The Dark Knight I guess joker just applies make-up after all

[MadeManifest]

Was that origin established by the creator's of the Joker, or someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the character?

That's a good question. He was created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane. Who created "Detective Comics #168" where Joker's origin is first explained?

 

[Infinity9999x]

Was that origin established by the creator's of the Joker, or someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the character?

That doesn't matter. Sabertooth wasn't created by Chris Claremont, yet it was Claremont who made him famous. I don't give a crap if the creator of Sabertooth didn't intend him to be the mortal enemy of Wolverine, but he is now.

Bob Cane didn't say that Batman learned how to be a detective from Henri Ducard, or that he trained in the mountains with a master martial artists. Yet now that has become a staple of Batman's origin.

One writer should never have claim over a character, they're meant to evolve and change. Yeah, sometimes that means we get a comic where the character is written crappy, but it also means that sometimes a writer adds a new spin on the character that's fresh and new, and adds a new layer to the personality of that character.

 

[Figs]

Was that origin established by the creator's of the Joker, or someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the character?

Sorry man, that's horse****.

Characters like these that have been around for decades, it's their entire writings and mythology over the years from multiple writers is what makes them who they are.

Why do you think so many comics, because of dumb writers are constantly having to do retcons to fix mistakes. If what modern writers write/create about an age old character doesn't matter or factor into his mythology as fact then there is no need to retcon anything.

No one would need retcons for those mistakes/bad story ideas because people would just be saying now days "Well only what the original creators wrote actually is canon and makes up his mythology."

If this were true then every story with the Joker in it after Bob Kane and Bill Finger stopped doing Batman personally is just a "What If" story I take it. That would make Batman/Joker's Mythology only a decade or two old. After that it's all meaningless garbage.

 

[Mister J]

That's a good question. He was created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane. Who created "Detective Comics #168" where Joker's origin is first explained?

Finger.

According to Kane, he and Finger alone created the Joker. Robinson didn't have anything to do with it other than bringing in a Joker playing card that was used for a few issues.

 

[The Joker]

Except for the original concept of the character. That is something that other writers have insisted on.

Why are you so hung up on the original concept? The original concept never said anything about him not being permawhite. It never said anything at all about it.

The writers in the next Joker story or maybe the one after, can't remember which, showed him as permawhite. Thus telling us that's what he was in Batman #1. Just because it wasn't said in Batman #1 doesn't make it any less valid.

How he got to be permawhite was not touched upon until years later. And as I said, a constant in any story about his origin.

How do we know whether the character originally had perma-white skin? That's just something that OTHER writers have insisted on.

Yeah, and that doesn't make it any less valid if other writers say so. Nobody has contradicted it, and it doesn't contradict the original story, either.

Okay, here's something for you to chomp on:

FROM THE DC DATABASE:

It is "largely accepted" -- not "definitive".

Do you know why it isn't the definitive origin of the character? Because the creators of the character didn't give him an origin. You proved my point earlier when you asked "how else could the Joker have perma-white skin?" Well, that's EXACTLY what the writers of DC have asked themselves. They have promoted the chemical bath origin because they think it is the ONLY way for him to have perma-white.

They're talking about his origin, meaning his backstory. The Red Hood origin they're citing there. Not HOW he got permawhite skin. He wasn't the Red Hood in the recent Batman Confidential storyline, for example, but he still took a fall into the chemicals.

Largely accepted is the Killing Joke origin. That's what they're talking about there. It's the fan favourite of all his backstories.

They have GUESSED the origin of the character, because that is all they CAN do.

Don't be absurd. They could give him a definitive origin any time they like. They just decide not to give him a definitive backstory to keep the mystery of who he was prior to becoming the Joker.

How he became permawhite, though, is not a mystery. It's not a guess. It's why they include it in EVERY origin they give him. It's definitive. Who he was and how he came to fall in those chemicals is not.

I'm not really arguing whether the Joker is perma-white or not -- just that the creators of the character never hinted about his skin so how can it be a FACT that the character HAS perma-white skin?

Here we go again, back to the original story. The original story was expanded upon when they revealed him to be permawhite in his next story. Not everything is revealed about a character in their very first story.

You're also forgetting that the Joker was originally not intended to be a long term character. They were going to kill him off eventually. So, they probably didn't feel the need to go into depth on a short term villain.

You seem to have a difficulty with determining the difference between something DEFINITIVE and something WIDELY ACCEPTED.

No, I don't. Because I know what they're talking about there is his backstory. Not how he became permawhite.

You mean, writers guess at how the Joker came to have white skin?

No, they guess who he was prior to his fall into the chemicals. How he became permawhite from head to toe is the only thing they keep constant in his various origins.

Is it f**k.

If it was definitive, then the ORIGINAL CREATORS OF THE CHARACTER WOULD HAVE MADE IT SO.

They never did; they intentionally left his origin unknown.

I'll let you into a little secret: Just because something was not in a character's original story doesn't make it any less definitive.

Yeah, but Nolan could make a very good argument for not giving Joker perma-white skin.

I'm sure he could. I'm not disputing Nolan's reasons, whatever they may be, for not using the permawhite element.

I'm disputing your ridiculous arguement of trying to say his fall into the chemicals, the only thing DC uses in all his various origins for decades, is not definitive.

Namely, Bob Kane and co. never provided the character with an origin, so how can the character HAVE a definitive origin? For all we know, the original design of the character could have applied make-up. We just don't know -- it's just that writers have ASSUMED that the character had perma-white, and then have rounded up an explanation for the white skin.

It's hardly definitive -- it's just widely accepted.

It is very much definitive. Bob Kane never intended for Joker to be a long term character. That's why he never expanded on the character.

Only when they knew of Joker's popularity, and decided to make him long term and not kill him, did they expand on the original material.

And that doesn't make it any less valid.

I'm not talking about THE STORY. That is you, misinterpreting my f*****g argument. I'm talking about THE CHARACTER, in of themselves. There's a big difference, you know.

Fine.

Just because his permawhiteness was not mentioned in his first issue doesn't make it any less valid.

YES! If he creators of the character didn't give the Joker an origin, then how can OTHER writers, who had nothing to do with the thinking up and design of the character, determine his origin? You said it yourself; how else can the Joker have perma-white skin?

That's exactly what Alan Moore and co. did. They ASSUMED that the Joker had perma-white skin, and then tried to come up with an explanation as to HOW.

They're just guessing.

Don't be absurd. They never assumed Joker had permawhite skin. We were frickin' told a couple of issues later when they took his shirt off and saw the rest of his body was white, too.

Why is Peter Parker's origin definitive? Because that's how the creator wrote the character.

Why is Kal-El's origin definitive? Because that's how the creator wrote the character.

Why is Bruce's origin definitive? Because that's how the creator wrote the character.

You're talking about the heros there. Many villains never got an origin story in their first appearance. Writers were later left to fill in the blanks.

For example, 90% of the Spider-Man villains like Doc Ock, Sandman, Vulture etc never got backstories. We were just told they had an accident and became villains.

Only years later did we see who they were, and what circumstances led them to becoming the way they were.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

That doesn't matter. Sabertooth wasn't created by Chris Claremont, yet it was Claremont who made him famous. I don't give a crap if the creator of Sabertooth didn't intend him to be the mortal enemy of Wolverine, but he is now.

Don't you see how f*****g silly this comparison is? You are comparing the RIVALRY with two characters, with the ABSOLUTE CREATION of a character.

The definitive origin for Sabertooth is that he has the mutant X-gene.

The definitive origin for Joker is that he...wait, he doesn't friggin' have one!

Bob Cane didn't say that Batman learned how to be a detective from Henri Ducard, or that he trained in the mountains with a master martial artists. Yet now that has become a staple of Batman's origin.

And people can still choose to ignore that origin. This is what you aren't getting. What was Batman's origin in "The Mask Of The Phantasm"? One of the definitive aspects of Batman's origin is that his parents were killed. How he came to be BATMAN is all interpretive...even Bruce being trained by Ducard.

It's a good origin for the character, but it is still interpretive.

One writer should never have claim over a character, they're meant to evolve and change. Yeah, sometimes that means we get a comic where the character is written crappy, but it also means that sometimes a writer adds a new spin on the character that's fresh and new, and adds a new layer to the personality of that character.

We aren't discussing story lines or simple interpretation of a character's persona -- we are discussing the origin of a character. The creator's of the Joker intentionally left the guy with no origin. They left it up to the reader to decide.

As the DC Database says; the Joker's chemical bath origin is "widely accepted"; not a definitive truth.

Sorry man, that's horse****.

Characters like these that have been around for decades, it's their entire writings and mythology over the years from multiple writers is what makes them who they are.

And yet, art is mainly interpretive -- just as the original Joker designers intended.

He was never MEANT to have an origin, and based on that, Nolan hasn't gone with the chemical bath origin. Can you not see the connection?

If this were true then every story with the Joker in it after Bob Kane and Bill Finger stopped doing Batman personally is just a "What If" story I take it. That would make Batman/Joker's Mythology only a decade or two old. After that it's all meaningless garbage.

That's so untrue, because you are discussing a completely different issue. You can KNOW how to portray the Joker, but you cannot know the origins of the character, because it was never touched upon by the creators.

 

[Infinity9999x]

And people can still choose to ignore that origin. This is what you aren't getting. What was Batman's origin in "The Mask Of The Phantasm"? One of the definitive aspects of Batman's origin is that his parents were killed. How he came to be BATMAN is all interpretive...even Bruce being trained by Ducard.

You can choose to ignore it, but that doesn't make it any less true. If DC says it's cannon, then that means it actually happened. You can dislike it all you want, but according to the people who make the comics, then it's not up for debate. It's happened that that's that.

And also, wasn't it Kane and Finger to say Joker was perma-white anyways? I could be wrong, but I thought it was in his second appearance when he was revealed to be perma-white.

We aren't discussing story lines or simple interpretation of a character's persona -- we are discussing the origin of a character. The creator's of the Joker intentionally left the guy with no origin. They left it up to the reader to decide.

As the DC Database says; the Joker's chemical bath origin is "widely accepted"; not a definitive truth.

Yes, they left it up to the reader to decide, but one thing they did not leave the reader to decide was the perma-white. That's always been a part of the character since his second appearance. It's not debatable. Just like it's not debatable to say Bruce trained with Ducard. It's cannon, it happened. You can dislike it and ignore it, but it happened and it's part of the character's history.

And yet, art is mainly interpretive -- just as the original Joker designers intended.

He was never MEANT to have an origin, and based on that, Nolan hasn't gone with the chemical bath origin. Can you not see the connection?

What a writer means to have happen to a character and what actually happens are two different things. That's what happens when you leave origins open for interpretation. Claremont always intended Sabertooth to be Logan's father, but then another writer blocked off that possibility. What was intended for the character didn't happen. That's a fact of writing in a form like comic books, characters evolve.

(oh and by the way I was wrong, Clarmeont did create Sabertooth, but he was co-created with John Bryne. I thought Bryne was the only one who created Sabes, that was my mistake.)

That's so untrue, because you are discussing a completely different issue. You can KNOW how to portray the Joker, but you cannot know the origins of the character, because it was never touched upon by the creators.

I agree here, because in the comics we still don't know his origin. We have no idea what he was before his skin was bleached. But, Joker's white skin has been a staple for the character since his second appearance, just as much as Batman's cape and ears have been. I don't see why you'd want to argue the perma-white part, because like I said earlier, I think kane and Finger were the ones to decide that he was perma-white.

Because DC accepted the chemical bath into cannon, then it is part of the history. You might not like it, but like I said, it's not debatable. They say it happened to the character, so it did.

 

[StylishHokie21]

He was never MEANT to have an origin, and based on that, Nolan hasn't gone with the chemical bath origin. Can you not see the connection?

He was never meant to have an origin, but he got one anyway. The chemical bath origin, which has been used countless times.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Why are you so hung up on the original concept? The original concept never said anything about him not being permawhite. It never said anything at all about it.

The writers in the next Joker story or maybe the one after, can't remember which, showed him as permawhite. Thus telling us that's what he was in Batman #1. Just because it wasn't said in Batman #1 doesn't make it any less valid.

How he got to be permawhite was not touched upon until years later. And as I said, a constant in any story about his origin.

If the original designers never commented on the Joker's skin, then everyone else is just guessing. They are guessing how the Joker came to be -- no one can ever know what the Joker intended to be, because the creators never made it clear. That's why every official source claims that the Joker's origin is "cloudy" and has been "widely accepted".

Yeah, and that doesn't make it any less valid if other writers say so. Nobody has contradicted it, and it doesn't contradict the original story, either.

Sure, it doesn't contradict it, but a writers could turn around tomorrow and make the Joker wear white make-up. That would just be as valid as writers giving the character perma-white skin. Do you not see that EVERY SINGLE WRITER is trying to figure out the true origin behind the character? They will never know, though, will they?

They're talking about his origin, meaning his backstory. The Red Hood origin they're citing there. Not HOW he got permawhite skin. He wasn't the Red Hood in the recent Batman Confidential storyline, for example, but he still took a fall into the chemicals.

Largely accepted is the Killing Joke origin. That's what they're talking about there. It's the fan favourite of all his backstories.

The article is summarizing about the entire chemical bath origin in general. It is "widely accepted". The chemical bath origin is not definitive; it is widely accepted. It is a seemingly "logical" take on how the character came to have perma-white skin. Still doesn't change the fact that those writers are guessing as to how the Joker came to have white skin in the original design...

Don't be absurd. They could give him a definitive origin any time they like. They just decide not to give him a definitive backstory to keep the mystery of who he was prior to becoming the Joker.

They can NEVER give him an official origin, because they would adjudging how Bob Kane and the Finger guy created the character. How in the blue f**k can you NOT see this? DC has never given the Joker an official origin because they know that they would simply be interpreting the Joker's origin -- they would be issuing that they KNOW how Bob Kane wrote the character.

They do not have such information. It's like...George Lucas and Star Wars. If Lucas didn't give Darth Vader an origin, then how could anyone else determine the origin of the character? They would simply be guessing.

It's so friggin' simple, and you are pushing this chemical bath origin as the definitive origin of the character, all while ignoring the fact that it is cited as a "widely accepted" truth, because that's all it can ever be, due to the fact that Bob Kane and co. never released an official statement as to how the Joker came to be.

Here we go again, back to the original story. The original story was expanded upon when they revealed him to be permawhite in his next story. Not everything is revealed about a character in their very first story.

You're also forgetting that the Joker was originally not intended to be a long term character. They were going to kill him off eventually. So, they probably didn't feel the need to go into depth on a short term villain.

Wait, Bob Kane confirmed that the Joker has white skin?

No, I don't. Because I know what they're talking about there is his backstory. Not how he became permawhite.

Oh, FFS.

WHEN. HAS. BOB. KANE. EVER. SAID. THAT. THE. JOKER. FELL. INTO. SOME. CHEMICALS. AND. CAME. OUT. WITH. WHITE. SKIN????????

No, they guess who he was prior to his fall into the chemicals. How he became permawhite from head to toe is the only thing they keep constant in his various origins.

This is absolutely ridiculous! Once again; how the f**k can they KNOW how the Joker had white skin, but NOT know the character before he became the Joker? That is such a contradiction on so many levels.

They are just guessing how the Joker has white skin -- they have obviously took the character at face value, noticed his white skin, and tried to come up with a reasonable explanation. They feel that they have a minor basis to work with regarding the white skin. However, they have absolutely no BASIS to work with for the character before he became the Joker. Why? Because none of the original designs of the character even hinted at what the Joker was before his Joker incarnation.

Can you not see that EVERYTHING is tied into the original design of the character? How the character was originally presented by Bob Kane?

I'll let you into a little secret: Just because something was not in a character's original story doesn't make it any less definitive.

It doesn't make it definitive, though! How can it be definitive? How can someone KNOW how Bob Kane envisioned the Joker's origin?

I'm sure he could. I'm not disputing Nolan's reasons, whatever they may be, for not using the permawhite element.

I'm disputing your ridiculous arguement of trying to say his fall into the chemicals, the only thing DC uses in all his various origins for decades, is definitive.

Damn, you're stupid.

You claim that my argument is ridiculous, yet everything you have just written is a great, big, recycling contradiction. No writer has a CLUE as to how the Joker has white-skin; but they at least they have something; perma-white skin.

No writer has a clue what the Joker was before his Joker incarnation; they have nothing to work with, hence why it is shrouded.

THE CHEMICAL BATH ORIGIN IS NOT DEFINITIVE! BOB KANE NEVER PRESENTED THE CHARACTER WITH AN ORIGIN SO EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST SPECULATION!

It is very much definitive. Bob Kane never intended for Joker to be a long term character. That's why he never expanded on the character.

Only when they knew of Joker's popularity, and decided to make him long term and not kill him, did they expand on the original material.

And that doesn't make it any less valid.

Stop saying it's definitive! Find me an official statement from DC claiming that the chemical bath origin is definitive.

That's right; you can't find one. Why? Because no one knows how the Joker came to be. It's just a "widely accepted" origin.

Only Bob Kane knows how the Joker came to be. And since he intentionally left the character without an origin; there is no definitive origin there to be found.

Don't be absurd. They never assumed Joker had permawhite skin. We were frickin' told a couple of issues later when they took his shirt off and saw the rest of his body was white, too.

If this is the case -- WONDERFUL!!

We know that he is perma-white; what we DON'T know is how the character became perma-white.

Alan Moore guessed. Everyone has guessed. But they can never know for sure because Bob Kane never released anything official.

You're talking about the heros there. Many villains never got an origin story in their first appearance. Writers were later left to fill in the blanks.

For example, 90% of the Spider-Man villains like Doc Ock, Sandman, Vulture etc never got backstories. We were just told they had an accident and became villains.

Only years later did we see who they were, and what circumstances led them to becoming the way they were.

The difference being that Bob Kane never even hinted at the Joker having an accident.

He is what he is: a guy with white skin whom creates chaos.

 

[Doctor Baywatch]

The chemical bath is canon. Fact.

Please! Accept it!

 

[MadeManifest]

WHEN. HAS. BOB. KANE. EVER. SAID. THAT. THE. JOKER. FELL. INTO. SOME. CHEMICALS. AND. CAME. OUT. WITH. WHITE. SKIN????????

What are you talking about? TWO people created the Joker, Bob Kane and Bill Finger, and Bill Finger was the first to say that the Joker fell into chemicals.

 

[The Joker]

If the original designers never commented on the Joker's skin, then everyone else is just guessing.

No, they're not guessing. DC owns the Joker. If they say he's permawhite, then he's frickin' permawhite. It's not a guess. That is how it is. Original concepts are ALWAYS expanded with characters in the comic books. Especially ones with little to no explanation.

DC says Joker is permawhite. It doesn't matter if Bob Kane didn't say it in Joker's original story. He didn't not say it. And that's the point. Nobody is contradicting Bob's work.

You are simply trying to make something out of nothing because it sticks in your throat that an element you dislike about the character is definitive. There's decades of comics to back this up.

Sure, it doesn't contradict it, but a writers could turn around tomorrow and make the Joker wear white make-up. That would just be as valid as writers giving the character perma-white skin.

What did I say about your little what if theories?

Do you not see that EVERY SINGLE WRITER is trying to figure out the true origin behind the character? They will never know, though, will they?

No, they're not. They're just giving various takes on him to add to his mystery. But, what is it they all keep constant: Chemical bath

The article is summarizing about the entire chemical bath origin in general. It is "widely accepted".

No, it's summarizing the Red Hood origin. If it was talking about the chemical bath, then it would have talked about all the origins because they all feature it.

It's talking about the "widely accepted" origin, meaning the Red Hood one from the Killing Joke. It's the fan favourite.

They can NEVER give him an official origin, because they would adjudging how Bob Kane and the Finger guy created the character.

What planet are you living on? Of course they can give him an official origin. He's a DC character. They own him. They can do whatever the hell they like with him and make it canon.

And they have. Whether you like that fact or not is another matter. But what they say goes with the Joker. And what they have said about him doesn't disgrace anything Bob Kane did with the character.

That's why it works.

It's so friggin' simple, and you are pushing this chemical bath origin as the definitive origin of the character, all while ignoring the fact that it is cited as a "widely accepted" truth

I'm not ignoring that. Because widely accepted refers to the Red Hood story, not the chemical bath.

Wait, Bob Kane confirmed that the Joker has white skin?

He didn't refute it when it was written in the next Joker story. And Bob couldn't refute it, because he never gave any indication in his original story that Joker wasn't permawhite.

Heck, the fact that Joker was jailed at the end looking like a clown was a hint that it wasn't a nutter in make up.

Oh, FFS.

WHEN. HAS. BOB. KANE. EVER. SAID. THAT. THE. JOKER. FELL. INTO. SOME. CHEMICALS. AND. CAME. OUT. WITH. WHITE. SKIN????????


This is absolutely ridiculous! Once again; how the f**k can they KNOW how the Joker had white skin, but NOT know the character before he became the Joker? That is such a contradiction on so many levels.

Because Bob Kane never said diddly squat about who Joker was or where he came from in that ONE story, or whether he was permawhite or not.

That was left for future DC writers to write when Joker became a long term character. And they did. Just because Bob didn't say it doesn't mean it is not valid.

You know that.

They are just guessing how the Joker has white skin -- they have obviously took the character at face value, noticed his white skin, and tried to come up with a reasonable explanation.

Are you for real, man? Seriously, you must be kidding here. DC don't guess with their characters. If they want to write something about a character, then they write it. He's FICTIONAL. If they say he fell into chemicals and became permawhite, then that's what happened.

End of story.

Can you not see that EVERYTHING is tied into the original design of the character? How the character was originally presented by Bob Kane?

Of course I can. They took the bare bones of the character and added to it.

It doesn't make it definitive, though! How can it be definitive? How can someone KNOW how Bob Kane envisioned the Joker's origin?

Because Bob never refuted it. He never said that went against his vision.

And even if he intended to reveal Joker wore make up or whatever, he never got the chance. Doesn't matter what he had in mind for the future. What is written in the comics is what is canon.

And that's the chemical bath. Joker's backstory as a person is multiple choice and a mystery, but the chemical bath is the constant.

Damn, you're stupid.

Must be rubbing off from you

You claim that my argument is ridiculous, yet everything you have just written is a great, big, recycling contradiction. No writer has a CLUE as to how the Joker has white-skin; but they at least they have something; perma-white skin.

No writer has a clue what the Joker was before his Joker incarnation; they have nothing to work with, hence why it is shrouded.

THE CHEMICAL BATH ORIGIN IS NOT DEFINITIVE! BOB KANE NEVER PRESENTED THE CHARACTER WITH AN ORIGIN SO EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST SPECULATION!

To repeat what I said above, Bob Kane had no friggin' vision for this character. Joker was to get the axe after two appearances. They had no vision for him.

Why do you think Bob never refuted what they did with the character? He had no plans to expand him. He was intended to be a short term villain.

Just because Bob didn't write a backstory for Joker does not mean future DC writers' take on the character is any less valid. Why? Because they do not contradict a single damn thing Bob did with the character. They're not stepping on his work. You can't contradict something that was never written.

Can you grasp that extremely simple concept?

Stop saying it's definitive! Find me an official statement from DC claiming that the chemical bath origin is definitive.

I already did with those scans a few pages back. Joker showing all his possible origins. Every one of them featuring the chemical bath.

The only definitive constant.

If this is the case -- WONDERFUL!!

We know that he is perma-white; what we DON'T know is how the character became perma-white.

Oh, but we do. It's in all of his origin stories. The chemical bath

Alan Moore guessed. Everyone has guessed.

Alan Moore didn't guess. He was basing it off the Red Hood origin they gave him in the 50's, where they showed him falling into the chemical bath in the Red Hood costume.

Alan Moore guessed his backstory of being a failed comedian with a pregnant wife.

The difference being that Bob Kane never even hinted at the Joker having an accident.

Bob Kane didn't hint at anything.

That's why the chemical bath is canon. It doesn't contradict Bob's writing of Joker. DC don't need Bob Kane to make something official about a character. Especially when what they write doesn't step on Kane's story about that character.

He is what he is: a guy with permawhite skin whom creates chaos.

Fixed!

 

[Street Vendor]

Finger.

According to Kane, he and Finger alone created the Joker. Robinson didn't have anything to do with it other than bringing in a Joker playing card that was used for a few issues.

I don't think anyone accepts that story anymore. Kane wasn't very generous in allowing others to receive credit for the Batman stories or characters until much later in his life, and even then, he gave short shrift to Jerry Robinson, Gardner Fox, Shelly Moldoff, etc.

 

[The Joker]

The chemical bath is canon. Fact.

Please! Accept it!

Everyone does, except for Mr Superhero, it seems.

What are you talking about? TWO people created the Joker, Bob Kane and Bill Finger, and Bill Finger was the first to say that the Joker fell into chemicals.

There you go. Even if he had not said that, it still wouldn't contradict anything they did with Joker in Batman #1.

They were just adding details to a character who readers knew practically nothing about. Long term characters need to be expanded on.

 

[Saint]

"Intention" does not matter when it comes to comic book continuity: only what is committed to print matters. If Kane and Finger had a different origin in mind for Joker, it is not valid because established continuity has already ruled it out. These characters are cumulative, so the intent of the original character is not absolute. Otherwise, you might as well say Year One is just Miller "guessing" about what Bob Kane intended to be Batman's origin.

A writer cannot turn around and say "Sabertooth is Wolverine's father." Yes, that is what Chris Claremont originally intended, but he never put it to print, and it was later disproven definitively. Therefore, it is not valid. Similarly, Joker wearing makeup was never committed to print and has been disproven definitively, therefore it is not valid. In comics, continuity trumps the intent of creators.

This whole discussion is ridiculous, anyway, as it's based on someone saying "It's possible that Kane and Finger wanted him to wear makeup." Yeah, and it's possible they wanted him to be an Atomic Alien Super Ghost from the 24th dimension. By Superhero's logic, this would be a perfectly valid interpretation of the Joker.

 

[Drummerdude7]

"Intention" does not matter when it comes to comic book continuity: only what is committed to print matters. If Kane and Finger had a different origin in mind for Joker, it is not valid because established continuity has already ruled it out. These characters are cumulative, so the intent of the original character is not absolute. Otherwise, you might as well say Year One is just Miller "guessing" about what Bob Kane intended to be Batman's origin.

A writer cannot turn around and say "Sabertooth is Wolverine's father." Yes, that is what Chris Claremont originally intended, but he never put it to print, and it was later disproven definitively. Therefore, it is not valid. Similarly, Joker wearing makeup was never committed to print and has been disproven definitively, therefore it is not valid. In comics, continuity trumps the intent of creators.

This whole discussion is ridiculous, anyway, as it's based on someone saying "It's possible that Kane and Finger wanted him to wear makeup." Yeah, and it's possible they wanted him to be an Atomic Alien Super Ghost from the 24th dimension. By Superhero's logic, this would be a perfectly valid interpretation of the Joker.

well said sir

 

[gwynplaine]

My brother who's a hardcore Bolland Joker fan doesn't like the look of the new Joker, you know what they say about choosing your friends but not your familyt: . I am going to scratch him off my will.t:

 

[Mr. Socko]

My, where have these last couple of pages gone? I'm not here for an argument so I will simply state a couple of facts, as following:

Chemical Bath aside, the Joker was proven to have chalk white skin in the second part of 'Batman #1' by Kane and Finger. Every single comic book following that contains the Joker has the character with the same chalk white skin. Who gives a damn about a chemical bath? His chalk white skin is canon.

Here's my deal, the movies are not canon with the comic books. They are in their own line of continuity and cannot be a substitute for any graphic novel. The canon Joker of the comic books has pure evenly dispersed chalk white skin...The Joker of the new film series does not. Nothing to argue on that end.

My brother who's a hardcore Bolland Joker fan doesn't like the look of the new Joker, you know what they say about choosing your friends but not your familyt: . I am going to scratch him off my will.t:

I, too, am a Bolland fan. For me, his version of the Joker is the definitive one, visually. This isn't Bolland, but I have come around to liking this look as well. While not ultimate in appearance, I can add The Dark Knight Joker to the list of "awesome Joker looks" right along with the Dave McKean version, Alex Ross version, Neal Adams version, and countless others.

 

[gwynplaine]

My, where have these last couple of pages gone? I'm not here for an argument so I will simply state a couple of facts, as following:

Chemical Bath aside, the Joker was proven to have chalk white skin in the second part of 'Batman #1' by Kane and Finger. Every single comic book following that contains the Joker has the character with the same chalk white skin. Who gives a damn about a chemical bath? His chalk white skin is canon.

Here's my deal, the movies are not canon with the comic books. They are in their own line of continuity and cannot be a substitute for any graphic novel. The canon Joker of the comic books has pure evenly dispersed chalk white skin...The Joker of the new film series does not. Nothing to argue on that end.



I, too, am a Bolland fan. For me, his version of the Joker is the definitive one, visually. This isn't Bolland, but I have come around to liking this look as well. While not ultimate in appearance, I can add The Dark Knight Joker to the list of "awesome Joker looks" right along with the Dave McKean version, Alex Ross version, Neal Adams version, and countless others.

I wish my brother was more like yout: . My favourite Joker is also Bolland's actually but I couldn't be happier with TDK's Joker because of the "going back to his dark roots stuff" and also apparently an unbelievable, historical performance by Heath.

 

[The Joker_1000]

Everyone does, except for Mr Superhero, it seems.



There you go. Even if he had not said that, it still wouldn't contradict anything they did with Joker in Batman #1.

They were just adding details to a character who readers knew practically nothing about. Long term characters need to be expanded on.

I don't see why it's a big deal whether or not it was an acid bath, it's all fictional.

 

[Doctor Baywatch]

I believe there was a panel in an old 70s comic where the Joker was skin-coloured. But that was a mistake

 

[Venom 1988]

Jeez Mr. Superhero is at it again? I'm surprised he hasn't gotten at least 6 aneurysms by now

 

[The Guard]

The original Batman killed. Does that make later versions wrong, simply because Bob Kane conceived him as someone who would kill? No, because as someone else has already pointed out, these characters are not defined by their first appearance, or their initial creators.

The Joker's chemical bath and stint as The Red Hood is canon, as ridiculous as it is. From THE MAN BEHIND THE RED HOOD to THE KILLING JOKE to THE MAN WHO LAUGHS to its use in the 1989 BATMAN movie, and numerous other Joker-centric miniseries and mentions in regular titles, DC Comics has made a point of showing this as The Joker's definitive origin. The "Multiple Choice" past is something The Joker uses to throw people off the scene of where he came from, and it's used by writers who don't like the chemical bath origin. But The Red Hood has been mentioned countless times in connection with The Joker.

Nolan isn't using it in THE DARK KNIGHT because he probably thinks it's silly. It's not like Nolan used all the "proper canon" in BATMAN BEGINS, he made a number of changes to even the nature of Bruce Wayne's vow and quest to rid Gotham of crime.

Origin
Though many have been related, a definitive history of the Joker before the chemical bath has never been established in the comics, and his real name has never been confirmed. He has been portrayed as lying so often about his former life that he himself is confused as to what actually happened. As he says in The Killing Joke: "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" In Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth written by Grant Morrison, it is said that the Joker may not be insane, but have some sort of super-sanity, where he creates himself each day to cope with the chaotic flow of modern urban life.

The first origin account, Detective Comics #168 (February 1951), revealed that the Joker had once been a criminal known as the Red Hood. In the story, a scientist looking to steal from the company that employs him adopts the persona of Red Hood. After committing the theft, Red Hood is dropped into a vat of chemical waste by Batman. He emerges with bleached white skin, red lips, green hair, and a bizarre permanent grin.

The most widely cited backstory can be seen in The Killing Joke. It depicts him as originally being an engineer at a chemical plant who quits his job to become a stand-up comedian, only to fail miserably. Desperate to support his pregnant wife, the man agrees to help two criminals break into the plant where he was formerly employed. In this version of the story, the Red Hood persona is given to the inside man of every job (thus it is never the same man twice); this makes the man appear to be the ringleader, allowing the two criminals to escape. During the planning, police contact him and inform him that his wife has died in a household accident.


The Joker, before the accident, with his wife. Art by Brian Bolland from The Killing JokeStricken with grief, he attempts to back out of the plan, but the criminals strong-arm him into keeping his promise. As soon as they enter the plant, however, they are immediately caught by security and a shoot-out ensues, in which the two criminals are killed. As the engineer tries to escape, he is confronted by Batman, who is investigating the disturbance. Terrified, the engineer leaps over a rail and plummets into a vat of chemicals. When he surfaces in the nearby reservoir, he removes the hood and sees his reflection: bleached chalk-white skin, ruby-red lips, and green hair. These events, coupled with his other misfortunes that day, drive the engineer completely insane, resulting in the birth of the Joker.

The story "Pushback" (Batman: Gotham Knights # 50-55), supports part of this version of the Joker's origin story. In it, a witness (who coincidentally turns out to be Edward Nigma, a.k.a. the Riddler) recounts that the Joker's wife was kidnapped and murdered by the criminals in order to force the engineer into performing the crime. In this version, the pre-accident Joker is called Jack.

The Paul Dini-Alex Ross story "Case Study" makes a far different case. This story suggests that the Joker was a sadistic criminal who worked his way up the mobster chain until he was the leader. Still seeking the thrills that dirty work allowed, he created the Red Hood identity for himself so that he could commit small-time crimes. But eventually an accident involving Batman caused him to fall into a vat of chemicals, giving him his Joker appearance. However, the story suggests that the Joker never became insane. He is simply a sadistic, calculating human seeking revenge on Batman, hiding beneath the veneer of a psychopath.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Well said, TG.

As Reg once said, if you like the Joker wearing makeup or think he works best that way, that's perfectly fine, but do not try to invalidate decades of canon comic book lore just to adhere to the changes Nolan has brought us in The Dark Knight and pretend they have been used in the comics.

This is a new take on the Joker, one we have never witnessed before, I don't even fully know what Heath Ledger and the Nolan bros have brought to the table...it should be something nice, but let's not try to pretend he hasn't changed anything or gone against anything 'comic book canon.'

 

[Aidan2209]

That origin stuff The Guard presented just goes to show that even in "the comics" there isn't always a definitive canon. Hence the potential for constant reinvention.