The Dark Knight The Joker's Plot

[L0ngsh0t]

this is what the movie will be about.

This might be one of the funniest things I have ever seen

 

[The Question]

But he can still wage war against the mob.

But why just the mob? Way I see it, he could wage a war against the mob initially, just to make the cops think he has a vendetta against them, and then completely change his tactics to keep people guessing.

Mobster
n. informal
A member of a criminal gang or crime syndicate.

That should help some people. And, by definition, The Joker could be considered a mobster, seeing as he sometimes enlists henchmen to form a criminal gang to impliment some of his schemes.

No, he can't be considered a mobster. His gangs are generally a cross between a street gang and a cult, not a crime syndicate.

 

[Rynan]

No, he can't be considered a mobster. His gangs are generally a cross between a street gang and a cult, not a crime syndicate.

Only your own mind.

Seriously, I've heard of cubicle dwellers with more devotion than any one of The Joker's criminal posse. And it's also apparent that you fail to understand the goon/crimemaster relationship. The Joker PAYS his henchmen, or a least says he will pay them. That's how it works. Seeking devoted followers is for cults, churches and suckers. Also, it's very time consuming, something a wanted criminal like The Joker has very little time for.

But I know your wondering, "Why would someone risk they're neck work for a murdering psychopath like The Joker?". Simple, economics. Considering the steep decline in normal criminal organizations in Gotham(The Mob, Crime Families, etc.), Henchmen and other muscle must turn to Arkham escapees for employment. Sure, it's hazardous work, but seeing as criminals like The Joker or Two-face usually take in very big scores, it's probably very rewarding work as well.

But a Cult? Come on.

 

[The Question]

Only your own mind.

Seriously, I've heard of cubicle dwellers with more devotion than any one of The Joker's criminal posse. And it's also apparent that you fail to understand the goon/crimemaster relationship. The Joker PAYS his henchmen, or a least says he will pay them. That's how it works. Seeking devoted followers is for cults, churches and suckers. Also, it's very time consuming, something a wanted criminal like The Joker has very little time for.

But I know your wondering, "Why would someone risk they're neck work for a murdering psychopath like The Joker?". Simple, economics. Considering the steep decline in normal criminal organizations in Gotham(The Mob, Crime Families, etc.), Henchmen and other muscle must turn to Arkham escapees for employment. Sure, it's hazardous work, but seeing as criminals like The Joker or Two-face usually take in very big scores, it's probably very rewarding work as well.

No, it's not. While The Joker will sometimes take valuables from the corpses he leaves behind of take something because he wants to have it and kill anyone who gets in his way, his crimes rarely lead to any financial gain. They usually end with alot of innocent people dead for no other reason that to help The Joker illustrait his philosophy for life. That being that life sucks, nothing matters, everything is suffering, so you might as well do as you please. While hired criminals tend to be amoral, most would find the kind of things The Joker does absolutely sickening. Hell, the mob tends to help the police catch serial killers when they're carving people up in their neighborhoods.

But a Cult? Come on.

Yeah, because his gang in The Killing Joke, Dark Victory, The Outsiders, Robin II, and Dark Knight returns were such professionals.


Okay, maybe cult wasn't the best wording. Think sort of like Charles Manson's gang.

 

[Rynan]

No, it's not. While The Joker will sometimes take valuables from the corpses he leaves behind of take something because he wants to have it and kill anyone who gets in his way, his crimes rarely lead to any financial gain. They usually end with alot of innocent people dead for no other reason that to help The Joker illustrait his philosophy for life. That being that life sucks, nothing matters, everything is suffering, so you might as well do as you please. While hired criminals tend to be amoral, most would find the kind of things The Joker does absolutely sickening. Hell, the mob tends to help the police catch serial killers when they're carving people up in their neighborhoods.

1. The Killing Joke is not a good example of how The Joker works. A better choice would've been "The Laughing Fish", robbing the lives a random few all for the pursuit of licensing his Joker fish.

2. He's a criminal, pure simple. His motives go from petty to personal. Any "Philosophy" is just his ego justifying his sadism and trying to add more to what he is, a criminal. If had any actual philosophy(which I doubt), it would probably be "The Joker rules.". He doesn't get deeper than that.

3. Your confusing "Mob" with "Mafia". The mob is Rome, the people, anyone gathered together, that's what a mob is.

4. The Joker is NOT a serial killer. We went over this in the forums a while back. Didn't you get the memo?

Yeah, because his gang in The Killing Joke, Dark Victory, The Outsiders, Robin II, and Dark Knight returns were such professionals.

You bet your ass they where, as they where in "The Joker's Birthday", "The Laughing Fish", "The Joker's Crime Circus" and the like. They were paid to laugh at his jokes and do what he said.

Okay, maybe cult wasn't the best wording. Think sort of like Charles Manson's gang.

No. Charlie Manson had a cult. And a cult leader The Joker is not.

He's more of mobster outlaw with a penache' of the theatrical.

 

[The Question]

1. The Killing Joke is not a good example of how The Joker works. A better choice would've been "The Laughing Fish", robbing the lives a random few all for the pursuit of licensing his Joker fish.

Well, right off the bat, we're not going to agree. I see The Killing Joke as one of the best examples of The Joker's character.

2. He's a criminal, pure simple. His motives go from petty to personal. Any "Philosophy" is just his ego justifying his sadism and trying to add more to what he is, a criminal. If had any actual philosophy(which I doubt), it would probably be "The Joker rules.". He doesn't get deeper than that.

No. He does have a philosophy. It is, as I said, that life is pointless, and everything we do to give it meaning is futile and simply adds to our suffering in the long run. So, we might as well give a big middle finger to civilized society and do as we please.

3. Your confusing "Mob" with "Mafia". The mob is Rome, the people, anyone gathered together, that's what a mob is.

True. But any professional killer wouldn't touch The Joker with a 60 foot stick.

4. The Joker is NOT a serial killer. We went over this in the forums a while back. Didn't you get the memo?

I know he's not a serial killer. But he is psychotic and as far from a professional criminal as you can get. Really, he fits the definition of spree slayer better than a serial killer, but that's not the point. I was using the serial killer example as just that. And example of why no rational, professional criminal would work for him.

You bet your ass they where, as they where in "The Joker's Birthday", "The Laughing Fish", "The Joker's Crime Circus" and the like. They were paid to laugh at his jokes and do what he said.

I guess you read different versions of The Killing Joke, Dark Victory, The Outsiders, Robin II, and Dark Knight Returns, because in the ones I read, his gang seemed just as deranged as The Joker was and far from a group of professional criminals.

No. Charlie Manson had a cult. And a cult leader The Joker is not.

Charles Manson's gang sounds alot closer to what The Joker would have than a group of payed thugs.

He's more of mobster outlaw with a penache' of the theatrical.

No, he's not. And having hired thugs just makes no sense for one very big reason: There's no money in it. Very little of what The Joker does has any financial gain. Most professional criminals would be utterly sickened by The Joker.

 

[Rynan]

Well, right off the bat, we're not going to agree. I see The Killing Joke as one of the best examples of The Joker's character.

Your opinion. I'm a classical man, as such I think the ancient records of the character are superior to any 80's grit.

No. He does have a philosophy. It is, as I said, that life is pointless, and everything we do to give it meaning is futile and simply adds to our suffering in the long run. So, we might as well give a big middle finger to civilized society and do as we please.

So, your saying that his crimes have social/politcal motive behind them that he longs to instill within all of us that we have no obligations to society since it only seems to add to our suffering.

According this philosphy, The Joker might be tryng to tell us to live what little time we have here to our fulliest and give no care to society.

Yet, most his crimes are not part of this philosophy, seeing if clasify him as a "spree slayer", he is denying people the experience of this "Don't care about society" mantra. In addition, most of his killings are not even applying to this "**** society" philosophy, seeing as he does not kill randomly, but instead, murders with a distinct purpose. It all has part in his plan, which, no matter how grandious it is, it is still either personal or petty. He kills either because he feels the person wronged him, to draw Batman out of the shadows or to fufill a base need or want.

True. But any professional killer wouldn't touch The Joker with a 60 foot stick.

They would for money.

I know he's not a serial killer. But he is psychotic and as far from a professional criminal as you can get. Really, he fits the definition of spree slayer better than a serial killer, but that's not the point. I was using the serial killer example as just that. And example of why no rational, professional criminal would work for him.

I guess commiting well thought out crimes, inventing your own poison, having a superb talent for manipulation and job experience aren't cosidered "professional" any more.

I guess you read different versions of The Killing Joke, Dark Victory, The Outsiders, Robin II, and Dark Knight Returns, because in the ones I read, his gang seemed just as deranged as The Joker was and far from a group of professional criminals.

They were all thugs, except in the Killing Joke, those where Sideshow entertainers, and how he was able to hire them I will never know.

Charles Manson's gang sounds alot closer to what The Joker would have than a group of payed thugs.

Sure, a cult of racist, drugged-up hippies sounds like people The Joker would hang with.

But could they have the mental functioning to carry out any one of The Joker's complicated schemes without fowling something up....


No.

No, he's not. And having hired thugs just makes no sense for one very big reason: There's no money in it. Very little of what The Joker does has any financial gain. Most professional criminals would be utterly sickened by The Joker.

I don't see why. Most "Professional" killers and enforcers have deep experience in macabre acts. These are people who may or may not have to dispose of body with a chainsaw or chop of someone's hand because they keep something from the boss. Now compare this The Joker, who no qualms reducing a man to big bloody smear with an exploding cigar. If anything, the criminals would call him creative and not to be messed with.

Also, please define your professonal criminal for me. I have too broad of a definition. Diamond smuggles? Hitmen? Pyramid scam artists? Extortionists? Arsonists?

 

[The Question]

Your opinion. I'm a classical man, as such I think the ancient records of the character are superior to any 80's grit.

The "ancient records" portrayed The Joker as a spree slater/mass murderer. Really, The Killing Joke was the end result of a ten year push to bring The Joker back to his roots.

So, your saying that his crimes have social/politcal motive behind them that he longs to instill within all of us that we have no obligations to society since it only seems to add to our suffering.

According this philosphy, The Joker might be tryng to tell us to live what little time we have here to our fulliest and give no care to society.

Yet, most his crimes are not part of this philosophy, seeing if clasify him as a "spree slayer", he is denying people the experience of this "Don't care about society" mantra. In addition, most of his killings are not even applying to this "**** society" philosophy, seeing as he does not kill randomly, but instead, murders with a distinct purpose. It all has part in his plan, which, no matter how grandious it is, it is still either personal or petty. He kills either because he feels the person wronged him, to draw Batman out of the shadows or to fufill a base need or want.

1) He's proving his point of "do as you please" by doing as he pleases. He feels like slaughtering some innocent kids, he does it. Also, it helps prove the other half od his philosophy: Life is suffering. What better way to make people feel that life is pointless than commiting grand acts of murder?

2) He does often kill randomly. In his first apearences, he wasn't even thinking about Batman. He was killing to send waves of fear and chaos through Gotham. Shortly afterwards, he tried to poison Gotham's water supply simply for the hell of it. While he is obsessed with Batman, and does kill for a specific purpose sometimes, sometimes he also kills simply for the sake of creating chaos.

They would for money.

Which The Joker barely has any of.

I guess commiting well thought out crimes, inventing your own poison, having a superb talent for manipulation and job experience aren't cosidered "professional" any more.

Actually, if he's not in it for financial gain, and doesn't always receive money because of it, then it isn't professional.

They were all thugs, except in the Killing Joke, those where Sideshow entertainers, and how he was able to hire them I will never know.

He didn't hire them. They were drawn to his do as you please, **** the conventions of society aditude.

Sure, a cult of racist, drugged-up hippies sounds like people The Joker would hang with.

That's not what I meant and you know it.

But could they have the mental functioning to carry out any one of The Joker's complicated schemes without fowling something up....


No.

The Joker's plans aren't that complex. Especially since he does alot of the heavy thinking himself and his gang is simply there to lift heavy things and beat up or kill things when he's too busy with something else.

I don't see why. Most "Professional" killers and enforcers have deep experience in macabre acts. These are people who may or may not have to dispose of body with a chainsaw or chop of someone's hand because they keep something from the boss. Now compare this The Joker, who no qualms reducing a man to big bloody smear with an exploding cigar. If anything, the criminals would call him creative and not to be messed with.

That's not true at all. Most mob enforcers and hitmen would think The Joker is completely ****ed up. And even if they were indiferent to him, I highly doubt they'd be willing to work with him. While people in organized crime are horrible people, there is a sort of order to what they do. Although it's obviously very twisted, most have their own sense of morality. Usually, the people killed by the mob are other mobsters, or people who are going to rat them out. Not innocent people on the street who've done absolutely nothing to them. Besides, organized crime is a very ordered, structured form of crime. The Joker's crimes are all about chaos. If anything, the more organized, professional criminals would see The Joker as a threat to their buisness. The only people who would work with The Joker are people who are crazy like he is.

Also, please define your professonal criminal for me. I have too broad of a definition. Diamond smuggles? Hitmen? Pyramid scam artists? Extortionists? Arsonists?

I mean people who are in it for money and aren't in it because they're ****ed up in the head and get their jollies from murder. The Joker is not a mob type. He's a psycho. And psychos and mob types almost never mingle well. The only time an insane killer would work well in an organized crime environment is if he's a hitman who is making money off of his homicidal tendencies. And, as you've probably noticed, The Joker is not a lowly assassin.

 

[The Question]

Okay, let me say this in short: I don't like The Joker having hired thugs. It just makes very little sense to me. I prefer his gang to be made up of fellow crazies who share his outlook on life. There's nothing wrong with going that rout. Especially after the Asylum breakout in Begins, making it much more workable.

 

[Ming]

The "ancient records" portrayed The Joker as a spree slater/mass murderer. Really, The Killing Joke was the end result of a ten year push to bring The Joker back to his roots.

Correction: In his first apperence he was as a jewel thief that killed the owner of the shining gem. He killed them not to cause chaos or as any sort of mass-murder (in fact only four people died in his first apperence),but only to mock the police.

The Killing Joke wasn't the end result of bringing the Joker back to his roots but instead changing him for the 80's reader.

Though the latter statement may be opinion, the former is not.

Get your facts straight.

 

[The Question]

Correction: In his first apperence he was as a jewel thief that killed the owner of the shining gem. He killed them not to cause chaos or as any sort of mass-murder (in fact only four people died in his first apperence),but only to mock the police.

He killed one person to get to a jewel. However, he also commited a series of murders with no financial gain whatsoever. And I believe the jewel piece was in his second apearance. While he fit the model of a serial killer instead of the spree slayer/mass murderer he later became, that can simply be atributed to his changing his MO. His subsiquent stories involved commiting murders with no financial gain and closer to his current MO. That was, of course, up until the late 40s/early 50s nuetering that the Batman comics received.

The Killing Joke wasn't the end result of bringing the Joker back to his roots but instead changing him for the 80's reader.

The Killing Joke and the many stories that preceeded it were meant to bring The Joker back to his psychotic, murderous roots.

 

[Ming]

He killed one person to get to a jewel. However, he also commited a series of murders with no financial gain whatsoever. And I believe the jewel piece was in his second apearance. While he fit the model of a serial killer instead of the spree slayer/mass murderer he later became, that can simply be atributed to his changing his MO. His subsiquent stories involved commiting murders with no financial gain and closer to his current MO. That was, of course, up until the late 40s/early 50s nuetering that the Batman comics received.

No, the jewel theift was in his his first apperence in Batman 1. He also committed numerous jewel theifts during his first years. Again, your information is incorrect.

Also, in order for me to believe you that he committed murders without financal gain or personal motive during the first Batman solo run from 1940 to 1941, I require proof to validate your statement.

 

[The Question]

No, the jewel theift was in his his first apperence in Batman 1. He also committed numerous jewel theifts during his first years. Again, your information is incorrect.

Both stories were in Batman #1. One right after the other. However, I still am quite certain that the jewel story was the second of the two.

Also, in order for me to believe you that he committed murders without financal gain or personal motive during the first Batman solo run from 1940 to 1941, I require proof to validate your statement.

In order for me to believe that he commited several crimes for the purpose of stealing jewels during the first Batman solo run from 1940 to 1942, I require proof to validade your statements. You haven't given any more proof than I have. We're both talking about what we recall of his initial stories. Also, I was talking about all of The Joker's apearences from 1940 to the late 40s, not 41.

 

[Ming]

Both stories were in Batman #1. One right after the other. However, I still am quite certain that the jewel story was the second of the two.

If your are addressing the second story of Batman #1 that featured the Joker, "The Joker's Return", it was after his first apperence in the same issue in a story simply titled "The Joker".

In that story, the Joker escapes from jail, kills the chief of police for imprisoning him, steals a rare painting, a rare gem stone, steals the Cleopatra necklace after fighting with Batman, kills a public reformer for talking too much about him, and acidentally stabs himself during a fight with Batman.

Not a spree slaying or even a serial killing if you ask me.

In order for me to believe that he commited several crimes for the purpose of stealing jewels during the first Batman solo run from 1940 to 1942, I require proof to validade your statements. You haven't given any more proof than I have. We're both talking about what we recall of his initial stories. Also, I was talking about all of The Joker's apearences from 1940 to the late 40s, not 41.

Anything that I have said can be backed up by any copy of Batman #1 to #4. As hard as it might be for you to believe, come to grips with, and understand, in first apperance of the Joker, he was not a deranged mad man killing thousand of people or a philosphy touting anarchist, but was a criminal, pure and simple. Everything you have been touting as the true Joker is nothing but a pure creation of the writers of the modern age, a contemporary caricature covered in blood.

 

[The Question]

If your are addressing the second story of Batman #1 that featured the Joker, "The Joker's Return", it was after his first apperence in the same issue in a story simply titled "The Joker".

In that story, the Joker escapes from jail, kills the chief of police for imprisoning him, steals a rare painting, a rare gem stone, steals the Cleopatra necklace after fighting with Batman, kills a public reformer for talking too much about him, and acidentally stabs himself during a fight with Batman.

Not a spree slaying or even a serial killing if you ask me.

Interesting. Still, I do recall The Joker's first apearence being about him killing several prominant figures on Gotham, not about him trying to steal a jewel.

Anything that I have said can be backed up by any copy of Batman #1 to #4. As hard as it might be for you to believe, come to grips with, and understand, in first apperance of the Joker, he was not a deranged mad man killing thousand of people or a philosphy touting anarchist, but was a criminal, pure and simple.

1) I did not say he was killing thousands of people or touting an anarchist philosophy in his first apearance. Simply that he was killing people for reasons other than getting money.

2) If he had done the things you say that I said he did, he still would have been a criminal.

Everything you have been touting as the true Joker is nothing but a pure creation of the writers of the modern age, a contemporary caricature covered in blood.

I must say, you come off as highly arrogant and rude. I mean, saying stuff like "As hard as it might be for you to believe, come to grips with, and understand" is really unnecessairy and impolite.

 

[Taiwarriorz21]

Prolly something deeper than we can just predict off the top of our heads.

 

[The Guard]

I've been wondering, do you think The Joker will have a final "plot" in THE DARK KNIGHT, or will it be a bunch of random stuff until Batman catches up with him? I've been wracking my brain to come up with something that feels "bigger" than gasing Gotham City (granted, it was just the Narrows), and all I can come up with it poisoning Gotham Reservoir, but that's not neccessarily climactic enough for a blockbuster film.

 

[JStorm]

I've been wondering, do you think The Joker will have a final "plot" in THE DARK KNIGHT, or will it be a bunch of random stuff until Batman catches up with him? I've been wracking my brain to come up with something that feels "bigger" than gasing Gotham City (granted, it was just the Narrows), and all I can come up with it poisoning Gotham Reservoir, but that's not neccessarily climactic enough for a blockbuster film.

That would be nice

The Joker is bigger than Gotham, let's just hope Nolan knows that.


As for plot, I haven't a clue.

I think mass hysteria would be too much, considering BB.

I don't know. I'll have to get back to you, Guard.

 

[Conebone69]

I've been wondering, do you think The Joker will have a final "plot" in THE DARK KNIGHT, or will it be a bunch of random stuff until Batman catches up with him? I've been wracking my brain to come up with something that feels "bigger" than gasing Gotham City (granted, it was just the Narrows), and all I can come up with it poisoning Gotham Reservoir, but that's not neccessarily climactic enough for a blockbuster film.

Thats a good question, im not sure

 

[sglass03]

If it is all about escalation, then I'd imagine Joker would keep amping up the craziness until it gets completely out of control and degenerates into chaos. From the sides and spy pics, we know that we start off with an elaborate bank robbery, and then moves on to what seems to be a mall bombing, and then rigging two ferries with explosives. Anjow's sources even indicated that Joker somehow blows up the Tumbler.

What I think happens is this: Joker starts off doing random stuff, and then once Bats gets in his way one too many times, Joker increasingly focuses his madness on Batman himself. Whereas in "Begins" the target was Gotham, I think by the end of TDK, Batman/Bruce will be the target, making it a much more personal film.

 

[Bond]

Speaking of Anjow... where did he go?

 

[Crook]

He's just lurking around now.

 

[Saint]

I'm more interested in a smaller, more personal showdown. Action is great, but I'm always more entertained by character interaction, verbal confrontation, and personal conflicts.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

They also might take a page out of Batman #1 and The Laughing Fish playbooks and have Joker announce ahead of time he is going to kill someone, and then carry it out in spite of that person being under police protection.

Something like that would create a lot of tension.

 

[Halcohol]

If it is all about escalation, then I'd imagine Joker would keep amping up the craziness until it gets completely out of control and degenerates into chaos. From the sides and spy pics, we know that we start off with an elaborate bank robbery, and then moves on to what seems to be a mall bombing, and then rigging two ferries with explosives. Anjow's sources even indicated that Joker somehow blows up the Tumbler.

What I think happens is this: Joker starts off doing random stuff, and then once Bats gets in his way one too many times, Joker increasingly focuses his madness on Batman himself. Whereas in "Begins" the target was Gotham, I think by the end of TDK, Batman/Bruce will be the target, making it a much more personal film.

Good call. I think initially we'll see the Joker and his thugs using the escaped Arkham inmates to create chaos, allowing them to rob banks and whatever else it is they plan to do, then by the end of the film he gets consumed by his vengeance.