The Dark Knight What is the Joker's true identity?

[Catman]

OMG God jorel... honestly, could you stop posting such nonsense?

You'd be surprised how many non-geeks think the same as him. It's sad but many people still think that Batman Begins was a prequel.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Red Hood.

 

[Frank Noir]

You are. Welcome to the Hype.


t:

Ahh, the banter. Lovin' it. t:

 

[Catman]

Red Hood.

Are they actually doing the Red Hood thing in this movie?

 

[Shoemeister]

It's sad but many people still think that Batman Begins was a prequel.

God, I know. I can't even count the number of people who I've heard say "Oh, so they're remaking all of them, then?"

SLAP!

 

[Frank Noir]

God, I know. I can't even count the number of people who I've heard say "Oh, so they're remaking all of them, then?"

Ohhh, man...

 

[JStorm]

in Hush Returns, which follows the Killing Joke origin, his name is revealed as "Jack" but no last name is given.

I'll have to re-read that. But, for now, I will take you word.

 

[JStorm]

Are they actually doing the Red Hood thing in this movie?

I wouldn't mind it.

As much as I liked Jack Napier, I loved the sissy flashback Joker in TKJ.

I'm not saying do it to that exact measure; but having a guy in a red hood fall into a bat of whatever, would bring back fond childhood comic memories.

But, then again, the movie isn't about my feelings.

 

[nedflanders]

As I previously stated Black and White (I think it's 2) clearly defined his origin via an unbiased third party.

The staff at Arkham find a journal of an orderly who clearly documents the events leading up to Jack Napier falling into the vat and the story details who The Red Hood really was and why Jack Napier took that persona the night he turned into the Joker.

It's a really good read btw.

The sissy flashback in TKJ is from the perspective of The Joker himself so it's in no way supposed to be taken as the gospel people make it out to be. He's telling the story how he wants it to be at that moment and contorting the details to benefit his own agenda.

Personally I really like the idea that he was a sociopath prior to being The Joker and he just took advantage of the bizarre situation by steering into the skid and using his deformities to his advantage.

 

[Symbiotic]

God, I know. I can't even count the number of people who I've heard say "Oh, so they're remaking all of them, then?"

SLAP!

I knew someone a while back who thought that Batman Forever was chronologically the first of the Burton/Schumacher movies because Robin was in it.

 

[Cain]

^ There are people out there that think BATMAN takes place several years after Batman (1966), seriously

Anyway there is nobody better qualified to figure out the Joker's true identity than the Scooby Doo Detective Agency. I smell a crossover.

 

[Doc Holliday]

As I previously stated Black and White (I think it's 2) clearly defined his origin via an unbiased third party.

The staff at Arkham find a journal of an orderly who clearly documents the events leading up to Jack Napier falling into the vat and the story details who The Red Hood really was and why Jack Napier took that persona the night he turned into the Joker.

It's a really good read btw.

The sissy flashback in TKJ is from the perspective of The Joker himself so it's in no way supposed to be taken as the gospel people make it out to be. He's telling the story how he wants it to be at that moment and contorting the details to benefit his own agenda.

Personally I really like the idea that he was a sociopath prior to being The Joker and he just took advantage of the bizarre situation by steering into the skid and using his deformities to his advantage.

I don't know why, but I just don't want "Jack Napier" in this movie. Maybe because I didn't like the way they did him in B89, because essentially, when he became the Joker, all he did was get a new face and an incontrollable giggle. He didn't become any more sadistic or evil because of his anger about the chemical bath.

What you're talking about sounds good, but I'd prefer they use another name, because it links too much with B89.

And also, I personally like TKJ origin because of what it says about his character. Obviously his past isn't a great memory, so he likes to change it and make it better because he can, and because he can't do the same thing to his current circumstances.

 

[Nepenthes]

As I previously stated Black and White (I think it's 2) clearly defined his origin via an unbiased third party.

The staff at Arkham find a journal of an orderly who clearly documents the events leading up to Jack Napier falling into the vat and the story details who The Red Hood really was and why Jack Napier took that persona the night he turned into the Joker.

It's a really good read btw.

The sissy flashback in TKJ is from the perspective of The Joker himself so it's in no way supposed to be taken as the gospel people make it out to be. He's telling the story how he wants it to be at that moment and contorting the details to benefit his own agenda.

Personally I really like the idea that he was a sociopath prior to being The Joker and he just took advantage of the bizarre situation by steering into the skid and using his deformities to his advantage.

Just because one person wrote a story it doesn't make it so. Half of B&W is speculative anyway, it was just a chance for artists are writers to do fun little stories any way they pleased.

There's an origin story coming out right now is claiming to be 'definitive' in the solicits. It won't stick though, it's just hype to sell the books. No matter how many origin theories pop up Joker is and will always be unknown, or 'multiple choice'. People choose the origin they prefer.

 

[gdw]

I haven't read any of those. I definitely won't now if they're f***ing with Batman's origin.

It is not so much that that someone else is ****ing with Batman making him think his parents killer is still out there.

 

[bunk]

Oh jeez, Bats should know better...

 

[nedflanders]

There's an origin story coming out right now is claiming to be 'definitive' in the solicits.

What's it called?

I wanna read that.

 

[Ring Deacon]

I have no problem with just saying his name used to be Jack, but I see no need for a last name. Maybe Joker is so crazy he doesn't even remember who he used to be.

 

[Joker]

What's it called?

I wanna read that.

it's the next arc in Batman: Confidential...the art looks absolutely atrocious

 

[lixdexia]

the new art cant look anywhere near as horrid as the stuff in the first arc

 

[Joker]

the new art cant look anywhere near as horrid as the stuff in the first arc

it actually looks worse, on the covers anyway...

look at batmans right eye (our left) for gods sake...

 

[lixdexia]

i just shed a tear, but only one

 

[Spider-Bat]

spoiler















hi dear guys, something I think confusing a little ... is the Joker in Dark Knight film same character as in the Batman 89? In other words is he Jack Napier? or is new filmed divorced from the Burton?
remember for the Batman 89, Jack Napier killed Bruce Wayne parents. But in Batman Begins we see some other guy, a criminal, not the Napier did the murder? but this criminal guy was shot dead in courtroom, so i presume Jack Napier was not Wayne parental killer guy? but can he still be the Joker?

Read the comics. Joe Chill killed the Waynes. The 89 movie is great but Burton and that other writer changed the script so that Jack was the Killer, Samm Hamm who wrote it did not want that to happen, but they were shooting in England and Samm was stuck in Hollywood dealing with a writers strike, he couldn't help it, but the poor guy gets blamed for it all the time. He had nothing to do with Vicki in the Bat-Cave either.

So don't blame Samm guys.

In the comic The Joker was the Red Hood when he took the plunge into the chemicals that disfigured him. An unknown guy, but according to The Killing Joke, he was a guy with a family who made the mistake of going in on a job with some crooks who screwed him over.

Who knows what the origin will be in this new Nolan movie since Nolan doesn't give a damn about the comics, and doesn't really even want to make Batman movies with the way his additude is, he didn't even want the Scarecrow to wear his mask. Goyer had to talk Chris into it.

Why bother making the movie if you're ashamed to make it, that's how he acts. Why even have Batman in costume, why even bother calling it BATMAN!

Jerk. I hate filmmakers like that. Like they're to good to make a comic book movie, when comics are better than anything they'll ever do, Nolan's no big deal, just another one who throws in a so called surprise ending. Nolan's movies are boring and predictable. The Prestige was a dull predictable joke.

And now the Joker played by Heath who is totally wrong, looks horrible, some idiot with smeared lip stick and a scar.

 

[Sadaskaa]

Who knows what the origin will be in this new Nolan movie since Nolan doesn't give a damn about the comics, and doesn't really even want to make Batman movies with the way his additude is, he didn't even want the Scarecrow to wear his mask. Goyer had to talk Chris into it.

Wrong. He didn't say he didn't want it. He asked for a logical reason why Scarecrow would need a mask. Get it right.

And now the Joker played by Heath who is totally wrong, looks horrible, some idiot with smeared lip stick and a scar.

Oh boohoo. Wait and see the movie before you start whining.

 

[MagicPrime]

Read the comics. Joe Chill killed the Waynes. The 89 movie is great but Burton and that other writer changed the script so that Jack was the Killer, Samm Hamm who wrote it did not want that to happen, but they were shooting in England and Samm was stuck in Hollywood dealing with a writers strike, he couldn't help it, but the poor guy gets blamed for it all the time. He had nothing to do with Vicki in the Bat-Cave either.

So don't blame Samm guys.

In the comic The Joker was the Red Hood when he took the plunge into the chemicals that disfigured him. An unknown guy, but according to The Killing Joke, he was a guy with a family who made the mistake of going in on a job with some crooks who screwed him over.

Who knows what the origin will be in this new Nolan movie since Nolan doesn't give a damn about the comics, and doesn't really even want to make Batman movies with the way his additude is, he didn't even want the Scarecrow to wear his mask. Goyer had to talk Chris into it.

Why bother making the movie if you're ashamed to make it, that's how he acts. Why even have Batman in costume, why even bother calling it BATMAN!

Jerk. I hate filmmakers like that. Like they're to good to make a comic book movie, when comics are better than anything they'll ever do, Nolan's no big deal, just another one who throws in a so called surprise ending. Nolan's movies are boring and predictable. The Prestige was a dull predictable joke.

And now the Joker played by Heath who is totally wrong, looks horrible, some idiot with smeared lip stick and a scar.

And he gets told nonchalantly that his wife and baby died in a fire because of a bottlewarmer they were testing out for extra money.

 

[MagicPrime]

Wrong. He didn't say he didn't want it. He asked for a logical reason why Scarecrow would need a mask. Get it right.

Exactly, and having that logical reason made it all the more sweet.