- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,161
But technically he has an origin. 
Unless we just erase 64 years of the character's history. Those DC encyclopedia's for the character all have him falling into chemicals and having bleached skin. That's how the Joker came to be. I'm more inclined to go with those than what fans may think.
#1 is great, but lets face it. In those days NO comic or serial villains had origins because they were typically villains of the week. There was no time to delve into them. In the 40s, the Joker wasn't Batman's main foe. He was just another villain like Hugo Strange, Dr. Death, the Monk, or even "The Cat" (Catwoman with a literal cat head for a mask and a granny disguise). If those villains were lucky, they'd have a two parter before they got killed off. Joker wasn't at the caliber he was at years later where they fleshed him out more. In fact, they planned on killing him off THAT year until the creators saw his potential.
And I'd say that Ledger's Joker has an origin too, even though it's not told to us and he's not a reliable narrator. He came to be who he was because of those scars that were inflicted on him, his deformity. He suffered a trauma just like Batman and Two-Face that made him who he is. That's what drove him and pushed him off the edge ("madness as you know, is like gravity"). Some people would like to think that the Ledger Joker just emerged onto that sidewalk corner like an apparition or a Loki god, that he just appeared out of thin air. He's not though, not if this is meant to be a "realistic, believable" crime drama. Everyone of his stories involves "how he got his scars". So whatever the story is, it has to do with the scars on his face. Might not have been his dad or his wife, or whatever he was going to tell Batman, but it involved some trauma that made him throw on a purple suit and makeup. Hell, his über awareness of the mob's money, their meetings, etc. heavily implies that he was a nobody mob guy that got a Glasgow smile (like the man who laughs). Something none of the comic interpretations have (or a mob background like '89 and BTAS). That's the whole point of The Killing Joke. Joker is trying to push Gordon over the edge just like he was the day he became the Joker. He wanted to prove everyone is as ugly as him. It was done in Killing Joke, it was done in '89 with Joker's vanity and making people look literally like him before they die, and it was done in the Dark Knight with a philosophical view point. Whoever he was before being the Joker doesn't matter, that's not really an origin. Falling into a vat of chemicals or getting your face wounded and taking it out on the world though? That's an origin. Same with Batman. We don't need to know what he was doing before or even after he became Batman. THE origin of the character is that he saw his parents gunned down in front of him. That's it. So many stories gloss over Thomas and Martha, the bat, his training, etc. All anyone needs to know is the murder.
Also, lets not bring up the casual audience members that Nolan was supposedly catering to. A lot of those idiots didn't understand that The Joker was giving mixed stories about his scars and actually believed them. It flew over so many peoples' heads, everyone from reviewers in 2008 like Ebert to my own dad. I can't even begin to explain how many friends and family I had to explain the idea to that he was telling conflicting stories.
Unless we just erase 64 years of the character's history. Those DC encyclopedia's for the character all have him falling into chemicals and having bleached skin. That's how the Joker came to be. I'm more inclined to go with those than what fans may think.
#1 is great, but lets face it. In those days NO comic or serial villains had origins because they were typically villains of the week. There was no time to delve into them. In the 40s, the Joker wasn't Batman's main foe. He was just another villain like Hugo Strange, Dr. Death, the Monk, or even "The Cat" (Catwoman with a literal cat head for a mask and a granny disguise). If those villains were lucky, they'd have a two parter before they got killed off. Joker wasn't at the caliber he was at years later where they fleshed him out more. In fact, they planned on killing him off THAT year until the creators saw his potential.
And I'd say that Ledger's Joker has an origin too, even though it's not told to us and he's not a reliable narrator. He came to be who he was because of those scars that were inflicted on him, his deformity. He suffered a trauma just like Batman and Two-Face that made him who he is. That's what drove him and pushed him off the edge ("madness as you know, is like gravity"). Some people would like to think that the Ledger Joker just emerged onto that sidewalk corner like an apparition or a Loki god, that he just appeared out of thin air. He's not though, not if this is meant to be a "realistic, believable" crime drama. Everyone of his stories involves "how he got his scars". So whatever the story is, it has to do with the scars on his face. Might not have been his dad or his wife, or whatever he was going to tell Batman, but it involved some trauma that made him throw on a purple suit and makeup. Hell, his über awareness of the mob's money, their meetings, etc. heavily implies that he was a nobody mob guy that got a Glasgow smile (like the man who laughs). Something none of the comic interpretations have (or a mob background like '89 and BTAS). That's the whole point of The Killing Joke. Joker is trying to push Gordon over the edge just like he was the day he became the Joker. He wanted to prove everyone is as ugly as him. It was done in Killing Joke, it was done in '89 with Joker's vanity and making people look literally like him before they die, and it was done in the Dark Knight with a philosophical view point. Whoever he was before being the Joker doesn't matter, that's not really an origin. Falling into a vat of chemicals or getting your face wounded and taking it out on the world though? That's an origin. Same with Batman. We don't need to know what he was doing before or even after he became Batman. THE origin of the character is that he saw his parents gunned down in front of him. That's it. So many stories gloss over Thomas and Martha, the bat, his training, etc. All anyone needs to know is the murder.
Also, lets not bring up the casual audience members that Nolan was supposedly catering to. A lot of those idiots didn't understand that The Joker was giving mixed stories about his scars and actually believed them. It flew over so many peoples' heads, everyone from reviewers in 2008 like Ebert to my own dad. I can't even begin to explain how many friends and family I had to explain the idea to that he was telling conflicting stories.
Last edited:
