Burton Trilogy

[The Joker]

As far as saying its okay to have different versions, I think that is confusing and a real copout. Who is the joker if he can have so many fancy schmancy interpetations?  The way to find out the true origin that really makes sense in our world is to use the comic book information and put it through the filter of reason and reality and come up with a true joker origin, motive, and battle with batman.  That is what burton and hamm did.  Again, look at the quote by that alex ross guy.  Burton knew who the joker was from the comics.  He just made it make sense by shaping it up a little.  Nolan totally changed the type of clay.

Burton and Hamm really took some liberties with the Joker character, and essentially shaped him to what would work best for the film they were hired to work on. Jack Nicholson coming on board no doubt beefed up the role as well. Same thing happened with Nolan using Ra's as having a very big role in Bruce's life before becoming Batman. And both worked. I really have no problem with either to be perfectly honest, but the great thing about the Joker is he's in a constant state of change.
We may never know his origin for sure, and it's been written that his personality changes from day to day (insane genius committing robberies, pulling boners, and comedy things to beating a teenager to death with a crowbar, or shooting a young woman in the spin). So in short, whatever version you prefer is always the right one, and is bound to pop up again sooner or later.

[burtongenius]

Ledger's joker somehow had his face cut up and I'm sure thats what traumatized him and made him mad at the world.  It pushed him to commiting crimes.  But he didn't go insane.  His face was cut but his persona didn't change.  His face was just cut into a smile.  Thats it.  Nicholson was changed into a joker/clown persona.  Thats what made him lose his marbles.  Imagine the nicholson joker before he became the joker.  Imagine nicholson joker right when he looked in the mirror and before he started laughing.  And as far as characters are concerned, when you create a character, you create a character.  End of story.  The joker was created in the comics.  Burton shaped the character clay he was given and shaped it to reality.  Nolan changed the clay from the comics and tried to make it look like the joker.
   And as far as ambiguous origins, like I said before, its alright to not know his origin as long as you know there is an origin.

[Joker81]

I don't get this post.  The only comic book interpretation I know of where The Joker is the product of a chemical accident is The Killing Joke, a brilliant graphic novel (possibly even the best Batman graphic novel) but by no means a definitive statement as to how the character should continue being portrayed.

Nolan did a great thing with The Joker by leaving his origins ambiguous.  Like most serial killers there are various explanations as to how they became evil, but the scary thing is we don't truly understand what makes them tick and that's why they remain such a threat.  Nolan used a similar technique to those horror movies in which the monster is purposefully kept in the shadows - our imagination as to what made The Joker is potentially more scary than anything a writer could conceive on screen.

Couldnt be bothered getting in to this debate, but the first time the Jokers origin appeared was in a story in the 50's called 'Who is the red hood?'. It wasnt the Killing Joke. The killing joke borrowed from this Joker origin -the only origin - and expanded on it.

By the way as point of interest, if we ignore the Jokers origin in favour of Nolans 'vision', then can we distort, change or even forget Batmans??

[burtongenius]

Question- does the red hood origin have chemical bath and

If it does, then most of the jokers comic origins are of the same vein (just different ways and reasons for falling into vat)

 Nolan can't do anything with batman in my opinion.  Batman life is widely known (comic is batman) and said to be definitively true because of it making sense (rich + parents killed = batman).  The villains were only in issues in spurts and since they weren't the focus of the comic as a whole (batman is), their stories weren't set in stone like batmans.  What I'm saying is is that if the comics were about the riddler battling other villains each week, we would know definitively who the riddler was.  And I'm not saying bruce wayne is out from the microscope.  But even when you transpose bruce wayne from comic book to movie like burton did, its pretty easy because bruce waynes life in the comics was really thought out and made perfect sense even to people who don't like comics.  

[The Dark Knight]

I really have no problem with either to be perfectly honest, but the great thing about the Joker is he's in a constant state of change.
We may never know his origin for sure, and it's been written that his personality changes from day to day (insane genius committing robberies, pulling boners, and comedy things to beating a teenager to death with a crowbar, or shooting a young woman in the spin). So in short, whatever version you prefer is always the right one, and is bound to pop up again sooner or later.

I'm with you.

My opinion on which Joker I thought was better has nothing to do with comic book accuracy. Jack's Joker and Heath's Joker are both as valid in essence of the character.

I like "The Killing Joke" interpretation of The Joker, but that doesn't mean every Joker must follow that. All interpretations of the Batman mythos are as valid.

And for crying out loud, Ledger's Joker is insane. If you think otherwise, you simply do not know the character. Ledger's Joker wasn't as wild as Jack about murder, but he was just as theatrical, and murder clearly meant nothing to him.

Thomas Schiff, for example, is a paranoid schizo, and a former patient from Arkham. The kind of minds The Joker attracts. He recruited loonies as his henchmen in The Man Who Laughs story.

[thecolorsblend]

Thomas Schiff, for example, is a paranoid schizo, and a former patient from Arkham. The kind of minds The Joker attracts. He recruited loonies as his henchmen in The Man Who Laughs story.

Related to nothing but I dig a lot of the casting in TDK.  Schiff's part was a borderline non-speaking role but I really dig the actor and his performance.  He had a slightly maniacal look to him and you believe he could allow himself to be swept up into Joker's gang as cannon fodder for Dent, GCPD, Batman or whoever else.

I also dug Ramirez and the Chechen, good actors and good performances both.

[burtongenius]

If you are only talking about "essence" then you could do alot of stuff with the batman universe.  Bruce wayne doesn't have to be rich.  He doesn't have to have a butler, bruce wayne could have kids, etc.  There are some things that if you take it away it really doesn't stay batman anymore, including his villains.
  As far as the crazy business goes, I really dont think you understand what I mean by crazy.  Ledger was theatrical.  Ledger was weird.  Ledger was homocidal.  Ledger was angry at the world (especially his father).  His face was even cut into a smile.  But he didn't lose his sanity or his old before the cut persona.  It pushed him to doing crime and it even changed his moral code and how he thought about the world (anarchy, etc.)  but he was still a person who had a grip on who he was.  Nicholson changed to the joker.  
  And you don't have to be crazy to be flippant about murder (though it does contribute I dont deny that).  Ras Al ghul- whole city madness- eventually death, penguin, two face (eckhart), etc.

[Joker81]

Question- does the red hood origin have chemical bath and

If it does, then most of the jokers comic origins are of the same vein (just different ways and reasons for falling into vat)

 Nolan can't do anything with batman in my opinion.  Batman life is widely known (comic is batman) and said to be definitively true because of it making sense (rich + parents killed = batman).  The villains were only in issues in spurts and since they weren't the focus of the comic as a whole (batman is), their stories weren't set in stone like batmans.  What I'm saying is is that if the comics were about the riddler battling other villains each week, we would know definitively who the riddler was.  And I'm not saying bruce wayne is out from the microscope.  But even when you transpose bruce wayne from comic book to movie like burton did, its pretty easy because bruce waynes life in the comics was really thought out and made perfect sense even to people who don't like comics.  

Yes the red hood took a chemical bath and emerged as the Joker. That was and is the Jokers origin. Can anyone tell me somewhere in the comics where the Jokers origin is different? (the recent 'Joker' comic maybe - I havent read it)
Yes the reasons he comes to being in the factory and his back story are different. But the fact he ends up in a vat of chemicals with his mouth scarred into a smile stays the same! I can think of 3 different Batman stories where this is the same - 'Who is the Red Hood'(which was ommitted from The Greatest Joker Stories Ever Told 2008 Edition, to coincide with TDK release - which I found an insult to the Joker character and Batman fans! It can be found in The Greatest Joker Stories 1989 Edition tho), The Killing Joke and Lovers and MAdmen.

So if anything the Jokers origin is more concrete than Batmans as there has been many different incarnations of Batmans origin over the years by many different writers.

The reason I mentioned altering Batmans origin is because it has been done far more times than any villain in the comics. So in a sense writers and directors can take more of a liberty of how and why Batman came to be depending on the direction they want to go in their story. That is not set in stone as much as we all like to imagine.

So the fact no Joker origin was mentioned for the first 10 years of the comics ,does that mean we should ignore it? no. Batman didnt have an origin for the first 6 months of his creation.

And if we want to talk about Nolan/Burton and villians origins, I find the most insulting was Two-Faces in TDK.

[johnnygobbs]

I think you are splitting hairs Joker81.  Everyone knows (probably even my own mother) that Batman AKA Bruce Wayne is a multi-millionaire who was orphaned at an early age after his parents were killed by a mugger.  Very few people outside the fanboy community know that The Joker's origins came about as a result of a chemical accident, or even that Two-Face was scarred by a mob boss in court.

Besides, this whole 'I hate the Burton series', 'yeah well, I hate the Nolan series' back and forth is really becoming pathetic.  Even if you're not a fan of one or the other (and I admit that I am a fan of both), any honest movie goer must surely be able to see the merits in either franchise.  If not, well, that's your loss...

The fact that the Burton series may have been somewhat undervalued as a result of the Nolan movies' success (which is a shame) is the main reason I have such an attachment to this particular site.  However, it doesn't mean I then have to beat up on Batman Begins, or TDK.  Ral recognises that, so does The Dark Knight and a few others.  It's a pity not everyone can feel that way.

Ok,  better prepare myself for the flaming...

[Joker81]

mmmm, not so much splitting hairs as in staying true to what the real origins are. I mean you cant have it both ways, make up your mind!

I am not bashing Nolans films either, I accept them for what they are - but are they better than Batman IMO? No.

I think its about time we as fans of Batman and Batman Returns stop apologising for loving these movies and admit to loving them for the real reason and not because of 'nostalgia' or anything like that. I loved Batman in 1989, during the ninties and still now 20 years on. Not because of nostalgia, because I think they are better made and more exciting, escapism films than Nolans version. We should stop saying we are sorry - we didnt start this cr4p.