Vicky not main villian
Ok hear me out! I was thinking during the scene where Batman goes to the Vales house and you see her parents dead and then you puzzle out how they died. To me the way Vicky killed them was very aggressive and brutal and she must have a lot of anger which then got me thinking....
Is Vicky Vale under the influence of this drug? And if she is does that mean there's a completely different person who is behind the thing?
Which then I think! Is it joker?? He knew about Vickys background. She must of been a patient of the asylum that's where she met Joker and he got it into her head??
Sorry for the long post. Anyone agree/disagree? Or have an alternative? Be good to hear what people think?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I don't think Telltale will go the Joker being the big bad route, because they would cop a lot of backlash for it. That's happened too many times. That being said, the idea that Vicky is under the influence is interesting. It'd be a hard sell still to bring in a completely new villain though, considering how many villains we've actually had in the first four episodes alone.
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). I wanna believe that thay presented him to use him on a second season or in a DLC episode, but... meh. He already has two major choices dedicated to him!
I'll cry if Lady Arkham is not true ;( .
No, no, no. Just no.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they said that she those were her foster parents; the Arkham parents were both driven insane so it'd make sense for them not being around anymore. And some foster children don't build the deepest connections with their foster parents, so it wouldn't be completely out of wack if it was just because she disliked them.
Probably not Joker but I can conceive someone else pulling the strings, Vicki being manipulated by the drug.
Joker is returning in season finale and I don't think he would settle down he will show his true colours
Joker is returning in season finale and I don't think he would settle down he will show his true colours
I'm not sure why, but I got the feeling during the crime-scene investigation that Batman was wrong about Vicky being the murderer.
For one, he didn't find any of Vicky's DNA at the scene; all of his evidence was based on speculation about Vicky's assumed emotional state and hatred for her foster parents. Vicky also, apparently, managed to hang her heavyset step-father in the closet with his own belt. Now we could just put this down to her being stronger than she looks, and a trained fighter, but I still can't visualize clearly how she'd do it. Seems to me she'd have to pick up his dead body with just one arm and then string him up with the second arm -- something a large, strong male villain is more likely to be able to accomplish.
I know Batman found some of Vicky's hair, but that could be a red-herring. I don't think Batman confirmed the hair was Vicky's, and, even if it is, who's to say she was there alone or that events transpired as Batman concluded they did?
I'm probably wrong, and it probably was Vicky. But, like I said, something just felt off to me. The solution seemed too easy.
I don't think a drug could really make Vicki act as she did in episode 3, there are no drug side effects what-so-ever (no red-ish eyes, volatile behavior or visible veins) and a drug like that would be technically impossible to fabricate. You can't insert information such as 'You are Lady Arkham'/'You're doing this for retribution' onto a 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.