Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: GOTHAM.  (Read 9937 times)

sheridan

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 2704
    • View Profile
    • Wilde Wood
Re: GOTHAM.
« Reply #165 on: 12 January, 2017, 12:35:23 pm »
As the title suggests it's the story of Gotham, not Batman - Would you object to a series about the rise of Mega City One and how Fargo founded Justice Dept , even though Joe was still in a test tube or the academy?

I wonder if the executive producer could be convinced to create a Dredd-based production?

This, this now!

(I'm being facetious - as Gordon pointed out - Gotham's executive producer is the same person who directed the Judge Dredd film we try not to talk about too often...

I do think that there could be some mileage in a Sector House series with only minimal appearances by Dredd though.  Just not from Dan-E Cannon.

The Legendary Shark

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • Tip: Sharks only attack you if you're wet.
    • View Profile
    • the_sharkpool blog
Re: GOTHAM.
« Reply #166 on: 25 February, 2017, 11:47:39 pm »
I didn't want to watch this because, well, what's Gotham City without the Batman? But a friend gave me Season One and I'm half-way through it and enjoying virtually every scene. It's kind of like The Sopranos meets Jerry Springer and I'm loving the Penguin - you can't help but admire how the oily little git keeps on getting himself out of trouble. He's like the Mr Bean of organised crime. I like the other characters as well and Sean Pertwee is, as always, well worth watching - he really should have a couple of seasons as Dr Who - in fact, I'd gladly watch a series called Pennyworth if he was the star. (Well, maybe not gladly - at least not until a friend lent me the DVD...)
« Last Edit: 25 February, 2017, 11:49:38 pm by The Legendary Shark »

Dandontdare

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
    • View Profile
Re: GOTHAM.
« Reply #167 on: 26 February, 2017, 12:57:59 am »
Season two's pretty good too, but it rapidly descends into "how many future villains can we cram into each episode"
If this was the real backstory then every single Batman comic for decades after would involve the line "oh no, not you again "

Penguin is excellent though, and dr who jr makes a great Alfred
« Last Edit: 26 February, 2017, 01:05:51 am by Dandontdare »

auxlen

  • Member
  • Sentient Tea Bot
  • **
  • Posts: 455
    • View Profile
Re: GOTHAM.
« Reply #168 on: 10 September, 2017, 05:31:25 pm »
Really enjoying season 3! chaos and lost of riddler/penguin goodness. Ivy and selina are great etc
on the downside...Jim Gordon is starting to grate with his husky tough guy voice.
Bullock is still fun
and Chiklis is hamming it up beautifully

auxlen

  • Member
  • Sentient Tea Bot
  • **
  • Posts: 455
    • View Profile
Re: GOTHAM.
« Reply #169 on: 10 September, 2017, 05:32:14 pm »
ooops didnt see the new season 3 thread.

Mardroid

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6118
    • View Profile
Re: GOTHAM.
« Reply #170 on: 11 September, 2017, 03:27:41 pm »
Jim Gordon is starting to grate with his husky tough guy voice.

It's not just me, then?

I'm enjoying it too, though, although I thought the thing they did with Ivy was a bit dodgy. I know she's a sexy character in the comics, but there's no reason to fast forward and explore that side of her yet.

Proudhuff

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12071
  • A minefield of imbeciles and chimps
    • View Profile
Re: GOTHAM.
« Reply #171 on: 20 September, 2017, 07:18:50 pm »
Heavens to Betsy! I thought it was 13 episodes... dear god will it never end!
No doubt I'll be a grumpy killjoy Mr Negative...

Professor Bear

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6117
    • View Profile
    • Your Friends and Neighbors
Re: GOTHAM.
« Reply #172 on: 20 September, 2017, 07:51:44 pm »
It did feel like this season dragged a bit, but I put that down to a disjoint between the first and second halves.  Always nice to see someone's face get punched off their head, though.

I'm enjoying it too, though, although I thought the thing they did with Ivy was a bit dodgy. I know she's a sexy character in the comics, but there's no reason to fast forward and explore that side of her yet.

They actually nicked this from The Batman cartoon show, where Ivy's background before she gets dunked in ho juice is that she's a 15 year old hacktivist.  Gotham at least aged the character upwards.


Professor Bear

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6117
    • View Profile
    • Your Friends and Neighbors
Re: GOTHAM.
« Reply #174 on: Today at 12:54:09 pm »
That does raise the question though: couldn't they have done that with the original actress?

She's 12 or something, and portrayals of noncery might have landed Gotham with a higher age rating than its timeslot would allow.  Americans are pretty easy-going about violence, but less so about sex.

For me, the problem with the character is that TAS and The Batman - children's cartoons - had really good takes on the character's backstory before she became a sassy ninja villain type, but Gotham's take is just dull.  As with other characters, it feels like there's no plan and they're just putting her in there for the sake of a name-check.

JamesC

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3592
    • View Profile
Re: GOTHAM.
« Reply #175 on: Today at 01:10:06 pm »
Ivy is one of the absolute worst Batman characters whatever way you look at it. The only reason she gets so much mileage is that certain artists like drawing pictures of nearly-nude women and certain readers like looking at them. 

Professor Bear

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6117
    • View Profile
    • Your Friends and Neighbors
Re: GOTHAM.
« Reply #176 on: Today at 01:40:22 pm »
The Batman version of Ivy is actually pretty interesting before she becomes the usual screeching supervillain: an underage hacktivist who catfishes older men into committing acts of terrorism.
Again: this was in a kids' cartoon.