WI: Batman... without Joker?

[Incognito]

Not sure how true it is, but here is an interesting factoid from TV Tropes

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JokerImmunity

...He (the Joker) was originally conceived as a one-off villain (co-creator Bill Finger worried that Batman, and law enforcement would look pretty incompetent if the villains kept escaping prison), and Batman didn't even have his no-kill code back in those early days, but the Joker proved too good a villain to waste by killing after one issue so a last minute edit had him survive.

Assuming this is true, what would happen to the Batman comics if there was no last-minute editing and the Joker remained as a one-off villain? How would the comic-book industry evolve without one of its most widely-recognized villains? Would anyone else fill the role of Batman's main nemesis in a world without Joker?

 

[Saladan]

funny about that whole incompetence thing...

Anyway, you could make two-face Batman's main enemy and it would make more sense to not have batman refrain from killing him since he is trying to ultimately save Harvey then some psycho that increasingly does greater and more heinous acts. I honestly dislike Joker to some extent purely because of how ridiculous the in story justification for keeping him alive at this point is getting.
As for the rest of the industry, I doubt the lack of the joker is going to put a serious dent in the comic book industry.Batman comic might be significantly changed but aside from that I think things would mostly stay the same.

 

[Blackfox5]

An important thing to remember about any comic characters is that a lot that is beloved about them were added to the character after their initial creation. Wolverine's popularity has nothing to do with the character as originally created by Len Wein and Herb Trimpe in the Incredible Hulk, and everything to do with Chris Claremont and John Byrne in X-Men, with a lot of elements not added until the later limited series by Claremont and Frank Miller.

So without the Joker, we probably have several scenarios:

1) Bill Finger realizes his mistake and brings back the Joker from the dead just as various villains had done even by that time.

2) Bill Finger realizes his mistake and introduces a similar character later on.

3) When Steve Englehart and Denny O'Neal revitalizes Batman in the late sixties and seventies, the stories they write turn another existing or new Batman character popular. Since most of the modern day's comics reading public vision of the Joker is based on their work, it's likely any subsequent stories of a cool character inspires any of the well liked Joker stories from the later period.

The Batman TV show may or may not have the Joker. When they brought in the Riddler, he was a character who had not been used for a very long time and did not have many publishing appearances. It was Frank Gorshin's portrayal that made the character popular, and his role in Batman comics increased. It is even possible that when searching for characters to use that someone decides this one shot Joker character from 1940 since it is a nice, striking visual.

To be honest, I don't see any substantial change. Some other villain will end up with the same role and popularity of the Joker. It's even possible that without the Joker, that the Riddler ends up with a similar role since Gorshin's portrayal was so awesome. In essence, the comics took Gorshin's mix of odd humor and menace and interjected it into the Joker. Without the Joker, a very Gorshin-like Riddler probably becomes Batman's archnemesis.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

<snip>
it is a nice, striking visual.

To be honest, I don't see any substantial change. Some other villain will end up with the same role and popularity of the Joker. It's even possible that without the Joker, that the Riddler ends up with a similar role since Gorshin's portrayal was so awesome. In essence, the comics took Gorshin's mix of odd humor and menace and interjected it into the Joker. Without the Joker, a very Gorshin-like Riddler probably becomes Batman's archnemesis.

without Ridler, yes, a Gorshin-based Riddler WOULD be Batman's insane Arch Enemy. It says something about Gorshin's Riddler when, in the 1966 Batman Movie, Joker is the one who called Riddler insane.

 

[Simreeve]

3) When Steve Englehart and Denny O'Neal revitalizes Batman in the late sixties and seventies, the stories they write turn another existing or new Batman character popular.

For that matter, by the late sixties and seventies theyre writing about the 'Earth-1' Batman rather than the original ('Earth-2') version so there's no reason why they couldn't have introduced & popularised an 'Earth-1' copy of the Joker (if they'd seen the old comic, and liked the concept... or if, as you suggest, he'd been revived for the TV series first) even though the original ('Earth-2') version had been killed-off...

 

[Willmatron]

The Joker has had few big stories with long lasting affects. Those he's killed or paralyzed have been returned to being a hero. The last Laugh and the recent Death of the Family storylines show that sometimes people can't write good stories for him.

There won't be too much affect for the rest of the batman or Dc universe. I agree that someone else would replace him as main villain and someone else could be the villain in the 1989 Batman movie.

 

[Cathcon1]

I always liked Two-Face better than the Joker anyway--though Nicholson did a Hell of a job with him. Two-Face is the main arch enemy would be pretty cool, though a Riddler like the one in the TV show (or rather the '66 movie) would be pretty cool.

 

[Simreeve]

And then there's Dr Strange... Dr Hugo Strange, that is.
They could definitely have done more with him.

 

[Glass Onion]

I always liked Two-Face better than the Joker anyway--though Nicholson did a Hell of a job with him. Two-Face is the main arch enemy would be pretty cool, though a Riddler like the one in the TV show (or rather the '66 movie) would be pretty cool.

Well, the problem with the Riddler is the issue of adapting him for the post Adam West era. The Joker became the main enemy when he started killing again. Assuming butterflies do not kill Batman entirely by the time O'Neil and company decide to darken the tone, an old fashioned gimmick villain who doesn't kill would not work in the Joker's place. To work as public enemy #1 the Riddler has to become a murderer on a mass scale, and that's arguably a betrayal of who that character is and was. If you want him as the main enemy, while darkening the tone, you have to give Batman a special reason to hate him, and you have to darken the Riddler's tone to keep up. I honestly have no idea how O'Neil would do that, though I imagine some great Riddler story would emerge in the 1970's here.

 

[Clandango]

The Joker has had few big stories with long lasting affects. Those he's killed or paralyzed have been returned to being a hero. The last Laugh and the recent Death of the Family storylines show that sometimes people can't write good stories for him.

There won't be too much affect for the rest of the batman or Dc universe. I agree that someone else would replace him as main villain and someone else could be the villain in the 1989 Batman movie.

Those he has killed have returned to be hero's? I fail to see how, since death is fairly final. In-universe Superman showed Joker when he had reality wrapping powers that he molded himself exclusively in relation to Batman, while plenty others pointed out how Batman didn't need the Joker for anything.

 

[TRH]

Those he has killed have returned to be hero's? I fail to see how, since death is fairly final. In-universe Superman showed Joker when he had reality wrapping powers that he molded himself exclusively in relation to Batman, while plenty others pointed out how Batman didn't need the Joker for anything.

Jason Todd is back, Barbara Gordon wasn't killed by him but has nevertheless been able to continue crimefighting activities, and while I'm not sure of any other heroes the Joker's killed or crippled making a comeback I can't be the only one who's a little baffled by your assertion that death is final in a comic book.

 

[phx1138]

I'd say you've butterflied one of the iconic villains in the game.

That said, when the Silver Age comes along, I have to think new writers would revive Joker, one shot original or not. It's not like baddies never got (get) rebooted...

 

[Johnrankins]

I'd say you've butterflied one of the iconic villains in the game.

That said, when the Silver Age comes along, I have to think new writers would revive Joker, one shot original or not. It's not like baddies never got (get) rebooted...

If he is a one shot most likely no one remembers him by the Silver Age and some other Bat-villain takes his place. There are a number of them who could Two Face, Penguin or Riddler. I think they came in fairly early.

 

[Kermode]

I fail to see how, since death is fairly final.

You're new to superhero comics, aren't you?

If he is a one shot most likely no one remembers him by the Silver Age and some other Bat-villain takes his place.

Agreed, although I think it's practically inevitable he'd be rebooted eventually; the only thing that modern superhero writers like more than showing off their knowledge of early stories is gritty reboots .

This new Joker would probably stay closer to his roots as a straightforward homicidal psychopath instead of the mindgames and theatricality. If the card motif is played up, he might make a good pair with the Mad Hatter.

I also think that if the Riddler takes the Joker's place as the main, iconic villain, there would be more emphasis placed on Batman's detective skills and his title as "World's Greatest Detective".

 

[Johnrankins]

You're new to superhero comics, aren't you?


Agreed, although I think it's practically inevitable he'd be rebooted eventually; the only thing that modern superhero writers like more than showing off their knowledge of early stories is gritty reboots .

This new Joker would probably stay closer to his roots as a straightforward homicidal psychopath instead of the mindgames and theatricality. If the card motif is played up, he might make a good pair with the Mad Hatter.

I also think that if the Riddler takes the Joker's place as the main, iconic villain, there would be more emphasis placed on Batman's detective skills and his title as "World's Greatest Detective".

That would be interesting in and of itself. Sometimes I wonder how he got the title "World's Greatest Detective" with his tendency to solve cases by beating up people rather than using logic. He does both but the violence is definitely stressed.