http://www.deadline.com/2013/09/comm...-series-drama/
Young Gordon series.
http://www.deadline.com/2013/09/comm...-series-drama/
Young Gordon series.
Should be good
Interesting...
I'll give this a shot. Would really like it to be done in the vibe of film noir meets Dick Tracey meets Year One.
After reading the Gotham Central comics I always hoped we'd get a show about the GCPD this is probably the next best thing after that so definitely excited about this.
Brubacker said on twitter it won't GCPD as far as he knows. The question is do you do the Wayne murders to the start the series or do you have them as season one or two stars then murder them? If you do murder them do you have it as a hit or a random act of violence? It would be awesome is the first thing you see is the Waynes in Crime Alley being stalked and then have Gordon save them only to fail the second time. The list of potential villains is staggering if you think about it. You have all the crime families from Falcone to Cobblepot. You have Ra's Al Ghu and the League. You can have Jack Napier if you are willing to cut a check to Nicholson. On top of the Year One problems, he faces with the dirty cops and Commissioner Loeb. You can run this show for a decade and still only scratch the surface.
My problem is Fox is not known for this type of show and when they do a show like this, its either awful or shit canned early.
So, I'm assuming Batman won't be in this?
It could be cool, but honestly, I'm kind of burnt out on Batman stuff, for now.
http://comicbookspotlight.wordpress....coming-to-fox/
My thoughts on the matter with utter joy and hope along with a side of caution.
Completely depends on who plays Gordon.
lotjx you come up with some absolutely stunningly terrible and/or unrealistic ideas.
Jack Nicholson is not going to do a television series, especially to bring back a role he did 20 years earlier
Thats already been defined for a generation by a new actor.
Maybe Chris O'Donnell can be in this as a trapeze artist in the circus.
What...? I meant that Nicholson owns part of the Napier character. I want a new actor. I just want the character to be in it.Originally Posted by Miotch
The Joker shouldn't have a backstory.
I'd love to see a source that Nicholson owns part of a character.
a simple google search shows that there is no proof to LOLs claim.
So as soon as Marvel get a TV series, DC decides they want one? I'm shocked.
Worst part is, they already have one that they seemed to have forgotten about...
http://smodcast.com/episodes/batflec...urtons-batman/
http://smodcast.com/episodes/fmobm-47/
Maybe you should have tried I-Tunes. DC was here first with something called Smallville. A terrible show, but saying Marvel got here first is retarded.
A show about Gotham with super villains and no Batman sounds like a terrible idea. Either fully commit to the idea or fuck off.
So I'm suppose to trust a podcast? I love Kevin Smith, but why isn't there any other documentation of this ownership? I'll believe it with credible proof, not some claim made on a podcast. I think your full of it and yourself LOLs.
IMDB: (Might not be as legitimate as a podcast, but it is at least printed proof)
- Jack Nicholson received a percentage of the gross on the film, and due to its massive box-office took home around $60 million. As of 2003 it is still the single-movie record for actor's salary.
(It is also reported that he got a cut from merchandising, which is nothing close to owning the rights to the character)
- The name of the Joker's Alter-Ego, Jack Napier was created by the filmmakers. In the comics, The Joker was never given a real name, and whatever real name he has is yet to be definitively revealed. The name Jack Napier is intended to be a play on the word "jackanapes" as well as a reference to actor Alan Napier, who played Alfred in the TV show Batman.
(Hmm, still no reference to owning the rights)
There are also a ton of trivia remarks about Jack Napier being created for this film alone, but no reference to Nicholson owning the rights, which would be an interesting bit of trivia to have on this film.
Last edited by TimeSplitter; September 26th, 2013 at 8:47 AM.
Smallville's not really the same thing, it's basically Muppet Babies in the Superman universe. The New Adventures of Superman was before that, and countless Superman/Batman serials and cartoons. Nobody said comic book TV shows haven't been done before, but this particular announcement just smells like bandwagon hopping. The news appeared practically on the day Agents of SHIELD aired its pilot.
And you're going to call people retarded seconds after telling them "trust this podcast where somebody randomly spouts off their half-baked opinion"? Can't you have a disagreement with someone that doesn't end in a petty and ridiculous argument?
Not an admission of ownership per se, but I think interesting given that Ledger's Joker performance wasn't Jack's or necessarily derivative of Nicholson's, which my understanding leads me to believe that, had it been, Nicholson would have been entitled to some cut of the money earned therefrom:
Again, not necessarily evidentiary, but certainly interesting given context.
Last edited by WizoOzz; September 26th, 2013 at 10:13 AM.
I think that interview is interesting, but Jack comes across more as entitled than having ownership of the role. Has he never heard of reinterpretations before?
Can't say I'm very interested in this at all. Gotham would be a fascinating world for a television series, but I'm not overly fussed on watching a young Gordon. The fact that it's set in that specific time period makes it hard to create any real drama for the character, since you know Gordon must survive any danger he encounters so that he can meet Batman in the future. But then again, I'm pretty tired of all these prequel and spin-off ideas that studios throw at the wall, as they just dance around a much more interesting character or world that they can't or won't commit to for one reason or another. If you're doing a show about Gotham, I want Batman in it. A weekly show with Batman using his detective skills, forming his relationship with Gordon and meeting his adversaries in season-long arcs along with some "Criminal-of-the-week" characters would be incredible. But it won't happen, so I'm not excited about a show that has the same environment but none of those interesting aspects.
I didn't think of it that way, Chris. I suppose that might eliminate all danger that Gordon would go through. Maybe they have a young Bruce Wayne be a recurring character?
Yeah, sure he comes off as entitled - but that's what makes Jack Jack.
That being said, however, if you had the chance to make a little bit of money for doing nothing - taking into consideration that you defined that certain role for a generation, and that there may be potential for the new guy's performance to be derivative of your stuff, you'd be a little pissy too, I think. At least, I know I would be at least a tad.
Slightly off-topic, on a personal note, while I guess I'm technically part of that Nicholson/Joker-defined generation, I'm so glad Ledger's performance was what it was.
I'm with Chris and Beer-Belly. I have no real interest in a show set in a universe the producers don't actually want to commit to. Prequels are beyond out of hand already, and I don't really care about a yet another origin for a character. Why can't we actually look at the big guns that brought us all to the dance? Agents of SHIELD is running a similar risk, though they at least are trying to make the characters' peripheral nature a major point of the show. Gotham City without Batman just seems like a generic crime drama trying to get Batman's audience.
As for Nicholson, he thought Tim Burton was still great in 2011, so he's clearly off his rocker.
My post probably came off as too simplistic. I know there are plenty of TV shows where you know the main character isn't going to be killed off, even if they manage to get you to suspend your disbelief for a moment during a tense scene. But I just think a prequel imposes further restrictions on what you can do and how well you can do it. It's interesting that the show is called "Gotham", instead of "Gordon". They're immediately trying to sell the connection to Batman, and yet not have him or any of the other recogniseable characters involved. You could do a cop show in a fictional city with crimelords and bent cops and achieve the same result.
The Star Wars live-action TV show was sounding as if it was going to run up against similar problems. What is the public interest in a show depicting the political and criminal issues on Coruscant, during a time period where the Jedi are virtually extinct and the rebellion isn't up and running? There's not going to be lightsaber battles, shoot-outs or space battles, so is it really Star Wars to the average joe? It's no surprise that studios want to make money off their popular brands, but as a fan I want to see the best elements of those brands as opposed to a show focusing on a time period or character which is far removed from those elements.
Clone Wars went on for five years knowing full well 80% of that cast was going to live. To be fair the last two seasons of Breaking Bad, we have known that Walt is still alive after all the shit that went through those two years. Anytime, you have show that a character is alive in the future and then do a few episodes or season or even a show it is annoying, but it hasn't killed shows. Shit, I think knowing Walt was alive has made the show better.
I am all in for Gotham, because I love Gordon and the reality is that most of Batman's enemies are regular people who are a bit off. There is also a ton of potential to show these characters in a different light or flesh them out better especially if they go with the Waynes.
Are you seriously comparing a child's cartoon to this potential show?
Considering the guest on the show works for a mainstream newspaper, maybe you should actually listen to it instead of doing another quick internet search.
*Gotham
I'm trying my best to do a little research while time drags at work. Dunno if this helps.
ETA:
EATA:
From what I'm reading, at the very least, he got a pretty lucrative deal which included a piece of merchandising rights. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it included a piece of the action of any derivative from his portrayal of the Joker character. As such, he obviously would have been pissed solely due to the amount of money that stood on the table.
Meh.
Last edited by WizoOzz; September 26th, 2013 at 1:26 PM.
If the guy works for a mainstream newspaper, wouldn't there be more documentation than a comment made on a podcast? There is no crediblility to anything you are saying.
And, nothing groundbreaking in terms of what I've already posted, but here:
Alright, I downloaded the podcast in question, so I will get back to you in 90ish minutes when it is over.
Nothing you are saying points to Jack owning a portion of the Napier character.
Stop making my head hurt.
I honestly don't care about Batman at all, just bored, and just saying - if one read between the lines of all this positioning, and all the other various things that various sources have out there, it's wholly reasonable that he may have a piece of the Jack Napier character. Especially if you also take into account the way they've treated their "top" property, Superman.
Half way in. No reference.
Jack Nicholson does NOT own any portion of the character of Jack Napier. It is WELL KNOWN in the industry that he cut an incredible deal in pushing for a lower wage with a high percentage of merchandise deals, which they gave him because it was pretty much unheard of for anyone to do so at the time. Which they bitterly regretted when he made an absolute mint for it.
Anything more than that isnt just speculation, its false.
I don't think we'll see any of the major bat villains in this nor do I particularly want them to show up. It will probably be the likes of Calendar Man and Mortimer Kadaver. I expect an episode will deal with the Wayne's murder and a search for Joe Chill. I'm sure a rising district attorney named Harvey Dent will be a part too. I'd be fine with that but I don't want overkill.
I want to see what Gotham City was like before Batman. So many potential ways to go. The crime families. The corruption. The Waynes. The Kanes. Let's see what it was that made Batman necessary. What was Gotham City like that Bruce Wayne thought dressing up as a bat was the only way to fix things.
Direct quote from Bernadina, LoL's credible reporter:
"He's like 'You're paying me $10 million to play the Joker, and giving me a huge cut of the back end to top it off!"
That seems like the opposite of your claim.
Just finished the podcast. While entertaining, there is no reference to owning the Jack Napier character.
wow! i can't believe that you listened to 90 mins of kevin smith talking shit to make sure lotjx wasn't talking shit.
Even if Nicholson did own part of the character (which he most definitely does not) he probably wouldn't be able to remember his ownership of said character so it wouldn't present a problem,
He's petty and ridiculous, so no.
I wanted to be thorough, unlike LoLs.
I just assume the vast majority of his posts, and future posts, are factually incorrect.
I haven't been let down yet.
fair enough @TS
I'm beginning to realize this. I assume his reponse will be similar to the Top Sit Com show.
"If I would make a podcast about it (then not do it) I would have put it #1!"
Sorry, there were 2 links. Back in another 90 minutes.
So far no reference, but if you doubt Affleck being Batman, listen to Smith's defense.
I got 90 minutes into the second (which is actually the first of LoLs links) podcast. Can't do anymore today. Will finish either tomorrow/saturday. So far, still no claim of Nicholson owning the rights to Napier. Still think LoLs is full of shit, but I want to to get my "facts" straight before calling him out on it. Bed time.
You're a man on a crusade, TS.
A caped crusade.
I am the hero Rajah deserves, but not the one it needs. Mostly since people know LoLs is full of shit.
Found the section LoLs is claiming to be truth, but it is just a story of how Nicholson got a huge cut of the box office. Debunked.
(Way too much Kevin Smith for one lifetime.)
Not sure what this Goitham City is about but Gotham City should be good
Apparently the time frame will be set around when Bruce is 10 years old so obviously his parents murder will be the main emphasis.
Not really sure how they plan to feature a lot of Batman villains though.
At least I know what the Jack Napier argument about. What world does lotjx live in?
I imagine the Falcone Crime Family will be a major part of the story. Probably the rise of Harvey Dent as well.Not sure what this Goitham City is about but Gotham City should be good
Apparently the time frame will be set around when Bruce is 10 years old so obviously his parents murder will be the main emphasis.
Not really sure how they plan to feature a lot of Batman villains though.
The Cobblepots and Sionis families will be there as well I imagine. The Elliots as well.
With good casting and writing this show should honestly be all sorts of goodness.
I honestly wouldn't mind for them to run with both of the Waynes being alive and building their characters for a season or two.
Most interpretations of Batman have always had them killed without any real build behind the people. I would love to see the build of Thomas and Martha.
When i saw this thread i thought that it was about the show Kevin Smith and Paul Dini were talking about on his Fatman with Batman podcast...This might be ok though SHIELD has been watchable.
Seconded.
http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/05/05/gotham-trailer/
Looks bleak. Lost all interest.
It's a show set in one of the bleakest fictional cities around. Of course it's bleak. It could very well be dog shit, but the dark tone won't have anything to do with that.
you can't be bleak in spring
Gotham can.
Looked plenty fine to me.
Seeing most of the characters as kids doesn't do much for me. Reminds me of the Patton Oswalt bit about the Star Wars prequels.
Reminds me of this...
R Kelly assured me it was a city of justice, love and peace.
Sorry, shouldn't have said bleak. Poor choice of words. Based off of this trailer it looks terrible. But I guess I should wait for more footage.
They almost have to fast forward at some time. No mustache on Gordon is a no no.
You all missed my Seinfeld reference
Yes, we did...
And I'm one of the few people who actually liked that finale...
I'm looking forward to it. There were parts of the trailer that looked pretty cheesy, but other parts that look really good. I'm a fan of Donal Logue, and I like Bullock, so I hope they do him justice. It has a lot of potential, so hopefully they won't screw it up.
They should have just adapted Gotham Central. Those comics were excellent. It was like The Wire with Batman characters.
needs more Seth Cohen.
Seriously, so excited for this to get started
Birds of Prey was awesome.
No, no it wasnt
Logue was fucking awful and seemingly couldn't act his way out of a paper bag during his time on SOA.
Seriously. Gotham City is a depressing, crime-ridden hellhole. All Batman movies (minus the shitty Kilmer and Clooney live action comedy cartoons) have been intentionally bleak.
I got that show canned. I don't feel bad about it at all. This looks better.
it's already been figured out he wasn't talking about the tone of the show.
Cool.
Not sure what I think about the pilot. Didn't really grasp me at all. Felt they tried too hard to get references in, and maybe overloaded on sparking character storylines.
Its a mixed bag. Most pilots are. The good was Bullock, Penguin and amazingly Bruce Wayne. The bad, Gordon doesn't look like Gordon, Alfred being loud for no reason, giving Barbara the Batwoman origin and Jada Picket Smith's wig. I do think it would have been better if we spent a season with the Waynes then have the murder. I also think trying to shove every villain into the first episode was a bad move. There is no reason to meet Ivy or even Riddler at this point as well as who I think that comedian in the bar was. I am iffy on the conspiracy as well. If it leads to Court of Owls, awesome if not then its another Fox Conspiracy that leads nowhere see Sleepy Hollow, X-Files and so on.
Yeah I wonder what's going on with the whole Barbara storyline. Also it definitely did appear to be a let's name drop every single villain in this first episode type of deal.
they're attempting to satiate the desire for a batman world years before there even is a batman, hoping to get people over that initial hump. i suspect it'll calm down considerably as the series moves along.
Oh I agree. But I thought they'd do much more of a slow burn instead of blowing their load right away.
I haven't seen the show yet, but I'm curious as to why they didn't just adapt the Gotham Central comics. That way Fox gets a show with Batman villains that still focuses on the police side of things, but the audience gets an occasional Batman appearance.
I just thought the name dropping and references was to make sure the show would go to series. But at the same time, the pacing felt like it was to accomadate if in case it did not go to series so they could just make it a one off television special. A lot of pilots feel like this and I felt there was more good than bad here. I like that Jada honed a bit of Eartha Kitt in her (somewhat cheesy) performance. To me it felt more inspired by the Burton films and animated series more than the Nolan films ...which is fine by me as I feel those movies are WAY overrated. Thought Bullock, Peguin, and Gordon was great. To me the mustache is part of building the character and therefore I am okay with him not having it yet. He will probably get it when he realizes he needs to be a bit darker to fight crime in gotham.
How are the Nolan films overrated? They seem pretty divisive these days.
I thought it was a pretty good first episode, I will be tuning in next week.
So you want them to cast Tom Selleck and just colour his hair?
It was better than most people think.
What, personally?
Not buying that.
Everyone else looks like their character from the comic except him. It would be one thing if we had a thin Bullock and a Penguin that was 6'1, but they are not doing that. They want you to identify with those characters that are iconic yet they refuse to make their lead look like the icon he is based on. Its is stupid.
I was working at a comic book store when Birds of Prey premiered and a DC rep called in. My boss gave me the phone since he didn't see it. I told him it was awful and they should cut their loses, he was a bit stunned by the frankness. Then, the ratings dropped which I told him it would. A few weeks later, it was canned.
You shouldn't ever be the person to hold the fate of anything in their hands.
Also go join the mafia games into the woods.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
