Tenshinhan

Hopefully somewhat less depressing news: https://www.thewrap.com/jessica-chastain-queen-latifah-help-launch-female-driven-production-company/ Additionally, this recent article discusses the all-too-familiar White savior narrative in Hollywood and its effects on non-Whites, particularly in relation to a group that is often overlooked: American Indians.

It's my understanding that diversity just for the sake of diversity doesn't amount to much. I think that the true purpose of diversity is to challenge dominance. In this case, White dominance. So if, as you suggest, 80% of awards went to Blacks and 20% went to Whites, then that appears to be a "win" for diversity in my opinion. Maybe not completely and thoroughly diverse, but still. As far as Asians, Latinos, and other minority groups, well, this situation with the Oscars seems to have arisen from Blacks criticizing marginalization and racial bias in Hollywood. So I don't think it's unusual that the primary narrative would be centered upon Black people. I understand the sentiment of "What about us?" that exists among other groups of non-Whites, and think it's a natural concern. However, I think it is important not to allow those concerns to detract from or minimize the concerns of Black people. Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Women, etc., are all different groups, each with different and unique social histories. What goes for one group may not necessarily go for the other. I'm not exactly sure *what* the solution might be for those groups whose visibility is often overshadowed or ignored comparative to others. But I *do* think that it starts with a broader understanding of how history and society have evolved to this point in the present, and what the consequences look like for all racial/ethnic/social groups.

As I understand it, the reasoning behind the Oscars boycott is not to criticize the award nominations specifically, but instead to make a broader statement on the Hollywood film industry itself. I think most everyone would doubt that. Yes, which is part of the problem. An Academy that is subjective and political naturally leads the way towards racial biases and dominance. That's certainly possible. I don't think that anyone is questioning the possibilities, but are questioning the realities of a "subjective and highly political" Academy/industry. I personally can't see Whoopi Goldberg having much credibility on anything these days. Certainly no more than any other celebrity. Yes, films are entertainment. However, films also have a huge influence on culture and consciousness, and ultimately upon society itself. Additionally, the film business itself is a major industry, and naturally impacts society economically, politically, and beyond. It may seem trivial or even privileged to be so concerned about something like the Oscars or Hollywood, but that doesn't mean that those issues don't exist or have deeper implications. Making comparisons to unrelated topics such as World Peace or the food crisis only works to deny or minimize the issues at hand, instead of solving them. YMMV.

I think this is a key point here. An idealistic society versus the one we currently inhabit. I agree about empathy, but I would also say that the other big problem is an overwhelming degree of ignorance and lack of knowledge. Particularly in regards to history and social science in general. I appreciate your self-awareness, and have always appreciated your sense of humor. However, I do think that it is important that more White people speak up about society and its injustices, and not just the oppressed. These issues ultimately affect all of us. That's why it would be so great if more White voices in Hollywood and elsewhere would speak out against this issue within the film industry, and not just a handful of Black celebs.

In my opinion, wigs tend to devalue and hurt the quality of a production, and should be avoided as much as possible. I also don't think that Lois Lane is iconic enough, at least visually, to merit that level of faithfulness. Actually I didn't see that as a throwback to the early issues; I just assumed what he was actually saying was "the Batman". Or in other words, that the character's name in this film will be so, as in the Nolan films and comic book mythos.

I think it's important to remember that Bruce in the comic books had already decided to dedicate his life to fighting criminals as a child, long before the adult Bruce sees the bat flying into the window. He swore an oath to his parents. So maybe that's what's missing? A little more development before we get to that point, like if it had been at the end of season one, perhaps. At any rate, a young Bruce learning detective work and investigating crimes is part of his back-story in the comics, it's part of his preparation for his War On Crime. So I don't think that aspect is off-base.

I believe that Catwoman has only been wearing the goggles since the early 2000s. A popular but relatively recent addition.

Movie was terrible, but I actually don't mind Batgirl being Alfred's niece in the film. I would have enjoyed a red-headed Barbara Gordon, but the Commissioner was such an afterthought in those sequels that it would have seemed out of place. (Also, less importantly, Uma and her hair color.) The character being a relative of Alfred probably served the story best, in my opinion. Additionally, it's a nice reference to the 'Bat-Girl' Betty Kane/Daphne Pennyworth comic book stories. Say what you will about that film, but it had many clever callbacks to the source material.

I guess I just don't see Alfred being in his seventies like in the movies... I mean realistically it might make sense, given Alfred's Modern Age background, but to me Pertwee seems closer in age to an Alfred at the time that Bruce is already Batman, not a pre-teen. Although I guess if they're trying to follow the big screen examples, it's dead-on. YMMV.

They've always made Alfred into a more elderly guy in the film and television adaptations. He's always like, fifteen to twenty years older than in the comic books. I guess it does make more sense when Alfred is portrayed as being ex-military and Bruce's lifelong butler, but still. And don't forget the Alfreds from the film serials! William Austin, Batman (1943): Eric Wilton, Batman and Robin (1949):

Replying about Gotham City in the Other Versions thread.

Replying from S01.E01: Pilot thread: Like I was saying before, the post-Burton stories tend to depict a more stylized Gotham as opposed to the first fifty years. I don't recall 'Year One' being especially stylized either. I'm not saying that Nolan's Gotham was perfect, just that it was leaps and bounds above the rest, in my opinion. And I think that was due in large part because Nolan was so adamant in shooting on-location instead of building sets. The Narrows was nice, but if you rely too much on sound stages and the like, you end up with something that feels like it takes place in a fantasy world, instead of the real world. Personally, I was happy to see so much more of Chicago/NYC in the sequels, because it felt like Gotham could breathe. Especially with more daytime shots in the sunlight. And I thought there was plenty of dark atmosphere in the scenes set at night. I do agree, however, that the Nolan trilogy could have used more seediness and urban flavor at times. One thing that I have liked about this show is that you catch some shots of graffiti now and again, and run-down neighborhoods, etc. And it looks like they are finding those locations around Manhattan instead of building sets. If the series did more of this and toned down on the CGI, I might find it more digestible. YMMV.

I disagree with this. I think that any notion of an "alternate universe" setting has mostly been pushed through in the post-Burton era of the mythos. I think that any elements of otherworldly timelessness and such on this show are a result of that film's influence more than anything else. And while some may find Nolan's Gotham City cold and boring, I think that it is probably the best reflection of the comic book Gotham that we have seen on the screen so far (particularly in the third film). The Gotham City on this show had/has potential, but all of the CGI clouds and architecture do it a disservice, in my opinion. I'm fairly certain Zorro was a Miller contribution (Len Wein didn't name the film in "The Untold Legend of the Batman" either). I believe the Superfriends version used Robin Hood. Characters and stories like Robin Hood, Zorro, the Shadow, and Sherlock Holmes were all significant influences on the Batman character and mythos, so of course writers might pay homage to this. I agree that it's not something the show needs to worry about.

I agree with this. Not only will Bruce impact Gordon, but Gordon will impact Bruce. Especially being a police detective, someone whose skills and knowledge would certainly guide Bruce into the direction of becoming the Batman. They can also have Bruce develop an interest in athletics and the martial arts as well.

Yeah, I don't see a Black Widow film in Marvel's future. I think the next batch of movies will be either sequels to existing series or all-new properties. I don't think they would break the flow for ScarJo, not when they have so many other series and characters to deliver.

This is what I have a problem with as well. I think a gritty cop-drama would work fine. It's when they bring in Riddler, Penguin, Ivy, et al that it becomes silly. They can borrow from the books without getting foolish. Especially since this show doesn't involve Batman himself.

Yeah, I'm not looking forward to a "fun" Gotham. Entertaining, certainly, but not fun. Also, I don't think you can compare an ongoing television series to a film or series of films. On TV, you get the chance to tell different types of stories than you can in film, because of the pacing and structural differences.

I disagree with this. Carmine Falcone, in my opinion, is a relatively small character within the Batman mythos. If it hadn't been for Jeph Loeb's popular follow-ups to Year One, I doubt he would be remembered in the way that he is now. Honestly, I think that The Long Halloween, with a few exceptions, is pretty inconsequential to the Batman mythos overall. And I certainly wouldn't allow the credit for Two-Face's creation to be given to Falcone, despite the plot of that story.

Is Carmine Falcone supposed to be on this show? I haven't been following much so I may have missed it.

Interesting that they're bringing in Harvey Dent's longtime nemesis, Boss Maroni. Especially when the series is set in pre-Batman times. But it's a nice touch compared to some of the rest.

It would be cool if they brought in or referenced Uncle Phillip Wayne, Thomas' older bro, but I doubt they would go there. And of course Alfred has his brother Wilfred and niece Daphne, as well as his estranged daughter Julia. Honestly though, it might get a little too soapy bringing in crazy relatives to mix things up. I'm sure we'll get some of Alfred's military background thrown in though.

I certainly wouldn't say that it is "universal" that Gotham is a cesspool, or that Gordon is a lone wolf. Nor would I describe the city as hopelessly dirty and corrupt. YMMV. That is, however, a popular interpretation of Gotham City and the Batman mythos. As for why the premise would work, well, you would have a new crime drama on television, but one that revolves around a setting and characters from the Batman universe. That alone opens up a world of possibilities for a series in my opinion. It's not like we know how any of the cases that Gordon works on will end up. Not anymore so than on any of the other cop dramas on television. I don't think anyone expects the cops on those other shows to clean up the city for good either. On top of that, you have a young Bruce Wayne dealing with the loss of his parents and moving towards the future. There's even more opportunity on that side of things, since you would be in actuality watching a "young Batman". I do however agree with you about the "pre-Villains". That stuff is just embarrasing to me, and I wish they hadn't gone there. And I do really like Donal Logue and Ben McKenzie.

I've never really liked the idea that Bruce Wayne is just a mask for the Batman. I prefer to think of Wayne and Batman as both being real, and the same person. Sure, I understand the disinterested playboy act that he puts on as Wayne, and the costumed identity of the Batman being used to instill fear and inspire righteousness, but I see it as all one person. I personally hate the depiction of the Batman as an "arrogant asshole". That's just not who the character is in my view. I don't like how this show seemed to make him into even more of an asshole after the revamp in Season Four. I'll take warm and compassionate over cold and dickish.

By that I meant NYC, instead of computer generated shots. I guess this is where we disagree. For me Gotham City is essentially New York (or any other major metropolitan city) under a different name. It doesn't have to be some bizarre, otherworldly hellhole that's corrupt from top to bottom. MMV.

It's just that I find the darkness to be a little over the top. I mean even the shots of scenes in the daytime look like it's always cloudy out. Was it really necessary to add CG clouds? If it's during the day, they should just let it be and let the sun shine. Maybe if they had used actual footage of the city and architecture, instead of CGI, it wouldn't have seemed so bad. You can set a tone without making it look like a video game or a fantasy world.