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

[The Guard]

Mr. Superhero, I'm kind of confused on one point. When did anyone say you cannot interpret The Joker any way you see fit? All we ever said was that there was a definitive origin for The Joker in the comic book canon.

And will you share with us your own vision of Joker's origin?

 

[Mr. Socko]

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...

I'm sure that post is geared more towards who are not accepting this Joker but I'll just reply here too.

This does change the character, but not totally. What this does is present us with another interpretation of the character. The Joker that I am mostly familiar with through the comic books hsa that attribute, it makes it where he will always be this person. He wakes up in the morning, he gets hosed with water, he goes to Arkham...he'll always look this way, he can't take off a mask like Batman. In a way, it's a curse that he has embraced but it will never leave him. I like him permanently being a clown.

As for this version, it's not the exact same. It's something different that I hope to add to the long list of "great Jokers." It's just that I prefer that comic booky type Joker. My only concern was that Nolan may have created more Francis Dolarhyde than Joker but I've concluded that he should still be pretty great and still very Joker. I agree with your latter paragraph, what we are getting is not the comic books but it should be very good as well.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Mr. Superhero, I'm kind of confused on one point. When did anyone say you cannot interpret The Joker any way you see fit? All we ever said was that there was a definitive origin for The Joker in the comic book canon.

And will you share with us your own vision of Joker's origin?

Well, you guys have said it yourself; you would welcome an alternate Joker origin with open arms, so how can the chemical bath origin be definitive? If it was definitive, then there would be no turning back. That would be the end of that. Finito. End of story. But, for me, this is all about our own personal preference. If you want to abide by DC canon, then by all means, enjoy the chemical bath origin. But fans are well within their rights to tell DC to cram their "official canon" right up their jack hole.

Here is a definition of the word "definitive":

1. conclusive and final: providing a final decision that will not be questioned or changed

So I take it the chemical bath origin is final, unquestionable and will never be changed? Mr. Socko seems to have a different opinion. It's hardly definitive, because I'm sure that if someone came in with a brilliant Joker origin, DC would jump all over it. A definitive origin story is Bruce's parents being shot; not the Joker falling into a vat of chemicals.

And for you information, I do have a few ideas of my own, but at the same time I don't want my Joker to have an origin because I enjoy the mystical aspect of the character.

 

[Saint]

I mean, how can the Red Hood origin be definitive, when Red Hood still exists today, only in a more modernized form?

The hell? How does Jason Todd running around in the Red Hood outfit preclude the Red Hood origin from being definitive? Do you even read comics?

 

[Mr. Superhero]

The hell? How does Jason Todd running around in the Red Hood outfit preclude the Red Hood origin from being definitive? Do you even read comics?

We all make silly comments from time to time, don't we, Saint?

I mean, you've just gone and made one yourself by saying that the chemical bath origin is definitive -- as in it will never, ever, ever be changed and is totally unquestionable.

 

[Saint]

We all make silly comments from time to time, don't we, Saint?

I mean, you've just gone and made one yourself by saying that the chemical bath origin is definitive -- as in it will never, ever, ever be changed and is totally unquestionable.

Actually, I said no such thing--I only asked how Jason Todd calling himself the Red Hood precludes it from being definitive. My question didn't imply anything, no matter how much you wish otherwise. Nice job trying to dodge the question, though.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Actually, I said no such thing--I only asked how Jason Todd calling himself the Red Hood precludes it from being definitive. My question didn't imply anything, no matter how much you wish otherwise. Nice job trying to dodge the question, though.

So you weren't implying that the chemical bath origin is definitive?

Excellent. Everything is going as planned.

 

[Saint]

So you weren't implying that the chemical bath origin is definitive?

Excellent. Everything is going as planned.

My God; such dodging! Neo himself would be green with envy.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

My God; such dodging! Neo himself would be green with jealousy.

So generous of you to return the favor...

 

[Saint]

How, precisely, am I dodging? I said origin that I wasn't making a comment on Joker's origin being definitive or not. That debate is already resolved, as far as I'm concerned. I only want to know how you can logically say Jason Todd putting on a Red Hood mask somehow magically precludes Joker's origin from being definitive.

It's obvious now that you don't know the answer to that--as with your ridiculous "The creators never gave him an origin!" nonsense, you were just making crap up and hoping nobody would notice.

 

[Venom 1988]

My gosh I don't see how this is such a big deal. The chemical bath has been in every origin. The only thing that is not definitive is what happened before he fell in the chemicals (i.e. who he was).

?????? >>>>> chemical bath >>>>> Joker

 

[ronny]

Is there any way we can forget the chemical bath and rewrite the story so he just looks that way? You know, no explaination and no moronic vat of chemicals? Because I hate the Red Hood and the whole big tub of bleach or whatever.

 

[GlasgowBat]

DC owns the joker. no one else does. bob kane didn't, bill finger didn't, none of today's artists own him. The only people who have a say in the joker and his origin are those who run DC comics. you may not like it, and are free to prefer any version you like, whether it is in an altenate story or in your own head.

however, if the people at DC say the comic book joker as of now has white skin because he fell into a pool of chemicals, then in the stories that tie in to the current continuity, that is how he got bleached. this point is not up for debate. like it or not, for the time being, the in-continuity joker is white because he fell in a bath of chemicals.

bermejo's joker, as with frank miller's joker in TDKR and ASBR, is an elseworld version, as it does not take place or fit with current continuity.

like it or lump it, Joker in the comics is white skinned because he fell into a chemical bath. why? because DC says so, and what they say, goes.

 

[Saint]

And, while we're at this, I'd like to point out that Superhero's definition of "definitive" as unquestionable and forever unchanging is not accurate.

Merriam-Webster:

1: serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation <a definitive victory>
2: authoritative and apparently exhaustive <a definitive edition>
3 a: serving to define or specify precisely <definitive laws> b: serving as a perfect example : quintessential <a definitive bourgeois>
4: fully differentiated or developed <a definitive organ>5of a postage stamp : issued as a regular stamp for the country or territory in which it is to be used

I have bolded the areas that apply to the use of the word when talking about comic book canon.

 

[ironwez20]

Is there any way we can forget the chemical bath and rewrite the story so he just looks that way? You know, no explaination and no moronic vat of chemicals? Because I hate the Red Hood and the whole big tub of bleach or whatever.

yea who the hell leaves a big tub of bleach in the middle of nowhere

 

[Saint]

Is there any way we can forget the chemical bath and rewrite the story so he just looks that way? You know, no explaination and no moronic vat of chemicals? Because I hate the Red Hood and the whole big tub of bleach or whatever.

I don't see why. It's no more ridiculous than any other comic book origin, especially since there are chemicals that bleach skin in the real world (though the efficacy and survivability of being submersed in them for any period of time is questionable). I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just not sure why Joker's origin seems to come under more scrutiny than other equally (or more) ridiculous origins.

 

[GlasgowBat]

yeah, Definitive, in this situation, is contextual, as i'm sure everyone already knew. it was only brought up to try and divert the direction of the conversation, in an attempt to bog down the argument with particulars and fine detail. this allows people to dodge around the point, particularly if they are incorrect and know this to be the case.

 

[Saint]

yea who the hell leaves a big tub of bleach in the middle of nowhere

Companies that produce chemicals? In their chemical plants?

 

[Eggyman]

yea who the hell leaves a big tub of bleach in the middle of nowhere

Instead of bleach, it was chemicals; instead of nowhere, it was a chemical plant

 

[GlasgowBat]

yea who the hell leaves a big tub of bleach in the middle of nowhere

nobody does. however, they can often be found in chemical plants, believe it or not.

 

[Venom 1988]

I just figured Bermejo's Joker is just his interpretation of Joker. Just like Tim Sale's Joker has an insanely huge mouth with teeth that seem to magically reappear.

 

[ronny]

I don't see why. It's no more ridiculous than any other comic book origin, especially since there are chemicals that bleach skin in the real world (though the efficacy and survivability of being submersed in them for any period of time is questionable). I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just not sure why Joker's origin seems to come under more scrutiny than other equally (or more) ridiculous origins.

Because he's such a good character that this origin sullies it a bit. It's bad, I really think it's bad.

 

[regwec]

It's commonly supposed that the incident occured in a playing card factory: bleaches are used in the production of cards, paper etc to make them whiter than white.

 

[bkey]

I don't see why. It's no more ridiculous than any other comic book origin, especially since there are chemicals that bleach skin in the real world (though the efficacy and survivability of being submersed in them for any period of time is questionable). I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just not sure why Joker's origin seems to come under more scrutiny than other equally (or more) ridiculous origins.

If you want some ridiculous origins take a look at some of the Spider-Man villians.

 

[Saint]

Because he's such a good character that this origin sullies it a bit. It's bad, I really think it's bad.

So to are other characters with ridiculous origins "great."