TheHunkWonder's forum posts

Avatar image for thehunkwonder
TheHunkWonder

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Okay... screw me, then....

Avatar image for thehunkwonder
TheHunkWonder

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Hey, all. Nice thread you've got going on here. I've only watched the first couple of episodes (I can watch the rest and give a fully informed opinion), but from what I've seen I don't really like or enjoy it. I understand that it is meant to be a crime/drama show and not about Batman... I still don't find it a show that I would watch if it weren't for the DC characters (and I don't watch it even then; I just keep putting off the time to watch the rest).

But I have a question for all of you. Hypothetically speaking, how could they make a better show? If Fox and DC decided that they were going to cancel Gotham and make a reboot (they'll own up for their mistakes and all to make everyone feel better. I'm sure people will throw fists, but it's better to just admit it and restart the right way than keep a dead dog on the leash), this time making it a Batman show, how would it be the best superhero show ever? Please put away any comments about "this isn't a Batman show," or "DC would never risk such a big cash cow like Batman on TV;" I just want to ask how it would work in a hypothetical, perfect world. What I see is a show that is more of an all-encompassing chronology of Batman (and, eventually, the Bat Family), but that is extremely updated. Very similar to the route that the Arkham series went, where instead of only putting in things that would happen in real life (like the Nolan Trilogy), they figured out ways to make EVERY piece of history work in the real world, simply updating history to respect it (like Robin).

That being said, one of the biggest issues I hear people talk about is the length of the show. A lot of people say that it should be like Daredevil and Breaking Bad, in which it was one story arc every season over the course of about 13 episodes, as opposed to about 20 with more of an episodic style. Although DD and BB are two of my favorite shows, I believe this is a huge mistake. The reason being because it is much too fast and doesn't give any ability to show everything they've been through (plus one story arc is more susceptible to "filler episodes," which we saw in both). I didn't see any villains other than Fisk's ring of five or so, and there is so much history in Daredevil that we could have seen, even if it was all worked into one plot. With the time length, it really took me out of it because there is no way that I could believe that either show's seasons lasted for more than a month or two. So what happens when they make the second season? It either takes off right from the last (like BB, which took me out of it because they still had flip-phones in the fifth season), or they do a very big time jump and just say that the first season was Year One and they just "did they same thing they've been doing for another 10 months," which would get a lot of flack because it's so much potential wasted and lazily thrown in as "nothing important happened k bye." This leads to either a lot of suspension of disbelief or a very short career in crime fighting (Even Batman in the Dark Knight Trilogy was Batman for a combined total of a year and a couple months if you think about it, which is something I hate about the Trilogy). And, obviously, having it be episodic gets a little tedious after a while, as much as I like the Flash, Arrow, and Smallville. This is why I think that a 20 episode season with an overarching seasonal major plot intertwined with a minor subplot (the minor subplot born and maturing each episode, i.e. a villain introduced and taken out or just introduced) is the best way to go. It definitely worked with The Blacklist (Berlin and the Fulcrum being the major plots of the first two seasons, while every episode has a new FBI's most wanted criminal introduced and taken out), and takes care of the problems that I listed above. For instance, Season One would be Year One-esque with the mob being tackled every episode, but in every episode there's a villain who shows up like Zsasz or Anarky or whoever. What do you all think? (and sorry for the wall of text. Hey, I'm chatty; it's part of my charm.)

Avatar image for thehunkwonder
TheHunkWonder

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By TheHunkWonder

@rdclip: You are absolutely right. 10 years is extremely difficult to fit all of the history in. I also think that 15-20 years is about the time it would take for his career. Even in www.therealbatmanchronologyproject.com it estimates post-crisis-pre-New-52 tenure as 23 years. But also, I forgot to mention that in these parameters I'm giving (honestly, it's my headcanon and I'm just stuck on the early years), not all of the stories are canon. In the timeline, only the major stories (Year 1, Long Halloween, Death in the Family, Knightfall, etc.) are there, yet if they cross over each other, the minor points are somewhat... changed in order to work. More modernized than retconned. Mostly to fit the realistic tone. This would include the Robins being around 15-17 when they start (other than Damian, of course) and ultimately maturing into their real personas at 18 or 19 (similar to the New 52, but not forced to be compressed to a few months with Batman before setting out on their own. Instead, they get a couple years in). So with that in mind, what would the better year for Batman to have a Robin? Year 2 or 3?

Avatar image for thehunkwonder
TheHunkWonder

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Hey, all. New user here. Have no idea if I'm doing this whole category thing correctly, so sorry if I look like a noob here.

Anyway, I was thinking about a Batman chronology the other day, as I usually start my Mondays, and I kept going over and over in my mind when Batman should take on a Robin. Specifically, I'm trying to figure out in a career that spans 10 years, when would be the year that Bruce takes Dick on to be Robin? Usually in chronology, Bruce is understood to have been fighting alone (with Alfred) for his first 2 years (Arkham Origins; Batman Years 1, 2, and 3; etc.) before picking up Dick Grayson as Robin in his third. This really does make a lot of sense, and is even the absolute minimum of Batman taking on the first Robin in a limitless career chronology.

However, if one were to limit the entire career of Batman to 10 years -- let's say he puts the cowl on in the first year and puts it to rest at the end of the tenth -- when exactly would it be the best time for him to pick up Dick Grayson as Robin? Let's put aside canon and canonical years for a second (merge Year One with other early stories, etc.). What got me thinking about this was watching the Flash and Arrow and learning that they would both have their sidekicks in their second season. See, if we were to have a Batman show and all 3 lasted 10 seasons (just assume for the sake of comparison), would it be a good idea to have Robin in Season 2? The pros would be that it would work with the compressed 10 years and that it gets the rest of the chronology all catalyzed (assume that the other members of the BatFam will have their stories in the 10 years, just like on a 10 season show). The cons are, obviously, that it would take the focus way off of Batman quicker than if he was introduced after 20% of the timeline, and may seem a little rushed. Even after watching Flash and Arrow and being huge fans of Roy and Wally, I still felt like they had just become superheroes and that it was less of an Arrow or Flash show and more of an ArrowFam or FlashFam show.

Yet, with Batman, containing 7+ characters of near sequential order and decades of history, I feel like Dick would have to arrive in Year 2 and spin it as "his parents up and got killed with terrible timing so Bruce didn't really have a choice other than to let him into the fold." Because if we were to leave an arbitrary year off during the tenth year for everything to close up the tenure, by my calculations the time that we're in right now (what would be the New 52 era) would be the 8 or 9th year. So Robin would kind of need to be Year 2. It's just that it conflicts with having only Bruce as Batman for his first two years. See what I'm saying? And in case you were wondering, I chose 10 years as the limit because, although I like the idea of a long 20-year career under the cowl, it is much more realistic to have it be about 10 years [and have the Dark Knight Returns be doable (yes, I know it's not canon)], and compares perfectly with the Flash and Arrow shows. For anyone who still thinks the career should be longer than that, I feel ya... but I just want to keep it to 10.