asylum termed a "super-sanity"--insanity so intense that it goes beyond sanity.

It sounds like you just want to read Killing Joke 2007 (illustrated by Jim Lee and written by Jeph Loeb no less).

What I want to read is NOTHING on this subject! The Joker should not have a definitive origin. TKJ, SotB, and GK are enough. More than enough, maybe. We certainly don't need "the definitive Joker origin" to remove all elements of mystery left in the character: oh he's just some hitman who had a midlife crisis, thought Batman looked silly, and accidentally cut cut with Batarangs. But if I had to accept a definitive origin story, it would have been much better to have a standardized, completed version of the existing TKJ/SotB/GK origin. Ideally, of course, Bolland would do the art. The writing could be handled by a lot of people, but I think I might like to see James Robinson do it. Possibly Paul Dini. Grant Morrison could probably work as well.

"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!"

THIS IS BORING! THIS IS ONE-DIMENSIONAL! THIS IS JUST NOT AS INTERESTING AS MOORE'S JOKER!

 

[Aristotle]

This story becoming Canon does not negate the value of Moore's TKJ.

Yes, it does. Because now, according to DC's original solicitations for this story, the Joker that we see and read about on a regular basis is a one-dimensional, flimsy character with no real motivation, and the one Moore wrote about was just some unrelated story. It might as well not even be a Batman story, for all it matters to continuity.

Seriously, Batman and the Joker aren't real people, they're all just stories, and they're all equally false.

Oh, aren't we precious. "They're all imaginary stories!" If only it hadn't been said a million times before you. If there is no need for continuity, why publish monthly comic books at all? Why not just a series of miniseries and one-shots, with writers and artists portraying characters with no real shared continuity, any damn way they liked to portray them?

I'd also disagree about depth being a good thing for the Joker, I prefer him being a bit more secretive as a character

Which is why you're all in favor of a story that leaves NOTHING to the imagination?

logical motivation behind his illogical nature

We're not reading the same comic, are we?

I realised having it in mind weakened all of his post-transformation appearances.

It strengthens them! This is not a mindless murder-bot! This is the Joker! What strikes me here is that you have no real understanding of humor, or the mindset of the comedic performer (both in a formal performance setting or in an informal, social setting). Anyone who tells jokes and tries to get laughs out of people, from Dane Cook to your eighth-grade class clown, does so out of a sense of depression, despair, sorrow, angst, or some other equally negative emotion. Someone as committed to the joke as the Joker needs to have some pretty heavy sadness on his mind.

 

[Aristotle]

his nose isn't utterly ridiculous like most Joker portrayals.

Oh no, the last thing the Joker should be is ridiculous.

That's part of the fun of reading a NEW story.

Helpful hint: you want to write a completely NEW, SURPRISING story? Don't write a story taking place in the past. I, for one, rarely get pissed about where a story is going in mainline books (although Aquaman was horrible) because I'm that much in favor of writers' license. But the past is the past, and it needs to be set in as much stone as possible.

currently seeing to it that I'll never be able to read a Batman story which is not illustrated Jim Lee or written by Jeph Loeb.

Is there something preventing you from reading Batman and Detective Comics? For that matter, is there something preventing you from running down to the bookstore and picking up the old Knightfall trades?

 

[Agentsands77]

We certainly don't need "the definitive Joker origin" to remove all elements of mystery left in the character: oh he's just some hitman who had a midlife crisis, thought Batman looked silly, and accidentally cut cut with Batarangs.

The cut wasn't accidental.

Possibly Paul Dini.

We already have a Dini origin story, and it's not at all like THE KILLING JOKE.

But the past is the past, and it needs to be set in as much stone as possible.

Nah. Everything should be up for grabs. Continuity's a joke, so there's no point in creating unified character histories.

 

[Mladen]

Aristotle: I'm going to disagree that a superhero story has to be told in the most straightforward way in terms of art. There's no pleasure in reading something which aims low and achieves low. I think superhero comics can be awesome and have a HUGE variety, you've pretty clearly stated that they don't need to. I LOVED Legends of the Dark Knight, you obviously did not. There's no reason to say that Superhero stories should always be straightforward and always be told in the most straightforward way, one because its untrue (look at all of the very excellent exceptions), and two because its selling the idea short. Maybe you want to read the same thing over and over again, drawn in the same way, and you have a right to (and its something that should always be catered to). I don't. And I shouldn't have to turn away from Superhero comics or read older books in order to.

You say the 'definitive Joker art' is Bolland and I think thats telling. There is no such thing as a definitive artist for a character like that because there's so many different ways to write the Joker (all the way from a harmless prankster to a homicidal raving LUNATIC, and yes, even a humorless psychopath). Including every subtle nuance between, there are millions of different ways to draw him which fit better with the story at hand. There is no 'RIGHT' way except for the given story. What you're actually saying there is that you see that as the 'RIGHT' way to characterise him, and people who love the [40s / 50s / 60s / Batman the Animated Series/ Dark Knight Returns/ Arkham Asylum] Joker are going to disagree with you. Bolland's Joker would not fit in any of those.

The Joker in BC is different to 'in-continuity' Joker so his characterisation and origins is different. Deal with it, and choose whichever origin story you prefer to believe, they're ALL equally 'true'.

Oh, aren't we precious. "They're all imaginary stories!" If only it hadn't been said a million times before you. If there is no need for continuity, why publish monthly comic books at all? Why not just a series of miniseries and one-shots, with writers and artists portraying characters with no real shared continuity, any damn way they liked to portray them?

Yes, in a word, different writers and artists, unless specifically carrying on a storyline, should be free to do whatever they want. It allows the character to stay fresh and interesting and contemporary (without that ideal, we wouldnt have TDKR and others).

As for it being said a million times before me, its obviously going to take a million and one for you to understand it. Batman is not real. Therefore, any notion of 'continuity' is only obsessive compulsive stamp-collecting idealisation and an attempt to order something which should be left alone and free to change.

Only Superhero comics demand this kind of stupid finnicky continuity over extended periods. James Bond is a very successful series of films with standalone plots which don't overtly impact each other. Ditto Indiana Jones, or to a lesser extent, the Harry Potter films. However, you ARE rewarded for having watched the previous films through little in-jokes or references etc, but its not integral to understanding whats going on. Hell, even the (excellent) Batman Animated Series and the Justice League Series stripped away the shackles of continuity and just had a blast with the characters. If you want to look at comics which are published over extended periods: Asterix, Tintin. Standalone stories which you won't need an encyclopedia to understand whats going on. Why can't today's superhero comics do this? I understand that its costantly changing rosters of writers etc in superhero comics, but why can't the readers just let it go if Morrisson says Batman's favorite colour is yellow and Mark Waid says its Blue, instead of demanding a CRISIS to wipe it all out and then RESTATE THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF EVERYTHING in an even longer pointless bunch of stories which again make somebody's YEARS worth of reading backstories WORTHLESS. Why didn't the 1950s and 60s comics readers care about this sort of stuff? If I can't pick up a comic at random and understand whats going on, something is wrong. Answer: If something clashes, WHO CARES?

Dini is currently doing a very loosely connected run on Detective (though there's a pretty clear link between his issues in terms of the type of stories he's telling and even some of the content to reward the readers, but you can actually TELL THE ISSUES APART which is great, and anybody can pick up any issue (except the few two-parters) and enjoy it without knowing a lot about Batman... excellent stuff.

I honestly don't give a **** about continuity. Its pedantic continuity nuts which make it terrifying for anybody new to come into comics, or to pick up a comic off a shelf and enjoy it without understanding YEARS of backstory. Its exclusionist, and I have a problem with it. I have NO problem with SOME books being like that when they exist within their OWN little universe (especially when the whole task is handled by long-time collaborators, Preacher being a good example, or Hellblazer for shorter more contained stories), but when its a continuity spanning connections between characters who really should have nothing to do with each other where it becomes a problem. A Batman fan may be very unlikely to read JLA, since they like Batman as a loner (or loner with SMALL support group, who'd rather not associate with Superfriends who he shouldn't have much in common with anyway besides costumes), but when JLA or larger DC 'Universe' events have a major impact on a Batman storyline (JASON TODD), its a problem because the kid who doesn't really care at all about Martian Manhunter or Aquaman or those wierd supertwins from the cartoon or whatever has to read a Superteam thing just to make sense of whats happening. If a writer doesn't tell the reader that this is the third/fourth/fifth Robin, they shouldn't be expected to know. They can be encouraged to find out WHY, but if they're not told that Batman goes through them like he goes through Batarangs, then they shouldn't be expected to know, because new readers wont (most don't even know there is more than one Robin). Most people can't afford to read up years of backstory, nor are they interested to do so. All I can say is thank god for Wikipedia, I can't imagine what it was like trying to get into comics before the Internet.

 

[Mr. Socko]

People calm the **** down. Mladen, chill man. I read your first post and didn't go any further. Some people just don't like certain art, I personally think the confidential art is crap. I also think Frank Miller's later artwork on Batman is also crap. The same goes with writing. It's got nothing to do with whether we want to open up to a different interpretation or not, it's just how good said interpretation is. If it's bad, it's bad no matter how "stylistic" is may appear to be.

We're all open to new ideas, well most of us, as long as they're good.

 

[Mladen]

Jeez, just that sight of Harrison Ford lounging around calms me down. (Deep breaths)

I only get annoyed when somebody judges how 'bad' something is by how devoted it is to 'continuity', or how well it sticks to the lessons in the DC's guide to pencilling book.
Those two things set me off.

Apologies to anybody offended by my ranting.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Jeez, just that sight of Harrison Ford lounging around calms me down. (Deep breaths)

I only get annoyed when somebody judges how 'bad' something is by how devoted it is to 'continuity', or how well it sticks to the lessons in the DC's guide to pencilling book.
Those two things set me off.

Apologies to anybody offended by my ranting.

No problem.

When it comes to continuity, I'm a bit indifferent. I like the Killing Joke(although not my favorite) but I don't consider the first part with Joker's origin cannon. I don't personally like the family man turned comedian angle that much. I'm with Alex Ross, the gangster origin works better. Although there have been no good Joker "gangster" origin comics, but it appears this is finally the first one.

The best part about comics is that you can keep what you want in continuity, and throw out the rest because there's just so much. Officially, there is no definitive Joker origin, but for me, there is. And it's the stories where he's the Hitman as opposed to comedian. But that's just me, I've also thrown out The Dark Knight Strikes Again for that matter. In my continuity, it ain't there.

As for art, there's just so many styles. I take a second look and see the art in Confidential as ok, but Brian Bolland's work is my favorite. Frank Miller again comes to mind. I don't know about you all, but I think his stuff in the early 80s was just fantastic then all of a sudden he started his "scribbling" art. It works for Sin City, but not Batman. Jim Lee's work is alright, but I think he draws certain characters just a bit too exaggerated. I cannot stand his 10 inch long nosed and cleft chin Joker. I just prefer my artwork to all be proportionate.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

Issue #10 had some very cool parts early on, but I thought the very end (last two or three pages) was kind of a letdown. It might have been the first time I've felt that way in this storyline.

Spoiler

I was disappointed in the way they handled the Joker coming up out of the river, post-chemical bath. The whole 'bunny' joke is just odd. So, for me at least, what could've been an awesome scene was kind of lackluster.

I'm still looking forward to the next two issues, though.

Oh, and for everybody who thinks this arc is setting up TDK: there's some stuff in this issue that fits in nicely with some of the theories people have come up with based on the casting sides.

 

[Motown Marvel]

okay, i liked this issue, but its the first issue where i have some problems with how the story was told:

Spoiler

i didnt like how there was no red hood and batman wasnt present at the chemical plant for the chemical bath, nor being physically involved in it. it seems like they changed that for the sake of change, but it didnt add anything to the story. so it was essentially a useless change.

but i did love everything else. specifically the jokers train of thought. all that stuff he was thinking while getting beat up, and while swimming through the chemicals was genius. they really nailed the character in this. and i thought the whole bunny in the moon thing was f**king hilarious! it was so perfect! like, i think that's become one of my favorite joker moments!

 

[Dirt Like Me]

Spoiler

but i did love everything else. specifically the jokers train of thought. all that stuff he was thinking while getting beat up, and while swimming through the chemicals was genius. they really nailed the character in this. and i thought the whole bunny in the moon thing was f**king hilarious! it was so perfect! like, i think that's become one of my favorite joker moments!

Well, I'm with you on some of what you've said:

Spoiler

Jack's thought process as he was getting his ass kicked was awesome. Definitely my favorite part of the issue. It was badass in a badass way that fits the Joker. (I could've done without the reference to his mother, though).

I disagree with you on:

Spoiler

The bunny in the moon thing. While it is kind of funny on its own, I thought it seemed a little forced, as if they were kind of reaching for something to say, "Look, the guy's completely insane now."

As for the rest:

Spoiler

I was kind of expecting the Red Hood as well, if for no other reason than tradition (or, if you prefer, continuity), especially since Jack mentioned how ridiculous he though Batman looked in the first issue of this story. But I guess it's no big deal.

Wow. That's a lot of spoiler tags.

 

[The Jester]

Is this gonna be traded soon?