Gotham

David Jimerson

David Jimerson

Administrator
Staff member
I kind of binge-watched it recently. I approve.

Sure, it's broadcast-network, so it's relatively tame, but I love the approach to it. Like I said in the Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America: The Winter Soldier threads, it's a good approach to push the comic book elements to the rear and just make a good genre piece first, and Gotham is like a 1970s/early '80s cop show which happens to be set in Batman's world. It's about that first, and about being a Batman piece second. And it's not CW-style teeny-bopper soapish. The ambiguous time period is coolly atmospheric.

The acting is really good, especially Donal Logue as a surprisingly sympathetic and likable Harvey Bullock, where you can see him in between his idealistic youthful days and the full-on corruption of his later years. And the kid, whatever his name is, may be the most convincing Bruce Wayne that's ever been on the screen, at least in terms of the Bruce Wayne from the comics. He seems like he will grow up to be that guy. He's got the perfect look.
 
This was the most expensive network show purchased this year and was much trumpeted before release. I tuned-in for the first episode with high expectation. Sadly, I was totally underwhelmed. Thought it had the look and feel of a children's show with a typically condescending script that treated the audience like idiots. Did the producers not see The Dark Night...
 
I don't think the producers had any interest in copying Nolan. If that's what you were looking for, you were looking in the wrong place.
 
No David, that's not what I was looking for. I was looking for a cutting edge, adult friendly retelling of the story as promised by the Head of Drama at Channel Five who claimed the series was the best US show since Breaking Bad. I only watched the first show and felt it was pretty lame.
 
David Jimerson said:
I kind of binge-watched it recently. I approve.

Sure, it's broadcast-network, so it's relatively tame, but I love the approach to it. Like I said in the Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America: The Winter Soldier threads, it's a good approach to push the comic book elements to the rear and just make a good genre piece first, and Gotham is like a 1970s/early '80s cop show which happens to be set in Batman's world. It's about that first, and about being a Batman piece second. And it's not CW-style teeny-bopper soapish. The ambiguous time period is coolly atmospheric.

The acting is really good, especially Donal Logue as a surprisingly sympathetic and likable Harvey Bullock, where you can see him in between his idealistic youthful days and the full-on corruption of his later years. And the kid, whatever his name is, may be the most convincing Bruce Wayne that's ever been on the screen, at least in terms of the Bruce Wayne from the comics. He seems like he will grow up to be that guy. He's got the perfect look.
Click to expand...

If there's no super heroes or super villains, I'll pass.
 
Liam Hall said:
I was looking for a cutting edge, adult friendly retelling of the story as promised by the Head of Drama at Channel Five who claimed the series was the best US show since Breaking Bad.
Click to expand...

I like the show, and I don't agree it's that. I have no idea why he would have ever said such a thing; it's nothing like Breaking Bad, it's meant for the 8 pm slot on broadcast TV, so it could never BE Breaking Bad, and it was never sold that way here. Sounds like the Head of Drama at Channel Five simply promoted it as something it isn't, and wasn't ever intended to be.

If there was any expectation here in the US, it's that it would be like Smallville or some "Gotham High School" CW thing, and it's way better than that.
 
David, obviously you like the show. I'm not disputing that, I'm just giving my opinion. Also, I never said the TV exec said it was like Breaking Bad. If you read my earlier reply she said it was the best US show since Breaking Bad. She did say that it was dark and edgy though, which it wasn't. Certainly, she sold it as something it's not, but even given that I don't think I destined to become a fan.
 
I'm not trying to argue with you, Liam; I'm just saying you were given misleading expectations, which is kind of baffling.
 
This show felt really, REALLY plastic. It's the only thing I can describe it as. Maybe I'm spoiled by how much amazing TV there has been over the past few years, but this show lost my interest almost right away. Archetypal acting, nothing left for you to wonder about or discern, just personalities that are worn on the characters sleeves. Writing was for the most part sub-par— lot's of over the top cliche characters and situations, nothing felt like it had any real nuance or detail in it.

Aesthetically, this was the most disappointing part for me. Cinematography felt surprisingly cheap. Hard highlights, waxy skin-tones, odd color in a few episodes. I couldn't believe it was Alexa, because I've never seen Alexa look that "TVish / plastic". There's some pretty darn good looking network stuff, like Hannibal etc. But this just doesn't have the grit, or feeling that I'm in Gotham. It's feels overly fake when it doesn't have to at all. It's too bad, this show had a lot of potential.
 
David Jimerson said:
I kind of binge-watched it recently. I approve.

Sure, it's broadcast-network, so it's relatively tame, but I love the approach to it. Like I said in the Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America: The Winter Soldier threads, it's a good approach to push the comic book elements to the rear and just make a good genre piece first, and Gotham is like a 1970s/early '80s cop show which happens to be set in Batman's world. It's about that first, and about being a Batman piece second. And it's not CW-style teeny-bopper soapish. The ambiguous time period is coolly atmospheric.

The acting is really good, especially Donal Logue as a surprisingly sympathetic and likable Harvey Bullock, where you can see him in between his idealistic youthful days and the full-on corruption of his later years. And the kid, whatever his name is, may be the most convincing Bruce Wayne that's ever been on the screen, at least in terms of the Bruce Wayne from the comics. He seems like he will grow up to be that guy. He's got the perfect look.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with all your points, especially the casting of David Mazouz as the young BW. And Jada Pinkett Smith as Fish -- just fun to watch.

It's damn good for network TV. I like the writing, I like the acting, I like the sets, I like the sound, I like the concept, and I like the execution, and I even like the 'grades. I'm going to keep watching it and see where it goes.

People forget (or aren't old enough to have lived through it) just how bad TV was in the 1960s. About the best available was Gunsmoke (most people forget that it ran for 20 years, 635 episodes IIRC, and that popularity allowed it to be the most expensive show of its time, very state-of-the-art). We didn't really get story arcs that ran over multiple episodes until Hill Street Blues in the early 1980s, and even that got dumbed down by its last season.

I'm just sayin' that my view from the cheap seats has me amazed at the high quality of a show like Gotham. We've come a long way baby.
 
I feel like it really clicked for me around the "Penguins Umbrella" episode. And it looks like the Riddler might get a little more interesting next season, even if he doesn't get less annoying.

Speaking of the Riddler, I'm still really disappointed that Christopher Nolan's third Batman movie didn't feature Crispin Glover as Riddler. Oh well, it could still happen I guess. I feel like Nolan would have been the perfect director for a plotty, confusing and tense take on that villain though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top