Gotham (Discussion/spoilers)

wyokid said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right. But many of Batman's villains are intentionally campy in that sense. Even Mooney has a bit of a camp aspect to her. That's intentional. Just because the show is a grim crime drama with some campy villains doesn't mean it needs to "handle its tone better". The tone is exactly what they're intending it to be: the story of Gotham before Batman.

I'm also loving how they're handling Bruce. Loved the "I'm testing myself" line. Selina Kyle was handled well in this episode also. And Alfred is absolutely awesome.
 
After this episode I'm still on board. The only thing I do not like is Jada Pickett Smith's acting. To over blown in my opinion. I do like the look of the city. The far shots lol very comic bookish. The street scenes look like a real U.S. gritty city.
 
drvshft dazy said:
After this episode I'm still on board. The only thing I do not like is Jada Pickett Smith's acting. To over blown in my opinion. I do like the look of the city. The far shots lol very comic bookish. The street scenes look like a real U.S. gritty city.
Click to expand...

I think Jada Pickett Smith's approach is entirely on purpose. Like I said, I think they're intentionally injecting a certain degree of camp to the villains.

Penguin and Mooney in the Pilot, the couple working for the Dollmaker in episode 2. And there are previews for an upcoming episode with Zsasz, who is creepy but also seems to have a camp aspect to him. I'm sure it's entirely intentional. And I love it.

It's a perfect blend of the gritty and dark Batman mythos of the 1980's to modern day, in terms of most of the story and set design, but also retains those classic elements of camp and over the top aspects that permeated the Batman of the previous eras (especially the 1960's TV show with Adam West).

Plus with the tease of a villain wearing a pig mask, I'm thinking that may be Professor Pyg.

So far I've been extremely impressed with Gotham. When I first heard of it I had absolutely no interest. A show about Gotham before Batman? Didn't strike me as a good idea.

But after the first two episodes, I'm completely sold. They're doing just about everything right. From the characters all being generally well handled (well written, well acted), the storylines working, the set designs being absolutely phenomenal, and the approach to the villains seen so far and the quick previews of what's coming, I'm quite confidant in the show.

And I'm really enjoying his they're approaching Bruce and Alfred. Absolutely perfect so far with those two. And the girl who plays Selina Kyle did a great job in the second episode.

The show is great so far. On just about every critical level it works.
 
They could have EASILY made a show taking place between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. Eight years of fleshing out a really tiny universe.
 
wyokid said:
They could have EASILY made a show taking place between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. Eight years of fleshing out a really tiny universe.
Click to expand...

Except that would be a completely different show, and likely offer less in the way of character development if they used any of the characters from the films (like Gordon). Of course, they'd need to get Nolan's production company on board, and he may not be keen on the idea. You'd also need to either somehow convince Gary Oldman to commit to a weekly television series to reprise the role (incredibly unlikely) or recast the role (which would be jarring and turn a lot of fans off in the sense it's meant to be a part of TDK trilogy. Not so much only from the recasting, but because you go from Oldman as Gordon, to someone else as Gordon, back to Oldman as Gordon again in terms of the continuity.

Also, if you're talking about using completely original characters and no one from the trilogy, well, what's the point? Gotham already faced a huge amount of backlash early on due to the fact it didn't focus on Batman. The one thing it had going for it was the prequel aspect that examined the earlier lives of characters like Gordon, Bullock, Bruce, Alfred, Selina, and the various villains. Your proposed idea would have really none of that. I mean, you could have Riddler and Penguin show up, since they didn't appear in Nolan's trilogy, but not having them go up against Batman is going to disappoint a lot of people.

Essentially, you're calling for a version of what Gotham already is but that's far more constrained and less able to use the characters people actually want to see.
 
I never said it should be canon. Just when it could take place a "logically" explain why there's no Batman. Organized crime would be gone to which means the whole focus would be on the villains.
 
DIrishB said:
No...no.
Click to expand...

tumblr_mpjum9zwJX1rcjo9to1_500.gif
 
Episode 3 was another pretty strong episode.

Did a nice job expanding on Gordon's character, offered Bullock the first step towards redemption (in a way), had a nice weird and over the top villain that still made sense and was relatable, and as usual featured a really great scene between Bruce and Alfred that helps lay the groundwork for who Bruce will become as an adult.

If they keep up like this, Gotham could end up becoming the best Batman origin story told.
 
I'm in the opposite column.

I hate how every week its, LOOK AT ALL THE CORRUPTION!, and LOOK AT THE HORRIBLE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE CITY, and all that jazz. It's so annoying.
 
I still haven't seen the third episode, but the second one was a big let down imo after the premiere. I'm having a hard time figuring out why, but it just didn't work for me. Maybe I just haven't been able to adjust to the mix of camp and grit yet. Sometimes it felt like the show runners didn't know what tone they were going for.
 
Lithium said:
I still haven't seen the third episode, but the second one was a big let down imo after the premiere. I'm having a hard time figuring out why, but it just didn't work for me. Maybe I just haven't been able to adjust to the mix of camp and grit yet. Sometimes it felt like the show runners didn't know what tone they were going for.
Click to expand...

I think they know exactly what tone they're going for, and you described it exactly: gritty, with a noticeable element of camp for the villains (in varying degrees).

And given the Batman comics themselves combine those elements, I don't see why it's so weird for the show to take the same approach.
 
They know what tone they want, they're just awful at achieving it.
 
DIrishB said:
Hey, look, wyo is trolling again. Surprise, surprise.

How exactly are they terrible at achieving it? I'll wait for the ridiculous answer.
Click to expand...

Trolling? Stating my opinion is trolling? Don't be a jerk.
 
wyokid said:
Trolling? Stating my opinion is trolling? Don't be a jerk.
Click to expand...

Dude, you reliably troll the show (as well as other things). It's one thing to be of an opinion, it's another to offer asinine remarks like the one you made before. The tone of the show is fine. Not sure what fault you're finding with it.

And keep in mind, you get pissed when people rag on Ultimates 3 when those criticisms are valid. You're not even offering reasons for your criticism, just sniping at the show. How is that not trolling?

If you don't want people to take it as trolling, I suggest backing up your claims with reasoning, not immature insults.
 
Last edited:
DIrishB said:
Dude, you reliably troll the show (as well as other things). It's one thing to be of an opinion, it's another to offer asinine remarks like the one you made before. The tone of the show is fine. Not sure what fault you're finding with it.
Click to expand...

It's unbalanced, transitions awkwardly, and is written poorly.

DIrishB said:
And keep in mind, you get pissed when people rag on Ultimates 3 when those criticisms are valid. You're not even offering reasons for your criticism, just sniping at the show. How is that not trolling?
Click to expand...

I don't get pissed, I just don't see the point. You've said your piece on a book that has been finished for a long time. It'd be like if ripped on Alien: Resurrection every other post.

DIrishB said:
If you don't want people to take it as trolling, I suggest backing up your claims with reasoning, not immature insults.
Click to expand...

Thing is I don't need to and therefore it is up to me to decide how deep into my explanation I go is. I don't have a lot of time in the day so every second counts.
 
wyokid said:
It's unbalanced, transitions awkwardly, and is written poorly.
Click to expand...

That must be why it's getting overwhelmingly good reviews.

Unbalanced? How so? Please, enlighten me.

Awkward transitions? God you're reaching. I'd love for you to point out how Gotham transitions any more "awkwardly" than any other show on television.

And written poorly? You are out of your mind.

The Bruce and Alfred scenes are probably the best written scenes involving Bruce and Alfred in any live action Batman adaptation. They're phenomenal.

I don't get pissed, I just don't see the point. You've said your piece on a book that has been finished for a long time. It'd be like if ripped on Alien: Resurrection every other post.
Click to expand...

Feel free to rip on Alien - Resurrection all you want. I rip on Ultimates 3 for a specific reason. It's a horrible abomination of a book riddled with plot holes, ridiculously poor characterization, and immature, idiotic dialogue that literally make it seem as if it's written by a 12-year old discovering his sociopathic tendencies and sexual attraction to plastic dolls.

And you enjoyed it.

I use it as a barometer to contrast your constant complaining about, well, just about everything that isn't Transformers. You literally hate almost anything that most seem to like, and back up your dislike with ludicrous statements, like the ones above, the comments about Nolan's Batman trilogy, the comments about Gotham, the comments about Arrow, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Seriously, it's exhausting. I don't mind you disliking all those things. I mind your reasoning. Instead of finding valid faults and complaints, you make these pithy little statements, and only expand on your reasoning when I push the issue. And then you give these (literally) insane excuses.

Thing is I don't need to and therefore it is up to me to decide how deep into my explanation I go is. I don't have a lot of time in the day so every second counts.
Click to expand...

Dude, I work full time, commute almost an hour each day to work, have a girlfriend, friends, family obligations, housework, grocery shopping, and dozens of other things that occupy my time each week. And I manage to pop into the boards here a few times a day (using my phone, mostly) for a couple minutes. Let's not make it out to be that you have a schedule busier than the President or an air traffic controller. I notice how often you post (as I do just as much), so apparently you've got enough time to also pop on several times a day.

If you make statements that are huge reaches at best, or completely illogical at worst, don't be surprised when people call you on it. It's the nature of life, and most especially the Internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top