Hamatron

I don't think they had much of a budget this season. Or last year. They did a little better with the CGI stuff this time though.

I made it through. It was awful. The show comes off as really juvenile, but it thinks it's deep. It really felt like it was written by a teenage boy. Sometimes bad TV can be fun, but that was mostly boring. And misogynistic. And yeah. The two leads barely interact all season. And when they do it's not good (I think I was the only person who didn't care if they had sex or not, hah, but still, the show is their friendship.) Anyway, yeah. That was a hot mess.

Oh man, I totally forgot about that scene! Yeah, that is some creepy stuff.

Hah. Am I forgetting something? I don't recall their relationship being that toxic. Penguin and his mom have a typical doting son, overbearing mother dynamic. Which seems to mostly work for the two of them. He has zero sex drive, so she can't get in the way there and she's proud of her son's accomplishments (and willing to look the other way in regards to his career).

Her character might be going to jail for trying to shoot Micki with a semi automatic...? But there seems to be chatter that she's not in this season much. We'll have to see!

Well, from what people can piece together based on Instagram and interviews, Fisher is in the first episode... And probably not much else (or at least not stuff filmed with the rest of the cast). So, it's nice that he has a scene, I guess. Lol. It will be interesting to see if it's an exit scene. Also interesting is that it looks like Emily Bergl is likely off the show... And who knows what her presence will be this season. She's been on another show though, apparently. Instagram accounts also suggest some good stuff with Svetlana, so hopefully that is fun. Also, there will be more love Fiona love triangle (ug!). I wish they would go back to more Fiona in season 1-3 mode. I really enjoyed her before she went totally weird and boy-crazy.

I don't think people are complaining. We're analyzing what's in the scene, and we're talking about how the writers/actors/director put together a scene that comes across as tone-def given that it echos -- whether intentional or not -- very real, current events and things people are talking about now on a national level. And you could make all kinds of arguments about how mental health/mental health care is framed on Gotham and how that relates to the real world, too. Again, I get that Gotham's world is not ours. But at the end of the day, Gotham is a show that exists in our world, and was created by people in our universe. So you can't divorce the show from the real world. It was created here by people here.

Right. But we're talking about a script and acting and directing choices made by people living in our world. So yeah, it's a show where people inhabit a universe that is clearly not ours and has its own language, but there's all kinds of things that happen on the show that speak to and overlap with reality. This isn't the only moment where people have felt that the violence on this show was a little too close to reality and was clunky/wince inducing to see, because it was there without much thought put into it.

Yeah. A violent homeless guy died at the hands of a violent homeless teen. Everyone involved is living a shitty life of violence. I'm willing to cut it at a wash there. And things like age and gender is pretty much always relevant. Violence is how people on this show communicate, so I get why it happens here. And I'm sure it will happen again. But that doesn't mean it's a character behavior I'm down with or think is just or deserved. We're talking about a homeless kid who has grown up on the streets. She's probably been beat (and worse) by adults her whole life, so this is probably nothing new. Sure, a lot of what she does isn't okay, either, but that doesn't mean I am cool with grownups who beat on a kid.

It probably comes from a lot of people, myself included, believing that a child never "deserves" to be slapped by grown man.

Ideally, yes, we would see only the content and character of people. But race and racism is something that is deeply embedded in our psyche, culture, and media, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. I know this is make-believe world, but it's not okay to warn a group of teens (?) not to commit a petty crime by pointing a gun at them. That's not a warning. That is a potentially life-threatening situation. Given our current climate in the U.S. with law enforcement, it's a really obvious parallel, whether intentional or not.

Yeah. Gaga is kind of an Elton John/Madonna/Marylin Manson hybrid. Nothing new, but when she broke out her shtick was different compared to other pop stars at the time. The main thing with her is that she writes her music (for real) and plays instruments (for real) so she has the option to become a songwriter for other performers in the future (which she was doing before she got big). And apparently she can act better than Madonna. But that's not much of a feat, as she's pretty much the worst out there.

Yeah. I think if you see a relationship between a 25'ish guy and a 40-something woman, and your mind goes straight to "that woman is bi, ergo pedophilia!" then you have problems that go way beyond the realm of what the showrunners should be accountable for in regards to positive LGBTQ representation. That's a big jump in logic. Plus, saintly LGBTQ characters that never do anything negative (or have partners or love scenes) is also a trope. And a really dated one at that. I'll take messy and complicated people instead.

I don't think that Analise's sexuality matters in the case with Wes. If they were to do anything sexual, it would be inappropriate because you're not supposed to have sex with the people you employ/hire for an internship, and university professors can be fired for relations with students. If those two things weren't a factor, then whatever. It would be a May/December thing, but they're both well within the range of consent. Plus, Analise is a complex, format-breaking character. There aren't too many shows starring a black, 40-something woman who is sexual, messy, and in power. That role was already unique before it was revealed that she previously dated a woman. Adding that detail in is brings even more varied representation to the show.

He's been a main character on Shameless for 6 seasons (they've given him more to do as he's gotten older), and he has done a handful of movies over the years (including one with Meryl Streep). It's been kind of a trip to see him go from a pretty crappy kid actor to one that can sometimes be pretty great. I could see him not returning to Gotham, however, which is a bummer because he was fun on the show. But unless he gets out of his Showtime contract, he's got limited time he could spend on the other set. They set the first three episodes at a frantic pace. I wonder how they are going to manage that. The villains rose and mostly crashed three episodes in. They still have 19 or so more eps to go. I love James Frain, but his story is moving pretty fast (and is pretty cliche).

It's probably for the best anyway that Tori and Randy didn't inherit more than they did. Randy has had addiction issues, and I don't know how deep into his recovery he was at the time. Coming into a lot of money as an addict can be a really dangerous situation. Meanwhile, Tori sounds like she has hoarding issues (she spends tens of thousands of dollars each month on storage lockers and says she gets overwhelmed at the thought of clearing anything out). She also lives way beyond her financial means. I think it doesn't matter how much she inherited, she probably would have burned through it just as quickly as she burned through $800K.

The guy hitting on Michaela is eggs911. Also probably why he asked to use her phones.

She's from the Netherlands, so she speaks Dutch, but I think she also speaks French and German (and English, obviously). She was Jean Grey in the '00s X-Mean films, but she's been in a ton of other stuff too. She was in a James Bond flick, she's on Hemlock Grove, she's been in a ton of movies. She's 50-something years old, which is mind-blowing to me.

I tend to think they are both really bad. There is a lot of horrible acting on this show paired with bad writing and hilariously cheap special effects. Which is why I watch. It's stunningly bad. And if you are holding out for a threesome, you are going to be disappointed. Unless you think watching three people walk up stairs while the show fades to black is sexy.

But those are guest stars, right? With Sense8 we would be talking about a main character, not the misc. sex worker of the week/person with a three-episode arc.

Huh. I do watch a lot of BBC shows. Many of them have werewolves, ghosts, and vampires. I don't know of any where a main character deals with sex abuse years later as an adult. I guess I am not watching any of those particular shows then. Whatever they are.

Is it? No sarcasm, I'm just curious. I don't know that I would want them to go that route (and I don't get that vibe), but outside of procedurals I don't know that I can think of too many shows that actually explore the aftermath years later of surviving sex abuse.

I am so confused how someone could see Cameron Monaghan and think, this guy! But I kind of love it, hah. Oh wait, you mean the person standing behind him at some point? Not the "Joker"? LOL, my bad. Carry on.

Yeah, that makes sense. I think with the group, the problem was that she basically gave a speech loaded with all kinds of borderline racially charged stuff, and then she dropped blame on one group of people, which is blatant. Also, in the statement their criticism of Lana was used to illustrate a bigger problem within the organization and the media in general. So it's not all about her, and hopefully it was a constructive call out.

What they heck? The comment is back, hah. Anyway, no. That is not what they are saying. The group is saying that trans people are individuals across many different cultures, classes, religions, countries, abilities, life experiences, and so forth. Tribe doesn't work, because trans people are a broad group of individuals with a variety of needs and struggles. Is it offensive? People found it offensive, so I guess so. Personally, I see why it's cliche and simplistic and doesn't really work for people. Though the idea behind it might be genuine and well-intentioned. And anytime you call an entire group of people "the worst for X" it's going to be controversial and offensive. How did she, a rich white lady working in Hollywood, quantify the data to come to this conclusion? There are many different African American communities and individuals across the US. That's pointing a finger at a lot of people she probably doesn't know. It's also counter-productive language in that it places African Americans/AA communities in active opposition to trans rights, which in reality is not always -- often not -- the case.