Kovnyn
Sr Member
"Hey, we're doing a Joker film!"
"Oh cool! So we're extending this beyond the Gotham series?"
"Why would we do that?"
"Oh okay so Jared Leto..."
"What? No!"
"But wait... So we're revisiting the Nolan era Joker?"
"This is different. We got Joaquin Phoenix playing him."
"So wait... This is an origins film and we're using an older guy to tell the beginning of Joker that Leto eventually plays?"
"What? No! What are you talking about?"
"No, what are YOU talking about? We got 3 different universes of the same characters that have nothing to do with each other! What the heck are we even doing here at DC???"
"We already have other Jokers being portrayed?"
I think WB is just making whatever they want whenever they want and the reboot window has a cushion of 4 months or something. How can anyone relate to the DCU together as a society? The discussions would be so confusing.
Marvel has ONE S.H.I.E.L.D.. ONE Cap, ONE Loki, ONE Hell's Kitchen.... When you talk about anything MCU at least everyone is talking about the same thing. Anything that had prior iterations were from years passing enough to where it's pretty clear the differences.
Spider-Man was probably the most close-together transition from the solo films from Sony moving into the joint cooperation of the Disney Marvel MCU, but they handled that with a very clear reasoning and were very methodical.
Exactly this. I mean, the Flash, one of DCs tent pole characters, exists at the same time in two different ways. The CW TV version, and the cinematic version. Not the same actor, not even really the same character except in name and abilities. WB/DC lacks the one thing that the MCU has, which is one cohesive world, and good writing, and good CGI effects, and humor, and fight choreography... OK, so that's more than one thing DC lacks that Marvel has.
Sundowner
I mostly just skim over comics these days, so I don't know which artist and writer is doing what with the Joker, and haven't paid much attention to it for the last twenty years or so. Of course the Joker has an origin, but none of them that I've seen, heard of, read, etc. we're any good. I liked Ledgers Joker because not only did he not have a clearly defined backstory, but that when he was in a situation of power, he would tell a different story about how he got his scars. He played to his audience and he was brilliant and insane. He clearly had a plan, despite likening himself to a dog chasing a bone, not knowing what to do with it if he ever got it. Even if his plan only made sense in his own twisted mind. He stole The Dark Knight as the star. Two Face was great, and I Have A Head Cold Batman was a distant third.
There's something sacrosanct in writing the Joker. He is one of the few characters, hero or villain, who needs no origin, where mystery makes him more interesting.
He didn't need to be Jack Napier, who murdered the Waynes, inspired Bruce to become the Batman. He didn't need to be a failed comedian, unable to provide for his family. He didn't need to be a circus orphan who killed his mother like Jerome in Gotham. He didn't need any explanation of who he was and where he came from. He is a force of nature, and that's enough. To explain him, dissolves the mystery that surrounds him and makes him less than the Joker. That's my take on it anyway.
So TL;DR, I'm not okay with any origin for the Joker, in any medium or format.
Last edited by a moderator: