[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Tbh I prefer the theory (that the directors have not denied) that the Joker in this is not actually THE Joker at all, and rather that the Joker who is batman's nemesis was just inspired by the aesthetic.

My reason for this is that the entire point of the Joker is that he is an "avatar of chaos". There is no how or why to him, there is no complex trauma behind him, he just IS, because he enjoys it, the violence and chaos, for no reason that anyone would understand.

It's the same reason that while I love Ledger's performance in Dark Knight Rises, he isn't my "best joker" in terms of the lore. But the Nolan films in general are really more interpretations of than representations of Batman lore (Batman is underskilled and underpowered, the tech / Batmobile etc is a more "realistic" take, etc.)

But yeah. I haven't seen Joker and it might be a great standalone film (I've read mixed reactions) BUT no matter what, I stand by my opinion that explaining the Joker ruins the Joker.

In the canon comics, the Joker's real name is never given; some elseworlds and movies call him Jack Napier though.

I don't think this is THE Joker because THE Joker started out as a criminal called Red Hood (One). He fell into a vat of chemicals which drove him insane, and bleached his skin and greened his hair. So it's not clown makeup he wears, the chemicals literally turned him into a 'clown'.

#DCFanboy

But then I've not seen Joker yet.