Fox Developing "Gotham" Young Jim Gordon Series

Hmm, that interview doesn't make me feel better about the show. I'm a little tired of seeing superhero adaptations being made by people who think superheroes can't be done well so you have to take the super- part out of it. And it seems a little hypocritical coming from the guy who made Rome. If you can make modern audiences relate to characters dressed in togas and sandals, why should it be prohibitive to make them relate to characters dressed in tights and capes?

 

He seems to really not like superheroes.

 

Yeah, that doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence.

Seems to me superheroes have done quite well lately. Granted at the box office and not so much on a major network but, still...

 

Since it's not a show about costumed superheroes, Heller's aversion to them doesn't seem like a problem to me.

 

Yeah it's a bit odd that he doesn't seem to care as much for the superhero part of the superhero concept. But I think he's probably right that if Batman was in the show the desire on the part of the audience and network would be to see him doing lots of exciting, Batman-type things all the time. And that's just not the kind of show he wants to write.

But it's kind of a moot point anyway, since WB never wanted Batman to be in the show to begin with.

 

I think it shows a lack of respect for the source material and fans of the source material.

 

Lack of respect for source material is good - it leads to new things.

As for the fans, their sense of entitlement can keep them warm.

 

If you don't respect the source material, or fans of it, then why use it in the first place if not to appeal to those fans?

How many people out there, other than fans of comics/movies/character are going to watch a Gotham-based show? Why thumb your nose at the very people who're likely to tune in?

 

No, that would only be the case if he were disinterested in superheroes generally. In the interview, he specifically talks about superheroes on TV. All he says is that he doesn't consider masked heroes to be practical on a format that lives on the emotions comunicated by the faces of the actors.

Be free to agree or disagree with him, but at least get right on what you are agreeing or disagreeing.

 

It's a show that meshes with the part of the superhero mythos - the pre-costume origin aspect - that Heller is drawn to. There's no need to have a conniption fit. He favorably cites comic books that feature masked superheroes and says that the masked aspect has been done very well in some stories, so he's not dissing it in general. It's just not what he's drawn to.

 

Because they tune in anyway to whine.

 

.... Who's having a conniption?

I'm sorry, why are you here again?

 

You.

 

conniption:

Please tell me how:

Qualifies as being "very angry, upset" or "a fit of rage, hysteria."

Hyperbole much?

All I said was that it doesn't fill me with too much confidence that a show based in a comic-book world is being created by a man who doesn't seem to much like comic book stories. I've hardly gone into nerd-rage over it, just that these comments don't give much confidence the show will be done well but I still plan on checking it out when it premieres.

Words.

They have meanings.

 

^^^
And the conniption fit continues. To be fair, maybe it's more of a hissy fit. And, yes, I'm engaging in a little facetious hyperbole in response to an overly knee-jerk fanboy reaction. There you have it.

 

No show or movie adapting a pre-existing character ever succeeded by appealing only to the existing fanbase for the character. To get good enough ratings or ticket sales, you need to attract a larger audience, including people who aren't already fans. And the more groups you can get interested in your intellectual property by adapting it to various different tastes, the bigger your profits overall.

So there's nothing wrong with reinventing Batman's mythos for a more general audience. It worked for Smallville -- which, remember, spent the first half or more of its run actively avoiding the more comic-book elements and trying to reinterpret Clark Kent's story for the Dawson's Creek audience.

So that's not what I have a problem with. In principle, there's nothing wrong with trying to reinvent a story to fit a different genre or target a different audience. I just don't like it when the creators of such a project are too self-conscious about, not merely varying from the source material, but actively dismissing it and looking down on it.

If that were all he was saying, I'd have no objection. But there's a general sense that he doesn't think superheroes are relatable, that putting on costumes makes them less human, more godlike. I think Marvel has proven effectively over the past 50 years that that isn't the case, and in recent years they've proven that to the general moviegoing public as well as the comics audience. So Heller's assumptions seem rather outdated as well as narrow-minded.

And like I said, it's a strange double standard. Superhero stories are just another kind of costume drama, no different from historical fiction. Why does he think that Rome can work as a human and relatable tale but a superhero story can't?

 

Your hyperbole is extreme. All I've said is that the creator's attitude doesn't fill me with confidence.

How is that anything different than any other time when the creator of something says something about the project they're working on that makes you think they're not going to be devoted and faithful to everything before it?

How about you dial back YOUR conniption over people simply stating their thoughts and opinions?

CONNIPTION!!!!!

Reinventing a story or mythos is fine but as you said this guy seems to be more looking down on the source material which doesn't bode confidence. Naturally it has to appeal to a wider audience but it also needs to appeal to fans of character/franchise. And being so dismissive of them is hardly going to win any favors.

 

It was this latter statement that struck me as a silly knee-jerk reaction:

Parts of the superhero mythos appeal to Heller more than others. He's making a show focusing on the parts that appeal to him. He's not saying there aren't any good stories about masked superheroes. He cites some that he thinks are great stories.

 

Still hardly a knee-jerk/conniption/hissy-fit statement.

Unless simply stating my opinions means I'm throwing a fit.

 

He referred to previous great interpretations of the Batman mythos and other superhero adaptations. I don't think he looks down on superheroes, merely doesn't think that they're a good match for TV series and they don't really appeal to him as a writer. But he compares superheroes to Greek and Roman mythology which, given that he previously wrote 'Rome' is presumably a compliment.

This show isn't really 'departing from the source material' as much as taking a different slant on it. He's made it clear that he's more interested in Gotham than in Batman. So he's setting it in a pre-Batman Gotham - there will still be a Batman, but Heller is more interested in how the Batman came about than in what happened after he arrived on the scene. It's not like he's reinventing the city so as to have a world where Batman never comes to be or, like Darren Aaronovsky's Year one script, lives in a garage and where Alfred is a jive-talking pimp.