Gotham continues to be on quite the roll on Fox. It's resonating with both comic book fans and mainstream audiences in a way that comic book adapted shows haven't seen in quite some time. Creator and Executive Producer Bruno Heller talked with CBR about the show and where fans can expect it to go.

During the interview, Heller was asked about whether the rest of the season would be "costume-free," Heller responded:

there's going to be an episode that involves the Red Hood, which picks up that strand, the costume strand, and sort of gives a kind of philosophical base, if that's not too pretentious a word. Why costumes? What's the power of costumes? What's the power of a mask? All of that groundwork will be laid sort of culturally for that side of the DC Universe before we start rolling into the more spectacular spandex type of deal.

Heller mentions that since the show was picked up for a second season, they are always looking towards the future and they are in no hurry to have characters jump into costume. Does that mean that Red Hood won't appear until the second season or will we see him towards the tail end of the first season? From the sounds of it, Red Hood may be at the end of the first season, but at least we know for sure he'll be in the show.

What do you want out of Gotham when it comes to Red Hood?

Interesting, but after Snyder's story I don't think I can like any story that doesn't have nonbatman Bruce vs Red Hood. When dealing with this era.

I don't want the Red Hood to be in Gotham at all (or Gotham to even exist anymore, thought that's an entirely different conversation). If the Joker's supposed "origins" are not linked to Batman in some way than his character loses a major chunk of his appeal. One of the big things about the Joker, from a psychological standpoint, is that his arch-nemesis had a direct impact on his creation if we assume that his origin as far as the fall into chemicals is actually true, which we don't know for sure. It would cheapen the dynamic between himself and Batman if anyone other than Batman (including a young Bruce Wayne) were to take his place.

To put it simply, I don't want him in the show and I'm looking forward to seeing just how much they ruin the character by trying to impose their own silly, pointless changes onto it.

CHARACTER OVERLOAD!! CHARACTER OVERLOAD!!

PULL BACK! PULL BACK!

This show is getting way to out of hand with name drops, character teases, future set ups, cameos, references and every other small detail I'm missing.

This is about Red Hood and most likely the start of the Red Hood gang. No where is there mention of the Joker.

If you believe the origin that the leader of the Red Hood became the Joker (personally, I like my Joker origin to be a little bit more non-existent, to make him more mysterious), in this universe, that doesn't mean he started the Red Hood gang. The version of Black Mask we saw on this show is not the Black Mask from the comics and maybe, someday, it's his son that takes over the role.

A character cannot be ruined on a television show when it's not technically canon in the comics. That version only exists in that universe. You could put Joker in a Stilt-man costume on Gotham and have him be a travelling Bible salesman. Is he ruined? Nope. That's just the adapted version of him that exists in that universe. Is it stupid? Hell yes. It's like saying Red Son Superman ruined Superman because he's from Russia and communist.

@fattytravy:

I had kinda become disinterested in Gotham, mostly due to the nearly constant barrage of villains(Namely Zsasz and a couple others that fit more into Batman being around), but the Red Hood Gang? THIS is what I've been wanting to see for a LONG time, like since the show started! It allows for a few things

It allows for an on going thing since the Red Hood has been a fixture in Gotham for YEARS. It also allows for a kind of Proto-Joker, which considering most origins for The Joker involve him being The Red Hood at some point(Whether forced into it as a figurehead/fall guy or being the actual mastermind behind it is always changed and switched around), is actually a VERY good call.

@inferiorego: well said

can't wait to see hush , jason todd as the red hood, harper row, oh and damien as a school rival to bruce!!!! .

Niiicceeeeee. For those who don't know, the Red Hood thing is not confined to one person many individuals have held the RH mantle, so it's interesting to see someone start it here in Gotham.

However, I really hope that around season three they'll enter Batman: Year One territory. This show has too much potential to end with Bruce finally putting on the cowl. Gotham needs to eventually turn into a full blown, character drive, Batman show.

@anjales:

This is great! I've always loved the idea of Red Hood as a disguise that gets passed to different criminals.

I've been predicting from the beginning that they'll jump forward after a few seasons. It'd be such a good seat up too, if you've got rookie Batman in a show with a ton of characters that have been expanded upon for years.

I heard one really good fan-theory that everyone involved in the Red Hood gang would be a possible Joker suspect

Joker?

~MiB

@inferiorego: I agree with you 100%.

why are people so down on this show?? FFS!!!

@mickeymayhew said:

Because it's not Gotham Central, does have Batman solving crimes, because it has villains who haven't be come villains yet, just pick a answer.

I may actually watch now.

Beata

People probably hate it because they are trying to give us as many characters as possible when the actors aren't that great. IMO they should have called it Gotham Central then have a separate series later on dealing with actual Batman mythos and the GCPD in the background.

@inferiorego: By putting the Red Hood into the show they are obviously implying that theyre leading towards an appearance of the Joker or will show his falling into the vat of chemicals, yet another origin in this show seemingly based around origin stories. Nowhere did I imply that it ruins the character in all mediums, just that it would ruin the character for the show. Nor did I imply that he had some major role within the Red Hood gang because he'll most likely be depicted as he was in The Killing Joke, if he is, indeed, in the show at all. All I said is that to tell the origins of the Joker, no matter what their spin on it turns out to be, will cheapen the character because Batman will not be a part of it; which is true.

@soa: Hush was shown already. He was the bully that Bruce when to his house and hit him.

This

@whiteknight67: really that was tommy elliot? i was being completely sarcastic. i regret my post . :'(

The Red Hood gang started sometime after Bruce left for training and was still just developing once he came back but at this time Bruce was 25 years of age. I'm not sure how to feel about this.

Cool

Damn for a second I thought they meant Todd.

Daddy? :D

Cool

Philosophical is probably too pretentious a word. I like this show but it shouldn't try to be philosophical, it hasn't really worked so far.

@fattytravy: in "The Killing Joke" it wasn't said that Joker started the Red Hood gang. He was just some idiot who was chosen to prezent he was him. Hell, even in the book they say that there is no leader called "Red Hood" and they just choose some idiot for every action.

@drfate: I know all of that since The KIlling Joke is, after all, my favorite graphic novel. I think you're referring to what Inferiorego wrote in response to me and I'm fairly sure he just misread what I said because I didn't say that I thought the Joker was ever the "leader" of the gang. As you said, there was no "gang" and there was no "leader". I initially only pointed out that if the Red Hood gang is showing up in Gotham than the Joker will, in one way, shape or form, also appear and the lack of there being a Batman cheapens the character within the context of the show.

So by that logic, does putting Bruce Wayne on the show mean we're going to see Batman soon?

@inferiorego: Not at all. The Red Hood gang, whether you look at the Moore version or the Snyder version, exists as a tool to tell the origin of the Joker. Whether someone accepts that origin as the real story doesn't much matter because within those same stories we're given reason to believe either the Joker is NOT the Red Hood leader (in Snyder's case) or that the story we were presented with was a complete fabrication (in Moore's story). Either way, the Red Hood gang exists almost solely as a tool to put forward a Joker origin story; I really don't know why that's even a debate when it should be so obvious. The question isn't whether or not the Joker or the man who will become the Joker or someone who it is implied is the Joker shows up... it's a question of when.

The example of Bruce Wayne = Batman appearance isn't a valid logic because this is a show about origin stories. We're seeing the origin of Batman, Jim Gordon, the Scarecrow, the Riddler and God knows who else. I have to ask again why it's then so difficult to accept that an entity used almost exclusively to tell Joker origin stories (again, of one sort or another) being introduced in a show about origin stories will lead to a Joker origin?

I agree with this exactly. Which is why I was so upset when Snyder undid all of that.

Sorry, back to discussing the show....

This. So much this

That Red Hood costume has got to be the dumbest looking costume I have ever seen in comics history.

I'll be curious to see what happens.