Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Encuentro, May 28, 2014.
Yeah, that could be good. Or it could be crap!
Making a Batman show without Batman in it is the weirdest idea since.... making an Avengers show without the Avengers in it.
It's like Smallville for today's crowd.
Well, it's not really a Batman show. It's a spin-off just as Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is a spin-off of The Avengers.
I think this one's different, though, as SHIELD exists as an entity without Avengers - there are tales to be told there without any involvement from Iron Man, Cap or whoever.
On the other hand, "Gotham" looks like it's supposed to be a pre-origin story of sorts. It'll include all of the Batman characters but just in their earliest stages. We'll have Bruce Wayne but won't have Batman, so it's a prequel series...
Oh cool, a Batman show without Batman. I'm sure that'll be a big hit.
Very positive review in Hollywood Reporter:
This is one "origin story" that doesn't need the future to be realized — Fox manages to make a series that works on its own, without leaning too hard on its lineage
It’s a little too easy and convenient — and ultimately unfair — to say that Fox’s buzz-heavy new seriesGotham could face the same problems as last year’s buzz-heavy entry, ABC’s Agents of SHIELD. But they are being lumped together as examples of shows that are missing the core ingredient of what the audience really craves.
In Agents of SHIELD, that’s all the Marvel heroes from the popular movies — the series revolves around the actual agents, not the superheroes. In Gotham’s case, it’s being billed as a Batman series without Batman.
And while all of that is technically accurate, here’s the difference: Agents of SHIELD always felt like a series that was missing a center (those superheroes), and it took a lot of episodes for the series to even find its own way and establish its own characters as at least semi-interesting substitutes to what you got at the movies. Gotham, on the other hand, arrives as its own entity, a wholly realized universe, in a separate time and place, with enough intriguing characters and a stylized visual presence that is immediately intriguing.
I think this will be a very hard show to sustain for a long time... but I also said that about Smallville, a story about a young Clark Kent without the costume, who couldn't fly, and barely understood his superpowers. WB managed to squeeze, what, 10 years out of that sucker? They had the oldest teenagers on television, not counting 90210 and Glee...
The first episode is already up for viewing for free on YouTube, but you gotta register with Google to see it:
I like the sounds of this!
One thing I always loved about Batman, is that the villains were realistic.
Maybe it's just because I love the Batman universe so much, but that series looks really good. It seems to be following the vibe of the Nolan movies...
"In Gotham’s case, it’s being billed as a Batman series without Batman.
And while all of that is technically accurate, here’s the difference... Gotham, on the other hand, arrives as its own entity, a wholly realized universe, in a separate time and place, with enough intriguing characters and a stylized visual presence that is immediately intriguing".
Then why even tie it to the Batman universe? It could just be an arbitrary 'dark city', a Sin City lite, if you like, and go from there. Obviously they want to suck people in with the Batman angle so that they can have their cake and eat it.
I'm guessing so that Warner Bros. can make a bat**** load of money.
and were off...
That was really good.
Sure they were...
I don't plan on watching, but was interested in the reviews, of which I've read a few. They don't seem to be too complimentary. This from one:
It's just a dour show, and not a terribly well-paced one. The pilot felt long and rushed at once, somehow, and it never seemed to find its footing. Each scene barrels into the next haphazardly, with characters popping around corners like snakes from a gag can. All of the action is tedious and poorly shot.
Do you agree or is it way off base?
They turned Smallville into a Superman show rather than a Clark Kent one if you get my drift. They had pre-Superman Clark Kent hooking up with Lois Lane and a bunch of other things that should not have been happening pre-Superman. I hope they don't go there with Gotham.
Way off base.
I really liked the premiere. Loved the noir atmosphere, and thought the guy who played Gordon did a great job. I also like that we'll be getting multiple origin stories with Batman and the various villains.
I love Donal Logue (his show Terriers is still one of the best PI shows in tv history in my opinion). So it was fun seeing him. And of course the kid from the OC.
But... they are going to have to figure out the tone a little. Is it a super-dark super-serious drama or is it a kind of goofy cop show with comic book dimensions? The tone issue to me was one of the central things that killed Heroes (although it had plenty of other issues).
And all of the Batman villians show up in their pre-costume days? If this continues will the next episode show them at lunch and a large bus boy will keep coming up to them saying "Would you like some more ice in your drink? I can get you more ice."
I've yet to see this because I'm waiting to buy the inevitable first season boxed set due to personal commitments that mean I won't always be available to catch each new episode when they are broadcast or via demand services (as I always end up forgetting what I'm watching from one day to the next - curse my defective memory!), but I'm hoping we'll finally get to learn more about how The Joker came to be... I seem to recall Christopher Nolan saying in response to The Dark Knight that his vision for this character was purposely introduced as an already-formed character, though in a series where back stories can be elaborated further, you'd expect such an iconic figure of the city's rogues gallery to have plenty of time in the spotlight. However, considering the ongoing film continuity, I'd be surprised if this really is based on the previous closed trilogy as opposed to what Zack Snyder is currently in the process of directing. Then again, it's not as if there is much hope looking at preceding examples... Smallville wasn't exactly a perfect companion to Superman Returns, was it? On the other hand, I'm still not sure Bryan Singer intended with that project. At times it felt like a sequel to the first two Richard Donner movies, yet on some occasions it was more a reboot then would suddenly give the impression of being simply a new standalone product featuring references to the past. Multiple different takes on the same universe might work in a comic format, but on screen I'd rather we had a definitive canon all titles sourced. My fingers are crossed that Gotham either follows the Nolan or Snyder visions, though I suspect it's going to be yet another standalone variation. We shall see.
I'll give it a couple of weeks. I like that they are going down the path that the Wayne's were killed for a reason other than a random robbery. But I felt they introduced too many of his enemies in one episode.
Well it was a pilot. Pilots are usually different for the obvious reason that they are setting up the show. There's a lot of things pilots have to cover and establish. Plus it usually takes a little bit for a show to find its mojo. Look at the many series over the decades and how many changes they sometimes go through before before finding what works best.
Plus I can't think of a single series in which the pilot was the best or one of the best episodes.
I'd say the pilots for Fargo, Mad Men and Walking Dead were some of the best episodes. Also to cite the 2 lead actors, I'd say The O.C. and Terriers pilots were fantastic too. Also probably the pilot to The Greatest American Hero was probably the best episode but that's not saying much!
Separate names with a comma.