The Psychological Mind Of The Joker

[JNAProductions]

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

Spoiler: Spoiler for Injustice comic

Show

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!