Lee Bermejo and Brian Azzarello's Joker Graphic Novel

[Ace of Knaves]

I don't think that TDK's Joker was less realistic. But his focus was elsewhere. He didn't care about superficial things like mob territory, money or even power. He even despised the criminals, like the Chechen, who cared about this stuff. His goal was abstract - he wanted to immerse the people of Gotham into such horrible desperation that they would break and show how ugly is the soul of humanity.
While this Joker here was much more attached to the reality at hand and didn't seem fascinated by any abstract goals. To me he was like a crazy and extremely cruel mob boss (something he shared with Nicholson's Joker), but that doesn't necessarily make him more realistic.

Neither did this Joker. If you didn't get that, you need to read the book again.

 

[Rincewind]

Nope, he did. He cared about his lost mob territory, about his former power and the obvious lack of respect towards him since the other criminals shared his kingdom when he was locked in Arkham. That's why he was just mad, not crazy, like he put it. He was just more attached to the material and earthly stuff.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea he was pissed off at the lack of respect. But his rampage and all the things he did were to get the attention of Batman. All the mob hits and the murders he commited were just things to get Batman to come out and play.

He didn't actually care about the money and the territory, it was just a means to a end. Well that's what i got from it anyway.

 

[Figs]

This probably doesn't belong here but I was curious if anyone else in CA had gone to Wondercon and gotten their Joker graphic novel signed by Azzarello?

 

[Wedge A.]

I recently adapted this graphic novel into a screenplay for fun. You can read it here.

http://www.scriptbuddy.com/community/?p=4291533129&t=&pg=

 

[Sonic1002]

I'd say he didn't care abut the loss of the territory as much as the principle behind it -- The loss of respect for what was his!

 

[scatterax]

it was pretty good. but not great.

 

[DARKxGOTHAMITE]

finally bought it.

meh. not as great as people spout about it.

i will say this after reading.

while i still say raping isnt Jokers thing, it usually involves males that have dominance or control issues, that being said i see the weird connection between that and why he would do it in this case...lost his dominance over Gotham...his control over his city.

but mehhhh i dont see Joker resulting to sexual assault...also with his sexual affections..- the orignial involvments with Harley, Joker barely kissed her, the most physical contact she got at times was a shove down the stairs.

ehhh...thats the only thing that didnt jive.

 

[Drz]

He raped Johnny's ex-wife because he felt raped by his trust towards him, thus he raped his ex-wife as a cruel joke.

 

[Rasputin911]

finally bought it.

meh. not as great as people spout about it.

i will say this after reading.

while i still say raping isnt Jokers thing, it usually involves males that have dominance or control issues, that being said i see the weird connection between that and why he would do it in this case...lost his dominance over Gotham...his control over his city.

but mehhhh i dont see Joker resulting to sexual assault...also with his sexual affections..- the orignial involvments with Harley, Joker barely kissed her, the most physical contact she got at times was a shove down the stairs.

ehhh...thats the only thing that didnt jive.

Just because its not depicted in TAS doesen't mean it wasn't implied. I don't understand why people feel that a sex life contradicts the Joker's character

 

[TheBatman072]

After reading this book once more(my favorite Joker story ever, yeah, better than TKJ, I like my Joker UNsympathetic), and reading this thread straight through, I surmise that about 10% of you like the spoon-fed, same old, same old when it comes to your Bat-Universe.

Aww, you were expecting more of a Batman/Joker dynamic that we've seen 10,000 times before? Wah, wah. Boo-hoo.

You don't think that someone as sick and crazy as the Joker is would skin someone alive for the hell of it? Go back to the 50s where Joker was a harmless prankster that squirted WATER out of the flower on his jacket.

You didn't like the way Croc or Riddler were represented? Wahhhh. "T-Rex" Croc is boring as hell. Everybody run! It's one of the Godzilla remake Babies! And guess what? This book wasn't canon. So your precious canonical characters are still safe and sound in the main books.

You didn't find the way they were characterized interesting? In what alternate universe does that make sense? If you thought that, then the main series characters would not interest you at all. Which definitely supports my "we don't like change, give us the same as we've always been given!1" theory.

So yeah. It's a shame some of you didn't like it. No accounting for taste I guess.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Or perhaps people don't like random violence poorly disguised as plot and what should be three dimensional characters instead being reduced to cardboard caricatures. It has nothing to do with being spoon-fed, it's about the quality of the story, of which this book had sadly little.

If you were smart enough to pull yourself past the "awesomeness" that is supposedly inherent in the darkness and unsympathetic Joker in the book, perhaps you'd see that there is very little to it, bar Azzarello showing just how much a limited writer he is.

The portrayals were interesting yes, and in many cases good, but that does not excuse an absence of plot of hollow characters like Johnny whose entire personality was "I wanna be in Joker's gang!" to which we all rolled our eyes with how predictable this was going to be.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Whilst I agree with you, you shouldn't rag on other people man. I loved the book personally though.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Or perhaps people don't like random violence poorly disguised as plot and what should be three dimensional characters instead being reduced to cardboard caricatures. It has nothing to do with being spoon-fed, it's about the quality of the story, of which this book had sadly little.

If you were smart enough to pull yourself past the "awesomeness" that is supposedly inherent in the darkness and unsympathetic Joker in the book, perhaps you'd see that there is very little to it, bar Azzarello showing just how much a limited writer he is.

The portrayals were interesting yes, and in many cases good, but that does not excuse an absence of plot of hollow characters like Johnny whose entire personality was "I wanna be in Joker's gang!" to which we all rolled our eyes with how predictable this was going to be.

Firstly, Azzarello isn't a limited writer. Have you read the 100 Bullets series? A masterwork which he deservedly got awarded for.

And what characters were reduced to cardboard cut outs?

There is quite a bit of depth to this book, it's just not very obvious. Like some people think Joker is just about getting control of his city back and making money and doing drugs. But I don't think so, no AT ALL.

As I've said, all that stuff is a means to an end. His real purpose in this book, his real goal is to get the attention of his play-thing Batman.

The drug use show what a completely fractured individual this Joker is. Clinging on to Harley and crying, it shows that one minute he is murderously happy, the next completely shattered and emotional.

Then it makes you question. How did Joker get out of Arkham? Did Gordon and Batman let him out to cleanse the streets? Do their "dirty work"? Joker even alludes to that.

I thought the portrayals of characters like Croc was a great way to put them in a gritty, realistic world.

As for Jonny? I think it was a good way of showing how a lot of readers think. A lot of readers think "Oh Joker is so cool". But with Jonny, Azzarello uses him to show us that no, if Joker was real, it would be a very, very, very bad idea to wanna run with him.

 

[Drz]

Ye i like the concept of maybe Batman and Gordon did let the Joker out, since after i read that theory i DID notice the Batman abov arkham building and Joker was giving the finger to him and not arkham.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yep. There was some nicely subtle touches in this book. I love it.

 

[The Joker]

Or perhaps people don't like random violence poorly disguised as plot and what should be three dimensional characters instead being reduced to cardboard caricatures. It has nothing to do with being spoon-fed, it's about the quality of the story, of which this book had sadly little.

If you were smart enough to pull yourself past the "awesomeness" that is supposedly inherent in the darkness and unsympathetic Joker in the book, perhaps you'd see that there is very little to it, bar Azzarello showing just how much a limited writer he is.

The portrayals were interesting yes, and in many cases good, but that does not excuse an absence of plot of hollow characters like Johnny whose entire personality was "I wanna be in Joker's gang!" to which we all rolled our eyes with how predictable this was going to be.

Well said

This story is still mediocre at best.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Firstly, Azzarello isn't a limited writer. Have you read the 100 Bullets series? A masterwork which he deservedly got awarded for.

Yes, 100 Bullets is a masterpiece, it is fantastic. You seem to think I said Azzarello was a bad writer, I only said he was limited. He is a great writer, but he can't go very far at all outside a grim'n'gritty setting, that's what I meant.

And what characters were reduced to cardboard cut outs?

The joker for the most part of it. I don't consider one-off panels with him crying equivelant to depth. It had a lot of potential, but seemed to be wasted, but admittingly was good. Very fortunately, his final scene with Batman redeemed it a lot.

And yes, Johnny was meant to be a DC reader, very clever if his monologue wasn't just a constant stream of Joker praise followed by fear. Joker could've been a brilliant story had Johnny been more developed more, as well as Joker coming off more than just a violent thug. I'm pokay with a violent thug Joker appproach, but it really didn't work when the main driving point was how charismatic he was meant to be. A better treatment would've pulled the rug from under our feet later.

There was also too much really unnecessary and random tidbits. Joker raping Johnny's wife under the supposed context of "he raped my trust" is really odd, considering it's really "broke my trust", and therefore should've broken his wife's arm or something. The throwaway comment about Two-Face being a bigamist just came out of nowhere and vanished just as quickly, which needed either explanation, or cutting. The old people getting murdered by the joker is also a really poor writer's trick to get the readers to se the villain is really bad too.

That said, I was a bit harsh in my earlier comment, I always reply biased to a biased comment. I loved how Croc was portrayed here too. But overall the story is disappointing, a mediocre book that many (not you) think to be great simply because it is rather "mature" (And I use that word in the loosest of senses).

 

[Drz]

Well you saying "broke my trust" is the real choice of words is abit an opinion, i mean maybe Joker founded alot more funnier to rape her instead of breaking her arm? Also the Joker killing old people wasn't (atleast to me, just saing) showing how evil he is, it just showed he really didn't care for human life, he has wasted so many people and killed them for no reasons, a good example is the guard in Arkham Asylum: A serious house on a serious earth. Joker tells the april fools joke and just kills him, stating "what a waste of human life".

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I thought he whole rampage towards the end of the book was him growing impatient that Batman hadn't shown up yet. So he upped his game. Most notably slaughtering a innocent old couple.

 

[CaptainClown]

I thought he whole rampage towards the end of the book was him growing impatient that Batman hadn't shown up yet. So he upped his game. Most notably slaughtering a innocent old couple.

Same here. I think Joker couldn't stand the fact that Batman had not tried to stop him up to that point. It was like him saying to Batman. "LOOK YOU CANT CONTROL ME!" I believe the dynamic of Joker acting like a spoiled child trying to gain the attention of an adult by doing something bad contributes something to the Batman Joker dynamic that wasn't seen before. While the violence comes off as being more of an Eli Roth film, I believe that it has a serious purpose in showing how far Joker is to go to gain the attention of the person he hates the most.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Definitely. I like that analogy Cap And it has never been explored that way before really. Well, not in such extreme ways like this.

 

[cokebabies]

Yes, 100 Bullets is a masterpiece, it is fantastic. You seem to think I said Azzarello was a bad writer, I only said he was limited. He is a great writer, but he can't go very far at all outside a grim'n'gritty setting, that's what I meant.

I thought Man of Steel was a good representation of him stepping (maybe not THAT far out, but out enough) out of that box.

 

[Nepenthes]

I can feel both sides of the reception this book got, and it took me a while too warm to it after a dodgy first impression. but in the end I have to say that while there are some very irritating flaws holding it back this book is definitely unique and that's commendable, and more importantly it achieves what it seems intended to do in its portrayal.

it's a very specific thing. maybe the characters are supposed to be one-note and "predictable"?. I thought that was kind of the point of the end, Joker kills Johnny because he's a boring brainless tool. maybe it's supposed to feel violent and pointless?


but the worst thing about this book? it made me go out and order Man of Steel. which is completely and utterly indefensible in it's rudderless half-baked ****tiness. I wouldn't even feel right donating this to my local library which is what I usually do with duddy trades. I wouldn't want any kiddies or comic newbs to come anywhere near it. anyone want a free copy of Man of Steel?

 

[batpawn]

anyone want a free copy of Man of Steel?

I doubt that you would care to send the comic to austria, would you?