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

[Edd Grayson]

I never thought Bruce was underdeveloped in Batman either. Or the Joker in TDK. I was pointing out the attitude of some fans that won't admit their favorite Batman director ever did anything wrong.

Batman in 1989 showed and connected the origin of Batman and Joker as well as developed Bruce Wayne and Jack Napier. Just one reason why I feel it's the best comic book movie.

[Dagenspear]

I never thought Bruce was underdeveloped in Batman either. Or the Joker in TDK. I was pointing out the attitude of some fans that won't admit their favorite Batman director ever did anything wrong.

Batman in 1989 showed and connected the origin of Batman and Joker as well as developed Bruce Wayne and Jack Napier. Just one reason why I feel it's the best comic book movie.

With the joker it wasn't done wrong. Jack Napier wasn't developed by the orgin. It just talked about what he was good at and having a past connection wasn't development either, because he's no different there than he is when he comes up against batman in the chemical plant, I guess he seems mellowed a little if anything in his later years. It's a backstory. It doesn't give any real new development on his characterization. The backstory is really convenient too. Thank you very much for the polite response.

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

[Edd Grayson]

I don't think it was done wrong for Napier. And I do think Joker needs an origin, otherwise he's a psycho like so many others on film. I don't dislike Ledger's version, but the character really wasn't the groundbreaking villain that many have made him out to be, apart from a few scenes.

Jack Nicholson was awesome and has yet to be topped, for me.

And, you're welcome. I always try to be respectful, especially when the other poster is as well.

[Wayne49]

This is a great discussion started with an excellent question and analysis. Here's my two cents. I think there was most likely a concerted effort to not retread material that might feel redundant to movie audiences. The Joker origin was covered in the first Keaton film. And while the Nolan Joker seem to have a different origin in terms of his insanity and general appearance, I tend to think the consensus here was not to get bogged down in origins so much as motivations.

As we have discussed recently in other threads, Dark Knight carried an ambitious script for the subject matter. I think an origin backstory would have been too much to carry on top of the psychological battle the Joker was waging against Batman. It's my belief Nolan wanted the audience to experience the Joker on the same terms as Batman did initially, so there was no context to possibly explain his actions. If the audience is one step ahead of Batman, that's a script that likely fails as we anticipate his awareness and ability to decipher what the Joker is doing.

As a rule, I prefer my villains and monsters to have some degree of ambiguity in origin. Let's be honest - Darth Vader was a infinitely more compelling villain when we had only our own imaginations to craft his origins. I think when you build too many inroads to a character's motivations, it serves to undermine the story and ultimately construct a anticlimactic finale that most can see coming a mile away.

With these characters receiving soft reboots all the time, I think this will most likely become more of the norm moving forward. We saw how quickly people lost interest in the Spiderman franchise when they decided to retell the entire origin. I think audiences have a fairly strong retention on these backstories, so revisiting it too quickly in a reboot where the franchise is needing a new twist can be problematic. Directors have so much to introduce with new visions, origins are becoming a bit passé. I have absolute zero interest in the Suicide Squad. It looks like something Netflix should be making for fans who want loads of backstory (like Gotham). And that's great for those with that kind of appetite for the material. But I think the predominant ticket buyer will find little interest here. For me, villains are most interesting when they have a hero to contrast against (and vice-versa). That's how they shine. Putting a bunch of them together in a semi-origin story just sounds painfully boring. I want someone to root for, not a two hour, make-believe psychological analysis of a person that doesn't exist.

[Dagenspear]

I don't think it was done wrong for Napier. And I do think Joker needs an origin, otherwise he's a psycho like so many others on film. I don't dislike Ledger's version, but the character really wasn't the groundbreaking villain that many have made him out to be, apart from a few scenes.

Jack Nicholson was awesome and has yet to be topped, for me.

And, you're welcome. I always try to be respectful, especially when the other poster is as well.

Napier is just a psycho, like so many. He doesn't have an origin behind it. It's no different than the Joker in the tdk.

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

[Edd Grayson]

We obviously disagree on this Dagenspear, but don't take it the wrong way. Napier did have an origin for me. I respect your opinion and I wish to stop arguing now.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[Dagenspear]

We obviously disagree on this Dagenspear, but don't take it the wrong way. Napier did have an origin for me. I respect your opinion and I wish to stop arguing now.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

I think I just might not know what you're saying, because Napier was a psycho at beginning of the movie. We don't see how he became that. Technically we got more in that area from Ledger's Joker, although his stories were potential delusions or made up. Maybe you're talking about his actual Joker origin, as opposed to the origin for his psychotic behavior? If you've read my Batman tv series pitch you know that I'm interested in a joker origin myself. I wouldn't mind your thoughts on that either. I think we may have just got our wires crossed with the origin issue. Thank you!

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

[Edd Grayson]

We saw what Napier was like before being the Joker, and Bruce also read the file on his past. That is more than Nolan's Joker's confilicting stories about the scars, in my opinion.

Also, we saw the transformation and the Joker was just like I wanted him to be. Nicholson's Joker is just about the best there is for me, as far as live-action goes.

[Dagenspear]

We saw what Napier was like before being the Joker, and Bruce also read the file on his past. That is more than Nolan's Joker's confilicting stories about the scars, in my opinion.

Also, we saw the transformation and the Joker was just like I wanted him to be. Nicholson's Joker is just about the best there is for me, as far as live-action goes.

That's not an origin. The file doesn't tell why he is the way he is. His flashback with Bruce doesn't either because he's the same as he is in the present. What you wanted and what you like is an opinion that you and everyone is entitled to.

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

[Edd Grayson]

I think it showed more of Napier's origin than TDK ever did for that Joker. I don't think that's a matter for debating either, personal taste.