The Psychological Mind Of The Joker

[Bartmanhomer]

Everybody knows the Joker very well. He's Batman main villain. But I think we need to know what's make Joker for who he is. There's so many version of the story of Joker in comics, TV shows and movies. I think the movie Joker is a very legitimate movie which really explained the psychological mind of how he becomes the Joker on a deeper and more serious level. I can't say that the movie is canonical or not but it does explain the insanity and instability of the Joker mind. So what do you think about this topic? I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic. :smile:

[Lurkmoar]

The Killing Joke comic is pretty good. I'm not sold on The Killing Joke animated adaption. Trying to explain crazy in a narrative sense is a bit pointless, once the insane becomes sane and you understand how 2+2 equals fish all that's left is to watch the thrilling chase. The Joker film... not canonical, it exists in its own little realm of fiction. Fitting for the Joker character.

Batman R.I.P. actually has Joker discussing his madness and I lean toward Grant Morrison's take on the Joker's madness. Warren Ellis wrote a Joker one shot. An ugly story (content wise) but it has a great rebutal from Batman at the end.

[Khedrac]

Everybody knows the Joker very well. He's Batman main villain. But I think we need to know what's make Joker for who he is. There's so many version of the story of Joker in comics, TV shows and movies. I think the movie Joker is a very legitimate movie which really explained the psychological mind of how he becomes the Joker on a deeper and more serious level. I can't say that the movie is canonical or not but it does explain the insanity and instability of the Joker mind. So what do you think about this topic? I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic. :smile:

The problem with The Joker movie is that it does a good job of explaining how a man becomes a psychopath, but is does a terrible job of showing how a man becomes a super-villain.
The Joker of the film is an ordinary person who becomes a psychopathic killer, he is not a supervillain, he couldn't lead a murderous mob into a pub without getting mugged by them, he certainly couldn't become Batman's main antagonist. He is also not particularly intelligent (his medical records from the assualt over the sign would have settled the "produce sign or be fired" threat).

Personally I thought it a poor film, not deserving of awards (but then I don't much like dytopias and it made Gotham very much a dystopia).

[Bartmanhomer]

The Killing Joke comic is pretty good. I'm not sold on The Killing Joke animated adaption. Trying to explain crazy in a narrative sense is a bit pointless, once the insane become sane and you understand how 2+2 equals fish all that's left is to watch the thrilling chase. The Joker film... not canonical, it exists in its own little realm of fiction. Fitting for the Joker character.

Batman R.I.P. actually has Joker discussing his madness and I lean toward Grant Morrison's take on the Joker's madness. Warren Ellis wrote a Joker one shot. An ugly story (content-wise) but it has a great rebuttal from Batman at the end.

I remember the Killing Joke comic book. Very dark and very reasonable in the comic book point of view.

[Traab]

The thing is, you cant break him down psychologically because we dont know what his actual story is. As he says at some point, his background story is multiple choice. So we cant really say why he is how he is because we dont know how he BECAME what he is, or what he was before. And honestly, I like him better that way. Was he a decent guy who had "one bad day"? Is he a total sociopath who goes out of his way to be evil? Is he a tragic figure who honestly cant help who he is? /shrug

[False God]

The Joker's crazy.

It doesn't really matter how or why, he just is. Justifying the crazy with "Society made me this way!" or "Fell into toxic chemicals." doesn't make much difference to me.

Analyzing the mind of someone like the Joker is fine if you want to cure a real person, but as far as comic book characters go Joker's motivation has always been that he's crazy, probably obsessed with Batman, and also crazy.

Batman's villains are largely a collection of really messed up people who can fall anywhere on the spectrum from "chemicals made me crazy" to "I had a valid reason to hate everyone!". In large part they are foils to Batman/Bruce himself, people who did/didn't grow up with wealth and power, people who were/weren't exposed to toxic chemicals and the decisions they made that led them to become murderers, criminals, and terrorists. Bruce himself is a pretty screwed up human being. The difference is in the choices they made.

Which is probably my only problem with the Joker movie, as its framed that for most of the film Arthur has no choice and no control over his life. When he finally gets some, he chooses to lash out, which given the setup isn't even that much of a choice. What other outcome was expected?

Batman make for a problematic hero for as screwed up as he is, he's still a privileged white kid who got to travel the world, learn martial arts, bang hot centerfolds, drive whatever car he wanted and then when he finally decides to put his money to better use he Iron-Man's it up with all the coolest toys on the market (many of which Wayne Enterprises produces).

Meanwhile most of his villains are poor people who've been screwed over by the actual criminals(the other rich and powerful corporation owners and mob bosses who never explicitly break the law) that Batman can't touch. Which sorta makes for a "rich playboy beats up poor clown" headline that doesn't play well.

Long story short: don't over analyze DC comics. DC gives us good guys and bad guys. Thinking about the issues and social dynamics is what Marvel is for.

[Peelee]

The problem with The Joker movie is that it does a good job of explaining how a man becomes a psychopath, but is does a terrible job of showing how a man becomes a super-villain.
The Joker of the film is an ordinary person who becomes a psychopathic killer, he is not a supervillain, he couldn't lead a murderous mob into a pub without getting mugged by them, he certainly couldn't become Batman's main antagonist. He is also not particularly intelligent (his medical records from the assualt over the sign would have settled the "produce sign or be fired" threat).

Personally I thought it a poor film, not deserving of awards (but then I don't much like dytopias and it made Gotham very much a dystopia).

You seem wildly optimistic about Gotham's healthcare network and the associated costs.

[Fyraltari]

The Joker doesn’t make sense. The character’s defining trait is ‘crazy’ but the writers of DC comics have no interest in portraying what mental illness actually looks like. The Joker doesn’t have a personnality, he’ll be wildly different from comic to comic. It got so bad that it was stated that:
A) the Joker changes his symptoms every so often.
B) He has several conflicting backstories.
C) He is actually three people in a clown suit.

There is no canon.

The Killing Joke introduced the whole ‘one bad day’ garbage but, and people don’t mention that as often even though that’s the most important bit, refuted it too.

Joker is an excellent movie but it is clear it is more interested in being a Taxi Driver remake than giving a backstory to the Joker (and how could it? He doesn’t have a character to begin with).

Also to add to the problematic Batman post above: Batman comics are in love with the whole ‘insane=violent’ trope and generally carry the implication that the mentally ill are monsters that should be put down rather than understood and cared for.

[Caledonian]

Actually, people with mental illnesses are much more likely to engage in violence than the average. It is entirely possible to believe they should be cared for, AND to acknowledge that they're more dangerous than people who are 'well', all else being equal.

In any case: the Joker isn't crazy. He understands cause-and-effect better than most people do, he understands that the things he does cannot be tolerated by any society. He simply does not care. 'Sane' doesn't mean desiring things we find admirable, or acceptable. It means recognizing objective reality. And to the degree that the Joker can act in ways that our being socialized doesn't permit, can think in ways our being socialized renders unthinkable, he's more sane than most people. He's just a monster.

Batman - that is to say, Bruce Wayne - is arguably not sane. He's successfully enacted a fundamentally unbalanced strategy for dealing with his pain. Is it admirable? Yes! Is it heroic? Yes! Is it well-adjusted, rational, and emotionally proportionate? Heck no!

The Joker isn't crazy, he's just an evil #!^%!. Batman IS crazy, and we desperately need more crazy people like him.

[Strigon]

Also to add to the problematic Batman post above: Batman comics are in love with the whole ‘insane=violent’ trope and generally carry the implication that the mentally ill are monsters that should be put down rather than understood and cared for.

People say that a lot, but I'm pretty sure they're getting it backwards.
Having mental illness doesn't make you evil, but if you're going to dedicate your life to dressing up in a costume and murdering people on the street, that says something about your psychological well-being.

Edit:



...
In any case: the Joker isn't crazy. He understands cause-and-effect better than most people do, he understands that the things he does cannot be tolerated by any society. He simply does not care. 'Sane' doesn't mean desiring things we find admirable, or acceptable. It means recognizing objective reality. And to the degree that the Joker can act in ways that our being socialized doesn't permit, can think in ways our being socialized renders unthinkable, he's more sane than most people. He's just a monster.

Batman - that is to say, Bruce Wayne - is arguably not sane. He's successfully enacted a fundamentally unbalanced strategy for dealing with his pain. Is it admirable? Yes! Is it heroic? Yes! Is it well-adjusted, rational, and emotionally proportionate? Heck no!

The Joker isn't crazy, he's just an evil #!^%!. Batman IS crazy, and we desperately need more crazy people like him.

No, the Joker's crazy. If you consider Batman crazy, Joker's definitely crazy.
If your definition of sanity is recognizing objective reality, then how does Batman not fit that bill?
If your definition of insanity is having unhealthy coping mechanisms and poor responses to stress, how does the Joker not fit that bill?

[dps]

Actually, people with mental illnesses are much more likely to engage in violence than the average. It is entirely possible to believe they should be cared for, AND to acknowledge that they're more dangerous than people who are 'well', all else being equal.

In any case: the Joker isn't crazy. He understands cause-and-effect better than most people do, he understands that the things he does cannot be tolerated by any society. He simply does not care. 'Sane' doesn't mean desiring things we find admirable, or acceptable. It means recognizing objective reality. And to the degree that the Joker can act in ways that our being socialized doesn't permit, can think in ways our being socialized renders unthinkable, he's more sane than most people. He's just a monster.

Batman - that is to say, Bruce Wayne - is arguably not sane. He's successfully enacted a fundamentally unbalanced strategy for dealing with his pain. Is it admirable? Yes! Is it heroic? Yes! Is it well-adjusted, rational, and emotionally proportionate? Heck no!

The Joker isn't crazy, he's just an evil #!^%!. Batman IS crazy, and we desperately need more crazy people like him.


The problem here is that "crazy" and "insane" have colloquial meanings in informal conversation, but they don't have an clinical meaning. "Sane" does have a legal meaning, that the person in question knows the difference between right and wrong, and understands the consequences of his or her actions. By that definition, both Batman and the Joker are sane, though by ordinary, common-sense standards, the Joker's crazy and Bruce Wayne is, at the very least, eccentric.

[tomandtish]

The problem here is that "crazy" and "insane" have colloquial meanings in informal conversation, but they don't have an clinical meaning. "Sane" does have a legal meaning, that the person in question knows the difference between right and wrong, and understands the consequences of his or her actions. By that definition, both Batman and the Joker are sane, though by ordinary, common-sense standards, the Joker's crazy and Bruce Wayne is, at the very least, eccentric.

Very much this. In 2009 and 2012 panels of psychologists and lawyers both agreed that by the real world requirements to be criminally insane the Joker doesn't match up. In fact, MOST of batman's villains are probably sane by real world standards.

[Peelee]

Very much this. In 2009 and 2012 panels of psychologists and lawyers both agreed that by the real world requirements to be criminally insane the Joker doesn't match up. In fact, MOST of batman's villains are probably sane by real world standards.

The lawyers would have agreed only in their distinct locations; laws can vary wildly depending on where you are, and while Gotham is a clear stand-in for NYC, they don't expressly state which state its in, to the best of my knowledge.

Also, many states don't even offer insanity as a defense, and of those that do, less than one percent of defenses try insanity and less than one percent of those defenses are successful. Long story short, it would be pretty easy for the lawyers to agree regardless of jurisdictional issues.

[tomandtish]

The lawyers would have agreed only in their distinct locations; laws can vary wildly depending on where you are, and while Gotham is a clear stand-in for NYC, they don't expressly state which state its in, to the best of my knowledge.

Also, many states don't even offer insanity as a defense, and of those that do, less than one percent of defenses try insanity and less than one percent of those defenses are successful. Long story short, it would be pretty easy for the lawyers to agree regardless of jurisdictional issues.

Actually, 45 states have some form of it. Kansas, Idaho, Montana, and Utah have discarded it. Alaska apparently has a modified limited version.

Now, what nearly every state has gotten rid of is the "irresistible impulse" portion of the defense (in fact I think Colorado is the ony state that still allows it). Basically, if you know it is wrong and you can't control yourself, that's not a defense. So even if the argument is that Two-Face is bound by the coin and has to act according to its decision, he still isn't insane.

An insanity defense is tried in only 1% of cases where it might be tried, and only successful 25% of the time it is tried. So you need 400 cases to get one successful use.

But then there's the fact that when it is successful. 75% of the time it's because the prosecution and/or the judge agreed it applied. Only 1 in 4 successes comes from a jury. So you actually need 1600 cases to get one successful jury verdict.

It's also important to note that in a vast majority of states that have it, it's an affirmative defense, so the defense has to prove the insanity. The prosecution does not have to prove the person isn't/wasn't insane.

[comicshorse]

The problem here is that "crazy" and "insane" have colloquial meanings in informal conversation, but they don't have an clinical meaning. "Sane" does have a legal meaning, that the person in question knows the difference between right and wrong, and understands the consequences of his or her actions. By that definition, both Batman and the Joker are sane, though by ordinary, common-sense standards, the Joker's crazy and Bruce Wayne is, at the very least, eccentric.

Bruce Wayne is rich therefore he's not crazy he's just eccentric

[False God]

Bruce Wayne is rich therefore he's not crazy he's just eccentric

I feel like the core subject matter of this thread is probably outside the rules of the forum, since we can't really talk about why wealthy white business owners who dress up in rubber suits or owner tigers are "eccentric" and why their poor, mentally-questionably-healthy counterparts are considered "crazy".

[Dienekes]

I feel like the core subject matter of this thread is probably outside the rules of the forum, since we can't really talk about why wealthy white business owners who dress up in rubber suits or owner tigers are "eccentric" and why their poor, mentally-questionably-healthy counterparts are considered "crazy".

This always seemed like a strange line of thought to me. I mean, certainly in the real world I understand where the eccentric/crazy divide comes in.

But in terms of comic books, the wealth of the hero rarely comes into their desire to dress in suits and fight crime. Whether the character is early Peter Parker's barely above subsistence level, Luke Cage's former criminal who is attempting to use his superheroing to live, to Wayne and Stark's megarich.

Their wealth is not really brought up as why they aren't considered crazy. Bruce actually is called crazy quite frequently in the comics. To the point his fight in Gotham is liked to an obsession and some comics that claim outright he deserves to be in Gotham. But more often the divide between the crazy supers and the not-crazy has been based on whether they'd murder or not.

Which admittedly, is problematic for other reasons.

[Traab]

This always seemed like a strange line of thought to me. I mean, certainly in the real world I understand where the eccentric/crazy divide comes in.

But in terms of comic books, the wealth of the hero rarely comes into their desire to dress in suits and fight crime. Whether the character is early Peter Parker's barely above subsistence level, Luke Cage's former criminal who is attempting to use his superheroing to live, to Wayne and Stark's megarich.

Their wealth is not really brought up as why they aren't considered crazy. Bruce actually is called crazy quite frequently in the comics. To the point his fight in Gotham is liked to an obsession and some comics that claim outright he deserves to be in Gotham. But more often the divide between the crazy supers and the not-crazy has been based on whether they'd murder or not.

Which admittedly, is problematic for other reasons.

Most heroes dont have an obsession about fighting crime like bruce does. Normally when people call him crazy its because its the version where bruce wayne is nothing but a mask he wears when needed, being batman is everything to him, even to the point of pushing away the rest of the bat clan in favor of his "duty" or whatever. Meanwhile the other heroes tend to have fairly robust personal lives outside of the suit, or at least they try. Superman has his life as clark kent, spiderman tries to make a living and have a family with mary jane or whoever, so they are generally considered well balanced. Bruce Wayne is broken inside. And he cant get treatment because its his psychosis that makes him so freaking effective as a hero. And he is also fully aware of these facts. But he considers it acceptable for the good he can do.

[Dienekes]

Most heroes dont have an obsession about fighting crime like bruce does. Normally when people call him crazy its because its the version where bruce wayne is nothing but a mask he wears when needed, being batman is everything to him, even to the point of pushing away the rest of the bat clan in favor of his "duty" or whatever. Meanwhile the other heroes tend to have fairly robust personal lives outside of the suit, or at least they try. Superman has his life as clark kent, spiderman tries to make a living and have a family with mary jane or whoever, so they are generally considered well balanced. Bruce Wayne is broken inside. And he cant get treatment because its his psychosis that makes him so freaking effective as a hero. And he is also fully aware of these facts. But he considers it acceptable for the good he can do.

Agreed, but the comics that explore that aspect of his character do very often come down on the side that "Bruce is a legitimate crazy person." Not coyly calling him eccentric.

[False God]

This always seemed like a strange line of thought to me. I mean, certainly in the real world I understand where the eccentric/crazy divide comes in.
Reality ultimately bleeds into comic books.


But in terms of comic books, the wealth of the hero rarely comes into their desire to dress in suits and fight crime. Whether the character is early Peter Parker's barely above subsistence level, Luke Cage's former criminal who is attempting to use his superheroing to live, to Wayne and Stark's megarich.
I think the big difference in your example is Marvel/DC. Marvel has a much wider economic gamut of heroes, and their characters are much more often shown to be flawed and "human"(even when they're aliens). DC often presents us with impossibly perfect heroes. Peak of physical, mental and economic health. Manging to both hold down solid fitness routines (which arguably would be much harder when you're super fast/strong), as well as solid jobs and somewhat isolationist, if otherwise healthy home-lives. With Marvel we actively see the struggle with juggling all these different parts of their lives. With the exception of very select moments, we rarely see this juggle with DC characters, even Wonder Woman adopts the juggle for....reasons when initially she didn't really give two toots that anyone knew "Diana Prince" (can we talk about lame disguises for a moment?) was Wonder Woman.


Their wealth is not really brought up as why they aren't considered crazy. Bruce actually is called crazy quite frequently in the comics. To the point his fight in Gotham is liked to an obsession and some comics that claim outright he deserves to be in Gotham. But more often the divide between the crazy supers and the not-crazy has been based on whether they'd murder or not.
Which is sort of a bad measure, since many of Batman's problems are brought on by the fact that he doesn't kill anyone. And of course that Gotham apparently one of the worst mental instutions in the country that is probably still practicing measures NIMH, I mean NIH had to completely rebrand themselves to get over. Which coupled with the fact that the city (state?/nation?) lacks the death penalty for villains who are clearly of the very killable variety.

I mean, Thomas Wayne doesn't exactly score any hero points for killing every badguy in his crosshairs, but at least he doesn't have the ridiculous level of repeat offenders Brucey-boy does.

More to the point, most of the "Bats is crazy" talk is just that, talk. The overwhelming majority of villains are both demonstrated to have and treated for their mental instability. Some actually recover because after a rather violent streak, they're treated like human beings with a disease and are able to overcome it.

But because of Bruce's wealth, which aids him in keeping his identity secret, which prevents him from being jailed and thus treated, he's just "an eccentric weirdo". Bruce's economic and social status play a MASSIVE role in his ability to avoid treatment and object to potential investigations of his mental health. Meanwhile his villains have little choice, they broke the law (which again, vigilantism is illegal in Gotham), got caught and are essentially forcibly treated (which, back to the NIMH issue, has other problems) with various measures of success.

Again though...this really boils down to: don't analyze DC comics. The result is...uncomfortable.

Which, going back to the OP, is a resounding feeling many people I've spoken to expressed about the Joker movie. When you analyze why crazy people are crazy, why they're not getting proper treatment, why they lash out violently; the answer can make you really uncomfortable.

[Lord Raziere]

The really weird thing is that Batman's rogue gallery repeatedly demonstrates that they somehow make gadgets from nowhere despite not having any money, so either they are stealing money with their gadgets to make them so they can steal more money in a vicious cycle....or they somehow just use their smarts to make their inventions out of nowhere. meaning the explanation of having lots of wealth and a corporation for Batman's tech to exist is pointless since the Joker, The Riddler and so on make all their stuff from seemingly nothing and Batman is supposedly smarter than all of them.

imagine DIY homemade garage invention Batman. with how much people meme him up to always be victorious, I doubt that it would slow him down much. :smalltongue:

but yeah, Joker is definitely colloquially crazier than Batman....but Batman is still a little crazy, if only because he sees the evidence of Gotham being a battle he can't win because of his own rules and does nothing about except trying to bail the water of a sinking ship harder, because DC comics often treats killing a villain as some unforgivable sin that will send you spiraling down an irredeemable path forever. like yes we know the Iron Age was horrible and heroes shouldn't be murderhobos slaughtering people with guns, thats a good point, but there is degrees of proportionate response for certain threats, and some villains pass a certain threshold where its reasonable to keep being merciful to them.

[Vahnavoi]

The idea of leaving captured villains alive and handing them to proper authorities would work better if the authorities wouldn't always need to fail for meta-textual reasons, yes.

[Sapphire Guard]

At that point we're just blaming characters for bring comic book characters, though.

It's not like actually killing them would be more effective. They'd just be back in a week with superpowers.

[Lord Raziere]

At that point we're just blaming characters for bring comic book characters, though.

It's not like actually killing them would be more effective. They'd just be back in a week with superpowers.

Mm. I don't agree. just because its normal and true that this is the reality of comic book characters, doesn't mean its not stupid. normalcy doesn't make things better.

[dps]

Most heroes dont have an obsession about fighting crime like bruce does. Normally when people call him crazy its because its the version where bruce wayne is nothing but a mask he wears when needed, being batman is everything to him, even to the point of pushing away the rest of the bat clan in favor of his "duty" or whatever. Meanwhile the other heroes tend to have fairly robust personal lives outside of the suit, or at least they try. Superman has his life as clark kent, spiderman tries to make a living and have a family with mary jane or whoever, so they are generally considered well balanced. Bruce Wayne is broken inside. And he cant get treatment because its his psychosis that makes him so freaking effective as a hero. And he is also fully aware of these facts. But he considers it acceptable for the good he can do.

Yeah, at least most human superheroes are like Peter Parker--their superhero identity is just a something they adopt to fight crime (and even with some non-humans; for example, with Superman, it's at least arguable that Clark Kent is the "real" personality), but with Batman, Batman is the "real" personality, and Bruce Wayne is just the persona he uses to fund his crimefighting, even though that is his real name.

[jidasfire]

I don't think the Joker has his personality roots in any real observed variety of mental illness, even the ones likely to be deemed as criminally insane. Those sorts of people tend to have either extremely low impulse control or delusions that override their ability to function in a healthy way, neither of which fit the character's MO. The Joker is instead a character founded in unreason, chaos, and randomness. While we might colloquially think of this as insanity, since he usually does the opposite of what a reasonable person would do, I don't think it's the same thing.

The Joker is a perfectly fine villain for Batman (though I do consider him overrated), but I think trying to use him to say something about "society" is ultimately built on a flawed premise. Mental illness and oppressive environments doesn't make people into murder clowns obsessed with rich guys who dress like Dracula. He's unrealistic, and that's okay. I just think pretending he is somehow the true face of our inner darkness is buying into either a 13-year-old edgelord's version of reality, or whatever line of BS the Joker himself is trying to sell you to excuse his behavior.

[JNAProductions]

To be fair, Raziere, when Superman says "If I killed someone, where would I stop?" I don't believe him. I just don't.

When Batman says "If I killed someone, where would I stop?" I do believe him. Because he's off his rocker.

[tomandtish]

To be fair, Raziere, when Superman says "If I killed someone, where would I stop?" I don't believe him. I just don't.

When Batman says "If I killed someone, where would I stop?" I do believe him. Because he's off his rocker.

You should read Injustice: Gods Among Us. It will make you a believer...

[JNAProductions]

You should read Injustice: Gods Among Us. It will make you a believer...

Does it follow the plot of the game?

[tomandtish]

Does it follow the plot of the game?

Never played the game, so no clue. Basically...

Joker kills Lois and Supe's unborn child. Supe kills Joker. He then decides that he and the JL need to be more aggressive in dealing with problems, so procede to try and create world peace. However, he gradually becomes an almost dictator like ruler. Batman and a small group oppose him.

[JNAProductions]

Never played the game, so no clue. Basically...

Joker kills Lois and Supe's unborn child. Supe kills Joker. He then decides that he and the JL need to be more aggressive in dealing with problems, so procede to try and create world peace. However, he gradually becomes an almost dictator like ruler. Batman and a small group oppose him.

Yup, that's the plot of the game.

And nope, I don't believe it.

[Caledonian]

Agreed, but the comics that explore that aspect of his character do very often come down on the side that "Bruce is a legitimate crazy person."

His methods will obviously not work, and they haven't worked yet. But he continues to use them. That isn't enough for legal insanity, but I'm not particularly interested in that. (The law is often insane, for one thing.) Bruce Wayne is failing to acknowledge reality, and shows no interest in doing so.

The Joker by and large accomplishes what he wants to accomplish with his methods. Not completely, of course, but he gets results. He's sane. No society could tolerate him, and in a 'realistic' story he'd have been killed years ago, and everyone would have given a quiet sigh of relief.

[Sapphire Guard]

Ultimately, the Joker is not very different from any other villain. He kills people. So does Harvey, so does Oswald, so does Ra's. Joker isn't particularly more dangerous than them, and the times where he is are in elseworlds. Ra's and Bane are much more dangerous, even Ivy and Scarecrow can easily trump him on their various schemes to mess with the water supply.

The major thing Joker does differently is occasionally randomly kill his own men.

Joker goes on these giant rants, but they're all nonsense. 'One bad day' No, you're just a **** "Society made me this way" No, you're just a ****. TAS actually got this. He's just a pathetic scumbag.

The one thing he does is kill and torture people close to Bruce, like Barbara and Jason. But he's not a greater threat because of that, he's just a ****. Killing him because of that would not be some grand service to the city, it'd just be revenge.

Batman's methods are not any less effective than Punisher's. He's been killing people since the 70s, hasn't made a dent in new york yet.

[Lord Raziere]

Yup, that's the plot of the game.

And nope, I don't believe it.

Not believe all you want, Injustice isn't the only place where Superman Gone Bad has been explored: Superman Red Son, Irredeemable (The Plutonian), Justice Lord Superman from the cartoon, The Boys (Homelander).

If you don't believe Superman killing people, I don't believe Batman ever being more dangerous than Superman. But I do believe that anyone can go bad in the right circumstances. Ultimately? if Batman goes bad, he just becomes a crazy serial killer like the rest of his rogues gallery. nothing that can't be handled.

if Superman goes bad, you have the world being taken over a superpowered dictator no one can stop at best, and the apocalypse at worst, and some depictions of Superman give him anger that he struggles to keep in check, given that he has to deal with the worst of humanity daily, thats unsurprising.

[JNAProductions]

Not believe all you want, Injustice isn't the only place where Superman Gone Bad has been explored: Superman Red Son, Irredeemable (The Plutonian), Justice Lord Superman from the cartoon, The Boys (Homelander).

If you don't believe Superman killing people, I don't believe Batman ever being more dangerous than Superman. But I do believe that anyone can go bad in the right circumstances. Ultimately? if Batman goes bad, he just becomes a crazy serial killer like the rest of his rogues gallery. nothing that can't be handled.

if Superman goes bad, you have the world being taken over a superpowered dictator no one can stop at best, and the apocalypse at worst, and some depictions of Superman give him anger that he struggles to keep in check, given that he has to deal with the worst of humanity daily, thats unsurprising.

Oh, I'm not saying that you can't do a proper Superman goes bad story.

What I'm saying is that the Injustice plotline isn't very sensical.

[Lord Raziere]

Oh, I'm not saying that you can't do a proper Superman goes bad story.

What I'm saying is that the Injustice plotline isn't very sensical.

Yeah, mostly because Joker being able to cause anything like that is laughable given that he is an insane normal human in a bad suit. really its just as ridiculous as Kingdom Come's plot where Joker's death somehow causes the entire Superhero community to just start killing everyone and Superman to quit in disgust with all the new heroes doing it. its completely unrealistic, not because none of these heroes could ever go bad or anything, but because its the Joker in any sane world, the death of someone like him as at worst something you shrug and go "oh well guess we won't be able to heal him I guess" in a half-hearted manner while Harley maaaaybe mourns him if Poison Ivy doesn't catch her on the rebound and make her forget all about him?

The way they treat them having some in-universe ability to be greater than they actually are is laughable, because their greatness doesn't derive from how powerful they are, but rather because they're in the unique position of being two supers who aren't superpowered squaring off with nothing but wit and philosophy behind them, thus defining who they are on a deeper level than some power or gimmick. they're good because of their minimalism causing us to focus on who they are as people, not because they've somehow unlocked some secret hyper-planning power that puts them on par with gods as long as they shun the impurity of having actual superpowers like some bizarre scheme monk taboo. or some weird symbolic importance about killing that makes everyone magically start going crazy the moment they die.

[Man on Fire]

I agree that Joker is not that complex as people make him. In reality, I think he is one of the least interesting Batman villains who gets over by being showy and a good foil. But Mr. Freeze, Two-Face, Poison Ivy, Riddler, Scarecrow, Killer Croc, Penguin and Catwoman are all more interesting.

[Traab]

At least the justice lord story made sense. Lex killing the Flash which pushes Superman over the edge into killing him then it all goes from there. I could see him making a legit argument that the way they were doing things is ineffective, because it really really IS. And then convincing them to basically take over to ensure peace. Its not exactly a hard sell, especially if SUPERMAN is the one pushing for it, riding the loss of the Flash to influence those who might be opposed to it.

[Caledonian]

I will grant you that the Tim Burton Joker isn't any more sane than Bruce Wayne usually is. But the version from The Dark Knight? Quite ruthlessly sane.

The issue is the ability to recognize and respond correctly to objective reality. The Joker isn't crazy any more than (the book version of ) Hannibal Lecter, who is superhumanly sane. Lecter regards most humans the way most humans regard animals: you might choose to eat them, or choose to protect them from suffering and use, but either way the choice is yours and not theirs. Unlike most people who consider themselves beyond human understanding, Lecter is also quite correct in his belief.

The Joker knows what he wants, and he acts in a way which effectively results in his desires becoming reality. Thus, sane. Just extremely dangerous to everyone else and highly unpleasant.

[Vinyadan]

The problem with The Joker movie is that it does a good job of explaining how a man becomes a psychopath, but is does a terrible job of showing how a man becomes a super-villain.
The Joker of the film is an ordinary person who becomes a psychopathic killer, he is not a supervillain, he couldn't lead a murderous mob into a pub without getting mugged by them, he certainly couldn't become Batman's main antagonist. He is also not particularly intelligent (his medical records from the assualt over the sign would have settled the "produce sign or be fired" threat).


This. It's something I immediately thought, but I somehow couldn't find in any review. I'll add the weakness that it's very easy to misunderstand: I thought he had killed the girl, because of the sirens from the window right after he left her apartment. Instead, she apparently is still alive, or so the director says.

For the rest, it's fairly well pieced together and there's Phoenix's unquestionably phenomenal acting, but its strongest point (being the story of the Joker, idol of the nations) is also its weakness (it tries to cram a normal, gentlish guy from a realistic world in the role of Mr. "I kill people with my hands, and physically overpower anyone who isn't Batman, especially off-screen").

And the film is good, but not good enough to survive without being about a well-known IP, exactly because, if we don't already know who the Joker is, the ending is empty. And yet, even if we do know, it doesn't explain why he turned into a magical killer.

[Caledonian]

If there's no actual evidence that the woman is alive, and you thought she'd been murdered, AND practically everyone else thought the same thing... then the woman is dead.

It doesn't matter what the director says. Either he intended people to conclude that she was murdered, and is now lying, or he failed to convey that she lived. In any case, while the authors aren't necessarily dead, neither are they God, and their authority ultimately means little.

[Saph]

For the rest, it's fairly well pieced together and there's Phoenix's unquestionably phenomenal acting, but its strongest point (being the story of the Joker, idol of the nations) is also its weakness (it tries to cram a normal, gentlish guy from a realistic world in the role of Mr. "I kill people with my hands, and physically overpower anyone who isn't Batman, especially off-screen").

That's more an issue with the Joker as a character.

Honestly, none of the supers in the Batman setting fit into a "realistic world". In Batman's world, being crazy and wearing a costume is enough to turn an ordinary person into a larger-than-life character capable of superhuman feats. You just have to accept that it's how the Batman setting works.

[Lord Raziere]

That's more an issue with the Joker as a character.

Honestly, none of the supers in the Batman setting fit into a "realistic world". In Batman's world, being crazy and wearing a costume is enough to turn an ordinary person into a larger-than-life character capable of superhuman feats. You just have to accept that it's how the Batman setting works.

Batman is based on The Shadow, a Pulp hero and Gotham city is basically a modern day pulp setting with costumes. and in pulp, the superpowers are minimal but the larger than life stunts and heroics are not. like before superheroes, you just had pulp heroes who just did awesome things without much explanation, powers or a costume. they their heroics not because of some greater superpower but because they were their own superpower. and all superheroes derive from the pulp tradition, its just they put costumes on it and focused more on supernatural powers so that they standout from an ordinary person more. the modern setting where the hero goes around fighting random things from both sci-fi and fantasy without much distinction? came from pulp.

like Batman and Superman were outright inspired by The Shadow and Doc Savage, you want to know why these superheroes work the way they do, look those guys up, Doc Savage didn't even have powers, The Shadow's psychic abilities he got training in some place called shamballa, were only highly powerful suggestions/hypnotism and he was mostly a detective with batman-level crazy preparedness- as in Batman got it from HIM- they did what they did without the outright superpowers heroes have today. like, all superheroes owe their existence to The Shadow and Doc Savage, because they are the inspirations for Batman and Superman, you want to know why things are the way they are, look those guys up.

[Saph]

Batman is based on The Shadow, a Pulp hero and Gotham city is basically a modern day pulp setting with costumes.

That might have been where Batman started, but it's not where he ended. Batman's on the Justice League, where he's on equal status with Superman and Wonder Woman and Green Lantern, and where he regularly fights cosmic-level threats capable of destroying the planet.

And yet in Gotham, his recurring villains include people like Penguin, Joker, Harley Quinn, and Riddler. So trying to tie Joker's abilities to what should be realistic for a normal human is hopeless, because the Batman setting just doesn't work that way.

[Caledonian]

Batman's struggle with his iconic opponents is more about philosophies than actual combat. In one sense, it would be trivial for Batman to simply kill the Joker and 'triumph', but since the real struggle is between goal-oriented self-discipline and nihilistic disorder for the sake of impulse gratification, eliminating the avatar would accomplish nothing. The Joker is a symbol, more than he is a genuine person. Same with Batman, really.

[Lord Raziere]

That might have been where Batman started, but it's not where he ended. Batman's on the Justice League, where he's on equal status with Superman and Wonder Woman and Green Lantern, and where he regularly fights cosmic-level threats capable of destroying the planet.

And yet in Gotham, his recurring villains include people like Penguin, Joker, Harley Quinn, and Riddler. So trying to tie Joker's abilities to what should be realistic for a normal human is hopeless, because the Batman setting just doesn't work that way.

I never said they were realistic.

DC is a setting that originates from the 30's and runs on pulp tropes, just....enlarged. and in space. and only as time went by and culture shifted. thats all superheroes is: pulp WITH COSTUMES! IN SPACE! WITH BIGGER POWERS!

Batman and Joker weren't given powers, they were just exaggerated more. thats all. power creep and bad writing. no need to seek an in-setting reason when its clear the character only works in certain boundaries and is being stretched to work outside of them to a degree.

[Traab]

That's more an issue with the Joker as a character.

Honestly, none of the supers in the Batman setting fit into a "realistic world". In Batman's world, being crazy and wearing a costume is enough to turn an ordinary person into a larger-than-life character capable of superhuman feats. You just have to accept that it's how the Batman setting works.

Most of his bad guys have super powers of some sort. The ones that dont arent really a super threat in general. Two face, riddler, penguin, even joker, none of them really do anything far beyond what real world crazy but intelligent people could come up with, crazy shenanigans with 5th dimensional beings aside. Yeah sometimes it gets nuts but generally speaking, they are robbing banks and whatnot, maybe setting up a bomb somewhere, and thats about it. What makes them larger than life is their personalities. Well, that and the fact that they have been creating more and more villain lore for themselves longer than the average person lives. It means they have accomplished alot, as most tend to kinda lump all their iterations together.

[Vinyadan]

If there's no actual evidence that the woman is alive, and you thought she'd been murdered, AND practically everyone else thought the same thing... then the woman is dead.

It doesn't matter what the director says. Either he intended people to conclude that she was murdered, and is now lying, or he failed to convey that she lived. In any case, while the authors aren't necessarily dead, neither are they God, and their authority ultimately means little.

I don't really agree with this. I think that there are multiple readings of a text*: what it says to you, what it was intended to say by the author, what it says to someone else... I feel that excluding the author from the equation means taking the easy way out (a lot less research) and missing out a lot. Plus, if one wants to evaluate a text, one of the many parameters is examining how it fits what the author wanted to show.
This doesn't run completely counter to what you say, because personal interpretation stays important (for example, you want to understand why the author used a certain device to express a concept, you check what he read and how he understood it). But, once we start talking about author's authority, then we have left the area of simple entertainment and we have entered a deeper discussion, that cannot be complete, if we ignore intent.

*I say text, it could be "medium" in general.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: next up! The Psychological Mind of the Thread Necromancer!