Gotham (Discussion/spoilers)

[DIrishB]

So I watched it today and there were two things that I didn't like. I didn't like The Penguin killing the man for his sandwich. It seemed a little too early in what I assume is going to be a main character for him to go full murderous sociopath on us. I also didn't like Alfred. He felt too hard ass to me. Otherwise it was good.

I liked Alfred being somewhat of a hardass. It kind of makes perfect sense, too, in regards to what Bruce will become. While we only saw his interaction with his parents a little, neither seemed very stern. Alfred's sternness will likely have an influence on Bruce in terms of becoming a hardass as well. I also liked that Bruce pushed back a bit in the scene towards the end when Gordon visits him to inform him of what really happened.

But yeah, if you think about it, Alfred as a bit of a stern and slightly overbearing, hard figure for Bruce makes a lot of sense.

 

[wyokid]

So I watched it again and I have to say, this is REALLY bad. I like it, but man does it have WAY too much going on, there's no tension since we know that Gordon will fail in his quest, the dialogue is bad to downright atrocious at times, a lot of stuff is really forced especially the comic elements, DC's classic "adult" it up is on full force, and it really is going to be an incredibly difficult uphill climb in proving that this show needs to exist. I like it a lot but I'm changing my score to 3/10 because it really is bad.

Year One did it better.

I'd have to re-read it, but I really didn't like Year One the first time I read it. I can't remember why that was though due to it being so long ago. It just left a sour taste in my mouth. I'm not a Frank Miller fan.

 

[DIrishB]

So I watched it again and I have to say, this is REALLY bad. I like it, but man does it have WAY too much going on, there's no tension since we know that Gordon will fail in his quest, the dialogue is bad to downright atrocious at times, a lot of stuff is really forced especially the comic elements, DC's classic "adult" it up is on full force, and it really is going to be an incredibly difficult uphill climb in proving that this show needs to exist. I like it a lot but I'm changing my score to 3/10 because it really is bad.

So you originally liked it or thought it was ok, and now you still "like it a lot" but give it a 3/10? And one of your complaints is that it had way too much going on? For a pilot episode, that's usually a promising sign, in terms of having plenty of plot threads to address throughout the season.

There's still plenty of tension. You're assuming the show will result in the exact same outcome as the comics did at their starting point. Why? It's already changed things to differentiate itself, so why are you assuming how it'll end? You're also presuming Gordon will fail in his quest to right the wrongs of Gotham, but I'd argue he probably will succeed to some degree, at least to the extent any one man can succeed inside the law.

And the dialogue is atrocious? Um... did you see Agents of SHIELD's pilot episode? Or Arrow's? Gotham's dialogue was far better. Overall Gotham was far better regarding its pilot episode than either Arrow or AoS.

Seriously, I'm wondering if you didn't change your score specifically because you saw most other people liked it.

wyo... desperate to be different.

I'd have to re-read it, but I really didn't like Year One the first time I read it. I can't remember why that was though due to it being so long ago. It just left a sour taste in my mouth. I'm not a Frank Miller fan.

It's not my favorite Batman story by any means, nor even my favorite Batman story by Frank Miller, but it definitely does a major improvement to the Batman origin story.

 

[wyokid]

So you originally liked it or thought it was ok, and now you still "like it a lot" but give it a 3/10?

Correct. It is 100% okay to like things that are bad.

And one of your complaints is that it had way too much going on? For a pilot episode, that's usually a promising sign, in terms of having plenty of plot threads to address throughout the season.

Not when you have stuff that is pretty much pointless to the plot. Riddler (which was my favorite part of the whole thing) was entirely pointless as was Poision Ivy.

There's still plenty of tension. You're assuming the show will result in the exact same outcome as the comics did at their starting point. Why? It's already changed things to differentiate itself, so why are you assuming how it'll end? You're also presuming Gordon will fail in his quest to right the wrongs of Gotham, but I'd argue he probably will succeed to some degree, at least to the extent any one man can succeed inside the law.

If he succeeds then Batman is pointless. Gordon's whole relationship with Batman is based on him almost giving up hope when a new vigalante comes in and breaths new life into him. Then again, as you said, DC doesn't care so whatever. I literally don't care enough about this show to argue/debate it.

And the dialogue is atrocious? Um... did you see Agents of SHIELD's pilot episode? Or Arrow's? Gotham's dialogue was far better. Overall Gotham was far better regarding its pilot episode than either Arrow or AoS.

Again, just because something is worse doesn't mean that it's still not bad.

Seriously, I'm wondering if you didn't change your score specifically because you saw most other people liked it.

Nope, just had time to sit and think about it is all. I came out of The Dark Knight Rises loving it and then the second I started thinking about I realized how many glaring plot holes and random things (like why would Batman take time to make a flaming bat symbol when there is a city destroying bomb?) there were.

It's not my favorite Batman story by any means, nor even my favorite Batman story by Frank Miller, but it definitely does a major improvement to the Batman origin story.

I'm about to start his Daredevil stuff. I'm really nervous because I don't want it to hurt my opinion on Daredevil. He's one of my favorite characters.

 

[DIrishB]

Correct. It is 100% okay to like things that are bad.

Hence you liking Ultimates 3.

Not when you have stuff that is pretty much pointless to the plot. Riddler (which was my favorite part of the whole thing) was entirely pointless as was Poision Ivy.

While I agree Ivy was largely pointless, Nygma was introduced as set up for later (admittedly Ivy may have been as well). Nygma was introduced as the crime scene evidence investigator. That'll be important later on, and even in the Pilot he presented findings that contributed to the investigation (thus, furthering the plot).

You just complained there was too much, and are now essentially complaining there "wasn't enough" regarding those characters.

Again, it's a Pilot episode. Many first episodes introduce things which seem pointless or non-essential until later on.

If he succeeds then Batman is pointless. Gordon's whole relationship with Batman is based on him almost giving up hope when a new vigalante comes in and breaths new life into him. Then again, as you said, DC doesn't care so whatever.

I said succeeds to some degree, meaning he alone isn't going to fix everything (heck, even Batman can't, nor has, fixed everything in Gotham... it's even arguable his presence has only made things worse, due to the element of escalation).

However, Gordon can, and likely will, contribute to Bullock's redemption, and a turn-around for police procedure and fighting at least some of the corruption plaguing the Gotham PD. That's what I was saying. It's not the "all or nothing" situation you seem to be equating it as.

I literally don't care enough about this show to argue/debate it. Again, just because something is worse doesn't mean that it's still not bad. Nope, just had time to sit and think about it is all.

Yet I don't remember any scathing reviews by you of AoS's Pilot. That's my point.

I came out of The Dark Knight Rises loving it and then the second I started thinking about I realized how many glaring plot holes and random things (like why would Batman take time to make a flaming bat symbol when there is a city destroying bomb?) there were.

Ummm, you're confusing a plot hole with something else entirely, namely a way of letting the city know Batman had returned and meant to inspire the police and citizens to rise up and help fight against Bane and his army of criminals and terrorists. It was a continuation and response to the random bat symbol chalk marks all over the city.

As for the timing thing, it likely didn't take him more than a few minutes to spray flammable mixture in the shape of the bat-symbol. Nor was he wasting his time doing so, since Gordon and the cops were the ones in charge of looking for the bomb. Batman was focused on fighting and occupying Bane, so that Gordon and the cops could do so. Admittedly he sprayed the flame bat symbol before releasing the cops, but he freed them from the sewers immediately afterward and set Gordon on that task.

I'm about to start his Daredevil stuff. I'm really nervous because I don't want it to hurt my opinion on Daredevil. He's one of my favorite characters.

Never read his DD stuff so have no idea. I do know the general consensus is that Miller's DD stuff to be good, so you'll probably hate it.

 

[wyokid]

Hence you liking Ultimates 3.

I don't get why you feel the need to bring that up all the time. It almost feels like you're using it as an insult at this point.

While I agree Ivy was largely pointless, Nygma was introduced as set up for later (admittedly Ivy may have been as well). Nygma was introduced as the crime scene evidence investigator. That'll be important later on, and even in the Pilot he presented findings that contributed to the investigation (thus, furthering the plot).

You just complained there was too much, and are now essentially complaining there "wasn't enough" regarding those characters.

Again, it's a Pilot episode. Many first episodes introduce things which seem pointless or non-essential until later on.

My problem, and a lot of other people's problem, is that there wasn't much focus on them. Everyone was a quick caricature and you barely got to get a feel for them. It would have been better and smarter to devote a large part or a whole episode around them. Catwoman just sort of shows up randomly for example. She doesn't do anything (except lose a ton of milk magically).

EDIT: Axel Alonso nailed it

Someone whose opinion I respect said ["Gotham"] is just a mood piece with Easter eggs

I said succeeds to some degree, meaning he alone isn't going to fix everything (heck, even Batman can't, nor has, fixed everything in Gotham... it's even arguable his presence has only made things worse, due to the element of escalation).

That was the dumbest excuse ever in Nolan's films. Yeah, it made 100% sense realistically, but that completely rids all of the bad guys of their tragic backstories. Especially the Joker. Heath Ledger did a great job and I really liked his character but that was SO not the Joker. It was a perfectly valid interpretation though.

However, Gordon can, and likely will, contribute to Bullock's redemption, and a turn-around for police procedure and fighting at least some of the corruption plaguing the Gotham PD. That's what I was saying. It's not the "all or nothing" situation you seem to be equating it as.

I'm saying that, in the comics (and in Nolan's if I recall), he reaches a point where he's about to give up on Gotham and then Batman shows up and restores his faith. I do think he'll set the GPD straight. Except for Montoya.

Yet I don't remember any scathing reviews by you of AoS's Pilot. That's my point.

On here? No, but I trash the early episodes all the time in real life. Whenever people ask me about it I always tell them it doesn't get good until halfway and then it turns great for Cap 2 cross over. That's what happens when I get to think about stuff.

Ummm, you're confusing a plot hole with something else entirely, namely a way of letting the city know Batman had returned and meant to inspire the police and citizens to rise up and help fight against Bane and his army of criminals and terrorists. It was a continuation and response to the random bat symbol chalk marks all over the city.

As for the timing thing, it likely didn't take him more than a few minutes to spray flammable mixture in the shape of the bat-symbol. Nor was he wasting his time doing so, since Gordon and the cops were the ones in charge of looking for the bomb. Batman was focused on fighting and occupying Bane, so that Gordon and the cops could do so. Admittedly he sprayed the flame bat symbol before releasing the cops, but he freed them from the sewers immediately afterward and set Gordon on that task.

I said that as a random thing. It was a waste of time and energy. I did like it though because it's a very comic booky thing. A plot hole is how he got back to Gotham. I really need to sit down and rewatch these. I'm no longer friends with the person who REALLY hated them and there are stuff I like in them.

Never read his DD stuff so have no idea. I do know the general consensus is that Miller's DD stuff to be good, so you'll probably hate it.

Again, I'm not a Miller fan but to be fair I've only really read his recent stuff which the generally considered really bad.

 

[DIrishB]

I don't get why you feel the need to bring that up all the time. It almost feels like you're using it as an insult at this point.

More like a friendly jab.

My problem, and a lot of other people's problem, is that there wasn't much focus on them. Everyone was a quick caricature and you barely got to get a feel for them. It would have been better and smarter to devote a large part or a whole episode around them. Catwoman just sort of shows up randomly for example. She doesn't do anything (except lose a ton of milk magically).

And again, it was merely to establish them as existing. I'm sure all of them will be explored as the season goes on. It's one long story, of which we've only seen the first chapter. And Selina does more than just "lose milk" (she didn't lose it, she left it on the ground of the alley and ran up the fire escape when she heard the Waynes coming). She also obviously is sympathetic to Bruce's loss (having witnessed it herself) and follows him around, out of likely curiosity and sympathy.

EDIT: Axel Alonso nailed it That was the dumbest excuse ever in Nolan's films. Yeah, it made 100% sense realistically, but that completely rids all of the bad guys of their tragic backstories.

No, it doesn't. Just because Joker's backstory wasn't established doesn't mean none of the villains were. Ra's tragic backstory was established in Begins (he had a wife and daughter who he lost), Two-Face's tragic backstory made up a good portion of TDK, and Bane's tragic backstory was addressed in TDKR, as an extension of Talia's also tragic backstory.

Scarecrow and the Joker were the only two who didn't have a backstory. Well, Scarecrow did, but it wasn't tragic.

Especially the Joker. Heath Ledger did a great job and I really liked his character but that was SO not the Joker. It was a perfectly valid interpretation though.

If it wasn't the Joker, in your opinion, how can it be a perfectly valid interpretation?

I loved that version. It's my personal favorite. It added the necessary aspect of mystery regarding the Joker's origin. Truthfully, the not knowing his origins works better than the "he fell into a vat of green chemicals" that's been done to death. Nor would that approach have worked or served the more grounded tone of Nolan's trilogy.

I'm saying that, in the comics (and in Nolan's if I recall), he reaches a point where he's about to give up on Gotham and then Batman shows up and restores his faith.

Right... so why can't that happen on the show? That's my point. The show will likely build towards all those things as it goes.

I do think he'll set the GPD straight. Except for Montoya.

Eh. I think she'll become an ally of Gordon's once she realizes he actually is an honest cop and trying to do the right thing. I think that'll also serve to salve her jealousy regarding Barbara.

On here? No, but I trash the early episodes all the time in real life. Whenever people ask me about it I always tell them it doesn't get good until halfway and then it turns great for Cap 2 cross over. That's what happens when I get to think about stuff. I said that as a random thing. It was a waste of time and energy. I did like it though because it's a very comic booky thing. A plot hole is how he got back to Gotham. I really need to sit down and rewatch these. I'm no longer friends with the person who REALLY hated them and there are stuff I like in them. Again, I'm not a Miller fan but to be fair I've only really read his recent stuff which the generally considered really bad.

Even Bruce getting back to Gotham isn't a plot hole. Granted, he lost his fortune and likely didn't buy a plane ticket, but don't forget he spent awhile living as a destitute (see Batman Begins), so I wouldn't put it past him to sneak aboard a freighter headed for Gotham. Given his talent for blending in with shadows, I'm sure he could pull it off.

Also, TDKR takes place over about a year, if I remember correctly. I do know there's 6 months between when Bane removes the core of the device and it blowing up, so that allows PLENTY of time for Bruce to recuperate in the prison, escape, jump a ship to Gotham, and set in motion his plan.

I mean, I'm sure there are probably some plot holes in the film and trilogy as a whole, but you haven't named any yet...

...and certainly none as horrible or glaring as the Captain America posing as Black Panther and standing in a room with a robot Cap and not saying anything like in Ultimates 3.

 

[wyokid]

And again, it was merely to establish them as existing. I'm sure all of them will be explored as the season goes on. It's one long story, of which we've only seen the first chapter. And Selina does more than just "lose milk" (she didn't lose it, she left it on the ground of the alley and ran up the fire escape when she heard the Waynes coming). She also obviously is sympathetic to Bruce's loss (having witnessed it herself) and follows him around, out of likely curiosity and sympathy.

Bro, she steals a full carton and then when she opens it there's barely anything left.

If it wasn't the Joker, in your opinion, how can it be a perfectly valid interpretation?

[video=youtube;OX2oiBtQzww]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2oiBtQzww[/video]

I loved that version. It's my personal favorite. It added the necessary aspect of mystery regarding the Joker's origin. Truthfully, the not knowing his origins works better than the "he fell into a vat of green chemicals" that's been done to death. Nor would that approach have worked or served the more grounded tone of Nolan's trilogy.

Yeah, it was kind of cool to see a non-crazy Joker who had a calculated, well thought out plan.

Right... so why can't that happen on the show? That's my point. The show will likely build towards all those things as it goes.

Bro, that's what I was saying. We know how it ends thus a lack of tension for certain characters because we know they need to live. Unless they pull that retarded Jimmy Olsen crap Smallville did.

Eh. I think she'll become an ally of Gordon's once she realizes he actually is an honest cop and trying to do the right thing. I think that'll also serve to salve her jealousy regarding Barbara.

That was a gay joke I made there. She can't be set straight because she's a lesbian.

 

[DIrishB]

Bro, she steals a full carton and then when she opens it there's barely anything left.

I just re-watched that and you're right. I hadn't noticed that before. Weird.

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2oiBtQzww Yeah, it was kind of cool to see a non-crazy Joker who had a calculated, well thought out plan.

Well, he certainly had a plan, but he was definitely still crazy. But I'd say he was the most competent version of the character that's been done yet, and I say that as someone who loves B-TAS and Mark Hamill's version.

Bro, that's what I was saying. We know how it ends thus a lack of tension for certain characters because we know they need to live. Unless they pull that retarded Jimmy Olsen crap Smallville did.

Didn't you like Smallville?

And again, it can still create tension. Just because they're alive in the comics doesn't mean they'll stay alive in the show. I mean, Gordon and Bruce obviously will, but otherwise? Everyone else is probably fair game.

It's a different universe. It doesn't need to hold to the continuity of the various established interpretations of the Batman mythos. It can, and definitely will, do its own thing. That's my point.

That was a gay joke I made there. She can't be set straight because she's a lesbian.

Wait'll she gets a load of me.

(That was a multi-tiered, "turn a lesbian straight due to my amazing sexual prowess" joke, and a dirty joke rolled into one, set to the audio of the classic line from Nicholson's Joker in 1989's Batman.)

 

[wyokid]

Well, he certainly had a plan, but he was definitely still crazy. But I'd say he was the most competent version of the character that's been done yet, and I say that as someone who loves B-TAS and Mark Hamill's version.

Nothing will ever top Mark Hamill for me. He was the absolute.

Didn't you like Smallville?

I did, but that still doesn't mean it's that good of a show. Especially how they had Doomsday kill Jimmy Olsen only to have his little brother be Jimmy Olsen that's from the comics. That was REALLY dumb. Still, they had an amazing Lex Luthor. It'll be interesting to see if Mark Zuckerberg can top that.

[video=youtube;bCdQMkgiq8o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCdQMkgiq8o[/video]

And again, it can still create tension. Just because they're alive in the comics doesn't mean they'll stay alive in the show. I mean, Gordon and Bruce obviously will, but otherwise? Everyone else is probably fair game.

It's a different universe. It doesn't need to hold to the continuity of the various established interpretations of the Batman mythos. It can, and definitely will, do its own thing. That's my point.

I'm just saying I doubt it will. Smallville didn't, Arrow hasn't, and Flash is dead on the comic so far. Sure certain stuff is different but by the end Smallville matched the comics as far as who is alive and not.

Wait'll she gets a load of me.

(That was a multi-tiered, "turn a lesbian straight due to my amazing sexual prowess" joke, and a dirty joke rolled into one, set to the audio of the classic line from Nicholson's Joker in 1989's Batman.)

Didn't you see Chasing Amy man? That'll never work it's a threesome that solves everything.

 

[DIrishB]

Nothing will ever top Mark Hamill for me. He was the absolute.

Again, I absolutely loved Hamill's Joker on B-TAS. It was iconic and a perfect rendition of the Joker character established by the comics (just toned down since it was a show aimed at kids).

And that's why I find Nolan's and Ledger's version of the character so interesting. It uses most of the aspects of the comic version, but adds those new aspects that truly set that version apart and created a new, iconic version. It was simply brilliant, in every aspect: concept, dialogue, and performance.

I did, but that still doesn't mean it's that good of a show. Especially how they had Doomsday kill Jimmy Olsen only to have his little brother be Jimmy Olsen that's from the comics. That was REALLY dumb. Still, they had an amazing Lex Luthor. It'll be interesting to see if Mark Zuckerberg can top that. YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCdQMkgiq8o

It never interested me. As soon as I heard that lame 90's era whiner rock theme song I was out.

I'm just saying I doubt it will. Smallville didn't, Arrow hasn't, and Flash is dead on the comic so far. Sure certain stuff is different but by the end Smallville matched the comics as far as who is alive and not.

It very well may, but that doesn't make it any less interesting. I mean, if you were to read or not read comics based on knowing who lives, why would you read any comics at all? The hero always survives (or is resurrected in some mind-numbingly unoriginal way). So how is there tension in comic books at all? How can you fault this show with a "lack of tension" when Optimus Prime has been resurrected so many damn times I've lost count?

Didn't you see Chasing Amy man? That'll never work it's a threesome that solves everything.

I actually just watched Chasing Amy last weekend during my View Askew marathon. Watched all the films, the Clerks TV series, and read the various View Askew comics all in chronological order. Mallrats comes first, then Clerks, n00bs! God, Clerks II is hilarious. Really hoping they do the third one Smith has the script ready for.

 

[drvshft dazy]

I just watched this last night. I really liked it. I honestly didn't think I would but after it was over I was pleased. As far as the missing milk debate couldn't she have chugged some of it down before she shared it with the cat? Maybe it was just edited out because of time and it was pointless to the story. Also as far as the villains having cameos and no story it is just to set up so the viewers can know what to expect if they continue to tune in. One question. The comedian that was on stage when Oswald is discovered as the one who went to the cops, does anyone think he may end up being The Joker? Why was that character there? The reason I think the joker he's a comedian hence a joker. By the way I loved the "get a load of me " joke ha!

 

[DIrishB]

I just watched this last night. I really liked it. I honestly didn't think I would but after it was over I was pleased. As far as the missing milk debate couldn't she have chugged some of it down before she shared it with the cat? Maybe it was just edited out because of time and it was pointless to the story.

That's most likely the case. Not a big deal.

Also as far as the villains having cameos and no story it is just to set up so the viewers can know what to expect if they continue to tune in.

Exactly.

One question. The comedian that was on stage when Oswald is discovered as the one who went to the cops, does anyone think he may end up being The Joker? Why was that character there? The reason I think the joker he's a comedian hence a joker. By the way I loved the "get a load of me " joke ha!

The producers have said they'll likely have several different minor roles that could end up being Joker. They want to keep the audience guessing. So I doubt that guy will end up being Joker, but it's a possibility. Just depends on where they take it.

 

[Friday]

I actually just watched Chasing Amy last weekend during my View Askew marathon. Watched all the films, the Clerks TV series, and read the various View Askew comics all in chronological order. Mallrats comes first, then Clerks, n00bs! God, Clerks II is hilarious. Really hoping they do the third one Smith has the script ready for.

Its all about the dead girl in the pool.

 

[DIrishB]

Its all about the dead girl in the pool.

Exactly.

 

[Ice]

[video=youtube;bzUJDmjBPuQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bzUJDmjBPuQ[/video]

 

[wyokid]

I enjoyed the campiness of this episode but it really needs to handle it's tone better.

 

[DIrishB]

I enjoyed the campiness of this episode but it really needs to handle it's tone better.

How so?

 

[wyokid]

How so?

The couple kidnapping kids were incredibly goofy and felt like they could have been in the 60's show and I enjoyed that. There was a couple of other stuff here and there but that was the main one.

 

[Ice]

I gasped at the Dollmaker name drop. I wonder if this is the Dollmaker that takes people's skins? There's like three different versions of Dollmaker, one which was used in Arrow, too.

Also the trident company logo (already forgot the name)- everyone is linking that to Aquaman. I've never heard of the company in the comics before so I have no idea if it has any connections to him. Anyone know?