Batman Arkham series vs the Nolan trilogy

As a Batman fan I find myself having discussions about Keaton vs Bale or Burton vs Nolan, but honestly I feel like neither series really captured the spirit of the Batman universe properly. Honestly I feel that the Batman Arkham series does a far better job capturing the feel of not only Batman, but all of his villians. Does anyone else share these feelings? Even though some folks don't like Arkham Origins that much, I really do. It is the worst written of the 3 so far, but I still really like it. Plus imo it's the best place to begin (if you are new to the series). You get to see Joker's rise to power, plus Bane is MUCH better in these games than he is in the TDKR imo. I know this might cause some shit, but I also feel that the Joker from this series is FAARRR better than Heath Ledger's Joker from TDK.

I guess you could say that the Arkham series is a continuation of the Batman the Animated Series. But just like the X~Men 90's cartoon was a lot better than ANY xmen film, I would also say that Batman TAS is also better than any Batman film series.

I guess what got me thinking about this is the fact that I really like the Arkham games a lot. I find the stories to be far more engaging, the characters to be a lot closer to the source material, and the world actually feels like Gotham (unlike Nolan's films). While I do enjoy the Nolan films, they feel a little hollow imo, like something is missing. While the games on the other hand do a masterful job of really capturing the spirit and feel of Batman and Gotham.

So I guess my point is I think the Arkham Series is a much better representation of Batman than any film to date. Does anyone else share this opinion?

You're not wrong, the Arkham series was definitely my favorite non-comicbook version of the Batman universe since B:TAS. However it is unfair to compare a video-game to a live-action film because even in a big-budget Hollywood film, you are more limited to what you can do, the stories that you can tell than in a video game.

Pretty much what he said. Arkham is the truest batman piece of recent times. But the Nolan Trilogy was purposely going for more realism. I think that Burton got closest to capturing the spirit of the Bat on the screen, but I agree that Arkham is some good 'ol real Batman.

@youknowwhattodo: Yes you are right, being that it is a video game series, they do have a lot more possibilites and a lot less limitiations (budget etc). Maybe it isn't a fair comparision, but I just like things that stay closer to the source material. The Nolan series just seemed to really change many of the characters quite a bit, but yet many people didn't seem to mind. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but the Bane from TDKR kinda sucks imo. He's almost as bad as Juggernaut from xmen 3, a complete departure from who the character is imo. Also Ras Al Ghoul should have been more mysterious and more magical imo, maybe they should have brought him back for TDKR? Lazerus pit anyone?

I've always been a big Marvel guy, and I hate it when any of their films stray to far from the source material. I "like" the xmen films, but they are not half as good as the animated series, days of future past included. It seems to me that lately Marvel is trying to stay closer to their source material and fans embrace that. While DC on the other hand seems to be taking chances with their characters, and the fans seem ok with that as well. I guess I'm just a purest, I want Bane to be Bane, Joker to be Joker, and Robin to be not a cop thats for damn sure.

Just trying to have an open discussion on this topic, not trying to upset any fanboys. If anything I wish Marvel would make an xmen or avengers game that is half as good as the Arkham games, because they are freaking perfect imo.

I agree with most of these points, but movies do have to stray a little bit from the comics because if they just copied everything exactly as it was from the comic, then you might as well just have read the comic. Same goes for the TV shows. Batman TAS and the X-Men cartoon did plenty of things that didn't happen in the comics. In fact, I think the shows helped influence the comics a little bit (Harley Quinn, anyone?).

If you think about it, it is easy to compare the Arkham games to the Nolan trilogy. Both had a very good first installment, a massively successful sequel, and a third installment that, while it wasn't bad, had no chance of comparing to its predecessor.

Speaking of the Arkham Series, are their any characters from the games that you don't like? Or wish had bigger roles? Was the Joker too big of a part of the series? How do you think Arkham Knights will be without Joker?

For me they hit a grand slam. I can't really think of any characters that I wish got a bigger role. Maybe Riddler? It would of been nice to fight him at least once I suppose.

I would say Riddler, not because they wrote him poorly but because he was pretty much there to pad the gameplay hour total with the Riddler/Enigma puzzles and challenges and the payoff was not worth it.

In terms of who I'd wish had a bigger role, maybe have a few story missions that sprinkle in Nightwing and Robin like they did with Catwoman but it wasn't a big deal.

For the most part though the Arkham series gave me everything I could ask for, even if the last game wasn't the greatest.

I don't think that they are limited in a live action movie to what they can do, they limit themselves because they want it realistic, or they think the audience won't like it. GotG proves that there is very little that can't be put on film these days. Arkham games are excellent examples of an almost perfect game and i have absolutly no nits to pick with city, and very few with Asylum. I feel Nolan went for a style he liked that paid off, but it wasn't what I wanted.

The one glaring flaw that bothered me from Asylum and City was their treatment on Bane. Sure, they later explained why he was so dumb and useless, but it still meant we didn't get the dangerous and intelligent Bane of the comics. Seemed like a cop out.

They remedied that in Origins, which while the least favorite of my games, had the best interpretation of Bane. He was intelligent and a match for Bats even without the venom.

@r2datu: I agree with what you said about Bane, he did get short changed in Asylum. That is why I think the games should be played (or watched, very good movie versions on YT) in proper order. They really should be experienced; Origins, Asylum, then City, and eventually Knights (If this one lives up to expectations). Even though Asylum was the first game, starting with this one just leads to an underwhealming part 3 with Origins. But if you go in chronilogical order, then they just get better as the story unfolds. Plus when we get to Bane in Asylum, it makes sense why he is how he is. Plus it shows in Origins how Joker met Bane and why he wanted the venom so bad, because Bane was the only one to really challege Bats, and beating Bats was Joker's main objective in the whole series. That's why I am slightly sceptical of Knights, because Joker is dead. He really is the main antagonist of the series, and removing him from the story might be a mistake. also bringing him back from beyond the grave would also be a mistake. This next one needs to be Joker free, which will make it seem a little distant from the other 3 imo. They are all so closely related, but without knowing the story of Knights, it's a little hard to gauge.

It's unfair to compare a game to a film.

A game can have a campaign that lasts up to 11 hours; all in a single game which can flesh out different aspects in campaign, free roam, etc. You can find detective work on side-missions, story-mode which displays martial-arts, etc, in comparison to film the possibilities are much more expansive. A film can only do so much in a relatively short period of time.

@eyedcyou: Burton did certainly not capture the spirit of Batman whatsoever.

I was speaking more of the essence of Batman. The world I guess.

It wasn't. It was Burton's typical Gothic world with Batman in it.

Not looking to argue. I felt it was a good encapsulation of his world. That's all I'm gonna say.

@eyedcyou: All I'll say is that the TDKT was inspired by several key Batman stories; Burton's Batman only took inspiration from The Dark Knight Returns (supposedly) and Golden Age Batman (which hindered it).

@mikeyj122: How is Bane remotely better in the games? Because...the version in Asylum and City is one of the worst renditions I have ever seen. It took every misconception of Bane and amplified it, he had no redeeming qualities, Bane in TDKR was faithful to the essence of Bane, City/Asylum was not. The version of Bane in Origins however, was awesome.

@frozen: You answered your own question in your statement. I feel the character of Bane was given a MUCH better representation over the course of ALL 3 games, than he was in TDKR. Honestly I don't know how you could argue differently. Now if you just take the Bane from Asylum vs the Bane from TDKR, then yes I agree with you. But it seems you are quick to dismiss Origins, which many fans seem quick to do. Which I don't understand, it is an awesome game and a great story. Is it the worst of the series, yes. But TDKR is also the worst of it's series and I'd still say it is a pretty damn good movie.

This is why I feel that it is really best to start the Arkham series with Origins. Obviously many of the people in this forum probably played them in the order they were released (as did I), but chronilogical order tells a much better story imo. Which Origins IS the Bane game really, another reason I don't understand the hate. So by the time you see Bane again in Asylum, you know why he is, how he is.

Far better representation of Bane than TDKR IMO.

@mikeyj122: TDKR isn't the worst of the Nolan trilogy. Batman Begins is the weakest of the Nolan trilogy (and you'll see sources such as IMDb, AFI, Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic putting both TDK and TDKR a fair bit above Batman Begins). I also thought you cited Batman Begins a 7/10 and TDKR a 7.5/10?

And on the subject of Bane. The Titan stuff ruined the character. He was a bumbling character, his tactical precision, presence and intimidation was gone. He was a lumbering brute; Killer Croc had a better representation than Bane. How is it an evolution of the character? Because while one could argue that it gave him somewhat of a story, Asylum and City made Bane secondary.

It just created a lot of misconception for the character; many simply attribute Bane as a big lumbering because of the game (and well, 1997's Batman and Robin). Thankfully, Origins and TDKR (both released in 2012) restored credibility to an awesome villain.

Why do you like the Bane in Asylum/City? Did you like the evolution from Origins?

The Arkham games aren't necessarily a better depiction, they're just closer to the comics.

@frozen: Ok, not really looking to dispute every little thing. I like all 3 Nolan films, along with Batman 1989 and Batman Returns, they would all make my top 5 Batman films. I'd have to think about it to come up with an order. But my point is, I DO like all 3 films. I have just read multiple people bash TDKR, one of which was Kevin Smith. Which one opinion doesn't mean that much to me, just pointing out that yes some Batman fans don't like TDKR all that much.

As for venom ruining the character, that was the whole point. He was addicted to the stuff. I'd rather have that explanation than the pretty much avoidince of the issue that TDKR had. They never even really addressed it much, and it was so obvious that ripping off his mask would hurt him. But as for Arkham ruining the character, then you should really be pissed about the Joker. They killed him off, can't ruin a character more than killing him off. I'm just saying that both of those things are major plot points for the whole series, I don't know how you could think they were a bad thing. IMO its better than making Bane Talia Al Ghoul's little bitch, which is exactly how Nolan depicted him.

@mikeyj122: Some people didn't, but the context for Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises is different. Batman Begins didn't have much hype. Prior to it, came Batman and Robin which was dreadful, so it was easy to be blown away by it. The Dark Knight Rises however, not only had to act as a sequel for The Dark Knight (which was much better received than Batman Begins) but also conclude a trilogy. If we also look at online hate, then both Skyfall and several MCU films have been subject to bashing - but on an objective basis, sites such as AFI, Rotten Tomatoes, etc rank the last two Dark Knight films as much better than Begins.

Anyways, I'm not disputing that you like the 3 films. I happen to generally like the first two Keaton Batman films too (and still do).

Nolan did not depict Bane as Talia's b*tch at all. In fact, the twist simply revealed she was the trigger woman and would carry on the final act of the plan. She worked with Bane; everything which came before was mostly Bane: and a partnership between the two is relatively faithful to the comics.

I think the example fits in line with Arkham City more than TDKR. Bane was still a menace in TDKR, and a genius tactician. But Hugo Strange was made secondary in comparison to Ra's Al Ghul and thrown away rather quickly.

Anyways, the only thing I found bad was Bane in the first two Arkham Games. On a general level, I love the Arkham series and certainly it's depiction of The Joker, but Bane's ''evolution'' was not done in the way I'd have hoped. Bane being addicted to drugs comes with the consequence of decreased intelligence which always undermines the character's quality traits (technically, Batman and Robin did follow a somewhat similar path with Bane).

2/3 of Arkham games are good. 3/3 Dark Knight movies are good.

I enjoyed watching 10 minutes of DK movies more than playing 10 minutes of Arkham games.

But overall, Arkham games just have waaaay more content.

So a draw maybe?

@jonez120: How can you say only 2/3 Arkham games were good? Origins is by no means a "bad" game.

@frozen: I agree with your take on Strange, he was just a bitch. But it was fine for him.

I guess I prefer having Ra's Al Ghoul and Joker being the main baddies like in Arkham than having Ra's die in the first film, then a Joker film, then a Bane/Talia film. Having the characters return over the course of the series is what I like better. But still Ra's Al Ghoul and the Joker died, so it wasn't like people didn't die.

@mikeyj122: Apologies.

2/3 of Arkham games are *superb.

We have talked about this, search for the older threads.

http://www.comicvine.com/batman/4005-1699/forums/batman-arkham-series-vs-the-dark-knight-trilogy-1467575/

Also:

Batman arkham asylum & city are both sooooooo much better than baleman's movies. Baleman *cough cough* *Fatman is a disgrace to batman, he wasn't nearly as smart as batman, he wasn't nearly as good as batman on combat and he was batman for one and a half year only. I know it was meant to be "more realistic", but fatman was sooo slow when fighting, how many people got to know about his secret identity? Lol

Now, the arkham batman is more like it, the game is more enjoyable, he didn't have throat cancer because he was voiced by Kevin freaking Conroy. He actually knew how to fight, he has gadgets, he had intelligence, but not fatman. The only arkham game that is worse, is origins cause let's face it, that game was terrible.

Rocksteady does a better job. Not to mention batman arkham knight, I can't wait for that game any longer.

P.S Kevin Conroy is the greatest batman in my opinion.

@captain_batman_ftw: I agree with your proclaims that Kevin Conroy is the best Batman we have ever had. He is my favorite as well.

I know this is an apples vs oranges debate, but I meant it more as a lovefest for all things Arkham (Origins included). But I am glad Conroy is voicing Bats in Knights, but I did like both guys that did joker and bats in Origins. They were not as good as Conroy/Hamill no, but who is? They are my favorite Batman/Joker combo by far. Ledger and Bale can eat a fat dick compared to Hamill and Conroy IMO. But again, thats just my opinion. :)

@mikeyj122: I know.

Conroy/Hamill > Bale/Ledger

Those games are so good the fighting mechanic along. Well looks like I know what I have planned for this weekend.

Arkham City would make the best movie!!!!

I have read several comments and its pretty obvious people overrate the Arkham games to the extreme.

Its the new Final Fantasy VII.

My only issues with the Arkham Series, is too much Joker. I think Origins finally (somewhat redressed the balance) but I got a bit bored of the Joker being the ultimo villain in all of the games.

The use of the Riddler was really good in the games, as he was more a supplementary villain than a boss but antagonising none the less.

As much as I love the Arkham games, Nolan's Batman kept you on the edge of your seat more because he actually gets challenged. Arkham Batman is too perfect; he beat his toughest enemies in one night when he was still a rookie.

Arkham is a better Batman depiction. Nolan movies are more advanced in storytelling.

I agree it's a better Batman depiction. Why do you think the Nolan movies are more advanced in storytelling?

@infinitehope: this is a discussion that could be carried for a very long time so I won’t really go into it that deeply.

The Dark Knight is more concentrated on motifs, symbolism, meaning, layering its story, interconnectivity, and setting things up very well. And it’s also designed so that something new is brought out of the Joker at his every appearance which keeps him interesting.

Arkham would really benefit from seeing a pre-death in the family Batman. Because the story hinges on Batman pushing people away after his death, but we have such an unfleshed out perspective on things. And we never play Bruce Wayne so a large portion of his current life is blocked from us.

I don’t like how they handled the joker blood thing. It was very stupid.

I think TDKR is pretty weak though. Definitely worse than the Arkham games.

@zafros13: Thank you. Appreciate it!