Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Trini

Gotham vs. Other Versions of Batman

Recommended Posts


Because I mentioned it elsewhere...

 

Even before the show starts we know that some things don't "fit" with comic book or animated U or movie continuity at all.

 

Renee Montoya.  She's been unseated from her proper time.  She's now way older than Batman and a total age contemporary of Jim Gordon.  In ALL other mediums, she's twenty or more years younger than Gordon, and one of then Commissioner Gordon's prodigys.  She's paired with Bullock in a way not that dissimilar to what the show is now doing with Gordon.  LATER she's partnered with Crispus Allen, who's also unseated by time in this show by the same amount as her.

 

To me this creates a situation where, since there's no expectation any longer of Montoya or Allen being around in the kind of roles they have in "Batman's time", where they're both potential "meat" for the show to kill.  Allen more than Montoya, I bet, because in the comics he DOES kick off eventually.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the best way we're all gonna enjoy Gotham to accept that it's going to be it's own beast and just to put certain continuity to the back burner. Not an easy task but it would help us all really.

 

For me, my Batman stuff mainly comprises of the Burton/Schumacher/Nolan movies, and The Animated Series for the most.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I think the best way we're all gonna enjoy Gotham to accept that it's going to be it's own beast and just to put certain continuity to the back burner. Not an easy task but it would help us all really.

Damn straight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think the best way we're all gonna enjoy Gotham to accept that it's going to be it's own beast and just to put certain continuity to the back burner. Not an easy task but it would help us all really.

 

I've never considered this show to be a Batman show, really, because, hello, Batman is not going to be in it. So I really don't understand the point of comparing this show to other Batman shows. Plus, I try, not to compare the various Batman shows against each other. That said, I do admit that Bruce Timm's Batman: Animated Series set the bar so high for who I think of as Batman, that well, he is my ideal Bats, and that show brought to life Batman and that Gotham.

 

I just don't think it's fair to already put out there, hey, let's compare this show to other Batman shows. It's a totally different animal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

One of the questions I would have is whether this is supposed to be a prequel to the next DC Movie Universe Batman, or its own universe like Smallville. 

 

I know there was a story recently saying Arrow and Flash are separate from the movie universe, but I don't know if it mentioned Gotham.

Share this post


Link to post

Given that the DCCU is depicting Batman towards the end of his career ("older, world-weary," etc.), I'm pretty sure that Gotham isn't going to be connected to it, or to the other TV series.

Share this post


Link to post

On character we know will be common to both is Alfred.  Played by different actors (Sean Pertwee vs. Jeremy Irons).  While in of itself that means nothing, it could show two completely different character interpretations/personalities  It will be interesting to see if that's the case.  

Edited by Kromm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I know there was a story recently saying Arrow and Flash are separate from the movie universe, but I don't know if it mentioned Gotham.

 

Arrow and Flash (2014) are set in the same universe, but they haven't said one way or the other as to whether Gotham is in that universe too. 

Arguments for:  they could make this the "young, relatively unpowered DC universe."  I know Flash has a superpower, and there's Miraku, but there are less powers than in many other media.  Also, the time frames are sort of consistent (Oliver Queen and Bruce Wayne are *roughly* the same age.)

 

Argument against:  different networks. 

 

I think they're keeping the possibility they're in the TV Arrow/Flash-verse open, possibly as Easter Eggs or as a cameo/crossover/series-ender, but trying to let this part stand on its own merits.  I also suspect all three will have the "it's not you, parents/authority figures are often weird and/or wrong" that appears in other shows.

 

* A notable exception is in Batman:  The Brave and the Bold cartoon series, where Batman often had powered flight suits, battle armor, a batsuit that could let him withstand vaccuum, etc.  Interesting that "heroes and villians have minimal special powers" was also a characteristic of the 1960's Batman series, though Batman had the power to predict what he'd need, and have that in his utility belt.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think this show and Arrow/Flash are supposed to be in the same universe nor are we to entertain that notion for one second.  Different networks mean different universes.  It would be different if Warner Bros owned Fox like they do CW but they don't and so the DC event at Comic Con is the closest we'll get to crossovers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think this show and Arrow/Flash are supposed to be in the same universe nor are we to entertain that notion for one second.  Different networks mean different universes.  It would be different if Warner Bros owned Fox like they do CW but they don't and so the DC event at Comic Con is the closest we'll get to crossovers.

It wouldn't be the first time a producer/production company crossed network lines to tie their shows together.  There are at least a few.  One I remember for sure was David E. Kelley.  I think ALL of his shows, regardless of network, are assumed to be in the same "universe".  There's a good argument that might be true of many (although probably not all) of Steven Bochco's shows too, and I wouldn't be surprised if a decent number of Steven J, Cannell's shows were all in the same "world" as each other as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think that the style and attitude of Gotham weighs against crossovers even more than the network issue does.  I haven't seen Arrow (up against other shows we watch), but I can't imagine they went for the highly-stylized and violent atmosphere we're expecting from Gotham.  Plus, does Gotham really work in a universe that already has Green Arrow?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Not to mention that Bruce in Gotham is just a kid at this point! Flash and Green Arrow are Batman's contemporaries. I'm with scarynikki on this. And I'll add the unpopular opinion that I don't need to see all my heroes crossing over to be on each others' shows because DC/WB has fucked up with the same where the movies are concerned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Not to mention that Bruce in Gotham is just a kid at this point! Flash and Green Arrow are Batman's contemporaries. I'm with scarynikki on this. And I'll add the unpopular opinion that I don't need to see all my heroes crossing over to be on each others' shows because DC/WB has fucked up with the same where the movies are concerned.

That's certainly true, and really there's no sign or sense that this is the same universe, but if so I don't think Bruce being a kid would stop them, because Gotham's "setting"/timeline seems to be pretty vague.  We have modern-seeming artifacts of the show, like the Gotham Chronicle website, but I think we have to wait to see if the web aspect of it, as well as stuff like smartphones and such are even mentioned on the show itself.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Iirc, the half-hour special said something  along the lines of ' there are cell phones,' Kromm.

 

As for comparisons ( not strictly versus-ing Batverses), I think this is the not only the first to deemphasize Bruce as well as Batman, but the first to center on a normal person. Of course, the villains and their backstories is new, but I like that what's going on will be showing consequences. The characters don't live in a bubble, so what happens to the Waynes trickles around in interesting ways.  

 

While the movies have focused, story-wise on the villains and their outrageousness, this show seems to be more procedural. You could say the 60s show was too, wrapped in two episodes a week. Yet, with that show it felt like a big ol' reset every week.  Everyone knew who the villains were, but they could commit all sorts of crimes and no one really stayed angry at Gordon, O'Hara, GPD, or even Batman and Robin. 

 

Maybe the thread can be a compare  and contrast thread? It seems like an easier goal than just versus all other Batverses/ versions of Batman. (My personal fave version of Batman was the 80s Justic League; very Bats, but with an arid-dry sense of humor. Him "undercover" as Bruce Wayne was fun!)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry if my use of "versus" in the title is confusing; this thread is meant as a place to compare and contrast the show to other versions of Batman (movies/comics/TV).

 

---

The animated series was pretty procedural, too.

Edited by Trini

Share this post


Link to post

This was intended as a criticism, but this video of multiple Waynes' murders is cool for comparison purposes. (I read that that's not even all the "major" ones.)

 

About the question in that title: To me, it's like asking "how many times do we need to see Krypton blow up?" -- it's a vital part of Batman's backstory. It's going to be shown one way or another.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The one in "Gotham" felt a lot bloodier than some of those others, especially with the lingering shots on the dead bodies.  It's interesting how similar they were staged in the different productions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the similar staging is due to the simplicity of the physical act. It was a mugging. How premeditated the murders shift, though, like in Gotham.  Where the mugging was the murder delivery system.

Share this post


Link to post

Bill Finger managed to show it in 5 panels, including Bruce's reaction shots.  I was surprised that Gotham omitted the following scene, with Bruce at his bedside dedicating his life to a war on crime.  They could obviously modernize the wording, but at the same time by the time we get to that last scene at Wayne Manor Bruce has decided something, or he wouldn't be on the roof, trying to conquer fear.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

From the Episode 2 thread:

 

From what I can tell, the whole show is designed to be full of anachronisms. Like much of Batman's mythology, it combines the noir with the modern, so you can have guys dressed like 1940s cops, you can have gangsters and molls who think they're from the 1920s, but then you can have hi-tech gadgets and weaponry as well.

 

And as long as they avoid any real life pop culture references that would force a date on the show, I'm happy to accept the mish-mash of genres and chronology.

 

The young street kid they arrested, the frat bros, they felt as modern as the lasers being fired from the 1940s cars in Batman: The Animated Series. I think that amalgam really fits the Batman mythos.

 

I figure as long as the show avoids any direct reference to things from the 2000's and beyond, it should keep that feeling of 'vaguely in the past, yet kind of in the present'.

 

I mean, Batman's age is usually mid-thirties, and Bruce is twelve in Gotham, so let's say, the show is set 20 years in the "past". In 1994, we had cell phones and the internet, for instance. I choose to look at the show as set in the present; but if anyone sees it as set in the past, that works, too.  So far, they've been good about not doing anything to specifically date the show. However, the 1980's police cars is one thing that has bugged me.

Share this post


Link to post
However, the 1980's police cars is one thing that has bugged me.

 

I think part of the old equipment and old station design are to show how underfunded and outclassed the Gotham police are.  If they have no real resources it feeds the mentality that they need to compromise.

 

I caught part of a Penguin episode of the 60s TV series recently.  I am accustomed to the Tim Burton through Christopher Nolan representations, and I had forgotten just how campy the Adam West version was.  Penguin was not only waddling along in a purple top hat, he was squawking under his breath as he moved. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Burgess Meredith actually came up with that squawk, for a particular reason: he wasn't a smoker, and had a hard time with the Penguin's ever-present cigarette holder.  So, he squawked in lieu of coughing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Replying from S01.E01: Pilot thread:

 

I can't think of it as a reflection of any Gotham City I've seen in the comic books. Nothing like the one in The Long Halloween, or Year One, or Dark Victory, or Knightfall, or even newer stuff like Hush and The Black Mirror.

 

Nolan's movies could have been set in any city in the USA, and it would have made little difference. The first one at least had The Narrows, and had that dark, seedy feel, but then apparently Nolan couldn't be bothered building big sets, so just chose to film it in New York or Chicago or wherever. I don't think any depiction of Gotham on the big screen has been quite right. Burton's were too gothic, Schumacher's were just a mess, and Nolan's were cold, sterile dullness.

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post

So apparently for the upcoming Batman v Superman movie they're filming

another version of the Wayne murders. So there'll be yet another clip to add to that video linked above!

  I don't see why they'd need to reference that event visually, but then again Man of Steel had a bunch of

flashbacks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think the best way we're all gonna enjoy Gotham to accept that it's going to be it's own beast and just to put certain continuity to the back burner. Not an easy task but it would help us all really.

 

For me, my Batman stuff mainly comprises of the Burton/Schumacher/Nolan movies, and The Animated Series for the most.

I'm watching Batman Returns right now, and my goodness, its so beautiful.  Tim Burton is some sort of visual genius.  I also think that its hard to determine if Michael Keaton or Christian Bale is the sexist batman, but it has to be between the two of them.  Sorry George Clooney and Val Kilmer, and I'm not even going to consider Ben Affleck.

Share this post


Link to post

.  I also think that its hard to determine if Michael Keaton or Christian Bale is the sexist batman, but it has to be between the two of them. 

Sexist or sexiest?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm watching Batman Returns right now, and my goodness, its so beautiful.  Tim Burton is some sort of visual genius.  I also think that its hard to determine if Michael Keaton or Christian Bale is the sexist batman, but it has to be between the two of them.  Sorry George Clooney and Val Kilmer, and I'm not even going to consider Ben Affleck.

 

I adore that movie. Any excuse (not that I need one) to watch it and I will.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I adore that movie. Any excuse (not that I need one) to watch it and I will.

LOL, me too, my excuse was that its on Netflix Watch Instant....so I had to.  And I'm so glad I did.  Not only was it visually stunning, but IMO it has so much good dialogue, great actors and crazy chemistry.

Sexist or sexiest?

damn it, you got me.  I can't even blame auto correct.  I meant sexiest.  The debate still rages!

Share this post


Link to post

It's probably a miracle that I haven't completely worn out my DVD of that movie.

 

Funnily enough, it's the only Batman related thing my sister will watch as well as she's a fan of Pfeiffer and DeVito.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've been rewatching my DVD of the Birds of Prey tv series that aired about a decade ago because someone mentioned it in another thread. And while it had a host of problems, some similar to Gotham in terms of not enough character development and story of the week problems but it's actually really a good bit of Bat-television. Sort of the same premise of Gotham without Batman but in the future rather than the past.

Plenty of Easter eggs, decent action an good, if poorly executed, season store story arc. Really unfortunate that it only got half a season, I'm sure if it had been given more time to find it's footing it would have been a great success.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've been rewatching my DVD of the Birds of Prey tv series that aired about a decade ago because someone mentioned it in another thread. And while it had a host of problems, some similar to Gotham in terms of not enough character development and story of the week problems but it's actually really a good bit of Bat-television. Sort of the same premise of Gotham without Batman but in the future rather than the past.

I would have to respectfully disagree. The acting was poor and the writing worse; the only good thing about it was Dina Meyer who was terrific as Barbara Gordon/Oracle. Edited by atua

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going with this show takes places in the 90's. So having 1980's police cars doesn't bother me. We had computers and cell phones in the 90's. The payphone also made me stick with my it's sometime in the 90's or if anything early 2000's. 

Edited by Sakura12

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure this goes here, but....

 

I was thinking that in this version at least, none of the villains have special powers, and the only one I know of in the Bat-verse that approaches one is Poison Ivy.  Other than cross-over, do any of the Bat-villains have super-powers the way that most of the Marvel characters do?

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure this goes here, but....

 

I was thinking that in this version at least, none of the villains have special powers, and the only one I know of in the Bat-verse that approaches one is Poison Ivy.  Other than cross-over, do any of the Bat-villains have super-powers the way that most of the Marvel characters do?

Bane has super-strength.  Poison Ivy has control over plant-life.  Killer Croc a mutant man/reptile hybrid.  Clayface can reform his flesh to shapeshift or manipulate his body. Man-Bat is a literal half man-half bat.  Solomon Grundy is an undead brute.  Copperhead has 'snake' powers.

Share this post


Link to post

If you count super tech, then Mr. Freeze has an ice ray and his suit gives him superhuman strength and durability. Mad Hatter has mind control tech. And Killer Moth and Firefly have flight tech and other weapons.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I also think that it's hard to determine if Michael Keaton or Christian Bale is the [sexiest] batman. Sorry George Clooney and Val Kilmer, and I'm not even going to consider Ben Affleck.

 

   Re Ben Affleck, you might if you see Gone Girl. Two words:

"frontal nudity."

Share this post


Link to post

I borrowed "Batman Forever" and watched it for the first time.  I suppose it wasn't as bad as what I had heard, though it was weak and flawed.  Val Kilmer was quite wooden, though he seemed to improve later in the movie.  The Riddler was a little over the top with Jim Carrey mannerisms, though it wasn't horrible.   I actually found Two-Face way more ridiculous.  I like seeing the origin stories play out, and they didn't even bother with Harvey Dent/Two Face.  I couldn't buy that he even had a "good" persona.  At least we got to see the Riddler's origin, though I enjoyed Robin's origin most.  He was surprisingly the best part of the movie though his petulant brattiness lasted a bit too long.  Nicole Kidman's lines were so cheesy she couldn't really sell them, though I do think she improved as well near the end.

 

I do think their intended character arc for Batman could have worked (especially if they casted better).  I think the movie would already have been improved if they had kept the deleted scenes to flesh out his childhood flashback stuff (I watched the retrospective documentary featurette that was on the special features disc).  They left so little in there that it didn't make much sense.  For once, many of the deleted scenes could have helped, like the one where the newscaster seemed to blame Batman for the city's problems.  And I wish they hadn't changed the movie to start off with the cheesiest action scene ever with such over-the-top and fake acting.  It made it hard to take anything seriously right from the start.  I wasn't a huge fan of Michael Keaton either, but they could have ended with a trilogy where Bruce was in a relatively good place.

 

Visually, from today's CGI perspective, it looks so fake.  I appreciate they were trying to go for fantastical, but the look aged very poorly.

 

Regarding the ending, 

I thought it was strange how Robin listened to Batman about not killing, and he pulls Two-Face from falling.  And then later, Batman defeats Two-Face by throwing those coins into the air, and he makes no move to try to save Two-Face as he plummets to his death. So should Robin have just let Two-Face die earlier?  Also, why was Alfred encouraging Dick to be Robin yet encouraging Bruce to retire?

Edited by Camera One

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going with this show takes places in the 90's. So having 1980's police cars doesn't bother me. We had computers and cell phones in the 90's. The payphone also made me stick with my it's sometime in the 90's or if anything early 2000's. 

Not that I thought about it much but I can get behind that. Especially when you figure that Gotham PD is probably pretty broke, so yea they probably would be using typewriters and not computers, and crappy cell phones. I mean look at Homicide Life on the Street. Set in the 90's in a major crime ridden city with not a lot of money. The technology at the cops disposal wasn't that different. 

 

I also think think the timeline is sort of a weird reference to the Animated Series. In one of the DVD commentaries for that show Paul Dini basically said that they took the style and technology of the 1939 World's Fair and sort of extrapolated that to the 1990's.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size