Who's your favorite Batman Villain?

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

Why do people like Joker so much? I don't understand. There's no depth to him at all, he's just a psycho. I like my villains with layers and substance.

Yeah, I am pretty sure I don't have to brush up on anything. I've been reading Batman for a while and I have seen nothing from Joker to make me think any differently.

define "a while"?

Joker has plenty of layers to him. Just all depends on who writes him.

To say he's "just a psycho" (do you mean psychopathic or psychotic?), just sells yourself short on understanding psyches, illness/disorders, etc. I presume you meant "psychotic", but no simple psychotic could ever be a criminal mastermind, really. One could be an a-hole psychopath, but still have plenty of layers to them. Plenty of psychopaths are actually quite complex. Especially self-aware ones like Joker can potentially be viewed as.

[Carabas]

define "a while"?

Joker has plenty of layers to him. Just all depends on who writes him.

To say he's "just a psycho" (do you mean psychopathic or psychotic?), just sells yourself short on understanding psyches, illness/disorders, etc. I presume you meant "psychotic", but no simple psychotic could ever be a criminal mastermind, really. One could be an a-hole psychopath, but still have plenty of layers to them. Plenty of psychopaths are actually quite complex. Especially self-aware ones like Joker can potentially be viewed as.

It's really hard for a character who has no set characterisation, history, origin, level of (in)sanity, level of volence, name... to be complex and interesting.

[ngroove]

Yeah, I am pretty sure I don't have to brush up on anything. I've been reading Batman for a while and I have seen nothing from Joker to make me think any differently.

"A While", as in only, Joker-wise, the stories that paints him ONLY as a one-dimensional psycho killer (The Killing Joke, Death in the Family, last act of No Man's Land, Death of the Family)?

May I suggest, you check out, some that is either before (pre-1988) or between?

To me, a lot of great fun classics (such as Batman #321, #353, Detective Comics #504, #532) came from the early eighties, against Batman, even some of his dealings with / against Superman (DC Comics Presents #41, Superman Vol.2 #9). Or, how about Batman #450-451, which actually has some in-depth "self rediscovering" of himself, while he was recovering from the events of "Death in the Family", or the Knightquest chapter with him (Detective Comics 671-673), which even Batman himself, Jean-Paul Valley, was more fanatically insane than him!?

[ngroove]

I adore Catwoman, but I don't consider her an outright villain.

You are only thinking "recent, having her own title means she's good" Catwoman, not the whole tapestry that is the history of Batman / DC Comics.

[SiegePerilous02]

The Joker, and it's not even close. He's been written poorly and/or too often lately, but that doesn't tarnish his overall legacy.

I love pretty much everyone else on the list except Ra's, Bane and Black Mask. The first two are Ok but overrated, and the last one is just a bland, blank slate of a character with a ridiculous origin.

"A While", as in only, Joker-wise, the stories that paints him ONLY as a one-dimensional psycho killer (The Killing Joke, Death in the Family, last act of No Man's Land, Death of the Family)?

May I suggest, you check out, some that is either before (pre-1988) or between?

To me, a lot of great fun classics (such as Batman #321, #353, Detective Comics #504, #532) came from the early eighties, against Batman, even some of his dealings with / against Superman (DC Comics Presents #41, Superman Vol.2 #9). Or, how about Batman #450-451, which actually has some in-depth "self rediscovering" of himself, while he was recovering from the events of "Death in the Family", or the Knightquest chapter with him (Detective Comics 671-673), which even Batman himself, Jean-Paul Valley, was more fanatically insane than him!?

These are all great recommendations. I would also toss in the DCAU and it's tie in comics for great Joker stuff, as well as "Going Sane."

[batnbreakfast]

The Joker, and it's not even close. He's been written poorly and/or too often lately, but that doesn't tarnish his overall legacy.

I love pretty much everyone else on the list except Ra's, Bane and Black Mask. The first two are Ok but overrated, and the last one is just a bland, blank slate of a character with a ridiculous origin.



These are all great recommendations. I would also toss in the DCAU and it's tie in comics for great Joker stuff, as well as "Going Sane."

Brubaker's Black Mask easily beats everything written (or movie adapted) about Ra's or Bane. How is a dark take on Bruce Wayne not a great origin for one of his villains?

[darkseidpwns]

Where's all this Eddie love coming from? Zero Year? I remember the days where he was one of the most well-abused jokes of the Batman community; up there along with Cluemaster and Killer Moth. And while I think every character has the potential to be awesome, I'll never consider him to be a non-cheesy villain (he's definitely one of the most gimmicky). Personally, the Riddler I love the will always be the BTAS version. It was faithful to his original criminal status (committing small-scale robberies and personal homicides decorated with the classic puzzle motif) but it also introduced new layers to his insanity and relationship with Batman.

But man, Riddler's second place here. If Scott Snyder can make a character like him on par with the Joker, at least in terms of popularity, I'd love to see what he does with more underused ones (Croc, Hatter, Zsasz, Strange, etc).

I never understood it myself either and I dont think it's down to Snyder's Zero Year. He was the go to choice for the villain of The Dark Knight Rises back in the day,I think people just love his gimmick too much because I've never encountered a villain so respected by the fans and laughed upon with equal intensity with in the comics. Him being that bullied and misunderstood nerd probably makes him more relatable too,Frank Gorshin and BTAS may have something to do with it as well.

[darkseidpwns]

Brubaker's Black Mask easily beats everything written (or movie adapted) about Ra's or Bane. How is a dark take on Bruce Wayne not a great origin for one of his villains?

You think those 2-4 issues by Brubaker where he just tortured an innocent woman and her husband beat Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises? interesting. Bane certainly offers an interesting twist on Batman's own origins.

My List
Joker
Bane
Two-Face
Ra's Al Ghul
Poison Ivy

I consider these 5 as the ultimate Batman villains,all five of them cover every single aspect of villainy and each represent the best of their respective type. Joker occupies an unparalleled unique spot and represents a relationship with Batman that no other duos' have been able to replicate. Dent is the best personal/friend turned bad guy villain for Bats,his competition are the likes of Black Mask and Hush whom he wipes the floor with. Poison Ivy is the ultimate seductress, Ra's is the go to mastermind,Bane is the ultimate Anti-Batman.
Special mention to Hugo Strange.

[SiegePerilous02]

Brubaker's Black Mask easily beats everything written (or movie adapted) about Ra's or Bane. How is a dark take on Bruce Wayne not a great origin for one of his villains?

His origin involves him getting bitten by a rabid raccoon and tripping afterward. It was pretty silly.

There are other villains that do the whole "dark reflection of Bruce Wayne" aspect better. Two-Face is the big example, and he's also got the old school mobster aesthetic and facial duality stuff, and does it better.

[batnbreakfast]

You think those 2-4 issues by Brubaker where he just tortured an innocent woman and her husband beat Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises? interesting. Bane certainly offers an interesting twist on Batman's own origins.

My List
Joker
Bane
Two-Face
Ra's Al Ghul
Poison Ivy

I consider these 5 as the ultimate Batman villains,all five of them cover every single aspect of villainy and each represent the best of their respective type. Joker occupies an unparalleled unique spot and represents a relationship with Batman that no other duos' have been able to replicate. Dent is the best personal/friend turned bad guy villain for Bats,his competition are the likes of Black Mask and Hush whom he wipes the floor with. Poison Ivy is the ultimate seductress, Ra's is the go to mastermind,Bane is the ultimate Anti-Batman.
Special mention to Hugo Strange.

Actually Batman Begins is my favourite Batman movie so far but remove Liam Neeson and there's not much left of Ra's. Then Nolan gives me the 1st take on Bane that's interesting to me and in one move ruins it with endless monologues from Bane and that strange accent. Black Mask was in way more issues and the torture is my least favourite part but in that arc he was a great take on Kingpin or Penguin. Just because other villains are more widely recognized doesn't make them good for me.

[batnbreakfast]

His origin involves him getting bitten by a rabid raccoon and tripping afterward. It was pretty silly.

There are other villains that do the whole "dark reflection of Bruce Wayne" aspect better. Two-Face is the big example, and he's also got the old school mobster aesthetic and facial duality stuff, and does it better.

As far as I'm aware Roman had inherited a company much like Bruce and represents a Bruce Wayne gone bad, while Harvey was the best friend who beytrays everything Bruce believes in and Bruce still tries to save him everytime they face off.

[Unfinishedsentenc]

I never understood it myself either and I dont think it's down to Snyder's Zero Year. He was the go to choice for the villain of The Dark Knight Rises back in the day,I think people just love his gimmick too much because I've never encountered a villain so respected by the fans and laughed upon with equal intensity with in the comics. Him being that bullied and misunderstood nerd probably makes him more relatable too,Frank Gorshin and BTAS may have something to do with it as well.

Exactly. Yeah, there's definitely a duality between the constant flow of fan-love for a recent version of some character and how one-dimensional and cheesy he's been in the past. And what I said wasn't meant to bash or discredit Riddler fans (as I'm a huge Riddler fan myself). If anything, I was saying that any character, no matter how undervalued, obscure, or admittedly stupid they may seem at first (like a guy covered in question marks or a deformed midget with a trick umbrella or a man who lives in a walking refrigerator and talks in monotone), can still be "complex", "interesting", and, most importantly, relatable within the contents of their personality and backstory. I've defended Clayface, Killer Moth, and Bane on this thread, but still people knock on others like Black Mask, and seem to think that one bad story defines a character who simply just doesn't have that many stories in the first place. But look at Freeze before BTAS. Now what if that particular take on that character never came about, huh? He wouldn't even be on this list. Because people (fans especially) don't give characters and concepts a chance and just accept them at face-value. That's why writers like Scott Snyder, who respects every villain and would use any one of them in a future story, should be writing these things instead of some of the others out there; others who have this misconceived notion that creators and fans alike should hold one thing above the other simply because of their own, lazy creative thinking.

[Unfinishedsentenc]

It's really hard for a character who has no set characterisation, history, origin, level of (in)sanity, level of volence, name... to be complex and interesting.

Well . . . yeah. That's obvious. But who said that Joker never had any of that? You ever read the Killing Joke? It's like the predominant Joker story of all time (or at least, one of them). Plus, there's been other versions too. I mean, it's true that more recent iterations tend to place him in the more ambitious, mysterious grey area of back history (multiple choice and all that), but that still doesn't erase the various other stories out there that delve into Joker's past and "level of insanity."

[SiegePerilous02]

As far as I'm aware Roman had inherited a company much like Bruce and represents a Bruce Wayne gone bad, while Harvey was the best friend who beytrays everything Bruce believes in and Bruce still tries to save him everytime they face off.

Yeah, but most of Bruce's major foes are dark reflections of himself, which is probably why they endure as much as they have. My issue with Roman is that the parallels may be a bit too...obvious, I guess? Plus he's never been given a distinct personality like the other rogues.

I brought up Harvey because I think their gimmicks have some similarities: themes of duality and masks, except the latter is a bit more literal in Roman's case, as well as some old school, 1930s era gangster motifs. Sorry, should have specified.

Well . . . yeah. That's obvious. But who said that Joker never had any of that? You ever read the Killing Joke? It's like the predominant Joker story of all time (or at least, one of them). Plus, there's been other versions too. I mean, it's true that more recent iterations tend to place him in the more ambitious, mysterious grey area of back history (multiple choice and all that), but that still doesn't erase the various other stories out there that delve into Joker's past and "level of insanity."

I'd also add that the Joker has had more or less consistent characterization since the Bronze Age. In the Golden Age he was a mostly humorless, ghoulish killer, and the Silver Age he was a manic nuisance with over the top props and gags. Starting with "the Joker's Five Way Revenge," the two have been combined into his most iconic form, and that's spread over into stuff like Burton's Batman and B:TAS. The degree of violence only varies because superhero comics in general fluctuate in terms of how far they're willing to go.

The damage has come when writers feel the need to use him too much, focus too much on the "crazed killer" aspect and just make him mindlessly violent, and making it seem like every Joker appearance must be this huge event with horrible repercussions for everyone involved. None of which has anything to do with any inherent flaws in the character of concept itself.

[Unfinishedsentenc]

Yeah, but most of Bruce's major foes are dark reflections of himself, which is probably why they endure as much as they have. My issue with Roman is that the parallels may be a bit too...obvious, I guess? Plus he's never been given a distinct personality like the other rogues.

I brought up Harvey because I think their gimmicks have some similarities: themes of duality and masks, except the latter is a bit more literal in Roman's case, as well as some old school, 1930s era gangster motifs. Sorry, should have specified.



I'd also add that the Joker has had more or less consistent characterization since the Bronze Age. In the Golden Age he was a mostly humorless, ghoulish killer, and the Silver Age he was a manic nuisance with over the top props and gags. Starting with "the Joker's Five Way Revenge," the two have been combined into his most iconic form, and that's spread over into stuff like Burton's Batman and B:TAS. The degree of violence only varies because superhero comics in general fluctuate in terms of how far they're willing to go.

The damage has come when writers feel the need to use him too much, focus too much on the "crazed killer" aspect and just make him mindlessly violent, and making it seem like every Joker appearance must be this huge event with horrible repercussions for everyone involved. None of which has anything to do with any inherent flaws in the character of concept itself.

Agreed. Joker works better as an actual human who just believes in senseless violence and nothingness than a literal embodiment of those things in general. Snyder overplays his presence and promptly turns the character into a way-too-serious omen that affects the whole universe.