Discussion in 'The Dark Knight' started by Ardent15, Jan 20, 2010.
I didn't say he didn't, I just said that we don't know what it is and I prefer it that way.
I like the origins for the TDK Joker that the comics gave because they logically explain his lack of any records. Im talking about the Atom story in which we see that when he was a kid he killed his parents, run away and grew up on the streets among gangs. Hence no records or official identity.
As for the whole no-origins thing, I think its highly overrated. It works most of the time when we have some inhuman creatures or half monsters like Alien or The Thing, but the origins never diluted Freddy Krueger or Darth Vader (talking about what was said in the OT). It's apparent that they don't come from another planet or another dimension and I think it would be silly not to realistically excuse their existence because theyre so out of place visually. A man with frozen smile, permanent white skin and green hair would be just another Dick Tracy-esque character, but Batman did take place in our reality even if somewhat mixed with fantasy, so no demons or anything. And I thought the bleaching with the chemicals was a very smart origin. And The Killing Joke is probably my favorite comic of all time, a great tragic story. Sure, it's somewhat cool not to have TDK's Joker's origins but it's not like he's anything more than a regular man. He's psychotic and sadistic, but still a man in makeup. We had plenty whackos like those, like Mr Manson for example. The one thing that benefits from it is that we're wandering how did he got those scars, and as far as Im concerned, one of his stories might be real. I like to have the TDK Joker the way he is (even tho its easy and logical to figure out that he had abusive family and grew up like this), and the classic comic book Joker the way he is, because his origins were never a problem and never questioned for 5 decades. Moore said he respects continuity and didnt want to mess with that, just add what wasnt told, and the 89 movie and BTAS followed the same classic origin story. It wasnt until 2007 when M. Green said that he will do an alternative origin story just because "nobody else did" and afterwards about 3 more followed (still, all using the chemical vat)
I prefer his chemical vat origin, but the fact they based on his first appearance where he had no origins makes his character all the more interesting because of the mystique and the lies that keep it going.
That was because he couldn't produce saliva to keep his lips moist as a result of his Glasgow Smile. Notice how chapped his lips were?
I think the truth is subtly revealed in the final confrontation between Joker and Bats. Really pay attention to what he says...
"Can't rely on anyone these days, YOU GOTTA DO EVERYTHING YOURSELF! Don't we? But that's okay! I came prepared! It's a funny world we live in. Speaking of which, you know how I got these scars?"
The Pre-Joker was a pretty good engineer, building that hood.
How about none? Honestly, I think knowing his true background kinda makes him not as fun as he is / should be.
- I think he saw some things during childhood that no child (or anybody) should ever have to see.
- He is, obviously, of supreme intellect, most likely a genius.
- I'm guessing he was pounded with the idea that he was ugly and unimportant, maybe that he was a giant mistake, by his parents.
- Probably a shy, awkward, gentle, and polite youngster, whose rage and longing to be noticed boiled violently just below the surface.
- After dropping out of school, with no family or friends to lean on, he got mixed up with some rough crowds, probably starting out as a low-level drug dealer and proving himself by showing a penchant for ruthlessness and the devlopment of schemes that advance the gangs' agenda.
- Sexual inadequacies
You'd almost think he'd spent time in the military or in prison, as he has an EXTREME aversion to authority and the institution, but they have no record of his existence, so these issues must all stem from his father, or stepfather, or mother's violent boyfriends, etc.
I've always said I thought Ledger's Joker was a man who probably did a stint locked in a psych ward in another state then he broke out and took the first train to Gotham. So insane and deprived of reality that he probably doesn't even know what his real name is.
But why the face of a clown?
I'd guess he was drawn to that persona because of a belief that modern society and its standards and values are a sick joke. Of course, he has an unyielding desire to be noticed, so the theatrical persona makes some sense, especially if he was inspired by the appearance of the Batman.
Batman often said he dressed as a bat to inspire fear, but he never kills. The opposite of fear is humor. Who would ever think a clown could be dangerous enough to kill?
Well, but then they would have some records of it. Thats why I like the explanation given in the Atom story, that he joined the streets when he was a kid and lived off the books
I dont think he was. Hes already active in Begins which is just days after Batman appeared
But maybe when he was put in the first asylum there was no record of his name because no one knew what it was. Just like when he's locked in Arkham, surely he will just be listed as "John Doe" or "Name Unknown." Doesn't know what his real name is, etc. Or perhaps there was a mass breakout at Alcatraz and very few were captured.
But y'know what? In the end there would be some sort of record of him. Unless he was born in a forest, killed his every family member, and never went to school.
But just like in the Atom story , it seems like he lived off the books since he was a small kid so in that situation I think its very possible that they cant identify him
I have not read that version. Is that the one where Batman used his scallops to scar the Joker?
Nice way of looking at it.
No, its different. It actually shows Ledger Joker's origins. I have scans in my blog in Joker history article, just scroll down - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/09/complete-history-of-joker.html
Oh cool, the one I was thinking of was Batman Confidential which you also have listed on your blog
I just read ebert's review for the dark knight, and he bases a large part of it on the idea that joker's dad made his scars. Did he completely miss the scene with rachel? @[email protected]
I just recently stumbled upon one review of TDK in which the reviewer criticizes TDK for plotholes and lists Joker telling 2 different scar stories as one of them
Yeah that is dumb but what Ebert said was fine. He recognized the other origin Joker told Rachel he just preferred to believe the first one. Remember non-comic fans don't know that Joker's origin is not definitive so many people just took it that one of Joker's stories was possibly more real than the other. And the first reason just adds more psychological complexity. And Ebert did give TDK 4/4 stars after all
Taking Ebert for serious will never end up well.
Is that your blog man? I have to say it's FANTASTIC.
Yeah he said TDK was the best comic book film ever made. Is that wrong(b/c he said it)?
He said the Joker's scars were made by his father. Is that right because he said it?
You miss the point.