|Batman >> View Post|
Subj: Re: On the contrary, far more than you think.
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 04:23:40 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)
Reply Subj: Re: On the contrary, far more than you think.
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:40:12 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)
> > > Really? The origin humanizes the Joker and makes it so that the reader realizes that just about anyone, including Bruce under the right circumstances could have become an insane monster.
> > True, which is interesting, but not an aboslute "must have"
> That is like saying Batman does not need an origin.
Not at all, Batman requires an origin because he is the main character. The Joker isn't so does not.
> > >Without that where is the connection?
> > There doesn't need to be one.
> Then the Joker cannot really be Batman's opposite and equal.
Of course he can. Two chess players can grow up with no connection to each other, it's only when they play against each other there is a relationship.
> > >Where is the motivation for Joker's insane actions?
> > You've sort of answered your own question there, he's insane.
> Insane people have reasons for being insane, they are not just born insane.
We already know that, the acid dip, the rest is irrelevant, or at least variable.
> You might as well ask why have Batman: Year One, Batman: Blind Justice and Batman: The Man Who Fell?
Actually, that's what I WAS asking. Why is "Batman: Year One" "paramount"?
> > What? When? The BTAS origin of the Joker removes the Red Hood concept completely, and has the Joker's past life being "a nameless gunsel for the Vellestra Mob". He was a sadistic killer BEFORE he was the Joker, as seen in "Mask of the Phantasm". The only thing they have in common is a large vat of acidic chemicals being involved.
> I said The Batman animated series (2004), not Batman: The Animated Series (1992).
When was it mentioned there, out of curiosity?
> > >Christopher Nolan used it as source material for his new film, it has stood the test of time and it has been one of the big bestsellers of DC.
> > Except he appears to be changing it again
> More like making it more realistic.
If they were going for "realistic" they'd lose the make up, surely.
>We do not know at all how much of The Killing Joke is in The Dark Knight. We only know at least some of it is in The Dark Knight and that the Joker's origin is an important element of the film according to Nolan.
And you seem to overlook that a good chunk of the Killing Joke is taken from the 1951 story.
> Joker's origin in the comics was never explained fully until Alan Moore wrote it.
Of course it was. The only thing that changes was the career of the Red Hood. Brilliant career criminal or failed comedian.
And as you inevitably forget in these discussion, the Joker himself in TKJ says he has no clue as to what his true origin is.
>Even before that though his origin was alluded to having something to do with society damming the Joker and the Joker trying to get back at society which makes much more sense than any movie or animated depiction thus far.
And that would be the motivation for a rational man... the Joker isn't rational.
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 220.127.116.11 on Windows XP
|On Topic™ © 2003-2023 Powermad Software|