I don't understand why people bitch about the Joker having a defined origin and a name...

I don't understand why people bitch about the Joker having a defined origin and a name, what's interesting about a character's past being vague for no other reason than just because? It's like if Wolverine past was never revealed he would have remained a mystery box that contains nothing...

Attached: Joker.jpg (651x686, 144.25K)

>Killing Joke used by newbies to say that they want the Joker's origin to be multiple choice
>newbies forget that the multiple choice line is in the definitive Joker origin
They have no reason to want it to be unknown, aside from The Killing Joke saying it.

Joker's past has always been defined. The whole reason we know his wife's name was Jeanie was because of a follow-up issue where there are canon flashbacks and photographs taken of her and him together, taken by Riddler and used as ransom to make Joker help him.
But I don't like Joker having a name because they always sound lame. "Jack Napier" is fucking gay. Arthur Fleck is a little better but not much. It's cooler just leaving it unspoken

How about Joe Kerr?

For years I thought the Jack Napier origin story was the real one, didn't cripple me to learn it was only 1 of over a dozen origin stories. Wouldn't kill me if he had a definitive one just as long as it wasn't written by a hack millennial

Attached: The Killing Joke_5eab7fdf63f295.68971999.jpg (900x704, 194.11K)

>what's interesting about a character's past being vague for no other reason than just because
It's more enticing to talk about it and speculate. If we know for sure Joker was born John Davis on January 14th, 1990 to Martin and Deborah Davis and had an uninteresting life until in his 20s he turned to crime then that's it for him. Anything else writers pull out of their asses is a shitty retcon.

Except you're so retarded that you don't even realize that they retell origins every few years. Think about how many times Superman's origin has been retold.
Oh? What's that? You don't read comics? And you just want to have an opinion?
Yeah, I already knew. That's the MO of "no Joker backstory"fags.

What does that affect, or how does that change the post you’re replying to?

So let me get this straight: I should not care about Joker having a hard defined canonical origin because they'll change what the hard defined canonical origin is?
My good man, you are the retard. His canon changing is one thing, him having no definite origins is another entirely.

>what's interesting about a character's past being vague for no other reason than just because?
Gee i dunno, makes you wonder why that has been the most interesting point in Joker's history for more than 30 fucking years.

You’re ripping the Killing Joke out context.
Joker got introduced in 1940. For most regular recurring criminals, they used their real name/face, or had an origin story within their first appearance. Joker was different because he lacked both characteristics. He had a made up name, a distorted face, and no explanation for why he was. Most of Jokers golden age comics end by showing or heavily implying that the Joker is dead, only for him to return to life in the next comic.
For ten years, that’s how the Joker operated.
In the eleventh year, he was given an origin. In the comic “The Man Behind The Red Hood,” Batman, Robin, and a criminology class investigate an old cold case on the mysterious Red Hood, a mob boss whose identity was secret, and who suddenly disappeared after confronting Batman one day. The ending reveals that the Red Hood escaped Batman in a runoff pipe, but it bleached his skin and colored his hair, and he became the Joker. Red Hood and Joker both are never given real names. He wouldn’t have a real name for thirty-seven more years. The story though was his definitive origin, it got retold and reprinted in various comics.
The Killing Joke deliberately changes the well-known and established story. Red Hood was no longer a gang leader, but a poor desperate man. His whole family story never appeared before. He no longer had committed a series of crimes, with the chemical heist to be his last one, instead the chemical heist is meant to be his only crime.
After you see this alternative backstory, Joker goes “sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another. If I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice.”
The problem is comics fans don’t read Golden Age comics anymore. They refuse to read anything written before 1985. So they honestly believe that The Killing Joke is Jokers first and definitive origin, and since he’s named Jack in the movie it must be his official name

And yes, before you say anything, I am aware that a few comics do refer to his real name being Jack after the movie came out. That hardly stuck

Attached: MELVIN MELVIN COUSIN OF THE JOKER.jpg (1114x1408, 1.76M)

Joker was born to destroy Society, despite Batman's efforts. He is like a force of nature...

This, and even TKJ keeps the Red Hood thing vague because its a mantle for various criminals so there was still other Red Hoods out there if Joker wasn't the only one. so there's no reason to 100% believe Joker because there were other cases of the Red Hood doing crimes with no evidence to who they were.

He was also a mob enforcer named Jack Napier in the animated series. If it’s good enough for Bruce Timm it’s good enough for me I guess. Jokerwank is kinda gay.

That was more forced upon them like making Penguin a fat mutant orCatwoman blonde.

Same reason people don't like legacies? They like what they have and don't want something different.

>I'm Amanda Mywurd
>no one bats an eye

Attached: 1660432995036.png (1271x659, 416.58K)

I thought it was Amanda Hugankis.

I remember The Batman cartoon also named him Jack in the episode where Batman gets inside his mind i believe

Is this damage control for that recent reveal