|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Oct 13, 2014 12:48:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Oct 13, 2014 13:25:17 GMT -5
Well that's good, and not surprising. The show hasn't wowed me, but it's good enough to watch, and I'm mostly interested in Bruce Wayne.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Oct 13, 2014 20:24:00 GMT -5
I'm not fully sold on Gotham either. I like the design of the city, but I feel like they've overloaded it with villains and characters. Half the time, I start to feel like I'm watching Seven (Gordon is reminding me of a young Brad Pitt some times). I don't like Selina Kyle. I've only watched about an episode and a half so far, and it's okay, but I'm not sure I care much about a Batman show with no Batman. There's only so many times I can see a young Bruce Wayne do something and then Alfred go "How many bloody times have I told you?!"
I also think they used the "Penguin" name too soon and it was odd and not organic. They should have saved it for later when he's been injured and is waddling.
Haven't gotten to The Flash yet.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Oct 13, 2014 23:18:27 GMT -5
I'm not fully sold on Gotham either. I like the design of the city, but I feel like they've overloaded it with villains and characters. Half the time, I start to feel like I'm watching Seven (Gordon is reminding me of a young Brad Pitt some times). I don't like Selina Kyle. I've only watched about an episode and a half so far, and it's okay, but I'm not sure I care much about a Batman show with no Batman. There's only so many times I can see a young Bruce Wayne do something and then Alfred go "How many bloody times have I told you?!" I also think they used the "Penguin" name too soon and it was odd and not organic. They should have saved it for later when he's been injured and is waddling. Haven't gotten to The Flash yet. -TK Okay ...I just lost everything I just wrote, so fuck it, now I have nothing to say. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Oct 14, 2014 7:01:45 GMT -5
The whole prequel idea leaves me cold. I have not tried this yet. My wife hasn't either and she's a Batman junkie.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Oct 14, 2014 18:52:40 GMT -5
The best part of the show for me is Bruce Wayne, though the Penguin is a very compelling character.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Oct 14, 2014 19:48:54 GMT -5
The best part of the show for me is Bruce Wayne, though the Penguin is a very compelling character. Jim Gordon is the protagonist in this show. Bruce is basically just an observer for the time being, given that he's just a kid. The Penguin is such a weasel, but he can he funny too. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Oct 14, 2014 19:50:49 GMT -5
The whole prequel idea leaves me cold. I have not tried this yet. My wife hasn't either and she's a Batman junkie. I felt the same way before I started watching it and gave it a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Oct 16, 2014 6:54:24 GMT -5
The show definitely deserves a chance. It makes a lot of sense that they are focusing on the Penguin, given that I can see him being a little bit older than the other villains.
I agree Gordon is the protagonist, but Bruce is the more interesting. I want to get more about his life. The kid's a good actor too. The part is being written and acted in character. He's acting like I would expect Bruce to be acting at this stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Oct 19, 2014 15:56:32 GMT -5
On a totally unrelated note, I like David Zayas --hated him in "Oz" and really wanted to see him get what he deserved; was afraid he would get killed off by the end of the first season of "Dexter", but was glad he made it through, and he's appeared as a guest player on a whole assortment of weekly series', and is often good in the roles he plays ...but his casting here has me a bit perplexed. The guy is clearly Hispanic --looks it and sounds it, so what possessed them to cast him as Italian Mob Boss Don Maroni? What the hell? |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Oct 19, 2014 17:33:15 GMT -5
On a totally unrelated note, I like David Zayas ...but his casting here has me a bit perplexed. The guy is clearly Hispanic --looks it and sounds it, so what possessed them to cast him as Italian Mob Boss Don Maroni? What the hell? Reminds me of when they made the Ramona and Beezus movie, and cast Selena Gomez as Beezus, even though it's clearly an Irish family (the last name is Quimby) and she looks nothing like young Joey King or any of the rest of the cast who are supposed to be her family. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Oct 21, 2014 10:56:15 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing last night while watching this latest episode. They took things more than a step too far and it just doesn't seem to be realistic or fit for a kid his age. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Oct 22, 2014 8:37:03 GMT -5
Well, let's not forget, Bruce is not a normal kid his age. As an adult, Bruce is one of the top 3 smartest people in the world.
The show made it clear that Thomas Wayne's instructions should Alfred gain custody was to indulge the kid. Thomas was confident that by genetics, Bruce would turn out to do great things. You could argue he was right, but by following those instructions, Alfred isn't setting normal boundries.
Some parents might see this kid with an off the charts IQ and have him skip grades. Bruce is definitely smart enough to be one of those Doogie Houser type kids who go to college when he should be in middle school.
The trauma of losing his parents focused Bruce's life in one direction and he never looks back. He made a plan, and had the intelligence to know how to implement it.
As soon as he stopped crying, the kid focused on solving his parents' murder and stopping crime in general.
But because he was so smart, he was smart enough to know that he had to learn, and that would take years. This show is showing him at this point in his life.
He is using his natural abilities and is obviously capable of understanding things. Imagine all the things you learned in school that had no use for you as an adult. Imagine if instead of wasting time on that, you focused on things that inevitably would have made you better at what you do today.
This is very similar. Bruce isn't going to be a doctor or a lawyer, but he is going to learn what it takes to be the world's greatest detective. He's going to build himself up physically so that nothing can surprise him.
He's not going to get a playmate. He doesn't want one. And he's not a villain. When we saw that first vigilante, he understood that by killing criminals, the vigilante became a criminal. That registered.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Nov 4, 2014 1:15:02 GMT -5
By the way, I hope you guys are keeping tabs on the SciFi Scroll over on Reddit, as we're always breaking news over there, so it's a great way to stay in touch with the latest genre news. www.reddit.com/r/SciFiScroll/ Oh, and TK, you and I need to have a little discussion about "America: Imagine The World Without Her". |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Nov 5, 2014 7:45:40 GMT -5
By the way, I hope you guys are keeping tabs on the SciFi Scroll over on Reddit, as we're always breaking news over there, so it's a great way to stay in touch with the latest genre news. www.reddit.com/r/SciFiScroll/ Oh, and TK, you and I need to have a little discussion about "America: Imagine The World Without Her". I still pop by from time to time. As far as America goes, what do you want to discuss? Finally caught up on Gotham now too. It's improved, though still not must-see for me. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Nov 6, 2014 15:12:22 GMT -5
As far as America goes, what do you want to discuss?
While I agree that the film starts off with an "It's A Wonderful Life" premise, and then doesn't follow through along that basis, I nevertheless found it to be an interesting, compelling film that does a pretty fair job of outlining why the left, specifically anti-American swine like Howard Zinn and Ward Churchill, were and are completely full of crap with respect to their indictments of America. (The lies of Howard Zinn especially need to be debunked being that his book is being used as an instructional text in schools throughout the country in order to brainwash kids.) I was expecting, before having seen the film last weekend, that D'Souza would also go into how the world might well have looked without America's influence over the last two centuries or so, but he basically sidestepped that entirely after the opening scene, but I also knew the premises it was intended to challenge, and that he would address those lines of assault and propaganda as well, so in that sense, my expectations were half met, but that doesn't in and of itself mean that it was an otherwise lousy film.
And hell, look at who you were agreeing with there --a guy who actually attempted to argue that bringing the Hillary, Barack, Alinsky connection to the film was without any basis, when it was also crucial to outlining where the left has been coming from, why they've developed the radical views and tactics that they have, and why that has to be challenged if not brought to an end by pointing out the actually truths which refute them and their position.
What can I say --I was just very disappointed in you, in part because I began wondering if it was indeed a bad film thanks to you and what you had said about it there.
This film also starts out with D'Souza pointing out the three predictions he made in his first film, "2016: Obama's America", which have turned out to be accurate. He's insightful and knows his adversaries well, which is more than can be said for a lot of politicians on the right, who seem utterly clueless as to what we're up against as a nation internally. So overall I wouldn't say I was disappointed in the movie. I liked it, and hope more people get to see it.Finally caught up on Gotham now too. It's improved, though still not must-see for me. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Nov 6, 2014 16:45:29 GMT -5
I stand by what I said: as a MOVIE, and a documentary, it's unfocused. Add to that some truly shoddy camera work, and I have to say again that purely as a MOVIE, it's a failure. I was not however agreeing that it was bad for ideological purposes or that D'Souza is an idiot. On the contrary, I find him to be eminently reasonable. I just was disappointed that this film didn't necessarily live up to its thesis, or that its thesis was not what D'Souza claimed it was at the beginning. This was primarily a rebuttal to the Howard Zinn progressive view. On those terms, I liked it. But as I mentioned, some of the talking heads were badly framed. This is just sloppy. His first movie was better made, and thus a better MOVIE.
Getting to the actual points of D'Souza's argument, I agree with him. I wasn't necessarily agreeing with the OP for the reasons it was bad, just that by pulling the bait-and-switch the way D'Souza did, he left a movie that looks to be less cogent that in is. I only meant that it was poorly made. That's what made it a bad documentary, not the politics are the arguments. If my brevity was not clear on that, that's my fault.
I think had he edited it down and retitled it, or yes just released it as "Why Howard Zinn is Wrong" it would have been more successful. As a forty-minute rebuttal, it's very good. As a ninety-minute movie, it was a bit too much. I don't regret having seen it, but I regret that the final product wasn't made as well as 2016: Obama's America was. Not entirely disappointed with it, just confused by why he set it up the way he did, and why some of it wasn't shot better. Anyway, I've added an explanatory paragraph to my comment to hopefully clarify that.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Nov 8, 2014 14:08:26 GMT -5
> I stand by what I said: as a MOVIE, and a documentary, it's unfocused.
I couldn't disagree with you more on that point, as I found it to be very focused. However, I did acknowledge that the way in which it starts off as opposed to where he follows through beyond that point seemed out of kilter. Nevertheless, his objectives as laid out --namely, his outlining the indictments against the country by the far left, and then systematically addressing those indictments and one-by-one tearing them down and stating exactly why they're false was quite focused, which was the whole point of the film.
> Add to that some truly shoddy camera work, and I have to say again that purely as a MOVIE, it's a failure.
And here as well, I'm not sure what "truly shoddy camera work" you're referring to. I watched it on Blu-ray, albeit a week ago, but the scenes that were fuzzy, etcetera, certainly appeared to be intended, as they were flashbacks; a young Hillary Clinton going on to university, or Saul Alinsky, with a few of those scenes recreations with an actor also standing in for the real Alinsky.
What the movie lacked, if anything in my opinion, was lengthier interviews with characters like Ward Churchill, who appeared noticeably nervous about being interviewed by D'Souza and answering his questions. That's why he was smoking a cigarette and was fidgety in his seat, but I felt he should have been pressed with at least a few more specific questions, although the Blu-ray does have the entire interviews on it as a few of its Special Features. I just haven't gotten around to them yet.
> On the contrary, I find him to be eminently reasonable. I just was disappointed that this film didn't necessarily live up to its thesis, or that its thesis was not what D'Souza claimed it was at the beginning.
Having not read his book that the film was based on may have something to do with that. It may well have required more reenactments, such as the opening scene where George Washington gets cut down in battle, which would have required significantly more money to produce, and which they likely would not have had the budget for. Not that this is intended as an excuse ...it may simply be the reality if the situation for all we know, and D'Souza and his colleague may well have felt that the opening scene in and of itself, followed by some CGI graphics of modern America and the Statue of Liberty being erased, served to make that particular point. I suspect, however, that he may have given specific examples of how the world would be very different if the United States never existed in his book, whereas he otherwise all but totally skipped over it in his film, except for those instances where he was specifically countering the lies and claptrap put forth by Howard Zinn and his acolytes like Ward Churchill, who subscribe to that bogus narrative. But overall, I found it not just very interesting, but also enjoyed it, and I think that's how you judge a film overall, and not solely by whether its title fits the narrative to the fullest extent one believes to be possible.
> Anyway, I've added an explanatory paragraph to my comment to hopefully clarify that.
I'm not sure why you bothered to do that because your message is two months old, and on Reddit that might as well be two years, since no one is going to see it. I'd have just left it as is, but it's your post. I wouldn't have given the OP such satisfaction though, especially since I not only disagree with him, but because his closing comment about the last hour of the film was bsloney ...in my opinion anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Nov 8, 2014 17:55:23 GMT -5
> I stand by what I said: as a MOVIE, and a documentary, it's unfocused.I couldn't disagree with you more on that point, as I found it to be very focused. However, I did acknowledge that the way in which it starts off as opposed to where he follows through beyond that point seemed out of kilter. Nevertheless, his objectives as laid out --namely, his outlining the indictments against the country by the far left, and then systematically addressing those indictments and one-by-one tearing them down and stating exactly why they're false was quite focused, which was the whole point of the film. For that chunk, yes, it's focused. But how that connects to a notion of "a world without America" was only vaguely addressed. I can see tenuous connections ("You think America's so bad? Then tell me how the world would be better without America!") But there's a difference between a world without American involvement and a world in which America never existed. The Howard Zinn rebuttal isn't fully about the world being better off because America exists, though it is touched on. I thought those connections weren't clear enough. Maybe they were clearer in the book. But for the film, he could have done without the silly reenactments and stuff. The De Tocqueville bits I was fine with, but discussing how the new ideas of America are good is very different from "what if Washington died in the revolution?" That's what I mean by unfocused. > Add to that some truly shoddy camera work, and I have to say again that purely as a MOVIE, it's a failure.And here as well, I'm not sure what "truly shoddy camera work" you're referring to. I watched it on Blu-ray, albeit a week ago, but the scenes that were fuzzy, etcetera, certainly appeared to be intended, as they were flashbacks; a young Hillary Clinton going on to university, or Saul Alinsky, with a few of those scenes recreations with an actor also standing in for the real Alinsky.
I saw it during its theatrical run and haven't revisited it yet so it may be that this was a projection issue, but I don't think so. What I'm referring to is during some of the interviews in the second half, the folks being interviewed are incorrectly framed. Maybe it's just because I spent a couple years in film school, but I found that extraordinarily aggravating. like the image would be framed such that the tops of peoples heads were cut off, and sometimes it seemed the camera was at a dutch angle for some reason (this is from memory though, and that was back in August, so I may be misremembering). Wish I had screencaps to show you what I'm referring to. Anyway, it just seemed sloppy to me for the camera guy not to back up or zoom out a little bit. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Nov 29, 2014 21:35:47 GMT -5
I also feel that Gotham is improving.
But I've said all along--Bruce is the key character to me, because ultimately, even at his age, this is about Batman and his journey.
They can focus on Gordon all they want but the show perks up for me when Bruce has a bigger role, and I'm glad that they seem to be expanding it.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Nov 30, 2014 1:21:56 GMT -5
I don't know about that ...for me, an extended, ongoing look at a ten-year-old Bruce Wayne is of very limited interest at best, and seeing them expand on it to the extent they now have leaves me with mixed feelings, to be charitable about it. Frankly, I'm more interested in the other young characters surrounding Bruce than I am in him. We know he's going to grow up to be a hero and will have a pretty strict moral code. Selina, on the other hand, acting in character, for who she'll turn out to be, I find more entertaining somehow. I think they're doing a pretty darn good job of staying true to who these characters become despite their doing a new take on them at such young ages. I also like watching the moral degradation and cultural rot that continues to flourish throughout the City and around Gordon, always seeming to get the better of him and his fighting his ongoing losing battles. They picked the right actor to play the Mayor, and that's another thing this show is good at --the people behind the scenes have a very good eye for casting, even with respect to the younger players. I think they made a great choice with who they picked to play Selina.
Overall, I'm really enjoying the show, but if it continues expanding on little Bruce to the point that storylines involving him begin taking up more and more of the screen time, then I suspect I'll grow less and less interested with it. And unfortunately that looks to be the direction in which they're intent on going. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Dec 7, 2014 13:52:45 GMT -5
Well, the show is called Gotham, not young Bruce, so it makes sense that they are exploring multiple characters.
Sounds like we both like the show, for different reasons, and both of us are satisfied, which means the writers are doing something right.
|
|
