Will Gotham Have a New Joker Every Episode?

Will Gotham Have a New Joker Every Episode?

Bruce Wayne Gotham

Just who will play Gotham's Joker?

We know that Fox's fall drama Gotham will be introducing us to young Bruce Wayne, and we've seen a growing cast of classic Batman villains added to the cast. But on the subject Batman's most famed villain, the Joker, Gotham has remained oddly silent.

It's hard to keep a secret in the internet era, and so it's no surprise that the rumor mill has a good idea of who has the role: Jon Beavers, who's playing the role of a comedian in the pilot episode. But of course the show's producers knows how internet rumors go and Bleeding Cool reports that they're toying with us -- and intend to keep it up all season, with a new character in each episode who just might turn out to be the Joker.

Well, that is one way to keep a secret from prying internet eyes -- but will the suspense keep viewers tuning in? We'll have to check out the show this fall to find out.

Source: Bleeding Cool

Permalink

Make it a feaking show about Batman already! It's not about gorden anymore the way they talk about batmans villians all the fucking time.

WashAran:
Make it a feaking show about Batman already! It's not about gorden anymore the way they talk about batmans villians all the fucking time.

I know! I always thought Batman was older or the same age as most of his rogue gallery but in this show they all seem to be a decade or more older which is weird.

For a series that was marketed as being before Batman and his Rogue's Gallery appeared and started causing all kinds of literal hell to break loose in Gotham with just relatively normal Jim Gordon being one of a handful of straight cops in a corrupt system, they sure do keep teasing nothing but the iconic villains that didn't really show up until after crooks started being found conveniently knocked out on rooftops...At least to my memory

Then again, what they said the show was gonna be about sounded more like a TV adaptation of Serpico...

WashAran:
Make it a feaking show about Batman already! It's not about gorden anymore the way they talk about batmans villians all the fucking time.

Well, to be fair, Batman isn't generally the most interesting part of the stuff he shows up in. He's mostly a dark, brooding foil to his (if you'll allow a bit of narcissism) far more interesting rogues gallery.

The problem with the joker is that part of his character is mystery, no one knows where he came from, or any of his intentions other than chaos. Putting a face to his pre jokerness would just ruin it.

That was the point of Heath Ledgers joker in The Dark Knight, It didn't matter who he was his persona was a symbol of chaos and so Ying to Batman's symbol of order yang.

MrDumpkins:
The problem with the joker is that part of his character is mystery, no one knows where he came from, or any of his intentions other than chaos. Putting a face to his pre jokerness would just ruin it.

Well see, the fact of the matter is is that they're not showing who he was, at least we don't know that. There still is the mystery because any of those characters could be him. Maybe none of them. That's still something we don't know.

Anywho, I think it's interesting but I don't follow the show. Still up for consideration though, I suppose I'll just have to hear more about it.

There's something off putting about having Batman's rogues gallery show up before Batman.

I've always enjoyed the idea that they frequently toy with in the comics, that the maniacs, villains, and freaks that terrorize Gotham are in one way shape or form a direct result of Batman's presence and are often mirrors of certain aspects of Batman or Wayne's persona.

Having the villains come first throws a weird monkey wrench in that cause and effect.

On the subject of Joker.

I like the idea of teasing the audience with a large number of folks who could potentially become the Joker.
Ifonce you decide to throw the Joker into the show you don't ever reveal who he was.

After all, if the Joker must have a past, I feel it's best if it's multiple choice.

I've had about zero interest in this and figure they just need to do "Batman", to me it doesn't matter what villains they have show up without Batman there to fight them, you need both for the formula to really work. That said I'm sure there are reasons why they haven't just green lit a Batman show yet. I personally suspect it might be something legal, perhaps involving some kind of unusually long-standing agreement about the old "Adam West" show or whatever.

Part of what makes "The Joker" work is that he's mysterious, of course in today's information age explaining how someone like that could be a total blank is very difficult.

It's also important to note that one of the odd things about "The Joker" is that he's insane in an unclassifiable, general, sense, and in the comics the question of whether he's really insane or just playing a role has come up more than once (along with the counter question of if the guy is just pretending to be this crazy, what kind of motive could he possibly have that would allow him to be sane?).

Speaking for myself if I was going to do a self-contained Batman series, given the way the other video versions (animated and otherwise) have ended, I'd probably run with that old question and simply reveal in the finale that The Joker wasn't crazy, and was actually playing a very deep game. Perhaps borrowing a note from one part of "League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen", where in the comics (spoilers ahead on this) it's revealed that Moriarty was actually working for the government. He was put into power to basically take control of the underworld, so the government could control crime (as much as it could be controlled) through him. In "League" the government had Sherlock Holmes killed. Of course Moriarty went rogue (in the comics the entire thing turns out to be a giant war between Professor Moriarty and Fu Manchu over control of the underworld, that winds up involving sky ships). Doing something similar with "The Joker" might be interesting where it turns out all the mass murder, showy crimes, etc.. were all done as a distraction for things going on elsewhere, and also to get as many criminals as possible involved in fighting "The Joker Gang" so they would inevitably lose and wind up dead or being absorbed into it, with the endgame being that while horrible crimes would happen there would be less crime overall... or something like that. Batman can tear it all down of course, commenting that his way works, but ultimately leaving the question as to whether his way is ultimately more effective or not. If they wanted to be truly twisted, given that Batman once had a similar plan that worked a lot like this (the one "The Spoiler" messed up in "War Games") him finding out the truth as he defeats the Joker, and then assuming the mantle (or something similar) himself for the greater good. Albeit if they were to do something like this without causing a riot they should work a "Matches Malone" reference into it to remind comics fans that Batman always had it in him to do exactly that.

Just some rambling thoughts. Maybe if I hear great things I'll check out Gotham after the fact, but right now I'll hold on it, and hope they just do "Batman" at some point.

Diddy_Mao:
There's something off putting about having Batman's rogues gallery show up before Batman.

I've always enjoyed the idea that they frequently toy with in the comics, that the maniacs, villains, and freaks that terrorize Gotham are in one way shape or form a direct result of Batman's presence and are often mirrors of certain aspects of Batman or Wayne's persona.

Having the villains come first throws a weird monkey wrench in that cause and effect.

On the subject of Joker.

I like the idea of teasing the audience with a large number of folks who could potentially become the Joker.
Ifonce you decide to throw the Joker into the show you don't ever reveal who he was.

After all, if the Joker must have a past, I feel it's best if it's multiple choice.

Nice reference.

I agree the teasing is good, but I still kind of hope they never give him a definitive past. It's kind of blasphemy.

Batmans Smallville ?

i know some people liked that show but imo that show suffered greatly from..."not being able to keep it's hands in it's pockets"...and trying to show-horn in vast swathes of "Superman characters" into his existence "while he was a kid".

personally i feel you need creativity AND restraint to make something like this really pay off and still feel right in context...

TheRiddler:

WashAran:
Make it a feaking show about Batman already! It's not about gorden anymore the way they talk about batmans villians all the fucking time.

Well, to be fair, Batman isn't generally the most interesting part of the stuff he shows up in. He's mostly a dark, brooding foil to his (if you'll allow a bit of narcissism) far more interesting rogues gallery.

It occured to me when I watched The Dark Knight recently that the movie would have been infinitely better if Batman was replaced by someone else. In almost everything he's in, Batman has never been overly interesting, nor is there much focus on his character or its development.

I read that they will have one villian an episode that has characteristics of the joker. Whether its jokes, makeup or clothes etc That has just killed the series for me. This joker idea is the most stupidest idea ever. I would rather they just have joker as a guy wearing a mask (cos he hasnt become official joker yet) and he gets away - the mask never comes off. Now im hoping the idea they gave has be communicated badly and Joker is a villian thats in the background haunting the police force as it were. Like there is a crime story running through the first series dealing with him that culminates in the last episode. I guess i will wait to here more about what specifically what they are doing.

Diddy_Mao:
There's something off putting about having Batman's rogues gallery show up before Batman.

I've always enjoyed the idea that they frequently toy with in the comics, that the maniacs, villains, and freaks that terrorize Gotham are in one way shape or form a direct result of Batman's presence and are often mirrors of certain aspects of Batman or Wayne's persona.

Having the villains come first throws a weird monkey wrench in that cause and effect.

Bingo. The great thing about Batman's rogues gallery is that all his best villains reflect some aspect of Batman - Two-Face is his dual nature, Mr. Freeze is also motivated by the death of a loved one, etc. The Joker in particular simply doesn't make sense if he exists before Batman, since he's a direct response to Batman: after Batman destroys Old Crime and imposes order on Gotham, the Joker is created to balance order with chaos. The Joker can't exist unless Batman exists first, since without Batman he has no reason to be.

youji itami:

WashAran:
Make it a feaking show about Batman already! It's not about gorden anymore the way they talk about batmans villians all the fucking time.

I know! I always thought Batman was older or the same age as most of his rogue gallery but in this show they all seem to be a decade or more older which is weird.

Poison Ivy seems to be about his same age though.

Mortis Nuncius:

MrDumpkins:
The problem with the joker is that part of his character is mystery, no one knows where he came from, or any of his intentions other than chaos. Putting a face to his pre jokerness would just ruin it.

Well see, the fact of the matter is is that they're not showing who he was, at least we don't know that. There still is the mystery because any of those characters could be him. Maybe none of them. That's still something we don't know.

Personally, I think they could go all season without the Joker, focusing more on the organized crime than the rogues gallery in the first season (Falcone definitely appears to be the heavy hitter in this one), moving to the creative types in the second (Black Mask, Penguin), and then into the full nuthouse in a third season (which Fox is banking on getting to).

Hell, I don't even see why we need the joker at all. Most versions of the character I'm aware of have him coming after Batman shows up, a not subtle gesture about the consequences of his actions. I particularly enjoyed Arkham Origins version of the character's introduction into the world (even though I really didn't want him in it[1] and thought the game overall was lacking).

OT: I was disappointed in how many characters showed up in this one. Two of the future villains, Ivy (now pepper) and Nygma, were only there to be there and totally unnecessary. I hope that Cobblepot doesn't show up for the rest of the season to give some time for the rest of the series to develop.

[1] And if Arkham Knight has him, I will be very disappointed and hand over my money grudgingly rather than excitedly.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here