Gotham

I agree, but considering what we saw of him during the entirety of S1, this behavior came out as completely stupid.

It is not an Azula-like breakdown, who suffered multiple, subtle blows before coming to power, which explained the mess she quickly became once in charge. Maroni was presented as less savvy than Falcone, but not idiotic, nor macho-like. For example, it was clear he had planned to fight Falcone, but was biding his time until he was ready - and if he attacked in reaction to Penguin's manipulation, the show made it clear that he was more powerful than Falcone, so even if his reaction was hotheaded, it was not stupid either.

For another comparison, I picture Maroni to be placed on the same savviness level than a Cersei Lannister, but suddenly becoming Joffrey when he gets what he wants.

Anyway, I don't want to say that it's impossible for Maroni to become stupid when in charge, simply that it should at least take some time. Hence why I call it sloppy writing. It's clear the writers wanted some Wham quotient for the finale, but they never properly prepared it. An seeing Person Of Interest's finale after this one made it painfully clear that good writers can pull any level of Wham they want it they think it through.

edited 6th May '15 1:00:41 AM by Julep

They need to hire Dini.

That said, Maroni has crowed before when he thought he was winning. Recall how he was when he thought he had Penguin dead to rights in that car...

Would I be advised to continue skipping this series until they get some decent writers in? Because nothing in this thread so far has convinced me it's worth diving in as yet.

Nah, it's worth getting into if you don't mind the best kinds of Narm.

It's a little two-faced to ask if a show is worth watching when you've already submitted that most of what we've said hasn't convinced you it's worth watching.

I don't know what you're expecting. I'll say it's a terrific show for its mood and its humor, and I enjoy it more than Agents of Shield or Arrow Season 1. Someone else will tell you the writing is sloppy and it doesn't get any better. Are you waiting for someone to say, "Oh, but the 17th episode is where it gets so much better! It's high-brow entertainment now!" If I told you that, would you watch it based solely on my take? Are you waiting for writers from another show to come in and make the show qualify to your tastes?

You might as well form your own opinion on it, unless you're a police officer or a tax accountant and your time is absolutely precious. This isn't like Sherlock where the episodes are hour-long affairs of delicate forensic analysis and storytelling. Far from it.

edited 7th May '15 7:06:02 AM by Soble

God, Sherlock is good.

All I've read in this thread is how bad the writing is, to the point of derision being aimed at the writers. And it seems to be a common reaction elsewhere on the net about this show - the writing sucks, the characters don't make sense because of how they're written and the general plotting doesn't make much sense either.

So I'm a bit dubious about putting in the time to make up my own mind because life is too long to regret wasting it on bad telly. I tried watching the first episode when it was on on Channel Five over here, and I had to stop.

I loved it when I first saw it, kind of flat-lined for me in Season 3. I'd enjoy it more if I knew the stories it was pulling from, it'd make the adventures more... authentic.

It's British programming, which I'm come to understand is generally high-brow, well thought-out, deliciously convoluted, and stereotypically brilliant television. For some oddball reason.

Well, to each their own. I like it. Nothing I say is going to make you like it. If you can't enjoy it even slightly after 2-3 episodes, my rule of thumb is to ditch the show because that's at least 3 feature-length films of boredom.

edited 7th May '15 7:29:10 AM by Soble

Well, then I suppose you had better stay away from the likes of East Enders or Shameless...

Ah Gotham.

My thoughts are as follows.

The characters and the writing thereof makes sense if you are thinking of them as Batman characters.

I enjoyed the bizarre sort of camp that played against the seriousness of the show. The characters were fun and with one exception they acted logically for who they were.

When the show was working well, all of it's disparate elements worked together. When it didn't work, it was way too busy with it's plot lines. The show might have benefited by splitting it's various plots into individual episodes. Admittedly this is difficult to do with a villain of the week format.

Put simply, I liked the goofier elements. They provided some humor to a mostly serious show. Chain of nuns blocking the road. The time bombs looking like a stereotypical old school comic bomb. That balloon guy for example.

Overall, I enjoyed it even though it wore on me at times. It's complex plots were entertaining.

Indeed, Gotham is enjoyable if you do not compare it to all the other DC/Marv shows on air. It is a well-crafted piece of nonsense, not unlike Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes movies.

Gotham is gonna have similar growing pains to Smallville (which also initially had the FOTW format before gaining arcs), so I'm fully okay with the first season. Will be interesting to see how they retool it next year.

I just don't understand why everyone treated Mooney as if she hadn't vanished.

Also, she was shot trying to fly away from Dollmaker Island...and no mention of that by the writers?

It's a good show if you take it on it's own terms and don't mind Gordon, rather than Bruce Wayne being the main character.

And even then, it'd be fair to call young Bruce the deuteragonist of the series, and his evolution as a character makes sense for someone who'll become batman, more or less.

It also helps if you don't come in expecting an adaptation of Gotham Central. This show flips very rapidly between being a more straightforward crime drama (largely focused on the crimes themselves, rather than the police as a whole) in a very weird city, and trying its damnedest to be as much of a Batman show as they can get away with without actually featuring Batman.

edited 7th May '15 7:00:37 PM by KnownUnknown

I personally really like the show even though it's done some really stupid things so far. The best element to me is the development of everything in the show. We see Penguin grow from a lowly mook to a force to be reckoned with, Gordon from a rookie cop that got in due to nepotism to a legitimate cop, Bullock from a cynical detective to....ok he's still a cynical detective but at least he's willing to take more chances as he used to back in the old days.

Just seeing everything change is fascinating to me.

It also helps that these main characters (Jim, Harvey, and Oswald) have simply terrific actors portraying them. My favorite is probably Donal Logue as Bullock. It helps that he mostly has the best lines out of the three.

Where did it have Gordon getting in due to nepotism? I thought it was more his status as war hero.

It was partially because he was a war hero but his dad used to be either Chief of Police or something.

Bullock is a rare case where becoming the Knight in Sour Armor and Sour Supporter is actually a step up from where he was before before Gordon came along.

District Attorney.

This may be a minor issue, but is GCPD Commissioner supposed to be elected or appointed? The real-life NYPD Commissioner is appointed by the Mayor to five-year terms, but some other cities have the office elected, like the District Attorney.

Thanks I was thinking that but I wasn't sure so I said chief of police because Gordon is a detective.

Morena Baccarin has been promoted to series regular for Season 2.

I wonder if Batgirl will now be Lee Gordon....