Three Jokers #1

[cyberghostface]

"It's in continuity like Killing Joke is. You can take it, or leave it. We are going to introduce some pretty gutsy stuff in Jokers that's never been done before. So the fans can react to it and they can decide if they want it part of main continuity or not, like Killing Joke." -- Jason Fabok

Comments

[alicemacher]

This is all very interesting, but what's with Bullock calling Gordon "Jimbo?" I know Bullock's an "ain't got time fer manners" sort of cop, but unless the two of them are friends, the way the Commissioner is usually portrayed vis-ä-vis Batman (who thus calls him "Jim"), that seems kind of... off.

[lbd_nytetrayn]

I thought he did that in the Animated Series, but my wife says she doesn't remember that, so...

[mazway_75]

I admit, I was bugged how they kept going to those three aspects and ignore the madcap "Laughing Fish" version but at least using it now. And can see long-term aspects of Batman naturally upset about Jason crossing the line like this.

I know it gets flack but one thing that hit me with the Arrowverse Crisis event was showing that Earth-99 Batman who does kill the Joker...and that just opens the floodgates to take out scores of other villains and then even Superman, all for "the greater good" and such. It shows why our Batman still refuses to go that far, he's terrified he turns into the Punisher and tarnishes what he wanted to stand for.

Again, summed up in the "Jason returns' story..

Jason: "I'm not saying kill others, not go on a spree. It's just him. It's just one."
Batman: "It always starts with just one."

[nyadnar17]

Jason: "I'm not saying kill others, not go on a spree. It's just him. It's just one."
Batman: "It always starts with just one."

I think thats true for Batman. The moment Batman kills he ain't stopping ever. That isn't the case for damn near every other superhero or cop in existence because most of them aren't nuts.

Hell at this point aren't Batman and Signal the ONLY members of the Batfamily without confirmed kills?

Only thing that bothers me about this story is the same thing that always bothers me. Why shit on Jason? Why treat him as lesser simply because he thinks and has always thought Batman's no killing no matter what rule was stupid?

[icon_uk]

It's the problem they've had since they brought him back.

Either he's prepared to kill, which automatically makes him a villain to Batman, or he isn't, in which case he doesn't really fill that different a role to most vigilante heroes like Batman or Nightwing, and various writers have had him vacillate between the two like a yoyo.

[mazway_75]

I know folks bring up why not as some can kill and move on like soldiers but come on...this is a guy who dresses up like a bat every night, it's obvious he doesn't think like normal people do.

Even the Batwoman TV show pressed on it when Kate wonders why Batman would just up and quit and leave Gotham and Luke tells her "haven't you wondered why no one has heard from the Joker in years?"

[starwolf_oakley]

Some fans saw BATMAN #650 as Batman breaking the fourth wall to say "Yeah, I don't understand why I don't kill the Joker either."

"I can't. I'm sorry, I just can't."

[janegray]

Hold the fuck on.

Did they seriously retcon Jason's death scene so that he begged for mercy and to become Joker's Robin?

Death In The Family was a terrible story, but its only redeeming trait was that Jason's death was genuinely well-done. He was strong and defiant to the end, and yet kind and compassionate, so much so that he still wanted to sacrifice himself to save the mother who sold him to his murderer.

And they changed it so that Jason wanted to sell out to the Joker?

Burn this. Bury the ashes into a cement pillar. And drop the pillar into the ocean.

[agent8]

well , we only have Joker's word for that. Not exactly who you'd call and unbiased, reliable witness. Unless and until further information comes out I'm putting it under the heading of Joker trying to play mind-games with the Bat-clan.

[armycat23]

Jason looked like he was taking Joker's words to heart aka that the Joker was telling the truth. I doubt he would have pulled the trigger, if only for batman's sake, if the Joker was lying. Especially since he wasnt 100% sure it was the real Joker.

Also, a good manipulator doesn't need to lie. They know the truth is often the knife that digs the deepest. The Joker is a master manipulator and one of his themes is getting under people's skin...not by lies, but by the truth that people try to ignore.

[kurenai_tenka]

Honestly that death scene has been re-written and rectonned so many times, it isn't really worrying me. Every version of it gets progressively longer- the original was basically just a page with no dialogue, but every later version seems to have a load of talking and go on for ages.

I didn't really take it as 'selling out', that seems like an overly mean interpretation, just desperation.

[deepspaceartist]

There's only the (well, A) Joker saying this, and there's a real possibility he isn't even the Joker that was there. And for Jason that event is just smothered in all sorts of trauma. Both the mental type and the physical 'got hit in the head repeatedly by a crowbar' type. So it wouldn't be too unreasonable to say that Jason himself doesn't have a clear memory of what exactly was said there, and thus could fear that he really did break at the end.

Honestly, I think the best twist this series could do with regard to the Joker that killed Jason is have him already dead for years. Say that when Superman saved Batman from the crashing helicopter the two were in shortly after Jason's death, the Joker that killed Jason actually died in that crash. (And I guess say that the killer Joker had time to pass on details of the death to the other two, so that they could taunt Batman and maintain the illusion that there's just one of them.)

[reveen]

I still have no idea how the Jokers who aren't Golden Age Joker are supposed to be different. Are they trying to draw some arbitrary distinction between Killing Joke Joker and the Joker that killed Jason Todd? Because, y'know, they're pretty damn similar.

[donnblake]

I almost think that might be intentional, as they seem to be having trouble telling the difference themselves? But then, in that case what's the point of having two of them?

I'm a little confused.

[reveen]

Yeah, it's a neat concept if you want to examine the Joker as a character. You can have lots of different Jokers as the midpoint between 80s - modern psycho Joker and Golden Age Joker. Goofy Silver Age Joker, dangerous but not edgy 70s Joker, a more showman-like animated series type Joker. Whatever is needed to represent the history of the character.

But as it stands it just seems like any other story about psycho Joker running around doing nasty shit, except now there's two of them and a more lucid Joker calling the shots.

[icon_uk]

Yeah, I really don't understand the choices that have been made for this story.

[silverhammerman]

The two are incredibly close, especially since a glance here seems to suggest that Johns' take on TKJ is "scary evil" instead of "monstrous but tragically broken". That flat reading of the characters makes them incredibly similar and only exacerbates the fact that this stories' Joker touchstone are more than 30 years out of date. We've got both TKJ Joker and Death in the Family Joker, seemingly indistinguishable, but no acknowledgement of influential takes by Grant Morrison or Scott Snyder, let alone the culture touchstone that is Heath Ledger's, or even the distressingly resonant Joaquin Phoenix version.

In fact, if you look back at the earliest seeding of this story in Darkseid War, the Jokers shown are Golden Age, Bronze Age, and Modern (Scott Snyder's version). I'm curious the point at which that changed and why. I mean, I expect it's that Johns is lazy and doesn't care about anyone's vision but his own, rooted as it is in his childhood and his newfound desperate need to one-up Alan Moore.

[kurenai_tenka]

I'm guessing Snyder's one was nixed because it's no longer relevant/current... and the others just because they wanted to ref those stories (and needed TKJ and DITF for Barbara and Jason).

[silverhammerman]

Point taken about Snyder's version of the character, though I would protest that his vision of the DCU in general is still the defining one right now, and his take on the Joker was the last distinct high profile version before the character reverted to more or less factory settings.

I don't think anyone could have or would have told Johns no if he'd actually wanted any version of the character, but it does seem likely that he realized his story worked better if TKJ and DITF were two different dudes. Which, IMO is a flaw with the story and Johns' whole disconnect with anyone else's ideas circa after 1990, but that's just who he is.

[kurenai_tenka]

I agree about Johns ultimately getting his way whatever it was.

I can see why they've gone with TKJ/DITF as separate versions, but it doesn't really make sense when they're so ridiculously close together time-wise, and not so distinct personality-wise to justify it. It seems more that Johns' arbitrarily ascribed personality traits to each one, rather than them being fully based on a specific story. I mean, I wouldn't say vintage Joker was super serious all the time either, but that's how it's gone with the 'Criminal' iteration.

I think Snyder's version is probably too 'out there' and doesn't really match the others visually (since they are all very similar looking too). Whereas you can update the older Jokers to be visually cohesive, face-mask is always going to stand out like a sore thumb, and probably isn't going to be as 'timeless' as what Johns claims to be going for. I doubt that particular Joker era will survive future reboots, honestly.

[lego_joker]

I've said this before - but I can actually see the logic here. TKJ Joker was a small-stakes nihilist who literally wasn't interested in anything but proving a philosophical point. DITF Joker was so pragmatic and mercenary* that at least one poster here has theorized he was originally supposed to be some generic one-shot arms dealer, and Starlin had to change it a "name" villain so there'd be proper gravitas to a Robin's death.

*Again, excluding the U.N. leg of the story, which goes straight into batshit-even-for-the-Joker territory.

[reveen]

I mean, if that is the intended reading then that kind of sucks in of itself. Because that relies on not just knowing the difference between the different eras of the Joker, but having a read on the subtle characterization differences of the Joker in two different stories and actually caring about them (because DITF was kinda dumb, right?).

That takes it from a story meant to be interesting to knowledgeable comics fans to a story meant to really pedantic and obsessive comics fas.

[lego_joker]

Eh, I don't really disagree this whole project was based on a sucky foundation, but the more I think about it the more I figure that's because the Joker, for all his long history, is actually one of DC's most consistent characters. He's never had sustained periods of anti-heroism or even conscience; in any era he's always the most unrepentant crook in the room.

The only really big characterization divide I can think of is "wants money and other normal criminal ends" vs. "devotes all energy to tormenting anyone and everyone 'cuz Life Is A Joke", but even that's only enough to support two separate takes.

(This may well have been a more interesting premise with Luthor, who's genuinely toyed with a ton of different motivations as well as m.o.'s over the ages. Hmmm...)

[shakalooloo]

Unidentifiable? Their facial features still seem to be intact, and if you match those against any recent missing persons it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out who they were.

[lbd_nytetrayn]

Batman and whoever he was talking to pointed out they were likely homeless, meaning there might not be any missing person reports on file for them.

[donnblake]

Unfortunately, in life, they all wore glasses. Without them? Unidentifiable.

[lissa_quon]

YEA I was having a bit of an issue there.

We can DNA test ancient chemically preserved mummies - but not these guys. Also yea their faces are definitely intact. Dental Records? Nope? Okay...y'all just not feeling it tonight I guess.

[silverhammerman]

So I guess that's the explanation for why no one had yet picked up on the fact that there are apparently three Jokers. No fingerprints, DNA (somehow?) doesn't work, and they can't do dental records (though I point out that the broken jaw would set and thereafter be consistent so the Joker himself would be identifiable that way). It's a bit contrived, not to mention nonsensical, but it's an explanation.

I still think it's just peak Geoff Johns to do this story with the characters talking about how they need a new kind of Joker, when the story is using this 30+ year old version of the character, with no mention of the many subsequent takes on the character.

[sabertoothlotus]

yeah, I'm wondering which of them is the one who had his own face surgically removed only to staple it back on later.

[icon_uk]

He's the one they don't invite to the Thanksgiving Dinner because, even by their standards, he's just weird.

[tcampbell1000]

I admit it, I enjoyed a lot of this and laughed out loud at the last page for like a full minute. Between this and his portrayal by Tom Taylor, Jason Todd is getting surprisingly tolerable lately. And the crunchy interpersonal dynamics were a welcome surprise.

That said, (true nerd confessions) I enjoyed Rise of Skywalker too, in the moment. It was only after the spectacle and family-viewing experience wore off that I was like, "Wait, this doesn't really line up with the last film nearly as well as it wants us to think it does, to say nothing of what it does to Return of the Jedi." I have a feeling I might walk away from the last issue of this series with the same reaction: it's biting off more than I've normally seen Johns chew. (It's hard to see how Jason retains his position as even black sheep of the Batfamily after this, and the larger story logic issues are challenging to say the least.) But hey, first-issue optimism.

[kurenai_tenka]

Well, I loved it, so.

Although I am a bit nervous, as I don't really want to see the next Joker du jour be as unpleasant to Barbara as this one was to Jason. That won't come across well.

[shakalooloo]

I predict that Joker #2 will end up getting crippled in some way as some measure of 'payback', whether intentionally or through accident.

[kurenai_tenka]

You're probably spot on.

Though I think he'll also have to die after, I imagine they're aiming to end up with 1 Joker remaining (probably a new one) by the end of it.

[strejdaking]

I get what most likely happened is Geoff Johns deciding he needs one Joker for Jason and one Joker for Barbara, but using The Death in the Family and Killing Joke as being two seperate versions of a character so famous for how transformative there's been in-universe explanation for it over decade prior to this, is just bizarrely dumb. There is no contrast, both stories came out the same freaking year!

[shadowpsykie]

I don’t hate this... poor Jason... and Rabat’s. Batman should know BETTER than to leave the two most traumatized members of his family with their traumatizer.

[magnetoisright]

Hole-y Joker, Batman!

I'm sorry I don't know what was going through my brain when I made that pun...I do however know what was going through the Joker's

And so Jason Todd finally does what one of the Bat family should have done about thirty years ago at this point

As far as I'm concerned he did nothing wrong here