|Batman >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Hmmmmmm
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:38:42 pm EST
Reply Subj: Re: Hmmmmmm
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:50:19 pm EST
> > Because for two chess players, their past is irrelevant, it's the game they bring to the board that counts.
> Except then the chess players are also irrelevant.
They are relevant as regards the game, and the game is all.
> > Err, yes it was. Try "The Untold Legend of the Batman" from 1980 for a coherent putting together of any number of plot elements, including Detective Harvey Harris and why Bruce chose "Justice" over "The Law".
> I was referring to Batman' first origin. Anything after that built on the origin as well it should.
And if you're read my comment you'd know that "The Untold Legend of the Batman" acknowledges that past a darn sight more faithfully than your much vaunted "Batman Year One", which ignores nearly everything the first origin had set up.
> > > In the original comic book besides the murder of his folks Batman just saw a bat and that got him to become Batman.
> > Yes, and you know what, that worked just fine.
> Maybe for Batman (1989), but not for Batman in 1980s, 1990s, 21st century and Batman Begins.
I'll bet if you asked most comic readers Batman's origin, they'd STILL mention the "Bat through the window" rather than the Year One version. It's known to Batman fans, but the rest? Not so much
> > Which sort of spoils the mythological "A superstitious, cowardly lot" since he's assigning that POV to himself too.
> Bruce is not assiging anything to himself. He is embracing his fear, conquering it and then utilizing a mythical symbol of darkness to strike terror into the hearts of all. Obviously he has to back up his appareance with some strong arm tactics otherwise no criminals will fear him.
> Not utterly irrelevant at all, since from this we learn that Batman was not born in a single moment but was something that took time to create.
We'd known that for years. The Batman was born in a moment, but Bruce had already done all the legwork with his studies and training. The bat gave him a form, but he's supplied the material. anything else assigned to it is window dressing.
>We also come to relate to Batman, because we think that maybe with enough training we could aspire to something similar. Further it establishes Batman's familiarity with Henri Ducard and his training are instrumental to Batman Begins.
Except that Batman Begind created a completely DIFFERENT Ducard to anything in the comics.
> > In what way is "A child having an emotional catastrophe" that similar to "A criminal falling into a vat of toxic chemicals and being disfigured and possibly driven insane by the sheer pain, if not the toxicity of the chemicals themselves." ?
> Not a criminal. An average normal person that had a normal life.
Only in your incredibly narrow view of TKJ
> > More than basing it all on the ravings of a deranged mind. Did Batman go "Egad, you're right!"?
> You got a better origin, then let us have it. If Joker's origin in The Killing Joke was not at all important or revelant then it would not have been written in the first place and would have been quickly forgotten. Further then Alan Moore would have had Joker recall different origins in The Killing Joke instead of just one
Now I really have to agree with BMK that you're just stirring the pot for kicks and giggles because that is such a breathtakingly weird comment to make.
Moore didn't provide different explanations because none were needed, all that is needed is the realisation that the Joker could well be explaining something which is untrue. That this vast elaborate reconstruction in his mind could be completely fake. And the sad part is that he knows it could be.
>and Ed Brubaker would not have supported it in The Man Who Laughs and Gotham Knights would not have supported it either.
And find me a fan of either of those stories... They have inspired panning in any reviews I've read mostly because they DID miss the point of TKJ and imply it's facts were the one and only past of the Joker. Though even then they don't entirely support the past, only as much as Brubaker wanted.
> It is not based on the ravings of a deranged mind,
So you're telling me that a story told in the first person by the Joker isn't the product of a deranged mind? Riiiight.
>it is based on the writing of Alan Moore, backed by DC, supported by Batman fans that love it to the point that The Killing Joke sells out, accepted by Christopher Nolan, accepted by the writers of The Batman, and accepted by Heath Ledger.
What the heck has that got to do with whether it established a defintive past for the Joker? And you're overlooking the infinitely more likely scenario that they love it partly BECAUSE of it's ambiguity. The fact you like things utterly linear doesn't mean everyone else does.
> What more do you want? You even got Ridler saying it happened. Do you need Batman to come out an list Joker's whole life from when he was a kid to adulthood.
The Riddler saying it happened in a truly wretched story? I'll pass thanks. I love Brubaker in many stories, but his Batman work was... let's be kind and assume he was having that "bad day" we were talking about.
> Batman is not supposed to figure out Joker's origin, the same way the Joker is not supposed to figure out Batman's origin, but we the audience know the truth.
> > No, "Beware, the Creeper" in BTAS tells us that the "nameless gunsel" (I really should use gunman there, since gunsel means something quite different, though "The Maltese Falcon" convinced a nation otherwise, but I digress) fell into the vat of chemicals whilst part of a gang that Batman was fighting.
> LOL Its not the real Joker. The Joker in BTAS is not based on the Joker in the comics.
No of course not, a man who falls into a vat of chemicals, comes out defaormed, insane and using comedy based crimes has NOTHING in common with the comics. Good lord, do you realise ho anal that sounds? And besides, WHICH comics? There have been multiple iterations of the Jokers' personality in the comics too. Cold blooded assassin, playful thief, seeker of Batman's humiliation, mass murderer, gleefully killer of a teenager with a crowbar... Most of those have been since Year One and TKJ too.
>He is a completely different entity who cares more about money than anything else.
Well, A) So does the Joker in many versions of his personality and B) The BTAS Joke has indulged in non-monetary cromes too, most notably what he did to Robin. No financial gain there, just evil for the sake of evil, and sick humour.
>He is an invention of Bruce Timm that is as fake as Terry McGinniss. Timm's BTAS is more of an Elseworlds Tale.
Sadly for your POV we seem to have Terry McGuinnes being acknowledged in the DCU now.
> > Not really, Nolan is creating as much realism as he feels is necessary, that's not realism by a long chalk.
> What more realism do you need? Batman Begins is considered the most realistic superhero movie.
Which is a bit like describing something as being the least wet river or the least sandiest desert.
Shall we begin with a city so bereft of CCTV that no one in authority can track a car like the Tumbler?
> > > > Except that misses the point of the Joker, he already IS a monster to the core.
> > >
> > > This was ever mentioned in the comics. You are mixing (1989) Batman and BTAS with the comics.
> > Why? The Joker is a monster since his chemical skin peel to end all skin peels.
> Show me where Bob Kane and Bill Finger ever said that.
The white skinned killer from Batman #1 exists in the same continuity as the Joker from "The Man Who Was the Red Hood". So both exist in the same person.
> > >It was not until Alan Moore's The Killing Joker that the Joke's origin was finally revealed.
> > AN origin, not THE origin.
> If you got another better origin show it to me. Otherwise it is the origin.
And again, you laud TKJ to the skies whilst omitting one of the most important points Moore raises. You really can't have it both ways. You either accept Moore's story, including the "uncertainty principle" or you ignore it completely.
> In the comics if Batman considers someone a monster he will kill them or let them die.
Such as? Or are you going back to 1939 here?
>In Batman: Birth of the Demon he tried to kill Ras because he considered him a monster
Ah yes, killing an immortal, always a given...
>and in Batman: Strange Apparitions he was glad when Dr. Phosphorous.
Except of course, Phosphorus didn't die, and it's likely Batman knew that at some level, as so few peopel STAY dead.
>In the first appearances of Batman, he killed several criminals, used a gun with silver bullets to kill vampires, and Bob Kane intended Batman to permanently have a gun.
And that changed irrevocably, and became part of Earth 2 Batman, not Earth 1 Batman when they got around to splitting them.
> It is a story written by Alan Moore. It is the definitive Joker origin. If the origin was not relevant at all, then why even write it?
Are you really that naive? Aside from "It's how he earned his living", he wrote it because he thought it was an entertaining comic story, but did other writers the courtesy of leaving it more open ended than you seem to be able to accept.
> You are assuming that just because the Joker is nuts the origin makes no sense or we should not believe yet you failed to take into account that the story is not told from the Joker's perspective.
Rubbish. My statement has always been that the Joker's origin is UNRELIABLE in TKJ by his own admission. He might be telling the truth, he might not be, that's the whole darned point.
>The story is written from an observer's point of view by the writer. The reader witnesses past and present mingle with one another.
And in the vain hope you finally get the point
> The very existence of Batman: The Killing Joke and the fact that no one can come up with anything better or even close also makes it the official origin.
No one needs to co0me up with anything better, we can go with the original if we like, or make up something ourselves, or just assume the truth is so mired in madness we'll never really know.
> > Again, that's a perspective that's unique to you, and AFAIK not one Alan Moore supports either, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned the famous "multiple choice" bit.
> What the heck are you talking about? You need to read: The Killing Joke again.
"If I have to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice", what did you THINK I meant?
> Let me quote the legacy of such an incredible story.
> Moore's rendition uses elements of the 1951 story "The Mystery of the Red Hood" (Detective Comics #168), which established the concept of the Joker originally having been a thief known only as The Red Hood, and whose real name was unknown. The tragic and human elements of the character's story, coupled with his barbaric acts as the Joker, portray the character as less of a one-note monster and more like a three-dimensional (if irredeemable) human being. Quoting Mark Verger: The Killing Joke "provid[ed] the Joker with a sympathetic back story as it presented some of the villain's most vile offenses."
> Moore only put that line about remembering his origin in different ways to show how tragic the Joker really is in that he cannot accept the truth.
Again, your take, and AFAIK, ONLY your take.