Why do people seem to generally assume that curing the Joker would turn him into a good person? In the 1989 movie, he was already a violent criminal before that fateful chemical bath, so for all we know, he might still be a monster, just a perfectly sane monster.
Why do people seem to generally assume that curing the Joker would turn him into a good person? In the 1989 movie...
Wasn't Joker cured by Martial Manhunter once? It only lasted a few minutes but he was immediately repentant.
When people say "cure" the Joker, they mean mentally, not just dying his skin back. Dyed skin should barely be an issue in DC where aliens can often blend into normal society
Probably the Killing Joke. A lot of stories use the idea that a cured joker is a good person though. Going Sane, most things Snyder writes. Paul Dini wrote two origins for the joker, one retconning Killing Joke to make him even more innocent and another making him a victim of child rape who befriended the Waynes.
In BTAS he also already was an asshole. However in stories that use the Killing Joke version of the red hood origin (leaving aside the shitty 3 jokers) he starts as a nice guy dealt a bad hand, otherwise the "one bad day" thing doesn't make sense. Also seemed pretty decent in The Batman.
Anyway, if he can't be rehabilitated it makes Batman's insistence on sparing him meaningless and idiotic, so it has to be a thing.
Yeah. In the earlier Batman stories, it looked like the Joker had never been a particularly good guy. The Killing Joke came up with the idea that maybe he was just some average Joe who had shitty luck, got into bad trouble and wasn't able to come out of it sane.
Later stories sometimes go with "he was always a murdering mobster" and sometimes with "he was a poor schmuck who didn't mean to end up the way he did".
There are a couple of stories where he obtains temporarily sanity and expresses immediate regret.
another making him a victim of child rape who befriended the Waynes.
Combine that with Lovers & Madmen, and you got the best Joker origin.
I got yer feckin cure fer the Joker roight ere *unzips dick*
BTAS's judgment on Batman's rogues is, in general, that they're just assholes, villains, and criminals, and their encounters with Batman may have changed what kind of villainy they do but they don't change their fundamental nature.
That's literally the plot of THIS episode, which is one of my favorites in the series.
I really like it because it makes Batman more explicitly heroic. His bad guys actually are bad, and that's not his fault, and he is a hero for putting them away where they can do no more harm.
Be lab worker
A bucket on my head will protect me from chemical waste.
Also worth considering is the Arthur Fleck incarnation, who didn't turn violent because he was mentally ill, but because he was pushed too far.
Why do people seem to generally assume that curing the Joker would turn him into a good person? In the 1989 movie, he was already a violent criminal before that fateful chemical bath
Because this is Anon Babble, not Anon Babble so people on here actually read the comics. You just watched a movie. In the comics there are multiple instances that show if Joker wasn't insane he would be mortified over his own actions. Joker in the comics is portrayed as having a faulty memory and can't remember his life before becoming the Joker but it's usually shown that he was NOT a "violent criminal" before becoming the Joker.
The fact that you're using a pic of Joker shooting Bruce Wayne's parents shows you probably don't know anything about the comics because they consistently show that Batman's parents were shot by a random criminal called Joe Chill but since you get your information from a movie you probably think it was the Joker who shot them.
Ngl Nicholson Joker is pretty good. He isn't funny but that's the point, his jokes only make sense in his fucked up mind.
A good number of his origins have him as an ordinary guy who wasn't particularly evil.
Granted, almost all of them are told by him and a good portion of him are him knowingly lying about it. Even the Killing Joke origin has him admitting he's an unreliable narrator.
Joker is usually never funny.
Batman is supposed to be the serious brooding man but I've still gotten more laughs from him in scenes like pic-related than any of Joker's lame knock-knock jokes.
otherwise the "one bad day" thing doesn't make sense.
The whole point of every version of the Killing Joke story is that the Joker is WRONG for thinking all it takes is one bad day turns someone into a monster.
Original
Gordon doesn't become a supervillain like joker because he saw Barbara get shot and tortured.
BTAS
Ryder doesn't become a monster like Joker just because he got dunked in the same chemical bath
The Batman (2004)
While Ethan Bennet does become a supervillain after Joker turns him into clayface, he does manage to come back from it, and he never goes so far as to kill someone.
he is a hero for putting them away where they can do no more harm.
Shame pretty much every installment of Batman since has made his rogues gallery so evil, cruel and irredeemable that it makes Batman look more like an enabler of their violence than a hero stopping it.
A major plot point of "A Killing Joke" is that Joker is an unreliable narrator and you can't believe any of his origins. The ironic thing is that people took the complete opposite message from the comic and now believe him falling into a vat of chemicals is the canon story for him because that's what they say in A Killing Joke even though Joker explicitly says "I don't know if that actually happened".
It's the most common origin used in adaptations but I've seen plenty of people saying that Joker's origin is multiple choice. So it can be anything while a lot of people stick with the chemical vat because it's the best and most used.
The ironic thing is that people took the complete opposite message from the comic
A recurring theme in the legacy of Alan Moores work.
Moore: Haha. Look at this right wing republican murderhobo who believe in the stupid right wing beliefs in good and evil Steve Ditko did. HurHurHur Aren't I brilliant?
Fans: "WOW! Rorscach is so cool! He stands by his values and beliefs even if it means his own death!"
Joker is usually never funny.
The problem with modern Joker is that he's supposed to be a Killer Clown. Too many modern writers only do the killer, and not the clown.
Joker should be as funny as he is scary. Mark Hammil got this in both BTAS and the Arkham games.
Calm down, sperg. It ain't that serious.
make an entire chapter in your comic about how Night Owl is an impotent loser who can't get his dick up
Dr Manhattan has lost all of his humanity
Ozymandias wants to kill millions of people
put this in between Rorschach acting like a badass in prison and putting out iconic one-liners like "I'm not stuck in here with you, you're stuck in here with me"
Yeah real shock that people ended up relating to Rorschach when every other male character in your comic was either evil, lost all of their humanity, or comes across as completely pathetic.
Joker is at his funniest when he's unintentionally funny to the heroes, especially Batman.
him falling into a vat of chemicals is the canon story for him
He falls in vats in almost every thing. It's the backstory that changes. The stuff BEFORE he falls in the vat of chemicals.
You know what the difference between you and me is?
One. Bad. Day.
Why is this his only picture?
Joker falling into the vat is not supposed to be a definitive origin. The story goes out of it's way to point out even Joker doesn't know if that's his true origin. But Killing Joke got popular, it was a comic from 1988 and than in 1989 the Batman movie came out and had Jack Nicholson falling into a vat of acid and that basically cemented into everyone's minds that "Joker's origin is he fell into some chemicals".
No, idiot. It's the shit with the wife and kid that's the unreliable part. The vat of chemicals is in everything but the Nolanverse.
The vat of chemicals is in everything but the Nolanverse.
No it's not. I realize you're probably under-aged and can't comprehend that Batman existed before you were born but there is a ton of Batman continuities where the vat of chemicals was never brought up so don't give me this "the vat of chemicals was in everything" bullshit.
everything but the Nolanverse
Even only taking into consideration modern Batman properties this still doesn't make sense since Arthur Fleck exists and he certainly didn't fall into some chemicals.
Fleck wasn't the Joker.
not enough people watched it to get any more screencaps.
The guy they got carving Joker scars into his face at the end of Joker 2 seemed about as much like Joker as pic-related.
MOM IS GOING TO FREAK!
Life... put a smile on my face.
I dunno I thought he was funny enough, and a decent take on original Joker. The one flaw is merging him with Joe Chill, but it worked for the movie.
In his 70's series he gave a different flashback origin in every issue.
Thing the original golden age Red Hood comic is that it wasn't meant to be any kind of particularly compelling origin for the Joker character. It was something much more in-line with the comics of the time where kids were meant to look for clues as they read the comic to guess which villain was the Red Hood, making them feel smart, as indicated by the green hair
Frankly Joker 2 would have worked better and gotten the message across better if it genuinely was about some edgelord in like, immediately post-9/11 or post 2008 recession America clinging to the myth of who he thought Arthur Fleck was.
The whole thing would have worked better as a period piece anthology.
Earth Two Batman unambiguously dies for real
Joker just enjoys old age as a toothless old retard
I love how the shrink is reflecting that he was told Rorschach said that. It was much cooler that Rorschach literally yelling it out. That whole movie just makes you respect that Watchmen is a story in 12 parts for a reason and an all-at-once adaptation loses it.
The Joker's definitive origin is the Red Hood got knocked into a vat of chemicals by Batman. One of the first things he does is invent Joker toxin. I say that is hard canon because it was the story in Batman #1 and Denny O'Neil rewrote it for LotDK 50 and it gives me an excuse to repost this kino cover.
So if Joker kills Batman, he goes sane but if Batman dies independently of him, he stays the Joker? My favorite take was Frank Miller's in that he went catatonic without Batman.
Ironically, Moore probably agrees more with the second since he himself literally says "I don't agree with Ditko but do find something admirable about him sticking to those values even to the detriment of his career"
Moore abhors how people whitewashed Rorschach but only a retard would think he never intended him to be sympathetic and compelling simply because he anecdotally told off a stinky NEET who wanted to be him.
The chemical vat origin goes back to the 50's. That's what Moore was referencing. The multiple choice was referring to what might've happened before it, but the vat thing was almost certainly always hard canon. TKJ was conceived as being in canon with the pre-crisis comics since it's first inklings began around crisis, hence things like the 50's Batfamily picture.
Even Cesar Romero was told the chemical vat origin
youtu.be