Gotham sounded like a goofy-ass idea from the beginning—like Smallville, basically, but without any of the fun parts. And now that it's been going for a few weeks, I'm torn: On one hand, I really like Batman stuff, because Batman! So I should check it out, right? On the other hand, a show like Gotham—which, 10 years ago, would've hooked me with its concept alone—now has to make a much better pitch to justify my time. Not only has TV gotten dramatically better, but there's no shortage of high-quality comic book stuff out there—when even Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. can't manage to make anyone give a single fuck (Bobby, bravely and foolishly, stayed onboard that crashing helicarrier far longer than I did), the bar seems pretty high. (Hell, I haven't even watched Arrow yet, and that's a superhero show people seem to actually like.) So when Gotham premiered, I sat back and waited to see what people thought.
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN USELESS. On one hand, my boss'squealing enthusiasm for the show refuses to dim, and, as far as I can tell, it shall never stop echoing throughout Mercury HQ:
If you loved Chris Nolan's dark-as-pitch version of Batman, then check out this prequel, in which a young Jim Gordon (The O.C.'s Ben McKenzie!!) pursues the murderer who killed young Bruce Wayne's parents, while nearly drowning in a city filled with corruption. Check out glimpses of young Penguin, Catwoman, The Riddler and other pubescent baddies, and keep those SQUEEEEs of delight down to a dull roar. Can't wait!
On the other hand, Devin Faraci's brutal takedown of Gotham at Badass Digest has him coldly assassinating the show after only three episodes:
There’s a fine line between campy goodness and cartoonish badness, and Gotham clearly has no idea where that line is drawn. What’s doubly troubling about the show’s tone is that it’s only going to get cartoonier—this is the third episode and we have assassination by weather balloon, so where is the series going to go as it hits multiple seasons? By the time Batman shows up the show will be a full-on Schumacherian gigglefest.
And somewhere in the shrug-inducing middle is Mike Hale's take in The New York Times:
Judged among this fall’s group of new television shows, the pilot for Fox’s Gotham... stands out for what it has: a distinctive look, a dash of style, a collection of slightly exaggerated but convincing performances. People who come to it because of its Batman connection, though, are likely to focus on what it doesn’t have, which is a costumed hero.
If they stick around, they can see whether the series continues to pull off the trick of being credible as both a more or less straight-ahead crime drama (its essential structure) and a glossy comic-book adaptation (its marketing mandate).
BAH. CRITICS! WHAT DO ANY OF THEM KNOW? I reject them, Blogtown readers, and I trust you. Have you seen this Gotham business? Vote below and tell me if I should check it out, or if my bat-time is better spent just playing Arkham City for the 4,00th time. not only do I value your insights, but I deeply appreciate your service regarding this urgent matter.