JasonC Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Wow. Just. Well. If I wasn't before, I'm in now. All the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davedevil Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 I'm ready for it. Wish we saw Alfred in the trailer tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 It's nice to see a different take on the story, but after decades of movies, video games, and cartoons I have Batman fatigue. Where is the Booster Gold show? How about The Question? The fact that this a Batman show without Batman in it is going to turn people off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Looks awesome. I was skeptical when I saw some of the villain casting, but I am pretty darn excited here. Just keep the Joker miles away from this, and I'm sold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 You must live in an alternate universe that is, to our world, what the Land of Oz was to black-and-white Kansas. Were that a trailer for a Chris Nolan Batman movie, then your argument might be spot-on, but this is a made-for-web trailer thrown together using footage from a pilot. If that looks like "shit," then your standards are pretty friggin' insane. Fargo just aired recently, it looks like a film every week. Breaking Bad, House of Cards, Game of Thrones, etc. all look wonderful. This looks like an online production. Look at those examples I gave above, there is now way in hell you are fooled by that awful bar set or those painfully obvious digital blood squirts. This is supposed to be a big city and every street scene had no more that a couple people. The Heroes pilot had a lot of street scenes and it looked like friggin NYC, I really don't get how I'm the only one seeing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 ...It's the pilot. You get what a pilot is, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 This show has been picked up for two seasons and this pilot will serve as the first episode of the show. Are you saying the rest of the series will look radically different from this pilot? Am I missing something? Generally pilots have a slightly higher budget than the average episode of a TV show anyway. So this pilot argument isn't making much sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted May 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Not always. Some pilots do but they rarely have the same budget. The network and the production company pony up some but rarely as much as when the series gets picked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Pilots vary radically in terms of quality. Some have way higher production value, and some have much lower value. But for what it's worth, Gareth, I don't see that bar as being terribly unreal-looking, and I don't think it's a crime that there were some shots with a sparse city street. Who knows; there could actually be a reason for that, or it could be that they cleared the street for filming for secrecy's sake. (they did have problems with spy photos after all) And things like the digital blood likely won't be final. CG effects are often not actually made to professional standards when shown to TV execs, and only upgraded later on when the episode is going to air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Shit. It's likely not even finished color correction. But, by all means, let's shit all over something that is a minute and a half long representation of what a season of television is supposed to look like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Shit. It's likely not even finished color correction. But, by all means, let's shit all over something that is a minute and a half long representation of what a season of television is supposed to look like. Ten posts by people saying this looks incredible and then I say it doesn't look so incredible and now suddenly I'm the one making the rash judgement? My God it's like everyone's taking this personally. Do you not know the purpose of a trailer? It's to give you a representation of what the show will be like. It's not the color correction that I have a problem with, it's the already filmed scenes that were in the trailer that I can promise you will not be redone. I'm sorry but there's no good support behind these posts except to attack the fact that I don't think the show looks well made. The scenes in the trailer are finished and just because they're taken from the first episode doesn't give them any special privileges to look bad, I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 You didn't say "it doesn't look so incredible," you shit all over it. That looks so cheap! The sets are tiny, very few extras, and awful TV lighting. I mean look at that scene in the bar, that's so weeknight TV it hurts. A busy city street is illustrated by one car driving past and one guy the sidewalk, I know this has a limited budget but come on! However, nothing beats the hilariously bad blood splatter when Bruce's parents are shot, I'm 99% sure thats the plug-in effect on Windows Movie-Maker. If the writing and acting are good hopefully it will suck me in but as far as production quality, this looks like shit. There were three posts after the trailer and before your post I quoted above. Two said it looked "good" and one said they will "watch it weekly." NOBODY said it looked incredible. The reaction was rather ho-hum and even-handed as far as comic-related stuff is usually concerned. That is, until your post. Who's taking this personally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Seems like you took everything I said as literally as you could, so let me clear it up: I didn't shit all over it, I gave several example of poor sets, effects, etc. displayed in the trailer followed by an "If the writing and acting are good hopefully it will suck me in." If anything that's a somewhat level-handed reaction regarding everything but the visuals. As long as we're quoting people there was a "Looks awesome," "Damn that looks great," "Goddamn....that looks good," "watching that weekly" "Wow. Just. Well." etc. I would not classify that reaction as "ho-hum" by any means whatsoever. ​I imagine you read my response as "shitting all over it," as you like to say, because I backed-up my statement with specific evidence from the trailer rather than just saying it doesn't look great. Whenever I said "look's like shit" I literally meant looks, doesn't look visually like a quality production, as far as I could tell the acting and writing seem quite good. Finally just to reiterate, everyone's jumping on me for making rash judgments, but look at your comments, you are making judgments just as rash only difference is you are all focusing on the positives. Oh, and I didn't say, why is everyone taking this personally? I said "it's like everyone's taking this personally" referring to the reactions to my criticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Excellent. Point clarified. We can all move on now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 With all that out of the way, where's Big G's mustache? Someone had to say it... Also in the comics is Bullock older than Gordon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted May 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 My own personal opinion: a mustache on it's own without a beard looks good on no one. Done incorrectly, you look like a creep or it gets referred to as a porn-stache. Is it an iconic part of the character design? Mostly but then 60's Gordon didn't have one. If they give him one, don't do it right away. When a solo-mustache is done correctly, we're talking mid-30s at earliest without it looking dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davedevil Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/05/08/gotham-interview/ Some more info on the series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 My own personal opinion: a mustache on it's own without a beard looks good on no one. Done incorrectly, you look like a creep or it gets referred to as a porn-stache. Is it an iconic part of the character design? Mostly but then 60's Gordon didn't have one. If they give him one, don't do it right away. When a solo-mustache is done correctly, we're talking mid-30s at earliest without it looking dumb. Gordon from Sesame Street begs to differ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donomark Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 With all that out of the way, where's Big G's mustache? Someone had to say it... Also in the comics is Bullock older than Gordon? Nope. Slightly younger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Cory Michael Smith (The Riddler), Victoria Cartagena (Renee Montoya) and Andrew Stewart-Jones (Crispus Allen) have been made series regulars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 My own personal opinion: a mustache on it's own without a beard looks good on no one. Done incorrectly, you look like a creep or it gets referred to as a porn-stache. Is it an iconic part of the character design? Mostly but then 60's Gordon didn't have one. If they give him one, don't do it right away. When a solo-mustache is done correctly, we're talking mid-30s at earliest without it looking dumb. Gordon from Sesame Street begs to differ. Isn't it called Coronation Street over there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pan-dub Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 My own personal opinion: a mustache on it's own without a beard looks good on no one. Done incorrectly, you look like a creep or it gets referred to as a porn-stache. Is it an iconic part of the character design? Mostly but then 60's Gordon didn't have one. If they give him one, don't do it right away. When a solo-mustache is done correctly, we're talking mid-30s at earliest without it looking dumb. Gordon from Sesame Street begs to differ. Isn't it called Coronation Street over there? Totally. Here's our version of Elmo: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted June 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=islRZ_ygKk8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Huh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Penguin looks pretty good in that, whereas Selina Kyle and whoever t'other woman was didn't have much to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.