Gotham Showrunner on Batman: He's Not "A Fun Character"

Gotham Showrunner on Batman: He's Not "A Fun Character"

Fox Gotham Showrunner Bruno Heller thinks Bruce Wayne should be a lot more "traumatized" and is not "a fun character."

It's hard to argue that there's been a lot of versions on how Batman -- and Bruce Wayne -- has been interpreted both on-screen and in the comics. But even so, Fox is doling out its own version of the Dark Knight in its "Gotham" TV series, that will not only focus on a young James Gordon (before he was the commissioner), but will also introduce a young Bruce Wayne. Speaking to IGN, Gotham showrunner Bruno Heller (The Mentalist, Rome) was asked how he's figuring out how much hints to show viewers of the Batman Bruce will eventually become, since he can't go that far ahead in the TV series' timeline.

Well, it's really about telling the true story of how someone might become the Batman. The psychological truth of that is that he'd be a lot more damaged and a lot more traumatized and a lot more strange than some visions of how that character would be. It's a dark character, and it's a character under pressure. So to that degree, as much as I hate to say it, he's not a fun character, as you might imagine. It's not a tale of triumph. It's a tale of redemption.

While it sounds like Heller is putting his own spin on Batman's origins, which we've seen countless times, you have to admit, it does sound a bit intriguing. I don't know anyone who's experienced what Bruce went through in his origin story, but if ever that happened to anyone, I suspect they'll be a bit more traumatized compared to how Bruce's been shown before. Then again, the fact that Bruce is mostly shown as this maniacal and obsessed individual is also another way to highlight how damaged he must be.

Are you looking forward to Heller's interpretation of Bruce Wayne in Gotham? Or should he adapt it the same way Christopher Nolan (Dark Knight trilogy) or Frank Miller (Batman: Year One) did in their respective versions?

Source: IGN

Permalink

Alex Co:

Are you looking forward to Heller's interpretation of Batman in Gotham?

Will Batman even be present in Gotham? It says it'll introduce a "young Bruce Wayne". AFAIK, there is no "young Batman". The only Batman I've ever seen is an adult.

Houseman:

Alex Co:

Are you looking forward to Heller's interpretation of Batman in Gotham?

Will Batman even be present in Gotham? It says it'll introduce a "young Bruce Wayne". AFAIK, there is no "young Batman". The only Batman I've ever seen is an adult.

Damnit! That should have said Bruce Wayne. Fixed and thanks. :)

Alex Co:
Fixed and thanks. :)

If you're looking for fixes, you can also do this one:

also another way to highlight how damage he must be.

OT: I haven't seem much of Young Bruce, besides the beginning of Batman Begins, so sure, bring it on.

That's the first thing that came to mind.

Man, I absolutely loved Nolan's movies, but I think the whole "dark, brooding" Batman needs a bit of a break.

At first I thought this was a terrible idea, I mean, Bruce Wayne is one of the blandest, most uninteresting hero's out there. Then I thought, well it's mostly because the focus is never on him. So this might actually be an interesting and entertaining show. I suppose I'll give it a go, but they need someone damn good to play Alfred.

EHKOS:
At first I thought this was a terrible idea, I mean, Bruce Wayne is one of the blandest, most uninteresting hero's out there. Then I thought, well it's mostly because the focus is never on him. So this might actually be an interesting and entertaining show. I suppose I'll give it a go, but they need someone damn good to play Alfred.

Whoever plays Alfred will most likely decide whether the Bruce angle is actually worth watching or not I feel. As it stands however, I don't give a shit about Bruce, this show isn't supposed to be about Batman or the Wayne family, it's supposed to be about Gordon and corrupt Gotham, but they keep showing more and more that makes me think they're going to have massive timeskips mid episode to the Batman era with the show itself being little more than a flashback what with half of his iconic Rogue Gallery having center stage.

Um...how would this be different? Dark, brooding and unhinged have pretty much defined Batman for the past few decades. Hell, it's become so ubiquitous for the character that it's entered the realm of self-parody.

It's part of the reason why I liked Batman: The Brave and the Bold. It was nice to take a break from "doom 'n gloom" Batman in favor of a more lighthearted incarnation reminiscent of the wacky Silver Age.

Oh boy. It's yet another joyless adolescent "grimdark" take on Batman to add to the growing pile of infantile, pretentious bullshit.

I blame Frank Miller for this.

I blame Frank Miller for most things, come to think of it.

EHKOS:
At first I thought this was a terrible idea, I mean, Bruce Wayne is one of the blandest, most uninteresting hero's out there. Then I thought, well it's mostly because the focus is never on him. So this might actually be an interesting and entertaining show. I suppose I'll give it a go, but they need someone damn good to play Alfred.

Sean Pertwee is going to be Alfred.

I've always seen young Bruce as a quiet brooding introvert. He never truly brings out the grief he felt for his parents' death until he reaches adulthood. So I suspect that he may start out this way but maybe Selena breaks him out of his shell or something.

Reaper195:

SKBPinkie:
Man, I absolutely loved Nolan's movies, but I think the whole "dark, brooding" Batman needs a bit of a break.

Batman has always been like that, especially in the comics. Not to much in the cartoons, or the TV show with Adam West.

Pretty sure the Batman comics of the 50's and 60's would disagree with you. To my knowledge, Adam West's Batman even pulled stories straight from the comics.

Or maybe these covers are more dark and brooding than I realize:

image

Anyway, I agree with the sentiment that the dark stuff has been done to death already, but on the other hand I haven't seen much focus on Bruce Wayne as a child... so while I have absolutely zero faith in the show from what I've already heard about it ("Ivy Pepper" and so on), I've got no real objections when it comes to their plans for Bruce.

Gee, a dark brooding tortured batman.

How unique.

Can't believe no one has ever thought of that before.

/sigh

In other news: "Gotham showrunner on sky: it is blue".

Batman is overexposed. Can I have something Superman-related and good for a change?

rag on it all ya want, that's the point of Bruce Wayne; he's not really a character about being lighthearted or "fun." It's why the best interpretations of him have always been on the more grim and serious side. Ya don't exactly see The Man With No Name or Michael Corleone as being "fun" characters.

RealRT:
In other news: "Gotham showrunner on sky: it is blue".

Batman is overexposed. Can I have something Superman-related and good for a change?

You had ten years of Smallville, isn't that enough? Granted it wasn't good, but the more I find out about this show, the more and more it sounds like it's gonna be the Batman version of it.

Redryhno:

RealRT:
In other news: "Gotham showrunner on sky: it is blue".

Batman is overexposed. Can I have something Superman-related and good for a change?

You had ten years of Smallville, isn't that enough? Granted it wasn't good, but the more I find out about this show, the more and more it sounds like it's gonna be the Batman version of it.

Well "good" is the keyword here. We also had Man of Steel last year and it sucked.

The gritty reboot thing did kind of work for batman seeing as he has that sad childhood backstory.

That said, I hate to break this to you, but he's a rich guy who dresses up like a bat and uses bat shaped weaponry to fight a psychotic clown and a scarecrow.

All you need to do is add buzz lightyear and some bouncy balls and we have toy story 4.

Well, the first thing that came to my mind was "Oh shit! I better TIVO this right away!" Then, out of the blue, I find out that the Adam West Batman series is running on IFC... Guess which one I decided to auto-record afterwards?

Other that that, I'm actually pretty meh on this whole Gotham series anyway... Sure, I'll still check it out when it comes out... However, just like with the return of 24, I probably won't be keeping too much tabs on it to say if watching it was worth it or not...

RealRT:

Redryhno:

RealRT:
In other news: "Gotham showrunner on sky: it is blue".

Batman is overexposed. Can I have something Superman-related and good for a change?

You had ten years of Smallville, isn't that enough? Granted it wasn't good, but the more I find out about this show, the more and more it sounds like it's gonna be the Batman version of it.

Well "good" is the keyword here. We also had Man of Steel last year and it sucked.

I agree. And while I keep hearing that Smallville eventually got good...I don't know if I would call it "must see." As it stands, I may watch it out of curiosity; but even still, I intend to skip seasons worth of content to derive any enjoyment out of it.

Back to Batman: "While it sounds like Heller is putting his own spin on Batman's origins, which we've seen countless times, you have to admit, it does sound a bit intriguing."

No, to me this sounds more like sour grapes...a justification for the exclusion of the most important (aspect of) a character in the universe being shown. While I am sure it will be interesting to see the "origins" of all the eventual Arkham Inmates...I can't help feeling that the show will simply be lacking too much for me to find it compelling.

I will gladly be proven wrong...but history tells me this will not be the case (Smallville and similar such comics being my proof).

I don't quite get the point of this show. This could be any kind of generic crime drama with Bat-Egg (it's like an Easter Egg but darker, broodier, and countless millions of people practically fall into paroxysms of ecstasy whenever the merest hint of it is mentioned) plastered all over it. We're not getting the twisted, larger-than-life stuff here. If I want gritty, character-driven crime drama I can go watch any number of other shows and not have to deal with the foul taste of Bat getting into everything.

OT: Nothing very original about their take on Wayne. The recipe doesn't vary, just the proportion of ingredients. If they're going to be focusing on the traumatized child angle, so be it, but I'd almost rather see how having a doting father figure like Alfred fails to stop a traumatized Bruce from becoming a hobo-beating basement dwelling psycho. I'd rather not see the redemption so much as the failure in this case, the underlying message that becoming Batman wasn't necessarily the right path to take. That story, with the desperate Gotham PD facing a rising tide of crime borne by people who will become monsters given the right catalyst, would be one I'd watch.

No joke? It's been YEARS with the exact same "SO DARK/GRITTY" aspect of Batman being the ONE thing WB can even think of that it even made'em affect the Superman movie, and while I couldn't care any less about Superman, seeing the "SO REALISTIC/SAD" part of it just made me laugh.

We already got a "realistic/serious" take on the "universe" WB is trying to create, and it started falling apart by the end of the second/start of the third movie, why try to push that on every single thing? Especially when you don't even have an actually good base for anything they're trying to do.

"This is a serious take on everything Batman BUT without Batman" yeah... no thanks, that let's us with what exactly? A Sopranos/Law & Order wannabe?

Drake Barrow:
I don't quite get the point of this show. This could be any kind of generic crime drama with Bat-Egg (it's like an Easter Egg but darker, broodier, and countless millions of people practically fall into paroxysms of ecstasy whenever the merest hint of it is mentioned) plastered all over it.

And that's exactly why, cuz because of the mere mention of "Batman" on this, it will sell at least for a while, and it sounds pretty much like what they're looking for.

Aiddon:
rag on it all ya want, that's the point of Bruce Wayne; he's not really a character about being lighthearted or "fun." It's why the best interpretations of him have always been on the more grim and serious side.

Really? I always thought the point of Bruce Wayne is that he is known for being a millionaire playboy. Playing the part of a rich idiot who got his inheritance through his parents' deaths with a string of different women in his arm every night but never the same each time.

And that's the main bit, that its a part he is playing to throw off suspicion. Ironicallyamiusingitrite?, his real self plays the facade for his costumed alter ego. Eventually he starts seeing the dark knight as his "real" side more and more each day.

There, you step away from the overused Grim and Angsty character yet still allow use of dark storytelling.

I was interested, because I thought the whole point of this series was that it wasn't going to focus on Bruce Wayne. That said, though, I might give it a chance IF, and only if, at some point Alfred gives Bruce a nice hard slap across the face for wallowing in his misery.

Well I'd argue that they shouldn't show much of Bruce Wayne at all, since this show was supposed to be "not a Batman show."

I mean, it makes sense that Bruce Wayne would be a fucked up kid, so I'm actually interested to see that, I just hope that this announcement doesn't mean we'll be seeing him every single episode.

Oh, yay, another generation of grim, joyless Batman.

I think I need to binge-watch "Brave & the Bold" to clear my palate.

captcha: beer in a bottle

Maybe a couple of those, too.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here