Talk:Joker (graphic novel)

Good job editing the plot.

The blow-by-blow plot description was quite problematic. I'd love to know how anybody got the impression that Joker shot the Riddler at the end of their meeting. I have a hard enough time understanding things that definitely were said and done. For example, what was in that briefcase from the Riddler? And why did Joker say "That makes us even" to Jonny, after raping his wife, for chrissakes?!? Confusing enough story as it is!

I did the plot summary for Batman: Secrets -- you might say that's a bit too brief.

I do wish there was some way for this article to indicate that Azzarello's Joker is so much more brutal and hateful, so much less whimsical or witty.

--63.25.251.205 (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the graphic novel, after the meeting with the Riddler, in fact the next panel after you see Riddler for the last time, Jonny something like "the meeting went off without a hitch, unless you count the one in Riddler's hip." And they never specified what was in the briefcase. Joker just kept on alluding that it was something that could get rid of one of Harvey's dual personalities. Otherwise, I didn't really specifiy, except saying it's contents are not told to the reader. Then, the Joker says that makes us even, that's probably because Jonny didn't tell Joker he visited Harvey Dent. Or, maybe it's because it's the Joker, and he's pretty much insane.

"If you read the graphic novel" . . . ? "If you read" . . . !

I don't think you intended it -- assume good faith, and all that -- but this is rather insulting. Did you think I was just leafing through, looking at all the cool pictures, and the BLAM, POW, BANG stuff?

I did, in fact, read Jonny Frost's narration, along with all the dialogue (I even squinted under a bright light to read the "Divorce Document" in the crooked detective's first scene). I just don't know how anyone could take "The deal with the Riddler went off without a hitch... That is, if you didn't count the one in his hip" the way you did. That seems to be merely a frivolous and semi-mocking reference to Riddler's handicapped condition. As for the visuals, they show us the Riddler getting in his car unharmed, while Joker tries to continue the verbal jousting (which Riddler clearly wants no part of -- hmm, interesting.)

I'm pretty sure if there was gonna be any gunplay, especially between two major characters like Joker and the Riddler, it would be shown, not vaguely referenced. Not to mention, Joker and his crew are completely unharmed in the first scene after the Riddler deal. If Joker had fired a shot, there would have been a bloodbath (just like the one that does occur soon after!), because Riddler had at least as many armed goons as Joker did.

I just think you've seriously misread that section, misinterpreted Jonny Frost's narration. There are other bits of Jonny's narration that confuse me -- in fact, two pages later from the one you're referencing: "They were cops. Off duty, but on a payroll. The one I was... Could be... ...on myself. The time Dent mentioned had come."

Still puzzled by the briefcase, are we all? "Impossible to steal" . . . "Getting everyone's attention" . . . and is this case the same one Dent refers to in their meeting? How does he know what's in it? (Really, I don't know why I like this book so much . . . there's so much gobbledegook!)

--63.25.126.16 (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And you did the same thing when you edited the plot saying whoever wrote this is an idiot, and no, I meant that if you read that section on the book, you would have seen it.

Plus, Penguin has plenty of guys under him he could use to take joker out, but he didn't. Joker killed Tommy, yet none of tommy's guys killed him. Plus, you see Riddler looking scared and see Joker approaching, and seeing how insane joker is, I wouldn't doubt one second.

Plus, it could be way worse. If they had Joker narrating the story, no one would be able to make heads or tails of it. Deavenger (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. I can't make heads or tails of your comment. Let me just say, right up front, I have never edited this, or any Wikipedia article, to read "Whoever wrote this is an idiot". Nor do I ever say such things on Talk pages, except in terms of vandals, trolls, bigots, and the like -- I'll criticize them, without hesitation. Not anyone who seems to be trying to contribute. Like I just said in my last comment to this thread, "Assume Good Faith" There is no reason to assume anyone is an idiot, a liar, or a vandal, just because they say something you disagree with. I assume that you are here to help this article be the best it can be. I just happen to think you've wildly misinterpreted some things.

If you want to believe the Joker shot the Riddler in the hip, perhaps through the door of his nice, shiny BMW . . . only Azzarello and Bermejo thought this was too boring to bother drawing (I mean, really, it's only a showdown between Batman's #1 and #2 most infamous villains) . . . you go right ahead and believe it. After Nigma went through the trouble of stealing the "impossible to steal", came to Joker, and sold it to him . . . Joker repaid him by blowing a hole through him and his sweet ride . . . but it didn't become a gang war, none of the armed thugs fired a shot, because nobody in Joker's gang has a scratch on 'em afterwards . . . and you can read all this off of Nigma's and Joker's faces . . . you go right ahead and enjoy yourself, believing that. Just be sure to watch it with the "if you read it"-type comments, because they are (unintentionally) insulting. And I guess I don't have to tell you, but this interpretation doesn't belong in the article.

I went straight from reading Sam Kieth's Batman: Secrets to reading Joker. Wow, what a stretch. I think my imagination got whiplash! As far the "classic" Joker goes, I'd say Kieth's is a perfect representation. It's a Killing Joke-type of story, but the art definitely pays homage to Arkham Asylum. He's got the "classic" personality, too -- devious, scheming, but also babbling constantly, from witty to childish, from flirty to sadistic. I think, if it weren't for Azzarello and Bermejo, the Batman community might be holding up Secrets as THE Joker tale of a generation.

And then there's poor old Lover & Madmen, which doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article yet! But it's a damn fine reworking of the origin, for those of us who couldn't stomach the "suffering comedian" version. And if they got anything right, it's the genuinely schizophrenic style of talking: Coherent statements littered with free association -- word salad. True insanity. It's almost as "fresh" and "new" as this Joker, but the two couldn't be more different.

I just mention all this so you believe, I am a true Batman fan who particularly loves the Joker, and Joker. I felt just the way Jonny Frost did, in the end, that last night in Joker's "sandbox". I used to be a late-night 7-11 clerk. And I used to be the security guard in an old-folks home. I was sorry I'd been rooting for the Joker all along. This graphic novel put me through a process. It changed me.

My efforts here are only to make the article the best it can be, and to have fun doing it.

I hope we've got no hard feelings here. I'm glad you're here, you have contributed a lot to this article that I do appreciate. Your plot description of Dec. 27, which was written some weeks after I made my complaint, shows a pretty full understanding of the story, characters, and their motivations. Maybe throwing out the concept of a long plot description was not the way to go in reworking this article, after all.

--63.25.16.51 (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. My bad, you're IP address was somewhat similar to one that edited the plot calling me an idiot, but it's hard for me to keep track of which IPs are who, as many IPs continually switch their IP addresses by going to a different computer. Sorry about that.

And you're right about the entire bullet in the hip thing. This is the first time I'm actually trying to write the plot of something. I usually stick to more academic stuff. But, the article plot is still to short. I mean, the Watchmen article is a featured class article, and it's plot line describes all the important parts of the story, and the ending without being to long. I was trying to do that the second time that you linked, but that also got reverted.

As for other stories like Lover & Madmen, first, double check to make sure there's not a wiki article on it. And if you want, I can create the article if you can give me the plot basics and all that so I can use it to start, or create your own account and start it. Deavenger (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The plot, is way to short. I made it long, so one of the editors could come and shorten it up revealing the plot like they do in other comic articles, and not summarize the whole story in 2 sentences. I could summarize the entire story of watchmen in 2 sentences about. 'Watchmen is set in an alternate reality which closely mirrors the contemporary world of the 1980s. However, a possible hero killer comes which soons reveals a bigger plot'. However, this barley touches on any of the heroes, or how it's not really a hero killer at all!

As for talking about Azzarello's Joker, I believe in the IGN link, the reviewer mentions how this is not the Joker that anybody will be seeing in the movies any time real soon, and there are probably many more articles and interviews that make similar comments on Azzarello's Joker.Deavenger (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I expect that, if you go through the various reviews (there are three more to use on the external links) I think you'll be able to find plenty on Azzarello's approach to the story, as the reception can be more than simply "I thought it was great", "I liked it," etc. (in fact that could just end up sounding like a press release). Obviously different people are going to pick up on different ideas and angles but with enough of them you can provide a good rounded overview of how people thought the different elements worked.

Yes the plot, as it stands, is too short but it is better to start off short and build it up rather than throw it all in an expect someone else to trim it down (a big problem with series where people go blow-by-blow and then expect someone else to whittle it all into a concise plot summary when the story is done). (Emperor (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

Yeah. I was planning on maybe trimming it down during the weekend when I had more time to look over it and get rid of anything if nobody else had done it by then. Deavenger (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is where this comment should go, but I don't want to create a new tab since it's small; I edited the Heath Ledger quote you use in the section on Batman. It originally stated "I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you? You complete me!"

The actual full quote is :"Kill you? I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you? Go back to rippin' off mob dealers? No, no, no. You complete me." So I just shortened the quote in the article to "Kill you? I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you?"; I realize that's one hell of a nitpick, but I figured the less misquotes the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.219.60 (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not just pills and booze

Am I the only one who noticed the big-ass piles of cocaine in Joker's bedroom? And it looks like he keeps bags of the stuff in a tray in the living room. I think it's safe to say that this version of the Joker uses pretty much everything. No wonder Jonny was so proud of partying with the dude. <g>

--63.25.225.49 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The classic Joker's fixed smile

Just a good-natured neener-neener-neener to User:92.232.113.82, who said, in his Edit Summary:

"The Joker does not have a fixed smile in the comic books. That was an invention of the 1989 film."

Methinks somebody forgot to read Batman No. 1, Spring 1940, reprinted in just about every collection of early Batman stories, as it features the Joker's first two appearances ever. And while his expression does actually change slightly from panel to panel, the narration consistently describes his cold, mirthless smile as being "fixed" or "frozen", his face "mask-like". In fact, when he's unconscious and the Dynamic Duo believes him to be dead, he is still grinning -- "Still grinning in death!" Robin marvels, and Batman (who had become rather yacky by this point in his career) pompously decrees, "Yes, and when the flesh is gone, the grinning skull will still carry the sign of the Joker into eternity!"

Of course, we all know how that turned out . . . .
--63.25.97.165 (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Joker's pills.

I noticed somebody changed the "(presumably opioids)" to "(presumably Ecstacy)". Now, Ecstacy is the one popular drug that these pills most likely aren't. Joker's pills come in prescription bottles -- orange bottles with labels. This means they are likely to be either "diverted" prescriptions, or else Joker knows somebody who goes doctor shopping all day. So, I changed it to "(presumably opioids and benzodiazepines)", the two most popular abusable prescription drugs. I guess some amphetamines are available by prescription, too. Hmm.

Really, though -- When was the last time you saw a prescription for Ecstacy?!?
--Ben Culture (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradicts itself

This article contradicts itself regarding the Joker's appearance. In the opening section it says that The Dark Knight (film) co-opted Heath Ledger's "design" (costume & make-up) from this artist's rendering. Then lower down in the article, it says that Ledger's resemblance to this Joker is purely coincidental. Both cannot be true, and I'm somewhat skeptical either claim holds water... 76.123.241.114 (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, if this even needs to be said, it wasn't Heath Ledger's design (costume and makeup) in The Dark Knight; other people designed the Joker's look, while Ledger did the acting.

Secondly, yes, the similarities are coincidental. This graphic novel took a lot of "lead time" (from conception to publishing) especially because most of the panels are painted, rather than pencilled by one person, then inked by another, and colored by a third. So they had their idea for the Joker's look before any visuals of Heath Ledger in Joker makeup were available. There wasn't any sneaky-sneaky collaboration between Warner Brothers and DC Comics. Besides, there are just as many differences as there are similarities. The guy in this book just doesn't look like Heath Ledger. And his skin really is white all over, as we see when he finally takes a glove off. He doesn't even seem to be accentuating his looks with makeup, like the classic Joker has been shown doing with lipstick and such. And though the graphic novel's Joker goes through two or three outfits, variations on a theme, he never arrives at Heath Ledger's outfit.

I understand your skepticism, but if Azzarello and Bermejo had had collusion with the filmmakers, they would have said so. It would have benefited them, making them "insiders", adding a certain coolness factor, -- and to lie about it could be very damaging if the lie was found out.

--Ben Culture (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternate reality?

Where is it said that this story takes place in an alternate reality? It seems that people make this assumption because there are a handful of creative differences from regular continuity, but comic book characters get varying portrayals all the time... particularly the Joker, who has this as part of his stated character. I've looked around and found no official word on it. At the very least this should be marked as needing citation.

--MrBlonde267 (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those things that is so overwhelmingly obvious, I never needed to be told by anyone in authority that it's an alternate universe, and I shake my head in confusion to think that somebody doesn't just automatically "get it". But I know better than to take this awareness, this knowing, and edit a Wikipedia article with it.

Me, I would have thought you could just take one look at Croc, for example, and figure it out. That is not a somewhat different appearance, that is a structurally-different being. Likewise Harley Quinn's radically different personality, or, oh, I dunno, The Riddler's heretofore-nonexistent disability, or, duh, maybe this Joker's prominent facial scars, not to mention the unprecedented masculinity, crudity, and sexuality of this Joker. These sort of radical or structural changes absolutely are not made, as you seem to be saying, "all the time". Not without explanations. They. Are. Not. But I would imagine you've been told all this already.

--Ben Culture (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

List of characters

I don't think this section is neccesary, since everyone but the narrator and an un-named detective have thier own entries. I wanted other opinions before I remove it, though. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess no one else minds, so I'm taking it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argento Surfer (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That edit was fine, but I notice you've really hacked and slashed the article, with only the insufficient explanation "Way too much detail".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joker_(graphic_novel)&oldid=509428077

Why is it "too much detail" that Monty was flayed from the neck down -- when the article has consistently harped on the unnecessary detail that Joker addresses the Penguin as "Abner"? I notice you left that alone. I think that's ridiculous. I'm definitely putting it back in that Monty was flayed. That Joker and Harley are capable of -- and clearly enjoy -- committing such a gruesome murder is very relevant, indeed. What isn't relevant -- or even an established fact -- is whether or not Monty owns the Grin and Bare It, or if Joker owned it beforehand. These are likely, but not definite facts. But you didn't delete them, because you would have had to re-write as well. I note you didn't delete anything that required you to re-write.

Whoever wrote the part about Jonny's pet toad, well . . . they didn't write it very well. But you could have taken the time to re-write it, rather than axing the whole thing, because it's central to Jonny's fatal delusion that he understands the Joker. It's easy to delete stuff, and a lot of the time it's just lazy. Wikipedia is not USA TODAY. We have the space to be thorough, and we are free to be boring, in the interest of including all relevant facts. It's not about being "tight" and "punchy" with a minimum of "high-impact" words.

That this Joker glued jagged bits of broken glass to his fingers is one of the more relevant details of the character -- it mirrors the traditional Joker's electrocuting joy-buzzer, with whimsy replaced by horror -- which could be said to be the philosophy behind this story (although naturally I wouldn't say so in the article, but the fact must be there in order for the reader to reason it out for themselves). I myself have put the bit about the glass in there, and it's been deleted, but this version you deleted isn't my writing. Somebody else thought it was relevant, too. It isn't great writing, but again, you could have fixed it instead of deleting it. It looks like you just removed every sentence or fragment you found problematic.

Even as you were removing the bit about the broken glass, you didn't edit "Joker murders all of Dent's men", which isn't true: Harley Quinn killed all of Dent's men. She didn't even do it on a signal from Joker -- he atttacked Dent, so they raised their guns, whereupon she instantly shot them all in their heads. No way can that be pinned on the Joker. While you were removing a fragment that was missing an apostrophe and misspelled "embedded", you left a false statement in there.

You remove motivations for a character's actions, so it looks like a goofy book about silly people doing senseless things. Harvey Dent pleads with Batman to stop the Joker, for no apparent reason. Joker and Jonny come home to find a broken window, so they flee in fear. Finally, Jonny jumps off a bridge for the sheer hell of it.

I hope you have backed off this article for now, because so far, I think you've done more harm than good. I just did a number of small edits in the hopes of making the article once again accurate and sensible. For example, the sentence: Joker trashes a phone, kills a goon, and then sets the "Grin and Bare It" on fire. I replaced "kills a goon" with "kills one of his own henchmen". ("Henchmen" was just a preference; I could have kept "goon"; it doesn't matter.) But "kills a goon" was meaningless. Yes, it's shorter, but shorter does not connote better. That it was one of his OWN men is what's significant about it; otherwise, why even mention it? But to delete it would be wrong (and to delete it while leaving "trashes a phone" would be tragic). As far as I know, you had nothing to do with that sentence, but I cite it as an example of how, often, more is more, rather than the popular but oft-misunderstood "less is more".

What usually happens is the reverse of what I've done: Someone whittles "kills one of his own henchmen" down to "kills a goon", which offers little of meaning, so someone else says "Why is that there? It doesn't seem important", and deletes it altogether. In such a case, less is just less.

I apologize for the length of this comment, but I wanted to get this across to you in detail before you start taking your axe to my edits. Hopefully that's been averted.

--Ben Culture (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't think my edit summary was sufficient, I thought it mostly spoke for itself. As to why I left in Abner...I probably missed it. I can't say for sure, because this was forever ago. I edit from work. Sometimes I'm pressed for time. As for why I didn't rewrite parts - this may have been before I read the book. I often prune summaries for books I haven't read because I feel that gives me a unique perspective on what's actually relavant.

It's unfortunate you feel I've harmed the article, but my edits have received much more praise than criticism in my short tenure. I'll try to keep your criticisms in mind, but I probably won't be changing my style in the rare occasions when I edit now. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Original Synthesis: "This makes us even, no?"

Our article currently states:

After helping Frost get his ex-wife Shelly back from Dent, Joker rapes her. He says this makes them even, since Frost "cheated" on the Joker by not revealing his own meeting with Dent.

This explanation of Joker's "That makes us even, no?" is pretty good, but it's clearly Original Synthesis. A lot of people would delete it right now, leaving off at "He says this makes them even."

But I'm not like that. Too much "when in doubt, delete" has made this article rather dry and minimalist already. No fun. Joker's statement was, after all, one of the more confusing and unexplained parts of the story, along with "Why's he calling Oswald Cobblepot 'Abner'?" and "What the hell's in that briefcase, anyway?" It's fair to guess that a number of people would come to this article specifically in the hopes of getting some sort of explanation. Unfortunately, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to explain such things, especially the strange statements of a psychopath known for his insanity.

So I'm putting it out there: The explanation should be deleted. I'll give it some time, see if anybody else has an opinion.

--Ben Culture (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joker (graphic novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109030025/http://www.brokenfrontier.com/lowdown/details.php?id=532 to http://www.brokenfrontier.com/lowdown/details.php?id=532

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)