Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46
  1. #1
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    81

    Default Gotham was not a great series

    The Gotham TV show was not a great series perhaps.

    They had so much Batman lore to work with, and instead they resorted to contrived plots that left characters severely underdeveloped.

    Need examples?

    Edward Nygma / Riddler --the character just snapped one day and committed murder. There was no slow build and no focus on his above average intelligence. Also, very little thought was put into showcasing his love for puzzles. Oddly, though, he was probably one of the better developed characters on the series.

    Pamala Isly / Poison Ivy--she even had her body changed and was inexplicably aged up, instead of something more subtle like maybe say a flashback scene.

    They did stupid things like this with many of Batman's famous rogues in the Gotham series. It left the whole thing feeling very disjointed and off.

    Hugo Strange--they used this guy as a plot device to kill and resurrect characters on a whim. There's a right way to use plot devices like this, and then there's a wrong way, and Gotham definitely used them the wrong way. I can buy a character or two with regenerative or special healing properties but just being able to kill, resurrect, and change characters on a whim without any rule or logic behind it leaves a hole or two in the plot and doesn't give the viewer a chance to empathize with the characters.

    Jack Napier / John Doe / Joe Kurr / The Joker--this was probably one of the worst portrayals of the character ever. Of all of the interesting Joker lore they could have explored, they chose to go with the new 52 comics, and they didn't even follow any of the established story lines! The Valaska brothers were terrible Jokers because they were introduced to us as sociopathic monsters out of the gate. The show could have followed Joker lore, not used the name of the character, and given us a much stronger more interesting take on the villain and his origin story. With the Joker, there's a lot to work with--abusive parents, bullying, redemption, etc. The Joker character could have been a troubled young boy who joined the mob in self defense, learned to be a ruthless killer, and then, when he encountered Batman and finally broke, it would have been somewhat tragic. That would have made an excellent story if executed properly. Very few stories in popular Joker lore have him begin life as a monster; he begins life as a regular human being in most of them. Instead, we got Jerome and Jeremiah Valaska, and, in a world already populated by mad sociopaths and serial killers, they were almost nothing special.

    Do you agree with my list? What were your main complaints with the Gotham TV series?

  2. #2
    Spectacular Member RickWJ324's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    182

    Default

    GOTHAM is a far-from-perfect show. My biggest gripe with it early on was the fact that most of Batman's villains were all being created while Bruce was still a child. Still... as quirky as it is, I do enjoy it. It's absolutely bonkers and taken as an alternate tale it's pretty entertaining. No, it's definitely not accurate to anything before it, but as a standalone story it's definitely fun to watch.
    I'm definitely NOT enjoying their version of Bane though. He looks absolutely ridiculous!!

  3. #3
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    561

    Default

    The actor they picked for Bruce Wayne is the first bad choice. Terrible, terrible, terrible miscasting. One of the worst in TV history.

    Too many villains developed during the series, decades before a mature Batman would operate. It's so stupid. So in the future we will get a 30 years old Batman fighting super-old supervillains. Not good, not cool.

    The "No Man's Land" arc is the jump of the shark. TOTALLY.

    And I would say that they messed up the Joker with those two twin brothers. Screenplayers should be fired.


    It started as a good series, even. They should have recast Bruce in Season 2 or 3, making a little time jump.
    Last edited by BatKeaton; 04-09-2019 at 06:11 AM.

  4. #4
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    81

    Default

    I don't really understand why we can't get good accurate portrayals of Batman's villains in movies and TV shows. If they weren't allowed to use certain names, they could have just used the fake names those characters sometimes operate under. They didn't need to invent completely new characters and totally ruin their cool origin stories (or lack thereof)!

  5. #5
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcomics View Post
    I don't really understand why we can't get good accurate portrayals of Batman's villains in movies and TV shows. If they weren't allowed to use certain names, they could have just used the fake names those characters sometimes operate under. They didn't need to invent completely new characters and totally ruin their cool origin stories (or lack thereof)!
    That's not even close to the fact they are using a not attractive kid as lead character, making him being a detective and a crimefighter without muscles or skills or the right age to do that.

    The "No Man's Land" arc story is just the nail in the coffin. So over the top and unbelievable.

  6. #6
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Agreed, but Batman's villains define him. Without believable tragic villains, Batman's story become equally fantastical and foolish.

  7. #7
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,393

    Default

    Of course it's not 'great.' I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim it was. It's definitely a flawed show, but it also has a lot of charm.

    Most of the casting has been great. David Mazuz is the best live-action Bruce Wayne to date. Bullock is great, Penguin, Hugo Strange, ect. But the show as a whole never reached 'great' status.

    'Great' is a description for shows like BTAS, MASH, Game of Thrones, early seasons of 24 or later seasons of Star Trek TNG, Avatar the Last Airbender. That's a height Gotham could never hope to achieve.

  8. #8
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    81

    Default

    ...but why is that? They could have told good stories even with a low budget.

  9. #9
    Astonishing Member Jackalope89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    3,744

    Default

    Meh. I just enjoy it for the over top stuff they have. They tried being mostly serious early on, but then, like Legends of Tomorrow, decided to just go full ham. Jerome Velaska being one of those highlights for me.

  10. #10
    Spectacular Member RickWJ324's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    Most of the casting has been great. David Mazuz is the best live-action Bruce Wayne to date. Bullock is great, Penguin, Hugo Strange, ect. But the show as a whole never reached 'great' status.
    The show is fun and has had lots of good casting. However, I disagree with you on the casting of David as Bruce. I don't like him as Bruce most of the time, nor can I buy this scrawny kid acting tough and beating up on skilled soldiers, street gangs, etc. It comes across as silly most of the time. Still... I very much enjoy the show!!

  11. #11
    Incredible Member jb681131's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcomics View Post
    The Gotham TV show was not a great series perhaps.

    They had so much Batman lore to work with, and instead they resorted to contrived plots that left characters severely underdeveloped.

    Need examples?

    Edward Nygma / Riddler --the character just snapped one day and committed murder. There was no slow build and no focus on his above average intelligence. Also, very little thought was put into showcasing his love for puzzles. Oddly, though, he was probably one of the better developed characters on the series.

    Pamala Isly / Poison Ivy--she even had her body changed and was inexplicably aged up, instead of something more subtle like maybe say a flashback scene.

    They did stupid things like this with many of Batman's famous rogues in the Gotham series. It left the whole thing feeling very disjointed and off.

    Hugo Strange--they used this guy as a plot device to kill and resurrect characters on a whim. There's a right way to use plot devices like this, and then there's a wrong way, and Gotham definitely used them the wrong way. I can buy a character or two with regenerative or special healing properties but just being able to kill, resurrect, and change characters on a whim without any rule or logic behind it leaves a hole or two in the plot and doesn't give the viewer a chance to empathize with the characters.

    Jack Napier / John Doe / Joe Kurr / The Joker--this was probably one of the worst portrayals of the character ever. Of all of the interesting Joker lore they could have explored, they chose to go with the new 52 comics, and they didn't even follow any of the established story lines! The Valaska brothers were terrible Jokers because they were introduced to us as sociopathic monsters out of the gate. The show could have followed Joker lore, not used the name of the character, and given us a much stronger more interesting take on the villain and his origin story. With the Joker, there's a lot to work with--abusive parents, bullying, redemption, etc. The Joker character could have been a troubled young boy who joined the mob in self defense, learned to be a ruthless killer, and then, when he encountered Batman and finally broke, it would have been somewhat tragic. That would have made an excellent story if executed properly. Very few stories in popular Joker lore have him begin life as a monster; he begins life as a regular human being in most of them. Instead, we got Jerome and Jeremiah Valaska, and, in a world already populated by mad sociopaths and serial killers, they were almost nothing special.

    Do you agree with my list? What were your main complaints with the Gotham TV series?
    No no no ! You got it all wrong.
    On the contrary the caracters are much more realistic than in the comics.
    And their is a real build up of the different vilains.

    If you look at the first episodes, you'll see that Gotham is controled by the mafia, and that slowly as the episodes go, each vilain emerge.
    As you say Ed Nygma doesn't just snap one day. Even before he becomes the Riddler you can guess he's gonna be the Riddler.
    And In real life that's how crazy people act. One day they "snap" as you say. If you look at their past you can then see that their were lots of little things that showed they were not normal people.
    That's exactly what they did for Nigma. And they did pretty well.

    The serie also has fantastic acting, you couldn't have found better actors for Ed Nigma or The Penguin (that you don't even mention by the way !) or Bruce and Alfred.

    I thing this serie is underrated because people (like you) don't see the subtle things that have been put in it.

  12. #12
    Spectacular Member AzraelOnline's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    124

    Default

    Actually the show isn't bad if you can just get over the fact that it's not about Batman. People praise the Nolanverse and it's terrible. Nolan picked and chose what he wanted for his movies and people praised it. The people behind Gotham did the same, but since there's no Batman on the show people decide to crap all over it and call it garbage. Way too many people talking crap and boycotting the show because there is no Batman instead of enjoying the show as an Elseworld's type of show. I mean, Rebirth and New 52 writers are pretty godawful but we're still reading the books. Also, the comment about them going with the New 52 Joker, yea, New 52 was still happening when they did that...
    What probably killed this show more was the internet. Too many loudmouth's with too much time on their hands made their voices heard. Kind of sad really.
    Azrael Online - The Source for all things Azrael

  13. #13
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    5,185

    Default

    Every live action interpretation of Batman brings both good and bad to the table so to start off I'm going look at the "Big 3" West, Burton/Keaton, and Nolan.

    West: First is always the negative effect the camp of the show had on the character which is a little unfair given Batman was very campy in the 50's and early 60's. But there was good the show helped stop the comic from being cancelled and it allowed a diverse interpretation of the character going forward. Snyder's Superman's greatest hurdle was in media from Radio, TV, Animation, and Film the character has been seen one way the Boy Scout fighting for Truth and Justice with a jovial smile it's practically Americana at this point. So Batman having the popular West entry so early in his outside media given only the serials came before allowed different takes going forward.

    Burton/Keaton: Again another drastically different take gave variety to the brand and Keaton was great casting but while I understand there take being a more Golden Age style Batman the killing was off putting to some fans. I will say though at least this Batman killed from goons to Rogues I liked Affleck but killing and branding goons while having a living Rogue's Gallery including Joker makes no sense IMO.

    Nolan: Batman Begins is a good film and Batman film IMO but Dark Knight is a fantastic film and bad Batman movie IMO simply because Bruce wants to quit being Batman to have a life with Rachel as for DKR see Dark Knight criticism also Bale's voice a good Bruce but that voice was a joke for a good reason.

    As for Gotham I really liked a different take but all the performances were usually good loved most of the casting and the Rogue's looked fantastic. I don't maybe because I was a Gotham Central fan and No Man's Land I really loved this show. As for being unrealistic well yeah Nolan proved Batman is a character you can strip to basics and make realistic and still be true to him and be Batman. But if you want to go full Batman then yeah he and his world should be unrealistic when compared to ours.

  14. #14
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jb681131 View Post
    No no no ! You got it all wrong.
    On the contrary the caracters are much more realistic than in the comics.
    And their is a real build up of the different vilains.

    If you look at the first episodes, you'll see that Gotham is controled by the mafia, and that slowly as the episodes go, each vilain emerge.
    As you say Ed Nygma doesn't just snap one day. Even before he becomes the Riddler you can guess he's gonna be the Riddler.
    And In real life that's how crazy people act. One day they "snap" as you say. If you look at their past you can then see that their were lots of little things that showed they were not normal people.
    That's exactly what they did for Nigma. And they did pretty well.

    The serie also has fantastic acting, you couldn't have found better actors for Ed Nigma or The Penguin (that you don't even mention by the way !) or Bruce and Alfred.

    I thing this serie is underrated because people (like you) don't see the subtle things that have been put in it.

    I said that the Riddler was probably the best character on the show, but for the most part, it was a mess.

    Why?
    • They used Hugo Strange and Arkham Asylum as a plot device to kill off, change, and resurrect Batman villains at will.
    • They put Batman's rogues active in Gotham before Bruce Wayne even became Batman. Yes, you might be able to do that with a few rogues, like Freeze, Catwoman, and maybe Riddler and Penguin, but you can't do that with the whole rogues gallery.
    • The Joker could have had a much better story arc; he could have even started out as one of Bruce's childhood friends or had a parallel arc to Bruce. As one of Batman's oldest villains, he has a lot of comic book history the writers of the series could have drawn from, but instead they decided to draw from the newer, and not always that good, comics featuring the character. If you're going to give Batman's greatest rogue a potential past, at least make it a good one. Jerome and Jeremiah Valaska were just heartless sociopaths, and they seemed pretty shallow. That's not only a reason that I'm not a big fan of Gotham, but I'm also not a big fan of the new 52 for that reason as well.


    As far as Gotham portraying things in a "realistic" manner? Hopefully I've made my point. Real people aren't born sociopaths, and it would have been much more satisfying had each villain introduced in Gotham had a story arc of their own slowly building up to their corruption as a result of the heartless Gotham City.

    Even if the acting was good, it was undercut by weak writing and poorly crafted story lines.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    Every live action interpretation of Batman brings both good and bad to the table so to start off I'm going look at the "Big 3" West, Burton/Keaton, and Nolan.

    West: First is always the negative effect the camp of the show had on the character which is a little unfair given Batman was very campy in the 50's and early 60's. But there was good the show helped stop the comic from being cancelled and it allowed a diverse interpretation of the character going forward. Snyder's Superman's greatest hurdle was in media from Radio, TV, Animation, and Film the character has been seen one way the Boy Scout fighting for Truth and Justice with a jovial smile it's practically Americana at this point. So Batman having the popular West entry so early in his outside media given only the serials came before allowed different takes going forward.

    Burton/Keaton: Again another drastically different take gave variety to the brand and Keaton was great casting but while I understand there take being a more Golden Age style Batman the killing was off putting to some fans. I will say though at least this Batman killed from goons to Rogues I liked Affleck but killing and branding goons while having a living Rogue's Gallery including Joker makes no sense IMO.

    Nolan: Batman Begins is a good film and Batman film IMO but Dark Knight is a fantastic film and bad Batman movie IMO simply because Bruce wants to quit being Batman to have a life with Rachel as for DKR see Dark Knight criticism also Bale's voice a good Bruce but that voice was a joke for a good reason.

    As for Gotham I really liked a different take but all the performances were usually good loved most of the casting and the Rogue's looked fantastic. I don't maybe because I was a Gotham Central fan and No Man's Land I really loved this show. As for being unrealistic well yeah Nolan proved Batman is a character you can strip to basics and make realistic and still be true to him and be Batman. But if you want to go full Batman then yeah he and his world should be unrealistic when compared to ours.
    The terrible flow of the plot didn't bother you? In some of the Gotham stories, it was maybe like they just pulled random Batman villains out of the air.
    Last edited by kcomics; 04-09-2019 at 09:33 AM.

  15. #15
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    5,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcomics View Post
    I said that the Riddler was probably the best character on the show, but for the most part, it was a mess.

    Why?
    • They used Hugo Strange and Arkham Asylum as a plot device to kill off, change, and resurrect Batman villains at will.
    • They put Batman's rogues active in Gotham before Bruce Wayne even became Batman. Yes, you might be able to do that with a few rogues, like Freeze, Catwoman, and maybe Riddler and Penguin, but you can't do that with the whole rogues gallery.
    • The Joker could have had a much better story arc; he could have even started out as one of Bruce's childhood friends or had a parallel arc to Bruce. As one of Batman's oldest villains, he has a lot of comic book history the writers of the series could have drawn from, but instead they decided to draw from the newer, and not always that good, comics featuring the character. If you're going to give Batman's greatest rogue a potential past, at least make it a good one. Jerome and Jeremiah Valaska were just heartless sociopaths, and they seemed pretty shallow. That's not only a reason that I'm not a big fan of Gotham, but I'm also not a big fan of the new 52 for that reason as well.


    As far as Gotham portraying things in a "realistic" manner? Hopefully I've made my point. Real people aren't born sociopaths, and it would have been much more satisfying had each villain introduced in Gotham had a story arc of their own slowly building up to their corruption as a result of the heartless Gotham City.

    Even if the acting was good, it was undercut by weak writing and poorly crafted story lines.



    The terrible flow of the plot didn't bother you? In some of the stories, it was maybe like they just pulled random Batman villains out of the air.
    There were points in seasons 2 and 3 where I would get annoyed but then something would happen to pull me back in and overall I enjoyed the series. It's not Birds of Prey and what I mean is while I have issues with some of Gotham I have rewatched older episodes and will do again the good outweighs the bad to me. Birds of Prey I remember being very forgiving of because it was our first live action Batman material since Batman and Robin well outside of OnStar Commercials and it was an improvement over Batman and Robin. Then it got cancelled years went by we got Nolan and I saw the series on sale on DVD and thought what the heck and bought and on rewatch it had moments but was a rough sit thru and I have no plans to ever rewatch but I do Gotham.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •