Batman: Three Jokers #1 Discussion/Spoilers

[Myskin]

The Red Hood and the Joker were different persons. At least in the killing joke it was retconed that he was merely a failed comedian who was just dressed as him and forced to pretend be the real hood. Bruce even speculates about it in the man who laughs that the man who was wearing the costume and fell in the tank wasn't the same hood if I remember correctly.

If I remember TKJ well, the assumption was that there was no red hood at all - the henchmen hired different people for each heist.
However, that's not my point. When I read TKJ for the first time, what I got is that the story about the failed comedian was taking place simultaneously with the Gordon subplot. As in - the Joker and the failed comedian are two different people and at the end the failed comedian becomes a second Joker; meanwhile, the first Joker fights Batman.
Again, I was very young and my firs copy of TKJ was in French, so...

[Wrestler]

I really enjoyed this first edition, the story is great and the art from Fabok is just jaw dropping and like all the others, I've finished it with more questions than answers, which is understandable, since it's still the first issue.


For the question I keep reading here, "why hasn't Batman ever noticed there were 3 jokers all the time?"

Well, Fabok is answering this question on his twitter saying something along these lines "I wouldn't give all the answers in the first issue, there are still 2 more" So, patience people.

If I remember TKJ well, the assumption was that there was no red hood at all - the henchmen hired different people for each heist.
However, that's not my point. When I read TKJ for the first time, what I got is that the story about the failed comedian was taking place simultaneously with the Gordon subplot. As in - the Joker and the failed comedian are two different people and at the end the failed comedian becomes a second Joker; meanwhile, the first Joker fights Batman.
Again, I was very young and my firs copy of TKJ was in French, so...

If that ever happened, Batman would never reference the time he met red hood for the first time as the time the joker was created, since he was already fighting the joker, it doesn't make sense.

[Lucky Looke 90]

Two other tidbits that are bothering me (well, more like one question and one nitpick):
-- It doesn't seem that the three Jokers here are the same three Jokers that Batman was looking at in the Batcave when he first found out about them - one of them was the Snyder Joker. Which of these three would he be then?
-- Joker keeps talking about bashing Jason's skull in, then about not wanting to really kill him. But then what about the bomb? He doesn't mention that. It was the bomb that really killed him. Is Johns ignoring it because he just likes the crowbar death more?

I think that the whole story itself and what it involves is in a kind of stalemate at this time, on the one hand Fabok points out on twitter to express question that the Jokers that we see in this story are the ones that Batman saw on his screen and that there will be more answers in issue 2 and 3 (the person asking the question uploads the image of Batman watching the Jokers on the computer in the Batcave). But on the other hand, he also points out or implies in a conversation that this has little to do with the Mobius Chair, which is why it is not mentioned as such, that it is more of a self-contained story that can be appreciated in different years, both in the present as in the future. Emphasizing that more than anything it is a personal detective story between Batman and the Joker. So really in the end all this may not involve significant changes in the status quo of the characters or make changes and then incorporate them into the continuity, it is a mystery.

[king81992]

Two other tidbits that are bothering me (well, more like one question and one nitpick):
-- It doesn't seem that the three Jokers here are the same three Jokers that Batman was looking at in the Batcave when he first found out about them - one of them was the Snyder Joker. Which of these three would he be then?
-- Joker keeps talking about bashing Jason's skull in, then about not wanting to really kill him. But then what about the bomb? He doesn't mention that. It was the bomb that really killed him. Is Johns ignoring it because he just likes the crowbar death more?

I think there are a lot more than three Jokers.

[bat39]

I'm calling it: I think they're setting up the Criminal having something to do with the Wayne murders since the Clown and Comedian were both responsible for Jason and Barbara's trauma. Also, I'd completely forgotten about the two accomplices at ACE but yep, just checked the flashback in Killing Joke, that's them. I still think the three Jokers concept is monumentally stupid but I'm willing to see where it goes. Pretty lame Johns tries to paint Jason dying as a coward when in reality he stayed a hero til the last second; also, in Death in the Family Bruce actually does mull killing the Joker and does not merely arrest him and throw him in Arkham, he blows up in a helicopter... but I digress.

Funny how Barbara had no problem with what Jason did to Gaggy but then the Joker is where she draws the line, lol. Anyway I'm very impressed by the callbacks to Lew Moxon, Fatman, Gaggy, etc. I wonder if we'll get anymore clues to this series' place on the timeline... It's either in the past or some unknown point wayyy in the future.

EDIT: In a Detective Comics Death of the Family tie-in, Joker's DNA was used to pinpoint him as the culprit for a gangland massacre inside a church that he was going to pin on Penguin, but instead he "licked the knives clean" so the cops would know it was him.

The Wayne murders angle didn't occur to me at all! But it would kinda make sense...'the Criminal' seems to be the Golden Age Joker. Johns has mentioned in an interview that Batman # 1 is one of the key stories being referenced by Three Jokers (the other two being The Killing Joke and Death in the Family). And if the other two Jokers are responsible for the crippling of Barbara and the death of Jason respectively, then it would make sense that the Joker that Bruce is being paired off against was the specific cause of some personal tragedy for him.

Plus 'the Criminal' kills off the Moxon crime family, which this story reminds us was responsible for the murders of the Waynes as per Golden Age lore. So there is a connection to the Wayne murders. And a more mobster-like Joker being the Wayne killer has precedent with Jack Nicholson's version from the Burton film.

Pretty sure it will come out that there is either one original Joker and whoever survives the Joker venom becomes another assistant Joker (as one of them was called the boss by the others). Or there is no "real" Joker and the venom propagates itself like a virus or a meme and the Joker hosts are its way of surviving.

The whole 'building a better Joker' scene seemed to give off that vibe to me. I think they might keep it ambiguous though. Maybe the 'Criminal' Joker will be the only one left in the end, and it'll be left ambiguous whether he was the 'original' and the others were just imitators/doppelgangers (who pretended to be responsible for Barbara's crippling and Jason's death), or whether all three are real and the surviving one might not even be the 'original'. They'll leave enough wiggle room for the story to still work within continuity while its impact can remain optional.

[JBatmanFan05]

I'm calling it: I think they're setting up the Criminal having something to do with the Wayne murders since the Clown and Comedian were both responsible for Jason and Barbara's trauma.

Sadly, this makes a lot of narrative sense right now. If Johns goes there though, for me, that's a dealbreaker.

Only way it wouldn't be a dealbreaker is if maybe he had some very indirect influence on Chill's life (and no, I won't accept him being Chill's dad).

[Myskin]

If that ever happened, Batman would never reference the time he met red hood for the first time as the time the joker was created, since he was already fighting the joker, it doesn't make sense.

Not necessarily.
I mean, my first reading of TKJ was clearly wrong. But Johns is currently (and unnecessarily IMHO) retconning so many details about the Joker that it could be entirely possible for the Comedian (TKJ Joker) to be born the way we see in TKJ because of the Criminal's (GA Joker) intervention. And the Criminal could have been born before then but had simply chosen not to openly fight Batman.
Yes, it's convoluted, but the entire story is.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

Not necessarily.
I mean, my first reading of TKJ was clearly wrong. But Johns is currently (and unnecessarily IMHO) retconning so many details about the Joker that it could be entirely possible for the Comedian (TKJ Joker) to be born the way we see in TKJ because of the Criminal's (GA Joker) intervention. And the Criminal could have been born before then but had simply chosen not to openly fight Batman.
Yes, it's convoluted, but the entire story is.

The way I'm reading the reveal, this is absolutely what is implying.

[Myskin]

The way I'm reading the reveal, this is absolutely what is implying.

I'd add that - if they want to keep it vaguely coherent with previous continuity - the Red Hood Joker in TKJ and the Comedian (Joker II) are one and the same.
It may seem obvious, but it actually isn't - if they wanted to keep the Criminal as the first man who became the Joker, they could force things and say that Red Hood Joker in TKJ (the one who falls into the vat) was the Criminal, whereas the Comedian became the Joker later due to the Criminal's intervention, but in unknown circumstances.
But it would sound strange even for such a messy story - the Comedian is so physically similar to TKJ Red Hood that they couldn't force the Criminal into that role... Right?

My head hurts...

[Myskin]

Only way it wouldn't be a dealbreaker is if maybe he had some very indirect influence on Chill's life (and no, I won't accept him being Chill's dad).

No, please. Not a Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins thing.

[king81992]

No, please. Not a Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins thing.

This feels more like Metal Gear 5 and the implications that plot twist/ revelation had for the first game than what happened with Ra's in Batman Begins.

[JBatmanFan05]

No, please. Not a Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins thing.

Haha, fair point. I don't know what I'd accept, probably wouldn't accept any connection if Johns tries to make one between Joker and Chill.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

I'd add that - if they want to keep it vaguely coherent with previous continuity - the Red Hood Joker in TKJ and the Comedian (Joker II) are one and the same.
It may seem obvious, but it actually isn't - if they wanted to keep the Criminal as the first man who became the Joker, they could force things and say that Red Hood Joker in TKJ (the one who falls into the van) was the Criminal, whereas the Comedian became the Joker later due to the Criminal's intervention, but in unknown circumstances.
But it would sound strange even for such a messy story - the Comedian is so physically similar to TKJ Red Hood that they couldn't force the Criminal into that role... Right?

My head hurts...

You're correct, TKJ and DITF Joker should be one and the same, the only reason they're separate os because Johns wanted Jason and Barbara to have their own personal Joker. The discrepancy is even referenced by the story when Comedian and Clown mutually accuse each other of stealing the other's feats.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Easily one of my favorite comics of the year from word go, albeit for reasons not even remotely resembling what Johns and Fabok had in mind.

I'm calling it: I think they're setting up the Criminal having something to do with the Wayne murders since the Clown and Comedian were both responsible for Jason and Barbara's trauma.

Oh god, you're dead on. I totally thought Johns was hack enough to just drop Crime Alley on us again simply for the sake of doing so, but yeah.

It doesn't seem that the three Jokers here are the same three Jokers that Batman was looking at in the Batcave when he first found out about them - one of them was the Snyder Joker. Which of these three would he be then?

That's because Johns never actually cared or had a real idea for a story beyond 'three Jokers, what a headline for CBR and Newsarama!' until he was forced to actually sit down with the thing - at first it was "Golden Age Joker/80s Joker/Snyder Joker", then in later interviews it was "Golden Age Joker/Silver Age Joker/Modern Joker", and then finally come time to actually do the book "Golden Age Joker/TKJ Joker/DITF Joker".

Anyway, given how this series is transparently going to end, spoilers:

anybody wanna lay odds that this all started with Johns hearing the "Jared Leto Joker is totally Jason Todd, you guys!!" theories and going HMMM

end of spoilers

[JBatmanFan05]

I noticed that in Three Jokers, Jim Gordon doesn't know Babs is Batgirl. Batman says Jim gave him a disapproving look and he asks Batgirl if Jim knows her secret. And she says "Of course not." (Even if Jim does secretly know, it's clear Babs isn't open with Jim about it, which contradicts a ton of stories from like many post-COIE incarnations)

This aspect alone makes this story nearly impossible to square with continuity (though I haven't been following Batgirl's continuity much since Rebirth, I admit), if one dared to try.