Nobody claimed to believe in Santa Clause, kid. Relax. But perhaps you should see a psychologist for your obvious case of NPD.
If we're talking about the real world, you're right. There aren't many rich people that could be considered good guys. Don't get me wrong, there are a few. Your claim that having money automatically equates to being a bad guy is subjective, however. The example you give immediately after making this statement is that "You can't call yourself a good guy and laugh at other peoples misery." This is ironic because we never see Batman laughing at other people's misery. In fact, in most if not all fictional portrayals of Batman so far, he is hurt by the misfortune of others. Even his enemies. So are you calling him a good guy? Your very logic also implies that one person can fix/control an entire world with wealth alone. They cannot.
Your assumption that I have some kind of "pathetic fanaticism" for old Batman is false. I can't speak for the other guy, but I can say this. Outside of enjoying a couple of the newer Batman movies, I'm not really too big of a fan. I generally laugh at people that take these super hero stories too seriously. I don't read comics. I didn't watch the cartoons. I haven't even seen all of the movies. Your claim that this is my only support for my above argument is therefore false. My support is the fact that there are literally drugs being used to control people into committing violent actions and murders. (Hill: "He was getting too violent.") Even better, the entire theme of the season thus far seems to be puppeteering.
My comment was simply a proposal that perhaps there is more to the story. That perhaps... much like we've seen "control & influence" throughout the entire season... there is something more that we do not yet know about that could've been influencing Thomas' actions. I also pointed out that the claim that perhaps Alfred & Martha were not aware of said influence or motivation is also viable. Your blatant objection of this because you have a differing opinion is no better than the other posters blatant denial that Thomas is guilty. Except: you kind of imagined his blatant denial. He said in the title of this thread that he is just not taking it at face value, and he's simply proposing alternative possibilities. Why this upsets you so is beyond me.
I, personally, am not blatantly denying either scenario. I believe you could be right, and I believe you could be wrong. I also believe you should relax. We're discussing a fictional story here. Let's not get ourselves all worked up, k?
First, Bruce is a "bad guy", he is living the life because his father was a criminal, he is living the dream while other people are living i… moren the streets, what kind of hero is a rich guy that lives in a mansion while there are people out there sleeping in the floor ? Such a good guy, remember he is only Batman because of his eccentric revenge against the criminals because of what happened to his parents. You can't call yourself a good guy and laugh at others people misery. Doing good doesn't make it up for your bad actions.
A video, witnesses, photos, ALFRED, the life ruined of Oswald, I think those are very good reasons to believe Thomas was a criminal, while your only support is your pathetic fanaticism for old Batman versions with "good parents".
Sorry but if there is evidence in front of you, and you decide to ignore it just because you don't like the truth, you are a moron, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, the Queen of England, they all a… [view original content]
I don't want another twist. I think what TTG is doing takes balls, and really shows that this is really their own Batman tale. I was questioning the whole corrupt Wayne family thing at first, but looks like that boat has sailed. I really like what they're doing, so I'd hate to see them undo it. Like Vale or Wayne being framed or something akin to that. I also hope Joker's cameo was just a cameo, and that he isn't involved anymore until the next season. I don't mind a season finale teaser of what's to come featuring Joker, though; I mean it's GOING to happen.
Did you pick up on the implications that Vicki's foster parents were abusive to her when she was a child?
That kind of thing could easily prompt that sort of response in her character.
Really? Is it really easier for you to believe that all those people are just mistaken and all the presented info was false, than accepting that in this Batman universe, Thomas was a despicable person?
In my opinion, this whole corruption background thing adds more meaning and motivation behind Batman's race against crime. Bruce had a good life due to his father's fortune. A fortune built on the suffering of others. Whether he intended or not, he's now one of the peple who profited from such despicable acts. Batman is his redemption. His way of cleaning himself from all the guilt. Bruce can't undo the crimes that happened in the past, but he can correct those happening in the present and that's how he forgives himself. The addition of this infamous background gives the whole Batman idea more meaning, making this an incredibly good move from Telltale, writting wise.
Now what would happen to the plot in general if you dismantled this idea? This crucial plot point? Besides being practically impracticable (more on that below), it would make the whole plot utterly pointless. The Children of Arkham, the vilains of this whole series, would become a terrorist movement based on a misunderstanding, all its meaning would go away. We would look back and realise that we are the ultimate innocent of the story and they the bad, bad people; and having a story resolving around these extremes is always uninteresting. Our vilains become unjustified and therefore the whole narrative looses its value. Every conflict would just become shallow.
Now, tell me, how can you discredit everything we've been presented with so far? I just can't see how, they've gone too deep with this corruption plot to just back away now.
Alfred would have to be mistaken about Thomas' corruption, which is really unbelievable since he was in the room one time when Thomas was meeting with Falcone (ARS photo). It would also be unthinkable to think Alfred was about to leave the Waynes without being sure that they were indeed at fault.
I don't even know how you would discredit that video. Thomas' voice lines in the video didn't seem cropped out, neither did Esther's when she talked about Bruce and Oz. It is possible that they editted Thomas' image to the video, but there's nothing indicating such, since his movements showed to be smooth.
Falcone and Hill would have to be lying to Bruce and Batman about the things they did with "Tommy". Why would they do such a thing? Considering Hill gave up the data file with Falcone's corruption evidence on it and also gave up the video of the drugging of Esther - also know as: basically framing themselves - there's no way they were doing such to try to blame it all on the Waynes.
Penguin's research about Martha's participation in all of it would also have to be false or a lie. Why would he lie about Martha being partly innocent? What would he gain from all of that?
The data Bruce finds about it would also have to be discredited. It was official data therefore pretty reliable, so I'll leave it to you to find a reason for why it would a lie.
The guys we fight in Arkham also claimed they were going to hurt Bruce because his father put them in there. What reason would they have to claim such a thing if it is not so?
Finally, every single person in the Children of Arkham would have to mistaken, which I find unlikely.
It's possible that Roland's physical attributes exist due to Thomas' experiments, therefore he probably saw Thomas doing whatever he did.
They've gone too deep with this new canon, it would be really hard an unrealistic to make all of this become a lie. (besides from being a kind of cheap twist to have). Telltale did say that they were going to change canon, so I still don't get why this all comes as a surprise.
I do agree, however that we should always have slight doubts about everything presented to us. We can't be sure until we are shown irrefutable proof, which one might argument that we already have, but you never know.
About the actual discussion topic. Vicki may not be the vilain, indeed and there may (I repeat, may) be someone pulling all the strings (namely the Joker who shows to know waay too much) (at least it's way more likely than having the Waynes sudenly being not corrupt). I really, really hope not, but it is a possibility.
About Vicki being possibly being used by another unknow person:
It is possible however, that they manipulated her into it. It was pretty obvious this Vicki was more about selling the story (as we can see in her behavior on the scene at Cobblepot park). She had definitely ties with the Children. Maybe they just told her to do that to Bruce under the promisse that it'd give her a great story to sell. After the deed was done, they just 'disposed' of her, had 'Lady Arkham' (if Lady Arkham exists at all) claim she kidnapped Vicki, planted a lock of her hair on the Vales' murder crime scene and that was enough to fully convince the Bat that she is the leader.
But then again, what would be the benefit of all this?
Again, I hope none of this happens, but it's not completely impossible.
About Vicki being used by the Joker specifically:
I hope that doesn't happen since I'm loving Lady Arkham as a vilain, but it's certainly not impossible. Maybe, maybe (hopefully not) Joker is the one behind all this.
Just imagine it. Victoria Arkham is a lie, a story he made up to have us, both Batman and Bruce, think she has motivations, preventing us from doubting she is actually behind all of it. He sends us to the Vales, knowing that Batman would find them dead. How did he know they were dead without being involved? Vicki Vale, the actual Vicki Vale, is dead; Joker has this 'Lady Arkham' (which is not a Lady, but a Lord Arkham (Joker)) claim she kidnapped her, making Bruce believe that Vicki Vale missing is all a set-up from Vicki herself. Vicki's actions in episode 3 could be explained by some sort of god-like drug (which surprisingly has no visible side effects) or maybe even acomplished through manipulation.
Anyways, this would, in my honest opinion, suck ass. I'm still holding onto the hope that this isn't all a set-up by the Joker and that Vicki is actually Lady Arkham. But the question remains... why would they add the Joker if not with the intent of using him in the future (especially considering he has to be somewhat involved with the plot because of the Vales thing).
Still, I don't believe the Joker would be the one to set up Vicki if this is the case. He'd be acting against his own movement by giving Bruce the nest lead on the drugs locations (the Vale double murder). Besides, his intentions to me were pretty clear: He wants to be entertained and have Gotham on a state of chaos, so the moment he gets out of Arkham it'll be easier for him to slip through the craks in the recently broken system, therefore he plays both Vicki and Bruce/Batman to colide with eachother, so Gotham goes through this mini war. He puts Batman in the right direction, so he undermines Lady Arkham, which will result in Lady Arkham hurting him back, therefore hurting everything around them two. I doubt Joker's official movement is this one with all these relatively 'noble' intentions.
The way I see it, there would have to be another character acting from behind, but who would that be? We have two options: a new character which would be presented way too late into the story, or Selina, which is just ridiculous.
I find it way easier to believe it's all Vicki. Her motivations and background all line up with the movement's message:
Vicki was left with an 'unquenchable thrist for revenge'. She grew up under abuse and watching the person who destroyed her life and got her relatives killed similling on TV, being thanked for his 'good deeds', drowning in money, money gotten through the killing of her parents. She then sees this 'progidy' kid, just like her, living the life of a god, using money adquired through her sacrifice. While he's there lying on the news, being aclaimed, hiding his true face, a face only she knew about; she's a no-one, getting weekly beatings from people who were suposed to protect her.
Vicki (Realm of Shadows): "Some of us are old fashioned -- I still want the truth.
Lady Arkham (Children of Arkham): "We are here to end the maquerade and expose the corruption at root in your city."
Vicki is plotting to 'end the charade'. She's been refining a drug, over and over, so she can get people to finally tell the truth to talk and act on their base impulses because she grew up obssessed in taking down liars who got away with the murder of countless innocent people. Now that she's gotten those who wronged her out of the way (Hill and Falcone) she wants to make sure that never happens again, that no more corrupt jerks get away with it.
It is a delusional, and seemingly impossible, plan, sure, but if she did improve the drug just so the victim doesn't turn completely violent, then it has become possible.
Adding another person behind it all would just be a cheap attempt at having shock value, because the meaning and motivations of the vilain would go unchanged, the only difference would be the name, therefore such plot change would be essentially pointless.
Alfred gave us what he thought was going on, true. But then they died. Who knows if he was right?
I find it much harder to believe Thomas and Martha Wayne were basically Hitler.
I honestly thought of the Joker immediately when I saw the gruesome scene... Like the Joker gives you the location in the first place. the idea that Joker could of hired some goon to take them out and frame vale for it makes sense and we all know that the Joker is not beyond murder .- .
But then again I might be wrong and she did it.. Hopefully we will find out in the last episode... But it would be somewhat cool if Lady Arkham and Batman worked together to take the joker down (Because if he did kill her parent she would want vengeance ) - . Although she still deserved to be locked In black gate and have the key destroyed .
I just don't see her being that vicious.
Did you pick up on the implications that Vicki's foster parents were abusive to her when she was a child?
That kind of thing could easily prompt that sort of response in her character.
But why wouldn't she do that. Because your perception of her so far is that she couldn't be a vicious person? Based on what? How much of it is resenting not being able to ship Vicki and Bruce? If you're willing to overlook Falcone's confession, Hill's confession, Alfred's confession, the video evidence (which has been stated 'in-game' as legit) and Bruce's acceptance that his father wasn't who he thought he was, then I think you're latching onto conspiracies, and basically resisting the entire backstory that Telltale is setting up, out of denial.
Those little point-and-click detective scenes in these episodes are literally about working out what has happened. It's an interactive way of revealing a heap of exposition. If the player's recreation of events is actually false, then it's not serving it's purpose in the game.
Removing the eyes is a fairly textbook trope to imply that someone witnessed a crime, but did nothing to stop it, and therefore is complicit in the act. If you feel it was a bit overboard, I'd say Telltale was just trying to underlay an intensity we hadn't seen before behind Vicki's motivation in becoming Lady Arkham. Her parents' death and her subsequent life with the Vales has severely damaged her and she can now blame all that on the Waynes.
Maybe she's been exposed to some of her own drugs, which has made her extra violent, but I really don't think Telltale is looking to 'pull the rug out from under us' again in this particular instance. They've already done the twist reveal that Vicki is the big bad; doing another twist reveal that she's in fact 'not' the big bad, or that Joker is behind everything, would be poor writing.
They're just trying to put some more depth into Vicki's role as the villain, giving her a valid reason to hate the Waynes and even make the player sympathise and agree with her through her stance against corruption and its consequences.
But why wouldn't she do that. Because your perception of her so far is that she couldn't be a vicious person? Based on what? How much of it … moreis resenting not being able to ship Vicki and Bruce? If you're willing to overlook Falcone's confession, Hill's confession, Alfred's confession, the video evidence (which has been stated 'in-game' as legit) and Bruce's acceptance that his father wasn't who he thought he was, then I think you're latching onto conspiracies, and basically resisting the entire backstory that Telltale is setting up, out of denial.
Those little point-and-click detective scenes in these episodes are literally about working out what has happened. It's an interactive way of revealing a heap of exposition. If the player's recreation of events is actually false, then it's not serving it's purpose in the game.
Removing the eyes is a fairly textbook trope to imply that someone witnessed a crime, but did nothing to stop it, and the… [view original content]
Comments
Nobody claimed to believe in Santa Clause, kid. Relax. But perhaps you should see a psychologist for your obvious case of NPD.
If we're talking about the real world, you're right. There aren't many rich people that could be considered good guys. Don't get me wrong, there are a few. Your claim that having money automatically equates to being a bad guy is subjective, however. The example you give immediately after making this statement is that "You can't call yourself a good guy and laugh at other peoples misery." This is ironic because we never see Batman laughing at other people's misery. In fact, in most if not all fictional portrayals of Batman so far, he is hurt by the misfortune of others. Even his enemies. So are you calling him a good guy? Your very logic also implies that one person can fix/control an entire world with wealth alone. They cannot.
Your assumption that I have some kind of "pathetic fanaticism" for old Batman is false. I can't speak for the other guy, but I can say this. Outside of enjoying a couple of the newer Batman movies, I'm not really too big of a fan. I generally laugh at people that take these super hero stories too seriously. I don't read comics. I didn't watch the cartoons. I haven't even seen all of the movies. Your claim that this is my only support for my above argument is therefore false. My support is the fact that there are literally drugs being used to control people into committing violent actions and murders. (Hill: "He was getting too violent.") Even better, the entire theme of the season thus far seems to be puppeteering.
My comment was simply a proposal that perhaps there is more to the story. That perhaps... much like we've seen "control & influence" throughout the entire season... there is something more that we do not yet know about that could've been influencing Thomas' actions. I also pointed out that the claim that perhaps Alfred & Martha were not aware of said influence or motivation is also viable. Your blatant objection of this because you have a differing opinion is no better than the other posters blatant denial that Thomas is guilty. Except: you kind of imagined his blatant denial. He said in the title of this thread that he is just not taking it at face value, and he's simply proposing alternative possibilities. Why this upsets you so is beyond me.
I, personally, am not blatantly denying either scenario. I believe you could be right, and I believe you could be wrong. I also believe you should relax. We're discussing a fictional story here. Let's not get ourselves all worked up, k?
I don't want another twist. I think what TTG is doing takes balls, and really shows that this is really their own Batman tale. I was questioning the whole corrupt Wayne family thing at first, but looks like that boat has sailed. I really like what they're doing, so I'd hate to see them undo it. Like Vale or Wayne being framed or something akin to that. I also hope Joker's cameo was just a cameo, and that he isn't involved anymore until the next season. I don't mind a season finale teaser of what's to come featuring Joker, though; I mean it's GOING to happen.
Did you pick up on the implications that Vicki's foster parents were abusive to her when she was a child?
That kind of thing could easily prompt that sort of response in her character.
Really? Is it really easier for you to believe that all those people are just mistaken and all the presented info was false, than accepting that in this Batman universe, Thomas was a despicable person?
In my opinion, this whole corruption background thing adds more meaning and motivation behind Batman's race against crime. Bruce had a good life due to his father's fortune. A fortune built on the suffering of others. Whether he intended or not, he's now one of the peple who profited from such despicable acts. Batman is his redemption. His way of cleaning himself from all the guilt. Bruce can't undo the crimes that happened in the past, but he can correct those happening in the present and that's how he forgives himself. The addition of this infamous background gives the whole Batman idea more meaning, making this an incredibly good move from Telltale, writting wise.
Now what would happen to the plot in general if you dismantled this idea? This crucial plot point? Besides being practically impracticable (more on that below), it would make the whole plot utterly pointless. The Children of Arkham, the vilains of this whole series, would become a terrorist movement based on a misunderstanding, all its meaning would go away. We would look back and realise that we are the ultimate innocent of the story and they the bad, bad people; and having a story resolving around these extremes is always uninteresting. Our vilains become unjustified and therefore the whole narrative looses its value. Every conflict would just become shallow.
Now, tell me, how can you discredit everything we've been presented with so far? I just can't see how, they've gone too deep with this corruption plot to just back away now.
Alfred would have to be mistaken about Thomas' corruption, which is really unbelievable since he was in the room one time when Thomas was meeting with Falcone (ARS photo). It would also be unthinkable to think Alfred was about to leave the Waynes without being sure that they were indeed at fault.
I don't even know how you would discredit that video. Thomas' voice lines in the video didn't seem cropped out, neither did Esther's when she talked about Bruce and Oz. It is possible that they editted Thomas' image to the video, but there's nothing indicating such, since his movements showed to be smooth.
Falcone and Hill would have to be lying to Bruce and Batman about the things they did with "Tommy". Why would they do such a thing? Considering Hill gave up the data file with Falcone's corruption evidence on it and also gave up the video of the drugging of Esther - also know as: basically framing themselves - there's no way they were doing such to try to blame it all on the Waynes.
Penguin's research about Martha's participation in all of it would also have to be false or a lie. Why would he lie about Martha being partly innocent? What would he gain from all of that?
The data Bruce finds about it would also have to be discredited. It was official data therefore pretty reliable, so I'll leave it to you to find a reason for why it would a lie.
The guys we fight in Arkham also claimed they were going to hurt Bruce because his father put them in there. What reason would they have to claim such a thing if it is not so?
Finally, every single person in the Children of Arkham would have to mistaken, which I find unlikely.
It's possible that Roland's physical attributes exist due to Thomas' experiments, therefore he probably saw Thomas doing whatever he did.
They've gone too deep with this new canon, it would be really hard an unrealistic to make all of this become a lie. (besides from being a kind of cheap twist to have). Telltale did say that they were going to change canon, so I still don't get why this all comes as a surprise.
I do agree, however that we should always have slight doubts about everything presented to us. We can't be sure until we are shown irrefutable proof, which one might argument that we already have, but you never know.
About the actual discussion topic. Vicki may not be the vilain, indeed and there may (I repeat, may) be someone pulling all the strings (namely the Joker who shows to know waay too much) (at least it's way more likely than having the Waynes sudenly being not corrupt). I really, really hope not, but it is a possibility.
About Vicki being possibly being used by another unknow person:
About Vicki being used by the Joker specifically:
Still, I don't believe the Joker would be the one to set up Vicki if this is the case. He'd be acting against his own movement by giving Bruce the nest lead on the drugs locations (the Vale double murder). Besides, his intentions to me were pretty clear: He wants to be entertained and have Gotham on a state of chaos, so the moment he gets out of Arkham it'll be easier for him to slip through the craks in the recently broken system, therefore he plays both Vicki and Bruce/Batman to colide with eachother, so Gotham goes through this mini war. He puts Batman in the right direction, so he undermines Lady Arkham, which will result in Lady Arkham hurting him back, therefore hurting everything around them two. I doubt Joker's official movement is this one with all these relatively 'noble' intentions.
The way I see it, there would have to be another character acting from behind, but who would that be? We have two options: a new character which would be presented way too late into the story, or Selina, which is just ridiculous.
I find it way easier to believe it's all Vicki. Her motivations and background all line up with the movement's message:
Adding another person behind it all would just be a cheap attempt at having shock value, because the meaning and motivations of the vilain would go unchanged, the only difference would be the name, therefore such plot change would be essentially pointless.
I honestly thought of the Joker immediately when I saw the gruesome scene... Like the Joker gives you the location in the first place. the idea that Joker could of hired some goon to take them out and frame vale for it makes sense and we all know that the Joker is not beyond murder .- .
But then again I might be wrong and she did it.. Hopefully we will find out in the last episode... But it would be somewhat cool if Lady Arkham and Batman worked together to take the joker down (Because if he did kill her parent she would want vengeance ) - . Although she still deserved to be locked In black gate and have the key destroyed .
Lolwut
Of course. That doesn't mean she ripped their eyes out.
But why wouldn't she do that. Because your perception of her so far is that she couldn't be a vicious person? Based on what? How much of it is resenting not being able to ship Vicki and Bruce? If you're willing to overlook Falcone's confession, Hill's confession, Alfred's confession, the video evidence (which has been stated 'in-game' as legit) and Bruce's acceptance that his father wasn't who he thought he was, then I think you're latching onto conspiracies, and basically resisting the entire backstory that Telltale is setting up, out of denial.
Those little point-and-click detective scenes in these episodes are literally about working out what has happened. It's an interactive way of revealing a heap of exposition. If the player's recreation of events is actually false, then it's not serving it's purpose in the game.
Removing the eyes is a fairly textbook trope to imply that someone witnessed a crime, but did nothing to stop it, and therefore is complicit in the act. If you feel it was a bit overboard, I'd say Telltale was just trying to underlay an intensity we hadn't seen before behind Vicki's motivation in becoming Lady Arkham. Her parents' death and her subsequent life with the Vales has severely damaged her and she can now blame all that on the Waynes.
Maybe she's been exposed to some of her own drugs, which has made her extra violent, but I really don't think Telltale is looking to 'pull the rug out from under us' again in this particular instance. They've already done the twist reveal that Vicki is the big bad; doing another twist reveal that she's in fact 'not' the big bad, or that Joker is behind everything, would be poor writing.
They're just trying to put some more depth into Vicki's role as the villain, giving her a valid reason to hate the Waynes and even make the player sympathise and agree with her through her stance against corruption and its consequences.
There is a big theory that her foster family is abusive.
Basically because I think there's something else going on behind the scenes, but I don't have any evidence either way.