The Dark Knight Should they show Joker's origin (or backstory) or not?

[Cinemaman]

Your opinion please.

 

[kytrigger]

I've always preferred nobody really knowing who he was and what happened to him. The character is a mixture of chaos and mystery. Not only do you not know where he will strike and why, but you know nothign about him at all, making it impossible to predict what he will do next, which is teh absolute worst nightmare for a "prep master" like Bruce.

 

[Catman]

Remember Batman: Mask of the Phantasm? Thats what they should do here! Just tell us that Joker was a former mob hit man and thats it.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Where's the option for, "I don't really give a damn as long as the character is handled properly and the story is good"?

 

[Abe Rush]

^ Please, don't bother us with such trivial questions... that's not what's important.
That's not the kind of thing that matters in a movie, it's whether the villain has a backstory or not!

... and yes, I think the Joker should have one.
But it should be vague and not take a lot of time.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Remember Batman: Mask of the Phantasm? Thats what they should do here! Just tell us that Joker was a former mob hit man and thats it.

Completely agree.

 

[Rynan]

As long as it isn't like this:

 

[Nepenthes]

ha! ^

 

[Agentsands77]

I'm a fan of the "no origin" route, but if there's an origin, I won't put up a fuss.

 

[jimmy]

I think it would be cool to do the flashback thing: we get Batman and the Joker fighting the entire movie, doing stuff, whatever. But when Batman finally catches him, Joker tells him how he became the Joker, then escapes!

 

[Catman]

As long as it isn't like this:

That kicks ass! t:

 

[Motown Marvel]

i think it needs to be told to a certain degree....we dont need to go killing joke style and have a whole background and profile on the character...but i think its necessary the story be told of batman dropping him into the acid bath. be it flashbacks or present time, whatever works best for the film.

 

[Catman]

^Agreed

 

[Agentsands77]

i think it needs to be told to a certain degree....we dont need to go killing joke style and have a whole background and profile on the character...but i think its necessary the story be told of batman dropping him into the acid bath. be it flashbacks or present time, whatever works best for the film.

I think a chemical bath origin can be hinted at (perhaps when he's in custody, the doctors could indicate in dialogue that they believe his skin condition is from chemical scarring), but personally, I don't want to see a scene where Batman drops him in. It echoes BATMAN 1989 far too much and it's time for something new.

And not to mention, the Joker seems to begin his career as BEGINS ends. Batman wouldn't have had any part of his origin if that was the case, unless the Joker was somehow born in the chaos of the Narrows debacle.

 

[The Techno Bat]

An Origin/Backstory needs to be told. And whether it be done with Flashbacks or The opening of the movie it's a must. We need to know who this guy is, why he is who he is. Granted we all know why through the comics, but we need to see Nolan's take on the character, and have it explained to us, and to the people that are not familar with The Joker.

 

[Catman]

It echoes BATMAN 1989 far too much and it's time for something new.

It was in the comics. So, now we must change stuff around so it doesn't remind people of a movie many fanboys claim wasn't faithful to the comics?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

It was in the comics. So, now we must change stuff around so it doesn't remind people of a movie many fanboys claim wasn't faithful to the comics?

It has less to do with faithfulness to the comics, and more to do with making sure that people don't feel like they're watching a remake of Batman 89. If Warner's plans to make money off of this investment, they need to draw a wide audience, and that means making sure that this movie, Joker and all, doesn't feel too much like Batman '89. Not because B89 wasn't good, but exactly the opposite: B89 *was* good and does not need to be remade. Begins succeeded by being different enough from all the others that it stands alone, and yet delivering the elements that people expect out of a good Batman movie.

TDK must continue that trend. Joker needs to be presented differently and so his origin, if included in the film, must also be presented differently. Even if a chemical bath is involved, the circumstances and those in attendance must be different.

 

[Agentsands77]

We need to know who this guy is, why he is who he is.

When he first appeared on the scene in BATMAN #1, he didn't even have an origin. He wasn't given an origin until after 10 years of appearances. Did that lessen his impact any? Nope. In fact, he was all the creepier for it. Hannibal Lecter appeared in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and is still one of the most haunting characters of all time, but he didn't need an origin to be effective and engaging.

THE KILLING JOKE giving such a detailed origin was something of a mistake, IMO. It demystified the character to an extreme degree. The same story, just without the flashbacks, would have been just as effective. The flashbacks are rendered somewhat pointless anyway, since the Joker says he doesn't even remember for sure what actually happened to him.

One of the most wonderful thing about the Joker is that he's never *truly* been given a definitive origin in the comics. There's many different schools of thought on the character, and none of them are really absolute. I'm quite fond of the Alex Ross/Paul Dini take on the origin from BATMAN: BLACK AND WHITE. It's a suggestion, a sketch of who the man behind that grin might be, but at the end, we still know no more than we did when we began.

One of the best running gags in the comics is that psychologists can never nail down who the Joker is. He's beyond their comprehension as much as he is the reader's. ARKHAM ASYLUM's Joker nailed that aspect down entirely, and that was great. That's how it should be.

All the suggested origin stories have something to do with a chemical bath, but otherwise, we're ultimately left in the dark. It's better that way. The character shouldn't be comprehensible to us, we should never be able to reduce him to a distinct psychological understanding.

I think the best way to address the question is to have characters speculate about the character's origin in THE DARK KNIGHT. Have the chemical bath idea be established, but otherwise, have nothing conclusively known about who the Joker really is.

 

[Motown Marvel]

I think a chemical bath origin can be hinted at (perhaps when he's in custody, the doctors could indicate in dialogue that they believe his skin condition is from chemical scarring), but personally, I don't want to see a scene where Batman drops him in. It echoes BATMAN 1989 far too much and it's time for something new.

And not to mention, the Joker seems to begin his career as BEGINS ends. Batman wouldn't have had any part of his origin if that was the case, unless the Joker was somehow born in the chaos of the Narrows debacle.

well...that whole moment is kinda the most important/relevant moment in the batman/joker relationship. what you're suggesting would be akin to "lets tell batman's origin, but i dont think we need to see bruce's parents get shot, maybe just hint at it".

and its not something that echoes batman 89...it echoes BATMAN, as in the comics, the character, and one of the most popular/important moments in comic book history. its not something to be glossed over or ignored.

 

[Agentsands77]

It has less to do with faithfulness to the comics, and more to do with making sure that people don't feel like they're watching a remake of Batman 89.

Precisely.

 

[Motown Marvel]

When he first appeared on the scene in BATMAN #1, he didn't even have an origin. He wasn't given an origin until 10 years of appearances. Did that lessen his impact any? Nope. In fact, he was all the creepier for it. Hannibal Lecter appeared in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and is still one of the most haunting characters of all time, but he didn't need an origin to be effective and engaging.

THE KILLING JOKE giving such a detailed origin was something of a mistake, IMO. It demystified the character to an extreme degree. The same story, just without the flashbacks, would have been just as effective. The flashbacks are rendered somewhat pointless anyway, since the Joker says he doesn't even remember for sure what actually happened to him.

One of the most wonderful thing about the Joker is that he's never *truly* been given a definitive origin in the comics. There's many different schools of thought on the character, and none of them are really absolute. I'm quite fond of the Alex Ross/Paul Dini take on the origin from BATMAN: BLACK AND WHITE. It's a suggestion, a sketch of who the man behind that grin might be, but at the end, we still know no more than we did when we began.

One of the best running gags in the comics is that psychologists can never nail down who the Joker is. He's beyond their comprehension as much as he is the reader's. ARKHAM ASYLUM's Joker nailed that aspect down entirely, and that was great. That's how it should be.

All the suggested origin stories have something to do with a chemical bath, but otherwise, we're ultimately left in the dark. It's better that way. The character shouldn't be comprehensible to us, we should never be able to reduce him to a distinct psychological understanding.

I think the best way to address the question is to have characters speculate about the character's origin in THE DARK KNIGHT. Have the chemical bath idea be established, but otherwise, have nothing conclusively known about who the Joker really is.

i like you.

 

[Agentsands77]

well...that whole moment is kinda the most important/relevant moment in the batman/joker relationship.

Not necessarily. I think there's other ways to establish something like that without retreading the same scene that was in BATMAN 1989.

 

[Motown Marvel]

It has less to do with faithfulness to the comics, and more to do with making sure that people don't feel like they're watching a remake of Batman 89.

i dont know about that. i think it would be pretty simple to be true to the comics and not have it feel like a remake of B89. for example: bruce's parents getting shot. faithful to the comics, integral to the story and characters, but it didnt even remotely make it feel like a B89 remake, despite the fact that the scene in particular is telling the same story.

in that sense, i think batman dropping joker in the acid bath is equally important to those characters and their relationship as is the wayne murders important to the bruce wayne/batman character and his story. and i dont think it'd be that hard to do said scene without making it feel like you're re-watching B89.

i think they missed a golden oppertunity in batman begins. there shoulda been a scene where batman is battling some of scarecrows, falconi's, or ra's' goons in a warehouse, and batman drops one in a vat of chemicals...though in the movie it would be a totally trivial moment with no importance to it. but then, in the sequel, that scene is revisited and played with greater focus and importance which leads into the story in TDK.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Not necessarily. I think there's other ways to establish something like that without retreading the same scene that was in BATMAN 1989.

well, its not retrading B89. its telling the story how it's suppose to be told, and it can easily be done in a fashion faitful to the characters and their story without feeling like you're watching a B89 remake. (see my post above)

 

[Agentsands77]

in that sense, i think batman dropping joker in the acid bath is equally important to those characters and their relationship as is the wayne murders important to the bruce wayne/batman character and his story.

Why?

The character survived 10 years as the biggest and creepiest Batman villain without any such moment being known - does that moment really need to be established for the character to make sense?