Giving the joker any kind of origin always brings down the character

>>90724821
>Says the movie spawned newfag who doesn't read comics, unaware that many of the most memorable villains and heroes have well known and defined origins

I don't really agree. The ambiguous past is effective, but even in his first appearance he had an actual origin, so you can't put the cat back into the bag if it was never in the bag in the first place.

I like the interpretation that, like with the bat that flew through Bruce's window, the accident was only the point of inspiration for Joker. The Red Hood identity was his attempt at making a unique gimmick for himself, but when he came out of the vat and saw his face, he recognized the potential for something much greater than just a criminal, and he molded himself into something that would stand in the way of the Batman in a fundamental way, and became the face of anarchy and chaos in contrast with Batman's law and order.

That's why I like the Zero Year interpretation of Red Hood as still a very capable and charismatic villain, just focused on crime over murder and disorder.

I also am not really into the Morrison-ian idea of the Joker being truly insane and having a completely shattered psyche, I like Batman's theory in the OP pic.

>>90724960
The problem with his origin is that it makes him seem too human

>>90724960
But the Joker doesn't fall into that category. Though I like the Joker having multiple origins.

I think Joker needs to take a nice, Godzilla-esque, decade-long retirement.

>>90725533

I dunno, I like it. Then again, I like the Tim Burton thing where the Joker killed Batman's parents. (Having Batman's parents killed by a nobody so that he "hates crime in general" always seemed like poor writing to me. Like when Steve Ditko wanted the Green Goblin to be some unknown schmuck, and Stan Lee was smart enough to say no, it HAS to be Osborne, because that's better drama.)

>>90724960
OP specified the Joker, not just any villain.
>>90725615
Haven't they done that before

>>90725615
He kinda is now

>>90724821
The red Hood origin still works because, even in the 50's version, you're not told much about him as the Red Hood other that he's a criminal. Moore expanded on it, but effectively further divided the two into distinct personas. Red Hood should just be an explanation(why is his skin white, hair green, lips red, etc), rather than a proper character.

>>90725678
Goblin being Osborn worked because it enhanced both characters and played on Peter's relation with both, but making Joker the shooter just comes off as a lazy reach for drama and changes little about their existing dynamic.

>Oh no, he's not just evil, he's been PERSONALLY been evil to me!
Why? What does that do? It's like having a villain target a hero's loved ones, minus the act raising any stakes besides "will he kill the villain", which we know won't likely happen.

>>90725892

But it means that they created each other, which is thematically better IMO than "Batman created the Joker, but Batman just sort happened because crime"

>>90724821
Yeah, in my opinion giving the Joker an origin story takes away the idea the Joker could be anyone and anyone has the capacity to be the Joker.

>>90725688
>Haven't they done that before
Yeah, but they need to do it again

>>90725961
That's a fine piece of pottery, but like I said it does literally nothing to change their dynamic and only makes their universe seem a little too interconnected for my liking.

Gotham's primary issue is crime in general, but too often that point is overshadowed by people in flamboyant costumes. Better to have at least a few normal ass criminals out there affecting Batman's world.

>>90724960
I have no idea how does that means op is wrong.

>>90726048
Edgy

>>90726356
Ebin

>>90726293
>a little too interconnected for my liking.

That was Ditko's complaint about Osborne as the Green Goblin, too, that it was too much of a coincidence, and wasn't realistic for it to be the same guy.

I just really like the way it ties Batman and the Joker's backstories together in a nice knot, you know? I do realize this makes me a minority among Batman aficionados, though.

>>90726481
It's too stupid and elevates Joker to a status over his other villains in canon in the way that his popularity has forced in narrative and scope. Fuck that.

>>90726481
Their back stories are already tied closely enough, but what you're talking about is like having Osborn also be the person that either shot uncle Ben or had the shooter doing a job for him for some reason, it's just too much in my opinion.

>>90726540

The Joker's always had that, though. When I was a kid in the 80s we didn't sing about how the Batmobile lost its wheels and the Scarecrow got away. Everyone knew the Joker was Batman's arch-nemesis.

>>90726640

Yeah, I can see that. Like I said, I know it's a minority opinion, but I can't help it. I still like the operatic feel of these two guys creating each other's alter egos, and being bound to fight each other to the bitter end.

>>90724821
Can be said of a lot of characters who had ambiguous origins. From Wolverine to The Fucking Major. Yet people feel the need to shoehorn origins stories for these characters

>>90726698
It's like Lex Luthor being Jonathan and Martha's biological son. It's way too much man. "Archenemy" does not mean "same origin", you sound like a terrible Hollywood exec.

File: The Joker lives.jpg (160KB, 650x1017px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 650x1017px

I like to think the Joker was just a normal guy who got too bored for too long and had the biggest mental snap of all time. Pic unrelated.

>>90725961
If you think batmans origin can be simplified like that you clearly don't understand it

>>90726797
Or Geoff Johns

>>90724821

Which Joker are you talking about?

Rebirth didn't come out that long ago. Surely you know there are three Jokers.

>>90724821
What if the Joker is revealed to be Thomas Wayne?!!?!

>>90725533
Huh it's almost like he's actually just a man