Three Jokers #1

[cyberghostface]

“The world doesn’t need just another Batman-Joker story. One of the reasons I've never done one before is because there are so many amazing ones, so I was only gonna do one if it was different and surprising and looked at the Joker and the meaning of the Joker and his effect on Batman and his family in a new way. We’re not introducing a multiverse of Jokers, we’re not out to change these characters forever, but we are turning over some rocks about these characters and their relationships.” -- Geoff Johns

Comments

[thanekos]

Once again, coloring and lettering that do a really good job of reminding the reader of a well known Alan Moore-written story.

[cainofdreaming]

So, Joker is a franchise? Or the Phantom, either or.

[nyadnar17]

Joker Inc.....thats actually kinda hilarious

[zachbeacon]

Now I kinda want "Joker family" to be a thing.

Harley, Punchline, Joker's Daughter, Anarchy, DCAU Tim Drake, maybe a pet hyena with face paint, ect

(I know a lot of them don't really like the Joker but trying to murder each other is just a more extreme version of Batman always being on the outs with at least one Robin)

[reveen]

I like how Golden Age Joker is immediately calling the shots. It's almost like super crime goes better if you take it seriously.

Also, I'm unclear as to what the other two Jokers are supposed to be. I figure ones supposed to be 80s Joker and modern Joker? But that basically amounts to the same Joker. If one's supposed to be a more lighthearted Joker then it's not coming through visually atleast.

[icon_uk]

Agreed, I could have seen

- Creepily sinister Golden Age Joker

- Non lethal but the ultimate showman 50/60's Joker

- Serious criminal with an OTT flair of the 70's/early-80's Joker

- All about the bodycount post-A DitF Joker

But the two non-original Joker's here seem fairly interchangeable.

[mazway_75]

I know folks keep bringing up the images of this with Nicholson, Ledger, Leto (and some even tossing in Phoenix instead in the latter) but yes, would have been more fun getting the brighter Jokers who were more into the prankish and showmanship side.

Seriously, the "Laughing Fish" Joker here would be much better, a guy embarking on a completely insane and ludicrous scheme he knows will never work just for the hell of it.

[filthysize]

I think the interchangeability is intentional, hence the "that's my shirt!" exchange. Based on the focus on Barbara and Jason, I think they're supposed to be "Death in the Family" Joker and "Killing Joke" Joker, which are both from the same era.

[icon_uk]

If it's deliberate, it seems a deuced odd choice to make for a story called "Three Jokers" when they have 80 years worth of Jokers to pick from.

[filthysize]

'70s and '80s. The one with the hat is supposed to be the Jim Aparo Joker and then there's the Brian Bolland Joker. It's why the two main supporting characters are Jason and Barbara.

[lissa_quon]

Thank you - I was thinking I was losing my geek cred. Cause I'm like "but...this is all the same Joker? This isn't three different Jokers this is just one guy talking to himself"

They really should have played with this more cause right now it just feels like an art film.

[mazway_75]

I'm calling it: The big confrontation, the trio there, bragging and yelling on "you can't beat us all, Bats!

Batman: "All? There's only one of you?"

Joker; "What are you talking about, look at us! Three of us all along!"

"No. Only one."

And sure enough, it's just one Joker who's convinced himself he's been working with two other figures as versions of his psyche all along...and starts howling with laughter on playing the best joke on himself.

[cricharddavies]

The last few pages of this first issue would seem to contradict that.

[icon_uk]

Now THAT would be funny...

[silverhammerman]

It’s a strange approach to continuity, but I guess it’s novel. The idea doesn’t really make any sense in the DCU as we know it though. If the Joker has “always” been a shared identity then Batman would be an absolute idiot for somehow not noticing thus far.

It does go a little way to addressing a criticism of this I had in the buildup to the series, which is that the three Jokers are all hopelessly dated. The Killing Joke is the latest touchstone for one of them and that came out over thirty years ago. The idea that the Joker hasn’t meaningfully change in that time (Which has seen The Dark Knight film version and emergence of the Joker as a nigh-unstoppable ultravillain) is flawed on its face. This seems to be somewhat aware of that, which is a good sign.

I still think that the whole project and Geoff Johns late-career fixation on Alan Moore is more than a little silly. In every meaningful way but one, Johns has surpassed Moore. His vision defines the DCU across comics, movies, TV, games, not Moore’s, Johns is the single most influential creator at DC in the 21st century by a wide margin, whereas Moore doesn’t even make comics anymore. All Alan Moore has is the respectability, and I don’t think breathlessly chasing his shadow is going to win that prize for Johns.

[cricharddavies]

"But I want senpai to notice meeeeee!"

[deh_tommy]

“That’s not like I actually liked comics or anything, b-baka!” ~Alan Moore (probably)

[starwolf_oakley]

Which has seen The Dark Knight film version and emergence of the Joker as a nigh-unstoppable ultravillain

Heath Ledger did a great job, but his version of the Joker seemed closer to the Clock King.

"If I tell Batman at exactly this time, he will get there just in time to save Harvey Dent but the cops WON'T get there in time to save Rachel Dawes. And if I duck my head at the right time I won't get knocked out by an explosion on the other side of the police station."

[mazway_75]

It is odd given Moore never wanted to be a regular company guy just put out his unique tales and visions. Johns, on the other hand, lives and breathes classic DC history so wanting to emulate someone who has made his disdain for "corporate comics" very clear is baffling.

[tcampbell1000]

I think there was a time when Alan wanted to be a part of DC's tapestry; it's not like they had to force him to write "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" But that time is long since past, and chasing the '80s seems like an outmoded strategy in any case.

[lucean]

Not only are outdated, but this feels like such a weird story to write after not only Snyder's take on the character, but what Morrison before that. They established that the Joker is someone who changes and used to that to really make the different not only sensible, but to elevate the character to something even larger.

So to go to this and argue it's just a bunch of different Jokers feels so weak after that. While also really continuing with Johns's bizarre relationship with Batman comics. Like no one is forcing him to use a character he does legitimately does not seem to care for and where he continuously continues to fumble, yet here we are again.

[silverhammerman]

I hadn't thought of that aspect, but you're absolutely right. It's not just disconnected from what other people have been doing, it's disconnected from other people having written about the same damn thing. Then again, it would make perfect sense if Geoff Johns tossed out decades of writing and new ideas in favor of superficially responding to or updating comics from the 80's, because that's what he's done for basically his entire career.

Agreed again on the topic of Johns' relationship with Batman. It's clearly not a character he has a huge affinity for, so why is he even doing this? It just goes further to my theory that this book is motivated primarily by chasing prestige/Moore's legacy rather than any true inspiration.

[janegray]

we’re not out to change these characters forever, but we are turning over some rocks about these characters and their relationships.

This line does more to sell the story to me than any marketing.

Btw, I don't get the bike joke. Can somebody explain it to me, please?

[cyberghostface]

The joke is he has someone’s bike after running them over.

[janegray]

Thanks!

[lencannon]

So I had to read this issue because they've been sitting on this nonsense for so long. It's very silly stuff. The perfect trio of Jokers!: THE CRIMINAL. THE COMEDIAN. THE CLOWN.

Which one was the one that cut their own face off and used it as a mask lmao

Couldn't help the extreme reliance on the 9 panel page layout. Really just living in the shadow of Alan Moore in this issue for sure.

Art is fantastic old school stuff though. If you want a very silly comic book that's also too violent for it's own good, here you go.

[tripodeca113]

I hope each subsequent issue adds another three Jokers.

[icon_uk]

Nicola Scott is probably already planning the poster! :)

[tcampbell1000]

I will say this in favor of the issue as a whole: it was an actually enjoyable Jason Todd story, with some very solid interactions between him, Barbara, and Batman. The last panel, I thought, was pretty damn funny.

[beyondthefringe]

I've long maintained a theory that the Joker, like certain other characters, exists as a sanity "safety valve" for the DC universe as a whole, so that the collective subconsciousness of humanity can cope in a world where people break the laws of physics at whim, mass disasters happen constantly, and reality rewrites itself regularly.

The Joker is a malevolent manifestation of insanity, which takes on a new host as necessary, forever changing and adapting, and he exists so everyone else can remain relatively sane. He can never die for good.

Same theory also applies to Ambush Bug and the Creeper, and Madcap and Deadpool over at Marvel. :)

But this take on the Joker existing as something of a franchise is interesting... but it doesn't explain how they could all exist simultaneously and never be noticed before. Unless the One Joker to rule them all is just creating and brainwashing new Jokers to suit his needs, possibly recreating his "greatest hits." (The -real- Death in the Family Joker -did- die at the end of that story when he fell into the water, for instance, but this new copy thinks he's that version.)

I guess we'll see, though.

[icon_uk]

One of my favourite Joker stories is the one that reintroduced him properly post ADitF (apart from his cameo in "A Lonely Place of Dying", where he's recovering from the plane exploding and has completely lost his sense of humour.

There's a Joker impersonator going around committing crimes and murders and the actual Joker is watching it all on TV, basically nitpicking the whole thing, "But that's not a joke.. that's a riddle." and "Why is THAT funny?"

[superfangirl1]

I was hyped before it came out and I'm still hyped for the remaining two issues. but the whole thing hinges on the payoff.

But then again the whole thing hinges on the payoff. I hope there is a very good reasonably why no one, not the doctors in Arkham not not the Gotham police, or even the world's greatest detective, never ever noticed they were dealing with more than one Joker before now.

[donnblake]

I don't believe that this was a consideration in the creation of the story, but there's an interesting legal claim being made over a Sherlock Holmes adaptation that might interact interestingly with the idea of establishing different eras of the Joker as literally different characters.

Basically, all except the last ten Sherlock Holmes stories are now in the public domain, but the Doyle Estate is claiming (somewhat reluctantly, having lost a previous case where they tried to claim that those ten stories should result in Sherlock Holmes being under copyright full-stop) that Sherlock Holmes as he develops over those last ten stories is a distinct character, and the idea that Sherlock Holmes might *care* about his little sister or have a warm relationship with her (or, apparently, like dogs) is still under copyright and requires the payment of a license fee.

Leaving aside the particular merits of that case (although I'm deeply amused by the idea of a judge issuing an official ruling on whether Sherlock Holmes is a Jerk), it's my understanding that in the next ten years or so, unless Disney pushes through new copyright legislation, the early Batman stories will become public domain, and the first Joker story will follow soon after that (early Superman stories too). Now, an awful lot of iconic Batman elements were introduced in the fairly early stories- Batman first appeared in 1939 and by the end of 1940, The Joker, Catwoman, Jim Gordon, Robin, the death of Thomas and Martha Wayne, and the Batmobile had all made their first appearance.

But all of these elements underwent significant development in the eighty years since, and there appears to be a precedent whereby copyright holders can assert rights to specific developments of characters even once those characters have entered the public domain. So it'll be interesting to see how that turns out when someone decides to make a Batman and Joker series without paying for the rights.