Why don't people want a Joker origin?

[phantom1592]

This is something that tickled my brain last night, and I'm curious to hear some opinions. I was watching the '89 Batman movie for the first time in a few years and was just loving it. They gave him a pretty decent origin that worked and made Nicolson still made him awesome...

Now, I can understand the people who did not like Jack killing the Waynes... that's fine, that's legit. Although I actually feel it DOES cement Joker as the #1 arch-enemy of Batman... but I too prefer the Joe Chill random mugging...

But what about the rest? Jack Napier, Ex-military with a background in chemicals... Crime underboss crossed the Crime lord and set up by the cops, fights Batman... becomes Joker, takes over the underworld.

Most of this stuff has always been a part of Joker's background... why would people be so opposed to knowing his 'pre-Axis' name? Joker is really the ONLY of Batman's villains that he doesn't have extensive records on... why is that so important?


Secondary question... What makes Joker so important to the mythos and when did it happen? In the 60's Joker was around with Ceasar Romono... but I never felt he hit 'MAIN VILLAIN' status in the show. I actually think Frank Gorshin's Riddler took that place. Burgiss Meredith as Penguin stole the show as well... In Superfriends of the 70's and 80's, Joker was replaced by riddler and Scarecrow...

I don't really remember the Joker taking center stage till he killed Robin... and crippled Batgirl, but that was out of continuity at the time. Did he have any truly major WINS before that??? With Jason Todd back and Barbara walking again... does that diminish the clowns actual threat level?

Batman has one of the best rogues gallery around, Yet they always go back to Joker? What do you think the magic is?

[Darkspellmaster]

So much to go over here and so much to think about. It's an interesting question, why can't the Joker have an origin, and I suppose you'll get a lot of answers for this, but I think one of the top reasons is that, at least for modern writers, it makes him less flexible, though technically he actually does now have only three actual origins in total in the comics: Red Hood/Robber who dove into the chemicals to escape, Modern age being the former Chemical Engineer that lost his wife and child and turned crazy, and then more recently the 52 version which seems to be borrowing heavily from the Criminal Syndicate, Batman's first real story from the first time he showed up in Detective Comics.

What's interesting here is that they did take part of the Golden Age Joker's story. He did start off as basically a criminal Mastermind that robbed people and was pretty much a random bad guy that went from one gimmick (the Red hood) to another (Clown Prince of Crime) as a means of standing out. In this case Burton wanted to create the mirror image thing that so many people keep thinking Joker is (he's really not) to batman. It was also a means of making him more a direct threat and giving the audience reason for wanting him to die, because if we went with the killing Joke story origin, well then Batman would seem like an a** for beating up on the guy. It's a strong take on the idea of film Noir, which is what the movie was trying to evoke in this sense. However for the Joker in the comics this would seem like a real cop out, and honestly I don't think it fits his character very well. Joker is way to theatrical to be the sort of person who would hold up a family, and, to be honest, as weird as this sounds, he's got some weird sort of morality code built into him -among the rules there seems to be a thing about not killing if the jokes not there, and, let's be real here, neither Thomas nor Martha's death were good as punchlines, so to him it wouldn't be worth it. (Also I get the sense that even in threatening to kill kids, he probably wouldn't do it for whatever reason, just a gut feeling I have on the guy.)

Could he work as ex military? I don't know, Joker again seems way to theatrical for out right military situations. He's not like Ra's who could easily fit that, he's too chaotic and theatrical and, to be honest, he'd probably hate the military and see it as not funny. Chemicals on the other hand, that I can see. Joker is smart as a whip, which is why I think that aspect from Killing Joke is used a lot, the Chemical/Lab tech who skips out of his job due to issues he's having there. Underboss was used by Btas for his origin there, although the dirty cop thing did show up in Gotham knights 54, which is the origin I technically like the most for him because it fits with Joker's more serious personality but also shows the humanity and some of the humility of the guy even though he can get some what dark or at least think dirty even while he's trying to be good and decent. Joker taking over the Underworld would be, odd. He'd probably run it into the ground and if you had the idea again of the Killing Joke backstory then he'd probably do it just to destroy it after it screwed his life over. However, Joker would want to make a punch line out of it, and given you have Tobias Whale, Warren "The white Shark" White, and also Black mask along with the Falcone's and several other mobs, it would be hard for him to keep control of it.

Well there's a lot of reasons, one that comes up the most is that some writers see him not as human but as a force of nature, and thus giving him any sense of human conditions would kill "the joke" as it were. To some he's chaotic, just purely that, a way to dig into Bruce in a really philsophical way, although not too many are good at it, and force him to look at himself and who he really is. Yada, Yada Yada. On the other hand other writers seem to like the mystery and not having a true origin gives them room to play around with him and figure out how to make that joker their own Joker. Which again is cool, but I tend to think it's a bit over used. Joker is, for a lot of writers, a chance to cut loose and play with things that with someone who is definitive you can't do. However, this does create trouble later on if someone wants to explore what made the Joker the Joker and ultimately you have the issue you have now, too many origins and choices and not enough ways to draw the lines to figure out what makes the man tick.

It's important for some because it means that they don't have to follow some set boundries: Harvey had a wife that he loves and cares for that has to be part of him, Victor has Nora and it draws into why he does what he does, Joker though doesn't know who he was or where he came from, and while it's liberating it can also be a pain in the neck as well. Which was why Alan Moore crafted the Killing Joke, at least partly, to give him a background that was sympathic and one that readers could say "Okay I see what could have made a guy go nuts to this point." but also see that there was something wrong there in the first place. Joker did have an origin, that being the Red Hood, it was only after the post crisis and Alan Moore did the Killing Joke that things got crazy and writers took it as card Blanche to go about making him more and more crazy, which was the opposite of what Moore wanted in this case. So I think for a lot of writers it's important to them because it lets them put a stamp on the Joker, but it does cause issues for other writers.

Joker was the first "gimmick" villain that batman ever faced. Prior to that batman was always fighting with random mob men or just vile people that were doing killing or robbing for their own reasons. The Joker became someone interesting and really it was because E. Whitney saw a lot of potential in him that we got to keep him alive. Joker became important during the 30s and 40s because he was so different at the time compared to other villains that Batman and Robin fought against. He was charming, smart and really odd looking so he stood out like a sore thumb in a good way. He became more important in the 50s because you could do a lot of weird things with him that you couldn't do with other villains and then he really started to stand out after the killing joke and the death of Jason todd. He was compelling in a way that other villains weren't and forced the writers to come up with ways to make the rogues more interesting to stand out against the weirdness that was the Joker.

Ceasar Romero had fun with the Joker and he was meant to be more the slap stick 50s style character then what came in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Honestly I think Btas cemented it for him after Mark Hamill did such an amazing job with the character that he became the joker that a whole generation grew up with. Those that knew him from the 50s and so forth and the superfriends saw him as a danger but not someone to be afraid of. Animated Joker brought that way up to 11 and met with how a lot of comic writers saw him, someone who was funny but scary all rolled into one.

Depends on what you see as a win? So many writers forget one of the best aspects about the joker is the fact that every thing he does should be a joke in the end. A huge set up for one, just because he thinks it's funny. Truly major wins, like of the murder level? He did nearly cause a very serious issue with Batgirl and Robin (Dick) in the 70s I think, and I do think he nearly managed to kill some important people, but the kill count went way the heck up after he killed Jason and the issue with Babs. Nope doesn't change the fact that he killed Jason, would make him laugh to see the boy walking around again, heck he'd tell it like a joke, asking him if he enjoyed his nap and if he's a zombie wanting to eat brains, but to avoid eating scarcrow's as he doesn't have one. As for Babs, again he'd make light of it about her being a bionic woman, and then commenting on how he contributed to her getting better. Like Jason, and the whole dying thing.

He's still a damn threat, it's a case of how he's used. Honestly I think it's because every writer wants to put his or her stamp on Joker because he's, again, the most chaotic and flexible of the cast. You can do horrible humor, black stuff, or just goofy puns with him and it can all fit into it. Also people are scared of clowns and there's that.

Personally for me I always saw Gotham Knights 54 as Joker's back story and felt that DC should have just stuck with that and let it play out to the end. I know right now it's multiple choice, but honestly again, you can only go so far with that.

[Carabas]

Because we've had a ton of Joker origins, and apart from Alan Moore's, they all sucked.

[Godlike13]

The unknown makes him more unsettling.

[SicariiDC]

Yo that essay was crazy.

I never had an issue with him killing Bruce's parents. Hh.

[Deffinition]

Doesn't really need it, he is a chaotic character so adding to his backstory organises it in some way and detracts from it.

[Atlanta96]

Cause he's more compelling if you have no idea what he was like as a person before he became Joker.

[adrikito]

Cause he's more compelling if you have no idea what he was like as a person before he became Joker.

Yes... Fortunately, the mobius chair not ruin this.

[theoneandonly]

I have an idea that the joker himself has forgotten who he was before he was jokerized and that is why not even telepaths can tell who he is but then I remember when the specter and John johnz journeyed to his mind and found him as a normal human who was enjoying tea with his wife in the landscape of madness and so it is not viable and is just plain silly.

[AcesX1X]

you can't give joker a definitive origin. it takes away the mystery and menaces. not having a solid origin lets people's imaginations run wild. why would you want to take that away?

[EmeraldGladiator]

Because the Wolverine origin was such an epic disappointment, to quote Hall and Oates, "some things are better yet unsaid" which is why I hope G. Johns three Jokers storyline turns out to be a red herring. I didn't realize how much I enjoyed all of the possible Wolverine origins until I compared them to the utter meh-ness of Joe Q's claimed official canon origin tale.

[The Cool Thatguy]

you can't give joker a definitive origin. it takes away the mystery and menaces. not having a solid origin lets people's imaginations run wild. why would you want to take that away?

This, plus the problem these days of giving him an origin is that the next writer, and then the next, and then the next, will jump on to give him yet another 'definitive' origin.

Just look at Deadpool, after he became popular. How many times has a writer tweeked or changed the Joe Casey origin? I'm fairly confident the current writer has thrown out the Kelly stuff.

Don' need that for Joker.

[phantom1592]

Ahhh but what about characters like Harvey Dent and Harley? Their backstories are integral to their characters. Without the DA and the psychiatrist who fell fro her patient... what would they be? Clayface as the actor? Hugo Strange? Riddler? Bane?

Personally, I find a character without a past a bit TOO open. One issue has him running an evil funhouse.... the next has him cutting his face off. Last I heard they were hinting that Joker was some immortal entity through the history of gotham...

How much freedom is TOO much? You wouldn't see them going that crazy with Scarecrow or Two-face.

As for the wolverine origin? I totally agree that sucked. But Weapon X was considered great. For the longest time that WAS his origin. At least the origin of the claws and skeleton.

I never liked the failed comedian concept. I feel that in order to do the stuff that he does, he needs a massively powerful chemical weapon background. Which, while it's been a long time, I don't remember TKJ really stressing.

[John Venus]

With some characters, it's important to see the kind of person they were before they became a supervillain to better understand their development. Seeing an earnest and caring Harvey Dent whose trying hard to make a different makes it all the more tragic when we later see him coldly deciding people's fates on the flip of a coin.

Most of Batman's rogues, at their best are meant to be sympathetic. Ordinary, regular people driven to become fantastical colourful often by the kind of monsters that exist in the real life. Such as in 'Heart of Ice' where Mr. Freeze's dies literally because of corporate greed.

Meanwhile, the Joker is the one rogue who is meant to be pure evil. I could never wrap my head around the 'master of chaos/we play the game/blah blah blah' stuff that came Post-TDK. My 'in' into the Batman/Joker dynamic was in realizing that Bruce Wayne was the victim of a random senseless murder and thus spent most his life trying to rationalize it, to fight and prevent that kind of senseless murder and what is the Joker, if not the embodiment of senseless, random violence? Death is comedy to him. He will literally kill people, ruin their lives or threaten the entire city or the world simply because he found it funny. He throws Batman's moral code about killing out of the window.

Because of that, I think he needs some mystery to him. Like the Pre-Nu 52 Phantom Stranger, some characters just don't require a detailed background and it's just better in some cases to just the leave the audience wondering.

I think the original Red Hood origin worked for the character. He was a criminal named Red Hood, Batman cornered him but he ended up falling into a vat, got disfigured and then became the Joker. That's all anyone knows. Maybe some clue to his backstory or what he was before the accident would pop up every now and then but it will ultimately lead to nowhere.

[KrustyKid]

I like mystery when it comes to Joker