Gotham - Season 1

[Christopher]

Inner conflict does not mean corrupt.

But you said he should "learn" from Bullock, a character whose defining character trait at this point is casual brutality and contempt for anything decent. That sure sounded like you were saying you wanted Gordon to become a worse person -- not just someone struggling to live up to his ideals, but someone who "learned" to abandon his ideals.

There's certainly value in the story of a character who believes in his principles struggling to remain true to them in the face of a world that encourages abandoning them. But that doesn't mean a character needs to "learn" from a far more corrupt character. I find the very suggestion that this totally irredeemable version of Bullock is somehow more in the right than Gordon to be profoundly offensive. What the hell, exactly, are you proposing that Gordon should "learn" from this piece of scum? How to beat people up? How to torture human beings? How to stop caring altogether about the law or good police work? Bullock is the one who needs to learn from Gordon. Bad people should learn from good people.

I definitely see Gordon struggling. He's struggling with the seeming impossibility of accomplishing his goals in the face of such systematic corruption, with the difficulty of even surviving as a Gotham cop, with the seeming futility of keeping his promise to Bruce. He's definitely being challenged. If you want compromise, just putting up with Bullock's brutality is more of a moral compromise than I'm personally comfortable with, because there is never the slightest excuse for torture. But it's a compromise he's had to make just to stay alive, and it's killing him. I don't know how you can say he's not conflicted. A character can have clearly formed ideals and still have to struggle. He shouldn't have to start out as some amoral scumbag like Bullock.

 

[Servo]

I definitely see Gordon struggling. He's struggling with the seeming impossibility of accomplishing his goals in the face of such systematic corruption, with the difficulty of even surviving as a Gotham cop, with the seeming futility of keeping his promise to Bruce. He's definitely being challenged. If you want compromise, just putting up with Bullock's brutality is more of a moral compromise than I'm personally comfortable with, because there is never the slightest excuse for torture. But it's a compromise he's had to make just to stay alive, and it's killing him. I don't know how you can say he's not conflicted. A character can have clearly formed ideals and still have to struggle. He shouldn't have to start out as some amoral scumbag like Bullock.

This. Exactly this.

 

[Marc]

I agree with Servo. Who knows how Jim will react to Oswald's reappearance?

Well there would be relief (shuts down the claims by Montoya and her partner that Gordon put on in Penguin's head) and at the same time concern because now the mobsters know that Jim didn't shoot Oswald as he was supposed to.

Won't help things between Barbara and Rene though with the former probably thinking it's more payback/trying to spit them up.

 

[Servo]

I agree with Servo. Who knows how Jim will react to Oswald's reappearance?

Well there would be relief (shuts down the claims by Montoya and her partner that Gordon put on in Penguin's head) and at the same time concern because now the mobsters know that Jim didn't shoot Oswald as he was supposed to.

Won't help things between Barbara and Rene though with the former probably thinking it's more payback/trying to spit them up.

I don't think think he's going to reappear to anyone else just yet. Cobblepot is smart enough to know that if Mooney gets wind of him being alive, it would put him in just as much danger as it would Gordon. Especially after the reaction of that goon he knifed near the sandwich vendor.

I'm thinking he's going to try and gain leverage over Gordon somehow (possibly by threatening to reveal he's alive), or maybe pretend to be a friend to Gordon so he can try and manipulate him to further his own agenda.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

[I'm sorry, but a police commissioner who embraces an illegal vigilante who beats the living hell out of people without due process is not a "pillar of virtue" - he's someone who has accepted that the world operates in such a way that one has to sometimes do bad in order to do good...

I'm glad you're sorry. It doesn't mean that. It means they are two different people, addressing a situation in different ways, just the way Gordon and Bullock are doing right now in front of your eyes. Show, not tell.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

If someone dies because Jim trusts Oswald or makes an "unholy" or "lesser of two evils" type alliance with him, there's your inner conflict for Jim.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The producers have stated clearly that they're not trying to pin it down to a specific real-world year. They've said (paraphrasing) they want to convey a general sense of "the past," but something that would seem like "the past" both to a twentysomething viewer and a fiftysomething viewer. It's an alternate world, and trying to match it to dates in our world is futile. After all, Batman is timeless. When Batman's origin story was first told in 1940, the movie that he and his parents were coming home from would've probably had to be a silent movie (since it would've had to be 15-20 years before the present). It's a story that's been set in many different eras, so the show is going for a composite "past" rather than a specific real-world date.

I'm sure someone here also said that the producers said that Gotham is taking place in 2014.

 

[Trekker4747]

The producers have stated clearly that they're not trying to pin it down to a specific real-world year. They've said (paraphrasing) they want to convey a general sense of "the past," but something that would seem like "the past" both to a twentysomething viewer and a fiftysomething viewer. It's an alternate world, and trying to match it to dates in our world is futile. After all, Batman is timeless. When Batman's origin story was first told in 1940, the movie that he and his parents were coming home from would've probably had to be a silent movie (since it would've had to be 15-20 years before the present). It's a story that's been set in many different eras, so the show is going for a composite "past" rather than a specific real-world date.

I'm sure someone here also said that the producers said that Gotham is taking place in 2014.

I've heard the same thing as Christopher that the show isn't meant to take place in any specific year just a "general now" or "before now" we see they have cell-phones and other modern technologies, but we've also seen older TV sets and the phones they've used have been lame flip-phones. () So I doubt it's meant to take place in 2014.

 

[Agent Richard07]

I've never heard anything to suggest that it's the past, just that it's a timeless Gotham. They deliberately used 70s cars but it's for their nondescript look reminiscent of gritty police shows rather than to suggest that it's at any point in time. I'm sure it's the same with every other prop. Loved seeing those old TVs by the way.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

So, Gordon can't start out as an inflexible pillar of virtue, who thinks his virtue can change the world - effectively a by-the-book rookie in a new city - whose conflict comes from the things he is forced to do (or pretend to do) in order to work within the city, and keep himself alive and in a position to change things in Gotham further down the line?

Of course he could - and if I saw any evidence of that being the direction they were headed, I'd be much more interested. But I don't see that evidence. I'm willing to be convinced though, if anyone wants to demonstrate how the writers are setting that up.

There's certainly value in the story of a character who believes in his principles struggling to remain true to them in the face of a world that encourages abandoning them. But that doesn't mean a character needs to "learn" from a far more corrupt character. I find the very suggestion that this totally irredeemable version of Bullock is somehow more in the right than Gordon to be profoundly offensive. What the hell, exactly, are you proposing that Gordon should "learn" from this piece of scum? How to beat people up? How to torture human beings?

And beating people up and torturing human beings is different from what Batman does... how, exactly?

It doesn't mean that. It means they are two different people, addressing a situation in different ways, just the way Gordon and Bullock are doing right now in front of your eyes. Show, don't tell.

Which would be my point.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I've heard the same thing as Christopher that the show isn't meant to take place in any specific year just a "general now" or "before now" we see they have cell-phones and other modern technologies, but we've also seen older TV sets and the phones they've used have been lame flip-phones. () So I doubt it's meant to take place in 2014.

Most of 2014 is already the past.

 

[Servo]

Of course he could - and if I saw any evidence of that being the direction they were headed, I'd be much more interested. But I don't see that evidence. I'm willing to be convinced though, if anyone wants to demonstrate how the writers are setting that up.

We're three episodes into the first season of a new show. Give it a chance.

 

[JoeZhang]

The producers have stated clearly that they're not trying to pin it down to a specific real-world year. They've said (paraphrasing) they want to convey a general sense of "the past," but something that would seem like "the past" both to a twentysomething viewer and a fiftysomething viewer. It's an alternate world, and trying to match it to dates in our world is futile. After all, Batman is timeless. When Batman's origin story was first told in 1940, the movie that he and his parents were coming home from would've probably had to be a silent movie (since it would've had to be 15-20 years before the present). It's a story that's been set in many different eras, so the show is going for a composite "past" rather than a specific real-world date.

I'm sure someone here also said that the producers said that Gotham is taking place in 2014.

I've heard the same thing as Christopher that the show isn't meant to take place in any specific year just a "general now" or "before now" we see they have cell-phones and other modern technologies, but we've also seen older TV sets and the phones they've used have been lame flip-phones. () So I doubt it's meant to take place in 2014.

A bit more on this:

What we did not want was a contemporary ultra-realistic vision of this world – so we decided to definitely not embrace everything that is current. And those choices extend from everything to architecture, automobiles and cell phones. You’ll never see a smartphone in Gotham. Yes, the world exists somewhere between the late 70s and the mid-80s, but we try to let it float, because we want people to invest themselves and their own ideas of Gotham into our vision.

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/oct/06/designing-gotham-production-designer-doug-kraner

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Saw Jada Pinkett on The Tonight Show and it's amazing how different she looks when made up as Fish Mooney. Though now I'm not sure if either or neither is her real hair.

 

[eyeresist]

The first two eps of Gotham were broadcast here last night. Although the trailer showed potential, my hopes were not high, as Arrow did not impress me at all, and there are so many possible ways to screw up this show (or any show). Also, the SFX review was rather snide.

But actually I enjoyed what I saw a lot. The writing seemed consistent, without those peaks and valleys most shows suffer from in early episodes, and I thought the cast was great. I also liked the gritty 70s feel, as for me that was Batman at his peak.

I have two worries:
1. Gordon's girlfriend. First off, she's called Barbara, which lays out some big plot twists pretty clearly - she'll die giving birth (or shortly after), and Jim will name his new daughter after her. I don't like her apartment; something more grounded would fit the show better. Finally, the actress is wrong - I find her neither likable nor interesting.
2. With such a big cast, there is a danger of the show devolving into a soap opera where we are expected to care about half a dozen unrelated plotlines.

I'm not yet sure how they're going to handle Bruce. I think I'd prefer it if he never became a central character, but instead we only observed his growth by inference. A rather dark, increasingly obsessed kid who learns to put up a bland front.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think Jim Gordon's wife was Barbara in The Dark Knight as well. I have no idea about the comics. But they seemed to name their kids after their parents.

 

[Corran Horn]

I think Jim Gordon's wife was Barbara in The Dark Knight as well. I have no idea about the comics. But they seemed to name their kids after their parents.

The confusion has been a constant, really - is Batgirl Barbara his niece, daughter, etc...and it doesn't help that his (first?) wife is/was named Barbara too.

 

[Christopher]

I have two worries:
1. Gordon's girlfriend. First off, she's called Barbara, which lays out some big plot twists pretty clearly - she'll die giving birth (or shortly after), and Jim will name his new daughter after her.

I think Jim Gordon's wife was Barbara in The Dark Knight as well. I have no idea about the comics. But they seemed to name their kids after their parents.

Barbara Kean was introduced in 1981's "To Kill a Legend" by Alan Brennert and Dick Giordano. She was Gordon's fiancee in an alternate world where events were 20 years behind and the Wayne murders hadn't happened yet. Frank Miller introduced her as Gordon's main-universe wife in Batman: Year One in 1987. He intended her to be Barbara "Batgirl" Gordon's mother, but he reworked the chronology so that her child wasn't born yet when Batman began his career, so it was later decided that Babs/Batgirl was Jim's niece whom he adopted as a daughter (although later retconned that she was actually his biological daughter from an affair when he was much younger). Barbara Kean Gordon would later divorce Jim due to his infidelity, taking their son James Jr. with her, and Gordon would marry his colleague Sarah Essen (whom Gotham has reinterpreted as Gordon and Bullock's captain).

So I don't think there's any reason to expect Barbara to die in childbirth.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Besides, mothers who pass their names onto their daughters are kind of a thing now.

 

[Mach5]

GOTHAM Is The Worst Thing To Happen To Batman Since Joel Schumacher

"There’s a fine line between campy goodness and cartoonish badness, and Gotham clearly has no idea where that line is drawn. What’s doubly troubling about the show’s tone is that it’s only going to get cartoonier - this is the third episode and we have assassination by weather balloon, so where is the series going to go as it hits multiple seasons? By the time Batman shows up the show will be a full-on Schumacherian gigglefest."

God damn, I'd love to disagree with this article, but I can't. Gotham is an unholy mess.

I still haven't lost all hope, but so far, this show has been a 180 degree opposite to what I was expecting.