Batman: Hush (2019)

[Silver Nemesis]

I'm trying to figure out wtf is happening to the O'Hara who opens that cell door. He just sort of vanishes.

Maybe the security at Arkham wanted the Joker to feel he was being watched at all times, so they glued a two-dimensional image of a guard's face onto the outside of his cell door.

And to think, the filmmakers were so proud of this shot they included it in the trailer...

Let's be real. TKJ could've had amazing animation and stuck to the original faithfully... and I still wouldn't have liked it. I'm not a TKJ fan. I daresay it's everything a comic book shouldn't be. "Mature" storytelling is one thing but that sucker borders on being torture-porn.

I'm sure we're in the minority on this, but I've never cared for The Killing Joke either. In fact I think it's probably the single most overrated Batman comic ever published. Even Moore himself has admitted it isn't very good. The most interesting aspect of TKJ is its emphasis on the moral, ideological and psychological complementarity between Batman and the Joker, but there are plenty of other comics that have explored those same themes in greater depth.

I also never bought into the whole 'one bad day' angle. I can accept the premise that someone could be driven insane by one bad day, or even that they could be driven to kill. But the idea that a timid, morally-upright human being could be transformed into an invincible, ingenious and thoroughly evil criminal mastermind overnight... I just don't buy it. I prefer versions of the Joker's origin where he was already a tough, experienced criminal before he got bleached (e.g. the Red Hood and Jack Napier origins). A character that irredeemably evil requires a foundation of wickedness to begin with.

In general I don't like attempts to make the Joker sympathetic. To misquote The Simpsons, supervillains are a lot like elephants. Some of them act badly because they've had a hard life or have been mistreated.  But, like elephants, some of them are just jerks. The Joker is a jerk. He doesn't need a sympathetic back story, any more than Professor Zoom or Bullseye do.

[The Dark Knight]

The origins for Napier in B89 do make more sense. His mobster past gave credibility to his career as the Joker. He was a guy who was already intimidating people and engaging in criminal activity.  TKJ is a good FOUNDATION for the character though. I like what it spawned in terms of the Red Hood and the acid vat. I think the Batman universe would be much poorer without these general concepts. I enjoy the carnival setting, which is one of the best possible locations for a Joker/Batman showdown. I like what the book says about the Joker/Batman relationship, which the Telltale series pushes even harder in a fresh new way. So I have goodwill towards the book's spirit.

[Travesty]

Well, TKJ didn't introduce the Red Hood origin. That was already in the comics before that book. Although, I guess you can say ti was fleshed out more in TKJ.

[Silver Nemesis]

I prefer the Red Hood story from Detective Comics Vol 1 # 168 (February 1951). In the Golden Age version, he'd already pursued a moderately successful criminal career as the Red Hood prior to becoming the Joker. In Moore's revisionist take, he was never actually the Red Hood but was merely tricked into donning the hood and cape during the robbery at Ace Chemicals. In the original version of the story the Red Hood had already faced Batman prior to having his skin bleached. During this encounter, he demonstrated qualities of theatricality, brazenness and ingenuity, all of which would later be evidenced in his career as the Joker.

By contrast, the failed stand-up in Moore's story displays none of these traits. He just spontaneously acquires them after getting his skin bleached. The Golden Age comics portrayed the Joker's earlier self as a daring criminal, a skilled marksman and a knowledgeable chemist. His earlier self in Moore's story is a timid, nonviolent civilian. The only thing he has in common with the Golden Age Red Hood is that they'd both worked in a chemical factory. I have no trouble believing that the Golden Age Red Hood could evolve into the Joker. He already had the skills, the intellect and the daring – he just needed that extra push to shove him over the edge. I find it much harder to accept that the character in Moore's tale could turn into the world's greatest supervillain overnight.

Comic historians have often contrasted Alan Moore's take on the Joker with Frank Miller's, as they each exemplify two very different attitudes towards the character's psychosis. Moore wants us to pity the Joker and understand that he is not in control of his own actions; that he is a victim of his mental illness, and therefore not entirely responsible for his crimes. This is similar to Dr Wolper's take in The Dark Knight Returns.

Miller's take on the Joker is essentially the same as his interpretation of Bullseye during his earlier Daredevil run: namely that both antagonists are inhuman, unsympathetic mad dogs; creatures of pure evil, with no redeeming qualities. And both must eventually be put down by the hero. As a matter of personal preference, I like Miller's interpretation in The Dark Knight Returns more than Moore's take in The Killing Joke. Here's an interesting quote from Miller on the subject:

Alan Moore and I once had about a six-hour argument about the Joker, back when he did comic books — because he believed that the Batman and Joker were almost parallels that were separated at birth. Alan had a much more, a sort of attitude of moral relativism about what was good and what was evil. I took a much more arched view, because I believe that the Joker is not so much insane as satanic. He's evil incarnate, and he's so malicious that it goes beyond anything we could understand. That's what's so terrifying about him, is that he simply wants to do as much harm and damage as he possibly can.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/06/08/when-frank-miller-and-alan-moore-argued-about-the-joker/

I agree with Miller on this point. Which is why I think the character should be depicted as an evil criminal before he becomes the Joker, rather than as an innocent victim of misfortune.

But to clarify, I don't think The Killing Joke is a bad book. Not at all. Bolland's art work is excellent, I enjoy the showdown in the fun house, and I like the way Moore attempts to dig beneath the surface of the Batman/Joker dynamic. It's a perfectly fine comic. I just don't agree that it's the classic most other fans hold it up to be. I think too much of the plot is preoccupied with sadism for the sake of shock value, I don't like the way the story ignores Barbara's perspective in the aftermath of her attack, and I think everything that's good about the story has been done better in other comics. For me, it's a decent, average Batman comic which I believe gets overrated due to Moore's involvement. But that's just my opinion, and I'm not for one second suggesting anyone who likes the book is wrong to do so.

[The Dark Knight]

Well, TKJ didn't introduce the Red Hood origin. That was already in the comics before that book. Although, I guess you can say ti was fleshed out more in TKJ.

That's all true, of course. However the FEELING I have, is after such a long gap between those original panels and TKJ, it really was like TKJ instigated these concepts because it made them more mainstream, seeping into other aspects of Batman media. In many respects it does serve as the foundation. Without TKJ, would the red hood concept be as strong as it is now? TKJ brought this origin back to the forefront and expanded upon things - then and now. The spawn of TKJ reintroducing these concepts is the Red Hood/Jason Todd character, who I think has enriched the Batman universe.

Miller's take on the Joker is essentially the same as his interpretation of Bullseye during his earlier Daredevil run: namely that both antagonists are inhuman, unsympathetic mad dogs; creatures of pure evil, with no redeeming qualities. And both must eventually be put down by the hero. As a matter of personal preference, I like Miller's interpretation in The Dark Knight Returns more than Moore's take in The Killing Joke.

I do as well. However I do like the general concepts of red hood and the acid. I'm happy to consider that canon, and I like that foundation. The backstory of who Joker was (comedian, gangster, etc) is open to debate for me.

As said, I prefer the gangster route.

But to clarify, I don't think The Killing Joke is a bad book. Not at all. Bolland's art work is excellent, I enjoy the showdown in the fun house, and I like the way Moore attempts to dig beneath the surface of the Batman/Joker dynamic. It's a perfectly fine comic.

It's a simple story at the core, and while I respect the reputation, I don't think it compares to something like TDK Returns. 

[Silver Nemesis]

Without TKJ, would the red hood concept be as strong as it is now? TKJ brought this origin back to the forefront and expanded upon things - then and now. The spawn of TKJ reintroducing these concepts is the Red Hood/Jason Todd character, who I think has enriched the Batman universe.

That's a good point. The Killing Joke origins was widely considered canon in the late eighties/early nineties and there are a number of stories from that era which made direct reference to it. We've already gone over those in another thread, so I won't list them again now. But the point is that The Killing Joke was the first story to reference the Red Hood aspect of the Joker's origins in the Post-Crisis canon. You could argue it legitimised the Red Hood for the Modern Age, much like how Grant Morrison's Batman R.I.P. legitimised the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh.

Getting back to Hush, what does everyone think about the fight scene with Jason Todd? Should they adapt it, or is that one of the sequences they should leave out? I ask because they've already covered that ground in the Under the Red Hood film. As far as I know, Loeb didn't intend for Todd's resurrection to be real when he first wrote Hush. It was only retconned as the real Jason when Judd Winick wrote Under the Hood. It was one of my favourite scenes in Hush the first time I read it, but in light of what came afterwards it might be better to exclude that sequence from the animated movie.

[thecolorsblend]

Jason's rise from the dead has always been a touchy issue for me. He needs to stay dead (as was Loeb's intention) or else the scene needs to be skipped completely.

Speaking of Robin, it does raise the question of which Robin we'll see in the movie. Tim was Robin in Hush. But in the minds of the public, these days Damian is Robin... for better or worse. I say worse but I'm an old fart. I want Tim to be Robin. He's the people's Robin and is a far better successor to Dick and implicitly Tim is the guy who will someday take Bruce's place as Batman. Tim is a company man. This is the job he REALLY wanted and I like the idea that someday (in stories we'll never see) he'll pick up more or less wherever Bruce leaves off.

So of course I'm expecting it to be Damian in the animated movie because of course it will be.

PROVE ME WRONG, WB.

[The Dark Knight]

Whether or not they include Jason in the film, my stance on Jason coming back from the dead is pretty simple.

Is it REALISTIC? No.
But is it emotionally POWERFUL? Yes.

Making that leap in believability opens up the narrative potential. I like the idea of literally having to face your past, a past you thought was dead and buried, even though you still carried those memories for years. Those memories you thought were forever fixed in time and exclusive to yourself are now active again. The corpse you mourned and eulogized now hates your guts. And to make things more complicated, you still wouldn't do a thing differently despite the outcome of the past.

A really messed up and fascinating concept that wouldn't exist if pure realism was in force.   

[Silver Nemesis]

[thecolorsblend]

I'm cautiously optimistic for this thing.