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

[StylishHokie21]

Yes, that is correct. The Joker fell into a vat of chemicals that turned his skin white and it was written by Bill Finger himself. In every version of pre-Joker, his dip into the chemicals has been constant, Batman was there in the factory when it happened. It's very much canon and it has been played no other possible way. I find there isn't much to argue on that end.

As I said before, we know the Joker isn't making up the chemical factory part because Batman was there when it happened, Batman's been present in every version as well. What's up for debate is who the Joker was before he went into that factory.

Excellent post! This should end the debate. Or.....maybe not?

 

[Marx]

Sometimes, this thread makes my head hurt.

Hey, everyone! Look! A pretty picture!

I've never seen that one before! This move is going to be amazing!

 

[StylishHokie21]

I've never seen that one before! This move is going to be amazing!

Check the New York Times thread for more new pictures.

 

[Marx]

Check the New York Times thread for more new pictures.

Wow, how did I miss that! Thanks for the heads up!

 

[StylishHokie21]

Wow, how did I miss that! Thanks for the heads up!

No problem!

 

[Saint]

Hmm...

THE MAN BEHIND THE RED HOOD
Originally presented in Detective Comics #168, Feb 1951
Writer: Bill Finger Penciller: Lew Sayre Schwartz Inker: George Roussos

I wish you had posted that before we had that whole argument. On the plus side, I guess I'm that much closer to a bigger avatar...

 

[Mr. Socko]

I wish you had posted that before we had that whole argument. On the plus side, I guess I'm that much closer to a bigger avatar...

Damn, took you 5 years to get a full sized avvy. Better late than never.

 

[Saint]

Damn, took you 5 years to get a full sized avvy. Better late than never.

I try only to post when I have something to say.

 

[MadeManifest]

It's gonna take me 10 years.

 

[nickyg641]

Hmm...

THE MAN BEHIND THE RED HOOD
Originally presented in Detective Comics #168, Feb 1951
Writer: Bill Finger Penciller: Lew Sayre Schwartz Inker: George Roussos

Thank you, end of argument.

 

[StylishHokie21]

Thank you, end of argument.

It's not the end for Mr. Superhero I'm afraid.

 

[Nightwing1977]

Sometimes, this thread makes my head hurt.

Hey, everyone! Look! A pretty picture!

Wow! Cool new pic. Never saw this one before. Where you found it? Or at least what the link to who has more pics.

 

[StylishHokie21]

Wow! Cool new pic. Never saw this one before. Where you found it? Or at least what the link to who has more pics.

Check the Official/Set Pics thread.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

I disagree that a canon can never exist, because they do. On many levels, in many ways. There are facts laid down about characters in the context of a particular timeline, origin, etc.

No one is saying that a canon cannot exist...

Let the "misinterpretations" roll on, eh?

Mr. Superhero, as I believe Saint has just pointed out, if you're going to say that art is interpretive to the degree that you suggest it is, you simply cannot cling to "the creators" as being the only ones who can interpret or define that art, or the overall basis for your argument simply falls apart, and you look like a massive hypocrite.

But that is you, failing to understand the reasoning behind why I cling to the creator's view. I am not saying that others have to do the same -- they can think whatever they like -- all I'm saying is that I feel I have the right to interpret my own origin story for the Joker. The chemical bath origin is not a fact to me -- it's merely an interpretation, regardless of Bill Finger writing it.

the Joker's origin is only hinted at in the spin-off Batman: Mask of the Phantasm movie. In a flashback, the Joker is seen before whatever turned him into the Joker (i.e. with normal skin and hair) as a driver/enforcer for Sal Valestra

Now, if the chemical bath origin was definitive, then why doesn't this article say: "before the chemical bath accident?" You see, the chemical bath is NOT definitive -- it's merely an interpretation.

Now, I will accept that Bill Finger wrote the Red Hood story, but do you understand the true nature behind his writing of that story? I haven't read the story, myself, but I'm lead to believe that it's not supposed to be an all-encompassing factual story; it's supposed to be up for debate. I mean, how can the Red Hood origin be definitive, when Red Hood still exists today, only in a more modernized form?

I will accept that, even if I don't like your vision, it is still a part of DC Comics canon. That it happened in the Batman mythology in a particular timeline.

That is such a dogmatic way to approach art. If you are going to let some person you've never met before destroy the mystical aspect of art, then so be it. That is precisely my point: I wouldn't let that happen. Also, you have just proved that my interpretation is, potentially, just as valid as the interpretations made by those at DC Comics.

I just haven't got a job there, right? Hence, my own viewpoint is rendered null and void, right?

Can you elaborate? I'm curious to see what you've come up with.

Why? I don't work for DC, remember? My ideas don't mean a thing. My own interpretation is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to see past the chemical bath origin, correct?

Now wait a minute. Half the things about the Batman or any mythology over the years are generic "facts" that have been added to existing characters and their mythology.

I said "genetic".

Hmm. That may be what WILL be. But right now, they are completely different dynamics. George Lucas personally approves almost anything you see that has the name STAR WARS attached to it. He also places it where it belongs in the STAR WARS continuity and whether it is valid as having occurred in the movie universe.

Aha! This is where you're wrong. I'm going to provide you with another quote:"

“There are two worlds here,” explained Lucas. “There’s my world, which is the movies, and there’s this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe – the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don’t intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don’t get too involved in the parallel universe.”"

EU is not Star Wars canon. And that canon is shaped by the sole creator of Star Wars, not a bunch of wannabes from down the street.

You can interpret what art means to you. You cannot interpret what actually exists on paper or it's meaning to the mythology, as that is up to the creators, as you have so aptly put it. These are two different concepts you're playing with. Personal interpretation and a concept's existence.

I know I can interpret what art means to me! That's the beauty of it! It seems Sunburned Hand likes to interpret his own art-work too. It gives us a little more freedom you see, since we both understand that the chemical bath origin isn't definitive; it's just an idea. And if it was definitive, then A) the Red Hood wouldn't exist today, and B) not a single source would say "however Joker got his white skin and green hair" and thus intentionally negating the chemical bath origin as being "definitive."

I'm implying that you rely too much on the basic visions of those who aren't really all that creative when it comes right down to it (Shall we talk about how Batman was created and his influences, and how he evolved?), and that somewhat closeminded approach will likely prevent you from enjoying quality additions to the character and mythology if you're too slavish about it.

By all means, talk about whatever the f**k you want. Your point is still non-existent.

"Oh, Joker was inspired by the Gwynplaine guy -- oh, uh, what does this prove?"

Please, if this point is supposed to somehow affect my argument, let me know. I'm dying to know.

Sure, he can apply his own ideas to his own understanding or beliefs about a concept until the cows come home. But Joe Blo, if he's being logical, also will accept (not neccessarily like or accept it as part of his own preference about a mythology) that a certain "canon" exists for the Batman mythology. You can imagine whatever you want. While people may not like your ideas, almost no one can tell you they are not valid in the context of your imagination.

And yet, Lee Bermejo has completely disregarded any "DC Canon" by giving his Joker a cut smile.

See? Not all artists build their stories around fictional facts, because they understand that it is just a guide. You're building this canon up to be something whereby if you neglect it, you're given a smacked wrist and told not to do it again.

I mean, when has the Joker ever had a cut smile? Yet Lee Bermejo insists that he has. Why? Because that's his own interpretation on the Joker. Y'know what? I cannot f*****g wait till that book comes out, because I will tell you know, the Joker will not fall into a pool of chemicals in that book.

What about the rest of the mythology elements that began as "generic ideas"?

Genetic, FFS...

No one said you can't. Your Joker can be what you want.

Exactly! Just like Lee Bermejo's Joker can be whatever he wants, right?

But the fact is that the chemical bath thing is part of DC's canon. The comic book Joker fell into chemicals, or staged one hell of an elaborate ruse to make it look like he did (an angle I've always wanted to see played out).

The chemical bath origin is just one possible interpretation - by no means definitive, as I've outlined above with my points about Red Hood existing today and other sources claiming that the Joker may have become the Joker by other means...

With something like this painting, where there simply isn't much to go on, sure, things can be subjective. With something like the Batman mythology, where there's a hell of a lot more "direct" facts about characters in the Batman mythology in regard to their motivations, etc, than there are in that painting, no, the role of interpretation becomes somewhat lessened.

Again. No one's arguing that any one take on a character is more definitiive or valid. Just that one has been shown to be actual "canon" in the comic book universe.

Right, so you're point implies that it is kind of, like, illegal for any other writer to think up an alternate origin? Because, one day, I assure you; someone will present a better, more interesting idea.

Doesn't that play into your "continuous evolution" aspect? Always thinking up better ideas? But, what gives people the right to do that? What gives people the right to disregard a story by Bill Finger? I'll tell you why: because Bill Finger didn't write that story to present the Joker with a definitive origin; it wrote it intentionally as a blur -- an inaccurate depiction of the Joker's origin. It is not definitive at all, as other sources will tell you.​

 

[The Guard]

No one is saying that a canon cannot exist...

Let the "misinterpretations" roll on, eh?

Eh? Mr. Sunburn said, and I quote: "THERE IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE A 'DEFINITIVE CANON.'"

But that is you, failing to understand the reasoning behind why I cling to the creator's view. I am not saying that others have to do the same -- they can think whatever they like -- all I'm saying is that I feel I have the right to interpret my own origin story for the Joker. The chemical bath origin is not a fact to me -- it's merely an interpretation, regardless of Bill Finger writing it.

I don't misunderstand why you cling to the creator's view at all. I absolutely understand that. They created the character and most of his basics, and they didn't see fit to give him an origin. And I agree that it's simply more interesting to have The Joker show up out of nowhere, as a chaotic force of nature, and start killing people. Dechipering The Joker completely is, in many respects, a mistake.

Ok, so a fact isn't a fact to you. That's fine. You can, as I've said before, believe what you want. I hate The Red Hood myself. I think it's cheesy and contrived and a relic of the 50's (the chemical bath idea I can take or leave). I can appreciate what's been done with it over the years in the context of a comic book continuity, but I still loathe it.

Now, if the chemical bath origin was definitive, then why doesn't this article say: "before the chemical bath accident?" You see, the chemical bath is NOT definitive -- it's merely an interpretation.

Because the article is clearly referencing the animated series Joker, where Joker's origin was never even alluded to, as I recall. I am referencing the comics, not every seperate Batman timeline out there. Before that paragraph there are several statements made about the chemical bath.

Now, I will accept that Bill Finger wrote the Red Hood story, but do you understand the true nature behind his writing of that story? I haven't read the story, myself, but I'm lead to believe that it's not supposed to be an all-encompassing factual story; it's supposed to be up for debate. I mean, how can the Red Hood origin be definitive, when Red Hood still exists today, only in a more modernized form?

Wait a minute...you've never even read the story? Trust me, there's very little open for debate. It is played as a mystery to begin with. Batman encounters a character called "The Red Hood" on a college campus, who turns out to be the only criminal he never caught, from back when he was starting out. That criminal is then, in a twist, revealed to be The Joker, who explains his origins. The Joker makes it very obvious that the spill into chemicals is in fact, how he got his image, and where he got his motivation from as well. It's not meant to be up for debate at all. Nor is THE KILLING JOKE's portrayal meant to be up for debate. The only thing you can really debate is who The Joker was BEFORE he donned the red hood and fell into the chemical bath...because THAT...he remembers differently from time to time.

When you reference the modernized Red Hood, are you referring to Jason Todd? If so, he took the identity of The Red Hood precisely because he knows that was The Joker's origin. He's twisting the origin of his murderer to his own ends.

That is such a dogmatic way to approach art.

Dogmatic because I let what happens in canon tell me what happened in the canon? Doing otherwise would be like me reading the Bible and trying to argue that in the context of the Bible, Jesus didn't die.

If you are going to let some person you've never met before destroy the mystical aspect of art, then so be it. That is precisely my point: I wouldn't let that happen. Also, you have just proved that my interpretation is, potentially, just as valid as the interpretations made by those at DC Comics.

I just haven't got a job there, right? Hence, my own viewpoint is rendered null and void, right?[/quote]

Trust me, I've ignored my share of things I've encountered in comics over the years. Leslie Thompkins character butchery being the latest.

I never said your interpretation or viewpoint wasn't valid. I said it wasn't actual DC Comics "canon".

Why? I don't work for DC, remember? My ideas don't mean a thing. My own interpretation is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to see past the chemical bath origin, correct?

Why? Because I'm interested to see what you've come up with. Most people just come up with some variation of "chemical bath, mobster or comedian". I don't even like the chemical bath origin. What have you come up with?

I said "genetic".

Oh.

Aha! This is where you're wrong. I'm going to provide you with another quote:"

“There are two worlds here,” explained Lucas. “There’s my world, which is the movies, and there’s this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe – the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don’t intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don’t get too involved in the parallel universe.”"

EU is not Star Wars canon. And that canon is shaped by the sole creator of Star Wars, not a bunch of wannabes from down the street.

He's likely talking about creatively. As in writing the books, game plots, etc. So, because George
Lucas says he doesn't get "too involved" we assume he's "not involved at all"? That seems like a stretch. Especially since it's pretty much common knowledge that he has a say in almost everything STAR WARS, including many elements of the EU.

I know I can interpret what art means to me! That's the beauty of it! It seems Sunburned Hand likes to interpret his own art-work too. It gives us a little more freedom you see, since we both understand that the chemical bath origin isn't definitive; it's just an idea. And if it was definitive, then A) the Red Hood wouldn't exist today, and B) not a single source would say "however Joker got his white skin and green hair" and thus intentionally negating the chemical bath origin as being "definitive."

1. The Red Hood existed before The Joker ever became it.

2. The comics canon shows that the chemical bath origin is definitive as the origin of The Joker. The 90's animated series left it open to your interpretation, but did not specifically give an alternate origin for the character.

And yet, Lee Bermejo has completely disregarded any "DC Canon" by giving his Joker a cut smile. See? Not all artists build their stories around fictional facts, because they understand that it is just a guide. You're building this canon up to be something whereby if you neglect it, you're given a smacked wrist and told not to do it again.

Where have I said or remotely implied that? I have no issues with things occassionaly going against established canon, as it makes things interesting. But I cannot pretend that the canon that exists doesn't exist.

I mean, when has the Joker ever had a cut smile? Yet Lee Bermejo insists that he has.

Didn't Grant Morrison give him one months ago in BATMAN #663?

Why? Because that's his own interpretation on the Joker. Y'know what? I cannot f*****g wait till that book comes out, because I will tell you know, the Joker will not fall into a pool of chemicals in that book.

Do you know for sure? And will that particular graphic novel be canon?

Exactly! Just like Lee Bermejo's Joker can be whatever he wants, right?

Sure. But until it's canon, it won't be canon.

The chemical bath origin is just one possible interpretation - by no means definitive, as I've outlined above with my points about Red Hood existing today and other sources claiming that the Joker may have become the Joker by other means...

What sources?

Right, so you're point implies that it is kind of, like, illegal for any other writer to think up an alternate origin?

No...

Again, where did I even imply this?

Because, one day, I assure you; someone will present a better, more interesting idea.

I hope so.

Doesn't that play into your "continuous evolution" aspect? Always thinking up better ideas? But, what gives people the right to do that? What gives people the right to disregard a story by Bill Finger? I'll tell you why: because Bill Finger didn't write that story to present the Joker with a definitive origin; it wrote it intentionally as a blur -- an inaccurate depiction of the Joker's origin. It is not definitive at all, as other sources will tell you.

Yes, I don't mind continuous evolution, to a point. You're telling me that Bill Finger...wrote a detailed account of The Joker's origin...as an inaccurate depiction of The Joker's origin? What sources are you speaking of?

 

[Mr. Socko]

Here is where I simply must chime in.

But that is you, failing to understand the reasoning behind why I cling to the creator's view. I am not saying that others have to do the same -- they can think whatever they like -- all I'm saying is that I feel I have the right to interpret my own origin story for the Joker. The chemical bath origin is not a fact to me -- it's merely an interpretation, regardless of Bill Finger writing it.​

That is exactly the problem here. You say the chemical bath is not fact to you. The only reason you don't view it as fact is because you don't like it. Here you are 'bending' rules to conform to what you like and dislike. I, like TG, also dislike the Red Hood, but I'm not going to argue the character isn't canon. And even regardless of the chemical bath or whoever likes it or not, the Joker in canon still has chalk white skin and green hair.

EU is not Star Wars canon. And that canon is shaped by the sole creator of Star Wars, not a bunch of wannabes from down the street.

Just as these Batman films are not 'canon.'

And yet, Lee Bermejo has completely disregarded any "DC Canon" by giving his Joker a cut smile.

That is why his Joker, like Nolan's, will more than likely not be regarded as canon...just as Dave McKean's Joker in Arkham Asylum is not regarded as canon. Because there are a set of rules that must be followed if things are to be set in 'canon.'

I mean, when has the Joker ever had a cut smile? Yet Lee Bermejo insists that he has. Why? Because that's his own interpretation on the Joker. Y'know what? I cannot f*****g wait till that book comes out, because I will tell you know, the Joker will not fall into a pool of chemicals in that book.

Lee Bermejo has stated the Joker in his comic book will not have an origin at all, so no, you won't see him fall into a pool of chemicals, but that doesn't negate the more than likely possibility that it happened. And we can all bet our bottom dollars that Bermejo's Joker will still have chalk white skin, red lips, and green hair.

The chemical bath origin is just one possible interpretation - by no means definitive, as I've outlined above with my points about Red Hood existing today and other sources claiming that the Joker may have become the Joker by other means...

The chemical bath origin will just be considered "one possible interpretation" the day we get a comic book that shows the Joker getting bleached skin in another way. The day that happens, I will be more than happy to view the chemical bath as just another interpretation.
​

 

[Mr. Socko]

Although conversely, Mr. SH also brings up an excellent point with Bermejo's Joker having a cut smile, as the Joker in Batman Confidential also has a cut smile. So how could the Joker in one canon comic, say The Man Who Laughs have a clean crimson grin, but also have a jarred glasgow grin in a canon series such as Batman Confidential. It contradicts itself and proves it's really just something up for interpretation, and in that respect I understand what he means. There is truly no canon continuity at all, over the past near 7 decades we've gotten so much work it all skews together and contradicts itself that you can pick and choose any versions you want...but they must be things that have still happened, The Joker falling into a vat of chemicals is, to date, the only way he has been shown to be bleached, once we receive an alternative comic in which he's bleached another way, everyone can then choose the latter and disregard the chemical bath all they want just as you do with half the other things in the comic where you have an alternative....such as Joker with a cut grin, or without it.

 

[Beanjuice]

does anyone know when the bermejo novel comes out?

 

[Mr. Superhero]

The chemical bath origin will just be considered "one possible interpretation" the day we get a comic book that shows the Joker getting bleached skin in another way. The day that happens, I will be more than happy to view the chemical bath as just another interpretation.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!!

You say that if a "better" origin story comes along, then you will happily view the chemical bath origin as just some "interpretation". What if I feel that I have a better origin for the character? Am I not allowed to ignore the chemical bath origin, because it is apart of some canon or whatever? It seems to me like you guys are just waiting for something better to come along -- you are waiting for a "better" interpretation of the Joker's origin to present itself...

I am not arguing whether the chemical bath is canon -- I am arguing that, due to its "canon status", that doesn't automatically mean that I cannot choose to ignore it!!! Because, I can. Quite easily. I may have my own concepts and ideas of how the Joker became white-skinned; I may not want my Joker to have an origin at all. In either case, I am not going to be forced to surrender my own thoughts for the sake of some "League of Truths" that they have at DC.

I don't read these stories for DC Comics; I read them for myself.

 

[Simon Dark]

What a pointless argument.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Although conversely, Mr. SH also brings up an excellent point with Bermejo's Joker having a cut smile, as the Joker in Batman Confidential also has a cut smile. So how could the Joker in one canon comic, say The Man Who Laughs have a clean crimson grin, but also have a jarred glasgow grin in a canon series such as Batman Confidential. It contradicts itself and proves it's really just something up for interpretation, and in that respect I understand what he means. There is truly no canon continuity at all, over the past near 7 decades we've gotten so much work it all skews together and contradicts itself that you can pick and choose any versions you want...but they must be things that have still happened, The Joker falling into a vat of chemicals is, to date, the only way he has been shown to be bleached, once we receive an alternative comic in which he's bleached another way, everyone can then choose the latter and disregard the chemical bath all they want just as you do with half the other things in the comic where you have an alternative....such as Joker with a cut grin, or without it.

EXACTLY.

We never know what tomorrow will bring. For all we know, there could be someone out there who has an absolutely fantastic origin story for the Joker. Why? Because they have used their own initiative -- they haven't been backed into a corner and forced to surrender their own artistic thoughts for the sake of DC canon. Sure, if that origin story was published by DC, it still may not be viewed as canon -- but I, as a reader, will choose what I want to believe. It's a simple concept, really.

Do I prefer my Joker with a natural smile or a cut smile? I much prefer my Joker with a cut smile because it adds to the realism of the character. Sure, it may not be "canon", but I can still read Bermejo's story for what it is and not be influenced by the thoughts of some DC executive.

Think about it: the chemical bath origin is viewed as the Joker origin at the minute, but to some people, it isn't. People simply choose to ignore the chemical bath origin, and I am one of those people. If I woke up tomorrow and created my own origin for the character -- an origin that made sense and worked for me -- would I not be allowed to believe in my own interpretation? Why am I even reading these books? What is the point in art if I am not allowed to interpret it, myself??

 

[Mister J]

So you decide to follow it with a pointless comment?

That's no way to push toward an avatar.

 

[Simon Dark]

So you decide to follow it with a pointless comment?

That's no way to push toward an avatar.

I could care less if I have an avatar.

 

[Mr. Socko]

AND THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!!

You say that if a "better" origin story comes along, then you will happily view the chemical bath origin as just some "interpretation". What if I feel that I have a better origin for the character? Am I not allowed to ignore the chemical bath origin, because it is apart of some canon or whatever? It seems to me like you guys are just waiting for something better to come along -- you are waiting for a "better" interpretation of the Joker's origin to present itself...

I am not arguing whether the chemical bath is canon -- I am arguing that, due to its "canon status", that doesn't automatically mean that I cannot choose to ignore it!!! Because, I can. Quite easily. I may have my own concepts and ideas of how the Joker became white-skinned; I may not want my Joker to have an origin at all. In either case, I am not going to be forced to surrender my own thoughts for the sake of some "League of Truths" that they have at DC.

I don't read these stories for DC Comics; I read them for myself.

I respect that, I'll just say how we interpret the character is not canon unless we interpret them exactly the way they appear in the comics. There are two paths.

A. Our interpretation of the character
B. The DC canon continuity

Someone may create a fanfic and view it as A but it still does not become B. Only DC has any say over the latter.

 

[Doc Samson]

I guess I just dont understand, personally, why this totally changes the character for some people. I could understand if he wasn't permawhite and also acting wildly strange or different from what most people recognize as the Joker, but by all accounts, this interpretation is closely related to the original Joker conceptually, why is it such an issue? I've said this before, but Batman has never appeared in any of his movies with spandex on, his origin was completely tinkered with in B89, then re-imagined again in BB, neither of which is what happened in the comics, why was all of that ok and not this?

Nolan had a specific vision from the time he started this franchise, going into it I expected even more to change concerning the Joker. No, no matter how many times you guys try to explain it, your not falling into chemicals and coming out bleached white with green hair, it's not gonna happen. Yes its a comic book, but Nolan decided to ground it in some sort of reality, doing that not only changes the Joker, but pretty much eliminates a bunch of batman's rogues gallery as well, I'm sure we wont be getting Mr. Freeze or Killer Croc anytime soon. That being said, what we are getting, is pretty darn good, maybe if you just wait to see the movie, your attitude towards this whole situation may change...