Batman: Three Jokers

[thecolorsblend]

Just finished reading #3. Can't wait until others have finished the series too, because there's juicy material to discuss. Three Jokers lived up to the hype. Reading that last issue was gripping. Every conversation and panel meant something and carried weight. Definitely one of the best Batman stories in recent years.

I happened to be awake early this morning when #3 became available.

As with so many things, the journey is more important than the destination. That's worth remembering here because I thought #3 was kind of a dud compared to what came before. I've only read it once and may change my mind later but the third issue didn't seem to line up with where #1 and #2 seemed to be going.

Doesn't matter tho. I enjoy the atmosphere of these books. The story, eh, whatever. Besides, the B89'ish suit, the Furst'ish Batmobile, Monarch Theater, that stuff hits my fanboy buttons in a big way.

[The Dark Knight]

Not a fan of the white text but I'll do it anyway, because I know Travesty hasn't read the story yet.

#3 worked for me on a number of levels.

Batman knows the Joker's name because of course he does. He's a detective and The Joker is his arch nemesis. The fact he kept this a personal secret all this time is true to his character.

The Joker's family still being alive works for me. Ted Bundy has a daughter called Rose, and what she's done as an adult is a complete mystery. She should be left alone to live her life. She had no part of her father's deeds and going public would only bring unnecessary negativity. Batman is applying the same common sense logic with the Joker's family. He knows Jason and others would make their lives hell. 

I think it humanizes the Joker in a subtle but also large way. He is a man, not a myth, even though the myth is always going to be more persuasive. We probably won't see the family but they're out there. The Joker is a lost, wayward son, which as a concept can't help but tug at the heartstrings in some way.

The arc of Joe Chill explores something I'm big on: that people are always evolving over time. Is Joe Chill the same man who pulled the trigger all those years ago? No. But regardless, the legacies of killers will always be defined by their actions that are forever frozen in time. Chill knew this. But Batman still seemingly makes peace with it. Which does serve to give victory to the Joker's ultimate plot of having Batman hate only him. 

The uneasy dynamic with Jason and Batman again shows why I'm glad he was resurrected. The letter on the door for Barbara is old fashioned but in terms of doomed romance it's perfect. I like that type of melancholy.

Having the confrontation in the haunted ruins of the Monarch Theatre was perfect. It's like the old cathedral in B89 but with more significance. Very cinematic. All in all, I had a good time reading this and think the character work is spot on. The art is as good as Hush in its own way.

[thecolorsblend]

Not a fan of the white text but I'll do it anyway, because I know Travesty hasn't read the story yet.

Can't quote all of your post.

Still, you raise a good point about the art. Fabok has enough Gary Frank influence to bring real atmosphere to the art but he doesn't have Frank's horror DC Vertigo style... which is a plus in my book. Basically, I consider Fabok to the best of both worlds with Jim Lee and Gary Frank. A very interesting and very welcome middle ground. I'll probably buy any Batman stuff he does from here on out.

[The Joker]

Nice concise review, TDK. You bring up a lot of good points, and some I wholeheartedly agree with. Following my reading of the entire 3 issue series, I can't help feeling a bit mixed about the whole thing. To which I'll try to quickly address below.

Overall, I found Three Jokers to be a fun and enjoyable story, but one that I am left having mixed feelings on, and honestly don't know how I feel about in terms of it's place in possible continuity. Course, I've been out of the loop on the current stuff for a good number of years now, so that needed to be said as well.

In terms of living up to what the hype for this book was, I don't believe the story reached that level. If memory serves, The Three Jokers was stated to be a new once-and-for-all definitive origin story of the Joker. One that may be so controversial, that DC decided to put it under the black label just in case there was a backlash to said origin. As a way out for DC of course. Only in the story, we're not given a newly revealed origin story, but rather the one that fans have most accepted for decades now. Which is Alan Moore's Killing Joke origin, that further expanded upon the 1951 "The Man Behind the Red Hood" Joker origin story. Yes, we learn of the revelation that his wife, Jeannie, from TKJ, is alive and well and raising a son. Which is interesting. But that's the big reveal honestly. In terms of a bold Joker origin story? Not so much. I guess I expected, going into this, was that the outcome would be controversial with readers in terms of what it reveals about the Joker's origins. Evidently, they played it rather safe. As, from what I can gather, the most controversy that stems from this book is the Jason and Babs thing if anything.

However, I do agree with TDK in the idea that the Joker is just a man at the end of the day is the way to go. I remember hearing something about the Joker being alluded to as being 'supernatural', and/or 'immortal' a few years ago (was this Endgame or something?), and instantly thought it was a horrible idea. Course I personally wasn't that big on the whole Leatherface Joker thing from New52's "Death of the Family" story line either. But in The Three Joker's, I found the third issues handle on the Joker, and his ultimate goal with Joe Chill, much more practical. In terms of the Joker's character, it makes absolute sense for a egotist like him. So that works.

Another thing I agree with TDK on, is how this story handled the conclusion of Joe Chill. Personally, I never found "Year Two" or "Joe Chill in Hell" to be very satisfying finales for the Batman/Joe Chill dynamic being resolved, but I found this one to be probably the most worthwhile conclusion ever since the original from Batman #47 way back from 1948 (along with it's remake in Untold Legend of Batman)!

As far as the notion of there being three Joker's that have crisscrossed in battles with Batman over the years .... I've had some mixed thoughts about that right from the jump to be perfectly honest. Which became rather intense with the "Clown" Joker getting capped in the very 1st issue of this series. As the "Clown" Joker represents the classic Silver Age/Bronze Age Joker, who is now, ultimately, considered a imposter for all intents and purposes. The Joker who appeared in "The Joker's Five Way Revenge", "The Laughing Fish", and many others (in addition to being an influence on Nicholson's and Hamill's Jokers) is now revealed to be a fake? A major retcon like that, really results in nothing but minimizing that incarnation of the Joker, and his stories, to some degree. Which I think is unfortunate, considering how influential the Silver/Bronze Age Joker really is.

As far as the "Criminal" Joker goes, and who created who with the "Comedian" Joker, issue #3 seems rather blatant that the "Comedian" Joker is the original, and created the "Criminal" Joker. Especially with conclusion with Batman revealing he's known the Joker's true identity shortly after first encountering him (and then following that up by referring to his wife and son, which connects to TKJ "Comedian" Joker) for some time now. Which, again, I am left feeling rather mixed on. As out of the three, I was more intrigued by the "Criminal" Joker for the most part. But like the "Clown" Joker, this guy is evidently retconned as a imposter as well. Despite Batman saying the "Criminal" Joker was who he remembers facing off against with during Batman's early career. Which makes sense considering the "Criminal" represented the Golden Age Joker, but I can't imagine Batman wouldn't have at least noticed an age differential between the "Criminal" and "Clown/Comedian" Jokers. Evidently, he didn't. Considering his reaction on the mobius chair, but ok. We'll just go with it. Course with this sort of angle on multiple Joker's, and with Batman stating that the "Criminal" Joker was more like the Joker he battled in the early days, did the real Joker, "The Comedian", create the "Criminal" and just simply sat back for awhile to observe? The notion that Batman's first battle with the Joker (and later Golden Age Joker appearance stories), is retconned as a Joker who is now a imposter, is rather, well, disappointing.

Course I could go on and on, but the overall affect of the Golden/Silver/Bronze Age Jokers being retconned as 'imposters' just feels strange. To me, this is literally akin to the whole "Clone Saga" experiment Marvel attempted in the mid 1990's, and even being so bold in saying that Ben Reilly was the 'real' Spider-Man. With the Spider-Man that had adventures with the black symbiote costume, battled Hobgoblin, survived Kraven's Last Hunt, dealt with Venom/Eddie Brock, endured the death of Harry Osborn, ect was a 'imposter' clone. Yes, as a Joker guy, the underwhelming feeling of the possibility that imposters, and not the Joker himself, were featured in classic Batman comics, is that profound.

I'm aware that this is supposedly considered out-of-continuity, and if so, great. I enjoy it as a elseworlds story for sure. Actually, and TDK can probably speak better on this than me, The Three Jokers is probably one of the better Batman books that have come out in some years. But I can't help but think, and I may have mentioned this in a prior post, that with the sales of this, this story won't eventually just end up in canon. Slippery slope and all that jazz.

More than likely, I'll probably pick up the trade. As again, I didn't hate it, liked some of it, and generally prefer it as a elseworlds story than something I want to overwhelmingly embrace. Actually, with my thoughts in the post about canon/continuity/elseworlds, I am kinda reminded about Colors' statement of having a personal head canon. Something to which I never really put a whole lot of thought into to be perfectly honest, but may very well do so in the near future. I pretty much like everything up to around the middle of Morrison's run. Which I then began falling in and out of Batman comics until I just left completely. So where I decide to bookend on may be a little tricky.

Damn, it's late. And I've rambled on long enough!

[The Dark Knight]

Three Jokers is an enjoyable story to read on its own, and I'd be okay with it not being in continuity.

But that said, I think some of the events are open to interpretation.

I have no reason to doubt that the surviving Joker is the Joker, but that Joker clearly has a good time making you think twice about that. It's also not out of the question the army of Jokers was only a recent experiment, rather than a long term operation, which I would prefer.

Generally speaking I see it as a postmodern, 'real world' commentary on the character's changes throughout his publication history. That's the main hook here, and why it would ultimately work best as a standalone. I like that the comedian Joker is the last man standing though, because it makes it feel like a true spiritual sequel to The Killing Joke. It keeps that well know origin intact, and it's the same guy who attacked Barbara.

[Travesty]

Just bought this, so I'll try to get through it all this Thanksgiving. I'm really looking forward to it. Heard good things about it.

[thecolorsblend]

Back in 1990 or even 2000, Three Jokers would be interesting but not really super important. People would've known about it and probably even cared about it. But it just wouldn't have been all that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

It's a sad testimony of where the industry is rn that Three Jokers is hands down, without question THE comic book event of 2020 (aside from the industry itself cratering, that is).

Unexpected, this was. And unfortunate.

[The Dark Knight]

Just bought this, so I'll try to get through it all this Thanksgiving. I'm really looking forward to it. Heard good things about it.

Based on nothing but gut feel, I'm see Three Jokers becoming like a new Hush. A decent story that's elevated by the art and is something fun to flick through. Hush is way better but I think the comparison is reasonable. 

[Azrael]

Other than the fantastic art by Jason Fabok and the nods to the Burton films, one of the reasons I enjoyed this is that it has a sort of classic Batman feel, like comics from the 90s/early 00s, none of the "new" things introduced later. It could (almost) be a stand-alone three-part story from Shadow of the Bat or Legends of the Dark Knight.

[Travesty]

I really liked it. Not the best, but it was a good standalone story, and the art may just be some of the best I have ever seen. The Batsuit was almost a pure Keaton suit, aside from the blue and grey color scheme, and all of The Joker art was fantastic. I understand the comparisons to Hush, but I prefer this to Hush in every regard. Tighter story, better art, easier to pick up, etc.

Again, not the best Batman story ever told, but it was an easy read with beautiful art. Hard to complain.