Gotham - Season 1

[Trekker4747]

My real question is what to do next week because I have two shows on at the same time:

This is a problem people still have?

Even before DVRs we had ways around this problem.

Anyway, it's sort of surprising to me -though probably not so completely- that so many are so ready to jump ship so early on. It's only been two episodes one of those being a world-building/exposition heavy pilot.

Strikes me as maybe a bit soon a prejudgmental to jump so quickly, what do you people TV Network executives who want immediate satisfaction, or something?

There's enough here to keep me interested and watching until something really happens that makes me bored with the show or realize it's not going to do anything. Two episodes is way to damn soon. The show has faults, sure, but it may still have some growing pains and world-building to finish shaking off.

I don't like the characterization of Alfred much either but, I suspect, we'll see him mellow a bit as the series continues on (maybe even just the season) it's presently only been a couple of weeks since this relationshipless, childless, butler saw the death of his bosses and then became a father to their suffering child. So I'm hoping we'll see an Alfred we'll recognize more as time wears on.

I agree the show has some tonal issues, we have Bullock playing the Nth degree of a grizzled, noir, detective, Gordon pretty much playing straight as if he were in a regular cop show, a precocious preteen from a Spielberg movie, a scenery-chewing villainess, a playing it straight in a mobster show villain, another villain going maybe a bit over-the-top but clearly enjoying every moment of it and this week we get two Villains-of-the-Week from an episode of Smallville.

So, yeah, this episode (and show) is all over the map on the tone it wants to go for and the various elements aren't working together well. I mean, it's hard to really "get" a crime-scene scene when we've got Gordon there playing it straight cop-show, and Bullock over gesturing and scenery-chewing about coffee and worthless homeless people.

So I get it, but it's not turned me off yet and I have hope the growing pains of the series will smooth out and congeal together to something a bit more coherent. When making the show it probably took the directors, producers, actors and writers to all find their groove. (Example: Watch pretty much the first handful of episodes of any TV series and compare it to how things are at the end of that same season or even a season or two later.)

Bailing on the show after only two episodes is precisely the problem with TV-watchers these days and why networks are always so quick to grab the hook. Not every show can gallop out of the gate, hell, I'd argue it took Agents of SHIELD nearly half it's season to really take-off, find footing, and be something special. There were all kinds of problems with that series at first, a Mary Sue character, rambling tech-position characters, Freak-of-the-Week story telling, bland, stiff, characters (Ward, May at the beginning) but as the series wore on, particularly after TWS came out and SHIELD started tying in) the series found footing and became pretty darn good.

I think the show deserves being toughed out, certainly for a little longer than two episodes.

And campy? Not campy at all. Overacted a bit? Sure. But that doesn't make it campy.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Dina Meyer sufficed. And when she wore a Batgirl costume was perfect.

Dina Meyer was awesome as Barbara Gordon -- the best Babs ever aside from Tara Strong, and the best thing about Birds of Prey. The Batgirl costume was just the one from Batman and Robin with a new paint job, and nothing about that film was perfect.

Christopher, if Dina Meyer in a Batgirl costume, no matter its provenance, isn't prima facie perfect, then there's no hope for you.

 

[Christopher]

Of course, a proper Batgirl costume should be purple...

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I'm in with the crowd that feels the show has serious tone problems, but there really are bigger issues:

Sorry, but Gordon is a bore. I have no sense of who he is, how he got there (he didn't know before he signed up that the police department was rough and corrupt? I was 8 in the 70s growing up in Memphis, TN and I knew that the NYPD was corrupt), and why he's so stiff and self-righteous. He needs a great big honking flaw, soon. Because perfect heroes are a snore and no one is really like that. I'll never be able to believe in this show if the main character doesn't seem like a real person.

Barbara, for those who are concerned that she doesn't have anything to do, strikes me as refrigerator bait. She's just hanging around to get killed. Perhaps the writers think offing her in some gruesome way will make Gordon more interesting, but I doubt it. Give the guy some internal conflict, please.

Fish I can take or leave. Mob rivalries - eh, ok, but everyone feels pretty stock. I'm a little intrigued by Falcone's "we and the Waynes were the pillars of the same house" bit. We'll see where that goes.

Bullock is part of the tone problem - is he supposed to be funny? disgusting? corrupt? just lazy?

Selina with the oh-so-done hair and makeup is a hard sell as a street kid. The actress is ok, but they should lay off a bit on the young hottie aspect so she can actually feel like she's a homeless kid.

Penguin, still very charismatic and the fun-to-watch psychotic. I'm fine with following him, but it does add to the scattered feel of the show.

Bruce and Alfred - best thing happening so far. I think this Alfred is getting a bad rap. I like him snappy and out of sorts, and "I told you to stop sneaking up on people, it's bloody rude!" was hilarious. No, we haven't seen this Alfred before and that's good - at least it's fresh, which is more than I can say for most of the show. But, Bruce being the best thing about it so far worries me, because he works as a counterpoint, but if it focuses on him too much, I fear things will run off the rails quickly.

Year One nod "I've been following your adventures in the paper" - one of the first things Bruce says to Gordon when he comes to the Manor to investigate him as possibly being the Batman.

 

[Trekker4747]

Bullock is part of the tone problem - is he supposed to be funny? disgusting? corrupt? just lazy?

I think the answer to that is "yes." He walks the line he has to in order to keep himself alive, keep himself employed and to generally stay out of trouble. I don't think he's strictly corrupt in the sense he's taking bribes and such in order to look the other way, but he looks the other way on criminal-on-criminal activity in return for information that might be valuable for a larger crime potentially effecting a non-criminal. (And, I suppose, a person of the community he deems worth of saving (i.e. not a homeless person.))

We see this in the first episode where he pretty much tells Gordon sometimes they have to compromise in order to survive the city. He probably wasn't strictly "for" killing Oswald he just saw killing a scumbag narc who worked for one of the biggest criminals int he city as the "lesser evil" over killing Gordon AND Oswald.

If Bullock was truly a "bad" cop who was corrupt or without morals he would have allowed Gordon to be killed in the first episode but he stepped in because he felt it was the better thing to do, even though it put his relationship with Fish in jeopardy.

He could be a good and interesting character if the actor toned down the noir aspects some and played it a bit more straight.

I sort of wonder what this series would be like/feel like if it played it a bit more straight in line with a police procedural that happened to take place in a comic-book universe/city. Some elements of it almost felt like it could have been an episode of NYCPD Blue or Hill Street Blues. *Almost* and I think the series would be better for it if it did play it that much more straight.

But that gets juxtaposed with the OTT scene-chewing by Fish, Bullock and Oswald and the "Villains of the Week" this week just felt pretty much straight out of Smallville with their mannerisms and them rolling up in an ice-cream truck, ahem, a homeless-relief truck with promises of helping the homeless only to kidnap them for more sinister motives.

 

[Christopher]

I don't get the Smallville comparisons for the child abductors. I don't recall that show ever playing its villains that broadly. I was actually reminded more of RoboCop: The Series. I actually quite like that show, but that's because it fully embraced its goofy, broad, cartoony qualities. These guys felt totally out of place in the kind of show I thought Gotham was supposed to be.

 

[Trekker4747]

I don't get the Smallville comparisons for the child abductors. I don't recall that show ever playing its villains that broadly. I was actually reminded more of RoboCop: The Series. I actually quite like that show, but that's because it fully embraced its goofy, broad, cartoony qualities. These guys felt totally out of place in the kind of show I thought Gotham was supposed to be.

That's probably a better comparison, though I think Smallville did delve into those types of villains from time-to-time.

But, yeah, the VOTW in this episode seemed out of place for something that is supposed to be something closer to a real-world police procedural.

 

[CorporalClegg]

If things don't change quickly, this show won't make it pasted the holiday hiatus.

The pilot was okay, but this last episode was pretty dreadful. I wouldn't think it possible to cast Frank Whaley and Lili Taylor has a dynamic evil duo and screw it up, but somehow they did. And the way they namedropped Dollmaker once again just seemed for the sake of it. But all the other problems from the pilot carried over and just seemed worse somehow.

Admittedly, I didn't think SHIELD was all that promising after two episodes either, but its problem was that it was just boring. Gotham has some serious conceptual foundation problems. Also, in hindsight, it's clear that SHIELD was handicapped by Cap 2's release, and couldn't dive into its main plot arc right away. Gotham doesn't have that excuse.

I don't know, as of right now I'd say it's the fifth best comic series on TV, and two of them haven't even started yet.

 

[Mister Fandango]

You really think the "namedropping" is that, and not a build up to the show's (or at least the season's) big bad?

 

[Lapis Exilis]

You know, I don't mind broad - just commit to something. But honestly, I think Heller has issues in that area. I never saw The Mentalist, but Rome is one of my favorite series of all time - I've seen it all the way through probably 6 times. However, it's a giant, fantastic mess. What made it work was character, character, character. If Fish Mooney was Atia, we'd be having a lot more fun in Gotham. If Jim Gordon was Lucius Vorenus, we'd really be getting somewhere. Vorenus, like Gordon, was stiff, self-righteous, duty-bound, and morally upright - he was also unimaginative, loyal to a massive fault, and completely hamstrung in his intimate relationships. He was tremendously interesting, constantly shooting himself in the foot when he wasn't being wildly brave. He was especially terrific in contrast to the fun-loving, hard-luck Titus Pullo. Give me something like that to watch and you can rove all over the place from broad to subtle (not that we've seen them do subtle yet).

 

[CorporalClegg]

and not a build up to the show's (or at least the season's) big bad?

I hope not. I don't know that The Dollmaker would ever make a convincing big bad in and of himself, without huge changes to the core character concept. Besides, the original is too obscure and the others are too new to add the appropriate weight to a primary villain.

Also, even if they stick to Mannequin or Schott (who's better served as Toyman, anyway) over Mathis, any Arrow comparisons are inevitable. And Eklund has set the bar pretty high, especially for a potential big bad.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Fascinating comparison to Vorenus and Pullo. McKenzie's intensity is reminiscent of Kevin McKidd. Unfortunately, Logue's Bullock isn't reminiscent of Pullo. The only male character who seems a plausible confidant/contemporary for Gordon is Bruce....in about 10 years when he's an adult.

I don't get the Smallville comparisons either, but I watch very little superhero comic fare. I still think that Gotham is going to be far more appealing to the casual fan and not the hardcore comic con bunch. I love how campy and goofy it can be in certain areas.

Character. Character. Character is the key to its success. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

You really think the "namedropping" is that, and not a build up to the show's (or at least the season's) big bad?

Yeah, I think it's likely a reference of things to come. Maybe not a big bad for the season, but someone likely to reappear or reoccur.

 

[tomswift2002]

I just saw the latest episode. Not as good as the pilot, but I wonder if they are going to be turning the Mayor of Gotham into the Joker? When the mayor was on I found that they had either picked the right guy in terms of facial features (dimples and deep creases around the mouth that makes him look like a guy who laughs a lot), or had put appliances on to make his mouth have that Jack Nicholson look from the 1989 Batman movie, and I was trying to hear whether they dropped the Napier name, but they never did, so I'm not to sure what the Mayor's name is.

 

[sojourner]

No. he's not the Joker. And that is really how the actor looks. He's been around in various shows for years, most notably as a regular on Spin City.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Fascinating comparison to Vorenus and Pullo. McKenzie's intensity is reminiscent of Kevin McKidd. Unfortunately, Logue's Bullock isn't reminiscent of Pullo. The only male character who seems a plausible confidant/contemporary for Gordon is Bruce....in about 10 years when he's an adult.

I don't get the Smallville comparisons either, but I watch very little superhero comic fare. I still think that Gotham is going to be far more appealing to the casual fan and not the hardcore comic con bunch. I love how campy and goofy it can be in certain areas.

Me too - I think there's a way to create the pastiche they seem to be trying for, they just haven't hit it yet. I loved the interrogation montage in the pilot. They seemed to be having fun with the true crossover between the cop genre and the comic format there. But where I find the whole thing particularly unsettling is in the graphic violence versus the much-noticed obvious writing. One seems very adult, the other seems very kiddie. Given the violence, kids can't watch this, so the writing needs to get a little more mature.

Character. Character. Character is the key to its success.

Isn't it always? I can forgive myriad sins (as I did with Rome - don't get me started on the bizarre way they depicted Cleopatra) if I love the characters.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

I loved Rome, too, despite its obvious flaws. I think Gotham could be that successful if they deepen the writing to delve into Gordon's psyche and they need to expand on Penguin'a descent into criminal insanity. Both actors are soooo good. Barbara does seem like future refrigerator bait and then some. It would further pit the internal affairs lady against Jim.

 

[Timby]

I think the show deserves being toughed out, certainly for a little longer than two episodes.

I don't expect shows to come out of the gate firing on all cylinders, but Gotham just has so little going for it right now. The writing is just awful.

Take Selina, for example. Remember the three or four scenes of her literally pawing at the necklace she has of her mom. You know, like a cat does with a toy? Because she's a cat? Like Catwoman? Get it? Hey did you get that? She's gonna be Catwoman.

"She likes to be called Cat."
"Why?"
"Because one day she will be Catwoman."
"Yes, I know that, but why does she like to be called Cat right now?"
"???I just said???"

It's like coming up with a logical in-universe justification for this shit has never even occurred to them. Honestly, I don't even care about the comics as long as you give me something that makes sense on its own terms. But they can't even be bothered to do that. They aren't trying to be accurate, but they aren't trying to do anything new or interesting with the mythos, either. So what are they doing? Why does this show exist?

Christ, I'm half-expecting Selina to get kicked out of a foster home next episode for pissing on a carpet, given the subtlety they've shown so far.

And that's why I'm checking out for now. As I said, I'll give it another shot maybe six or seven weeks from now, but at the moment I have better things to do with my time than spend an hour a week on this hoping it'll get better. I tried that with Agents of SHIELD and that was an entire season of unmitigated dogshit -- fool me once and all that.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Eh, I found Selina Kyle to be one of the better characters so far, but I can't say that says much. I'll probably give it a few more weeks - at least until there's a Monday Night Football game I care about.

 

[Mr Light]

Decent second episode. The villains were not terribly interesting but the other characters were. I was really impressed with the girl playing Selina. Not only is she shockingly similar looking to Michelle Pfieiffer (not going to bother trying to spell that), but she came off as a decent actress as well now that she finally gets lines.

I really want to see more Bruce, though. I'm really interested in seeing a disturbed little boy taking his first tiny steps to becoming Batman.