I thought Arkham Origins was good, even if it fell short of its predecessors. Tough acts to follow. In true internet form, of course, the narrative quickly became that Origins was hugely disappointing. Things are either a huge success or a monstrous failure these days, I suppose.
Of course, many – myself included – point at the decision to take Rocksteady off the series and instead develop Origins in-house at Warner Bros. Games Montreal. This seemed like the usual corporate tomfoolery that, at a certain point, we’ve all come to expect when a big publisher has a killer franchise on their hands, abandoning the studio that had forged a path and counting on name recognition to continue to move copies. This – coupled with the fact that Origins was a prequel – felt particularly egregious, considering the conclusion of Arkham City.
Rocksteady was mum for a while on what they were doing instead of a third Arkham game. It turns out that what they were doing was the fourth Arkham game.
It goes somewhat without saying that I’m pretty psyched for Arkham Knight, the third (and presumably final) chapter in Rocksteady’s Arkham trilogy. (Arkham Origins doesn’t appear to count, since it is more of a side story, and I suspect it will not be the last Arkham game to fill such a role.) The story revolves around the return of the Scarecrow, who appeared to have died in Arkham Asylum but resurfaced (if you knew where to look) in Arkham City, and a collaboration between some of Batman’s greatest foes to bring down their foe once and for all. In the midst of this is a brand-new villain, Arkham Knight, whose identity and connection to the Arkham City debacle remain a mystery.
The big mechanical addition we know about, right now, is the Batmobile. Arkham Knight‘s Gotham will be around five times the size of Arkham City‘s superprison, and built to accommodate vehicles. Rocksteady says transitioning between the Batmobile and gliding will be seamless. Other new features, like “Fear Takedowns”, will augment the existing combat system for which the series is known. Meanwhile, as it is releasing only on next-gen consoles and PC, some of the technical details Rocksteady has discussed sound almost like they might actually justify the existence of a new console generation. Reportedly, a single character model in Arkham Knight has as many polygons as the entirety of Arkham Asylum‘s environment.
Though perennial Bat-scribe Paul Dini is not involved – though Rocksteady’s own writers, who worked with him on the previous games, are handling things – other talent that was left out of Arkham Origins is making a return. Kevin Conroy will rejoin the excellent voice cast as Batman, as is only right. Kevin Conroy will always be my Batman.
But how do you end Batman? Rocksteady wants this to be the explosive finale to the Arkham trilogy – the “late part” of it, at least. Whether that means they want to give Batman some kind of ending, or just this story, is unclear. Surely, with the Joker dead, Batman can’t be long for the world. It wouldn’t be right.
Ending Batman is a tricky proposition. I never liked the talk that The Dark Knight Rises would conclude Batman’s story in the Nolan universe – liked it even less when that’s what the movie did. Not because I wanted more sequels – I don’t – but because I think that the idea reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the character. Of course, so does Batman taking eight years off. I guess what I’m saying is that Nolan (and/or David Goyer) didn’t get Batman. Goyer certainly doesn’t understand Superman, if Man of Steel is any indication.
Comics have tried occasionally to end these major characters, here and there, usually as more of a novelty or what-if storyline, usually around continuity upheavals. Neil Gaiman wrote “Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?” back in 2009, in which dozens of Bat-characters, friend and foe alike, came to Batman’s funeral. It offered several possible interpretations of Batman’s life, in true Gaiman style. As a fairly continuity-agnostic “last” Batman story, I thought it worked pretty well.
Better known, perhaps, is Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, which is in its way the end of Batman (its eventual sequel, The Dark Knight Strikes Again, notwithstanding). An aged Batman takes up the cowl again to put Gotham City back in order at any cost. He doesn’t die at the end, but starts to establish his successors. In the late 1990s, the DC animated universe got another interpretation of Bruce Wayne’s latter days in Batman Beyond, when he had to retire because of his failing health but continues to fight crime by supporting a new Batman, Terry McGinnis. Heck, some people – Grant Morrison, notably – argue that Alan Moore’s The Killing Joke was a “last” Batman story.
My point is, Batman doesn’t stop. If he isn’t dead, he fights. If he can’t fight as Batman, he finds another way to do it. Batman is not just determined to fight injustice; he’s got a pathological need to do so. But the demise of the Joker portends dark days for Batman, ironically. They are two sides of the coin; the Joker is the unstoppable force to Batman’s immovable object. One is defined very much by the other. So the question becomes, how do you end Batman?
Granted, they haven’t exactly said they want to do a “last” Batman story, so much as just end their trilogy. That doesn’t mean Batman has to stop being Batman.
I think of the Arkham series as the most spot-on Batman adaptation since Batman: The Animated Series, and the one clearly somewhat inspires the other. I think Rocksteady’s people have enough of a handle on Batman and his world that they’re about as likely as anyone to bring a grand Batman story to a reasonable conclusion. I mean, they sold me on the death of the Joker, which I didn’t think would happen basically ever.
It can’t be easy.
Then again, with the way most gamers drive, the smart money would be on a Batmobile accident.
Light the Tapsignal to contact Dix, or use dix@tap-repeatedly.com.
Great commentary, Dix. You touch on a very important point of “getting” Batman – the complexities and history of the character and the nuance of what he/she/it stands for. I had never thought of The Killing Joke as a piece of closure, but Grant Morrison’s remark makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
What I liked about the Arkham games was that Rocksteady captured what it might feel like to be the Batman. To strike fear in the hearts of criminals, to fight with supernatural speed and precision; regular thugs aren’t really a threat to Batman, as they shouldn’t be. I have Arkham City and will one day delve into it. Mostly I’m gratified that Rocksteady did so well by this franchise and is able to enjoy the rewards.
I loved Batman when I was younger. His were the only comics I really collected. It wasn’t until college and (in some cases far) beyond that I read Watchmen, Sandman, Lucifer, and other examples that showed graphic novels as the literature they are. One day I’d like to go back and visit some of my old favorite Batman comics to see how they represent that idea.
The Mud Pack may not be Watchmen, but it’s a hell of a fun story.
There’s great Batman stories out there whether you want fun or deep (or even both, sometimes). Heck, they’re even doing a series right now based on the Adam West TV show, since the rights issues finally got worked out.
Morrison’s take is an interesting one. It’s not just that The Killing Joke feels like it could be the final scene, a suggestion of Batman’s ongoing struggle. On Kevin Smith’s podcast Fatman on Batman, Morrison explained why he thinks that Batman kills the Joker in the story’s final moments. In those last panels, as Batman and the Joker are silhouetted against the rain and the approaching police lights, and the Joker laughs, Morrison asserts that Batman breaks his neck – the laughter stops. The Joker started out by trying to drive Commissioner Gordon insane; instead he broke Batman, and it will be Batman that the police take away.
This interpretation of the ending is not reflected in Alan Moore’s script – and Alan Moore’s scripts are always meticulous – so it seems unlikely that was the intent. Still, it does work for the story. “Show him our way works!” Gordon says. If Batman does snap, Gordon would have to take him in.
I’ve seen at least one article on the stories that Arkham Knight should adapt, which I think is the wrong way to go about it. You always see these crop up when movies are being made, where I have less of a problem with it – quite the opposite – but I suppose that’s because Hollywood tends to treat the source material as a light suggestion more than anything, at least before the rise of Marvel’s Avengers film franchise. I want Rocksteady to tell their own story, though I’m not opposed to nods to others, as the previous games have done. Rocksteady’s learning from the best, as I’ve mentioned, in sort of building the Arkham universe like it’s a dark version of the Batman: The Animated Series continuity, if only in their voice casting and the way some characters are designed.
I’ve been watching Batman Beyond on Netflix lately, because I only saw the odd episode here or there when it was on TV years ago, and it has offered up one of the most fundamental “somebody here gets Batman” moments I can think of. In this episode, “Shriek”, an assassin hired by Bruce Wayne’s business partner uses hidden, high-tech speakers to try to drive Bruce to suicide, thus paving the way for a business deal Bruce stands in the way of. It makes him hear voices, voices that call him “son” and beckon him to join them. After Batman (by now, Terry McGinnis; Bruce has grudgingly retired after a heart condition made it lethal to don the cowl again) defeats the assassin, he and Bruce have this exchange:
That’s Batman.
Enjoyable read Dix. As someone who has no vested interest in the Batman as such, but who thoroughly enjoyed Arkham Asylum simply as a fun and engaging game, I want to play a little devil’s advocate with you.
What does it mean to “get” the Batman, especially given the many interpretations of the character over the years, and the inherent let’s call it fluidity of any long-lived character’s story?
To be fair, Botch, it can be difficult to condense a character as old and storied as Batman into his fundamental essence: the parts you must have lest he cease to be Batman. But I feel that Batman is, largely, a more consistent property than some things. The core of the character remains largely the same since his inception.
Part of that answer is that, if we take Batman comics as the primary source, editorial control has kept the character from deviating too wildly in order to maintain the brand. It had a foray into camp concurrent with the Adam West TV show because of the show’s popularity, but that didn’t last terribly long in the grand scheme. The nuts and bolts of Batman’s world have adapted to long-running stories and changing times, but the heart of the character, I think, remains largely the same.
A lot of people, when they complain about the inaccuracies of things like movie adaptations (or hear said complaints), bring to mind things like plot and character nuances that are, indeed, a bit more fluid over time. Frankly, from a continuity perspective, I don’t care that Bane was in league with Talia al Ghul in The Dark Knight Rises. I mean, I think that part of the movie was clumsily plotted, but the fact that that wasn’t Bane’s motivation in the comics doesn’t bother me.
The tl;dr version is this trailer.
The things that tend to slip through the cracks, one way or the other, are the fundamentals. What is Batman about? I suppose you could get different answers to this, depending on who you ask, but to me, Batman is:
1) Rising above tragedy: It’s obvious enough how this pertains to Batman himself – taking the death of his parents and turning it into motivation to make sure such a thing never happens to anyone else – but this theme runs throughout Batman stories beyond the character himself. Dick Grayson comes from tragedy. Barbara Gordon, once Batgirl, recreated herself after being paralyzed by the Joker. Heck, Gotham itself has to constantly endure and not surrender to the ridiculous darkness of everything that happens to it. (This is a point where The Dark Knight Rises fails, since Batman retires for eight years on the basis that his girlfriend – well, a girl he’d slept with twice or something – got blown up.)
2) Striving to be better: Sure, all superheroes are to some degree aspirational, but Batman, being as he has no powers handed to him by birth or by accident, needs to rely on pushing his own limits to keep up. It’s about never giving up, always moving forward. For all his gadgets, Batman’s best weapons are his skills and intellect – things he’s learned and practiced.
3) One person can make a difference: In Batman’s world an individual must be able to affect change. Whether its by presenting a symbol for people (a common theme in Batman these days) or actually beating up villains, this is critical. And you don’t have to be Batman to do it. Most of Batman’s supporting cast fall into this category as well. It’s hope, somewhat, but of a particular flavor.
4) Duality: This is maybe less critical in the long run, but Batman’s greatest foes have always been mirrors of him somehow. Even his lesser foes speak somewhat to the fact that people have both good and bad within them; his rogues tend to be extreme examples of someone being their worst possible self, but that’s where the mythic quality comes from. It’s how you leverage your talents that matters.
Batman is not the darkness or the violence or the action. I mean, yeah, the best Batman stuff is also going to have its share of Batman being awesome because Batman, but that’s not the important part; an action hero can be a fairly throwaway character in the end. But Batman is the message.
Thanks Dix. I like how you don’t overly concern yourself with the nit-picky details and focus on the essence of the character (well-done or no). As I said I thought Arkham Asylum was a great game. It was obvious to me that Rocksteady, aside from being a quality developer, really cared about the source material. But it was a stand-alone experience for me and I had no desire to play any sequels.
Also, I watched that Batman movie with Bane and Hottie-al-Ghul or whatever her name is. Am I the only one who found Bane’s voice acting extremely annoying and just wanted him to shut up and die already? Also, they didn’t really sell me very well on the “I can barely hobble around but a few pull-ups later and I’m good, yo!”
With characters like Batman, sometimes remixing and reinterpreting things is half the fun.
But yes – Bane’s voice and Bruce’s recovery from his injuries are amongst the (long) list of problems people have with The Dark Knight Rises. The movie is surprisingly watchable considering the ridiculous plot holes and generally poor writing in it (maybe not when it comes to dialogue, but certainly when it comes to storytelling).
Before I go any further, please don’t read this comment in Tom Hardy’s voice 😉
Really loved this – I’m a huge Batman fan, and I fell in love with the trailer as soon as I saw it.
I think Origins gets a bad rep mainly because it isn’t a Rocksteady game. There’s some issues, and it is the worst of the three so far, but the fact it came up with some original boss battles (which City lacked bar Ra’s al Ghul and Clayface), and had a more grounded look appealed to me.
I think Arkham Knight will be Rocksteady’s swansong, but I’m of the opinion WB will probably do some “one shot” Batman games that follow on from Origins.
Oh no, this is what happens when you bad-mouth Bane on the internets. He finds you!
I enjoyed all three Nolan Batman films, though I felt that The Dark Knight Rises was the weakest of the trilogy, and in many ways fundamentally flawed. It was fun as an action movie but it flew in the face of Nolan’s stated vision for the Batman and his world.
The most interesting character in Hamlet isn’t Hamlet, it’s Claudius. Similarly, I’ve always felt that Batman – the concept, not the character – is defined by its villains. Batman himself is a cipher, and Dix distilled him perfectly above. It’s his rogues’ gallery that adds the final dimension to that world; the role of the villains is much more significant in Batman than in other comics with which I’m familiar. When it comes to Batman movies and shows, it’s always “who’s the bad guy.”
This created a problem in the recent films, one Nolan should have foreseen – though in fairness nobody could have predicted Heath Ledger’s death. Even under the circumstances they created in the movie, Bane is a fundamentally anti-Nolan character; he is a “comic book villain” in a way that Ra’s al Ghul, Scarecrow, and the Joker could be but weren’t in those movies. Christopher Nolan called the Penguin “a ridiculous character” and then went with Bane, which makes no sense at all. Bane’s not ridiculous in the world of comics, but he’s un-reinventable, and onscreen he works about as well as yellow spandex for Wolverine. Nolan’s Joker didn’t have chemically bleached skin or a broad smile, he was realistic (well, realistic enough). The Scarecrow and Ra’s, similarly, were re-imagined with an “it could happen” vibe, but all still stayed true to the fundamentals of the characters. You can’t do that with Bane.
Plus Ledger was so good that he became simultaneously a template for doing Batman villains right and an obstacle to ever doing it again. Many third-villain options – the Riddler, for example – were out the window because they’d have come off as a pale imitation of the Joker. So they wound up with Bane, who’s as out of place in that interpretation of Batman as Clayface would be.
In the video games, Rocksteady and WB wisely took a different approach. They’re very canon-loyal, and the nature of games allows for a huge cast of villains. Where Nolan’s work was a complete reinterpretation of the Batman myth, the games are more like extensions of the comics. Batman has appeared in many media and many forms, but I think it’s fair to say that only the animated series and the Arkham games are balls-to-bones faithful to the concepts of Batman as the comics intended and as Dix described above.
I actually disagree that Bane couldn’t be done in Nolan’s universe – I think it would take a more true-to-Bane interpretation than Nolan went with, actually. I was always a little baffled about how they changed Bane in ways that seemed, as you observe, anti-Nolan. Fundamentally, Bane is a criminal, an ascendant crime lord.
Here’s how I would’ve done it – and I’m pretty sure I still have a Word doc detailing this idea that I jotted down the night after I saw The Dark Knight as what would be a way to follow it up:
In the wake of the Joker and Two-Face ravaging Gotham organized crime, some of Batman’s gangster rogues rise to fill the void – I went with Black Mask, who I think could work in a Nolan movie pretty easily, and the Ventriloquist, who might be more of a stretch, but I like him lots – thus putting Gotham in the middle of a huge gang war. This is where we open: skip the origins for these characters, just assume it’s been a few months or a year or whatever since The Dark Knight and have Batman swooping in to intervene in the latest shootout between these guys.
We could be telling the story of Bane’s origin during this time – raised in a prison, etc. etc. – and have him start making his way to Gotham to take on this “Batman”. The power vacuum is an opportunity, and the challenge of Batman speaks directly to Bane’s fatal hubris.
Some stuff happens, Batman probably takes down one of the lesser villains involved or something, we get the setup, some Bruce Wayne scenes, some Gordon stuff, etc., etc. Bane eventually shows up – in this case, the brilliant strategist, fighter, and possibly gunrunner we know from the comics, with or without an addiction to steroids; I was perfectly fine to leave out any kind of mask or drug-delivery assembly because at the time it didn’t seem very Nolan-esque – and takes charge of the remnants that Batman has on the run. Black Mask or whoever is pressed into service for Bane, and we get a less colorful take on Knightfall, basically, where Bane orchestrates Too Much Shit Happening for Batman to handle all at once, pushing himself to the limit.
Bane, meanwhile, goes about learning who Batman is – he’s good at that. I was waffling on whether or not breaking the Bat was the way to go – I thought it might play too unbelievably, and didn’t feel like it would fit to introduce a Robin or an Azrael or a Catwoman for many reasons. (Considering all the things they put in DKR, I guess I misunderstood what could fit in the Nolanverse.)
And then Batman wins somehow. I don’t remember if I really had a third act. I’m thinking now the way to go might be for Bane to publicly unmask Batman somehow, thus depriving him of his allies, perhaps, as Gordon is pressured to arrest Bruce for his vigilantism and the “murder” of Harvey Dent.
Clearly there was the need to raise the stakes after the Joker, but the problem is I think Nolan and company sort of raised the stakes for the wrong thing. The Nolan trilogy always seemed to be about the price Bruce Wayne pays to be Batman – the personal sacrifice – so raise the stakes against him. Even the Joker didn’t exactly fixate on Batman the way he would in the comics, not until later, and in any case he has too much the concept of them being entwined by fate or something. Bane just wants to destroy Batman for the sake of proving he can. Controlling all crime in Gotham is a means to an end – and a nice bonus afterward.
I approve of this origin story – but no mention of my natty mask. Bane is slightly displeased.
And Synonamess? Your punishment will be more severe 😉
Will it be torture? Of the soul but not the body? Because you were, like, born in the dark and molded by it and stuff? Oh yeah, this is going to be aweso…oh wait that’s not right.
Apparently Arkham City is coming to PS+ in April.
Oh I’m a big softy really 😉
If you do download Arkham City, make sure you get the Catwoman expansion pack and Harley Quinn’s Revenge DLC as well, they really add to the story.
Thanks for this article! Bane’s managed to get me to agree to give the Arkham games a whirl, so I’m eating up all the media on it I can at the moment. I don’t have a lot of knowledge of the comics, so it’ll be interesting to see how these games play out as stories in their own right for someone who doesn’t have any preconceived bias.