The Dark Knight Joker's origin

I honestly don't want an origin...
I also believe that... Joker escaped Arkham as the Joker already.

 

boo. I want an origin and here's why: We see a man devolve or is it evolve... into the crazy wacko jacko he becomes, similar to what we saw in begins with batman...well sort-of, since he already was angry and obsessed with criminals in the beginning, but then we w3re shown a bunch of flashbacks that told the story of where his motivation came from... so if they go that route I wouldn't mind.

but having batman be blamed for joker's condition is an essential part of the character that I don't want to just poof vanish now...

 

Normally I wouldn't mind seeing Joker at least fall into the chemicals, even though I agree he's best left with no definite origin. The thing is, it'd be so close to a repeat of what Burton did it might be misinterpreted as a full-blown remake by the general audience. I mean, as much as I hate dictating Nolan's Batman by things Burton and Schumacher did before him, I feel like we've seen it before. Just plop Joker into the middle of Gotham and place the relevance on his actions rather than his past. Leave the pathos to Two-Face.

 

boo. that's too batman forever two-face-ish for me....

 

Two-Face was already an established criminal in Forever. Surely Joker could be introduced to Gotham as a dangerous villain without resorting to an origin story. Give his crimes and his motivations some mystery. Build him up. I'm just talking post-chemicals here. I'm not saying we should skip ahead to a Batman that's already fairly familiar with Mr J.

Afterall, Hannibal's origins remained unexplained throughout Silence of the Lambs, but he was neither random nor ineffective. Obviously.

 

Joker should be as follows:

Name - unknown
Age - unknown
Alias - joker

 

well..right and we won't lose any of that with an origin of the paleface joker or ever get a straight origin from childhood to present I think. His permanent mask makes him a clown, but his sadistic nature wouldn't be betrayed at all if we see him recieve the dip. because like hannibal, an already established criminal serving a sentence for something deserving of such punishment (I guess all the people he has eaten), his origin as a criminal is still mysterious though their past criminal activity is evident and we learn so much about them from their actions. So what if we see the joker become the white-faced/permant smile joker... he's still the violent criminal before doing so, I'm sure, or he wouldn't be in such a position to begin with- facing batman above a vat of toxic stuff.

he was introduced to gotham in the last film and now he's meeting batman for the first time, whether as the joker or whoever- we don't know yet of course. Still I'd rather he become batman's arch nemesis rather than just exist to play the random baddy with a messed up face and a bunch of henchmen like TFINO. He's too interesting for that. Ra's not explaining his views on the world and corruption and immortality through theatricality and deception would have made him pretty pale. hannibal like scarecrow in bb isn't the main antagonist in the silence of the lambs story, but a fascilitator to other characters. If the joker ends up that way, then that sucks. oh well. life goes on.I think. Hans Greuber would be a bettah example He's a badass thief meanie with some real character and deeply entreched hatred for the hero because of how he has thwarted his schemes. I can see it working like that perhaps.

I so don't want to see him get a tazer to the face by batman's girlfriend though..... too demeaning.

 

I don't think we should have an origin, just a bunch of cryptic clues so his past can be left to the viewers imagination.

 

The only origin that is needed is Batman's.

..and Two-Face, cus his origin is kinda needed for the character to work. And don't say anything that The Joker needs an origin for him to work, cus that's wrong. First, The Joker was never Batman's freind, like Harvey, and he had nothing really to do with him until his supposed "accident"(and since this story is about Batman, that matters). Second, for years since his creation, The Joker never had a back story and you-know-what, he worked surprizingly well. He was a monster and he was there to be Batman's arch-nemesis, not to garner our sympathy for his messed up state.

 

exactly^

The Joker should no have his origin told maybe a couple flashbakcs but that is it.

One of the coolest factors of the joker is the fact that his origin is very much a mystery its self.

Besides like someone said the only villain imo that should get a full blown origin is Two Face.

and anyways it's been establashed at the end of Begins that Joker is already on the loose and causing mayhem already

 

exactly^

The Joker should no have his origin told maybe a couple flashbakcs but that is it.

One of the coolest factors of the joker is the fact that his origin is very much a mystery its self.

Besides like someone said the only villain imo that should get a full blown origin is Two Face.

and anyways it's been establashed at the end of Begins that Joker is already on the loose and causing mayhem already

 

oops my bad

 

Have batman ask joker where he came from and then a quick flash to a man screaming in a vat of chemicals.then just go back to the movie.

 

abosolutely no origin please. a flashback or 2 but thats it.

 

this movie cant' have an origin unless it is in flashbacks. At the end of Begins we see that The Joker is already up and causing trouble, and he's leaving his calling card. I'd be pissed if the next movie turned had joker as some guy who liked to leave Joker cards at the scene of crimes, then somehow randomly fell into chemicals and turned out looking like a clown. Way too coincidental for me.

The thing about Joker, is even now his origin is a mystery. The only origin we know of is in The Killing Joke, and even there he admits it may not be true because he can't remember. Doing something like that I think would work, have Joker tell his origin in a flashback, then admit that he doesn't even know if it's true or not.

 

Right. I see your point, and I agree with it, but it doesn't really address anything in my post. All I said was a chemical dip scene with The Joker would be a repeat of what we've already seen. Personally, I think a creative team could come up with an effective method of introducing The Joker without resorting to what Burton's already done.

Now you've failed to miss my point entirely. Why do we need a filmed origin for The Joker to be Batman's arch nemesis? Are you trying to tell me The Joker was only a secondary villain before The Killing Joke?

Are you kidding me? How on earth does Joker not having a specific origin render him devoid of motivation or personality? Did we get any glimpse of Ras's early life beyond the brief mention of his wife (which may or may not have been true)? No. And yet you cite him as a counter example. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I want depth and long pretentious monologues for The Joker as much as anyone. Has nothing to do with whether or not we get an origin filmed. Hell, I don't care if Nolan finds some way to shed light on it through narration or dialogue. But we don't need a remake of the scene with Nicholson in '89. It's unecessary. Like I said before, Two-Face's origin is an integral part of his story. The Joker's is superfluous. Or at least not important enough to eat up big chunks of screentime.

 

I think the joker should be the guy who got sacked at the end of the movie and replaced by Lucius. Sorry I can't remember his name but if this did happen he could become the joker by trying to kill Fox in his lab while he was using chemicals. Another good thing that could be brought to the movie is he knows everything about Bruce and he knows many different operations at Wayne industries and he could sabotage one of the projects.
That’s what I think but everyone has an opinion.

 

how I would handle the joker's origin:

 

I miss points all that time. They called me pointmisser in the service. That doesn't mean the joker doesn't deserve an origin as much as two-face or Rachel. Rachel showed a lot more personality than either villians in begins and I loved it... She believes in Bruce's father's ideals for gotham city, she loves bruce and cares about him, and shares his pain, but not his passion. surely nolan can easily handle the joker's, maye find ways to create a motivation through, like what others said, flashbacks or something.

I'm not closed off to the idea of no origin. I'd simply prefer one. A lot of things in the story are unnecessary if you want to look at them that way. I think there's no problem involved in showing how he gets so freaky looking or at least have it explained in some way.

What's wrong with that?

 

We don't need an origin. At least, we don't need to see it. If they have to tell us where he came from, then we could see BATMAN/BRUCE do some digging into Joker's history, and finding out how he ended up looking the way he does. But we should not devote 15 minutes of the movie just to showing it all unfold! That's where the old Batman movies went wrong; they spent so much time setting up the villains, when they should have let us see BATMAN learning where the villains came from.

 

but tim, tim, tim, listen to me, tim.

It works, man. Jack Napier hating the bat for eternitiy works best. Listen to me.... tim... he will no doubt be as obsessed and determined to destroy batman if they have a personal connection like that in my open onion, tim. It's the truth, tim.

tim...

 

Heheheheheheheheh. I can see it my mind's eye. There's a fight between The Joker and Batman, Joker pulls a gun but Batman grabs it, forcing it upward perventing The Joker from shooting Batman. Then Batman says: "Hey, Joker. I know we've been pals along time. Hell, we've seen battle together. I know better than to ask, but after all these years, I have to know, How did you get so ****ed up?".

And The Joker looks up with quizical look, then responds...

"Well, you see, I was robbin' the Ace chemical plant, see. I busted the safe, loaded the loot, but as I was making my escape down the catwalk over some pretty dangerous looking chemicals, there huge fat woman blocking my way accross the catwalk. I tried to squeeze past her, tried to go under her, it was impossible. I belive she preoccupied with a Hero sandwitch. My hatred of Heroes was born that day, but back to the story. Then I came up with a brillant idea: I would get past her by crawling accross the outside of the saftey railing. It was all going good, until my hand hit a patch of greese. Turns out every night they greese portions of the railings, I don't know why yet, but that was my downfall. I went screaming toward the vat of chemicals. Actually, I didn't land in the chemicals immediatly, I hit the side the tank, then into the chemicals. Thank god I had that ridiculus Red Hood on, or I would've got a concussion and drown."

Batman says: "Really?"
Joker: "Really."

Then the fight contnues.

 

Nothing. Which is why I've never argued against it, only against the idea of rehashing something Burton's already done. Joker can have personality and meaning without a sappy clear-cut Hollywood origin, which is something you can't seem to fathom. Motivation is not always linked to oirign. I've always seen Joker as inherently evil. He would have been a homicidal sociopath no matter what, falling into the chemicals just gave him more reason to follow the theatrical route. I remember reading an interview with cartoonist Jhonen Vasquez that does a pretty good job of critisizing the utter stupidity of having to link every villain to some easy life changing event. It's just conveniant and comfortable. The Joker doesn't need anything like that. He's pure and elemental. The fact that he's so dedicated to just being bad among a jumble of conflicted, victimized characters makes him chilling.

 

that's pretty much what scarecrow was in begins. let's try something different.