Comments on: The Dark Knight: Joker (Non-)Backstory And IMAX Details

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:18:46 +0000

Not giving a specific origin and having him tell multiple stories was the best decision for the character. He transcends character, he becomes a force.

By: drea

drea — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:18:15 +0000

not to mention not showing the jokers back story will keep nerds from complaining that they got it wrong

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:12:27 +0000

Well, Rev, the thing is, that only really happened in the original Batman movie.
In the comics it was a guy named Joe Chill.
Frankly, I like it better when the Joker doesn’t really HAVE a backstory. All we have for sure in the comics is that he was Red Hood, and he ended up in some chemicals, which Joker-fied him.

By: Rev

Rev — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:37:53 +0000

I think it’s the best route simply because they couldn’t do it any other way — it’d be a waste of time. What makes The Joker’s origin give such an impact on the story is the fact that he killed Bruce’s parents to begin with and The Batman turned him into a super-villain.

But, since all that never happened, then that makes that story-arch buffer kind of useless, don’t you think?

- Rev

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:14:00 +0000

I think the orgin of the Joker can be told through out the story as Batman finds out more about him,not just in one huge part in the opening scenes.

By: KEL

KEL — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:25:42 +0000

Good points,Thomas.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:57:49 +0000

I think that there is a difference between origin and character. The origin story isn’t the only thing that explains the character to us, and I think that the sooner we get from Jack Napier or whoever he is to Joker the sooner we can really get into the meat and potatoes of the character.

So I don’t have a problem with his origin being done quickly as long as the Ledger as the Joker still has an interesting character arc.

How Joker becomes Joker isn’t very interesting. What is interesting about him is his philosophy afterwards (and how it juxtaposes Batman’s). So let’s get to that as quickly as possible.

By: KEL

KEL — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:58:47 +0000

LOL! Yup. That’s so unfair!

By: Screen Rant

Screen Rant — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:29:51 +0000

Ow, that stinks. I thought 45 minutes was bad!

Vic

By: KEL

KEL — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:24:15 +0000

Oh totally worth it. The one nearest me is over 8 hours away. I’m sad.

By: Screen Rant

Screen Rant — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:20:33 +0000

I have to drive 45 minutes to get to the nearest IMAX theater but I think it’s worth it.

Vic

By: KEL

KEL — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:02:09 +0000

This is the best news I think I’ve heard about the movie yet! When the character was introduced in the comix there was no explanation for why he is what he is. I don’t know why people always want some origin and explanation for EVERYTHING,it takes up SO much time in the movie (remember the Ang Lee Hulk?). We need no explanation for lex Luthor,so we don’t need one for Joker,either. I like origins,but I can only handle them in small doses.:-) Joker:bad,Batman:good. What’s there to explain? Too bad there isn’t an IMAX theater near me!