Why do people like the Joker?

[Nettlekid]

I'm talking about the character in general, not any specific version (although if a specific version is useful to illustrate a point then it's fair game.) I'm not the most knowledgeable about comic lore, but it seems to me like the Joker is an example of everything that people usually hate in a villainous character. He doesn't seem to have any specific motivation, he does things "because he wants to" (a line dreaded by DMs of Chaotic Stupid characters everywhere) and he doesn't even have a concrete backstory to justify his villainy. What about him makes him so idolized as an iconic villain, one of the greatest in comic book history? I just don't understand it.

[The Fury]

I think it has to do mainly with the versatility of the character. He can be either a wacky goofball with novelty gags or a homicidal maniac. There's even versions that go back and forth between the two, (I think this is one of the reasons the Animated Series version is so well-regarded.)

If the Joker ever really had a character-defining motivation, I'd say that it's that he wants to bring humanity face to face with its own darker side, or otherwise demonstrate that the world is just as cracked as he is. At least it seems that way since The Killing Joke.

[BWR]

He's liked because he is an absolute monster, because his motives are unclear beyond 'for the cruel lulz' and an obsession with Batman, because he's an enigma with an unknown backstory.
Speaking for myself, and I would not be surprised if others felt this way, having good villainous motivations and tragic backstories and whatnot are not necessary for making a good villain. Simply being truly villainous is reason enough. Backstory for evil behavior are meant to make us empathize to a degree with someone, which in some way makes us like a character even if they are horrible people. While it can work well, it is also a sort of cheat, by trying to make you sympathize with a character and thus like them even if they are kind of boring and uninspired without the explanation for their personality. While there are versions of the Joker where we have some sort of backstory, the core is simply that he is brilliant, cruel and pure evil and anything he was before is entirely irrelevant, and that is enough to enjoy the sheer monstrosity of his character.

[Darth Ultron]

I think people just like the Escape of Cool Crazy Evil.

Most people are super boring...so much that it is there super power. They don't take chances or risks and are really, really, really too comfortable in their very comfortable zones. And even when they do something..barley...it's more all about the safety then anything else like having a good time or fun. And yes ''doing X'' can be dangerous, but that is half of the point. Few people even do anything even slightly outside the rules and laws and lines of society....but sure that makes them good citizens.

But all those people do dream and think about the ''what if''....what if they were crazy evil. Then they would have the pure freedom to do anything. And that is a great fantasy. And the Joker is the Star of that fantasy. And that makes for the perfect escape.

[KillingAScarab]

Because he drives Batman. LEGO Batman said it best.


You're the reason I get up at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and pump iron until my chest is absolutely sick.

[Clertar]

1. Because it's too entrenched in the canon. Fans can justify any narrative inconsistency if it's perceived as canonical enough.

2. It's such a blank slate that it can be rewritten left and right. DC fans, and especially Batman and Superman fans, love a "reimagining" much better than story progression. A character with endless "what if..." potential is the best that can happen to them.

I wonder that myself. It's the most uninteresting character, and it only works in the more cartoony incarnations of Batman.

[Lacuna Caster]

I'm talking about the character in general, not any specific version (although if a specific version is useful to illustrate a point then it's fair game.) I'm not the most knowledgeable about comic lore, but it seems to me like the Joker is an example of everything that people usually hate in a villainous character. He doesn't seem to have any specific motivation, he does things "because he wants to" (a line dreaded by DMs of Chaotic Stupid characters everywhere) and he doesn't even have a concrete backstory to justify his villainy. What about him makes him so idolized as an iconic villain, one of the greatest in comic book history? I just don't understand it.
I get this to a large extent as well- even the Mark Hamill and Heath Ledger versions just never quite clicked with me- they seemed more like moustache-twirling constructs than fleshed-out human beings. The only versions that did are from The Dark Knight Returns and Lee and Azzarello's Joker.

The former is the only version of the character that legitimately scares me. He's a bit of a blank in terms of background, but Miller takes the whole 'lives to gleefully screw with Batman' angle and just dials it up to eleven. So I don't think that particular take will ever be improved on.

The second manages to hint at a certain measure of twisted pathos to the character, buried under layers of pique and hate and tortured insecurity, far better than The Killing Joke ever does, in my not so humble opinion.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I liked him in the 1989 Batman movie because Batman was boring, and his girlfriend was boring and it's only Jack Nicholson that makes the movie watchable.

Whether this can be extrapolated to the rest of batman, I cannot say authoritatively, but I suggest it as a hypothesis: that the Joker is at least a bit of fun in what is otherwise a rather dour set of characters all around.

GW

[Dr.Samurai]

Good question. I've never really understood the love for the Joker either, or the dichotomy they say exists between him and Batman.

[JoshL]

Part of the appeal is the contrast with Batman. Order vs Chaos. Logic vs Unpredictability. Discipline vs Just Winging It. Overseriousness vs Humor. Etc, etc. He is in every way the anti-Batman, and that gives another way to show character in Bats, through both the actions of the Joker, and by how he responds to him.

[2D8HP]

Why do people like the Joker?....

...What about him makes him so idolized as an iconic villain, one of the greatest in comic book history? I just don't understand it..
Do they like the Joker?

I thought most people just liked to see him defeated, he definitely reminds me of some bad "How dare you duck when I throw things at you" bosses I've had.

I suppose some people like the Joker because it's a big world with a lot of people and somewhere there's someone who will like most anything.

[Lacuna Caster]

Part of the appeal is the contrast with Batman. Order vs Chaos. Logic vs Unpredictability. Discipline vs Just Winging It. Overseriousness vs Humor. Etc, etc. He is in every way the anti-Batman, and that gives another way to show character in Bats, through both the actions of the Joker, and by how he responds to him.
There is that, yes. A major part of the Batman franchise's appeal is the, ah, 'thematic symmetry' of his rogue's gallery.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I don't read comics, or really am terribly familiar with the Joker or Batman lore, but here's something I like.

The character enables bits of dialog like this (http://www.whysanity.net/monos/dark_knight1.html) to happen.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm talking about the character in general, not any specific version (although if a specific version is useful to illustrate a point then it's fair game.) I'm not the most knowledgeable about comic lore, but it seems to me like the Joker is an example of everything that people usually hate in a villainous character. He doesn't seem to have any specific motivation, he does things "because he wants to" (a line dreaded by DMs of Chaotic Stupid characters everywhere) and he doesn't even have a concrete backstory to justify his villainy. What about him makes him so idolized as an iconic villain, one of the greatest in comic book history? I just don't understand it.

The Joker is despair. When one has lost everything the result is laughter. Hell is full of laughter.

As such the Joker embodies the Free Man archetype. He does as he pleases and breezes through the rules and constraints affecting mere mortals. Who doesn't envy that?

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, I don't get that. He's the ultimate "free man", but he is obsessed with Batman, so not really. Or he is the ultimate "free man", which is portrayed as insane, murderous, and psychotic.

He is chaos and disorder, but his plans are even more complex and involved than Batman's.

It's okay to say "Do I look like a man with a plan to you?", but he's just pretending. He very clearly has plans. He very obviously prepares things ahead of time. The Joker is a mastermind, as opposed to the fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants maniac that people often say he is.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yeah, I don't get that. He's the ultimate "free man", but he is obsessed with Batman, so not really. Or he is the ultimate "free man", which is portrayed as insane, murderous, and psychotic.

He is chaos and disorder, but his plans are even more complex and involved than Batman's.

It's okay to say "Do I look like a man with a plan to you?", but he's just pretending. He very clearly has plans. He very obviously prepares things ahead of time. The Joker is a mastermind, as opposed to the fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants maniac that people often say he is.
Eh... the fact the Joker is willing to execute plans in order to increase net disorder in the world isn't any more intrinsically contradictory than Batman circumventing the law in order to increase net justice. It all depends on the results you get.

I do agree that the "Free Man" aspect is puzzling, though. If the ideal of self-actualisation is to just not allow anything to get in the way of your ambitions, sure, that's pretty Evil, but that's closer to Lex Luthor. The 'man driven mad by the absurdity of existence' is closer to Deadpool- violent and destructive, but not malicious per se.

[Calemyr]

Yeah, I don't get that. He's the ultimate "free man", but he is obsessed with Batman, so not really. Or he is the ultimate "free man", which is portrayed as insane, murderous, and psychotic.

He is chaos and disorder, but his plans are even more complex and involved than Batman's.

It's okay to say "Do I look like a man with a plan to you?", but he's just pretending. He very clearly has plans. He very obviously prepares things ahead of time. The Joker is a mastermind, as opposed to the fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants maniac that people often say he is.

I think a lot of it comes down to what you mean by "plan". Because in one sense the Joker is an excellent planner, and in another he doesn't bother at all. The Joker doesn't think in grand schemes, he thinks in more episodic stunts. Robbing a bank, extracting a prisoner, various attempts to unmask or otherwise break Batman. Explicit goals with a short lifespan and a finite scope. These stunts he plans out to a T, getting the right people at the right place at the right time, but the stunts themselves aren't usually part of some greater scheme beyond chaos, his own amusement, and screwing with the Bat. Actually, all three goals could fit under the "his own amusement" heading. There never was a grand plan. Even the common motivation of money didn't mean anything to him beyond a convenient gauge to measure how much he was hurting the mob, which only fueled his amusement. Of course, that's just the Heath Ledger Joker. The Joker is so inconsistently portrayed it's difficult to make any statements more comprehensive than that.

The fact that he's portrayed with such variation is, I think, part of his popularity. Whether it's the clown, the gangster, or the philosopher, the Joker covers enough ground that there's likely an incarnation that appeals to you. It's certainly helped by the fact that most of the voiced portrayals of the character are done with such an infectious enthusiasm that it can be very hard not to caught up in it yourself.

Beyond that, I find there's usually the fact that the Joker, no matter how he's portrayed, tends to embody "wrong done right". He is confident, he is competent, he is clever, he finds enjoyment in everything he does, and does everything (even losing) with such idiosyncratic style. No matter the portrayal, the Joker is a consummate showman who relishes the impact he'll have on the audience, even if that audience is just a deranged orphan dressed like a blind, flying mammal. As a result, he tends to be fun to watch, like any good showman.

[Traab]

I think a lot of it comes down to what you mean by "plan". Because in one sense the Joker is an excellent planner, and in another he doesn't bother at all. The Joker doesn't think in grand schemes, he thinks in more episodic stunts. Robbing a bank, extracting a prisoner, various attempts to unmask or otherwise break Batman. Explicit goals with a short lifespan and a finite scope. These stunts he plans out to a T, getting the right people at the right place at the right time, but the stunts themselves aren't usually part of some greater scheme beyond chaos, his own amusement, and screwing with the Bat. Actually, all three goals could fit under the "his own amusement" heading. There never was a grand plan. Even the common motivation of money didn't mean anything to him beyond a convenient gauge to measure how much he was hurting the mob, which only fueled his amusement. Of course, that's just the Heath Ledger Joker. The Joker is so inconsistently portrayed it's difficult to make any statements more comprehensive than that.

The fact that he's portrayed with such variation is, I think, part of his popularity. Whether it's the clown, the gangster, or the philosopher, the Joker covers enough ground that there's likely an incarnation that appeals to you. It's certainly helped by the fact that most of the voiced portrayals of the character are done with such an infectious enthusiasm that it can be very hard not to caught up in it yourself.

Beyond that, I find there's usually the fact that the Joker, no matter how he's portrayed, tends to embody "wrong done right". He is confident, he is competent, he is clever, he finds enjoyment in everything he does, and does everything (even losing) with such idiosyncratic style. No matter the portrayal, the Joker is a consummate showman who relishes the impact he'll have on the audience, even if that audience is just a deranged orphan dressed like a blind, flying mammal. As a result, he tends to be fun to watch, like any good showman.

The heath ledger joker had an ABSURDLY complex and complicated plan that involved pinpoint precision spread out among dozens of goons and carefully predicting responses of numerous people whose day he wanted to ruin. There was absolutely nothing random about anything he tried in that film. Even the bank robbery at the start was timed to perfection like a swiss watch.

[Dr.Samurai]

Eh... the fact the Joker is willing to execute plans in order to increase net disorder in the world isn't any more intrinsically contradictory than Batman circumventing the law in order to increase net justice. It all depends on the results you get.
Well, I agree. But my point was more to the notion that the Joker flies by the seat of his pants as some agent of chaos that can't be predicted. He clearly doesn't. His tech/planning/preparation rivals Batman's. You can't predict what he is going to do in so far as you never know when any one of your rogue's gallery is going to commit their crime.


I think a lot of it comes down to what you mean by "plan". Because in one sense the Joker is an excellent planner, and in another he doesn't bother at all. The Joker doesn't think in grand schemes, he thinks in more episodic stunts.
Well, if we're sticking to that quote, the Joker in The Dark Knight movie is very much a grand schemer. There are a lot of moving parts in play and he's moving them all. The hospitals, the ferries, the mob, Gordon's assassination, the bank robbery, the escape from the prison, etc. He is easily scheming and plotting and prepping more than any other character in the trilogy. Everything is timed and pulled off without a hitch (until the end).

In the animated series he pulls off all sorts of crazy intricate plans. In comics, we have The Killing Joke, where I'd call buying an entire amusement park and setting it up for the sole purpose of psychologically destroying one man a grand scheme. There's End Game where he gains control of the Justice League and manipulates Batman to march to his death. I think he's the mastermind behind the Arkham video games as well (haven't played them though).

So, I don't know. To me, the Joker seems more like a mastermind villain than some zany wacky avatar of chaos. He's just a guy that likes torturing Batman, and his obsession seems like a concession of agency that makes him less interesting to me.

Beyond that, I find there's usually the fact that the Joker, no matter how he's portrayed, tends to embody "wrong done right".
Oof, yeah, I totally don't agree :smallsmile:. As far as villains go, the Joker has never rated very high for me. Which is nuts because he usually rates extremely high on top villains lists right? He embodies "you complete me" villainy, which I don't care for. He's the yin to Batman's yang, or whatever. I can't really get behind that motivation, so he's never really excited me.

All that said, I'm going to contradict myself a little here and say that I loved Ledger's portrayal of the character.

[Peelee]

I think he's the mastermind behind the Arkham video games as well (haven't played them though).

You should; they're delightful. Without spoiling anything in any of the games, the Joker is the mastermind of the first, yes (you find that out at just about the very beginning).

[Lacuna Caster]

The heath ledger joker had an ABSURDLY complex and complicated plan that involved pinpoint precision spread out among dozens of goons and carefully predicting responses of numerous people whose day he wanted to ruin. There was absolutely nothing random about anything he tried in that film. Even the bank robbery at the start was timed to perfection like a swiss watch.
Right down to the level where he can stand in the middle of a police station and be somehow untouched by a bomb that floors everyone standing around him, apparently.

To be fair, how in the hell Commissioner Gordon could predict that the assassin's bullet would take that precise trajectory is beyond me.

[Donnadogsoth]

Yeah, I don't get that. He's the ultimate "free man", but he is obsessed with Batman, so not really. Or he is the ultimate "free man", which is portrayed as insane, murderous, and psychotic.

He is chaos and disorder, but his plans are even more complex and involved than Batman's.

It's okay to say "Do I look like a man with a plan to you?", but he's just pretending. He very clearly has plans. He very obviously prepares things ahead of time. The Joker is a mastermind, as opposed to the fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants maniac that people often say he is.

He's obsessed with breathing, too, is he less free for it? Just because someone has goals doesn't mean they're unfree.

[DomaDoma]

I just hopped to YouTube assuming this music video existed, and was not disappointed:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-L98RIhRAM

[KillingAScarab]

...even if that audience is just a deranged orphan dressed like a blind, flying mammal...Even insectivorous bats aren't blind (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769648/), though they rely greatly on echolocation. And the nectar and fruit-eating varieties are highly dependent upon sight.


I just hopped to YouTube assuming this music video existed, and was not disappointed:Since I first heard the song when used for by CJ Collins' Kefka, that brings me back to his parody of the interrogation room scene from Nolan's Dark Knight. Cloud, Sephiroth and Kefka all pounding on a table yelling, "Where is she?!" looking for three different people.

[Calemyr]

Well, if we're sticking to that quote, the Joker in The Dark Knight movie is very much a grand schemer. There are a lot of moving parts in play and he's moving them all. The hospitals, the ferries, the mob, Gordon's assassination, the bank robbery, the escape from the prison, etc. He is easily scheming and plotting and prepping more than any other character in the trilogy. Everything is timed and pulled off without a hitch (until the end).

In the animated series he pulls off all sorts of crazy intricate plans. In comics, we have The Killing Joke, where I'd call buying an entire amusement park and setting it up for the sole purpose of psychologically destroying one man a grand scheme. There's End Game where he gains control of the Justice League and manipulates Batman to march to his death. I think he's the mastermind behind the Arkham video games as well (haven't played them though).

So, I don't know. To me, the Joker seems more like a mastermind villain than some zany wacky avatar of chaos. He's just a guy that likes torturing Batman, and his obsession seems like a concession of agency that makes him less interesting to me.

I would reiterate that my statement was about the Heath Ledger incarnation. Mark Hamil's version was more the gangster archetype, and with that does come more of a mastermind mentality. Ledger's, however, was just a series of jobs, each committed in a unique and creative way. Granted, a lot of those jobs had one particular goal in mind, harassing and prodding Batman, but that was a shared objective over several small plans, not a grand plan. Besides their conflicting stated objectives ("Would the real Batman stand up?" "New deal: kill the snitch."), there's the fact that the Joker's games were largely centered off of brand new information that couldn't have been factored into a larger plan. The "lady and the DA" gambit, for instance, was done because of Batman jumping out a window to save Rachel. That little reaction gave him a new chink to exploit and he wanted to see what would happen. In short order, he worked it into his scheme to collect the accountant from prison for the mob... so he could set his half of the earnings on fire in front of them. Because his long term goal, always, is to screw with peoples' heads. Whether it's Batman, Dent, the mob, the media, or the populace, that's always the ultimate objective for that incarnation of the Joker.

And it's cool if you don't find Joker fun or funny, you know? I wasn't trying to convince you, I was merely trying to propose an explanation why he's so popular: A) He's get a very diverse representation. B) He's typically portrayed with infectious enthusiasm. C) He does everything with panache. It may not float your boat, but there's enough water there buoy an armada.

[Bohandas]

He's wise, in a way no other supervillain is.

[Crow]

Have you ever known one of those people who was just dangerous to be around? Have you ever had to deal with a violent offender from a mental hospital? There is something about knowing that the person you are dealing with can go from zero to deadly force in an instant, with no warning whatsoever. Just being around those people will have you feeling as if you are balancing on the edge of a razor. Every time somebody interacts with that person, you brace yourself for what is going to happen; and of course, you can't relax a bit, because that person may decide to do something crazy with no provocation whatsoever. Then add to this recipe that the person is a highly intelligent, manipulative, long-term thinker, and the threat skyrockets.

There is an inscrutability in the actions of a highly intelligent, but deranged individual that makes those people intensely interesting to an outside observer. I think that is one of the big draws of the Joker.

[Kitten Champion]

I think a large part of it is simply being defined as the nemesis to Batman. As in, because of that and Batman's prominence, he's been written far more prolifically and by some talented individuals which has created a legacy of works - that, rather than actual canon - have given the character weight and life. Then there's Mark Hamill who's performance on that character is among the most widely regarded for a VA in a Western work outside of The Simpsons, and is certainly memorable.

Though, he's not the type of villain I'm especially fond of - I don't particularly like any villainy-from-psychosis character - and the WB apparently planning multiple Joker-centric movies does baffle me somewhat.

[Gnoman]

You have to look at the Joker in the context of Batman villains as a whole. Most of them are solidly developed, and over the years have had sympathetic (or at least understandable) motivations grafted on. That's a good thing, and one of the things DC has always excelled at. Still, you need a counterpoint to these, a complete and total monster for your superhero to beat up - which the Joker provides. He is Chaos incarnate, and often epitomizes Evil as well. Very few people (outside of teenage edgelords) is going to look at the Joker's actions and think "I could totally see myself doing that in those circumstances" - so it gives Batman just enough black-and-white morality to justify his existence.

[Metahuman1]

There's also this to consider. There are a lot of villains out there who want to completely control, completely dominate, and to rule with absolute authority and systemic power. Lex Luthor, Ra's Al Ghoul, Vandal Savage, Depending on the writing sometimes Bane, The Mad Hatter, The Riddler, I could go on.




But the Joker stands out because he's sort of his own thing. He's an anarchist, to the point that his personality warps wildly form time to time. He's an actual opposite to a villain who wants world domination, but still firmly a villain.

[Ramza00]

Good question. I've never really understood the love for the Joker either, or the dichotomy they say exists between him and Batman.

Okay this is easy and hard to explain. Both of them are critiques of the system and society. Batman is a byronic hero, just a reminder some of the traits of a byronic hero.

1) Highly Intelligent and Perceptive
2) Often sosphistictated and highly educated, "knowing" more than the average median person
3) arrogant, cunning, and adaptive
4) mysterious, magnetic, seductive
5) conflicting emotions or unstable moods switching from depression, melancholy, to high on life (sometimes to the point of mania)
6) cynical, has a distaste for traditional social norms and insitutions
7) not a traditional hero, dark, sometimes anti-hero
8) some sort of troubled past
9) self destructive, self critical, itnrospective
10) loner, rejected from society, exiled

And through the byronic hero as a comic book the Batman comics are talking about the limits of society but also the goodness and greatness of society and the people that make up it via using a byronic hero as an outside perspective and critique of society. Batman is a comic book series about a man and the relationship with his city, and how a city can be corrupt but also worth saving two things that seem opposite but life is messy and they can both simultaneously be true.

---

Joker is also a critique on society and such. He is the wild card, who things do not always go according to plan, how there can be good people but also *******s and joker pokes at the absurdity of it all. Furthermore evil is not just people who choose evil, but is also the thoughtlessness of the system, how unintended things just happen for we did not for see all the possible elements, much like how a joker in a deck of cards throws off all the math and probabilities if you did not know the joker is in the deck of cards.

---

So the The Animated Series in one of the episodes called The Laughing Fish (which in turn adapted a 1978 comic) well it had a great line that encapsulates the joker. First some back story / setup before I give you the line.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf7Tbt9ewY8

So I am about to post a 2nd video link which includes the upcoming quote and some more setup between the quote and the above clip. But the point is already made Francis can't change the system, he is just "hostage to it all" and is trying to make his way in the world today. He can'tg give the Joker what he wants yet he will be punished for it all the same.

So Francis who is now a hostage guarded by the police and Batman ask Batman like a man would ask an angel or god, why? Why me?


Francis: Uh, Batman? Why is this happening to me? I've never done anything to this Joker. I'm just a paper-pusher. I can't change the laws. I'm harmless.

Batman: And in his sick mind, that's the joke, Mr. Francis.

Here is the 2nd video link which I have to do as a URL due to giantitp forum rules and syntax but it includes that line I just quoted plus other scenes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOtZ8_PSQ3Y

---------------------

So Batman and the Joker are natural opposites for they both represent the "unseen forces" which can shape a city, society, and people's lives. Batman represents the shadows, a dark knight, a guardian angel, but also a man who affects others yet we do not know the reason why, why he wears a mask and thus his own personal motivations, we only know batman based on what he does on the outside.

And the Joker is also an outside force, represent the unseen forces that represent death, absurdity, chance, malice, irony and so on.

[Rynjin]

Stepping back from the deeper character study, the Joker is just interesting because at his core he's a showman above all else.

It gives writers hella leeway for just leaning on SPECTACLE in his capers, without being weighed down by logic or motivations.

That he can flip from entertaining to truly chilling at the drop of a hat in some incarnations is just icing on the cake.

[Sapphire Guard]

Mark Hamill's voice is a big factor.

Otherwise, Joker's a bit like Xykon, in that he's a rare character that can be very funny and entertaining without being sympathetic.

I think being overexposed or having him as the one big enemy ultimately hurts his depiction though, he works better as one villain among many than the 'you complete me' stuff.

It annoyed me when every game circled back around to Joker as the main villain. You have a huge rogues gallery, use it.

[Kyberwulf]

It's easy to answer. It's cuase he it's edgy to like him. Also, we are told that he is Batman's greatest villain. It'a not hard to see why though. Look at all his other villain's. They all have some lame shtick. What.. one tell's riddles. Another has a penguin motif? A girl in a catsuit? I know joke is suppose to be a "Clown" but he is more then that.

What I don't get is... why do so many people hold his and Harly's relationship in such High regard. I am also shocked to see girls act like they are something to aspire.

[Donnadogsoth]

It's easy to answer. It's cuase he it's edgy to like him. Also, we are told that he is Batman's greatest villain. It'a not hard to see why though. Look at all his other villain's. They all have some lame shtick. What.. one tell's riddles. Another has a penguin motif? A girl in a catsuit? I know joke is suppose to be a "Clown" but he is more then that.

What I don't get is... why do so many people hold his and Harly's relationship in such High regard. I am also shocked to see girls act like they are something to aspire.

What would a robust shtick be?

What is wrong with Harley and J's relationship?

[Dr.Samurai]

He's obsessed with breathing, too, is he less free for it? Just because someone has goals doesn't mean they're unfree.
I'm going to ignore your comparison since Joker is never depicted as obsessed with breathing.

You said "who wouldn't envy that?" and I'm saying I wouldn't. I don't consider an obsession with Batman to "embody the Free Man archetype". I think obsession *is actually* a "constraint affecting mere mortals", to use your words.

Perhaps there is some depiction of the Joker that fits what you're saying, but as he is often depicted, you're asking "who wouldn't envy an insane guy obsessed with another person enough to risk his life and spend countless time in prison and/or committed?"

The answer then is "I wouldn't envy that man at all, in any way, shape, or form".

And it's cool if you don't find Joker fun or funny, you know? I wasn't trying to convince you, I was merely trying to propose an explanation why he's so popular: A) He's get a very diverse representation. B) He's typically portrayed with infectious enthusiasm. C) He does everything with panache. It may not float your boat, but there's enough water there buoy an armada.
Oh I know. That's why I put the smiley face in there. I didn't want you to take my very strong disagreement negatively. But I read your comment and I was like "wow, we *strongly* disagree" lol.

And I think you're seriously downplaying his master-minding in the movie :smallconfused:.

[Dienekes]

I love the Joker exactly for the reasons you gave. He doesn’t have a tragic backstory really. Nor a particularly good motive. He breaks every rule about character building in the book and he does it with panache.

He’s actually in a lot of ways closer to a horror monster than a true fully fleshed out character. Joker works because no one else is like him and because he acts as a near perfect foil for Batman. Batman has reasons, Bruce (when written well) is a tragic backstory with massive flaws and large motivations that all focus on his view of justice and order. Joker literally has none of that.

What he does have is an incredibly useful personality (for a writer) he can fit pretty much anything from the darkest to the lightest of stories. And does so in a way that makes people laugh and feel deeply disturbed. Occasionally at the same time. A feet I haven’t seen any other character pull off nearly as well.

He also provides a nice reflection on something I think a lot of people forget. There are people in the world that do horrible things for no clear motivation or benefit. Joker is that reality blown up to gargantuan proportions. As befits comics.

The Joker is loved because he’s the Joker. Because of the odd series of decisions that brought about a character that perfectly fits the roll of Batman villain. He shouldn’t work, he is not a fully fleshed out character in the modern sense.

Though I am curious if his existence means we should re-evaluate what really makes a good villain and character. Since usually when greatest literary villains get brought up, things like Big Brother get brought up. And he has even less character than Joker. He is a symbol of oppression, in the way Joker is the personification of chaotic destruction.


What would a robust shtick be?

What is wrong with Harley and J's relationship?

Oh dear god. The Harley/Joker relationship is an exploration of abusive relationships in general. Turning intelligent competent people into subservient objects for their partner. That people somehow don’t get that is disturbing.

[Peelee]

Oh dear god. The Harley/Joker relationship is an exploration of abusive relationships in general. Turning intelligent competent people into subservient objects for their partner. That people somehow don’t get that is disturbing.

Seconded. I loved her as a character (to be fair, I loved all TAS, aa well as BB), but that relationship was messed the hell up.

[Kyberwulf]

You know, I think the wrong question that is being asked here. It shouldn't be "Why do people like the Joker?". It should be, "Why do people Idolize the Joker?"

I don't get that. It's like, why do people cheer or feel sympathy when they talk about Darth Vader being "Saved" by Luke? I really don't get it. Well, I should say, I get it to some degree. Yet, all the things he did before we found out what happen in the sequels....

I just don't get the Idolization thing.

[Ramza00]

I love the Joker exactly for the reasons you gave. He doesn’t have a tragic backstory really. Nor a particularly good motive. He breaks every rule about character building in the book and he does it with panache.

And that is why the Joker works, he is not a human character. He is a horror monster, a monster in the flesh of a human. Literally an avatar of chaos, but while that line from the Dark Knight Movies ("agent of chaos") is famous a better description of what type of "avatar" the joker is...is not chaos but instead the concept of horror.

Much like the first terminator movies are really horror movies and not sci fi movies, and you are running away from "inevitability" for death is inevitable and he is personified with a machine, the Joker is an "avatar of horror" and by making the avatar into a human fleshy body you are actually escalating the horror for there is a sense of otherness with the joker. He is so much alike everyone else but also so different. He is like how other human beings can treat one another on our worse days but turned up to x11, yet the best Joker stories still have some "reality" with the Joker where the story is believable.

Combined that "horror" / "otherness" of the Joker with what Rynjin calls a showman and you have an interesting character.


Stepping back from the deeper character study, the Joker is just interesting because at his core he's a showman above all else.

He has Panache, he is ironic, he is interesting, and he needs to be all of these or the character falls apart and is boring and uninteresting. But by uniting these different threads into a unified whole the character works, it is the intersection of all these things that makes the Joker an interesting chracter study in how to do a villain but get the ingredients just a little bit off and the character just falls apart, or is boring, or is non threatening, or is non believable, and so on.

The Joker is a good antagonist but he is not a good representation of a "human villain." For he isn't human, he is a horror monster whose goal when used by the author "is to frighten, scare, disgust, or startle its readers or viewers by inducing feelings of horror and terror."



Oh dear god. The Harley/Joker relationship is an exploration of abusive relationships in general. Turning intelligent competent people into subservient objects for their partner. That people somehow don’t get that is disturbing.

Nods. It is disturbing, you are not supposed to like it. While Harley is an awesome character I do not understand how you can like / approve of her and the Joker's relationship. Poison Ivy (Harley's best friend and possible "more than friend) has Mr. J exactly right with Harley and J's relationship.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOP-2ulq2bk

Note while Harley Quinn was a character created in the Batman The Animated Series and then brought to the comics, the actual storyline from that video clip occurred first in the comics and then was adapted as a single Batman and Robin episode (the sequel to BTAS) 5 years later. The comic is The Batman Adventures: Mad Love (1994) and is a one shot stand alone story. Mad Love was written by Paul Dini (who was also a writter for BTAS and Batman Beyond) and Bruce Timm (one of the two creators of BTAS). The later episode that was adapted was once again written by Paul Dini and directed by Butch Lukic. I loved how they kept most of the content of the comic book when they adapted the comic to cartoon.

[Bohandas]

The thing I like about the Joker is that the "I am an agent of chaos" monologue in The Dark Knight actually does have some valid philosophical points

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm going to ignore your comparison since Joker is never depicted as obsessed with breathing.

You said "who wouldn't envy that?" and I'm saying I wouldn't. I don't consider an obsession with Batman to "embody the Free Man archetype". I think obsession *is actually* a "constraint affecting mere mortals", to use your words.

Perhaps there is some depiction of the Joker that fits what you're saying, but as he is often depicted, you're asking "who wouldn't envy an insane guy obsessed with another person enough to risk his life and spend countless time in prison and/or committed?"

The Joker's desires are irrelevant. You're excluding free men from having desires, which is absurd. The Joker's freedom is what makes him enviable. If you were free, you would be able to pursue your own desires.

[Bohandas]

I love the Joker exactly for the reasons you gave. He doesn’t have a tragic backstory really.

He does, but the details are inconsistent from writer to writer. His backstory may involve either 1.) a really really bad day in which he lost everything he had and also fell into a vat of caustic chemicals and/or 2.) A childhood spent living with an alcoholic father who beat him and his mother

[Dienekes]

He does, but the details are inconsistent from writer to writer. His backstory may involve either 1.) a really really bad day in which he lost everything he had and also fell into a vat of caustic chemicals and/or 2.) A childhood spent living with an alcoholic father who beat him and his mother

3) He was always a mobster and just got induced with crazy upon hitting chemicals

4) He is a psychotic chaos entity eternally resurrected by the curse of Gotham

5) He's actually 3 people on a mission to mess with Bruce through the multiverse.

He really doesn't have a backstory. Killing Joke tried to create the concept of a true sad backstory, but even in it the Joker says he doesn't actually remember and sometimes it's one way, sometimes it's a different way. Some he was good, and some he was always bad.

It's the Joker, only consistent thing about him is he's inconsistent.

[Kyberwulf]

This is what I don't get about people that Idolize Joker. They always say.. He is this .. and this.. and this.. and he is perfect because he is CHAOS!! MAWAWHAHAHAWHWHAWHW

Yeah... no. That's what makes him lame. As a character, he has no real motivations. No driving force. Other then ... He does stuff to mess with Batman. He has no plans.. but yet, all this shinanigians obviously require a vast amount of Planning. I would say luck. Yet, that isn't true either. He probably has contingency plans, inside of contingency plans... beside contingency plans...and contingency plans for those ones. Every minute of his life must be planned out more then batmans.

He isn't anything more then some lame attempt by an author to force Batman into some moral conundrum.
"Don't you think it would be cool if Batman had to do this... Or this" "Yeah, but how can we get him into that spot?" Joker did it.
or
"Aw man, we made some pretty outlandish plot here.. How do we fix it so we don't waste the time we put into this?" Joker did it.

[Donnadogsoth]

This is what I don't get about people that Idolize Joker. They always say.. He is this .. and this.. and this.. and he is perfect because he is CHAOS!! MAWAWHAHAHAWHWHAWHW

Yeah... no. That's what makes him lame. As a character, he has no real motivations. No driving force. Other then ... He does stuff to mess with Batman. He has no plans.. but yet, all this shinanigians obviously require a vast amount of Planning. I would say luck. Yet, that isn't true either. He probably has contingency plans, inside of contingency plans... beside contingency plans...and contingency plans for those ones. Every minute of his life must be planned out more then batmans.

He isn't anything more then some lame attempt by an author to force Batman into some moral conundrum.
"Don't you think it would be cool if Batman had to do this... Or this" "Yeah, but how can we get him into that spot?" Joker did it.
or
"Aw man, we made some pretty outlandish plot here.. How do we fix it so we don't waste the time we put into this?" Joker did it.

What would be a hale attempt by an author to force Batman into some moral conundrum?

[Dr.Samurai]

The Joker's desires are irrelevant. You're excluding free men from having desires, which is absurd.
So you've conflated "obsession" with autonomous functions of the human body, and now you're conflating "obsession" with simple desire. So I bet things do seem absurd from your frame of reference.

The Joker's freedom is what makes him enviable.
I know what you're saying. I'm contesting that notion, saying that his obsession and his insanity make him less free than other people. Likewise, the considerable amount of time he spends in an asylum literally makes him less free than other people. I don't see him to be anymore an embodiment of a free man than any other character that does what they want.

If you were free, you would be able to pursue your own desires.
How am I not free? Why do you think I do not or cannot pursue my own desires? Why do you think the Joker, a mad man obsessed over another person and routinely brutally beat by that person and incarcerated, is more free than I am?

I think what you're saying is "the Joker doesn't have morality, and therefore is more free than other people". In which case, your question would be "who wouldn't envy a psychopath?". Right? The answer is "I wouldn't envy a psychopath".

Regarding Joker as an agent of chaos, if Joker were truly the agent of chaos that people say he is, he wouldn't be in Gotham. He'd be in other places, spreading chaos with his ingenious plots all around the world where Batman isn't around to stop him. But he's not an agent of chaos. He's a guy obsessed with Batman. So everything he tries to accomplish he does in Gotham just so he can interact with Batman. And he gets beat up and locked away. And he escapes to do it again. Because he's insane.

[AvatarVecna]

Joker is the perfect villain for Batman because the comic is based on an inherently flawed concept: that the only thing necessary to solve crime - and mental disorder, for that matter - is to punch criminals/crazies in the face until they stop committing crimes/crazy actions. The parallels the series draw between mental disorder and criminal tendencies is kinda disgusting if you stop to think about it; hell, Gotham's version of the classic 'revolving door prison' isn't even a prison, it's an asylum. The reason for this is clear: it's what's needed for Batman to be justified. If crime could be stopped by figuring out what societal/financial problems, Batman putting criminals in the hospital would make things worse. Bruce Wayne could do more for a real-life Gotham than Batman ever could by essentially becoming a "gang leader" like Penguin or Two-Face, hiring people for higher pay, and then renting them out as security forces in Gotham; it would probably need to be a tad bit more complicated than that, but providing jobs for would-be criminals in financial straits gets those people off the streets, and hiring them out as security makes people safer from the would-be criminals that didn't sign up with Wayne.

But we can't have that. Systemic issues like crime can't be solved by punching, and issues that can't be solved by punching make for boring comics. So whenever you see minions and mooks in a Batman whatever (movie, comic, game), they're not just people in a bad financial situation that had to make a hard choice between eating this week and being a law-abiding citizen, they're *******s who get off on theft, assault, battery, rape, and murder. There's no reasoning with these people, there's no negotiating with them, or trying to solve the societal problems that lead them to where they are. They're just *******s who chose to be *******s, and that's nobody's fault but theirs, so we need a Batman to punch them in the face, to strike fear into the hearts of these heartless criminals, or else they'll keep criminaling.

And Joker is the ultimate expression of that "ideal perpetrator" concept. The supervillains of Batman's Rogue Gallery, by definition, have to be individuals with their own story, and this makes it a whole lot easier for some people to sympathize with them, even if they're more or less objectively monstrous in their actions and decisions. Killer Croc was born disfigured and put on display in a freak show, of course he ended up crazy! Al Ghul has been driven insane by overuse of the Lazarus Pit, he's not in his right mind! Harley Quinn was a weak-willed girl seduced by the Joker, Poison Ivy's crimes are born from her love of plants, Mr Freeze was disfigured by an uncaring corporate suit while he was just trying to cure his wife, Two Face came about from a good man's bitterness towards a corrupt justice system, Riddler was abused as a child, and on and on and on. Most of Batman's RG is, on some level, sympathetic, a victim of somebody else's actions, and hopefully the doctors can help them...but if not, Batman will be there to punch them should they try to crime it up. Every once in a while, you'll get a comic or an episode of "what if this villain went legit?" You'll get an episode of the Penguin finding a lady and trying to be better for the sake of the relationship, you'll get a comic where Bruce Wayne acts as Killer Croc's psychiatrist long enough to actually help him, you'll have two separate episodes of a TV show that sees Harley Quinn try to go legit.

You don't have that problem with Joker. The mythos can't afford to have that happen with Joker. In most every version, movie or otherwise, his background is either never stated or is deliberately multiple choice, with the Joker himself always claiming that it doesn't matter where he came from or how he became the man is he today. The end result is a twisted psychotic who gets off on hurting others, who wants to watch society crumble, who can't be predicted or countered by normal law enforcement despite possessing no powers, and who can't be cured. The Joker is written in a way such that Batman is the only solution to him. If Joker got a background, or some reason for why he is the way he is, he'd be sympathetic, even just mildly so. Hell, Harley Quinn's mental issues begin and end with "she thinks the Joker is sympathetic"; having sympathy for the Joker, according to the Batman Mythos, is literally insane.

On the flip side, Joker wants to force people to see the world the way he does: inherently broken and evil and wrong. Proving that everybody is as bad as he is, itself, is the point...and Batman would be the masterpiece. The unbreakable, unflappable dark knight, the (apparently?) pinnacle of morality. If Joker can be so evil, so abhorrent, so utterly despicable and disgusting that Batman actually tries to kill him? He's succeeded. At the same time, if Batman wasn't there, Joker almost inevitably would've been shot by the police at some point; sure, that death might end up setting off some booby trap that levels half of Gotham, but then Gotham could recover without the Joker around. Joker needs Batman around to continue playing his games without getting shot, and Batman needs Joker around to continue feeling justified in solving a societal problem like crime with face-punching.

[Dienekes]

Joker is the perfect villain for Batman because the comic is based on an inherently flawed concept: that the only thing necessary to solve crime - and mental disorder, for that matter - is to punch criminals/crazies in the face until they stop committing crimes/crazy actions. The parallels the series draw between mental disorder and criminal tendencies is kinda disgusting if you stop to think about it; hell, Gotham's version of the classic 'revolving door prison' isn't even a prison, it's an asylum. The reason for this is clear: it's what's needed for Batman to be justified. If crime could be stopped by figuring out what societal/financial problems, Batman putting criminals in the hospital would make things worse. Bruce Wayne could do more for a real-life Gotham than Batman ever could by essentially becoming a "gang leader" like Penguin or Two-Face, hiring people for higher pay, and then renting them out as security forces in Gotham; it would probably need to be a tad bit more complicated than that, but providing jobs for would-be criminals in financial straits gets those people off the streets, and hiring them out as security makes people safer from the would-be criminals that didn't sign up with Wayne.

But we can't have that. Systemic issues like crime can't be solved by punching, and issues that can't be solved by punching make for boring comics.

You don't read many Batman comics do you?

Because Bruce literally does offer job opportunities for the poor, and has funded various rehabilitiation non-profits. Several of Wayne Corps security is expressly noted as being former inmates of Blackgate that are trying to get their lives back together.

[Bohandas]

Regarding the criticism of the "agent of chaos" description, yeah, technically he's an agent of chaotic-evil

[AvatarVecna]

You don't read many Batman comics do you?

Because Bruce literally does offer job opportunities for the poor, and has funded various rehabilitiation non-profits. Several of Wayne Corps security is expressly noted as being former inmates of Blackgate that are trying to get their lives back together.

Haven't read too many comics, but have seen the movies, played the games, and watched the shows. Was this part of the character's mythos just too mindane to make it to things outside the comics much, or was it a minor enough part of the mythos that it wasn't as important to bring up? Like, there'd be a difference on lore clarifications between "Catwoman donates money to chariry sometimes, she's vetter than you give her credit for" and "Thor was a girl at one point" or "batman was a penniless hero in one of his incarnations" or "superman's been a dark antihero before".

I assume lots more stuff happens in the comics than makes it into other media, by virtue of being the main part of the franchise. I know of Batman stories that start with him being really poor, or ramp up his obsession for a more grey/grey morality. I know the villains sometimes go legit. Hell, I looked up the croc example in my previous post 'cause I assumed he'd had one at some point...and he did! And Wayne was the one fo help him, even!

Does that just happen a whole hell of a lot more in the comics? Why don't those parts of the mythos make it over to otger media?

[Mikemical]

You might need to read Batman Death of the Family and Endgame to understand why the Joker has become such an interesting and appealing character. Initially, his whole shtick was that he was a psychotic clown who did robberies using pranks and toys as his MO. By those comics I've mentioned, he's dropped all the gags and turned into something akin to the anti-Batman anti-Christ. The character has evolved throughout the decades and manages to reinvent himself when one formula starts to turn stale.

[Donnadogsoth]

Joker is the perfect villain for Batman because the comic is based on an inherently flawed concept: that the only thing necessary to solve crime - and mental disorder, for that matter - is to punch criminals/crazies in the face until they stop committing crimes/crazy actions. The parallels the series draw between mental disorder and criminal tendencies is kinda disgusting if you stop to think about it; hell, Gotham's version of the classic 'revolving door prison' isn't even a prison, it's an asylum. The reason for this is clear: it's what's needed for Batman to be justified. If crime could be stopped by figuring out what societal/financial problems, Batman putting criminals in the hospital would make things worse. Bruce Wayne could do more for a real-life Gotham than Batman ever could by essentially becoming a "gang leader" like Penguin or Two-Face, hiring people for higher pay, and then renting them out as security forces in Gotham; it would probably need to be a tad bit more complicated than that, but providing jobs for would-be criminals in financial straits gets those people off the streets, and hiring them out as security makes people safer from the would-be criminals that didn't sign up with Wayne.

But we can't have that. Systemic issues like crime can't be solved by punching, and issues that can't be solved by punching make for boring comics. So whenever you see minions and mooks in a Batman whatever (movie, comic, game), they're not just people in a bad financial situation that had to make a hard choice between eating this week and being a law-abiding citizen, they're *******s who get off on theft, assault, battery, rape, and murder. There's no reasoning with these people, there's no negotiating with them, or trying to solve the societal problems that lead them to where they are. They're just *******s who chose to be *******s, and that's nobody's fault but theirs, so we need a Batman to punch them in the face, to strike fear into the hearts of these heartless criminals, or else they'll keep criminaling.

And Joker is the ultimate expression of that "ideal perpetrator" concept. The supervillains of Batman's Rogue Gallery, by definition, have to be individuals with their own story, and this makes it a whole lot easier for some people to sympathize with them, even if they're more or less objectively monstrous in their actions and decisions. Killer Croc was born disfigured and put on display in a freak show, of course he ended up crazy! Al Ghul has been driven insane by overuse of the Lazarus Pit, he's not in his right mind! Harley Quinn was a weak-willed girl seduced by the Joker, Poison Ivy's crimes are born from her love of plants, Mr Freeze was disfigured by an uncaring corporate suit while he was just trying to cure his wife, Two Face came about from a good man's bitterness towards a corrupt justice system, Riddler was abused as a child, and on and on and on. Most of Batman's RG is, on some level, sympathetic, a victim of somebody else's actions, and hopefully the doctors can help them...but if not, Batman will be there to punch them should they try to crime it up. Every once in a while, you'll get a comic or an episode of "what if this villain went legit?" You'll get an episode of the Penguin finding a lady and trying to be better for the sake of the relationship, you'll get a comic where Bruce Wayne acts as Killer Croc's psychiatrist long enough to actually help him, you'll have two separate episodes of a TV show that sees Harley Quinn try to go legit.

You don't have that problem with Joker. The mythos can't afford to have that happen with Joker. In most every version, movie or otherwise, his background is either never stated or is deliberately multiple choice, with the Joker himself always claiming that it doesn't matter where he came from or how he became the man is he today. The end result is a twisted psychotic who gets off on hurting others, who wants to watch society crumble, who can't be predicted or countered by normal law enforcement despite possessing no powers, and who can't be cured. The Joker is written in a way such that Batman is the only solution to him. If Joker got a background, or some reason for why he is the way he is, he'd be sympathetic, even just mildly so. Hell, Harley Quinn's mental issues begin and end with "she thinks the Joker is sympathetic"; having sympathy for the Joker, according to the Batman Mythos, is literally insane.

On the flip side, Joker wants to force people to see the world the way he does: inherently broken and evil and wrong. Proving that everybody is as bad as he is, itself, is the point...and Batman would be the masterpiece. The unbreakable, unflappable dark knight, the (apparently?) pinnacle of morality. If Joker can be so evil, so abhorrent, so utterly despicable and disgusting that Batman actually tries to kill him? He's succeeded. At the same time, if Batman wasn't there, Joker almost inevitably would've been shot by the police at some point; sure, that death might end up setting off some booby trap that levels half of Gotham, but then Gotham could recover without the Joker around. Joker needs Batman around to continue playing his games without getting shot, and Batman needs Joker around to continue feeling justified in solving a societal problem like crime with face-punching.

Tangent: Do you agree with, as I seem to recall Socrates said, that evil is always a result of ignorance rather than perverse will? Doesn't the Joker here really say that Free Will is possible, as opposed to the argument that evil is always essentially the result of being dropped on one's head as a child?

[Lacuna Caster]

You don't read many Batman comics do you?

Because Bruce literally does offer job opportunities for the poor, and has funded various rehabilitiation non-profits. Several of Wayne Corps security is expressly noted as being former inmates of Blackgate that are trying to get their lives back together.

Does that just happen a whole hell of a lot more in the comics? Why don't those parts of the mythos make it over to other media?
I think a West-Wing style, Bruce-Wayne-focused story that dealt largely with politics and philanthropy could do quite well in the right hands. (Gotham Central sold respectably, after all.)

War on Crime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_War_on_Crime) is one of my favourite Batman stories, just for striking a good balance in that respect.

[Lacuna Caster]

Tangent: Do you agree with, as I seem to recall Socrates said, that evil is always a result of ignorance rather than perverse will? Doesn't the Joker here really say that Free Will is possible, as opposed to the argument that evil is always essentially the result of being dropped on one's head as a child?
I don't know about being dropped on one's head, and I wouldn't say it accounts for the bulk of the world's evils, but 'callous and unemotional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callous_and_unemotional_traits)' children usually grow up to be psychopaths, and environment seems to have little to do with it.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't know about being dropped on one's head, and I wouldn't say it accounts for the bulk of the world's evils, but 'callous and unemotional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callous_and_unemotional_traits)' children usually grow up to be psychopaths, and environment seems to have little to do with it.

Do callous and unemotional children choose to be that way?

[Lacuna Caster]

The end result is a twisted psychotic who gets off on hurting others, who wants to watch society crumble, who can't be predicted or countered by normal law enforcement despite possessing no powers, and who can't be cured. The Joker is written in a way such that Batman is the only solution to him. If Joker got a background, or some reason for why he is the way he is, he'd be sympathetic, even just mildly so. Hell, Harley Quinn's mental issues begin and end with "she thinks the Joker is sympathetic"; having sympathy for the Joker, according to the Batman Mythos, is literally insane.
Harley isn't crazy because she has sympathy for the Joker per se- she's been manipulated into seeing a different version of the man. What's crazy is that she stays in a relationship when he's proven over and over to be abusive, domineering and disloyal, demanding she conform to his desires with no significant concessions in return. He is 100% take, and she is 100% give.

That's what makes Harley compelling. She has this noble, self-sacrificing impulse that's really just disappearing down the black hole of the Joker's ego, never to be seen again. And sadly, it's not unrealistic (http://uk.businessinsider.com/psychopathy-treatment-2017-8).


Do callous and unemotional children choose to be that way?
Without getting into a philosophical debate about what 'free will' means... the shortest answer is 'probably not'. There seems to be some fundamental difference in brain wiring where fear and sympathy don't register but violent urges and the reward centres are intact.

There's some (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201408/psychopathic-criminals-cannot-be-cured) evidence (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/) that intensive treatment can... well, not so much cure them as train them to channel their self-interest into more benign occupations. You can't actually make them feel empathy, but with the right incentive structure you can bring them to recognise in the abstract that outright murdering people and/or getting jailed would probably reduce their overall life satisfaction.

It can backfire to a certain extent, however, since psychopaths who learn to work within the system can do a great deal of damage in other ways. It's just LE vs. CE, as it were.

[-D-]

Also speaking of Harley, not all version of Harley are in that much of an abusive relationship. IIRC, Suicide Squad Harley and Joker have a very twisted, but loving relationship akin to Bonnie and Clyde.

[Dienekes]

Also speaking of Harley, not all version of Harley are in that much of an abusive relationship. IIRC, Suicide Squad Harley and Joker have a very twisted, but loving relationship akin to Bonnie and Clyde.

Yes. One more mark against that movie.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I didn't use to like the joker because I didn't see any thematic connection of his theme (Clowns) and batman’s theme (bats Duh) So I was like "Why is his arch enemy something that has nothing to do with bats?

But then it struck me, bats are normally associated with fear and evil while clowns with fun and good so they are thematically opposites after all.

That was a very fun day. ^^

[Calemyr]

Regarding Bruce Wayne the Philanthropist:

There's an episode of one of the Batman cartoons (either the last season of BTAS or Batman and Robin) featuring **** Grayson as Nightwing and why he broke ties with Batman. He tells the current Robin (Tim Drake) about his own last adventure as Robin, where he watched as Batman brutally interrogated a thug in his own house, in front of his son. That was the last straw. The episode ends with Grayson meeting that thug again, this time as a Wayne Enterprises security guard who claims that Bruce Wayne gave him a job in a dark time of his life and even now asks after his family when they run into each other. So it is addressed at least once that Batman uses Bruce to be the open hand to his closed fist.

[Donnadogsoth]

Without getting into a philosophical debate about what 'free will' means... the shortest answer is 'probably not'. There seems to be some fundamental difference in brain wiring where fear and sympathy don't register but violent urges and the reward centres are intact.

There's some (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201408/psychopathic-criminals-cannot-be-cured) evidence (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/) that intensive treatment can... well, not so much cure them as train them to channel their self-interest into more benign occupations. You can't actually make them feel empathy, but with the right incentive structure you can bring them to recognise in the abstract that outright murdering people and/or getting jailed would probably reduce their overall life satisfaction.

It can backfire to a certain extent, however, since psychopaths who learn to work within the system can do a great deal of damage in other ways. It's just LE vs. CE, as it were.

Wouldn't this then be evidence that, as mentioned above, the solution to criminals is just to punch them in the face and stash them in Arkham Asylum?

[S@tanicoaldo]

Wouldn't this then be evidence that, as mentioned above, the solution to criminals is just to punch them in the face and stash them in Arkham Asylum?

Because that always works so well in the Batman universe :smallyuk:

[Lacuna Caster]

Wouldn't this then be evidence that, as mentioned above, the solution to criminals is just to punch them in the face and stash them in Arkham Asylum?
Well, not all criminals are psychopaths. (A disproportionately large number are, but not all.) So I wouldn't say efforts at rehabilitation are necessarily wasted, I'd just say that therapists have to exercise some discernment and should have realistic expectations about what's possible.

Part of the motivation for finding treatments for psychopathy is that long-term incarceration is (A) expensive and (B) hard to justify if the person/child hasn't, say, actually murdered someone yet. Even if they tend to be abusive jerks at the best of times, the general public living with an abusive jerk is probably better than waiting for someone to get murdered before you lock up the perpetrator and address their issues.


Because that always works so well in the Batman universe :smallyuk:
The lessons that apply in reality don't necessarily extend to fictional worlds when long-range continuity is considered. In reality, we have reasonably reliable methods of incarcerating even the most dangerous crooks, and I guarantee that transplanting the Joker to our universe would see the death penalty coming back into fashion very quickly.

[Lacuna Caster]

The episode ends with Grayson meeting that thug again, this time as a Wayne Enterprises security guard who claims that Bruce Wayne gave him a job in a dark time of his life and even now asks after his family when they run into each other. So it is addressed at least once that Batman uses Bruce to be the open hand to his closed fist.
There are also occasional references to efforts at fighting unemployment, curbing the drug trade, funding forest preserves, et cetera. Another example would be the small-time crook he hands over the Leslie Thompkins in I am the Night (http://dcau.wikia.com/wiki/I_Am_the_Night). (Great episode, by the way.)


Also speaking of Harley, not all version of Harley are in that much of an abusive relationship. IIRC, Suicide Squad Harley and Joker have a very twisted, but loving relationship akin to Bonnie and Clyde.
A version I find mildly interesting is the Telltale Series version, where the Joker starts out as something of an amiable misfit with genuine feelings for Harley, who seems if anything to be more capable and dangerous. It's a near-total departure from the established archetypes, but it works in context.

[Mordar]

Joker is the perfect villain for Batman because the comic is based on an inherently flawed concept: that the only thing necessary to solve crime - and mental disorder, for that matter - is to punch criminals/crazies in the face until they stop committing crimes/crazy actions. The parallels the series draw between mental disorder and criminal tendencies is kinda disgusting if you stop to think about it; hell, Gotham's version of the classic 'revolving door prison' isn't even a prison, it's an asylum. The reason for this is clear: it's what's needed for Batman to be justified. If crime could be stopped by figuring out what societal/financial problems, Batman putting criminals in the hospital would make things worse. Bruce Wayne could do more for a real-life Gotham than Batman ever could by essentially becoming a "gang leader" like Penguin or Two-Face, hiring people for higher pay, and then renting them out as security forces in Gotham; it would probably need to be a tad bit more complicated than that, but providing jobs for would-be criminals in financial straits gets those people off the streets, and hiring them out as security makes people safer from the would-be criminals that didn't sign up with Wayne.

I clipped this for brevity only, not to discount or ignore the remaining paragraphs.

If the character was created (very early in Batman's print run, for the record) and is a perfect match for Batman because the Batman comic is based on an inherently flawed concept...is it just totally random chance that it worked out that he is the perfect match? See what I'm saying? It appears you are suggesting that the comic is based on a flawed concept and this is a bad thing. The people who made the comic very early on made the Joker, and he is perfect for the flawed comic's hero because he points out the flaw. So is Joker perfect for you because it highlights something you find bad about the comic, or is he perfect because you think he is teaching Batman something about the flaw?

I do find it interesting that you call out the comic itself as opposed to the movies, etc., as you identify below that you haven't actually read much of it. Because I think you're misrepresenting a big part of the picture and I suspect that it is due to a combination of your clear advocacy and a mistaken impression from the more limited Batman media exposure you have. Batman is not trying to beat the crazy out of anyone, and certainly not because he thinks it will stop them from being criminals. He is trying to prevent what happened to him from happening to any other little boys. He is his own flavor of crazy, for certain, and is driven by/obsessed with protecting people because no one protected Thomas, Martha and little Bruce Wayne one night in the city.

And even though he operates beside the law, he holds to his standards. Killing criminals is never an option. Rehabilitation - which *should* be better at Arkham than Gotham State or Blackgate Penitentiary - is the course he believes in. But before they can be helped, the people committing the criminal acts have to be stopped. And since they aren't going to stop because they are asked nicely...something different has to happen.

Now, that the "cure" never seems to stick is not the fault of the palliative, and also does not suggest that the palliative should not be applied until a cure is known. So, in short, I don't think the "inherently flawed concept" is basis of the comic at all. In fact, I think the comic is well aware of the issue you suggest (can't beat crazy out of people).

I'd argue that you also need to take a closer look at the "crazy" that Batman puts in Arkham. We're generally not talking about disenfranchised poor with no option to go Jean Valjean. It is the kind of criminals that we must believe suffer from some/multiple "mental disorders" because how else could they be mass murderers, thrill-killers, genocidals, and so forth? The normal guys who are mooks?
The mob bosses? The tech geniuses that are evilbad because they want to get rich quick? They got to Gotham State or Blackgate (if they have special powers).


Haven't read too many comics, but have seen the movies, played the games, and watched the shows. Was this part of the character's mythos just too mindane to make it to things outside the comics much, or was it a minor enough part of the mythos that it wasn't as important to bring up? Like, there'd be a difference on lore clarifications between "Catwoman donates money to chariry sometimes, she's vetter than you give her credit for" and "Thor was a girl at one point" or "batman was a penniless hero in one of his incarnations" or "superman's been a dark antihero before".

I assume lots more stuff happens in the comics than makes it into other media, by virtue of being the main part of the franchise. I know of Batman stories that start with him being really poor, or ramp up his obsession for a more grey/grey morality. I know the villains sometimes go legit. Hell, I looked up the croc example in my previous post 'cause I assumed he'd had one at some point...and he did! And Wayne was the one fo help him, even!

Does that just happen a whole hell of a lot more in the comics? Why don't those parts of the mythos make it over to otger media?

I think it has kind of been covered, but in a very light-handed fashion. As has been mentioned (I thought by you in particular, but now I don't see it), that kind of interaction doesn't make for a compelling action movie, or frankly any sort of feature film.

However...consider the end of Batman Begins. See also Batman v Superman. Wayne Enterprises is featured as a paragon do-good corporation, putting the people first and trying to be the rising tide that lifts all boats (no commentary on the value of that paradigm...just that it is what he is trying to do). Multiple examples from the cartoons that show a similar, though more personal effort to help as Bruce instead of Bats. So yeah, it's there.

So there is a combination of effort from both halves of Batman, and while neither will ever be sufficient, it is in the nature of his character to always be trying.

- M

[Friv]

Wouldn't this then be evidence that, as mentioned above, the solution to criminals is just to punch them in the face and stash them in Arkham Asylum?

That would require Arkham Asylum to be a good place for the mentally ill; in practice, it functions like a 1930s asylum that just makes people worse.

Nearly all of the problems with Batman lie in the fact that he's not allowed to make things better. Fighting crime can't stop it, whether he's doing it by punching the Joker, or by getting Harley proper medical care, or by hiring ex-cons as security guards or spending tens of millions of dollars supporting hospitals and orphanages. If Gotham stops being a grim, dreary place Batman comics stop working, and we can't have that.

There have been a lot of stories in which Batman villains are rehabilitated, and he's right there supporting them. But they always backslide and become evil again because some new writer wants to do things with them. We can't have Riddler, Consulting Detection. We can't have reasonable Mr. Freeze. We can't have the Ventriloquist cured of Scarface, or Two-Face getting the help he needs, etc, etc.

It's the same reason that Reed Richards' inventions can't fix anything, and hatred of mutants have to continue forever. The Big Two can't let things change in a real way.

Also, off-topic:


I don't read comics, or really am terribly familiar with the Joker or Batman lore, but here's something I like.

The character enables bits of dialog like this (http://www.whysanity.net/monos/dark_knight1.html) to happen.

I hate that speech so much.

"So once, my friends and I were brutal mercenaries supporting a violent dictatorship and using vast amounts of bribes to try and empower local warlords to enforce our reign of terror. This guy kept hitting our bribe convoys and blowing them the **** up, but he wasn't spending the money so we couldn't track him down and murder him. Then we realized that he didn't care about the money. I can't figure out any other reason that he might have been opposed to our murderous dictatorship, so he was probably crazy. Anyway, we burned down the whole jungle and wiped out tons of innocent people to kill him. He is definitely the bad guy in this story."

[Ramza00]

Nearly all of the problems with Batman lie in the fact that he's not allowed to make things better. Fighting crime can't stop it, whether he's doing it by punching the Joker, or by getting Harley proper medical care, or by hiring ex-cons as security guards or spending tens of millions of dollars supporting hospitals and orphanages. If Gotham stops being a grim, dreary place Batman comics stop working, and we can't have that.

There have been a lot of stories in which Batman villains are rehabilitated, and he's right there supporting them. But they always backslide and become evil again because some new writer wants to do things with them. We can't have Riddler, Consulting Detection. We can't have reasonable Mr. Freeze. We can't have the Ventriloquist cured of Scarface, or Two-Face getting the help he needs, etc, etc.

It's the same reason that Reed Richards' inventions can't fix anything, and hatred of mutants have to continue forever. The Big Two can't let things change in a real way.

This is why I love spin off universes, for you can have self contain stories that have stakes and there are consequences and so on. Some heroes die, some villians can get better, and so on.

I have a lot and hate relationship with the Marvel Ultimate Universe. I love that this was done right in the first few years of the Ultimate Universe, but with the main universe 616 going dark and modern with Civil War (2006 and 2007) and the real world movies Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (2005 and 2008) the Ultimate Universe felt they need to go darker and more edgy and you can really feel the difference in the Ultimate Comics in the years leading up and prior to the Ultimatum event in 2009. (Also staff changes was involved, blah, blah, blah.)

But yeah I love and hate the Ultimate Universe, I love the promise and maybe a 1/3rd to 1/2 of the published comics in this universe but the other half is just why read this "Stuff" (I am thinking other words besides stuff.)



I hate that speech so much.

"So once, my friends and I were brutal mercenaries supporting a violent dictatorship and using vast amounts of bribes to try and empower local warlords to enforce our reign of terror. This guy kept hitting our bribe convoys and blowing them the **** up, but he wasn't spending the money so we couldn't track him down and murder him. Then we realized that he didn't care about the money. I can't figure out any other reason that he might have been opposed to our murderous dictatorship, so he was probably crazy. Anyway, we burned down the whole jungle and wiped out tons of innocent people to kill him. He is definitely the bad guy in this story."


Actually that is the reason why I love the speech so much, but the problem is not with the speech is that you need other point of view characters to give contrasting points of view to show that Bruce may be wrong, just like Alfred is probably wrong such as you did just right here Friv.

The point of the speech that I love about it is people can dance to different drummers and you need to see people as both individual with their own individual desires, but also people interplaying with "systems." I love the speech for it talks about the Mob not as individuals but as a system and that is how you can explain most of their behavior, but there is always a counterexample that further illuminates the truth "via creating a dynamic tension" aka a yang symbol white in a mass of yin black. How there can be contrast in a visual medium but also affinity in the same visual medium at the same time.

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/theartofvisualstorytelling-101004040346-phpapp02/95/the-art-of-visual-storytelling-11-728.jpg?cb=1286165155

(Picture on the left is Contrast as the dominant visual story telling, picture on the right is Affinity as the dominant visual story telling, the best stories combine and use both and it is the interleaving and the shifting from one to the other that we find useful to tell a story.)

[Lacuna Caster]

"So once, my friends and I were brutal mercenaries supporting a violent dictatorship and using vast amounts of bribes to try and empower local warlords to enforce our reign of terror. This guy kept hitting our bribe convoys and blowing them the **** up, but he wasn't spending the money so we couldn't track him down and murder him. Then we realized that he didn't care about the money. I can't figure out any other reason that he might have been opposed to our murderous dictatorship, so he was probably crazy. Anyway, we burned down the whole jungle and wiped out tons of innocent people to kill him. He is definitely the bad guy in this story."
Wikipedia tells me that Burma/Myanmar were an active theatre and British possession in WW2, and didn't become a military dictatorship until the early 60s. I'm sure there are no angels in this story, but given Alfred's age and nationality I'm not sure it's fair to paint him quite that black.

[Donnadogsoth]

Because that always works so well in the Batman universe :smallyuk:

Maybe they just don't do it enough.

[Sapphire Guard]

That whole anti Batman argument always seems to me like calling out a homeless shelter for not solving the homelessness problem. No, it's not the whole solution, but that doesn't make homeless shelters worthless, counterproductive, or the lives they save inconsequential.

The Wayne foundation is extensively covered across various media as Bruce spending money on social programs etc.

The thing about the Joker is... he's not actually that big a deal. Gothamites have bigger problems. Bane, Ra's, Scarecrow on a good day are more dangerous. So are many other villains.



Ra's plan: Destroy entire city.

Joker's plan: Kill some people, blow up some mostly empty buildings and two occupied boats.

Bane's plan: Destroy entire city




Joker's plan: Poison some people, create supersoldiers that are difficult but not impossible to take down. Not die.

Strange's plan: Level half city with airstrikes.

Scarecrows plan: Infect half of America with fear toxin.



He's usually doing psychological warfare (Killing Joke, Gotham Central) rather than racking up a huge body count. The big plans either fail or end up in his death soon afterwards (TDKR, Injustice)



The Joker at his worst is a man that blows up/slaughters the occasional building. He's pretty far from the most dangerous person in Gotham. Most of the time, he's either killing his own men or trying to hurt Batman personally, which isn't good, but makes him a painful threat, not a massively dangerous one. Superman villains do more damage by accident than he ever can on purpose.

[Peelee]

Joker's plan: Poison some people, create supersoldiers that are difficult but not impossible to take down. Not die.

Strange's plan: Level half city with airstrikes.

Scarecrows plan: Infect half of America with fear toxin.


Strange's plan: Kill literally every criminal and prisoner, even political prisoners, regardless of guilt.
Imean, technically, you're right, but that's more the method to enact the plan.

[Dienekes]

That whole anti Batman argument always seems to me like calling out a homeless shelter for not solving the homelessness problem. No, it's not the whole solution, but that doesn't make homeless shelters worthless, counterproductive, or the lives they save inconsequential.

The Wayne foundation is extensively covered across various media as Bruce spending money on social programs etc.

The thing about the Joker is... he's not actually that big a deal. Gothamites have bigger problems. Bane, Ra's, Scarecrow on a good day are more dangerous. So are many other villains.



Ra's plan: Destroy entire city.

Joker's plan: Kill some people, blow up some mostly empty buildings and two occupied boats.

Bane's plan: Destroy entire city




Joker's plan: Poison some people, create supersoldiers that are difficult but not impossible to take down. Not die.

Strange's plan: Level half city with airstrikes.

Scarecrows plan: Infect half of America with fear toxin.



He's usually doing psychological warfare (Killing Joke, Gotham Central) rather than racking up a huge body count. The big plans either fail or end up in his death soon afterwards (TDKR, Injustice)



The Joker at his worst is a man that blows up/slaughters the occasional building. He's pretty far from the most dangerous person in Gotham. Most of the time, he's either killing his own men or trying to hurt Batman personally, which isn't good, but makes him a painful threat, not a massively dangerous one. Superman villains do more damage by accident than he ever can on purpose.

I think you are downplaying the Joker a little bit there. But that's mostly because usually the Joker is just doing what he's doing for fun. When Mr. J decides to "get serious" as it were, he does things like turn every supervillain into Joker versions that retain their original power and releases them so they all basically try to destroy the world in their own way. Or trick gods and eat China... literally.

But most the time, I do think that does kind of bring up one of the reasons why Joker is actually fairly effective as a villain and probably why he's so well liked.

Poison Ivy is trying to destroy all of Gotham with her plants. Will she destroy Gotham? No. Obviously she won't destroy Gotham. There's no tension there.

Joker is trying to blow up a school. Will he? Maybe. Maybe not. This could go either way. Thus actual tension.

Even in the Batman movies. Did anyone actually think Bane was going to blow up Gotham? Did anyone actually think Scarecrow's gas was going to cause the city to self destruct? I didn't. I still enjoyed the movies, but I didn't think it was going to happen.

Did anyone think that maybe one of those two boats was going to blow up? I did not know. It is just the right scope that it could happen, and we had just enough time with both groups for them to feel real.

[Bohandas]

Wikipedia tells me that Burma/Myanmar were an active theatre and British possession in WW2, and didn't become a military dictatorship until the early 60s. I'm sure there are no angels in this story, but given Alfred's age and nationality I'm not sure it's fair to paint him quite that black.

Also IIRC Alfred was a secret agent, not a merc.

[Bohandas]

they're not just people in a bad financial situation that had to make a hard choice between eating this week and being a law-abiding citizen,

Except, ironically, (in some versions of the continuity) the Joker; and it was the stress of this that drobe him crazy.


they're *******s who get off on theft, assault, battery, rape, and murder.

Which is totally a real thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Corll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_murders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kuklinski
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Berdella
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_DeSalvo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Panzram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Miyazaki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_West
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ng


The end result is a twisted psychotic who gets off on hurting others, who wants to watch society crumble, who can't be predicted or countered by normal law enforcement despite possessing no powers

No overt powers at any rate. He does have a remarkable knack for getting other people to become supervillains. Not that this is an impossible feat in real life, but the Joker does it unrealistically quickly; like, real life example, it took three years to create the Unabomber, contrast the DC folm universe, where the Joker creates Twoface in a couple of weeks


There's also this to consider. There are a lot of villains out there who want to completely control, completely dominate, and to rule with absolute authority and systemic power. Lex Luthor, Ra's Al Ghoul, Vandal Savage, Depending on the writing sometimes Bane, The Mad Hatter, The Riddler, I could go on.

But the Joker stands out because he's sort of his own thing. He's an anarchist, to the point that his personality warps wildly form time to time. He's an actual opposite to a villain who wants world domination, but still firmly a villain.

Also, were those others to succeed the Joker would become the good guy; he would oppose them.

[Friv]

Wikipedia tells me that Burma/Myanmar were an active theatre and British possession in WW2, and didn't become a military dictatorship until the early 60s. I'm sure there are no angels in this story, but given Alfred's age and nationality I'm not sure it's fair to paint him quite that black.

Michael Caine was born in 1933; the Dark Knight's Alfred is about his age. That puts him at becoming an adult and being able to fight in the 1950s through 1970s, either during the period when Burma was a failing republic trying to violently repress local groups who wanted self-governance, or a military dictatorship.

The story that he tells lines up with the former - trying to bribe the outlying government areas to keep them in line, which is what Burma was doing in the 50s alongside a healthy dollop of violence and coercion.

[Sapphire Guard]

I think you are downplaying the Joker a little bit there. But that's mostly because usually the Joker is just doing what he's doing for fun. When Mr. J decides to "get serious" as it were, he does things like turn every supervillain into Joker versions that retain their original power and releases them so they all basically try to destroy the world in their own way. Or trick gods and eat China... literally.

But most the time, I do think that does kind of bring up one of the reasons why Joker is actually fairly effective as a villain and probably why he's so well liked.

Poison Ivy is trying to destroy all of Gotham with her plants. Will she destroy Gotham? No. Obviously she won't destroy Gotham. There's no tension there.

Joker is trying to blow up a school. Will he? Maybe. Maybe not. This could go either way. Thus actual tension.

Even in the Batman movies. Did anyone actually think Bane was going to blow up Gotham? Did anyone actually think Scarecrow's gas was going to cause the city to self destruct? I didn't. I still enjoyed the movies, but I didn't think it was going to happen.

Did anyone think that maybe one of those two boats was going to blow up? I did not know. It is just the right scope that it could happen, and we had just enough time with both groups for them to feel real.

That's what happens in that one crazy Emperor Joker continuity, right? Comics have outliers for everyone(and all that got undone anyway). Far more often, what happens when the joker gets serious is that his opposition gets serious too and swats him (Injustice, TDKR, Burton film, Kingdom Come. There are more.).

The plants and the fear gas may not destroy the city, but they're going to do more damage than the boat or typical joker gas attack even if they fail.

The Joker is a good villain, but he's not the most dangerous one by a long shot. He's good at hurting Bats personally, but typically isn't as dangerous as many of the others on a wide scale. He's not as big a deal as he thinks he is.

[Ramza00]

Comics are weird, you can have a story line where there is an earthquake that makes Gotham into a city by itself and there is a gang war / stature of nature arc.

Yet you can't have the scarecrow or poison ivy win and destroy the city?

[Dienekes]

That's what happens in that one crazy Emperor Joker continuity, right? Comics have outliers for everyone(and all that got undone anyway). Far more often, what happens when the joker gets serious is that his opposition gets serious too and swats him (Injustice, TDKR, Burton film, Kingdom Come. There are more.).

The plants and the fear gas may not destroy the city, but they're going to do more damage than the boat or typical joker gas attack even if they fail.

The Joker is a good villain, but he's not the most dangerous one by a long shot. He's good at hurting Bats personally, but typically isn't as dangerous as many of the others on a wide scale. He's not as big a deal as he thinks he is.

Didn’t he set up a nuke that destroyed entire cities in Injustice? And didn’t his death basically cause ripple effects that end in the civil war of all heroes in TDKR, Injustice, and Kingdom Come.

Yes the Joker gets swatted. But he has a habit of setting things up that when he dies it is catastrophic for people sometimes enveloping the entire world in his chaos.

For the Joker that’s what winning looks like.

[Bohandas]

And other weapons of mass destruction. IIRC one of his weapons of choice is poison gas ("Smilex")

[Mikemical]

For those who want to see another face of the Joker, I suggest reading Batman: White Knight.

tl;dr, Batman nearly makes the Joker OD on pills, and it cures his insanity. He then becomes a politician, playing by the rules to make Batman and the GCPD answer for Gotham City's misfortunes. It's a what if type of tale, but nonetheless, very interesting to see the man who rides Laughing Gas-filled Zeppelins suddenly become somehow more dangerous to Batman than any super-powered villain.

[BWR]

Didn’t he set up a nuke that destroyed entire cities in Injustice? And didn’t his death basically cause ripple effects that end in the civil war of all heroes in TDKR, Injustice, and Kingdom Come.


TDKR - eh, not really. Sure he came back and killed a bunch of people when Bats came back, but he died making the cops think Batman had killed him. It exacerbated an already bad situation for Batman but didn't really change where the story was headed.
Kingdom Come - indirectly. He killed Lois and a bunch of others, and was killed by Magog, who was praised by the public for doing so, causing Superman and many of his contemporaries to retire from superheroing, letting the young generation run wild. Not the Joker's plan; he was just a milestone, not the destination.

Really, Injustice is the only one of these where you can say he won: he got Superman to kill Lois and blow up Metropolis and sparked the whole mess. All because he wanted to play on 'easy mode' for once.

[Ancient]

I definitely think that part of the attraction is the contrast, but also, the similarities. They ARE both planners, they ARE both damaged and brilliant. I think the key difference is that Batman rides his Demons and the Joker gives into them. Batman still cares, the Joker thinks it's all a joke. Superficially, they are night and day, but inwardly, I think there is a razor's edge separating a monster from a hero. Joker is the Dark Mirror, probably why Joker hates Batman so much, and why Batman never gives up on Joker (as in repeatedly incarcerating him vs killing him). They see too much of each other in one another, where it counts.

[Sapphire Guard]

Who votes for the Joker as their political representative? Dammit, Gotham electorate, haven't you learned from Luther's presidential run?

It wasn't really part of any plan in TDKR OR Kingdom Come



TDKR: It was a consolation prize after his neck was broken to pin a murder on the Bat. The Civil War was brewing anyway, It wasn't part of the plan.

Kingdom Come: Don't think that was part of a plan, he might have wanted Supes to kill him, but not some random new guy who has no problem killing anyway.

Injustice, Lex gave him the nuclear weapon, he couldn't get it himself. It's deliberately obscured how he got it in the alternate verse, but like the Emperor Joker part, that's Mr. J with some crazy powerup granted by someone else, not something he can do himself.



Standard MO even accounting for that is that he gets serious exactly once and then gets squashed. He has to stay below a certain threshold to keep operating. The most he does with his own skills and resources is usually gas a building or two, and even that mostly fails.

Winning for the joker isn't making people kill, it's turning them insane. It's only Batman where those two things are one and the same.

I'm not dismissing the Joker, he's very much not to underestimated, but he's not the most dangerous rogue in the gallery or the highest overall threat. Where he excels is in the small but highly personal hits, like Barbara, Jason, and Sarah Essen , but he's better at hurting Batman by proxy than being a major threat on his own.

Comic buffs in the playground, what do you consider Joker's greatest feat using his own resources?

[deuterio12]

Standard MO even accounting for that is that he gets serious exactly once and then gets squashed. He has to stay below a certain threshold to keep operating. The most he does with his own skills and resources is usually gas a building or two, and even that mostly fails.

Winning for the joker isn't making people kill, it's turning them insane. It's only Batman where those two things are one and the same.

I'm not dismissing the Joker, he's very much not to underestimated, but he's not the most dangerous rogue in the gallery or the highest overall threat. Where he excels is in the small but highly personal hits, like Barbara, Jason, and Sarah Essen , but he's better at hurting Batman by proxy than being a major threat on his own.

Comic buffs in the playground, what do you consider Joker's greatest feat using his own resources?

For me that would be that one story where the Joker, despite being locked in jail, has his goons kidnap a little girl.

And then despite Batman's best efforts, he simply can't find said any trace of the little girl. Eventually he's forced to go the jail and beg to the Joker for any clue, with Batman humiliating himself and admitting he's been outsmarted.

Then the Joker simply says he had his goons put the kidnapped girl in the trunk of a car and dump it inside a lake.

Batman rushes out the location. By now the girl's most certainly drowned but Bats has to play the hero.

Then he dives inside the lake, spots the car, opens the trunk, and the little girl is indeed inside.
with an underwater breathing mask and a generous supply of breathing air.

Then bats return to the Joker and asks why. And the Joker replies he wants bats to always have a shred of hope he can save the victim and give his best or it wouldn't be as fun otherwise.

[S@tanicoaldo]

In the old cartoon Harley received medical release from Arkham once.

You go girl!

https://i.giphy.com/media/10DcfaFO3xxwfS/giphy.webp

[Peelee]

In the old cartoon Harley received medical release from Arkham once.

You go girl!

https://i.giphy.com/media/10DcfaFO3xxwfS/giphy.webp

That was a fantastic episode.

[S@tanicoaldo]

That was a fantastic episode.

Yeah! It shows how human is Batman's relashionship with the inmates of Arkham is, and that they are just humans with mental issues not monters as some people like to think. That's a real hero rigth there not a freaking righteous masked vigilant. A Hero with cpaital H.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_246100&feature=iv&src_vid=oldtroLb3zw&v=rz1O7SMh_-s

[Friv]

That is one of the great scenes of that show. It makes me a bit teary-eyed.

[S@tanicoaldo]

That is one of the great scenes of that show. It makes me a bit teary-eyed.

I know right! :smallsmile::smallamused:

[Dienekes]

Since we're talking about awesome Batman being a hero moments now.

Cheers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWHHsdE_oQg

[Bohandas]

I've gotta say, the Joker is a character I can understand. Like, I can see in my mind how a person could get so frustrated with the overly serious and rigid way people carry on about so many different things that they would want to force people to inhale laughing gas until their hearts stop. I myself get peeved at people for being too serious so I could see how in an over the top crazy world like the DC Universe someone could get so ticked off that they'd go absolutely postal over it.

[Lacuna Caster]

For those who want to see another face of the Joker, I suggest reading Batman: White Knight.

tl;dr, Batman nearly makes the Joker OD on pills, and it cures his insanity. He then becomes a politician, playing by the rules to make Batman and the GCPD answer for Gotham City's misfortunes. It's a what if type of tale, but nonetheless, very interesting to see the man who rides Laughing Gas-filled Zeppelins suddenly become somehow more dangerous to Batman than any super-powered villain.
I have to say I'm surprised by how much I'm enjoying this series, in no small part because I think the Arkham Asylum games, despite their obvious fetish for the same voice actors, utterly utterly missed the point of B:TAS.

I particularly love when it's revealed that the Arkham version of Harley is a different person entirely, substituted without the Joker noticing after the original left him.

"He needs what? A violent cheerleader with a bigger rack?"

...I'll get you some ointment for that burn, ma'am.

Some of the Joker's policy suggestions are also deviously reasonable- like folding the Bat-crew into the GCPD and equipping the cops with wayne-tech body armour. And I love that it points out everything wrong about the Batmobile segments in Arkham Knight.
The art's a bit sketchier than I typically go for, but it might grow on me. (I also like some of the little details, like all the prior models of the Batmobile in the cave.)


Yeah! It shows how human is Batman's relashionship with the inmates of Arkham is, and that they are just humans with mental issues not monters as some people like to think.
A lot of them, yes. Probably the most powerful 'social justice' statement in BTAS is that many of it's villains are originally marginal or victimised individuals who can trace their underlying psychosis to something wrong within Gotham itself, like the gulf between rich and poor, or ongoing mob violence, or disappointment in humanity, or emotional attachments to another criminal.

And then, as the counterpoint to all that, there is The Joker.
.

[Peelee]

I have to say I'm surprised by how much I'm enjoying this series, in no small part because I think the Arkham Asylum games, despite their obvious fetish for the same voice actors, utterly utterly missed the point of B:TAS.

I particularly love when it's revealed that the Arkham version of Harley is a different person entirely, substituted without the Joker noticing after the original left him.

Wait, what? Do you mean like it was written very differently from TAS, or that there exist two Harley Quinns, like how Batman has had multiple Robins? If the second, I completely missed that reveal.

[Dr.Samurai]

Probably the most powerful 'social justice' statement in BTAS is that many of it's villains are originally marginal or victimised individuals who can trace their underlying psychosis to something wrong within Gotham itself, like the gulf between rich and poor, or ongoing mob violence, or disappointment in humanity, or emotional attachments to another criminal.
I don't see this, or the quote that it was replying to.

I'm not sure what you mean by "social justice statement", but the villains in Batman's gallery are definitely villains.

Just because Two-Face was attacked by an agent for the mob, it doesn't really excuse or explain his turn to crime.

It's sad that Mr. Freeze doesn't have the resources to resurrect his wife, but he loses his credentials because he was unethical, and he turned to crime to continue his pursuits.

Yes, Harley was seduced by the Joker. Does that make it any less a choice for her to abandon her career as a doctor and join him in his efforts at "watching the world burn"?

Some tragic stuff happens to the villains. It's awful that Harvey gets disfigured while trying to rid the streets of Gotham's mobsters. But, after his spree of crimes as Two-Face, I mean, he's not a good guy anymore. He's not a victim in that context. He makes victims of other people. He's not just a person with mental issues. He *is* a monster. When a guy shows up with gangsters and starts shooting up the street with a tommy gun, there's no virtue in lamenting that he was hit in the face with acid back in the day.

A tragic villain is someone like the Man-Bat. Dr. Langstrom didn't anticipate transforming into a bat monster, AND he has difficulty controlling that form. He even asks Batman for help.

But I feel like I'm misrepresenting the sentiment by saying "tragic", but that's because I'm not sure what's meant by "social justice".

[Friv]

I would go so far as to argue the opposite - most of Gotham's super-criminals are people who had power and influence, but who suffered upsets that they couldn't handle, and now they exploit the poor in a new way.

Two-Face: A rich man who became the city's district attorney, but whose underlying issues were brought to the fore by that acid attack.
The Penguin: A sneering new-money would-be aristocrat filled with resentment at the elite who won't accept him.
Mr. Freeze: A brilliant and well-paid scientist whose obsessions and love drive him to throw aside morality and the law.
Black Mask: A business executive and mafia boss from a rich family.
Hugo Strange: A world-renowned psychologist obsessed with understanding the criminal mind.
Ra's Al Ghul: The master of a secretive cult, and an immortal wealthy terrorist.
Clayface: A rich actor who gained his powers by trying to stay young, I think?
Poison Ivy: A prominent botanist from a rich family who turned eco-terrorist.

A handful started in the middle class:
The Riddler was a middle-class guy who fled from the pressure and started running his own carnival, then expanded into full mob boss territory.
Harley Quinn was a genius student and gymnast before becoming obsessed with the Joker; we don't really know much else about her, but there's no evidence that she wasn't from at least a middle-class background.

Only a couple were poor or marginalized: Catwoman and Killer Croc are the only two I can think of offhand.

[Lacuna Caster]

Wait, what? Do you mean like it was written very differently from TAS, or that there exist two Harley Quinns, like how Batman has had multiple Robins? If the second, I completely missed that reveal.

Canonically, in both BTAS and the Arkham series, there is exactly one Harley. White Knight has it's own continuity which borrows liberally from both, and splits the two versions into separate people. Which is both apt and hilarious to me.


I don't see this, or the quote that it was replying to.

I'm not sure what you mean by "social justice statement", but the villains in Batman's gallery are definitely villains.

I would go so far as to argue the opposite - most of Gotham's super-criminals are people who had power and influence, but who suffered upsets that they couldn't handle, and now they exploit the poor in a new way.
I'm not claiming that Two-Face and Freeze and Clayface etc. are well-meaning people, or that the measures they take are in reasonable proportion to their grievances. They're clearly unhinged and/or monstrous individuals. But they're also individuals that wouldn't exist in their present form were it not for rampant background violence and corruption- or at least that's the argument that B:TAS seems to make. They are, in that sense, the products of their society.

(I'm aware there's an episode that explicitly repudiates the notion that Batman created his villains, but that's very different from whether Gotham did.)

[Peelee]

Mr. Freeze: A brilliant and well-paid scientist whose obsessions and love drive him to throw aside morality and the law.

I'm going to again proclaim my love for TAS, since it gave Fries his great motivation, but seriously, they couldn't name him Dr. Freeze? The man didn't get a Ph.D in cryo-chemistry to get called "mister," thankyouverymuch.

[5a Violista]

Harley Quinn was a genius student and gymnast before becoming obsessed with the Joker; we don't really know much else about her, but there's no evidence that she wasn't from at least a middle-class background.
Newer comics suggest/say that Harley Quinn came from a lower-class family who didn't support her studying for school, and that she had mental issues and an unhealthy obsession with criminology before she ever met the Joker (but she has the Joker's multiple-backstory syndrome, too, even though all her backstories have more similarities to each other than the Joker's).


Re: the Joker.
I think the Joker's big claim to fame is that he can fit into pretty much any story, so he ends up in more good stories than other villains. The Penguin's stories are limited, so are Dr Freeze's. The Riddler has a slightly larger repertoire, but is mostly fixed around detective-style stories. Catwoman can fit into romance stories, petty crime, heist, and other similar stories. Poison Ivy can fit into stories about bioterrorism, environmentalism, and so on.

The Joker, however, (and by extension, Harley Quinn who has surpassed Wonder Woman in popularity) can fit into anywhere from stories involving mass-death to practical jokes. He can be used to mirror Batman's motivations, or in a story about what happens when a hero's family is targeted. He is used in a story to kick off Superman turning evil, and is used in stories about commentaries on domestic violence or mental illness. In the movies, he has been used as a force of nature, or a mob boss, or a prankster. In an old comic, he punches Hitler. In a recent comic, he randomly showed up in the Batcave and tried to stop Batman from accidentally unleashing a demon on the world.

So, in essence, I think the reason he's popular is because good writers can use him however they want. His motivation is "whatever the story needs it to be" and his actions are "whatever the story needs them to be" and his scope is "whatever makes sense for the story". Thus, he ends up in more good stories than the average villain.

[Doorhandle]

So, in essence, I think the reason he's popular is because good writers can use him however they want. His motivation is "whatever the story needs it to be" and his actions are "whatever the story needs them to be" and his scope is "whatever makes sense for the story". Thus, he ends up in more good stories than the average villain.

Good catch: though also his biggest weakness as a character. He's defined by his insanity and his in-universe LACK of consistency, so he can be more of a plot device than a person. One of the reasons I like the Arkham series Joker is that he has an element of characterisation most interpretations lack: something to fear.

Other reason I like Joker(despite his overexposure) include:

Near-perfect foils: Batman's a grim hero that dresses in dark colors, Joker's a cheery villain who dresses in bright colors. All Batmen are defined by the same tragedy, no Joker can make up their minds on what their tragedy is. One thinks fears going crazy, the other revels in insanity. Batman refuses to take life, Joker is defined by ending them. Both use gadgets defined by their primary manias, and both are (almost) ordinary mortals. If you played Batman in front of a mirror of opposition, you'd be forgiven for expecting the Joker to jump out. It's perhaps unsurprising that writers tend to have Joker recognize this in-universe, leading to his obsession.

Litmus test: While I do hate it's become such a common plot-point (particular as it's mostly plot contrivance), the constant questioning of Batman's refusal to kill is a key part in Joker's effectiveness as an antagonist. For whatever reason: fear of becoming a villain, respect for law and life, a belfi he can change/save his villains, or just being psychologically unable to, Batman does not kill. Jokler is the ultimate test of this facest: If Batman won't kill the unrepentant psychopath, he won't kill ANYONE.

And Joker knows this.
As such much of Joker's supervillain career is spent tap-dancing across Batman's last nerve. If Batman kills him, he still wins on a philosophical level; and if he doesn't well, they can only keep him in arkham so long. His existantance is defined by an extensive trolling campaign which I just find darkly amusing. Speaking of...

Sense of humor: What can I say, I'm easily amused by trash-talk and dark gags, which is Joker's stock in trade. Equally important is that he can be hilarious while committing atrocities and yet not cheapen the horror of said atrocities.

[Lacuna Caster]

Litmus test: While I do hate it's become such a common plot-point (particular as it's mostly plot contrivance), the constant questioning of Batman's refusal to kill is a key part in Joker's effectiveness as an antagonist. For whatever reason: fear of becoming a villain, respect for law and life, a belief he can change/save his villains, or just being psychologically unable to, Batman does not kill. Joker is the ultimate test of this facet: If Batman won't kill the unrepentant psychopath, he won't kill ANYONE.
There, uh, are laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide) that make provision for the use of lethal force in either self-defence or defence of others. Batman may have his own specific hangups in this area, but 'respect for law and life' has nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure what you mean by plot-contrivance in this instance, though? Do you mean the revolving door at Arkham, or something specific to a given run?

[Doorhandle]

There, uh, are laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide) that make provision for the use of lethal force in either self-defence or defence of others. Batman may have his own specific hangups in this area, but 'respect for law and life' has nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure what you mean by plot-contrivance in this instance, though? Do you mean the revolving door at Arkham, or something specific to a given run?

Fair enough on that first point, but I will point out that in one comic, Bruce Wayne has tried to avoid going to legal duty on account of being Batman and therefore being biased.
Ethier he's trying to uphold the law while acting outside it, or he's got a very myopic view of law*.

And I mean the revolving door thing, and it goes beyond arkham. On one hand, DC loses a lot by having villians be killed or even remain imprisoned, from both a cash and storytelling perspective. On the other hand, the revolving door that is DC universe legal system makes the hero's look incompetent for supporting it. But the main point is that it's rooted in out-of-universe factors moreso than anything in-universe, despite all the explorations of that theme.


*Depending on interpretation, as per usual. FrankMiller!batman doesn't care about law...though it's a surprise FrankMiller!Batman DOESN'T kill, in all honesty.

[Lacuna Caster]

And I mean the revolving door thing, and it goes beyond arkham. On one hand, DC loses a lot by having villains be killed or even remain imprisoned, from both a cash and storytelling perspective. On the other hand, the revolving door that is DC universe legal system makes the hero's look incompetent for supporting it. But the main point is that it's rooted in out-of-universe factors moreso than anything in-universe, despite all the explorations of that theme.

*Depending on interpretation, as per usual. FrankMiller!batman doesn't care about law...though it's a surprise FrankMiller!Batman DOESN'T kill, in all honesty.
He does- he shoots one of the mutants who'd taken a civilian hostage. (Which one can argue is a little odd, thematically, given that he's supposedly incapable of killing the Joker in the same story... ...but then again, the Joker was only immediately threatening him, not someone else, and Bats didn't want to give him the satisfaction.)

It's been suggested (https://adeptpress.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/verse-this/) that trying to maintain tight continuity within comics leads to more problems than it solves. I guess if you live by the continuity appeal, you die by the continuity appeal?

[S@tanicoaldo]

Since we're talking about awesome Batman being a hero moments now.

Cheers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWHHsdE_oQg

Oh dear... Rigth in the feels. :smalleek::smallfrown::smallsmile:


I'm going to again proclaim my love for TAS, since it gave Fries his great motivation, but seriously, they couldn't name him Dr. Freeze? The man didn't get a Ph.D in cryo-chemistry to get called "mister," thankyouverymuch.
Also Mr. freeze don't use doctor becuase he uses sciency to hurt people or something.

[Mikemical]

I'm going to again proclaim my love for TAS, since it gave Fries his great motivation, but seriously, they couldn't name him Dr. Freeze? The man didn't get a Ph.D in cryo-chemistry to get called "mister," thankyouverymuch.

Maybe because of the little breaking of the hypocratic oath?

[Peelee]

Maybe because of the little breaking of the hypocratic oath?

That's MD, not Ph.D.

[Amazon]

That's MD, not Ph.D.

It's not the same as the hypocratic oath but people who graduate on chemistry also have to swear and oath not use their knowledge to hurt people when the graduate.

[Dr.Samurai]

Mr. Freeze's PhD is in Diamondology, and the only oath diamondologists have to swear is to make thematic puns whenever appropriate.

[Peelee]

Mr. Freeze's PhD is in Diamondology, and the only oath diamondologists have to swear is to make thematic puns whenever appropriate.

Ice to know!

[ArlEammon]

The Joker can be a comical, almost harmless figure, or a purely evil monster.

http://i.imgur.com/I4rGngb.jpg (https://imgur.com/I4rGngb)

[Friv]

Also Mr. freeze don't use doctor becuase he uses sciency to hurt people or something.

Well, that didn't stop Dr. Alchemy, Dr. Bedlam, Dr. Bong, Dr. Cyber, Dr. Death, Dr. Demonicus, Dr. Destiny, Dr. Doom, Dr. Faustus, Dr. Horrible, Dr. Hurt, Dr. Impossible, Dr. Light, Dr. Mindbender, Dr. Moon, Dr. No, Dr. Octopus, Dr. Phosphorus, Dr. Poison, Dr. Polaris, Dr. Robotnik, Dr. Silvana, Dr. Shocker, Dr. Strangelove, Dr. Sun, Dr. Venom, Dr. Wily...

[Pex]

Because some people really do want to see the world burn.

There are people who want to rebel. They want to be antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic. They don't care so want to ruin it for everyone. When they know what they're doing is a bother to you they will do it more just to p*** you off.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, that didn't stop Dr. Alchemy, Dr. Bedlam, Dr. Bong, Dr. Cyber, Dr. Death, Dr. Demonicus, Dr. Destiny, Dr. Doom, Dr. Faustus, Dr. Horrible, Dr. Hurt, Dr. Impossible, Dr. Light, Dr. Mindbender, Dr. Moon, Dr. No, Dr. Octopus, Dr. Phosphorus, Dr. Poison, Dr. Polaris, Dr. Robotnik, Dr. Silvana, Dr. Shocker, Dr. Strangelove, Dr. Sun, Dr. Venom, Dr. Wily...
Mr. Freeze is slightly more ethical than all of these other guys then... :smallwink::smalltongue:

[Friv]

I mean, you are not wrong.

[Sapphire Guard]

Most of the 'Drs' take pride in their scientific abilities somehow. Dr Crane likes fear and his knowledge of it, Dr. Doom loves being skilled, and so on.

For Mr Freeze, his sciency stuff is just a means to an end, he doesn't love his trade or care about being the smartest person in the room or the top of his field, it's just stuff he has to do to keep himselof and Nora alive. It's just a job for him, not a vocation.

[Peelee]

Most of the 'Drs' take pride in their scientific abilities somehow. Dr Crane likes fear and his knowledge of it, Dr. Doom loves being skilled, and so on.

For Mr Freeze, his sciency stuff is just a means to an end, he doesn't love his trade or care about being the smartest person in the room or the top of his field, it's just stuff he has to do to keep himselof and Nora alive. It's just a job for him, not a vocation.

Imean, everything that keeps him alive is stuff he created. Everything that keeps Nora alive is stuff he created. And his entire goal is to find a cure, through science. His scientific abilities are the dominating force of his life. Without them, he has nothing. No hope of curing Nora, no way to live outside of the Arctic, nothing. Notwithstanding that it was already a vocation for him before Nora fell ill.

[Sapphire Guard]

Yeah, but it's an 'I need to do this to live' situation rather than 'I love this so much!' He doesn't have the same love for cryogenics that most of the 'Dr' characters do for their trades, it's just a tool.

[Peelee]

Yeah, but it's an 'I need to do this to live' situation rather than 'I love this so much!' He doesn't have the same love for cryogenics that most of the 'Dr' characters do for their trades, it's just a tool.

But he absolutely did have the same love for cryogenics that most of the "Dr." characters have for their work. Nora's sickness made him switch gears, but assuming he could A.) cure his wife, and 2.) integrate back into society, there's no reason to assume that he wouldn't switch back.

[Sapphire Guard]

He does- he shoots one of the mutants who'd taken a civilian hostage. (Which one can argue is a little odd, thematically, given that he's supposedly incapable of killing the Joker in the same story

I think that's meant to be a shoot to wound.


But he absolutely did have the same love for cryogenics that most of the "Dr." characters have for their work. Nora's sickness made him switch gears, but assuming he could A.) cure his wife, and 2.) integrate back into society, there's no reason to assume that he wouldn't switch back.

It feels different to me, but I'll agree to disagree.

[Avilan the Grey]

I would like to refine the question:
Why do people like the totally sick deranged psychopath Joker?

I mean I LOVE the toned down version (my favorite Joker is Cesar Romero's Joker. (Have you noticed how Jack Nicholson basically copied the laugh directly from Cesar?)

[Keltest]

But he absolutely did have the same love for cryogenics that most of the "Dr." characters have for their work. Nora's sickness made him switch gears, but assuming he could A.) cure his wife, and 2.) integrate back into society, there's no reason to assume that he wouldn't switch back.

That's probably why he doesn't use Dr. He knows what he is doing isn't something to be proud of, he doesn't want to associate his criminal acts with the legitimate good he could otherwise be doing. He isn't Dr Freeze, high minded and misguided, he's Mr Freeze, just a desperate man with some hard choices to make.

[huttj509]

That's probably why he doesn't use Dr. He knows what he is doing isn't something to be proud of, he doesn't want to associate his criminal acts with the legitimate good he could otherwise be doing. He isn't Dr Freeze, high minded and misguided, he's Mr Freeze, just a desperate man with some hard choices to make.

Also, some people just don't care about the title. I mean, in a professional context, sure, the title's important. When you're mugging someone on the street insisting they call you *Doctor* Nutcase is a bit much.

[Peelee]

That's probably why he doesn't use Dr. He knows what he is doing isn't something to be proud of, he doesn't want to associate his criminal acts with the legitimate good he could otherwise be doing. He isn't Dr Freeze, high minded and misguided, he's Mr Freeze, just a desperate man with some hard choices to make.
This rationale I like. However...

Also, some people just don't care about the title. I mean, in a professional context, sure, the title's important. When you're mugging someone on the street insisting they call you *Doctor* Nutcase is a bit much.

Did he give himself the name, though? His family name is already Fries. "Mr. Freeze" sounds like a media creation. And it's not like he ever tried to hide who he is, meaning the same media would have full knowledge of his past (assuming it was a media-created name of course).

[Amazon]

The real reason is the the original Mr. Freeze was just a guy who used an ice gun.

The whole science fluff only came after a while.

Same with the almost dead wife.

[Peelee]

The real reason is the the original Mr. Freeze was just a guy who used an ice gun.

The whole science fluff only came after a while.

If you don't count Mr. Zero, then no, Dr. Art Shivel was still full of science fluff back in the cheesy '60s series (and also had to keep at Sub-Zero temperatures, in addition to his ice gun). I haven't read any of the comics, so I don't know about Mr. Zero's escapades and background, I'll readily admit.

[Xyril]

Context is also a key difference to consider.

Mustache twirling victims tend to come as part of a long line of two-dimensional, largely interchangeable villains, and I don't know early canon enough to know whether the Joker was any less lazy a creation than that. In the later years, Joker was one of few really unfathomably deranged villains among a rogue's gallery of greedy criminals with specific goals, madmen who broke in somewhat predictable ways due to specific traumas, guys with a grudge, and people who slowly became villains due to circumstances and a series of bad choices. And even in the silly Adam West version, it was understanding what made each villain unique that helped Batman to deal with them and helped to make them a little less scary to the audience. Out of this group, Joker is a significant departure both from the other Batman villains and from his mustache-twirling counterparts. The fact that you don't know why he's a villain isn't simply handwaved away as something you need to not think too hard about to enjoy the story--it's actually acknowledged as something that confounds the world's greatest detective and makes it much harder for him to do his job.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I love him in this episode:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyy-_XkvqgQ

Not only he's very funny but you get what makes him so interesting.

The first half he looks harmless, just a prankster with actual funny jokes, then he does some mess up things but all is fine and then the true psyco reveals himself, his demented plan gets you off-guard and you realize how evil he truly is, it gets you in a special way because of how funny he was you kind of sympathize with him at the start. And you notice you would probrably fall for it as well xD

[Lacuna Caster]

It's not the same as the hypocratic oath but people who graduate on chemistry also have to swear and oath not use their knowledge to hurt people when the graduate.
Really? Huh. Neat.


Well, that didn't stop Dr. Alchemy, Dr. Bedlam, Dr. Bong, Dr. Cyber, Dr. Death, Dr. Demonicus, Dr. Destiny, Dr. Doom, Dr. Faustus, Dr. Horrible, Dr. Hurt, Dr. Impossible, Dr. Light, Dr. Mindbender, Dr. Moon, Dr. No, Dr. Octopus, Dr. Phosphorus, Dr. Poison, Dr. Polaris, Dr. Robotnik, Dr. Silvana, Dr. Shocker, Dr. Strangelove, Dr. Sun, Dr. Venom, Dr. Wily...
You know, I always had a fondness for Kimiyo Hoshi. I wonder why (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Light_(Kimiyo_Hoshi)#In_other_media)?

[S@tanicoaldo]

Maybe they just don't do it enough.

Guys, guys, guys, guys!!!

I found Donnadogsoth in the Batman universe :D



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52WTx-wTnis

[Bohandas]

The Joker has some valid philosophical points and observations that you can see in your say to day life if you're observant and actually stop to think about what people are saying to you.

In particular the phenomenon he describes in the second half of the hospital monologue from The Dark Knight* (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmkRi_tr9c#t=02m01s) ought to be familiar to anyone who's ever encountered an animal rights group and actually listened to what they say. It's cruelty and an abomination to have your pet's ears cropped or tail docked but apparently you absolutely must have it neutered. It's the same principle as people being appalled when the Joker says the mayor will die and yet indifferent to soldiers being blown up.


*"...You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan"... even if the plan is horrifying. If, tomorrow, I say that, like, a gang-banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because "it's all part of the plan". But I say that one little old mayor will die... and everybody loses their minds!"

[Inspector Valin]

I'm talking about the character in general, not any specific version (although if a specific version is useful to illustrate a point then it's fair game.) I'm not the most knowledgeable about comic lore, but it seems to me like the Joker is an example of everything that people usually hate in a villainous character. He doesn't seem to have any specific motivation, he does things "because he wants to" (a line dreaded by DMs of Chaotic Stupid characters everywhere) and he doesn't even have a concrete backstory to justify his villainy. What about him makes him so idolized as an iconic villain, one of the greatest in comic book history? I just don't understand it.

Good god OP, you must have stock in fishing because you just opened all the cans of worms. :smallwink:

My take. Different people get different things out of the Joker. It's hard to approach him truly without looking at a particular take because the particular takes vary so much. A lot of works trying to harken back to the Animated Series for the guy, but almost every comics writer IMO handles him differently, and his appearances in the Arkham games are a step removed from TAS, even though he's still got Hamil's voice.

So, I'll just stick with what he means to me. In answer to your points, 'he just feels like it' isn't the stuff of good Joker stories. A good Joker story either has him trying to get one over on Batman, or (and my preferred take) trying to share his sense of humour with those around him. Just having him do random disturbing stuff for giggles isn't very effective, but him pulling a gag that gets the audience almost to laugh along even while they're horrified is the mark of Joker at his best.

As to having no fixed origin: eh. It's not needed for the character. At his best he's got a sort of inevitable, rules breaking intimidation factor. Tying him down to any kind of mundane narrative is a mistake because it limits him. Applies rules and a sense of firm logic that aren't there by default.. Chaos is a mystery because chaos is unpredictable.

[Traab]

In the argument about men or monsters when it comes to batmans rogues gallery, the truth is, they are monsters, but many of them are monsters who COULD be helped. Get harley away from joker and she is a fairly decent bubbly girl who just wants to live her life. The only reason freeze has for any of his crimes is to fund his research into curing his wife. If she woke up cured tomorrow, he would hang up his freeze gun and celebrate. Two face has a split personality where the evil one is in charge. There have been times where he has resurfaced as harvey dent. Find a way to treat him and he wouldnt be a threat any longer. Someone like that is pretty much textbook non compos mentis and would be locked up for treatment. What happens after the treatment is over? Im honestly unsure, but he was quite literally not in his right mind during the commission of his criminal acts. (Im talking TAS btw, no clue about his various other incarnations) Someone like clayface is different. While he was turned into a monster against his will, he still chose to act how he did and does. He isnt crazy. So yeah, some of the gallery are monsters against their own will. Some chose their path willingly, and some could be saved, if this wasnt a comic book world where any such saving isnt allowed to last.

[CircleOfTheRock]

I don't read comics, or really am terribly familiar with the Joker or Batman lore, but here's something I like.

The character enables bits of dialog like this (http://www.whysanity.net/monos/dark_knight1.html) to happen.
And the best (or worst) thing about that is that some people are like that - humanity is a terrible thing.

[2D8HP]

This post from another thread seems fitting here as well:



Does the Joker actually have that much of a kill count in main continuity?.....

Truthfully I don't read much modern comics, but on Christmas day 1973 I received a big book of superhero "origin" stories from the '30's and '40's, among which was a reprint of the first appearance of "The Joker", which I remember pretty clearly, and http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/2109/joker1c.jpghttp://img840.imageshack.us/img840/7862/joker2n.jpghttp://img33.imageshack.us/img33/1484/joker3c.jpg

[Lacuna Caster]

In particular the phenomenon he describes in the second half of the hospital monologue from The Dark Knight* (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmkRi_tr9c#t=02m01s) ought to be familiar to anyone who's ever encountered an animal rights group and actually listened to what they say. It's cruelty and an abomination to have your pet's ears cropped or tail docked but apparently you absolutely must have it neutered. It's the same principle as people being appalled when the Joker says the mayor will die and yet indifferent to soldiers being blown up.
Well... yeah. If you can assassinate the political establishment at will, you've broken the chain of command and opened the gate to anarchy. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to be concerned about, regardless of whether you think the mayor is a better or worse person than the average soldier or gang-banger.

(Also, in practice, the alternative to neutering animals is finding creative ways to dispose of their offspring. There are valid and humane reasons for spaying an animal which carry greater weight than the cosmetic considerations associated with ear-cropping or tail-docking. Whether it makes sense to kill and eat an animal for comparatively trivial reasons is a fair question, but neutering has to be one of the least bad options here.)

[Bohandas]

(Also, in practice, the alternative to neutering animals is finding creative ways to dispose of their offspring.

There's also the do nothing option. Don't forget that.

This actually throws it back to the first part of the Joker's speech regarding people's obsessive need for control.

[Lacuna Caster]

There's also the do nothing option. Don't forget that.
So if your house is infested with norway rats that can produce sixty young per year and are gnawing their way into the refrigerator, your response is do nothing about it?

People have valid reasons for wanting to control their environment. You, uh, die otherwise.

[Keltest]

So if your house is infested with norway rats that can produce sixty young per year and are gnawing their way into the refrigerator, your response is do nothing about it?

People have valid reasons for wanting to control their environment. You, uh, die otherwise.

Heck, even the common housecat can quickly spiral out of control if you just leave them to do whatever. gangs of feral cats are territorial, aggressive, dangerous and destructive. They aren't necessarily going to pose a threat to life and limb for a person, but if you, say, don't want all your birds eaten, squirrels killed and everything smelling like cat pee, its something that needs to be dealt with proactively.

[Ardentex]

People like the Joker because although he has so many different re-imaginings throughout the novel series, films and games, he's always the same, perfect anti-hero that completes Batman as a character. His criticisms and philosophy on Batman make sense, as well as his overall world views, which is what makes him terrifying. The fact that he'll go as far as possible to push the tensile strength of Bruce Wayne's morals is what makes him great, and guess what? He doesn't have anything to lose.

[Bohandas]

Heck, even the common housecat can quickly spiral out of control if you just leave them to do whatever. gangs of feral cats are territorial, aggressive, dangerous and destructive. They aren't necessarily going to pose a threat to life and limb for a person, but if you, say, don't want all your birds eaten, squirrels killed and everything smelling like cat pee, its something that needs to be dealt with proactively.

I actually know a few people who have some kind of grudge against squirrels.

[Lacuna Caster]

I actually know a few people who have some kind of grudge against squirrels.
Pigeons as well (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhuMLpdnOjY). I guess it all kinda works out in the end.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9yruQM1ggc