[proty]

Originally Posted by stlavin95 (View Post) Okay sorry about that.

Thank you for apologizing. It makes no sense when some behave the way they do. Everyone should be respectful to each other.

[scorpio_chick]

Eh. Jim is one of the highlights of the show for me. Some of my favorite episodes have been with him at the center.

As for the winter finale, I was a bit underwhelmed, tbh. It was a good episode. The Bruce/Jerome scenes were good, as were the Ed/Oswald scenes and the final scene with Bruce/Alfred. But overall, I think there have been stronger, more compelling episodes so far this season.

Originally Posted by ParsD (View Post) Fantastic mid-season final. I have no words, just massive annoyance at having to wait till mid-spring for the next half. Gotham is heads and shoulders above all those other shows. The level of acting and storytelling is superb. It has a fair amount of cheese and cray, but they manage to hit all the right notes with it, taking classic comic SLs and actually take it to fascinating places. You can tell the creators have a vision and are dedicated to it. I don't watch Lucifer but the Berlanti shows are formulaic procedurals with uninspired/poorly plotted season arcs and horrific characterization. They're not in the same league as Gotham imo.

This. I don't think Gotham is on the same level as Luke Cage or Daredevil but it's certainly better than the rest of the DCTV lineup.

[NikNak]

Originally Posted by hurricane eyes (View Post) Guys everyone is entitled to an opinion on this show. If you do not agree it's perfectly fine to say why, but do so with respect. This is not high school and I shouldn't have to remind you guys how to behave. Please remember to keep a little common courtesy in mind.

Thanks for posting the reminder, Kara.

[Telepath]

Originally Posted by scorpio_chick (View Post) I don't think Gotham is on the same level as Luke Cage or Daredevil but it's certainly better than the rest of the DCTV lineup.

What makes me rate Gotham higher than Daredevil, Luke Cage or Jessica Jones has much to do with the distinction I mentioned - "surface depth" versus "hidden complexity". What I mean by that is that Gotham is a deceptively complex show wrapped in a cartoonish package. It always offers you the option to watch it as a popcorn show, but if you scratch the surface there's a lot of hidden gears and there's a lot of rather complex characterization. I wouldn't be able to do intellectually honest dialectical breakdowns of character motivations if they didn't make any sense - I would be reduced to fan fiction - and most often with the main players... they do. That's not to say there have been no duds - Mr. Freeze, for example, is an abject failure. A horrible failure.

In contrast all the Netflix shows you mentioned are well-packaged, look great, act great and tick off the whole "modern sensibilities" list, but their complexity is all on the surface. It's practically screaming at you, "I'm dark, I'm gritty, I'm mature, I'm clever, I'm serious," it throws it in your face. When you look under the hood... I think there's very little left.

The other problem for me is that the characters of all the latter shows are fully realized from the opening episode and do not really evolve. They comprise a static universe. That's the exact opposite of Gotham, which for me is more rewarding.

[stlavin95]

Originally Posted by scorpio_chick (View Post) This. I don't think Gotham is on the same level as Luke Cage or Daredevil but it's certainly better than the rest of the DCTV lineup.

Yeah that's true, but I think it's a lot closer quality wise to Luke Cage than to Daredevil. It being better the rest of the DC lineup doesn't really say a lot lol.

[scorpio_chick]

^^Ha. Touche on that last part.

Originally Posted by Telepath (View Post) What makes me rate Gotham higher than Daredevil, Luke Cage or Jessica Jones has much to do with the distinction I mentioned - "surface depth" versus "hidden complexity". What I mean by that is that Gotham is a deceptively complex show wrapped in a cartoonish package. It always offers you the option to watch it as a popcorn show, but if you scratch the surface there's a lot of hidden gears and there's a lot of rather complex characterization. I wouldn't be able to do intellectually honest dialectical breakdowns of character motivations if they didn't make any sense - I would be reduced to fan fiction - and most often with the main players... they do. That's not to say there have been no duds - Mr. Freeze, for example, is an abject failure. A horrible failure. In contrast all the Netflix shows you mentioned are well-packaged, look great, act great and tick off the whole "modern sensibilities" list, but their complexity is all on the surface. It's practically screaming at you, "I'm dark, I'm gritty, I'm mature, I'm clever, I'm serious," it throws it in your face. When you look under the hood... I think there's very little left. The other problem for me is that the characters of all the latter shows are fully realized from the opening episode and do not really evolve. They comprise a static universe. That's the exact opposite of Gotham, which for me is more rewarding.

Meh. I really enjoy Gotham but I wouldn't describe it as deceptively complex. Most of the characters are complex for sure but it can be rather heavy handed and messy when it comes to character development and evolution.

The Netflix shows for me just feel a lot more authentic and natural with its characters and story progression. It's not really true that they are fully realized from the start. That certainly was not the case for Luke Cage and won't be for Iron Fist. We may not have seen Daredevil and Jessica Jones go through some big transformation but I don't think we needed to. There's tons of satisfaction and intrigue and drama within their interactions with other characters.

Gotham's biggest flaw for me continues to be its writing for the women characters on the show. That's another glaring difference between it and the Netflix shows, especially Luke Cage, which did a brilliant job of centering its female characters. It absolutely crushes Gotham in that department (and many others, to be frank).

[stlavin95]

I wouldn't say Gotham is perfect when it comes to reading but it's by far better writing female characters than Arrow/the Flash/Legends of Tomorrow are. The Marvel shows do an amazing job of writing/centering it's female characters.

[proty]

Originally Posted by scorpio_chick (View Post) ^^Ha. Touche on that last part. Meh. I really enjoy Gotham but I wouldn't describe it as deceptively complex. Most of the characters are complex for sure but it can be rather heavy handed and messy when it comes to character development and evolution. The Netflix shows for me just feel a lot more authentic and natural with its characters and story progression. It's not really true that they are fully realized from the start. That certainly was not the case for Luke Cage and won't be for Iron Fist. We may not have seen Daredevil and Jessica Jones go through some big transformation but I don't think we needed to. There's tons of satisfaction and intrigue and drama within their interactions with other characters. Gotham's biggest flaw for me continues to be its writing for the women characters on the show. That's another glaring difference between it and the Netflix shows, especially Luke Cage, which did a brilliant job of centering its female characters. It absolutely crushes Gotham in that department (and many others, to be frank).

My biggest problem with Gotham is how campy and cheesy it is. I wanted a Batman show in line with the Nolan movies. This is more like the Adam West tv show.

I also dislike how no one other than Gordon, Bruce, and Penguin are written for. The way they treat Barbara and Tabitha is terrible.

I also feel like they have no game plan. A prequel show should have some type of outline about where they want to go. But it just seems like they throw any idea they come up with onscreen without any planning.

They've burned through almost all of Batmans rogue gallery of villains in three seasons. By the time Bruce is a grown man all of his villains will have been defeated by Gordon and old men. There won't really be a need for a Batman.

[stlavin95]

They never tended to be an version of Nolan's Batman movies.

[Telepath]

Originally Posted by scorpio_chick (View Post) Meh. I really enjoy Gotham but I wouldn't describe it as deceptively complex. Most of the characters are complex for sure but it can be rather heavy handed and messy when it comes to character development and evolution.

Disagree. Bruce's character evolution has been nearly perfectly done. The contradicting forces at play in his mind and the outside influences shaping him make sense from start to finish. Edward Nygma's character road has also made sense from start to finish. Barbara is, let's face it, rather all over the place, but at least they did reshape a failed character and right now she functions as part of the show.

The Netflix shows for me just feel a lot more authentic and natural with its characters and story progression.

I think you feel that way - and it also explains some complaints about "heavy-handedness" - because the Netflix shows subscribe to Hollywood naturalist acting while Gotham veers into the eccentric style. This is a deliberate choice which I feel fits the comic book show medium well. I've seen people complain about that James Frain "can't act" on the show, which is laughable - he's deliberately playing in a theatrical manner.

It's not really true that they are fully realized from the start. That certainly was not the case for Luke Cage and won't be for Iron Fist.

I believe they are. Luke Cage may have had a "journey" but one, it was a very generic reluctant-hero road, and two, it didn't significantly change his personality. However even if you claim that there is a certain character evolution on Luke Cage it's nowhere near as dramatic and profound as on Gotham. The entire point of Gotham is to show characters developing.

Gotham's biggest flaw for me continues to be its writing for the women characters on the show.

It's mostly that there aren't many women. Selina's well written but she could use a little more perspective - I think they're gearing up for that right now. Silver was only there for a little time but she was actually very well written and decidedly superior as a character to the comics.

---

Originally Posted by proty (View Post) My biggest problem with Gotham is how campy and cheesy it is. I wanted a Batman show in line with the Nolan movies. This is more like the Adam West tv show.

Gotham jokes with alluding to the West show - "some days you just can't get rid of a bomb" - but the show is a Gothic-type drama far more resemblant to the Burton movies. It's nothing like the West show. Compare their Riddlers. That's enough.

I also dislike how no one other than Gordon, Bruce, and Penguin are written for.

... and Edward... and to a lesser extent Selina. Notice one thing? Those are the important characters for the future Batman mythos.

Also the show certainly did write for Fish. among others. The fact that I thought that character was a disaster is irrelevant to that point.

They've burned through almost all of Batmans rogue gallery of villains in three seasons. By the time Bruce is a grown man all of his villains will have been defeated by Gordon and old men.

Plain false.

First: Here's a list of Batman villains. Category:Villains | Batman Wiki | Fandom powered by Wikia

While there are some duplicates that list has 600+ entries.

Second: Cameron is 8 years older than David. Penguin and Riddler being 15 to 25 years older than him is perfectly fine - Penguin was always a lot older. They also aren't adversaries relying on their fighting skills.

We've seen no Bane. Selina is the proper age. The future Scarecrow is a kid. Tommy Elliot is Bruce's age. Black Mask would be Richard Sionis' son. Talon is Bruce's twin. I could go on. In summary this is an extremely common complaint that holds practically no merit. The most I can give you is that Harvey Dent is generally supposed to be around Bruce's age, and that Ivy's "age-up" is an atrocity. We'll see about Harlequin. If she turns out to be a woman already on the show... That would be bad.

[stlavin95]

The writers definitely have improved on Barbara's character since S1 lol.

[proty]

Originally Posted by stlavin95 (View Post) They never tended to be an version of Nolan's Batman movies.

No, but that's the show I thought it'd be after the first promo.

[stlavin95]

Originally Posted by proty (View Post) No, but that's the show I thought it'd be after the first promo.

I never really it would be. As Telepath said, it's a lot closer than Burton Batman movies then it was the Nolan ones.

[scorpio_chick]

Originally Posted by Telepath (View Post) Disagree. Bruce's character evolution has been nearly perfectly done. The contradicting forces at play in his mind and the outside influences shaping him make sense from start to finish. Edward Nygma's character road has also made sense from start to finish. Barbara is, let's face it, rather all over the place, but at least they did reshape a failed character and right now she functions as part of the show.

Well Bruce has gotten consistently good writing and development but my point wasn't that there aren't any examples of good character evolution. Rather, that some of them can be heavy handed and messy and I think both Ed and Barbara fall into that category. Yes, I love Ed but I don't like how the writers handled much of his journey, particularly killing off Kristen/Isabella to advance his story. That wasn't exactly good or inspired storytelling, IMO.

I think you feel that way - and it also explains some complaints about "heavy-handedness" - because the Netflix shows subscribe to Hollywood naturalist acting while Gotham veers into the eccentric style. This is a deliberate choice which I feel fits the comic book show medium well. I've seen people complain about that James Frain "can't act" on the show, which is laughable - he's deliberately playing in a theatrical manner.

Nah. That isn't it. I'm well aware that the tone and style of Gotham is deliberate and it's one of the things I enjoy about the show. I'm not one who thinks it's too cheesy or over the top. I like that it offers something different from the other shows. But sometimes the writing leaves a lot to be desired, or the consistency just isn't there and it affects the quality and authenticity of the storytelling, in ways I just don't see with the Netflix shows.

I believe they are. Luke Cage may have had a "journey" but one, it was a very generic reluctant-hero road, and two, it didn't significantly change his personality. However even if you claim that there is a certain character evolution on Luke Cage it's nowhere near as dramatic and profound as on Gotham. The entire point of Gotham is to show characters developing.

And that's great but again, I don't think that makes its a superior show. Frankly, I admire the Netflix/Marvel approach more because I think it's harder to produce a good, compelling show when the characters aren't making some huge transformation.

Also, there is really no new kind of journey to be found on any of these shows, they are all "generic" in the sense that they borrow from classic tropes. What makes them unique are the actors, writers and how they approach the characters.

It's mostly that there aren't many women. Selina's well written but she could use a little more perspective - I think they're gearing up for that right now. Silver was only there for a little time but she was actually very well written and decidedly superior as a character to the comics.

The biggest problem is that the writers don't write enough for the women who are on the show and that includes Selina.

[stlavin95]

I wasn't a massive fan of them killing off Kristen/Isabella either.