1/6 Hot Toys - MMS 249 - The Joker (Bank Robber Version 2.0) - 1/6 - TF Exclusive 2014

[DiFabio]

Vader still technically had an origin in the OT though, we just didn't get an illustration of an annoying slave kid turned into a whining, young adult.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Also, according to Alan Moore, that comedian story in the Killing Joke that Joker reminisces about at the Amusement park ACTUALLY happens and is a part of the Joker's pathos. Moore was the writer, I'd say his word carries more stock than an artist or inker.

I respect Alan Moore, but I don't like the comedian story and I chose to ignore his opinion Interestingly, in Death of The Family (new 52 story) they show a picture of the Joker arrested in the amusement park, so the attack on Barbara and the events of the amusement park are canon. However, in Zero Year (Batman's new 52 origin), the joker/redhood is clearly not a comedian, so even if Moore's comedian story/part was real, it's no longer canon in the new 52.

 

[morphosis]

I understand your assessment of 168, and its true a lot of characters didnt get origins right away, but the way i look at it is 168 was a "re-boot" of the Joker by yes the same author/creator. Batman fought the Joker for years prior without him being a guy that fell into a tub of chemicals. Yes Bruce got the origin in DC #33, but thats just a few months after his first appearance and it worked with the rest of the timeline of Batman since it was a look back on how he became The Batman. But the Joker existed fighting Batman before the chemicals fall in 168. So its really just a "re-boot" of the character and thats why when you read a lot of the history of the Joker, they always start out as "the joker has several origin stories". The chemical fall is just the oldest one which most people gravitate to. But i keep using the word "technically" doesn't have one, because the Joker that started in Batman #1 never had one....then he had 10 years of tales...then they re-booted him with an origin.

The chemical fall is "a" origin story, one of a few that has happened over the 70 years, but "technically" he really doesn't have one because the character was re-booted from who he originally was.

believe me, i know what your saying. The chemical fall is a very important story of the Joker, it shaped the character for many years, but the mystery of the "original joker starting from Batman 1" is no one knows who he was, how he got the white skin and green hair". Thats been the myth of the Joker all these years. The chemical fall has also been told by the Joker himself in stories as many have said in here tonight "was it really what happened????". thats all part of the myth of the Joker. Whats the truth, who is he, where is he from? No one knows...any given day, the Joker might tell you something different.

if your 100% behind that the chemical fall is the Joker origin, then i think it takes away a lot of the true character that started with Batman #1 and why a lot of experts say that he has no true origin.

first thing you get when you Google "Joker Origin"

The Joker has had a number of origin stories during his seven decades in publication. - Wikipedia

No recounting of the Joker's origin has been definitive - Batman Wiki

 

[Lakhota]

Vader still technically had an origin in the OT though, we just didn't get an illustration of an annoying slave kid turned into a whining, young adult.

From a certain point of view. Lol


Sent from Jabba's Palace

 

[morphosis]

the Gotham Alley site while a great resource by a long time Batman historian, I just dont agree with his assessment.

The early stories of Batman vs the Joker before DC168 didnt go into his background, but 168 is a different timeline of the original Joker. Thats why 168 is the start of a re-booted Joker. And thats why the Joker "technically" has many origins.

The Joker was probably one of the first serial villains in comics, not often a character would come back so often as he did early on. Most of those Detective Comics stories are 1 offs. But with the start of Batman #1...the Joker appeared several times over a 10 year span as a re-occurring villain with no origin. If we were in 1948 right now and someone asked what is the Jokers origin, you would say "no one knows". 10 years without an origin is a long long time especially with a re-occurring character.

Bruce got his origin in DC #33, thats all in perfect timeline and timeframe for his character development, especially for back then in the 1940s. Joker had none...until 10 years later when they rebooted him for Detective Comics.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Cesar Romero didn't have an origin story, didn't have scars, didn't wear makeup, no chemical dip, nothing. He just had a mysterious mustache

 

[morphosis]

Cesar Romero didn't have an origin story, didn't have scars, didn't wear makeup, no chemical dip, nothing. He just had a mysterious mustache

exactly

its kind of like the chicken or the egg...what comes first

chemical dip or the joker

the Joker comes first....but how did he get those scars?
chemical dip...but he appeared as the joker before he fell.

 

[Chuck72586]

I own this book which is sort of a Batman encylopedia. When talking about the Joker it says, "No one knows the Joker's origin or even his real name. Some claim he started out as a failed stand-up comedian driven to desperation by the death of his wife. While robbing a chemical plant as the criminal Red Hood, he fled from the Batman and tumbled into a bubbling vat. When he emerged his skin was chalk-white, his hair shocking green, and his sanity a thing of the past."

Even here when they say no one knows his true origin, they still reference the fall in a vat of chemicals. There's no denying it's importance in the character's history. The fact that he didn't have an origin for ten years strikes me more as something that just wasn't thought about then a deliberate choice by the writers not to give him one.

 

[BadMuthaDude]

Geez, I stopped browsing today to have a Dark Knight marathon and come back to see page after page of Joker discussion. I'll have to go back and read this discussion more thoroughly when I'm more sober. I don't think I've ever watched all 3 back to back in one day before. Good times.

 

[dw316]

^Haha, they had a Dark Knight Trilogy marathon leading up to the midnight premiere of TDKR on opening night. Pretty awesome, plus they gave out tons of free goodies.

 

[morphosis]

View attachment 119039

I own this book which is sort of a Batman encylopedia. When talking about the Joker it says, "No one knows the Joker's origin or even his real name. Some claim he started out as a failed stand-up comedian driven to desperation by the death of his wife. While robbing a chemical plant as the criminal Red Hood, he fled from the Batman and tumbled into a bubbling vat. When he emerged his skin was chalk-white, his hair shocking green, and his sanity a thing of the past."

Even here when they say no one knows his true origin, they still reference the fall in a vat of chemicals. There's no denying it's importance in the character's history. The fact that he didn't have an origin for ten years strikes me more as something that just wasn't thought about then a deliberate choice by the writers not to give him one.

Heres the thing, its been a long-time debate now. You have the people who think he doesnt, and others who think 168 is the origin. So i guess in the end, its whatever you think....and to me thats the way the Joker would want it.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Meh, who cares? At least non of his origin stories are as bad as emo Darth Vader whining and crying like a **** over his mommy and girlfriend. That's one origin that ruined the character.

 

[DiFabio]

Nobody in the 60s show had an origin, not even Batman and Robin. All you get is a passing reference of Wayne's parents and what happened. That's it.

As for the #1 vs. #168 debate, if it's written by the same guy, in the same series, it's not really a reboot. In this universe's 75 years of history, a small chunk of a decade is nothing. It's a ripple in the ocean. The chemical origin has been synonymous with the character for over 60 years, that's more than half. If we want to get into schematics, that #1 Joker wasn't even consistently the same personality in the 40s. He went from a character that killed for jewels and diamonds after announcing his crimes to a practical jokester that wanted to play "boners" on Batman and Robin in just a couple of issues. It's not like he was in every comic from #1 (Batman) - #168 (DC) either. He also died several times and went missing from publications for years. So it's even less than 10 years of a character who's characterization is flipped upside down to adhere to a comics code. It's not like Batman and Robin (or audiences) cared about where he came from either. In the 40s there was no "no DNA or prints, nothing in his pockets but knives and lint", or multiple choice. He wasn't a mysterious character with a secret, complex past, nobody cared. He was just a villain in a comic book, a character, like other characters, that didn't have a what or when . . . until 1951.

This hoopla and argument about Joker's origin wasn't a "thing" until 2008 anyway. Why? Because it was an attempt by WB and DC to make a new interpretation valid. There wasn't this mindset that we should celebrate all the different interpretations like we're seeing now. The scarred up, face paint, haggard Heath Ledger Joker was a real risk that the companies had to legitimize. That's why around 2008 you had Batman Confidential and the Joker by Lee Bermejo. Don't believe it? Look no further than Batman 1989 where WB and DC were pushing it as the "one true Batman" and nothing like the TV show. They even used Killing Joke as a point of reference there to appease fan boys that were apprehensive. "Oh, we're going back to the roots of Detective comics, this is a dark Batman". Same BS, different year. Before 2008, ask any one what Joker's origin was and they'd tell you, he was permantely white and deformed from falling into chemicals. Ask anyone in 1989, 1988, 1970, 1960, 1951, they'd all say the same thing. I guess people are into revisionist history or forgot the huge uproar when this surfaced,

"He puts on makeup", "is that his grandma's lipstick", "emo Joker", the crow?", "not permanent-white, fail" Then when Nolan started revealing that he was just an anarchist that "just was", people really lost their ****. DC even tried stating that "it's just how it was in 1940!" but people dismissed it.

The point is, there is no one true anything. None of these interpretations are "true to the source". Not one. They're all different. I love this Heath Ledger Joker interpretation (possibly my favorite version, alongside Hamill and Nicholson) but it's far from accurate and a far cry to that 1940s version save for midnight death threats. Ledger Joker wasn't permanent white, didn't fall into a vat of chemicals, and didn't use chemicals to give people hideous, Joker grins, which are all staples of the comic character.

The Joker's origin IS the chemical dip at some factory (Ace, Axis, take your pick). It's been that way in the animated series, Arkham games, cartoons, the '89 film, the Killing Joke and most of the comic publication's entire run.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

When that photo of Ledger hit the web, people were saying he looked like Marylin Manson I liked it though...

 

[DiFabio]

When that photo of Ledger hit the web, people were saying he looked like Marylin Manson I liked it though...

Yeah, hardly anyone had anything nice to say.

I didn't really like it either because there was no context to it. The next ones that popped up won me over though once I saw the purple and green hair.

Then when those interrogation stills leaked before the December trailer in 2007, I was completely sold.

 

[morphosis]

The funny thing is, even the creators of the Joker argue who created him. they did for decades.

im not saying TDK got the origin right, im just saying keeping it more ambiguous and that the Joker just appears as the Joker is the way he was first written. He was already the Joker, no chemicals, no scaring...he was the Joker. But if you read articles from Kane, Finger and Robinson, they tell you what he was influenced from which gives you a sense they had no real origin or background for him when they created him originally. He was inspired by different things. then 10 years later they wrote the origin.

I just dont feel that 168 is a true origin because it wasnt written sequentially with the characters first appearance. and a lot of Batman historians dont think it is either. Even the guy who runs Gotham Alley quotes some jerry robinson, one of the co-creators. Although they argue about who was really the creators and Gotham Alley has a hard time believing Robinson is telling the truth, which is kind of silly. I tend to trust the words of one of the creators personally. here are some of the quotes:

Jerry Robinson: I decided to leave his face white simply because I wanted him to resemble the playing card joker. He didn’t have green hair. It was just the white of the face and the red lips. We decided deliberately not to explain it, not to write an origin. We thought that would detract from the whole aura, the mystery of the Joker – where did he come from, how did he get that way? No, we did not explain that, quite deliberately.(Comic Con panel 2009)

Jerry Robinson: Well, we had a lot of discussions about that. Bill and Bob and myself, we discussed at my first outline of that first story how I was going to explain his visual look. (...) The origin story was written by a subsequent writer many years later.
Travis: So you and Bill did not drop the Joker in a vat of acid.
Jerry: ''No, we did not. Our initial reaction to that was if we dropped him into that vat, he obviously would have come out deformed.''
(Comic Con panel 2009)

Do you trust Robinson remembering what happened back then? the Gotham Alley guy doesn't, but I rather take the word from Robinson since he was one of the creators. Gotham Alley claims Finger never mentioned any ambiguity once in his life about the Jokers origins. Well, i would have to say thats hard to know if true because he died in 1974, how many people then were interviewing comic book creators about the origins of the characters? not many. And if anything they would go to Bob Kane anything Batman related most likely. ill dig around to see if i can find any real quotes from Finger but i doubt there is much. Mostly quotes from Kane and Robinson.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Yeah, hardly anyone had anything nice to say.

I didn't really like it either because there was no context to it. The next ones that popped up won me over though once I saw the purple and green hair.

Then when those interrogation stills leaked before the December trailer in 2007, I was completely sold.

I remember those photos and analyzing every detail. I still remember seeing this photo (or maybe it was a similar photo) and wondering what he was saying

 

[Chuck72586]

I believe he was saying, "Wait a minute... You're not Katie Holmes."

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

The funny thing is, even the creators of the Joker argue who created him. they did for decades.

im not saying TDK got the origin right, im just saying keeping it more ambiguous and that the Joker just appears as the Joker is the way he was first written. He was already the Joker, no chemicals, no scaring...he was the Joker. But if you read articles from Kane, Finger and Robinson, they tell you what he was influenced from which gives you a sense they had no real origin or background for him when they created him originally. He was inspired by different things. then 10 years later they wrote the origin.

I just dont feel that 168 is a true origin because it wasnt written sequentially with the characters first appearance. and a lot of Batman historians dont think it is either. Even the guy who runs Gotham Alley quotes some jerry robinson, one of the co-creators. Although they argue about who was really the creators and Gotham Alley has a hard time believing Robinson is telling the truth, which is kind of silly. I tend to trust the words of one of the creators personally. here are some of the quotes:

Jerry Robinson: I decided to leave his face white simply because I wanted him to resemble the playing card joker. He didn’t have green hair. It was just the white of the face and the red lips. We decided deliberately not to explain it, not to write an origin. We thought that would detract from the whole aura, the mystery of the Joker – where did he come from, how did he get that way? No, we did not explain that, quite deliberately.(Comic Con panel 2009)[/B]

Jerry Robinson: Well, we had a lot of discussions about that. Bill and Bob and myself, we discussed at my first outline of that first story how I was going to explain his visual look. (...) The origin story was written by a subsequent writer many years later.
Travis: So you and Bill did not drop the Joker in a vat of acid.
Jerry: ''No, we did not. Our initial reaction to that was if we dropped him into that vat, he obviously would have come out deformed.''
(Comic Con panel 2009

Do you trust Robinson remembering what happened back then? the Gotham Alley guy doesn't, but I rather take the word from Robinson since he was one of the creators. Gotham Alley claims Finger never mentioned any ambiguity once in his life about the Jokers origins. Well, i would have to say thats hard to know if true because he died in 1974, how many people then were interviewing comic book creators about the origins of the characters? not many. And if anything they would go to Bob Kane anything Batman related most likely. ill dig around to see if i can find any real quotes from Finger but i doubt there is much. Mostly quotes from Kane and Robinson.

I understand what you mean and I get it. However, I don't believe the origin of a character has to be told or written as you said,"sequentially." A story that focuses on a character's past is just as valid, imo. They do it in novels, movies, tv shows and even comics. Also, characters are always evolving. When you think of Superman you think of a guy with numerous abilities who can defy gravity, but the truth is he couldn't fly in the beginning, and it took years for him to be given the ability to fly and have the other powers. Those abilities weren't even written by the original writers or even comic book writers for that matter, yet it is part of Superman's origin now, even though non of it was written in 1938. The truth is, no one can fully claim a character because what makes the Joker and other comic book characters who they are as we know them today is the collaboration, the cumulative works of many writers, artist, filmmakers and anyone who had anything to do with those stories in the last 75 years. In the next 75 years, they will continue to evolve, with new writers and artists adding more layers of complexity.

 

[morphosis]

I understand what you mean and I get it. However, I don't believe the origin of a character has to be told or written as you said,"sequentially." A story that focuses on a character's past is just as valid, imo. They do it in novels, movies, tv shows and even comics. Also, characters are always evolving. When you think of Superman you think of a guy with numerous abilities who can defy gravity, but the truth is he couldn't fly in the beginning, and it took years for him to be given the ability to fly and have the other powers. Those abilities weren't even written by the original writers or even comic book writers for that matter, yet it is part of Superman's origin now, even though non of it was written in 1938. The truth is, no one can fully claim a character because what makes the Joker and other comic book characters who they are as we know them today is the collaboration, the cumulative works of many writers, artist, filmmakers and anyone who had anything to do with those stories in the last 75 years. In the next 75 years, they will continue to evolve, with new writers and artists adding more layers of complexity.

"sequentially" may have not have been the correct word to use, and i totally agree with everything you said especially about the characters evolving. thats why i say 168 is a "evolving" story. its kind of a reboot of the character for back then. Yes Superman couldn't fly, was an orphan, etc etc. his origin has slightly changed over the years. the character himself has changed. Joker has changed. he went through tons of changes from the 40s until now...and all these characters will.

I just dont think there is a true origin to the Joker. even Robinson doesnt believe there was and he was one of the creators.