Gotham Showrunner is an Idiot?
 

http://screenrant.com/gotham-bruno-h...uperheroes-tv/

"I don’t think superheroes work very well on TV, probably because of the costume thing. … TV is about real people and faces, and not so much about magic and the supernatural things."

I find this incredibly hypocritical. I've made no bones about my disgust for this show. Maybe if he didn't want to tell a superhero story, he should try focusing on a grounded believable GCPD-focused story. But I guess that's too hard for him.

But hey, somebody tell The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Supergirl that superheroes don't work very well on TV. :trolleye:

Wow. An idiot for sure. The main problem is budget though. And for me, no show except maybe the flash really feels like an actual comic book.

I don't like Supergirl myself, and I had serious issues with Legends of Tomorrow. But the characters are not the problem; the costumes and "real people and faces" are not the problem.

His points are absurd. And his show is absurd. Blaming "superheroes" for his supervillains-heavy Schumacher/Burton "Gorbatman" show reeks of desperation.

I have no idea who this guy is or what his show is about. I think all of Batman's villains becoming the villains while he's a 10 year old? And I think I read Harley's joining the show now? Dunno, it all sounds pretty ass to me. Do people actually dig it?

I liked the show in season one, but season two got out of control for me, so I gave up on it. But what he says is really stupid anyway. Superhero shows do work if done correctly and he's going about it the wrong way.

I watched the first 6 episodes or so. Didn't stick with me. I just want a new batman show.

The first few episodes had some promise with Gordon, Bullock, Fish Mooney, and Penguin. But it just kept getting weirder and weirder...

Think the bastard offspring of Schumacher and Burton, with every possible Batman enemy (Ivy, Riddler, Azrael, Order of Saint Dumas, Hugo Strange, Clayface, Hatter...) coming to fruition before Bruce even hits puberty.

It's astonishing how bad it is. Is this what Superman fans had to deal with when Smallville was a thing?

The episodes I've seen of season 1 have been pretty fun. Gordon dealing with the corruption in the GCPD, Penguin's rise in power. And the best part, a rough and tumble Alfred.

Did they kill off Fish Mooney yet? She was kind of interesting

Maybe towards the middle of its run, but I really dug the first few seasons of Smallville, and heard that the final few were excellent as well.

Of course....I'm not a Supes fan so mileage is certainly going to vary on this one.

I haven't seen any of Gotham, since it wasn't Gotham Central I never felt a need to watch.

Big superman fan. Not a fan of Smallvile at all. I guess it's entertaining if you're into drama but if you're looking for a Superman show, you're in the wrong place. My ideal show would be Superman, Lois, and Jonathan living as a family, basically adapting the current rebirth story into a tv show.

Some people use poop as a lubricant, you can't judge the merit of something by whether or not people dig it. :tlol:

I can't believe people care one iota about Gotham. The writing is awful. I honestly don't understand why someone would be satisfied in writing something so stupid. You have a chance to get your script to be seen on screen by millions, and you write something as stupid as Gotham.

I can't believe you put so much time and effort into a "Not-Batman" Batman show. Just spend the extra money, kiss the asses you gotta kiss, and make a damn Batman show.

Go to that much trouble, do it right.

The problem with making a Batman show is that it conflicts with their DC cinematic universe. You have to appeal to the lowest common denominator with these things.
People can't be trusted to understand that there's 'movie Batman' and 'TV Batman'.

But there's a TV Superman and a Movie Superman...

Only because the CWVerse is enough of its own thing (they have like five shows now, right?) that they're slowly allowing elements from the films to bleed into that.
With a standalone show like Gotham, I don't think they're confident enough to do that. Partly because they might be worried a TV Batman could outclass the movie Batman. :lol:

So let's cancel Gotham and start a new Batman show! I wish...

I've never bought that argument. Do even executives believe that anymore? I mean, it must be the reason but it makes no sense.

If DC thought for a minute they could do a Batman live-action show, they'd do a Batman live-action show. It's called printing money. Instead of having Benjamin Franklin on the bills, they have Bruce Wayne. :tlol:

Nah. The types of people that would ask that question wouldn't even watch the TV show and the ones that do can understand the concept of movies and tv. People don't get confused with all the TMNT variations.

CW is up to four in active development (Flash, Arrow, Legends of Tomorrow, Supergirl) with a fifth (Constantine) retroactively brought into continuity.

I don't think they need to worry about conflicting Batmans. They're going forward with competing Flashes and Supermen now.

Yeah, agreed. I think this is an argument only the executives (at the most) believe.

"Idiot" doesn't even come close to describing this fool.

I'll take shows like The Flash over trash like Gotham.

It's the dumb reason why DC takes characters out of shows when they're about to appear in a movie. So casuals won't get "confused" when they're not even watching the shows in the first place :lol:

That NEVER happens!

Except with Amanda Waller. And Floyd Lawton. And Captain Boomerang. And Katana. And...

Okay, okay. It happens all the damn time. :tlol:

Don't forget how Blue Beetle was supposed to appear on flash before they changed it to The Atom.

Actually Blue Beetle was suppose to debut on Arrow since they kept hinting at "Kord Industries".

Either way, it's a darn shame.

Oh, that's right! I completely forgot about that!

It's even worse that they remove or skip over characters like Blue Beetle, Deathstroke, and Nightwing...

Only to never do a damn thing with them on the big screen after all.

That's why I like animated shows. Not only could you do more story wise, but NO ONE is going to think people won't be able to tell the difference between cartoon Superman and movie Superman

Right?

I dunno, I prefer live-action. Animated is great, but there's just something more "weighty" about live-action. I take it more seriously.

Like, we've had some good TMNT cartoons, and some great Robins in cartoons, but I'm still not going to be satisfied until we get great live-action Robins and TMNT.

We need 42 minute runtime cartoons and quality animation and writing. Maybe then people can take an animated show a little more seriously.

That's literally what the Justice League TV show was. And EVERYONE loves the JL cartoon!

It can totally work. The problem is people like Jeph Loeb forcing Ultimate Spider-Man down everyone's throats.

I think the only animated feature I'd feel comfortable telling a non-geek adult to sit down and watch would be "Under the Red Hood."

Maybe that's why I put so much stock into "we need live-action." Non-geeks take movies more seriously and credibly than animated shows/movies or comics.

Just chiming in with my two cents but Gotham isn't really about the villains AS villains, it's about how they GOT that way. Same with Batman. It's an origin show with emphasis on the seedy characters of Gotham. It's equal parts Suicide Squad and Smallville, but much more history-driven than Smallville was. The characters have grown and changed. Sure some episodes are a little weird( the guy killing people with the balloon chairs) but it's more about the journey than where they all end up. We know what they WILL become, the show just leads us along the way. I like it- it's different enough to be interesting, and they've done some really neat takes on some of my favorite characters.

None of the villains are supposed to become villains until after Batman. The whole underlying theme of Batman's villains are "would they even exist without him?" Well according to Gotham, yes. Yes they would.

I mean, hell. Gordon's wife Barbara is some lunatic serial killer now. It's just... if you want to enjoy it, go right ahead. But it has about as much in common with good Batman stories as Batmite.

The Bat-Mite stories in the Brave and the Bold cartoon are great, thank you very much :P

...

I am staring at you in utter bewilderment. :trazz:

Boom. That's why I wrote the show off the second I heard about it. Then it ended up being putrid filth on top of its fundamental misunderstanding of its source material.

Emperor Joker! episode says it all.

YMMV of course but obviously they already existed. I tink the question in this show is really more of what would they be like as people if not tangled up in his life and Gordon's. The two driving forces throughout the series have been Gordon's investigation and Bruce wanting to clean up Wayne Enterprises. Which has unearthed a slew of cans of worms that never would have been opened, like Hugo's nasty secret lab and Ed turning psycho. I'm not married to the idea of Bats pre-dating all of them, I see this as sort of a symbiotic kind of origin. Which came first, the Penguin or the Bat? Does it matter? Is the Joker an urban legend kind of loony like the Red Hood, or can there be only ONE? He's never had a SET origin before- I think they were trying to capitalize on that with Jerome. Where did Ivy get her obsession with plants? These questions are what the show attempts to answer. Burton dabbled with the idea a bit, and Gotham took it and ran with it.

Who cares? It doesn't belong in a show about Young Bruce.

I'm just baffled that the first live-action "Batman" TV series since the 1960's Adam West show is.....this.

Its bizarre we've never had another Batman live-action show in 50 years.