Spring has finally returned, and bringing with it sunshine, bird song and steadily warmer weather. However, it would seem we’re not quite out of the proverbial woods yet, since Dave has been in a worryingly good mood.
Dave: That’s right! You see, I have found some more theories about Batman for us to look at!
Well, I suppose it’s been quite some time since we looked at theories about the caped crusader. So if nothing else, after so much time has passed, we’re sure to have some really good ones to look at, won’t we?
Dave: Indeed we do! The first theory actually connects to two other things we haven’t covered in quite a while: Tim Burton and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory!
I see. I’m a bit worried since… well, you don’t exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to either of those things. But fine, what’s the theory?
Dave: The theory is that Charlie’s dad worked for the Joker!
…What?
Dave: In the 2005 movie, we see Charlie’s dad working in a toothpaste factory. The factory in question produces Smilex toothpaste, which is the brand the Joker controls in the 1989 Batman movie!
Is that it?
Dave: Well… they’re both directed by the same person so…
So in other words, that’s all the evidence there is?
Dave:…Yes, pretty much.
OK, ignoring the fact that the Batman version was called Smylex with a ”Y”, and the toothpaste is called Smilex with an “I“, wouldn’t this mean that Willy Wonka’s factory, and indeed the entire movie, takes place in Gotham?
Dave: Well, yes, I suppose it would.
Except the town we see in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory looks nothing like Gotham city. No towering skyscrapers, no large river, no enormous bridges…
Dave: Well, maybe it’s on the outskirts? They don’t really say the name of the town in the movie, do they?
That’s true, but let’s also consider the simple fact that Smilex wasn’t a brand in Batman. It was that movies word for the Joker venom. The whole idea was that DIFFERENT cosmetics, soaps and other hygiene products had different components, and when put together, they become deadly.
The joker wants to, in his own words, ”run the city into the ground”. He wants chaos and panic. So him calling the poison by name, and then put the name of that poison on one of the products he supposedly poisoned… that doesn’t really help him in any way, does it?
Dave: Ah, but what if it’s a ruse to distract the police? Maybe he’s just creating a false lead so they won’t discover the truth?
OK, but think about it. If that was the case, this would require the movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to not only take place in Gotham City, but also happening at the same time as the events of Batman, right?
Dave: Yes…?
But if that is the case, how do you explain that it’s the middle of winter in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, when it very clearly isn’t winter in Gotham City? If they’re supposed to take place at the same time, that doesn’t make sense, does it?
Dave: Well… maybe it ISN’T the same place, then? Maybe it’s a different city entirely, maybe further north, which could explain why there’s snow there and not in Gotham?
Right… but if your argument is true, and Smilex is just a false lead for the Gotham Police… why then would he put it in another city entirely, which would make sure that the police in Gotham City wouldn’t look into it, since they’re likely not the ones supplying poison to Gotham city?
Dave: They could still be involved, though? Or maybe the Joker isn’t just limiting his operation to Gotham?
Ok, there’s a major problem with that argument alone, but let’s deal with the smaller one first. See, if this factory is a deliberate false lead, wouldn’t it be shut down rather quickly, given that it’s possibly involved in the lethal poisoning of at least six people?
Dave: Uhm… yes, I suppose, but…
And yet, there’s no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. In fact, we know that Charlie’s dad is laid off, not because the factory closes down, but because his job of screwing on toothpaste caps was taken over by a robot!
But there’s also the idea that the Joker’s operation is going on outside of Gotham… which we have no evidence for whatsoever. In fact, given the dialogue in the movie, the implication is that only Gotham is involved.
Safe products are flying in as Gotham City goes on a forced fast.
Dave: Yes, the Gotham News only talk about Gotham. That doesn’t prove that other areas aren’t also involved!
Maybe, but here’s where we run into the major issue with this argument. If there was an ongoing, possibly national outbreak of lethally poisonous cosmetics and healthcare products… that’d be pretty major news, yes?
Dave: Yes…?
It’d be pretty much guaranteed to be front page news nation-wide, would it not?
Dave: Yes, I guess it would.
So given the ongoing threat of sudden, unexplained lethal poisonings, why would anyone give a rats damn about chocolate bars!?
Dave: What?
You know, the golden tickets? A major plotpoint of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Not a peep in those news reports about the people supposedly dropping dead with terrifying rictus grins! Call me naïve, but ”people are being poisoned” is more important news than ”Competition about a lifetime supply of candy”.
So really, we come back to the one, single and solitary piece of evidence there is that these two movies are connected at all: that they both use one specific word.
Except, as I pointed out, it’s spelled differently in both versions.
Dave: OK, so that doesn’t really work, I guess.
Oh, what a surprise.
Dave: But I have another theory, and this one is about Batman v Superman.
Oh goody. The best Batman-movie…
Dave: Come on, give it a chance.
Fine. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, despite you never having earned it even slightly.
Dave: The theory is that The Joker in Batman v Superman is actually Robin!
…Wow. You’d think that after all this time, you would be unable to surprise me, and then you bring me stuff like this. Go on, explain yourself.
Dave: In Batman v Superman, we see Robins suit on display, riddled with bullet holes and spray paint reading ”HAHAHA JOKES ON YOU BATMAN”. The implication is that the Joker killed Robin, right?
Yes, I would say so.
Dave: Ah, except the Joker we see in the movie is quite a bit younger than Batman, right?
Well…
Dave: And as we see, The Joker in the Snyderverse has tattoos all over his upper body, with some of them possibly covering up the bullet holes!
OK…
Dave: So maybe what happened was, the Joker captured and tortured Jason Todd, like he did in the comics, and this drove the Boy Wonder mad, turning him into the new Clown Prince of Crime.
Right… I can’t help notice that your only real evidence to support this theory is the fact that the Joker has tattoos. But as we see, those tattoos don’t really cover up any bullet holes.
Dave: Aha, but there’s one scar on his left shoulder!
True… but none anywhere else. As we can see, the suit had several bullet holes, in both shoulders and in the abdomen.
There’s no scar on his other shoulder or on his stomach that corresponds with the holes seen on the suit. Even the wound on his shoulder doesn’t seem to be in the right place.
But more than that, your other argument is that this Joker is younger than Batman?
Dave: That’s right.
Well, there are two problems with that idea. Firstly, since we have no idea how old the Joker is supposed to be, it’s kind of tricky to say that this one is younger than he should be. We assume that the Joker is comparable in age to Batman, but we’ve no real proof to back that up.
The second issue is that… this Joker isn’t really younger than Batman.
Dave: Yes, he is!
Do we know how old the Joker is in this movie?
Dave: No, but… just look at him! Hes obviously younger than Batman!
Is he, though? All we really have to go on is the age of Jared Leto, the actor who portrays him, since no age is specified in the movie. Problem is… he’s one year older than Ben Affleck.
Dave: Oh…
So really… that’s your second argument gone, isn’t it? In fact, I don’t really see the point of this theory, seeing as it doesn’t exactly change anything about the movie. It’s not like we see Batman deeply conflicted about this version of the Joker, or trying to help him.
Dave: Well, it might explain why this Joker is so terrible.
Hm… Ok, I can kinda see the rationale there. The problem is… it doesn’t make him any less terrible! It doesn’t make us enjoy seeing him, does it? Hell, I’d argue that while this theory tries to answer one question which nobody was really asking, it raises a whole bunch of other questions in the process.
If the Joker captured and tortured Jason Todd to the point of madness, what happened to the original Joker, since we never see him and instead we have this cheap imitation?
Dave: Maybe Batman killed him?
But…why would Batman kill the Joker? For torturing Jason Todd? Because I remind you, the Joker has done far worse before, and Batman haven’t killed him. Going back to the comic, as well as my personal favorite Batman movie Under the Red Hood, the Joker beat Jason Todd half to death with a crowbar and then blew him up, and Batman STILL didn’t kill him!
Here, Jason is still very much alive, but for some reason he’s just… a new Joker? Why would he want to emulate someone he has every reason in the world to hate? Again, the entire reason he was angry with Batman was because Batman DIDN’T kill the Joker! There’s no way Jason Todd would want to be like the Joker!
Dave: Well, what if he was tortured to the point of insanity?
NO! I do not accept that as an explanation, just saying ”Yeah, it doesn’t make sense, but he’s crazy so he doesn’t have to make sense”! That’s just laziness! It’s one step removed from ”it was all a dream”, coupled with the exact same problem as we hit on with The Rock, Bioshock, The Grinch or that one theory about Shrek! So much of the character has changed, with his name and motivations and personality that it doesn’t really make any difference!
And again, the only evidence in support of this theory, the ONE THING that backs it up… is that the Joker has a scar on his shoulder!
So either A) Jason Todd was kidnapped and tortured by the Joker and, rather than rightly hating his green haired guts, decides to emulate him to the point where he becomes his replacement, which leaves important questions regarding where the original joker went completely unanswered… or B) the Joker murdered Jason Todd, like he did in the comic, which explains why the Joker is still around, explains why Jason Todd is gone and really only leaves the question of ”why is this joker so terrible” which I think can easily be explained by the movie itself being terrible.
I somehow suspect option B is slightly more likely.
And with that, I think it’s time we call it a day. I suppose it’s rather fitting that we’ve looked at two theories connected to the Joker, and it’s turned out to be a cavalcade of chaos and madness, though at the same time, in some strange, sick and demented way, it was entertaining.
Dave: Well, in that case, what if I told you I had more theories for you?
Well, that’s an interesting question. In that case, I think I would take you kindly and forgivingly by the hand, and together we could take a nice stroll in the moonlit night and then I’d set your head on fire.
Dave: Oh.
Yeah, there’d be a hot time in the old town tonight.
Devil in the Details 