Gotham - Batman prequel show

[reyler]

Stop using male pronouns at me   

 

Also, a couple of things. First, your friend isn't as knowledgeable as they think; Jim Gordon's first wife was named Barbara (the utterly useless bit of eye candy on the show), but the Barbara Gordon who becomes Batgirl is a separate character and is either his daughter or his niece, depending on which continuity you're using, and named after his wife.

 

Second, the League of Assassins backstory is mostly unique to the Nolan films; traditionally Bruce travels the world learning his skills from different people (martial arts from Kirigi, detective training from Henri Ducard, escapism from Zatanna's father in B:tAS, etc.) and never encounters Ra's al Ghul until he's well established as Batman.

 

Professor Hugo Strange (distinct from Doctor Stephen Strange, who is Marvel's Sorceror Supreme) would be a good character to see included. Proto-Scarecrow Johnathan Crane has been cast, but he'll be Bruce's age and the Scarecrow identity will be inherited from his father, I guess so they can have a Scarecrow.

 

Also I doubt the Wayne murderer will end up being Joker; for one thing he was too heavy of build. Also if he's not going to be Joe Chill, it's better thematically that he remain nobody, and for the same reason as why it works better thematically if the Joker has no origin.

 

I watched the Spirit of the Goat episode again last night and was struck by the fact that, even after seeing his name in the credits, I still didn't recognize Dan Hedaya. Dude looks so different now.

[SinisterDeath]

Also I doubt the Wayne murderer will end up being Joker; for one thing he was too heavy of build. Also if he's not going to be Joe Chill, it's better thematically that he remain nobody, and for the same reason as why it works better thematically if the Joker has no origin.

 

Isn't the Joker, like scarecrow, supposed to be around Bruce's age? 

That said.. There's no reason they couldn't introduce the Red Hood... Probably revealed/dispatched much the same way they took out Joe Chill, and revealed who his daughter will become.

 

 

 

I watched the Spirit of the Goat episode again last night and was struck by the fact that, even after seeing his name in the credits, I still didn't recognize Dan Hedaya. Dude looks so different now.

When I saw that episode.. My first thought was.. "Proto Solomon Grundy?"

[reyler]

They strayed into comic book science for the Viper compound, but I think Grundy is a little too straight-up supernatural for this series to use as anything other than a folk legend. Note that the DCAU never used him until the Superman series opened the door to that sort of thing.

[SinisterDeath]

They strayed into comic book science for the Viper compound, but I think Grundy is a little too straight-up supernatural for this series to use as anything other than a folk legend. Note that the DCAU never used him until the Superman series opened the door to that sort of thing.

I just know about him from the Batman video game.

[reyler]

Pretty much what I figured.

[Red2111]

Stop using male pronouns at me   

o.o omg i'm so sorry about that *hides* fixed it now

 

 

Also, a couple of things. First, your friend isn't as knowledgeable as they think; Jim Gordon's first wife was named Barbara (the utterly useless bit of eye candy on the show), but the Barbara Gordon who becomes Batgirl is a separate character and is either his daughter or his niece, depending on which continuity you're using, and named after his wife.

ah, see i learn something new every day. they've read the comics so i wasn't going to argue with them and not know what i was taking about xD thsi Bat Girl story lien and the older wife, is that the new Batman arc or fromt eh older Detective comics

 

 

Second, the League of Assassins backstory is mostly unique to the Nolan films; traditionally Bruce travels the world learning his skills from different people (martial arts from Kirigi, detective training from Henri Ducard, escapism from Zatanna's father in B:tAS, etc.) and never encounters Ra's al Ghul until he's well established as Batman.

see like i said i never studied the comic origin of batman, but i did know that pre-Nolan films; Talya was one of Waynes few love interests in his story line which brought in the LoA story line. i assumed it was while he was traveling and AWOL from Gotham, as the LoA never had a presence in Gotham until much later.

 

 

Professor Hugo Strange (distinct from Doctor Stephen Strange, who is Marvel's Sorceror Supreme) would be a good character to see included. Proto-Scarecrow Johnathan Crane has been cast, but he'll be Bruce's age and the Scarecrow identity will be inherited from his father, I guess so they can have a Scarecrow.

meh, no real reason to point out the difference of characters between the universes here. we all know theres a dr Strange in both universes and know theres no cross overs so i dont really see a point in you taking the time and effort to point that out.

 

my point is that they're making an effort to re-open the Arkham Asylum in the series and the one character heavily associated with the Asylum is Strange (and he's a mega PITA for Batman later on, which adds a great antagonist)

 

is Scarecrow will be Bruce's age i'd love to see a story arc like this happen with the character

 

- Asylum opens with Strange running it

- father runs amuck in Gotham as a toned down version of the movie scarecrow

- the father gets caught by Gordon and either killed or put in prison/asylum

- John has a "mental breakdown" from this and starts becoming the scarecrow we know and is locked away in the Asylum where Strange mucks with him and turns him into the monster we know as Scarcrow.

 

 

Also I doubt the Wayne murderer will end up being Joker; for one thing he was too heavy of build. Also if he's not going to be Joe Chill, it's better thematically that he remain nobody, and for the same reason as why it works better thematically if the Joker has no origin.

idk, i'd love an origin story on the Joker personally. i've always loved the Joker as a villain, he's like the perfect villain and is the reason why Batman is such a great hero imo.

 

they're bringing in the Asylum to the story, then the Joker is a natural extension of that place. and for Harley Quinn to exist, we must have the Joker. without the Joker (and the Asylum) she just doesn't come to be; and she's a wonderful fan created character that needs to be included.

 

my one complaint with the Joker is that when this villain comes in ... then he always steals the show. as good as the other villains are, the Joke is just to iconic to the series that none of the others can stand up to him in the lime light. and he's just been so over done in the series that it would be refreshing not to include him for once.

[Red2111]

i mean having Strange in charge of the Asylum and knowing what his character likes to do ....  theres a slew of possible origin stories with him being central to their mental state of mind.

 

 

take the Joker for instance, who could start out as a troubled youth with some mild form of physocis, and ends up locked in the Asylum.  allowing us to see the character transformed into the lunatic clown via Dr Strange messing with his mind

[SinisterDeath]

i mean having Strange in charge of the Asylum and knowing what his character likes to do ....  theres a slew of possible origin stories with him being central to their mental state of mind.

 

 

take the Joker for instance, who could start out as a troubled youth with some mild form of physocis, and ends up locked in the Asylum.  allowing us to see the character transformed into the lunatic clown via Dr Strange messing with his mind

Red Hood + Chemical burns = one version of Joker's origin.

The thing about the Joker is.. he's soo insane, that he's had several origin stories that have all turned out to be lies from a stark raving mad lunatic. So part of the draw to his character is the not knowing his origin.

[reyler]

I actually really hate the notion in superhero adaptation of one guy being retroactively responsible for all the villains. I hated it when Greg Weisman did it on The Spectacular Spider-Man, where almost every villain in the first season was a product of the Tombstone/Norman Osborn alliance.

 

The thing with Joker is that, he just works so much better as a symbol, an embodiment of the psychological decay inherent to Gotham City. The producers flat-out said that they'll only tease nameless one-off roles here and there who could end up being the Joker, because the real horror of the character (espoused by himself in The Killing Joke and adaptationally in The Dark Knight) is that literally anybody is one really bad day away from becoming the Joker.

 

Anyway, so far it isn't clear that the Asylum is going to actually be a recurring element in this series beyond factoring into the land deal in episode 4. It's probably just as well that they don't rely on too many elements of the Batman mythos without the man himself in play.

[Red2111]

 

i mean having Strange in charge of the Asylum and knowing what his character likes to do ....  theres a slew of possible origin stories with him being central to their mental state of mind.

 

 

take the Joker for instance, who could start out as a troubled youth with some mild form of physocis, and ends up locked in the Asylum.  allowing us to see the character transformed into the lunatic clown via Dr Strange messing with his mind

Red Hood + Chemical burns = one version of Joker's origin.

The thing about the Joker is.. he's soo insane, that he's had several origin stories that have all turned out to be lies from a stark raving mad lunatic. So part of the draw to his character is the not knowing his origin.

 

 

but this series is different than other Batman adaptations in that we're seeing the origin story play out instead of getting it second hand.   to not take advantage of this uniqueness and use it as an opportunity to expand on the franchises most iconic character would be a wasted opportunity.  plus it would bring in more viewers imo

 

so in series, the Joker could claim to other characters "this is how i got my scars" but the audience will have seen it and experienced it with him.  so the lies become part of his persona and chaos.

 

for me, the draw of the Joker isn't in his foggy origin, its in the character himself as a villain.  to me, he is the perfect villain for any good guy to fight.  i love his chaotic nature, his aimless destruction of society, his fixation on destroying the Bat (not by killing him but by corrupting him), his unpredictability, his persona and lack of caring and lack of empathy.

 

what makes him so awesome of a villain is how hard he is to fight and control.

 

 

I actually really hate the notion in superhero adaptation of one guy being retroactively responsible for all the villains. I hated it when Greg Weisman did it on The Spectacular Spider-Man, where almost every villain in the first season was a product of the Tombstone/Norman Osborn alliance.

 

The thing with Joker is that, he just works so much better as a symbol, an embodiment of the psychological decay inherent to Gotham City. The producers flat-out said that they'll only tease nameless one-off roles here and there who could end up being the Joker, because the real horror of the character (espoused by himself in The Killing Joke and adaptationally in The Dark Knight) is that literally anybody is one really bad day away from becoming the Joker.

 

Anyway, so far it isn't clear that the Asylum is going to actually be a recurring element in this series beyond factoring into the land deal in episode 4. It's probably just as well that they don't rely on too many elements of the Batman mythos without the man himself in play.

 

 

but not all villains in the Batman series are psychopaths or would fit into that mold so dismissing the idea of Strange molding two kids into Scarecrow and Joker based on a "dont want one guy being responsible for all the villains" is short sighted.   we're taking about 2 villains in the franchise, not all of them (all be it, 2 of the best villains and one of which is iconic to the series).

 

Joker and Scarecrow are the only two that i can think of that have the "chaotic, want to destroy society cause some people just want to see the world burn" lunacy that makes them villains.  these two characters i can see as a sort of Dr. Strange creation on meth released into the world to wreak havoc; because Strange likes to take people and break them mentally and mess with them, thats just what he does, he's a mad scientist.

 

 

re-aylum - nah its in play and has been since episode two.  its a big motivating narrative for many of the characters. 

 

- Bruces parents wanted to reopen it and thats one of the going rumors why they were killed.

- Bruce is now wanting to re-open it because a) his parents wanted to and b) he wants to help Gotham

- Falcone has expressed interest in re-opening it the chick at one point, saying he supported it (he's also the one who said this is why the Waynes were killed iirc)

 

not to mention, the Asylum is where all of the bad guys end up when Batman comes into play, not jail but the Asylum.  this building is as much a character in the franchise and important plot point as Batman or any of the villains.

 

 

edit - i also disagree with your "anyone is one bad day from becoming the joker"   one aspect of his character (the i want the world to burn) aspect you're right.  anyone can go postal to that degree if pushed hard enough.

 

but the other aspect your leaving out is his blind and utter obsession with the Bat and breaking the Bat.  he becomes obsessed with trying to get Batman to kill him  (and in one re-boot Joker even takes his own life in a sadistic twist because, as the Bat is finally goign to kill him, he suddenly doesn't want the Bat to break his moral code)

[SinisterDeath]

for me, the draw of the Joker isn't in his foggy origin, its in the character himself as a villain.  to me, he is the perfect villain for any good guy to fight.  i love his chaotic nature, his aimless destruction of society, his fixation on destroying the Bat (not by killing him but by corrupting him), his unpredictability, his persona and lack of caring and lack of empathy.

 

what makes him so awesome of a villain is how hard he is to fight and control.

 

Sure. But deep down you gotta ask yourself.. How did he become that way?

[reyler]

The idea that Joker is obsessed specifically with making Batman break his moral code is a sometimes thing. He's just obsessed with Batman in general, he likes screwing with him. I'm not familiar with the reboot you're referring to, but it sounds more like The Dark Knight Returns, where Batman almost kills Joker after finally having enough, but instead just paralyzes him, and Joker, disappointed, manages to snap his own neck to frame Batman for his murder.

 

As far as Scarecrow, "watching the world burn" has never been his M.O. He's not in it for chaos, he's in it for power; the kind of power that a 98-pound weakling can garner over everyone who ever bullied him just by knowing how to push the right buttons in their brains. Scarecrow is only just slightly more subdued and methodical than the guy who takes an assault rifle to school.

 

Beyond being the thing Falcone and Maroni were at odds over, Arkham (and the show makes clear that it's an entire district, not just the Asylum) is significant to this show, as it stands, more as a link in the chain of corruption that resulted in the deaths of the Waynes; the Viper (and Venom) serum has the same role, and I doubt we'll be seeing much return of relevance there beyond being something that gets Bruce looking at his parents' company with more scrutiny. I think it would be a mistake to focus too heavily on it at the point they're at. They've already been criticized for being Batman Minus Batman as it is, given how many pre-villains are floating around.

 

I probably have more to babble about, but i have to leave for werk   

[reyler]

STOP POSTING WHILE I'M TYPING SIN GODDAMMIT

[SinisterDeath]

STOP POSTING WHILE I'M TYPING SIN GODDAMMIT

Rofl

[Red2111]

 

for me, the draw of the Joker isn't in his foggy origin, its in the character himself as a villain.  to me, he is the perfect villain for any good guy to fight.  i love his chaotic nature, his aimless destruction of society, his fixation on destroying the Bat (not by killing him but by corrupting him), his unpredictability, his persona and lack of caring and lack of empathy.

 

what makes him so awesome of a villain is how hard he is to fight and control.

Sure. But deep down you gotta ask yourself.. How did he become that way?

 

i do, which is why i said i'd love for the show to incorporate him and make an origin story for him.

 

my main concern is that if they incorporate the Joker, that he doesn't over shadow all of the other villains (which is hard to do because as iconic as the Joker is, even as a back ground character he tends to end up taking center stage)

 

what i would love for the show to ultimately do is expose people to the lesser known or used batman villains rather than focusing on re-hashing the over used ones.

 

 

 

The idea that Joker is obsessed specifically with making Batman break his moral code is a sometimes thing. He's just obsessed with Batman in general, he likes screwing with him. I'm not familiar with the reboot you're referring to, but it sounds more like The Dark Knight Returns, where Batman almost kills Joker after finally having enough, but instead just paralyzes him, and Joker, disappointed, manages to snap his own neck to frame Batman for his murder.

i'll have to go back and look it up to be sure, as to what re-boot of batman i'm talking about. those two have been re-hashed and re-vamped so many times since the 40's that its not even remotely funny.

 

i do think that we're going to have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of Joker though. his "general obsession" with the Bat, and his "obsession with breaking the Bat" are, to me, the same thing. its why he killed the 2nd Robin in the fashion that he did, maimed bat girl, killed numerous alleys and friends of both Bruce and Batman, and didn't give two flips about Bruce exposing his identity to him while Joker was in the Asylum.

 

he wasn't obsessed with Batmans identity, or even killing Batman or just being Bat's #1 fangirl. he wanted to torment, break and twist Batman because of what the Bat stood for (ie: his moral code)

 

tbh, i think we're arguing the same thing just getting stuck up on wording xD

 

 

 

As far as Scarecrow, "watching the world burn" has never been his M.O. He's not in it for chaos, he's in it for power; the kind of power that a 98-pound weakling can garner over everyone who ever bullied him just by knowing how to push the right buttons in their brains. Scarecrow is only just slightly more subdued and methodical than the guy who takes an assault rifle to school.

again, i think we have to agree to disagree. Scarecrow liked to reduce people to bubbling gibbering idiots consumed by their own fear. imo, he didn't wan tot literally want to watch the world burn (as the Joker does), he wants to break society by devolving it into anarchy consumed and ruled by its own fears.

 

you claim his aim is power and in a way you're correct. but its not power in the terms of "ruling the city" like two-face or penguin. its power in that he wants to be the only sane person in a world filled with insane people and the only one who knows what is and isn't reality.

 

its a different sort of chaos, or more psychological and more terrifying sort of chaos, than the Jokers blunt tactics and in your face destruction.

 

 

 

also, having a connection between Scarecrow and Strange is bound to happen if the want to even remotely keep Scarecrow true to his roots as a villain because he IS a creation of Dr. Strange's; just as Sandman is a creation of Scarecrow's.

 

 

Beyond being the thing Falcone and Maroni were at odds over, Arkham (and the show makes clear that it's an entire district, not just the Asylum) is significant to this show, as it stands, more as a link in the chain of corruption that resulted in the deaths of the Waynes;

the entire district must be in an episode i havent seen. i haven't seen past where Penguin hires the guys to rob the restaurant the works at then kills them. i'm not complaining, i really dont care about spoilers, if i did i wouldn't be posting in a thread dedicated to the show lmao

 

right now, yes i can see the Asylum (or District as you say) being just a link in the chain and a set up for future events, but late on it will take a central role to many plot lines and can be a spring board for a lot of story arcs.

 

 

the Viper (and Venom) serum has the same role, and I doubt we'll be seeing much return of relevance there beyond being something that gets Bruce looking at his parents' company with more scrutiny. I think it would be a mistake to focus too heavily on it at the point they're at.

agreed. Bane is the only real reason to introduce the Venom into the series, and its way too early for Bane.

 

They've already been criticized for being Batman Minus Batman as it is, given how many pre-villains are floating around.

 

and i hate this criticism tbh. this is like complaining about Wolverine Origins because he didn't start out with the metal claws or wasn't an x-men.

 

the show is designed to be an origin story, Bruce developed into Batman, he wasn't born batman. people should look at the show for what it is and appreciate the unique ability of begin able to watch the character evolution to "kid who watched his parents be killed" into "vig with a kick ass arsenal and take no shit attitude"

[SinisterDeath]

Speaking of super-heroes and villains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Octopus#Powers_as_Spider-Man

I wonder if this could ever happen to Batman & Joker?

[reyler]

In as close to sequential order as I can manage:

 

Joker didn't paralyze Batgirl, he paralyzed Barbara Gordon. Same person, yes, but the distinction is critical because he targeted her because of her relationship to Jim Gordon, not Batman. That was in The Killing Joke, one of the storylines adapted into The Dark Knight, and Gordon was the one he was trying to drive into madness. He failed, incidentally. That wasn't even supposed to be a canon storyline except that the editors at DC liked the storytelling possibilities it opened for Barbara.

 

I don't know what the in-story reason was for beating Jason Todd to (almost) death with a crowbar, other than that he could, but the only real reason it happened was because the readers hated Jason.

 

Other than that, most instances of Joker targeting someone he knows to be close to Batman are in adaptational media (The Dark Knight is notable, and Joker was trying to ruin Batman and Harvey Dent both, and not just through Rachel). Honestly, that behavior is closer to Bane or Hush than Joker in most cases. The vast majority of the time, Joker is just doing things because they're fun, and Batman is the most fun to play with. He has almost never cared about Batman's moral code as much as his grim facade.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting any of your information about Scarecrow, quite honestly. Hugo Strange, for one thing, has absolutely nothing to do with his background, and Sandman is a Spider-Man villain (unless you're referring to the Neil Gaiman series DC put out, in which case you're still enormously off base). His entire origin was rooted in his being an ugly skinny loser who got off on being able to wreck his physical superiors (the power over others I was referring to) with artifically induced fear. He was a psychology professor at a university until he got fired for experimenting on his students, and decided to "make them all pay", as it were. That's literally all there is to him.

 

Arkham as a district of the greater Gotham area was in the episode you're referring to, episode 4 "Arkham". The called it Arkham City as a shoutout to the game, although there were no other similarities beyond it being the most run-down part of the city. The long-defunct Asylum was supposed to be replaced with a new state-of-the-art care facility as a centerpiece of the urban renewal project, but the power plays between Falcone and Maroni ended up in a compromise where both men got part of the real estate and the existing Asylum was just going to be slightly retrofitted and pressed back into service as-is, with little else ultimately changing other than the mob getting richer.

 

As to the criticism of Gotham as a Garfield Minus Garfield situation, yes, it is unfair, but more because the show is not explicitly Batman's origin story; not in the way Smallville was supposed to be Superman Before Superman. The premise is right there in the name; it's the city's origin story, the story of how the city came to be in the state that Batman was the only answer to its problems. If it were supposed to be Batman's origin, Bruce would be the primary focus, not Gordon. That said, the producers aren't doing themselves any favors by constantly calling forward to Bat-O'Clock to say you should care about the show more for where it's eventually going to be (if it gets there) rather than for where it is now.

 

I am horribly disappointed to learn that Tommy Elliot is going to exist in this show, mostly because Hush is a terrible character originating in a terrible story penned by a terrible writer, and it was bad enough having them put him in the Arkham games. Black Mask will also have some sort of setup as well, it seems, and him I can take or leave. All the best Batman villains have a particular psychological quirk underlying their gimmick, and Black Mask is just kind of a generic mobster who wears a skull mask sometimes.

 

I can't see Joker ever wanting to bodyswap with Batman a la Superior Spider-Man simply because he loves being the Joker too much. That said, there was an episode of The Batman where he wore a Batman costume and tried to take over the role while poisoning Batman to turn him into his own Joker, but that show kinda sucked.

[Red2111]

Joker didn't paralyze Batgirl, he paralyzed Barbara Gordon. Same person, yes, but the distinction is critical because he targeted her because of her relationship to Jim Gordon, not Batman. That was in The Killing Joke, one of the storylines adapted into The Dark Knight, and Gordon was the one he was trying to drive into madness. He failed, incidentally. That wasn't even supposed to be a canon storyline except that the editors at DC liked the storytelling possibilities it opened for Barbara.

you're waxing semantics by making a distinction between Barbara and Bat Girl. they're one in the same. (and seeing as we have a Barbra Gordon in this show and Bat Girl is a different character with the same name, i use Bat Girl to distinguish between characters for the benefit of anyone reading along and to eliminate any un-needed clarification)

 

any person Joker aimed at hurting always had a tie to Batman. Gordon was Batmans only alley in the police force, by hurting Gordon the Joker also hurts Batman. its a means to an end but with the Joker it always came back to "how will this affect the Bat".

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what the in-story reason was for beating Jason Todd to (almost) death with a crowbar, other than that he could, but the only real reason it happened was because the readers hated Jason.

because he was the Bat's side kick and had a connection to Batman was enough.

 

 

Other than that, most instances of Joker targeting someone he knows to be close to Batman are in adaptational media (The Dark Knight is notable, and Joker was trying to ruin Batman and Harvey Dent both, and not just through Rachel). Honestly, that behavior is closer to Bane or Hush than Joker in most cases. The vast majority of the time, Joker is just doing things because they're fun, and Batman is the most fun to play with. He has almost never cared about Batman's moral code as much as his grim facade.

again you're arguing sematics re Batmans code versus the Joker messing with him. the only reason the Bat is fun to mess with is because his Moral code is directly against the things the Joker finds most fun. and the fact that messign with Bat's and aiming to break him is the most fun thing in Gotham means the Joker will fixate on that because it brigns him the most pleasure and fun. its semantics Reyler.

 

 

and this argument is becoming circular. agree to disagree since our INTERPRETATIONS of a character neither one of us created seem to be at an impass.

 

 

I'm not sure where you're getting any of your information about Scarecrow, quite honestly. Hugo Strange, for one thing, has absolutely nothing to do with his background, and Sandman is a Spider-Man villain (unless you're referring to the Neil Gaiman series DC put out, in which case you're still enormously off base). His entire origin was rooted in his being an ugly skinny loser who got off on being able to wreck his physical superiors (the power over others I was referring to) with artifically induced fear. He was a psychology professor at a university until he got fired for experimenting on his students, and decided to "make them all pay", as it were. That's literally all there is to him.

in both the "Terror" story arc and the 1986 re-boot Scarecrow works with Strange. in the 86 arc he becomes a leading psychiatrist at the Asylum and teaches as a professor at the local university where he mentors the guy who becomes Hush (who later cameo's in an issue of Sandman; so i got the character mixed up on that one).

 

in the Terror story arc, Strange breaks Scarecrow our of prison and uses him as a tool against Batman. Scarecrow ends up killing Strange

 

he may have always started off as a skinny little punk, but his arc has went more than the way your asserting

 

 

Arkham as a district of the greater Gotham area was in the episode you're referring to, episode 4 "Arkham". The called it Arkham City as a shoutout to the game, although there were no other similarities beyond it being the most run-down part of the city. The long-defunct Asylum was supposed to be replaced with a new state-of-the-art care facility as a centerpiece of the urban renewal project, but the power plays between Falcone and Maroni ended up in a compromise where both men got part of the real estate and the existing Asylum was just going to be slightly retrofitted and pressed back into service as-is, with little else ultimately changing other than the mob getting richer.

yep i re-watched this episode last night with Bubba so he can get caught up to where i was at, and we watched the Venom episode as well.

 

Arkham is a district, but until that point the only thing in that district was the Asylum, so again i think this is semantics trying to make a distinguished between the land mass and the only structure on said land mass.

 

Arkham Asylum predates the game franchise and has been a long standing well used and referred to place in the comics and a well used plot point for many of batmans villains. i disagree with you writing it off as a mere "shout out to the game"

 

 

 

As to the criticism of Gotham as a Garfield Minus Garfield situation, yes, it is unfair, but more because the show is not explicitly Batman's origin story; not in the way Smallville was supposed to be Superman Before Superman. The premise is right there in the name; it's the city's origin story, the story of how the city came to be in the state that Batman was the only answer to its problems. If it were supposed to be Batman's origin, Bruce would be the primary focus, not Gordon. That said, the producers aren't doing themselves any favors by constantly calling forward to Bat-O'Clock to say you should care about the show more for where it's eventually going to be (if it gets there) rather than for where it is now.

^ agree 100%

 

 

i for one enjoy the show for what its worth and where its at.

 

 

I am horribly disappointed to learn that Tommy Elliot is going to exist in this show, mostly because Hush is a terrible character originating in a terrible story penned by a terrible writer, and it was bad enough having them put him in the Arkham games. Black Mask will also have some sort of setup as well, it seems, and him I can take or leave. All the best Batman villains have a particular psychological quirk underlying their gimmick, and Black Mask is just kind of a generic mobster who wears a skull mask sometimes.

agreed, but Hush also lends more to following the Scarecrow's 1986 re-boot plot line. which means we'll likely see Strange casted in this series as well.

 

 

what i most like is that their keeping to the "realastic" villains in the series rather than throwing in the ones with mutant like powers (Kroc for instance, while a great villain (and a play off the sewer alligators myth of NYC) is not a realistic villain to have, as something like him is not likely to exist IRL.

 

 

I can't see Joker ever wanting to bodyswap with Batman a la Superior Spider-Man simply because he loves being the Joker too much. That said, there was an episode of The Batman where he wore a Batman costume and tried to take over the role while poisoning Batman to turn him into his own Joker, but that show kinda sucked.

^ this.

[SinisterDeath]

you're waxing semantics by making a distinction between Barbara and Bat Girl. they're one in the same. (and seeing as we have a Barbra Gordon in this show and Bat Girl is a different character with the same name, i use Bat Girl to distinguish between characters for the benefit of anyone reading along and to eliminate any un-needed clarification)

 

But Barbara Gordon was also named after her mother.. So its not bat girl in this show, but her mother.. or at least the person she was named after.

[Red2111]

 

you're waxing semantics by making a distinction between Barbara and Bat Girl. they're one in the same. (and seeing as we have a Barbra Gordon in this show and Bat Girl is a different character with the same name, i use Bat Girl to distinguish between characters for the benefit of anyone reading along and to eliminate any un-needed clarification)

But Barbara Gordon was also named after her mother.. So its not bat girl in this show, but her mother.. or at least the person she was named after.

 

which is the exact reason i said Bat Girl in reference to who the Joker maimed.

 

i called it semantics because Reyler decided to lecture me about using Bat Girl instead of Barbra

 

 

*thwaps SD for trying to troll me and proving my point at the same time*

[SinisterDeath]

Well.. you could just call her Barbara Gordon (Aka bat Girl)

[Red2111]

Well.. you could just call her Barbara Gordon (Aka bat Girl)

 

 

meh, too much effort. 

 

 

you're lucky i dont just type BG ... but then BG might come in here and be all like "the joker didn't maim me, say what." 

[Basel Gill]

 

Well.. you could just call her Barbara Gordon (Aka bat Girl)

 

 

 

meh, too much effort. 

 

 

you're lucky i dont just type BG ... but then BG might come in here and be all like "the joker didn't maim me, say what." 

Yeah, I never got maimed.

[reyler]

Yeah, I never got maimed.

 

This is like shining the reyler-signal into the night sky, just a heads up.

[Basel Gill]

 

Also I doubt the Wayne murderer will end up being Joker; for one thing he was too heavy of build. Also if he's not going to be Joe Chill, it's better thematically that he remain nobody, and for the same reason as why it works better thematically if the Joker has no origin.

 

Isn't the Joker, like scarecrow, supposed to be around Bruce's age? 

That said.. There's no reason they couldn't introduce the Red Hood... Probably revealed/dispatched much the same way they took out Joe Chill, and revealed who his daughter will become.

 

Joe Chill hasn't been in it yet as I recall , save as a nameless, unidentified mugger that killed the Waynes. By your context, you seem to be confusing Joe Chill with Mario Pepper. Pepper did get dispatched, but he wasn't the real killer. As for his daughter, Pepper 's daughter is clearly meant to be the future Poison Ivy, but I wouldn't go so far to call that a reveal... more like a hint. All we have to go on is one brief mention of her first name being Ivy, and the character hasn't been in it beyond the single scene IIRC, and her real name isn't consistent with canon anyway, so either that's a departure from canon or a total red herring.