Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

DoubleF · 08-04-2023, 12:53 PM

I think the best joker has to be divided into categories due to their existences in different time periods and timelines. Sometimes they are the same Joker in different stages of life and other times, they're new interpretations of the same Joker in the same stage of life. Many think they're different takes on Joker. I've been thinking lately that they are all the same Joker and can mostly coexist without multiverse bull####. Same dude, different day.

Joker (Joaquin Phoenix) and The Killing Joke graphic novel are the same time period, but slightly different interpretations. (ie: Pre Thomas Wayne death + young Bruce time period)

Hamill, Ledger, Nicholson, Leto, Keoghan, Monaghan and Romano are all post Thomas Wayne death/adult Bruce Wayne time periods if I'm not mistaken and they are all typically versions built on top of the Killing Joke origin story.

Joker timeline:
- Had some semblance of a normal life
- Grief/evolution/insanity
- Crime (ie: Red Hood)
- After a duration of crime, chemical change to his iconic look

The first two (Phoenix and graphic novel) are the first main two points. The other iterations are typically one or both of the last two points. But one thing I've often noted is that it seems blatantly obvious that Joker's development is typically hinted as a slow patient development.

My personal favourite is the Ledger iterations for a variety of reasons. Christopher Nolan's research into the Joker's origin and his interpretation of the Joker could be one of the deepest and coincidentally most insane delves into Joker's psyche ever. Nolan is known for some insanely detailed and complex story concepts for his movies which is why I feel confident in this claim. This interpretation went deeper when combined with Ledger's Joker note taking notebook, and immersion methods into the role while filming. Nolan provided Ledger with a copy of The Killing Joke graphic novel as material for developing the character. In it's own insane twist of coincidence, Ledger's portrayal of the Joker is incomplete and it will be never completed (due to his death). Nolan and Ledger may have had much further depths of Joker's character they had uncovered and were intending on exploring, but that never transpired.

Another reason I love Ledger's Joker, is that even with the depth of character they uncovered, they spent time to distill the essence of Joker into something easy to understand. This IMO was paralleled by the use of Ekhart's Dent/Two face origin story in the Dark Knight as well as dialogue used in the Dark Knight to explain that Joker and Batman are two sides of the same coin. The two share as many similarities as they do differences. They know each other better than anyone else would ever know them. He is one of the few "multiple day" Jokers IMO that brings consistency to his inconsistency IMO by trying to reveal that there is a pattern in his unpredictability if we can see things from his POV. GreenLantern's post helps points in this direction. IMO, all of these portrayals are Joker and Ledger's version is no different. But I think Ledger's version IMO introduced as many vague attributes to who Joker really is as defined attributes to who Joker really is.

Ledger's Joker is also one of the most simplest Jokers vs the others. He uses a knife, gun, explosives and whatever is on hand (ie: Pencil, broken cue etc.). He comments about reveling in the simple things. Other iterations like Nicholson use complex chemicals and other funky guns and comic book universe weapons and traps and stuff.

I originally hated the Phoenix Joker thinking it was too big of a divergence from what I understood Joker to be. But as much as I originally hated the Phoenix Joker, the more I kinda looked at it vs the graphic novel, the more I realized it was quite true to what Joker is supposed to be. It's a bizarre facet about the Joker I never fully realized before. There's a lot of dialogue about how the Joker is untrustworthy and loves to change stories about his past, but in reality, we don't have too many truly fleshed out stories about his past. Nolan/Ledger hint at the abusive parents/loss of wife explanation. High school drop out, engineer/red hood, etc. also exist. But there's confusion as to whether these hints and bits of origin should/can co-exist as part of a singular Joker a part of a reality situation or a lie that Joker has made up. The most fleshed out origin stories are Phoenix's Joker and the graphic novel. Ironically, I think they both sit in a zone where the narrator is unreliable, but probably the least likely to be clouded by pure deceit. CC's comment about a proto-Joker is correct, but I'm not sure how accurate he realizes that comment is.

What's interestingly fun is that it seems like the Joker's development in general is slow. He doesn't seem like he has a key event that explodes him from previous dude to villain like many other DC characters. He seems like he's relatively incremental, similar in nature to Bruce Wayne who after his parents death slowly accumulates the training and development necessary to become who he is recognized as. I think this is a key element of the Phoenix Joker. ####ty things just keep piling on and on until his breaking point, one of which is agreed upon that exists in Joker's original story time line. Phoenix's Joker I believe is the only Joker story that takes place purely prior to the Red Hood/bleaching events. The more I mull on it, the more intriguing it becomes. He is probably the second best "multiple day" Joker iteration that has been created that shows a pattern to his unpredictability. It's not my favourite Joker, but instead of disregarding this iteration, I've begun to embrace is as part of an important piece of the proto-Joker ethos that is relatively faithful to "The Killing Joke" origin ethos and can coexist with it. I think this version is one that is going to be least enjoyed by most Joker fans because it doesn't have as much of the Joker we all know infused into that tale. The Killing Joke includes timeline that connects with a post bleached Joker to the one we know which is why we appreciate it more IMO. But the origin part in pure honestly is kinda boring. Important, but boring.

Nicholson, Hamill and Romaro Jokers I have felt they were restricted tales regarding Joker. However, I've embraced a theory where many of the interpretations Jokers are all the same Joker. Assume Joker over 100 days. Each day could be completely different. A suicide squad Joker vs Arkham patient joker vs Nicholson/Romaro Joker can all be a different mood Joker at different stages of his life. We embrace the concept that the Joker is happy with a multiple choice past whether by deceit or he honestly has forgotten, but we don't completely embrace a daily multiple choice Joker when many interpretations have him doing this on a minute by minute basis. These along with some of the newer interpretations feel too locked in to me. They seem to hint, "Joker is like this" vs "Joker is all of this".

I don't know enough about the other Joker iterations to comment too much about it.

Using Kubler Ross five stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance.

Ledger version seems devoid of depression but seems to swing between denial and acceptance.
Nicholson version seems devoid of depression and seems very locked in on a combination of denial and anger.
Phoenix's proto-Joker seemingly has all 5.
Hamill's cartoon Jokers bounces from different ones and typically locks in that stage for the entirely of that story/episode.
Romaro's version was mostly denial?
Leto's Joker was it denial and depression?
I haven't seen the Keoghan or Monaghan versions to comment.

What Joker is truly trying to accomplish, that's a bit more hazy. It's obviously tied to Batman, but with the introduction of the "Batman who laughs" concepts. The lines blur badly again.

Summary:
I like Joker's story more than his origin story.

Of his story, I prefer the portrayal by Ledger as it seems like a believable "complete" persona of the character. It is the only interpretation that has attempted a "THE Joker" portrayal. Lots of what he does is part of Joker, but not all of what Joker is. It introduces a concept of a pattern to the madness or control to his chaos as hinted by some of what GreenLantern's post. Phoenix's portrayal is seemingly a complete persona as well, but is origin story which I do not enjoy.

Many of the other portrayals of the Joker seem like Joker on a good week or Joker on a bad week. Good, but not complete personas of his character. I think this adds to his "unpredictability" facet, but also adds to the odd confusion as to why other interpretations are acceptable. IMO they are all Joker, but none are "the" Joker. We can almost call them all different Joker "moods".

08-04-2023, 12:53 PM	#9
DoubleF Franchise Player Join Date: Apr 2014 Exp:	I think the best joker has to be divided into categories due to their existences in different time periods and timelines. Sometimes they are the same Joker in different stages of life and other times, they're new interpretations of the same Joker in the same stage of life. Many think they're different takes on Joker. I've been thinking lately that they are all the same Joker and can mostly coexist without multiverse bull####. Same dude, different day. Joker (Joaquin Phoenix) and The Killing Joke graphic novel are the same time period, but slightly different interpretations. (ie: Pre Thomas Wayne death + young Bruce time period) Hamill, Ledger, Nicholson, Leto, Keoghan, Monaghan and Romano are all post Thomas Wayne death/adult Bruce Wayne time periods if I'm not mistaken and they are all typically versions built on top of the Killing Joke origin story. Joker timeline: - Had some semblance of a normal life - Grief/evolution/insanity - Crime (ie: Red Hood) - After a duration of crime, chemical change to his iconic look The first two (Phoenix and graphic novel) are the first main two points. The other iterations are typically one or both of the last two points. But one thing I've often noted is that it seems blatantly obvious that Joker's development is typically hinted as a slow patient development. My personal favourite is the Ledger iterations for a variety of reasons. Christopher Nolan's research into the Joker's origin and his interpretation of the Joker could be one of the deepest and coincidentally most insane delves into Joker's psyche ever. Nolan is known for some insanely detailed and complex story concepts for his movies which is why I feel confident in this claim. This interpretation went deeper when combined with Ledger's Joker note taking notebook, and immersion methods into the role while filming. Nolan provided Ledger with a copy of The Killing Joke graphic novel as material for developing the character. In it's own insane twist of coincidence, Ledger's portrayal of the Joker is incomplete and it will be never completed (due to his death). Nolan and Ledger may have had much further depths of Joker's character they had uncovered and were intending on exploring, but that never transpired. Another reason I love Ledger's Joker, is that even with the depth of character they uncovered, they spent time to distill the essence of Joker into something easy to understand. This IMO was paralleled by the use of Ekhart's Dent/Two face origin story in the Dark Knight as well as dialogue used in the Dark Knight to explain that Joker and Batman are two sides of the same coin. The two share as many similarities as they do differences. They know each other better than anyone else would ever know them. He is one of the few "multiple day" Jokers IMO that brings consistency to his inconsistency IMO by trying to reveal that there is a pattern in his unpredictability if we can see things from his POV. GreenLantern's post helps points in this direction. IMO, all of these portrayals are Joker and Ledger's version is no different. But I think Ledger's version IMO introduced as many vague attributes to who Joker really is as defined attributes to who Joker really is. Ledger's Joker is also one of the most simplest Jokers vs the others. He uses a knife, gun, explosives and whatever is on hand (ie: Pencil, broken cue etc.). He comments about reveling in the simple things. Other iterations like Nicholson use complex chemicals and other funky guns and comic book universe weapons and traps and stuff. I originally hated the Phoenix Joker thinking it was too big of a divergence from what I understood Joker to be. But as much as I originally hated the Phoenix Joker, the more I kinda looked at it vs the graphic novel, the more I realized it was quite true to what Joker is supposed to be. It's a bizarre facet about the Joker I never fully realized before. There's a lot of dialogue about how the Joker is untrustworthy and loves to change stories about his past, but in reality, we don't have too many truly fleshed out stories about his past. Nolan/Ledger hint at the abusive parents/loss of wife explanation. High school drop out, engineer/red hood, etc. also exist. But there's confusion as to whether these hints and bits of origin should/can co-exist as part of a singular Joker a part of a reality situation or a lie that Joker has made up. The most fleshed out origin stories are Phoenix's Joker and the graphic novel. Ironically, I think they both sit in a zone where the narrator is unreliable, but probably the least likely to be clouded by pure deceit. CC's comment about a proto-Joker is correct, but I'm not sure how accurate he realizes that comment is. What's interestingly fun is that it seems like the Joker's development in general is slow. He doesn't seem like he has a key event that explodes him from previous dude to villain like many other DC characters. He seems like he's relatively incremental, similar in nature to Bruce Wayne who after his parents death slowly accumulates the training and development necessary to become who he is recognized as. I think this is a key element of the Phoenix Joker. ####ty things just keep piling on and on until his breaking point, one of which is agreed upon that exists in Joker's original story time line. Phoenix's Joker I believe is the only Joker story that takes place purely prior to the Red Hood/bleaching events. The more I mull on it, the more intriguing it becomes. He is probably the second best "multiple day" Joker iteration that has been created that shows a pattern to his unpredictability. It's not my favourite Joker, but instead of disregarding this iteration, I've begun to embrace is as part of an important piece of the proto-Joker ethos that is relatively faithful to "The Killing Joke" origin ethos and can coexist with it. I think this version is one that is going to be least enjoyed by most Joker fans because it doesn't have as much of the Joker we all know infused into that tale. The Killing Joke includes timeline that connects with a post bleached Joker to the one we know which is why we appreciate it more IMO. But the origin part in pure honestly is kinda boring. Important, but boring. Nicholson, Hamill and Romaro Jokers I have felt they were restricted tales regarding Joker. However, I've embraced a theory where many of the interpretations Jokers are all the same Joker. Assume Joker over 100 days. Each day could be completely different. A suicide squad Joker vs Arkham patient joker vs Nicholson/Romaro Joker can all be a different mood Joker at different stages of his life. We embrace the concept that the Joker is happy with a multiple choice past whether by deceit or he honestly has forgotten, but we don't completely embrace a daily multiple choice Joker when many interpretations have him doing this on a minute by minute basis. These along with some of the newer interpretations feel too locked in to me. They seem to hint, "Joker is like this" vs "Joker is all of this". I don't know enough about the other Joker iterations to comment too much about it. Using Kubler Ross five stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Ledger version seems devoid of depression but seems to swing between denial and acceptance. Nicholson version seems devoid of depression and seems very locked in on a combination of denial and anger. Phoenix's proto-Joker seemingly has all 5. Hamill's cartoon Jokers bounces from different ones and typically locks in that stage for the entirely of that story/episode. Romaro's version was mostly denial? Leto's Joker was it denial and depression? I haven't seen the Keoghan or Monaghan versions to comment. What Joker is truly trying to accomplish, that's a bit more hazy. It's obviously tied to Batman, but with the introduction of the "Batman who laughs" concepts. The lines blur badly again. Summary: I like Joker's story more than his origin story. Of his story, I prefer the portrayal by Ledger as it seems like a believable "complete" persona of the character. It is the only interpretation that has attempted a "THE Joker" portrayal. Lots of what he does is part of Joker, but not all of what Joker is. It introduces a concept of a pattern to the madness or control to his chaos as hinted by some of what GreenLantern's post. Phoenix's portrayal is seemingly a complete persona as well, but is origin story which I do not enjoy. Many of the other portrayals of the Joker seem like Joker on a good week or Joker on a bad week. Good, but not complete personas of his character. I think this adds to his "unpredictability" facet, but also adds to the odd confusion as to why other interpretations are acceptable. IMO they are all Joker, but none are "the" Joker. We can almost call them all different Joker "moods".