The Dark Knight Rises You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I never liked the idea of Joker being a mob boss either. It's one of the things I disliked about Nicholson's Joker.

Indeed. I know Joker co-creator Jerry Robinson would have been against it, too.

I love to take these things with a grain of salt until proven to be true or different.

After the last two DCEU movies, it's easier to expect the worst unfortunately.
 
I am looking forward to seeing Leto's Joker. He is what excites me the most about the movie. That said, there are some things that I have been hearing about him that I do not like the sound of, such as him being a businessman. I guess I will just have to wait and see. For me, if the Joker were ever to focus on such things (i.e. running a criminal empire), it would be in his early days as the Joker, just to try it out, but then he would get bored of it pretty quickly and just focus on his games and challenges for Batman.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the idea of the Joker being an anarchist...

This is something I only learned in recent years, but the irony is that Batman is more of an anarchist than the Joker is. Technically speaking, anarchism isn't the lack of a government or an authority figure but the lack of any hierarchy. While the Joker does want to eliminate all current forms of Western hierarchy, it's only due to his love of chaos. He believes a world without bureaucracy will only lead to people eating each other, while real-life anarchists believe it would lead to a world where everyone is free and equal.

Just something I felt like sharing. Personally I wish writers would move away from the idea of Joker being an anarchist since it's technically not true by the political definition of anarchism.
 
Colloquially, anarchy means no order. In that sense, it fits.
 
Yeah but it's more due to propaganda than anything else. Comics are an art form; art is meant to challenge the status quo. That's why I wish writers would just drop the "anarchism = chaos" idea.

If you look at actual anarchists like V, Batman has more in common with their worldview than the Joker does.
 
I would describe him as more of a nihilist.

I don't like to label him at all. I don't feel like Joker subscribes to a particular ideology, so I see no point in boxing him in with one.
 
Of course business man is a character trait. The very fact they describe how he runs his business akin to someone who runs a very successful corporation is giving you an analogy of how he runs his business. That's describing traits of the character in how he does things.

It's like when someone describes Joker as an anarchist, that's a character trait. It describes what they do and how they do it, just like Letoker being a business man akin to one that runs a very successful big corporation.

And again, the fact that he runs a business successfully describes the character's actions and not his character/personality. It doesn't describe how he acts or thinks, his views or opinions, the other things he does, or why he does what he does in his business and outside of it. It doesn't even describe how he successfully runs his "business". The fact that an analogy was drawn between they way he runs his business and the way the head of a successful corporations runs their business doesn't describe exactly how he goes about doing so, nor does it mean he'll be involved in boring, legitimate business dealings or anything like that. It just means that he's efficient and effective at what he does, and since The Joker has always been shown to be extremely intelligent, calculating, and cunning, that is not a character departure and should not come as any surprise.

In TDK and regardless of his ultimate intention, The Joker was successfully robbing banks and stealing money from the mob. That doesn't mean one of his defining character traits was being a "bank robber" or "thief". It was just one thing he did, and one thing he did very well. Those actions did not define the character or his personality.

Him being flashy, crazy, or a killer doesn't alter the fact Joker is doing something that's totally out of character for him.

But if The Joker controls some kind of criminal organization and still does all the kind of things we'd expect The Joker to say and do, how does that make him totally out of character?


Having those character traits doesn't make any difference. The very fact Joker is running a night club (or clubs) is for a start a huge deviation. Since when has Joker ever shown any interest in running something as boring and mundane as that?

That to me is something that already makes the character seem totally off in who he is. Ignoring the awful Joker design, and speaking strictly as a character, who here can honestly say they equate Joker to be a night club owner and business man? Nobody, because it's not who the character is.

Since when has The Joker (with a lengthy criminal career behind him) ever been in a Suicide Squad movie as a seemingly peripheral character? Why must something have explicitly occurred or taken place in the comics for it to have the right to be in a film adaptation? Who's to say he would find his criminal business to be boring or mundane? It's not like the guy's going to be sitting in an office, pushing papers, and running some kind of legitimate company.

The Joker's been around for a long 75+ years, in which he's been many things and done many different things. His most famous nickname is the "Clown Prince of Crime", partially because that's what he is -- a criminal. He's not just a typical criminal of course, but rather, he is a criminal mastermind and no crime has been beneath him -- murder, theft, kidnapping, terrorism, vandalism, torture, pranks, etc. Theatricality and spectacle are key elements in everything he does, as are all of the personality traits I mentioned previously. Based on everything we've seen so far, it appears most or all of those elements are seemingly intact and that he enjoys what he does.

And so the question remains. If those elements are intact with this Joker, how is the character totally off? Because we know he's a gangster who makes money via crime, has power over part of the criminal underworld, and doesn't magically have unlimited wealth or resources to live and do as he pleases?

Penguin could still be a vain, greedy, bird loving villain, but if they started having him dabble in schemes of trying to patent fish with his face, or break people's minds to prove they're all crazy deep down, or just wreak anarchy in Gotham to prove a point, that would be a totally off characterization for him, regardless of how much he was still the pompous, elegant, bird loving, umbrella wielding Penguin in personality.

That's true, but not close to being the equivalent of what we're talking about. This Joker isn't adopting a classic Penguin scheme or plan. The idea of a criminal making money, or having a club/business as a front for illegal exploits, isn't exclusive to The Penguin. And once again, the simple fact that this Joker seems to benefit financially from some of his exploits doesn't automatically make him ANYTHING like The Penguin. They are still intrinsically different at the core-level, especially in terms of personality and characterization.
 
And again, the fact that he runs a business successfully describes the character's actions and not his character/personality. It doesn't describe how he acts or thinks, his views or opinions, the other things he does, or why he does what he does in his business and outside of it. It doesn't even describe how he successfully runs his "business". The fact that an analogy was drawn between they way he runs his business and the way the head of a successful corporations runs their business doesn't describe exactly how he goes about doing so, nor does it mean he'll be involved in boring, legitimate business dealings or anything like that. It just means that he's efficient and effective at what he does, and since The Joker has always been shown to be extremely intelligent, calculating, and cunning, that is not a character departure and should not come as any surprise.

In TDK and regardless of his ultimate intention, The Joker was successfully robbing banks and stealing money from the mob. That doesn't mean one of his defining character traits was being a "bank robber" or "thief". It was just one thing he did, and one thing he did very well. Those actions did not define the character or his personality.

No offense but that's a terrible analogy. We've seen Leto, producer Charles Roven etc describe Joker in SS as a successful business man. This is something they explicitly called him when describing him as a character. Did you see one single person associated with TDK ever label Joker a bank robber during the production of TDK?

No. So what does that tell you? This business man thing is most likely a major part of his persona, and who he is. Which is not who the Joker is. Ergo it's out of character, and I don't like it. I hate a character being unnecessarily rewritten into something they're not.

But if The Joker controls some kind of criminal organization and still does all the kind of things we'd expect The Joker to say and do, how does that make him totally out of character?

That's like asking if Batman still does all the usual things Batman does why should we mind that he nonchalantly kills criminals now and again. It's something that's out of character.

Since when has The Joker (with a lengthy criminal career behind him) ever been in a Suicide Squad movie as a seemingly peripheral character?

What difference does that make?

Why must something have explicitly occurred or taken place in the comics for it to have the right to be in a film adaptation? Who's to say he would find his criminal business to be boring or mundane? It's not like the guy's going to be sitting in an office, pushing papers, and running some kind of legitimate company.

The Joker's been around for a long 75+ years, in which he's been many things and done many different things. His most famous nickname is the "Clown Prince of Crime", partially because that's what he is -- a criminal. He's not just a typical criminal of course, but rather, he is a criminal mastermind and no crime has been beneath him -- murder, theft, kidnapping, terrorism, vandalism, torture, pranks, etc. Theatricality and spectacle are key elements in everything he does, as are all of the personality traits I mentioned previously. Based on everything we've seen so far, it appears most or all of those elements are seemingly intact and that he enjoys what he does.

And so the question remains. If those elements are intact with this Joker, how is the character totally off? Because we know he's a gangster who makes money via crime, has power over part of the criminal underworld, and doesn't magically have unlimited wealth or resources to live and do as he pleases?

Why do people always assume that when you dislike a change to a character you're saying everything that's put into the movie has to have happened in the comics?

Did Joker put on make up in the comics to make himself look like a clown? No. Did he kill a childhood friend of Batman's? No. Did he turn Harvey Dent into Two Face? No. But do any of these things seem like things that go against the core of the character, or something he would never do? No. That's why they work. Joker embraces his clown visage, he's killed people close to Batman, he's mind screwed with Harvey Dent and other people like Gordon in the comics, so it didn't stick out like a sore thumb seeing him doing these things.

So I am not, repeat not saying if it didn't happen in the comics it's not valid. If it goes against the nature of the character, then I criticize it. In no universe is Joker a business man night club owner. For the Joker its boring, vanilla, and something that Joker would roll his eyes at doing.

That's true, but not close to being the equivalent of what we're talking about. This Joker isn't adopting a classic Penguin scheme or plan. The idea of a criminal making money, or having a club/business as a front for illegal exploits, isn't exclusive to The Penguin. And once again, the simple fact that this Joker seems to benefit financially from some of his exploits doesn't automatically make him ANYTHING like The Penguin. They are still intrinsically different at the core-level, especially in terms of personality and characterization.

Yeah, and the idea of a criminal being crazy, flashy, sadistic etc isn't exclusive to Joker either. The analogy was which of Batman's famous rogues is famous for owning a nightclub and running it like a successful business man. The obvious answer is Penguin. The last person in the world you'd think of doing that is Joker for reasons already previously mentioned.

I am hoping against hope that this angle to him is downplayed so much that it's barely relevant, but the fact that people like the producers and Leto himself have used this business man label to describe the character is what is worrisome and sticks out.
 
The Shape pretty much said it all.

Now, I wonder who does Joker's taxes. Eyeball guy?
 
In no universe is Joker a business man night club owner. For the Joker its boring, vanilla, and something that Joker would roll his eyes at doing.

Joker_graphic_novel_Cover.jpg
 
Joker owned a business in that universe.

No, he didn't. He got out of Arkham, met up with an old goon of his who owned it, Joker killed him, then asked his clientele to help him take back Gotham. Then later he set the place on fire.
 
No, he didn't. He got out of Arkham, met up with an old goon of his who owned it, Joker killed him, then asked his clientele to help him take back Gotham. Then later he set the place on fire.

Got the book right here...

"Joker was broke. All the cash, all his holdings. His territory... everything he had - was gone."

It's pretty clear that he ran a criminal enterprise and his underlings screwed him over. it's also clear that Ayer used the book as an influence.
 
Got the book right here...

"Joker was broke. All the cash, all his holdings. His territory... everything he had - was gone."

It's pretty clear that he ran a criminal enterprise and his underlings screwed him over. it's also clear that Ayer used the book as an influence.

I have the book right here, too. If Ayer used it for influence, then he used it the same way Snyder used DKR. He just looked at the pretty pictures and ignored the material.

Of course he had cash and territory. That's nothing new. You don't rule the underworld without either. When Joker took over Gotham in TDK he had cash and territory. You think he was running Gambol's club just because he killed him and took over his gang? You saw him burn a huge pile of his own cash just to make a statement. That doesn't make him a business owner or business man.
 
I have the book right here, too.

Of course he had cash and territory. That's nothing new. You don't rule the underworld without either. When Joker took over Gotham in TDK he had cash and territory. You think he was running Gambol's club just because he killed him and took over his gang? You saw him burn a huge pile of his own cash just to make a statement. That doesn't make him a business owner or business man.

"holdings" implies:

1) he owned a business or a stake in one
2) he had investments all over town

Sounds like Leto's Joker to me. Just because the book doesn't spell it out doesn't mean he wasn't a businessman. A deranged, ****ing psychotic one at that.
 
"holdings" implies:

1) he owned a business or a stake in one
2) he had investments all over town

Sounds like Leto's Joker to me. Just because the book doesn't spell it out doesn't mean he wasn't a businessman. A deranged, ****ing psychotic one at that.

Holdings is a blanket statement for anything. He could have investments in weapons rackets, or chemicals for making his laughing toxin etc. How do you equate this to him running a night club or being a business man of a successful corporation caliber.

The book doesn't paint him as a business man. It paints him very much like Ledger's Joker in that he's out to take over Gotham underworld. He uses what ever means he can to climb to the top, including robbing a bank to finance his operation.

He burns down the aforementioned nightclub he took off his former goon, which is like a brilliant analogy to Joker in TDK burning the money he got from the mob.
 
Last edited:
Holdings is a blanket statement for anything. He could have investments in weapons rackets, or chemicals for making his laughing toxin etc. How do you equate this to him running a night club or being a business man of a successful corporation caliber.

Right, or he could have owned several bars, nightclubs and/or seedy casinos to finance his operations and establish his territory. Is it really that big of a stretch? He gains power and influence by either forcing other business owners to comply and allow him and his goons to do whatever they want, or he outright takes over the business and lets his underlings do the daily operations.

If you tolerate this interpretation of the Joker, I don't see how Leto's Joker is such a gross violation of the character.
 
I wonder if Ledger's Joker would laugh his ass off in some crossover, just from looking at Leto's love for fancy clothes and fancy cars. Leto seems like a Joker who loves money and relies on it in order to indulge in his obsessions. He just happens to be a murderous psycho at the same time. So far it looks like style is the most important thing to him. He reminds me of a white, weird punk version of Tony Montana. The world is yours mentality, and he'll kill you if you cross him or get in the way of that lifestyle. He wants to be on top. Tony has a code though.
 
Right, or he could have owned several bars, nightclubs and/or seedy casinos to finance his operations and establish his territory. Is it really that big of a stretch? He gains power and influence by either forcing other business owners to comply and allow him and his goons to do whatever they want, or he outright takes over the business and lets his underlings do the daily operations.

If you tolerate this interpretation of the Joker, I don't see how Leto's Joker is such a gross violation of the character.

You say he could have, but there's no proof he did. I've no reason to think he did. The fact he set a nightclub on fire in the story itself implies he didn't have any use for it. Joker uses money as a means to an end, but he's not a businessman. That's the stretch. Did anyone think of him that way when he swiped 65 million in TDK to set his little operation up? "Now our operation is small. But there's a lot of potential for aggressive expansion". Of course not. He's just using what ever resources he needs to get to his goal. He didn't have vested business interests in night clubs, or casinos or what ever.

Again to draw on the Penguin analogy, since he really fits how they've been describing Letoker with the businessman label, could you see the Penguin saying something like this about money:

w7czk1.jpg



A guy who flushes money down the toilet doesn't a successful businessman make, IMO.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Ledger's Joker would laugh his ass off in some crossover, just from looking at Leto's love for fancy clothes and fancy cars. Leto seems like a Joker who loves money and relies on it in order to indulge in his obsessions. He just happens to be a murderous psycho at the same time. So far it looks like style is the most important thing to him. He reminds me of a white, weird punk version of Tony Montana. The world is yours mentality, and he'll kill you if you cross him or get in the way of that lifestyle. He wants to be on top. Tony has a code though.

Safe to say they wouldn't get along.

Plus, Ledger is stuck with Rachel while Leto goes out on the town with Harley.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"