Batman: Arkham Knight Won't Bring The Joker Back

[Cognimancer]

Batman: Arkham Knight Won't Bring The Joker Back

Batman: Arkham Knight's villain line-up won't be featuring The Joker - he's already had plenty of time in the spotlight.

Batman and the Joker have one of the most iconic rivalries in history, but it is getting a bit over-saturated. After serving as the main antagonist for all three Arkham games, the Joker will be sitting Arkham Knight out. Batman still has plenty of enemies to take his place, but the Joker's absence will definitely be felt - in fact, it's a critical part of the story. Beware, spoilers for Arkham City and very small spoilers for Arkham Knight lay ahead.

Anyone who finished Arkham City should understand why Joker isn't coming back this time around. Still, anything can happen in the realm of comics - a lot of people suspected that Batman's arch-nemesis would make a surprise return somehow, even wondering if he's the man behind the mask of the big new villain, the Arkham Knight. Well, don't worry - there won't be any shenanigans from the writers; the Joker's gone and he's not coming back. And that has some very interesting repercussions for Gotham.

In Arkham Knight, Batman has defeated his sizable rogues' gallery, and without the Joker's constant mischief, petty crime is at an all-time low. The bad guys are desperate, and for the first time they're willing to join forces and put aside their individual agendas - or at least, hide them from each other - to take down the Bat once and for all. The Joker's chaotic influence was always a pain, but without him to disrupt this plan, Batman is facing an organized, rational alliance of supervillains. Until they start the backstabbing, presumably.

So who's behind all this if not the Joker - who is the Arkham Knight? It could be a new character, but it's a perfect setup for a twist reveal. The smart money is on Prometheus or Azrael, though I'm pulling for the charmingly British pair of Batman fanboys, Knight and Squire.

Source: Game Informer [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2014/03/05/revealing-the-story-of-batman-arkham-knight.aspx]

Permalink

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Honestly, good. To bring him back would cheapen everything that happened at the end of City, and it would also undercut Mark Hamill's performance. He said that that would be his last performance as The Joker, and I feel Rockstar (Ha ha, oops! Rocksteady) wanted to make the game as a tribute to him for that. To bring the Joker back in a sequel would ruin that feeling.
I also think it would break the storyline for me. It would show that they aren't willing to take risks and don't have faith that they can tell an engaging Batman story without the Joker.

 

[Olas]

Funny how it's news to learn a dead character WON'T be somehow brought back to life in a contrived manner. Shouldn't this really be something we assume in the first place?

Honestly, good. To bring him back would cheapen everything that happened at the end of City, and it would also undercut Mark Hamill's performance. He said that that would be his last performance as The Joker, and I feel Rockstar wanted to make the game as a tribute to him for that. To bring the Joker back in a sequel would ruin that feeling.

I agree with the sentiment, but by the sound of it he was in Arkham Origins already anyway, I know it's technically a prequel but it still kinda undermines the spirit of him leaving and unless he had zero dialogue he must have been voiced by someone who isn't Mark Hamill.

 

[Tanis]

I'm hoping AK is actually Alfred.

Sick of Bruce's bullshit, he decides to take him down...hard.

 

[RJ 17]

...and I feel Rockstar (Rocksteady) wanted to make the game...

Playing a bit to much GTA, perhaps?

Besides that little correction, I agree with your post. Personally I really enjoyed the story behind Arkham City, and I'm glad that my (and many others') theory was correct in that Rocksteady was just taking a break from the Arkham series to go make another game - which is why we got a prequel in Origins - but now they're back at the helm to give us the sequel to City.

And yeah, considering the ending to City, it's absolutely impossible to bring Joker back for a sequel without just utterly shattering the entire point of the story behind City. It ruins Batman's story, the game's story, and even the Harley's Revenge DLC's story.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what they intend to do with Scarecrow in this new game. And yes, I'm about 99.9% positive (as positive as I can be without knowing for absolute certain) that Scarecrow is going to be in the next game - perhaps even as the main villain - because of all the Scarecrow easter eggs in Arkham City.

Spoiler: Such as the coded radio messages:

Seriously, how the hell are you supposed to decode that last one without someone specifically telling you how to do it? It's frickin' triple-ciphered!

Spoiler: And, of course, the hidden room on Scarecrow's boat:

The piece of paper at the end is an invoice made out to Dr. Crane, in case you can't tell.

 

[RJ 17]

Funny how it's news to learn a dead character WON'T be somehow brought back to life in a contrived manner. Shouldn't this really be something we assume in the first place?

Considering the crap that's pulled in the comic book world, you really can't assume anything. One of the random thugs during the post-game faffing about actually says "So there were two Joker's? How do we know there's not another one?" And another says "Joker ain't dead, he's just messin' with the Bat."

Honestly, good. To bring him back would cheapen everything that happened at the end of City, and it would also undercut Mark Hamill's performance. He said that that would be his last performance as The Joker, and I feel Rockstar wanted to make the game as a tribute to him for that. To bring the Joker back in a sequel would ruin that feeling.

I agree with the sentiment, but by the sound of it he was in Arkham Origins already anyway, I know it's technically a prequel but it still kinda undermines the spirit of him leaving and unless he had zero dialogue he must have been voiced by someone who isn't Mark Hamill.

To be fair, and while I didn't enjoy Origins as much as the first two games, I will say that the voice acting was all pretty well done for the main characters. Of course not as good as Kevin Conroy and mark Hamill, but still it wasn't atrocious.

 

[cerebus23]

There were number of clues that the joker that died in ac was not the real one which would make more sense than the joker being dead.

so yes it is good they say he wont be in the next one. because many people hold to the clues that point he never died.

 

[TheCaptain]

...he must have been voiced by someone who isn't Mark Hamill.

It was Troy Baker, and I thought he did an amazing job.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind at all if the Joker was around for the finale. Arkham City was fun and special and all, but I gotta admit, I'm not buying Batman games for the new and exciting way they go about things - I buy them because I know what I'm getting. So for the record, if for example Mark Hamill goes back on the whole 'Last Time' thing I would be totally ok if the not-including-Joker business went out the window, because in the end, I'd probably have more fun with a game that's including him.

Alternatively, with Scarecrow returning, there'll probably be a lot more nightmare/hallucination sequences, and what would haunt Bats more than what happened in Arkham City?

 

[Dreadman75]

...and I feel Rockstar (Rocksteady) wanted to make the game...

Playing a bit to much GTA, perhaps?

Besides that little correction, I agree with your post. Personally I really enjoyed the story behind Arkham City, and I'm glad that my (and many others') theory was correct in that Rocksteady was just taking a break from the Arkham series to go make another game - which is why we got a prequel in Origins - but now they're back at the helm to give us the sequel to City.

And yeah, considering the ending to City, it's absolutely impossible to bring Joker back for a sequel without just utterly shattering the entire point of the story behind City. It ruins Batman's story, the game's story, and even the Harley's Revenge DLC's story.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what they intend to do with Scarecrow in this new game. And yes, I'm about 99.9% positive (as positive as I can be without knowing for absolute certain) that Scarecrow is going to be in the next game - perhaps even as the main villain - because of all the Scarecrow easter eggs in Arkham City.

Spoiler: Such as the coded radio messages:

Seriously, how the hell are you supposed to decode that last one without someone specifically telling you how to do it? It's frickin' triple-ciphered!

Spoiler: And, of course, the hidden room on Scarecrow's boat:

The piece of paper at the end is an invoice made out to Dr. Crane, in case you can't tell.

Holy Freaking God! Thank goodness for the internet and it's seemingly endless supply of codebreakers. I wonder just how long it took for any of them to decode that final secret message?

Anyway, the evidence certainly seems compelling. I haven't played Arkham Origins (don't really want to for some reason, loved Arkham City though) but I can say I'm looking forward to Arkham Knight. I wonder who else is likely to make an appearance, I'm guessing Hush is almost a shoe-in considering his side mission in Arkham City.

 

[RJ 17]

Edited for a couple spelling errors.

There were number of clues that the joker that died in ac was not the real one which would make more sense than the joker being dead.

so yes it is good they say he wont be in the next one. because many people hold to the clues that point he never died.

Other than the random thugs talking about how they can't believe Joker's dead (as I mentioned in the post just above yours), I'd like to hear of this evidence you're talking about.

...and I feel Rockstar (Rocksteady) wanted to make the game...

Playing a bit to much GTA, perhaps?

Besides that little correction, I agree with your post. Personally I really enjoyed the story behind Arkham City, and I'm glad that my (and many others') theory was correct in that Rocksteady was just taking a break from the Arkham series to go make another game - which is why we got a prequel in Origins - but now they're back at the helm to give us the sequel to City.

And yeah, considering the ending to City, it's absolutely impossible to bring Joker back for a sequel without just utterly shattering the entire point of the story behind City. It ruins Batman's story, the game's story, and even the Harley's Revenge DLC's story.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what they intend to do with Scarecrow in this new game. And yes, I'm about 99.9% positive (as positive as I can be without knowing for absolute certain) that Scarecrow is going to be in the next game - perhaps even as the main villain - because of all the Scarecrow easter eggs in Arkham City.

Spoiler: Such as the coded radio messages:

Seriously, how the hell are you supposed to decode that last one without someone specifically telling you how to do it? It's frickin' triple-ciphered!

Spoiler: And, of course, the hidden room on Scarecrow's boat:

The piece of paper at the end is an invoice made out to Dr. Crane, in case you can't tell.

Holy Freaking God! Thank goodness for the internet and it's seemingly endless supply of codebreakers. I wonder just how long it took for any of them to decode that final secret message?

Anyway, the evidence certainly seems compelling. I haven't played Arkham Origins (don't really want to for some reason, loved Arkham City though) but I can say I'm looking forward to Arkham Knight. I wonder who else is likely to make an appearance, I'm guessing Hush is almost a shoe-in considering his side mission in Arkham City.

Seriously, that first code would be pretty easy to guess at. The 2nd code would be a little bit tricky. But the third code uses actual ciphers. I wonder who figured it out first, if someone actually broke the code or if Rocksteady put it in the strategy guide or told IGN or something about it. I do know that there was an easter egg in Arkham Asylum that literally no one ever found for like, 3 years after the game came out. Rocksteady eventually had to come out and say how to find it. It's a secret office for the warden, complete with approved blueprints for Arkham City.

Spoiler: Behold: the secret room that literally NO ONE found.

As for who all is going to be in Arkham Knight, there's a good chance that Ra's might be coming back. After the whole deal with the tower and Joker contacts you to invite you to the theater, you can still see the body of Ra's laying on top of the gate where he lands during the cut scene, complete with his sword still sticking out of him.

Yet during the post-game faffing about, if you go back to the gate you'll notice that his body is gone, and someone has apparently stuck the sword into the street.

Spoiler: Spooky. :P

 

[EndlessSporadic]

This whole post is a spoiler, but if you didn't want spoilers you wouldn't be reading the comments. Anything that happens beyond this sentence is your fault.

A dead character...isn't coming back? I didn't know that was a thing. Can someone confirm that that's a thing?

In all seriousness, I am both happy and sad he is gone. He always added an entertaining and twisted experience. That said, I am a firm believer of creators "sticking with what they wrote". When watching anime, it always pisses me off to no end seeing a dead character brought back to life after there is a huge scene not 5 minutes ago portraying the importance of their death. Having a death-revival scene is a cheap emotion grab that has no significance.

I digress. The Joker will be missed, but I am happy to hear he isn't coming back after the writers killed him off. Since Rocksteady is developing this one I have high expectations that they can pull this off without him.

 

[Roxas1359]

As others in this thread have said, it's good that Joker won't be returning for Arkham Knight. The story for City and it's ending were so well done, and Mark Hamill's performance in it was probably one of the best ones he'd done for the Joker yet if you ask me. And while yes Joker being in Origins and not being voiced by Hamill cheapens the impact of Arkham City for some, I'd be lying if I didn't say that Troy Baket did a pretty damn good job as Joker in that game.

 

[EyeReaper]

I know comic books have kinda a wonky perception on how death works, I mean, hell. I know Batman's died at least once.. and that caused him to travel through time or some shit.

Spoiler: Besides, Take it away Shirou

But really, I'm thankful Joker's staying dead. The main reason I don't want to play origins is that I feel it undermines the entire point of killing off a character just to go "Herp de Derp prequel let's bring him back." Although I totally called that as soon as I beat City. I think everyone guessed the next game after that would be a prequel.

 

[immortalfrieza]

My vote? Maybe this is a chance for Harley to be in a prominent role and maybe be an actual threat for once. I'd definitely like to see Harley step out of Joker's shadow and treated as an actual villain instead of a complete joke, maybe even out crazy him.

Also, I'd like to see more hectic tension filled boss battles like the one Origins had with Deathstroke and Copperhead, and of course Scarecrow sections, lots of them.

Personally, I wouldn't mind Joker coming back by itself, being a comic book fan kinda makes you immune to that after awhile. I don't consider it cheapening the City ending or Mark's last performance seeing as this sort of stuff happens all the time in fiction but I hate how he completely hijacks the plot of every game he's ever in. So in the off chance Rocksteady is B.S.ing us then I'd prefer it if he had a minor role.

 

[Not Matt]

oh goody, This must be one of the few times in a comic book anything where dead means dead and not "not-gonna-be-on-screen-until-the-next-anything". And with what looks like Hunter S penguin, postal Two face and officer Quinn. Not to mention i believe that voice over was done by scarecrow. I am now a very happy boy. Can't wait to play it.

 

[LazyAza]

Hush, Azrael and Scarecrow are all going to be the big parts of this game I feel since they were all heavily teased/setup in city.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Maybe the Knight is a new alter-ego for Bruce for some contrived reason or another? Like Batman 2.0 with some new powers or something to change things up from pure gadgetry and knee-to-face combat.

 

[Foolery]

Good. He shouldn't have been in Origins either, in my opinion. The plot would have been fine if they had simply just did Black Mask, along with giving Deathstroke more screen time. No twist was needed.

 

[Buizel91]

Good. He shouldn't have been in Origins either, in my opinion. The plot would have been fine if they had simply just did Black Mask, along with giving Deathstroke more screen time. No twist was needed.

You have to admit though, it was a VERY good twist and was very well done. Which is why i didn't mind it, it didn't feel cheap, or tacky. For me anyway it was a complete shock.

Anyway this is good, let one of the other villains be the main threat for a change, my money is on Scarecrow.