Watching Doc's Batman Live clips made me think again about how dated the Dark Knight's most well-known villains are. This has nothing to do with the arena show but it does seem to downgrade Gotham's worse into Ice Capade territory!
The Joker: I have mentioned several times that the Joker has gone beyond the realm of modern believeability. He has become Chaotic Death, yet protected by his fame and merchandise value. In a recent Action, Luthor threatens to kill him, an act he says no one will care about, but the Grinning Ghoul proudly and confidently states that Batman will and he will go after Lex for it. The Joker has committed the most brutal, heinous and unforgiveable murders and crimes (Barbara Gordon, Jason Todd, Sarah Essen) since he returned to his killing ways in Batman #251 from 1973! Yet he never pays for his crimes and is completely realizes that no hero will try to put him down because that will make them just like him. He's thrown into Arkham Asylum and escapes at will. Chooses a victim and slaughters them at will! Everyone wants to do their Joker story and his slayings multiply. As I say detective comics featured a new style Joker.
More to follow!
Tags:
Why do all Batman's foes have to be killers?
The threat of murder was always there. There were many mysteries that involved the killing of someone. That's standard in all great detective literature. But now, they want more gruesomeness, more slaughter which would be acceptable but you can't have the Joker killing children, then put him in a coloring book!
I concur with Figs that there has to be some ownership of new characters to get the writers and artists to create new characters. There have been five Superman movies and Luthor was in FOUR of them! We need fresh, innovative and dangerous villains. instead of strip-mining the past.
Well, in the second Batman/Punisher crossover, the Punisher was about to shoot the Joker and Batman grabbed the gun and gave some "Not in my town" speech about not killing him.
Glad I didn't pay a lot for the Marvel/DC collections.
Philip Portelli said:
That's the problem with the Joker because everyone wants to use him and keep upping the ante! In Morrison's JLA, he murders 16 children but that is erased but not the fact that it didn't bother him to do it! He gets worse and worse and no one, super-hero, vigilante, cop, criminal just shoot this non-powered clown! Beam the Punisher to the DCU for a day! Frank knows what to do with homicidal maniacs!
There have been five Superman movies and Luthor was in FOUR of them! We need fresh, innovative and dangerous villains. instead of strip-mining the past.
It's sounding like the villains for the 2012 Superman film are shaping up to be Zod, Sam Lane, and Metallo. I think the Geoff John's Superman: Secret Origin storyline is the main blueprint.
At least with Zod and Metallo, Superman will be able to hit something.
While the Joker seems kind of tired and played out to me, there's always a story just around the corner that reinvigorates him. Gotham Central's "Soft Targets" is a perfect example -- in that, he was a fascinating antagonist again.
I don't have a lot of interest these days in arguments that say that the Joker has killed so many people that either the state should execute him, or that it's irresponsible of Batman to keep letting him live. I don't think applying real-world rules to the Joker or Batman does any good. The Joker's evil deeds "reset," I think, once no one mentions them for a while. Yes, he killed Jason Todd (though he got better, so there's that), but did he kill Sarah Essen? When's the last time she was mentioned? You'd think it would come up a lot more than it does, if we're supposed to treat it like it actually happened.
I think there are unspoken fictional rules that allow certain criminals to go largely unpunished, and never for long. Because they're our entertainment, and we'd rather have the genuine article than a pale imitation, even though those are fun to consider for a while -- largely because of what they tell us about the real thing.
I do think he should be used sparingly. But taking him off the table permanently deprives the next generation of their own Joker stories.
The problem is, of course, is that if The Joker is killed off, then that means no more Joker stories.
I'd go for a moratorium, however.
Whoops! I didn't see Rob's response before I posted mine, so I'll just say ... what he said!The problem is, of course, is that if The Joker is killed off, then that means no more Joker stories.
I'd go for a moratorium, however.
Thanks, guys. (I've had a lot of people agree with me lately. Am I becoming -- choke! -- reasonable? I must be off my meds...)
There was a time back when I was an arts & entertainment editor for a suburban newspaper. I brought in a novice writer to write about kid's events, because while she'd never written professionally before, she had a great sense of the sort of events parents want to take their kids to. Thing was, she used exclamation points like she bought 'em wholesale. So all her genuine excitement read like hysteria.
Eventually, I get tired of taking them out. I told her: "Each week, you've got two exclamation points. That's your budget. Use 'em wisely." And man, did it improve not only the sentences where she wasn't using the bangs, but where she was, as well.
That's how I think of Joker appearances. He (and Darkseid) are special. Don't use them until you've found the absolute best place for them, because you only get one shot at these guys. Then put 'em away for the next writer... who can take them back down from the shelf once he or she's earned it, too.
(Strangely enough, I don't think Luthor works with the same treatment. I don't want him always at center stage, but I like him in the wings, threatening to come on at any time.)
No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.
SOME ESSENTIALS:
FOLLOW US:
OUR COLUMNISTS: