Why don't people want a Joker origin?

[Carabas]

I think Batman at least should know who the Joker used to be. And not by asking a New God either.

He's the World's Greatst Detective. It's the one area of his skill in which he is the unrivaled best of the best, and the Joker is somebody who puts zero effort in trying to hide or covering up who he used to be.

[Agent Z]

I think Batman at least should know who the Joker used to be. And not by asking a New God either.

He's the World's Greatst Detective. It's the one area of his skill in which he is the unrivaled best of the best, and the Joker is somebody who puts zero effort in trying to hide or covering up who he used to be.

I think Bruce doesn't really want to find out who the Joker is.

The idea behind the Joker's origin is that he has (probably) allowed one pivotal event to define his entire worldview. This is the basis of Terry's mockery in Batman Beyond. Bruce fears (perhaps rightly) that he and the Joker are not that different at all. Hence he settles for beating down on him and locking him away in the world's worst prison system. Terry just goes for a spitball, presenting his own theory and mocking that. As a result, the Joker is in a Catch-22 situation - even if he denies this one theory, he's still one step closer to being pinned down by a certain past, a certain motive, a certain reason that anyone can review, a bluff that finally gets called.

In a way, Moore's Joker was defeated the same way, by his own hand even - he forced Gordon through an ordeal he thought enough to turn anyone insane... and failed miserably, the one saving throw being claiming that wasn't the "real" story. Ledger's Joker also spouts origin tales, each sillier than the last (there's even a fan theory he's actually a war veteran shredded by an IED and abandoned by the state), but that just opens him up for mockery, rather than dramatic Michael Caine speeches. Again, Bruce wouldn't be able to do it. Gordon would, Terry would, but Bruce is just as guilty of letting one tragedy define his own life, so all there is between him and the Joker is the impasse of a bluff that never gets called.

[Stinky]

The unknown makes him more unsettling.

Agreed.....this is one guy I think should always leave people wondering what in the hell could have happened to him to make him this way. Or maybe he just is.

[JBatmanFan05]

Why don't people want a Joker origin?

One big or even the biggest reason is that Joker oddly had zero origin (zero explanation for why a clown-looking criminal) until 1951 (Detective #168), and that was a bit unusual for such a huge main super-recurring archvillain. And Detective #168 didn't give you much of an origin either, so I think fans and creators saw the signaling that an origin was not a emphasis and seemed only an afterthought by everyone. After 1951's Tec #168, oddly, no writer tried to tackle origin or add any detail until 1988's The Killing Joke, a pretty shocking span of time of continued avoidance or shunning of a Joker origin. For the #1 main Batman villain, very odd.

And then of course, by the time The Killing Joke hits in 1988, you have fans already accustomed to the odd nonemphasis of his sparce Red Hood origin and Moore slips in the "multiple choice" line and such fans really take to it because while many like Moore's failed comedian origin, there was the Napier '89 origin and plus: Not everyone (fully) liked Moore's sympathetic origin for The Joker. Comic fans are a bit divided on sympathetic vs non-sympathetic origins for villains. Some feel sympathetic origins are overused and not appropriate for every villain because then every villain is the same and too much sameness is the enemy and uncreative and not even always realistic.

So in summary, a lot of circumstances came together since 1940 to make Joker an ideal candidate for "little to no" origin, comic fans wanted something different and Chris Nolan and others have taken to it too. Nolan I think forever cemented the "multiple choice/no origin" thing, made it very mainstream.

[phantom1592]

I think Bruce doesn't really want to find out who the Joker is.

The idea behind the Joker's origin is that he has (probably) allowed one pivotal event to define his entire worldview. This is the basis of Terry's mockery in Batman Beyond. Bruce fears (perhaps rightly) that he and the Joker are not that different at all. Hence he settles for beating down on him and locking him away in the world's worst prison system. Terry just goes for a spitball, presenting his own theory and mocking that. As a result, the Joker is in a Catch-22 situation - even if he denies this one theory, he's still one step closer to being pinned down by a certain past, a certain motive, a certain reason that anyone can review, a bluff that finally gets called.

In a way, Moore's Joker was defeated the same way, by his own hand even - he forced Gordon through an ordeal he thought enough to turn anyone insane... and failed miserably, the one saving throw being claiming that wasn't the "real" story. Ledger's Joker also spouts origin tales, each sillier than the last (there's even a fan theory he's actually a war veteran shredded by an IED and abandoned by the state), but that just opens him up for mockery, rather than dramatic Michael Caine speeches. Again, Bruce wouldn't be able to do it. Gordon would, Terry would, but Bruce is just as guilty of letting one tragedy define his own life, so all there is between him and the Joker is the impasse of a bluff that never gets called.

I wonder if part of it is the guilt? More then any other villain... Batman MADE him. '89 movie nailed it. Not in the stupid 'Batman draws crazies to him' kind of way... but in a very literal 'Dropped/forced him in chemical vat' kind of way. Whoever the Joker was before that... doesn't really MATTER. Red Hood was a nobody. Had Batman not been there that night, Red Hood would have remained a petty criminal. He wasn't the psychotic mass murdering demon until AFTER the chemical dip...

Kind of turns Joker into his own Frankenstiens monster.

[Goth Ham]

My first thought when learning the basic premise of the Gotham TV series was, "Terrible idea. Nobody wants to see a tween Joker." I agree with what others have said, I usually love me a tragic Batman villain origin, but the mystery makes the character more unsettling and, therefore, more effective in this case. He's become the biggest and baddest rogue, so he needs a scarier 'evilness gimmick' than the others; I suppose that while many Batman villains represent the tragedy of human evil which might have been avoided, the Joker might represent the worse horror of human evil that just maybe doesn't have a cause at all. (And, therefore, no 'cure' either.) Also, thinking about the practicalities of storytelling, it might have been difficult to ramp up the tragic origin thing to give the tragediest tragedy to the worst rogue without it just getting too extreme and seeming unintentionally ridiculous. Personally I like to think that even when a possible tragic or sympathetic origin for the Joker emerges from another source, he somehow planted the story himself as a way to amuse himself by parodying his fellow rogues' genuine troubles.

[Batmaniac]

Because it's unimportant, and makes him more enigmatic.

[Kingcrimsonprog]

There's a cool issue of Streets Of Gotham when Paul Dini writes a flashback of a yoing joker who 'hadnt worked the kinks out of his act yet'... I think thats pretty bold as a variation of the origin

[electr1cgoblin]

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?

Bingo. Not to derail the thread, but they screwed around and gave Wolverine an origin and it really demystified that character. I think it's impressive that, what, 75 years later the company has stuck by their guns and kept the Joker's mystery alive.

[Lightning Rider]

As people have said, it takes away the frightening mystery and the larger-than-life aspect of his purely chaotic essence. And I think a large part of it has to do with the fact that his origin almost always lies in a chemical bath. We all love him how he is because it's his genuine personality. He'll risk anything to get into Batman's head and provide himself a laugh while nihilistically pointing out the insanity of everyday life. Once you show a "before" and "after", it kind of splits the character's identity. This is especially the case if you make him as sympathetic as Moore did. I liked that story (and also liked the "multiple choice" line that stopped that origin from being definitive), but pre-bath Joker bears almost no resemblance to the character we know and love. It turns Joker's madness into a quirky accidental affliction, rather than an organically developed perspective and mental state worthy of challenging the Batman.

That being said, I really liked the origin from Batman Confidential and wouldn't hate if that were his canon origin. I find it odd that I don't see other people mention it more often. To summarize and be slightly spoilery, I really like the idea of a man with a great gift for crime who nonetheless feels frustrated and unfulfilled and uninspired. The bath still happens and it certainly changes his perspective, but it coincides with an already burgeoning rivalry with the world's greatest detective. Both serve as an awakening and finding of purpose that ties Joker to Batman forever. The final transformation is a realization, a final layer on top of a person you could believe has the capacity to outwit an analytical genius but is teetering on the edge of an existential crisis. That is a satisfying Joker origin story to me.

[Beorg]

I don't think there's anything interesting for an entire origin to be told. Either he was thrown in a life of crime as in TKJ or an average thug who fell in the tank of acid, which made him more unstable. That's it.

[HellHere]

Bingo. Not to derail the thread, but they screwed around and gave Wolverine an origin and it really demystified that character. I think it's impressive that, what, 75 years later the company has stuck by their guns and kept the Joker's mystery alive.

This is why I'd rather they don't give the Joker one. When I was a teenager I loved Wolverine. LOVED him. Favourite character by a mile. And then they gave him a past... and it just killed my love dead. I don't hate him, but without the mystery I just don't care. At all. Then DC did the same to Apollo and Midnigher, same effect. From utter love to a now pretty near indifference.

The problem is you get writers who are convinced that they can make a story that's more compelling than the mystery. And honestly, you can't. It just ends up reducing the character.

[Agent Z]

I wonder if part of it is the guilt? More then any other villain... Batman MADE him. '89 movie nailed it. Not in the stupid 'Batman draws crazies to him' kind of way... but in a very literal 'Dropped/forced him in chemical vat' kind of way. Whoever the Joker was before that... doesn't really MATTER. Red Hood was a nobody. Had Batman not been there that night, Red Hood would have remained a petty criminal. He wasn't the psychotic mass murdering demon until AFTER the chemical dip...

Kind of turns Joker into his own Frankenstiens monster.

Of course, this depends on whether or not the "Red Hood" origin is even real to begin with.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

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...

Riddler and Bane and Two-Face have never stressed the horror and mystery aspect the same way that Joker has. Part of what makes the Joker inherently terrifying is that we dont know his name or identity from before he was the Joker. To use a real-world example, its like when how the Zodiac Killer is still such a terrifying entity today...because we still don't know who he is.

Also, we've always known the identities of villains like Two-Face and Riddler ever since their first debut. Giving one to the Joker, at this stage in the character's history would be an unwelcome and almost alien injection into the Batman mythology. They even tried it once before, with the Jack Napier identity that was introduced in the Batman movie in 1989. However, aside from a single reference in the animated series, that identity was quickly forgotten. And, if you ask me, its for the better. Anyone who wants to give Joker a definitive identity just simply doesn't understand the character.

[The Whovian]

The same reason most fans didn't want to know Wolverine's origin. The mystery is better than knowing because the actual truth probably wouldn't do the character justice.