Did TDK kick off the "No Origin" craze for Joker?

[The Laughing Fish]

In fairness, Nicholson's Joker doesn't really see the value in money either. He dumps it all at the street parade, luring people out to kill them. I think the Joker could see beauty in having such items like jewellery, but money? I have to agree with TDK's take. What use or value does such a character have for it? Does he take out his wallet and buy something at a store? No. He's a brazen thief who does what he wants. He's a complete rogue.

Point taken, but I was only referring to the burning of the money because it was the closest thing that TDK's Joker had access to anything that was remotely luxurious. It's not like he was an actual thief in the movie. And to be honest, I don't think Nicholson's take matches the psychological profile of the GA Joker either.

That being said, I do recall The New Batman Adventures episode, Joker's Millions, where the Joker took delight when he inherited a crime boss's fortune, only to find out the money was fake. That was actually based on a comic by Dick Sprang too.   

[Travesty]

In fairness, Nicholson's Joker doesn't really see the value in money either. He dumps it all at the street parade, luring people out to kill them. I think the Joker could see beauty in having such items like jewellery, but money? I have to agree with TDK's take. What use or value does such a character have for it? Does he take out his wallet and buy something at a store? No. He's a brazen thief who does what he wants. He's a complete rogue.

In the comic adaptation of B89, the money Joker was throwing around was all fake, as it had his face on them.

[The Dark Knight]

In fairness, Nicholson's Joker doesn't really see the value in money either. He dumps it all at the street parade, luring people out to kill them. I think the Joker could see beauty in having such items like jewellery, but money? I have to agree with TDK's take. What use or value does such a character have for it? Does he take out his wallet and buy something at a store? No. He's a brazen thief who does what he wants. He's a complete rogue.

In the comic adaptation of B89, the money Joker was throwing around was all fake, as it had his face on them.

Yeah, I am aware of that difference. I think it was probably the original intent, mixed in with Joker's "my face on the one dollar bill" comment in the museum with Vicki. But for all intents and purposes in the universe of the movie, I think the money is real.

[The Laughing Fish]

In fairness, Nicholson's Joker doesn't really see the value in money either. He dumps it all at the street parade, luring people out to kill them. I think the Joker could see beauty in having such items like jewellery, but money? I have to agree with TDK's take. What use or value does such a character have for it? Does he take out his wallet and buy something at a store? No. He's a brazen thief who does what he wants. He's a complete rogue.

Point taken, but I was only referring to the burning of the money because it was the closest thing that TDK's Joker had access to anything that was remotely luxurious. It's not like he was an actual thief in the movie. And to be honest, I don't think Nicholson's take matches the psychological profile of the GA Joker either.

That being said, I do recall The New Batman Adventures episode, Joker's Millions, where the Joker took delight when he inherited a crime boss's fortune, only to find out the money was fake. That was actually based on a comic by Dick Sprang too.   

Furthermore, the original 1952 Joker's Millions comic showed the Clown Prince of Crime cherishing the wealth he believed he had inherited.



So there you go, there is a precedent that the Joker did exhibit in financial greed like everybody else after all.

[Dagenspear]

In fairness, Nicholson's Joker doesn't really see the value in money either. He dumps it all at the street parade, luring people out to kill them. I think the Joker could see beauty in having such items like jewellery, but money? I have to agree with TDK's take. What use or value does such a character have for it? Does he take out his wallet and buy something at a store? No. He's a brazen thief who does what he wants. He's a complete rogue.

Point taken, but I was only referring to the burning of the money because it was the closest thing that TDK's Joker had access to anything that was remotely luxurious. It's not like he was an actual thief in the movie. And to be honest, I don't think Nicholson's take matches the psychological profile of the GA Joker either.

That being said, I do recall The New Batman Adventures episode, Joker's Millions, where the Joker took delight when he inherited a crime boss's fortune, only to find out the money was fake. That was actually based on a comic by Dick Sprang too.   

Furthermore, the original 1952 Joker's Millions comic showed the Clown Prince of Crime cherishing the wealth he believed he had inherited.



So there you go, there is a precedent that the Joker did exhibit in financial greed like everybody else after all.

Well, that's really boring. I prefer it the other way.

[thecolorsblend]

I've always thought the No Origin crowd really need to get a life. The Joker had an origin established in the comics for decades. It's reaffirmed in TKJ. The Joker may not remember it... but it's presented rather didactically in the story. So the Joker doesn't remember it. BFD. It still happened and it's shown to the reader.

But it is weird how nobody seems to get that.

These things have a weird way of taking on a life of their own. Anybody who wishes to do so can pick up the comic and see for themselves. But somehow a weird group think has convinced everybody TKJ says something it doesn't.

As a corollary, I draw your attention to the love triangle between Clark, Superman and Lois. This was an influence on Superman- The Movie and an even bigger influence on Lois & Clark. Superman- The Animated Series and Smallville have touched on it in their own ways as well.

The funny thing is IT NEVER EXISTED. Yes, you can find instances of Clark having the hots for Lois while she pines for Superman. But those exceptions prove the rule. By and large Pre-Crisis Clark mostly ignored Lois while she'd friend-zoned him years ago. But mostly Clark, Lois and Superman were all very clear on where each stood with the other. There was never a "triangle".

But who remembers that?

The same thing applies to this whole multiple choice thing in TKJ. People seem to read all kinds of bullsh!+ into it that's nowhere on the page.

Nolan created an original character and called him "the Joker". The sooner the gushers accept that, the happier they'll be.

[Edd Grayson]

I find it really funny that the "no-origin crowd" is so upset over Batman not being developed enough in Burton's films while they're fine with the Joker in Nolan's film having no origin established and just him talking gibberish. 

[thecolorsblend]

I find it really funny that the "no-origin crowd" is so upset over Batman not being developed enough in Burton's films while they're fine with the Joker in Nolan's film having no origin established and just him talking gibberish. 

"It's just like in the comics!"

Oy...

[Dagenspear]

I find it really funny that the "no-origin crowd" is so upset over Batman not being developed enough in Burton's films while they're fine with the Joker in Nolan's film having no origin established and just him talking gibberish. 

Backstory isn't present character development. The character in the film tdk is very developed, where his emotions, his thoughts and his actions are all explored. But I've never given thought to Bruce being underdeveloped in batman 89.

God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life!

[Dagenspear]

I've always thought the No Origin crowd really need to get a life. The Joker had an origin established in the comics for decades. It's reaffirmed in TKJ. The Joker may not remember it... but it's presented rather didactically in the story. So the Joker doesn't remember it. BFD. It still happened and it's shown to the reader.

But it is weird how nobody seems to get that.

These things have a weird way of taking on a life of their own. Anybody who wishes to do so can pick up the comic and see for themselves. But somehow a weird group think has convinced everybody TKJ says something it doesn't.

Nolan created an original character and called him "the Joker". The sooner the gushers accept that, the happier they'll be.

That's not a very polite way of addressing the issue, when you're reacting in a similar way. The origin of the joker was something that was altered for the killing joke itself, but the impression I got was the flashbacks in that were of his own memories and it has since then been altered from that too, making the joker's origin an unset concept, that was there before tdk. Some people like the joker as a sad comedian who is forced to be the red hood and fall into chemicals, others prefer the greedy criminal and others prefer the mysterious supervillain. Nolan didn't create an original character, he used the character and adapted him from specific ideas about the character from different versions. It's not a different character anymore than catwoman is in batman returns, who was cobbled together from several different ideas and versions of the character over the course of 46 years. People liking one over the another isn't a big deal and doesn't require a negative approach to it.

God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life!