Why else would Joker keep getting brought back as a "Evil counter" to Batman when later characters who fit better (The Wraith, Ra's Al Ghul) aren't as prominent?
The Wrath?! I actually had to look that one up, because that's how little of an impression he made. And from what I've read and seen online, deservedly so. He's too literal an anti-Batman, which means he was conceptualized as such and thus superficially too similar to the hero.
And Ra's is actually a Bond villain, Denny O'Neil has said as much. He's designed to take Batman out of his usual environment (Gotham) and around the world in their battles, and Ra's al Ghul's goals are noble, as warped as they might be. If you like the MCU's Thanos' motivation so much, that's because it's actually Ra's al Ghul's motivation, but in that case it made more sense as Ra's is not all-powerful.
In the end, both of them could not be the perfect counter-part to Batman, because their goals are too similar to Batman's. The so-called "anti-Batman" Wrath is really just Batman but on the other side of the law, with his goal being revenge. It's Batman taken too far. And Ra's goal is to save the world, it's the way he wants to accomplish that which makes him a villain.
The Joker, on the other hand, has no goals other than to have fun, something Batman pretty much denies himself as he takes himself and his work so seriously, and the Joker sees fun in killing people, something Batman is not going to do even if the target were somebody he'd know would go on to try and kill innocent people in the future. And the Joker does all that without being conceptualized as the perfect counter to Batman, he just turned out to be quite naturally.
Actually, there was a period of time when the Joker did not stand out among Batman's rogues gallery, the 50s and 60s, when he was turned into a gimmick-y small-time robber due to the Comics Code (just look at the Adam West show, Batman basically called each and every villain his "arch-nemesis"), and it wasn't until O'Neil and Adams brought him back to his homicidal and absurdist roots in the early 70s that the Joker once more became the most popular villain, so much so that DC actually gave him his own solo adventures (though they didn't turn out as well, as the Joker needs Batman to work).
And if you really want a deeper analysis of the Joker, there is a popular fan theory (to which I actually ascribe, myself) that the Joker is actually aware that he's a fictional character, and that the people he kills aren't real people at all, which is why he treats it like a joke.
Here's a video going into depth about why this theory makes sense:
And Catwoman is as important historically as Joker.
Yeah, she totally tops every list of most popular Batman villains.
Actually, early on her popularity was mainly derived from her being a femme fatale to Batman, and since the 80s, she's grown more into an anti-hero and more often an ally than an adversary for Batman. She's historically important as a love interest, not as a villain.
Clayface made history as one of the first legacy villains too, and Hugo still is around but left less of an impact.
Again, they both were introduced before the Joker, they have seniority over the Joker, so you're idea that seniority is the reason why the Joker stands out among Batman's rogues gallery is wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's evidently, factually wrong.
That seems to be out back and forth here.
If you are referring to my own criticism of Thanos, you obviously haven't payed attention. I'm not criticizing that Thanos' philosophy contradicts my own, of course it does. As does the Joker's, by the way. What I'm criticizing is that Thanos' plan contradicts his own philosophy, and that that wasn't even acknowledged by anybody in the movie (or by anybody who worked on the movie).
Random chaos is as lazy as random nihilism.
I feel like your argumentation is getting lazy.
Look, even if the Joker's motivation were lazy, it still works. It works. As opposed to Thanos' motivation, which has to get more motivation in order to explain why his actions contradict his original motivation. Your argument falls flat because, while Thanos
needs work, the Joker
doesn't, and that's all that is behind your claim of the Joker's philosophy being lazy.
He could have, but he didn't want unnecessary death if he could avoid it. That's why he did temporary changes instead of just killing them.
Exactly. He
meant the changes to be temporary, they were not temporary by themselves. Thank you for making my argument for me.
They've done a poor job with explanations before, and like I said if WW84 explains where her Godkiller powers went I'll own up. But I'm not holding my breath.
You know, I could lay out how Thanos' actions in previous movies make no sense at all, in hindsight, but I think that has been done to death already, and you should know about it. And since you do, you choose to ignore the flaws of one studio, but not similar flaws by another studio. So, yeah, it's partisanship. Which is fine, like whatever you like. But don't pretend otherwise.
Because Tony also didn't care about anything but stopping Thanos.
Again, my criticism is against the makers of the movie, who should have known that that question would come up in the audience, but they still didn't adress it.
