What do you think about the Joker being almost inevitably more interesting than Batman, at least in the movies.? That may be just me, but I think it isn’t. Or maybe the Joker is more obvious in what is interesting about his character.
Great question honestly. I would agree with you that the character is more interesting in most instances. And you may be on to something with his idiosyncrasies being more in our face.
Probably a combination of things I would wager. But I think the main reason is because he’s such a great foil to Batman. Could be wrong, but if the Joker was a nemesis of Spider-Man’s, I think he would be less interesting. It really is like a dance between chaos and order. And chaos can be fun
I think many people are drawn into the anarchism and chaotic nature of the joker. I’m thinking mainly in the context of the Nolan films now, but many of his motivations are actually sympathetic. His methods less so haha but perhaps that’s why. Who doesn’t love the scene where he burns the pile of cash
The basic pattern is the Joker is doing something ‘fun’ and Batman ruins his fun. Joker gets to mend statements and do things, even if they are destructive. We get into his motives and can understand him. His chaos is an open invitation.
Batman is closed and reactive. We never get inside him. He IS darkness. He can try to keep Gotham safe, but he can’t actually DO anything to make it better.
Batman is stuck. Without the Joker he doesn’t exist.
Really interesting interpretation! I like it. Batman definitely is reactionary, or perhaps a necessary counterbalance. I think this is in line with my argument about the gargoyle. He's very similar to that which he is built to repel. But the gargoyle is not the church which it protects and is unable to renew/cleanse.
To your last question, I think the answer is no - or at least not fully. Which makes him not only deeply engaging but allows for insightful conversations like we're having!
What do you think about the Joker being almost inevitably more interesting than Batman, at least in the movies.? That may be just me, but I think it isn’t. Or maybe the Joker is more obvious in what is interesting about his character.
Great question honestly. I would agree with you that the character is more interesting in most instances. And you may be on to something with his idiosyncrasies being more in our face.
Probably a combination of things I would wager. But I think the main reason is because he’s such a great foil to Batman. Could be wrong, but if the Joker was a nemesis of Spider-Man’s, I think he would be less interesting. It really is like a dance between chaos and order. And chaos can be fun
I think many people are drawn into the anarchism and chaotic nature of the joker. I’m thinking mainly in the context of the Nolan films now, but many of his motivations are actually sympathetic. His methods less so haha but perhaps that’s why. Who doesn’t love the scene where he burns the pile of cash
The basic pattern is the Joker is doing something ‘fun’ and Batman ruins his fun. Joker gets to mend statements and do things, even if they are destructive. We get into his motives and can understand him. His chaos is an open invitation.
Batman is closed and reactive. We never get inside him. He IS darkness. He can try to keep Gotham safe, but he can’t actually DO anything to make it better.
Batman is stuck. Without the Joker he doesn’t exist.
Is it possible to get to know Batman?
*make* statements
Really interesting interpretation! I like it. Batman definitely is reactionary, or perhaps a necessary counterbalance. I think this is in line with my argument about the gargoyle. He's very similar to that which he is built to repel. But the gargoyle is not the church which it protects and is unable to renew/cleanse.
To your last question, I think the answer is no - or at least not fully. Which makes him not only deeply engaging but allows for insightful conversations like we're having!