Liked it, thought is was pretty heavy handed with the easter eggs, almost gave me a muppet baby movie vibe, lol, but enough good things to keep me watching.
The general atmosphere and tone was good, the acting wasn't great, but the premise held my attention. It will be hard for me to stick with a detective show where the detective work made no sense though. In particular in regards to Gordon's investigation into the framed murder. 1) Ivy's mother said that her husband was into a lot of bad stuff, but wasn't capable of killing anyone and Gordon seemed to accept this as believeable testimony despite the fact that her husband tried to kill him by shooting then attempting to stab him. Speaking of which, if her husband was "innocent" why did he run and try to kill a cop in the first place? Guilty of something else perhaps? I didn't hear any explanation of what that might be. 2) Bullock says Gordon can't tell anyone that they got the wrong man because that means he killed an innocent man and they will both lose their jobs...? What? Bullock shot Ivy's father because he was trying to kill Gordon. Ivy's father's guilt or innocence in the murder of the Waynes had nothing to do with the legality of shooting him in defense of Gordon. Am I the only one who was bothered by this?
Eh, it was okay. Probably a 6 out of 10. It started terribly and ended up being watchable. Of all the characters in the show, I really enjoyed Alfred, Bullock and Falcone. Fish and Penguin were okay, hit or miss dialogue often. But I thought the guy who played Gordon was pretty terrible. And if the show is about him, he better offer something bearable quickly. And I wish they left all the kids out of it. I wouldn't mind seeing them once or twice a season, but that they're planned on being recurring characters disillusions me. And when the hell is this supposed to be set? Is it modern day, or set in the 80's? Seems like they're going for an ambiguous time set, where it could be happening years ago or today, or in the future. Overall, I'll continue to watch this only because of the brand name. Looks like they're setting up good stuff with Falcone, and I'm excited to see where they take Bullock.
The point of the series is to show us all the beginning. They are describing how exactly they became the characters in the comic books, so there's no getting away from 'all the kids'.
It was alright but I wasn't overly impressed. I'll stick with it for a few episodes. Hopefully it takes it less time to hit its stride then Agents of Shield did.
Eh, the title is 'Gotham'. Don't see how you can't just make it about Jim Gordon and him trying to fix the unfixable before the Batman. No need to make to bring in the bat.
Finally got a chance to watch it. Overall I liked it, but it really bothered me that they basically forced every Batman villain into the first episode, even a fake Joker. The Poison Ivy and Riddler intros were particularly unnecessary. Moving forward I hope they stick with corruption and mobsters, because I think that was the best part. Falcone particularly came across well. Honestly I think all the forced Batman tie ins were what held it down. Hope they find a balance. And Catwoman, where the hell are they going with her, because she's obviously gonna be prominent.
I think the creator might be confused as to what to really do with all the villains. On the one hand, they need the hardcore fans to be interested, so influx of villains. On the other hand, they also need to draw in casual viewers / people who are interested in crime shows (and not necessarily Batman) so they shouldn't really oversaturate the show with all the villains. Also wondering where they're going with the plot. Does it just involve Gordon trying to bring down Mooney (who I'm guessing will be the main focus this season) and the B-plot to involved Batman's villains? Or is it just going to be a case-of-the-week show where Gordon just captures a villain?
Yeah i'm not sure why they introduced all the villains...although i guess they all have reasons to want to "act up" later on...but as kids? It's not like they're going to fast forward 10 years. Do they focus on the older villains and then fast forward3-5 years next season?
I must have missed the "fake Joker" because I can't even fathom what you're talking about. But I completely agree about the introduction of Ivy and Riddler. Those moments were part of the reason that I didn't really like the pilot.
The stand-up comedian performing for Fish Mooney. I think the writers put that in there for the sake of putting that in there though. Probably not gonna be anything else.
Kinda OK. I'll continue to watch it...if I have time. I'll give it a chance because it's from Batman's world. I like the quote "Organized crime cannot survive without law and order" or something to that effect. The introduction of the characters is kinda corny. I now wonder why if the Waynes are ridiculously rich, why didn't they have bodyguards (knowing crime is prevalent in Gotham) or why didn't they just wait in a cafe or restaurant for Alfred to pick them up
I think that is always the biggest part of modernizing it back in the 30s i guess walking home being uberrich was no big deal while now . . no what in hell Beyonce and Jay Z could walk 3 blocks but i can go with it for Story Reasons It is looking ok . . but now FANTASTIC . . . Not the ARROW yet Rocket River
Batman mythos problems aside. I really liked the way they set up Falcone. You almost had to nod your head in agreement with the freaking mob boss. Kind of a Bill the butcher presence about him.
Really never cared for the whole comic-book takeover over the last fifteen years after Superman and Batman were first run into the ground. But Fox has real trouble keeping conventional dramas on the air and I'm genuinely happy for Mackenzie after Southland got "screwed" by NBC for Leno's piece of crap. Donal Logue makes me miss Chris Penn (and Timothy Busfield).
Most rich people are fairly anonymous to the general public, and bodyguards are probably as expensive hourly as high-end law firms nowadays.
This is an important point. They weren't rock stars or movie stars. They were essentially very wealthy philanthropists. Would you recognize someone from the Menil family on the street? The Alkeks or Clarks, or Moodys? These are very very wealthy local philanthropists, but unless you attend the types of events they frequent, I doubt most people would recognize any of them.
