The Joker Thread - Part 1

[DeadlyWest]

I think with Joker 2019 that is sort of the apex of sympathetic Joker imo, taking that element first introduced in The Killing Joke. So, it would be best to get away from that. You could argue that the complete evil out of nowhere has been done already with Ledger, but that version is more grounded in reality than comic book Joker and more grungy etc and really very much a standalone take. There's still room for mysterious evil Joker, especially if they go for a more comic accurate look, but those creepy gothic and expressionist horror aesthetics Joker's had sometimes.

Not really. Ledger's, if anything, was the most comic accurate by just giving him no actual backstory. Like Shauner, I'd rather they did the same here and have Joker not have a backstory. But I think the idea of his backstory being that he has no tragic backstory, was perfectly normal and just became this psychopath completely out of the blue with no rhyme or reason to it could be really interesting for making him even more mysterious and scary

 

[AndyTrevino]

If they had to do an origin, I'd actually rather not go the Red Hood route. It's essentially what happens in 1989 and I'd rather they did something different. If anything, I'd actually rather his origin was that he has no tragic backstory. He just seemingly, out of nowhere, becomes this entity of pure evil when before he had a relatively normal life. It'd still keep the mystery and add to his unpredictability

Him having a normal life sounds a bit boring to me and the sympathetic Red Hood gripe is easily fixed in Zero Year by just him always having been a psychotic criminal from the beginning. In a different way than 89

 

[Gothamsknight]

In my opinion, his origins should remain a mystery in this series. It's one of the most intriguing aspects of the character and makes him that much more terrifying. The Joker is almost inhumane, and with so much about him being "unknown", it just adds to the creepiness.

 

[DeadlyWest]

Him having a normal life sounds a bit boring to me and the sympathetic Red Hood grips is easily fixed in Zero Year by just him always having been a psychotic criminal from the beginning. In a different way than 89

I think it depends on how exactly it was done but it could absolutely be made interesting imo.

The idea that a normal dude goes about his normal day, drives his car, goes to work, comes home and then the next day he's murdering people in the street in a purple suit with white skin and a great big smile is weird. You could easily make interesting storytelling via the investigation of that. And by having there be no actual discernible reason that caused such a jarring change, as I said, it could really add to the mystery of Joker.

 

[AndyTrevino]

I think it depends on how exactly it was done but it could absolutely be made interesting imo.

The idea that a normal dude goes about his normal day, drives his car, goes to work, comes home and then the next day he's murdering people in the street in a purple suit with white skin and a great big smile is weird. You could easily make interesting storytelling via the investigation of that. And by having there be no actual discernible reason that caused such a jarring change, as I said, it could really add to the mystery of Joker.

That's a very good point. I just much prefer for him to be the worst guy in the room with the implication that he was more or less this way from birth.

 

[DeadlyWest]

That's a very good point. I just much prefer for him to be the worst guy in the room with the implication that he was more or less this way from birth.

I prefer that too, that's essentially what you get from the lack of a backstory. But if, at gunpoint, they had to give him a backstory? I think my suggestion would be the most interesting

 

[Art Vandelay]

Not really. Ledger's, if anything, was the most comic accurate by just giving him no actual backstory. Like Shauner, I'd rather they did the same here and have Joker not have a backstory. But I think the idea of his backstory being that he has no tragic backstory, was perfectly normal and just became this psychopath completely out of the blue with no rhyme or reason to it could be really interesting for making him even more mysterious and scary

Ever see the movie Phone Booth? There's a moment where Kiefer Sutherland pretends to be triggered by Colin Farrell, telling him he was reminding him of his traumatic childhood, only to start laughing and telling him he was just kidding, and that he actually had a happy childhood. That always stuck with me, because while you don't know if he's serious, it would be pretty messed up if he was this murderous psychopath who visited his loving parents on the weekends.

 

[DeadlyWest]

Ever see the movie Phone Booth? There's a moment where Kiefer Sutherland pretends to be triggered by Colin Farrell, telling him he was reminding him of his traumatic childhood, only to start laughing and telling him he was just kidding, and that he actually had a happy childhood. That always stuck with me, because while you don't know if he's serious, it would be pretty messed up if he was this murderous psychopath who visited his loving parents on the weekends.

Exactly. The idea that Batman does know who he is, his real name, his family, what he did for a living pre Joker, all these things documented and on record yet he has no answer to this sudden and jarring change from average working man into merciless psychopath would be interesting as bad place to watch

 

[PurpleStar]

Not really. Ledger's, if anything, was the most comic accurate by just giving him no actual backstory. Like Shauner, I'd rather they did the same here and have Joker not have a backstory. But I think the idea of his backstory being that he has no tragic backstory, was perfectly normal and just became this psychopath completely out of the blue with no rhyme or reason to it could be really interesting for making him even more mysterious and scary

Yeah, I'm not saying that Ledger doesn't hit several key Joker elements, more so than Pheonix really. The story arch could be said to very loosely follow the story arch in the two Joker stories in Batman #1, for example. But it's not literally that golden age Joker obviously. The depiction in TKD is not an exact translation of comic book Joker as he's classically presented in general imo - TDK is it's own take on it. So hits several key traits but is fairly unique. I think that is a fair evaluation of it tbh.

Edit: It's just a bit of a pet peeve of mine tbh as you will sometimes see statements like Ledger Joker is literally early 40s Joker... er no lmao. Or, that he's the most accurate, which again I don't see that when it is very much a specific take that weaves in a few key Joker traits, but is unique and works best in it's own universe. I've no attachment to TDK Joker though as although I am in the key age range to have seen in in 2008, I didn't actually watch it until this year. And by then I'd become a fan of the Joker character primarily from comics, and had read quite a few, so I came at it from an angle of it not being my first experience of the character. I actually love Bronze age Joker stories best, although I like a few older ones too, the 40s stories have a few gems although they can suffer from some underdevelopment. Maybe they're interesting for historical purposes.

But yes. I too prefer Joker to be enigmatic.

 

[Captain Tired]

Ledger's Joker is not the most comic accurate, simply by virtue of the character's very first appearance offering up no backstory. If we're using that logic, then Keaton and Affleck are the most comic accurate Batmen on account of them both killing thugs and using guns rofl. I'd wager most would be hesitant to subscribe to that logic in that instance. It's truer to say that he's the most accurate to a take on the character that's tied to a very specific era.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

Ledger's Joker is not the most comic accurate, simply by virtue of the character's very first appearance offering up no backstory. If we're using that logic, then Keaton and Affleck are the most comic accurate Batmen on account of them both killing thugs and using guns rofl. I'd wager most would be hesitant to subscribe to that logic in that instance. It's truer to say that he's the most accurate to a take on the character that's tied to a very specific era.

You're right. He's the most accurate so far because he has no real backstory, has the obsession/relationship with Batman moreso than every other film version, is trying to prove what he tried to prove in TKJ on a grander scale, laughs at near death experiences and has no fear, is a mastermind and expert manipulator who uses everyone as a toy... Etc etc etc


He may not have permawhite skin but when you ignore the superficial stuff, it's the most in line with the spirit of the character thus far.

 

[Captain Tired]

I don't think you read my post right.

 

[PurpleStar]

You're right. He's the most accurate so far because he has no real backstory, has the obsession/relationship with Batman moreso than every other film version, is trying to prove what he tried to prove in TKJ on a grander scale, laughs at near death experiences and has no fear, is a mastermind and expert manipulator who uses everyone as a toy... Etc etc etc


He may not have permawhite skin but when you ignore the superficial stuff, it's the most in line with the spirit of the character thus far.

Yeah. Don't want to get too much into this debate, but what I'd say is that Ledger has most of the spirit of the character and does several very Joker things, but it's a re-imagining rather than exact transcription. Do you see what I mean? On the other hand, Nicholson has several scenes which are almost ripped direct from comics (the parade float is almost exactly like scenes in Dreadful Birthday, Dear Joker, for example). So to me he feels more like you're watching comic book Joker come to life... but there are a couple of not so good things too (having him take Joe Chill's place and also having him die definitively are the major drawbacks tbh).

 

[AndyTrevino]

I'm sorry, the superficial stuff matters to me. But at the same time I don't need it to be a 100% translation. Goofy-ish mannerisms and pale skin are usually all I need.

 

[PurpleStar]

I'm sorry, the superficial stuff matters to me. But at the same time I don't need it to be a 100% translation. Goofy-ish mannerisms and pale skin are usually all I need.

Yeah, tbh I think I just love comic book Joker, especially bronze age written by Englehart, O'Neill etc that I just want more lol But a film adaptation will have differences due to the different mediums. I do think there are aspects of comic book Joker that we've not really seen in live action though which I've mentioned previously. Mostly the aesthetics - specifically the gothic expressionist noir elements, which may be a superficial thing but it's what I like and I think it does have value especially as film is visual.

To be honest, Richard Widmark in the 40s noir film Kiss of Death, acts in a way I'd like to see, especially as he was inspired by Joker for how he plays the character in this film. So, it's got a bit of that gangster things going that you have with golden age Joker. Frankly I wish he could have played Joker as it would probably have been good.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

Yeah. Don't want to get too much into this debate, but what I'd say is that Ledger has most of the spirit of the character and does several very Joker things, but it's a re-imagining rather than exact transcription. Do you see what I mean? On the other hand, Nicholson has several scenes which are almost ripped direct from comics (the parade float is almost exactly like scenes in Dreadful Birthday, Dear Joker, for example). So to me he feels more like you're watching comic book Joker come to life... but there are a couple of not so good things too (having him take Joe Chill's place and also having him die definitively are the major drawbacks tbh).

What annoyed me about Nicholson is that you don't really get the sense that Batman really matters to him beyond being annoyed by him constantly ruining things for him. It's only in the third act where they suddenly start getting all personal with each other and Joker is mad at how he "made" him and everything. It's not like he's his reason for getting out of bed or anything. There's no real connection, nor longevity thanks to the death like you mentioned. We kinda have yet to see a film adaptation of their relationship that's as perfect as TDK's was. They pretty much nailed it. If nothing else, they definitely directly transcribed THAT much.

 

[PurpleStar]

What annoyed me about Nicholson is that you don't really get the sense that Batman really matters to him beyond being annoyed by him constantly ruining things for him. It's only in the third act where they suddenly start getting all personal with each other and Joker is mad at how he "made" him and everything. It's not like he's his reason for getting out of bed or anything. There's no real connection, nor longevity thanks to the death like you mentioned. We kinda have yet to see a film adaptation of their relationship that's as perfect as TDK's was. They pretty much nailed it. If nothing else, they definitely directly transcribed THAT much.

I'd agree with that. With Batman 1989, I wonder if they were going for how Joker is in Batman #1 because in that first story he is more annoyed with Batman than interested. The obsession came later, although it didn't take long for them to start to introduce it in the 40s onward e.g. not wanting to reveal Batmans identity or kill him because that would end the gamr. It starts to come across fairly soon in stories after Batman #1 that Joker enjoys playing against Batman. So Batman 1989 should have incorporated this transition a bit more. To be fair though, the emphasis on the connection between the characters does seem to be a more modern trope, especially post The Killing Joke, although it is there in older stories too, but just not as emphasised in the way it tends to be now. I think Batman 1989 substituted with having Joker take Joe Chill's place as killer of Bruce's parents, so that would be the thing that bonds them together. Doesn't work all that well though, especially as once Joker is dead there's too much finality.

I think Joker's obsession with Batman is best as something that seems to come from nowhere - is a manifestation of Joker's mentality, obsessions, self image and ego. I like how Steve Englehart presented it in Dark Detective and The Laughing Fish/Sign of the Joker.

 

[RokMeAmadeus]

It feels like kind of a cheap way to give him his "arch nemesis " status, especially when they just went and killed him off not long after Bats finding out. Tbh I kinda like the stories where the killer of Bruce's parents was never even caught, and/or would be dead by the time he's Batman. The one crime he can never solve.

 

[PurpleStar]

On another note, I'd really like to see the Joker venom used in live action again, since none since Batman 1989 have (except Gotham tv series maybe?). In fact I'd like a bit more back to basics presentation of it - you know rather than gassing a load of people with it, have it just on one victim (edit: initially in the first scene it's shown). Sometimes, the Joker venom gets overused in stories, so it becomes mundane and it really should not. Also, I prefer not to have people's faces literally turn into a Joker like clown face as it's sometimes drawn because that can reduce the horror imo because it looks too cartoonish. I've always preferred it to be that people look as themselves but get this huge creepy grin. Like, that very first presentation of it with Henry Claridge where it describes his face slowly contorting into a ghastly grin in death. That's still creepy as bad place, and so I think a simple dramatic scene like that, maybe with some noir-ish cinematic aesthetics in Reeves Batman would be great and really sell the character.

 

[AndyTrevino]

On another note, I'd really like to see the Joker venom used in live action again, since none since Batman 1989 have (except Gotham tv series maybe?). In fact I'd like a bit more back to basics presentation of it - you know rather than gassing a load of people with it, have it just on one victim. Sometimes, the Joker venom gets overused in stories, so it becomes mundane and it really should not. Also, I prefer not to have people's faces literally turn into a Joker like clown face as it's sometimes drawn because that can reduce the horror imo because it looks too cartoonish. I've always preferred it to be that people look as themselves but get this huge creepy grin. Like, that very first presentation of it with Henry Claridge where it describes his face slowly contorting into a ghastly grin in death. That's still creepy as bad place, and so I think a simple dramatic scene like that, maybe with some noir-ish cinematic aesthetics in Reeves Batman would be great and really sell the character.

I'd like to see it used multiple times, not on just one guy.

 

[DeadlyWest]

I'd like to see it used multiple times, not on just one guy.

I'd love it if our first look into a Joker crime scene is the aftermath of the talk show from Dark Knight Returns. Change the venue, maybe make it an entire cafe or something, to prevent comparisons to the movie. But that'd be one bad place of a way to establish how dangerous this Joker is

 

[PurpleStar]

I'd like to see it used multiple times, not on just one guy.

I just mean the first initial use of it in a scene. Sorry should have been clearer. Not saying only once for a whole film.
The reason why is because imo that is more horrifying, especially if you have some set up that means you sympathise with the victim a bit. I think that would be good for the very first time we see it. And that's a narrative proven to work after all (but on that note, think the Brubaker The Man Who Laughs version of the first Joker story kills the tension by showing victims Joker has experimented on first before showing the actual first kill).

The problem with having tons of people is that while it's viscerally horrifying, is that sometimes it ends up being so many that you don't really care. It's just yet another scene of Joker venom killing a vast swath of people who are just faceless npcs effectively. Could still work on film though depending how they approach it though. It's just that at this point I've seen similar scenes in comics too many times in a way that feels rather by the numbers. Plus things like this can lean towards edgy and gross for the sake of being so at times, and also reduces Joker to just a grotesque mass murderer, but in a one dimensional way that lacks the flair and colour fulness - even the black humour - of the character. Joker should be a character that charms you and makes you enjoy his antics and black humour, while also being terrifying.

 

[shauner111]

Ehhhh, I am sooo sick of Miller's DKR always needing to be an influence on these movies. It's worked so far but after Nolan, Snyder and Phillips ran with that novel...I'm just ready for a director to side step that whole book. Year One is enough IMO.

After Joker, I wouldn't even touch the talk show scene. After BvS I wouldn't touch another Batman/Superman brawl. After Rises I wouldn't touch the retired Bruce Wayne who comes back for one last go before faking his death.

The only stuff that could be used at this point is Carrie Kelly as a new Robin (which seems more like a Snyder addition). I wouldn't even bring that character to the big screen unless some filmmaker adapts TDKReturns from top to bottom. Which I don't see happening until I'm in a wheelchair or beyond. A Bowie esque Joker is cool but knowing what some of us know right now, I don't see THIS Joker being like him (in a catatonic state or the carnival scene where he eventually snaps his own neck). All of that will be adapted I'm sure, but I say let this breathe first and if this Batman & Joker grow to be that old...MAYBE have a shot at it. Otherwise leave it for a reboot with Bill Hader or Caleb Landry Jones or friggin Harry Styles for all i care lol. Just pleaaaaase can we ignore that graphic novel for at least the next decade?

 

[PurpleStar]

Ehhhh, I am sooo sick of Miller's DKR always needing to be an influence on these movies. It's worked so far but after Nolan, Snyder and Phillips ran with that novel...I'm just ready for a director to side step that whole book. Year One is enough IMO.

After Joker, I wouldn't even touch the talk show scene. After BvS I wouldn't touch another Batman/Superman brawl. After Rises I wouldn't touch the retired Bruce Wayne who comes back for one last go before faking his death.

The only stuff that could be used at this point is Carrie Kelly as a new Robin (which seems more like a Snyder addition). I wouldn't even bring that character to the big screen unless some filmmaker adapts TDKReturns from top to bottom. Which I don't see happening until I'm in a wheelchair or beyond. A Bowie esque Joker is cool but knowing what some of us know right now, I don't see THIS Joker being like him (in a catatonic state or the carnival scene where he eventually snaps his own neck). All of that will be adapted I'm sure, but I say let this breathe first and if this Batman & Joker grow to be that old...MAYBE have a shot at it. Otherwise leave it for a reboot with Bill Hader or Caleb Landry Jones or friggin Harry Styles for all i care lol. Just pleaaaaase can we ignore that graphic novel for at least the next decade?

Honestly I feel that sentiment tbh. The point that I've been touching on of sometimes the edgy grim dark going too far really originates from the influence that Miller and Moore have had. I could do without references to The Killing Joke too again as the constant references begin to grate. It's good but, like TDKR not the only Joker story and as both are works of deconstruction and play as a final confrontation or a coda, I don't think it makes sense to base everything on them. And the hype around these can be annoying because it sometimes seems to come with an ignorance of anything else.

 

[AndyTrevino]

I really want curly puffed up hair for this Joker. That would be super distinctive from what we've gotten in the past.