Danielg342

Right now, it would seem pretty stupid not to give us an 11th season, even if it's shortened. For a show that's been on this long, cancelling it just wouldn't seem right, especially when none of us anticipated it (unlike, say, CSI: New York). Then again, there have been worse decisions made...and it wouldn't be the first time a CM show ended in a cliffhanger.

Nice idea for a thread. I have nothing to vent about now but perhaps the next time I need to go on a screed about political correctness I'll put it here.

Not an unfair point to make, although I will point out that Twitter “outrages” contain around the same number of people (if not a fraction of that). So I think a board like this can carry quite a bit of weight.

I saw Bullock firing...regardless, I didn't like seeing Jim take all the credit when Bullock did do a lot for the case (such as go to that club and identify the hotel The Ogre's apartment was nearby).

I'm going to guess the “hostage” at the end will turn out to be some kind of baddie herself- otherwise, why would he hold her?

For me, my disappointment was not the story as written- I would agree, given how the story was plotted, there was little Barbara could do. The disappointment lie more in the storyline choice, because I didn't think there was any reason for the writers to turn it into yet another “damsel in distress” story. Last week gave us the potential that Barbara and The Ogre could have been a couple, and I think, as a couple, they could have been fascinating. We could have had some fun with two twisted minds getting together and letting their “creativities” run wild, with perhaps Barbara becoming a willing but unlikely sidekick. Perhaps, at this point, Barbara could have pretended to be a damsel just as a ruse to get Jim to try to “save” her, only for Jim to realize he's the one in peril. From here, it might have even allowed The Ogre a chance to escape, in one of those rare moments where a villain gets away and it actually makes sense. I think, at its core, it's more about potential. Erin Richards certainly has the ability to play a depraved criminal, and Barbara has shown flashes of being that kind of character. The Ogre presented an opportunity where that could have played out, in a dynamic, perhaps, where The Ogre supports Barbara's story for a change. To me, I saw something in Barbara that the writers totally bailed on, and I think that is the central flaw. Don't tease me about having this great character and then reduce her to a cliche- deliver on it. Is it wrong, in principle, for the show to have Barbara be a perpetual “damsel in distress”? Would it also be wrong for Gotham not to have “strong, independent” female characters? On both counts, no, I don't think so- creative vision is creative vision, and if the heart's not there in the artist to use females in strong roles, so be it. A lot of viewers might not like it, but you can't please everyone. The problem only comes when you promise one thing and deliver another. If Barbara's only role was to be Jim's damsel to be saved- as is, ultimately, what happened in this episode- then make her a recurring character, don't pretend that she's a “central” character. Otherwise, make her independent. Give Barbara her own set of strengths and weaknesses, and her own storyline. Perhaps mileage just has to vary, but I don't think the “independent” storyline she got was much of one at all, since it didn't really lead anywhere except to back in Jim's saving arms. I guess in the end, it's not that she's a damsel- she's not an interesting one. If it was Lee who was “damseled”, it would have been a far better choice- at least Lee has a role (being the M.E. and at least Jim's equal at work) and she's a far more interesting character. Sure, it might have also been a cliche- but at least it would have been interesting- and given “cowboy Jim” the wakeup call he desperately needs.

Small note- the "Hammer and Anvil" is a military tactic, where you strike the enemy with your "heavy hitting" forces and then blindside them from behind with quick-hitting cavalry units, effectively sandwiching them. I'm guessing it's a reference to Penguin's plan, to have Maroni be the "heavy hitter" striking against Falcone while he blindsides Falcone with quick hits of his own. Or he does that to Maroni, I'm not sure. On to my episode thoughts: So Bullock shoots the Ogre dead and Jim is the one who gets all the plaudits. Worse, when Jim does receive the plaudits, he doesn't even so much as hint at the help Bullock gave him. He might believe in "honour before reason" but he sure doesn't care too much about integrity. Speaking of Bullock- is there any reason other than "plot armour" that he got a chance to take that shot in the first place? The Ogre was carrying a knife when he hit Bullock from behind- why didn't he stab him in the neck? (I actually thought that happened since it's late enough in the season for something like that to take place...and yeah, I would have hated it. So I guess I'm thankful for "plot armour" after all) (Did find Bullock's reactions to what was going on at that club to be funny- it was probably best that we didn't see what was happening, because I don't think there could be a situation that could do justice to whatever could offend the sensibilities of someone who's as "open-minded" as Bullock is) The Penguin...that was a clever little ruse, using Connor and his buddy as pawns to start a gang war between Maroni and Falcone. I have to give him credit for that, because as unbelievably lucky as he is, he has been great at concocting ruses and manipulating things. The only real issue I have here is I wonder how long it'll take before people realize he "uses" people thus making them turn on him- eventually he has to learn not everyone can be a pawn. It could also help too if his most important charges (i.e. Butch) are also in on his plans...he can't pull everything off by himself. Did enjoy Oswald's "terrified but smug" look when Jim snarled at him at the bar...Robin Lord Taylor played it wonderfully. Great to see Carmine Falcone back, even if Falcone didn't actually speak. John Doman did play it with the right sense of urgency- hopefully he'll get a much bigger role in the finale. He's been on the sidelines too long. The Bruce story was a bit rote...I could see Sid Bunderslaw sneaking up from behind him a mile away. I did enjoy Bunderslaw telling Bruce he needs to have "the talk"...it was a funny double entendre as well as appropriate, since learning the reality of how Wayne Enterprises works is what will shift Bruce from a boy to a man. So, like puberty, this was a seminal moment in the future Batman's growth. (I just wonder how he could say "no" to that cookie...then again, it is a "Wayne" cookie so he has his reasons) Finally...Barbara. Colour me disappointed. Here I was, watching last week and having a lot of fun seeing the chemistry oozing between The Ogre and Barbara, thinking that, in a weird, twisted sense, here could have been a couple that would have been mesmerizing to watch. Yeah, perhaps that storyline isn't anything "new", but it was deliciously weird, and Milo Ventimiglia and Erin Richards had sparks flying all over the place meaning it would have been fun to watch anyway. Besides, I would have loved to have seen the look in Jim's eyes when he tried to "rescue" Barbara, only for him to realize that she didn't want to be saved anyway. Or, better yet, Barbara using this love with The Ogre to set Jim up, forcing Jim to where he needs to be rescued, in a wonderful turning of the tables of what we expected out of Barbara before. Or perhaps Barbara pretends to love The Ogre to set him up to a point where he needs to be rescued by Jim, or perhaps Barbara sets both the Ogre and Jim up or finds some way to manipulate things to put Lee in peril making Jim truly have to pick between Lee and Barbara. So many different possibilities...and the show utterly and completely dropped the ball. Perhaps the show couldn't resist fitting Erin Richards in those chains (I admit, she did look kind of hot dangling from the ceiling with that wide-eyed pouty look in that lacy top and that leather mouthguard-like gag she was affixed with) but I think, in that case, it would have been a lot more fun if Barbara was a willing participant instead of an actually whimpering damsel, with perhaps that pouty face being part of that twisted game she'd be playing with The Ogre. Not only was the BDSM relationship something we expected last week, it could have made for some wonderfully kinky scenes and it might have been great to see a BDSM relationship on screen that's actually consensual. Furthermore, the realization that this would likely be the only episode we'd get to have Barbara and The Ogre together meant the show should not have wasted any time letting those two have their "fun", meaning we could have had a truly memorable episode. Had the writers realized this and let their creativity run wild perhaps they'd have an episode that would be talked about for ages, instead of giving us an episode that was yet another rote "save the girl" episode that is sure not to be talked about for times to come. No wonder the ratings are in the toilet...when the writers have the chance to actually be bold, they cower in fear. I get that maybe they believe the audience has certain "expectations" for how the show should go but that doesn't mean they can't "change the script" every now and then. It wasn't a bad episode, but certainly not all that great. I'm in the middle. Here's hoping the finale more than makes up for this mess.

^ Mama Cobblepot?

Russet29/normasm- My apologies. Usually I hear “desensitization” within the context of the wider debate of violence in the media. To your end, I see your point about “The Call”. My vantage point is that I don't think it should have taken CM nine years to do something like that- maybe two or three years, at most. The way I see it, the question of “will they save the kid” loses its potency if it always happens- or “always happens except for that one time”. I can't speak for others but I know for myself when one side gets used too much- e.g., saving the kid- I find myself wanting the opposite to happen just so we get some variety in the outcomes. It's pretty boring if the outcome is always the same. When it comes to kids, I think I'd rather see them saved more often than not, but I believe the ratio of cases where the kids are “saved” or “not saved” should be something like 4:1 or 5:1, not 100:1 like it is now. JustMyOpinion- Sounds very similar to a “chicken or the egg” argument- are we more aggressive because we see more violence on TV or is more violence on TV a byproduct of how aggressive we are as a society? My view, having a history degree- we are no more violent than any other period in history, we just express it differently. We also don't have a monopoly on violent media- many of the ancient epics had their moments, as did Shakespeare and, well, believe it or not, the Bible does too. We can also point to any number of old plays and visual art that is pretty graphic too. Then of course there's the Romans who made a spectacle out of blood and killing- arguably, Rome was worse than we are right now, since they were perfectly willing to throw real humans into the ring to be devoured by lions (and not just Christians). Thus, I see aggression as something humanity has always had, since we're animals and all animals, intrinsically, are competitive. Humanity, though, is the only animal that understands the greater complications of violence, so we've always tried to “check” our expressions of violence and strike the right balance between feeding our interest in it and preventing depravity, with some balances working better than others. Rather, I look at our time's tendency for dramas to make widespread use of violence and “black and grey morality” as a sign of our times. The days of “Happy Days”, “Family Matters” and other types of “idyllic” representations of American life came at times when the country was doing well, where people didn't worry about their jobs, there were opportunities galore, America didn't have too many enemies and the sky really was the limit with regards to the amount of wealth we could accumulate. Now, with terrorism and a wonky economy, there's more uncertainty, and thus I think we're interested in more “dark” television than we used to. I also believe our society's penchant for mistrust in the government and a pervasive feeling that government agencies are “watching” us feeds a curiosity into agencies like the CIA and FBI, hence “Homeland” and “The Blacklist” and our dear show. In fact, I think our show bucks the trend a little, in that it's quite clear that the BAU are the “good” guys- more often than not these days, you'll be stuck with anti-heroes and villain protagonists where you won't know who to root for than you will be with “out and out” good and bad guys.

Moved from “Mr. Scratch”. A few things: 1) I've never bought the “de-sensitization” theory for a couple of reasons: --I have not seen one study that conclusively proves a causative effect of depictions of violence in various forms of media towards acts of violence in real life. There have been plenty of instances where there's a correlation but I don't take too much stock in that. Someone who is predisposed to violence is likely going to enjoy media that is also violent- I highly doubt you'll find a lot of serial killers who were into the Care Bears. --There are millions of people who consume violent media every day (myself included, to a degree) and we don't have millions of budding psychopaths. I know there have been a few cases where a killer was inspired by something he saw on TV, but in almost all of those cases, the killer had a mental condition that caused him to have violent tendencies in the first place. We've never seen a “perfectly normal” adult (for the lack of better terms) watch a TV show and become evil because of it- there's always “something else”. ---When it comes to CM, I know there have been two cases: one, when an 11-year-old killed his abusive father believing he'd get away with it like a kid on CM (I believe this draws upon “Mosley Lane”, where the kid confused the mother with the father), and a second where a man in Akron, Ohio raped a woman in a style very much like “Aftermath”. In the former, I'm hedging my bets the kid was already messed up by the abuse, and I have to ask how the parents let an 11-year-old kid watch CM in the first place. Don't know much about the latter except that he was drinking at the time, and, judging by his demeanour, he probably was messed up anyway. --I can't speak for everyone else, but even after watching the worst in gore, I abhor seeing it in real life. I can't explain it fully, but I think it boils down to perception- when it's in fiction, I know it's not “real” so I can better “accept” it, but when it's “real”, that's just a line I can't cross. There's just something about knowing that it “actually happened” that gives it another level of repulsiveness that fiction can't bring. 2) I spoke in more general terms regarding what I think is acceptable for depictions of gore in the media, not just for CM. I would agree that most CM episodes don't need gore- descriptions of the crimes should do the trick.

I'll reply in “The Bullpen”.

Messer I don't think looks at Reid like he's a main character. JJ's her girl, and stories with Hotch and Rossi (and now Kate I guess) are pretty forced upon her by the network, who insist that Thomas Gibson, Joe Mantegna and Jennifer Love Hewitt are the show's "stars". Which I think is a shame, because Reid should have been CM's breakout character and- along with Morgan- have been on the show long enough that they should be stars in their own rights, but the writers seem to hold both back.

Mosley Lane? Perhaps I should clarify- whenever CM has had a "save the kid" episode, the kid was always saved...except for "The Call". Typically, though, "family annihilators" feature teens and pre-teens, and even in cases where the family had kids younger than 10, a good many of those kids still found a way to survive (I'm thinking of "Safe Haven"). Either that or the killer- like in "The Boogeyman" or "A Shade of Grey"- was a kid themselves. Regardless, I do think the show goes out of its way to "spare" children, and "Mr. Scratch" was another example of that. Whether or not it's a good idea, I'll leave that as a matter of opinion. Personally- and perhaps this'll be unpopular but I will say it anyway- but anything should be fair game- men, women, kids, animals, aliens, etc.- because those crimes exist in real life and CM is supposed to be about reality. What is shown on-screen is a different matter, and I think you leave the gore to the adults (and only what's needed for the story). At least when you have an adult actor they can consent to what's "being done" to them and are better able to mentally handle the scene, unlike a kid who might not truly understand what's happening.

Budget cuts, I guess. 'Sides, I miss the flip phone with their authoritative “closing”...the click of a button just doesn't feel the same. :(

Count me as a crazy that enjoyed “200”. For a mindless action show, it did deliver. Yeah, it wasn't Criminal Minds, but by that point (well, any point after “The Longest Night”) I had given up expecting any episode to really be indicative of CM. So I didn't notice too much all the continuity errors and the like because, well, I don't really “count” it as CM. Sure, the episode has CM's name affixed to it, but, as far as I'm concerned, anything past 6.01 is so far corrupted that it's a completely different show, one that's “borrowed” the name of CM from the one that I used to love. Taken in that context, I actually thought Season 9 was not too bad. I mean, it was still pretty uneven, but at least some of the episodes made sense and were pretty entertaining, which is more than I can say about this season or much of S8 or S7. For once, I actually got the sense that maybe Erica Messer knew what she was doing, and that- even if her version of CM was different from the one I had previously enjoyed- maybe I'd actually get a show I'll want to tune in to as opposed to one I'm just tuning in to out of loyalty. Unfortunately, this year blew all that out of the water. For me, JJ turned with “The Forever People”. I was sort of ambivalent towards her before- even though her role as a “fighter” was pretty clunky- since many of her “problems” seemed to affect the cast as a whole (like her being “robotic”- the entire cast at this stage are just robots), and she never really “stuck out” much anyway, because so many other things with CM were bad. Then “The Forever People” came out and I lost it. Maybe I was late in noticing it, but that was the episode that really defined JJ as a “Mary Sue”, because, apparently, JJ is so “badass” that when she's supposedly fighting PTSD, taking risks and being “maverick-y” because of it, she could singlehandedly solve the case and take out the UnSub. I mean, I can take a lot of bad characterization and undue focus, and I understood logistics meant that “The Forever People” happened much later than it should have, but when that characterization turns a character into a superhuman- as it happened on “The Forever People”- I tune out. There's nothing worse than a character that experiences no real conflict, because not only does the character become unrelatable, it's just frankly boring. As much as it might strain the credulity that JJ is a ninja who lets her maternal instincts guide her and knows a lot about profiling without much actual training, before 10.14 she was still someone who somewhat resembled a human. An unbelievable human, but still, a human, albeit one with a poor acting portrayal (I mean, let's be honest with ourselves- if it weren't for Matthew Gray Gubler, there would have been plenty of points where Reid would be unrealistic). After 10.14, where JJ could magically brush off PTSD- something Reid, Hotch, Morgan, Gideon, Elle, Prentiss and even Garcia couldn't do- all bets are off.

...and Rossi trying to outrun UnSubs with a cane.

I had another thought- how come we haven't had more John Wayne Gacy types that get their "gratification" out of killing other men? There was the one episode- "In Heat"- with a gay UnSub who targeted other men, but he did so only because he hated his own sexuality. There hasn't been a guy who had a depraved sense of homosexuality driving him. If Erica Messer is so worried about the ratio of male and female victims on this show, using a Gacy type would be one way to address that. Of course, the question is- are there too many people worried about "bad gay stereotypes" for something like this to be explored?

They could have a "season finale" or "Sweeps" type episode where the killer targets children- that kind of shock value is what drives those periods.

Perhaps CBS felt "The Call"- the only time in the series' history where a child was actually killed during an episode- was out of line and nixed the idea when it came up in this episode. There are still a lot of viewers who hate the idea of kids being harmed in any way, and, as a writer myself, I try to avoid stories with kids simply because I think using them is exploitative, a la, "if you want to have a cheap emotional response from the audience, victimize a kid". Of course, I also think- this deep into the series- we should be past any qualms about using anyone as victims, including kids. Perhaps we should be spared actually seeing a mutilated child and of course it shouldn't be used too often, but I do think- to at least keep the audience honest- it shouldn't be too out of line to have a murdered child every and then. Stuff like that happens in reality, so it can't be ignored "too" much.

Twitter, Facebook and all other forms of social media are such strange beasts, ones that I'm not convinced the media knows how to handle. It amazes me that a few dozen or so people can speak their disapproval of a celebrity's post and the media reports it as an "outrage", conveniently forgetting the many tens of millions of users that have social media accounts along with the possibility that a good few of those accounts may be nothing more than "sockpuppets" (not to mention conveniently forgetting the actual demographics of social media, which skew towards the kind of people who are going to be "overly sensitive", for the lack of better words). Just because comments are visible and are prominent on one platform doesn't mean it represents the public's "true" reaction to a matter, if the public even feels justified in "reacting" to it. That's what I think the real fault is- CM doesn't treat its victims with any kind of respect any more. They're just pawns used to show us the latest torture method the UnSub dreamed up this week, and the team reacts to this as if they've been asked to wash the dishes. The humanity of the show is just gone. In earlier seasons, as much as we like to fault how many episodes focused on female victims, at least then the team reacted like they were people. There was always the constant question about "why these women", and what made them important to the UnSub. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "victimology" has ever come up since Erica Messer took over, when it used to dominate the episodes of Edward Allen Bernero and Jeff Davis. The victims themselves might not have actually "done" much within the stories, but, at the end of the day, the show still treated them like people. There's also the many times Gideon and Elle commented on how the people they chased were "cowards" because they sought the weakest in society just to have a twisted sense of "dominance", as well as the many times the BAU got into arguments with the local police when the local police didn't want to deal with cases involving transients or prostitutes (like in "Legacy" or "To Hell...And Back"), because the BAU- rightly- reminded the locals that even "undesirable" lives are still lives.

I should probably say that I thought JJ's death was a minor quibble in what was, overall, a great scene. It just was a quibble based on what else has gone on this season, with those other things (like "If The Shoe Fits...") being far more problematic than this scene was.

There is one major positive I can take out of this: with the American economy in the toilet, it's good to know that someone is going to be hiring. Because, you see, Red seems to have lost a few people in his security detail, so he'll need to replace those mooks. In fact, Red sure could use a "security co-ordinator" or a "threat assessor" of some kind, because, lately he sure does suck at keeping himself safe. "FBI's got a security detail at Hospital X!" "Nah...I'd rather go to some abandoned warehouse...never mind that I have people watching me all the time." ...actually, come to think of it...maybe he just ought to rethink this whole "working with the FBI" thing, because the FBI sucks at keeping him safe too. Your tax dollars at work, America! (hey, I'm Canadian...fortunately, like Red, I don't have to pay those guys to run around like headless chickens) That's not the worst part of this episode- I think the worst part of it that this "grand cabal" of shady worldwide characters is becoming a touch too unrealistic. I mean, I get that shows like this need to have mystery and it makes sense that Red's enemies would be some kind of global syndicate. I just would have hoped by now at least we'd get a sense of how the group is organized and what, exactly, their reasons for targeting Red are. We don't need to know everything about their activities and what their true motivations are, but keeping us in the dark about their membership and their ties to Red makes them feel "omnipotent"- they have this endless supply of people they can call upon and resources at their disposal. Granted, Red seems to also be "omnipresent" since he's always got "this guy" who can provide him with things and he's always got a trick or three up his sleeve to get out of situations...but for some reason, Red feels "grounded", perhaps because we know who he is and who exactly works for him (at least the "main" guys, like Mr. Kaplan and Dembe), with the other major part of his "team" being the FBI, who are a "known" quantity. The "grand cabal"? Aside from Fitch, do we even know anyone's name? I think it's time we get some answers here. Having said all that...the show still feels, as a whole, "grounded" and I don't think they make any pretensions that they're trying to be realistic...it's just an action show. Seeing Lizzie- and now Tom, it seems- get wide-eyed at just the world they've put themselves in does that, since at least the show has some self-awareness of the grandness it's created. Dare I say it, Tom and Lizzie working together to make sense of this world would actually be interesting, which finally gets Lizzie something substantive to do instead of just pouting with Red. The potential for Lizzie to be the "Watson" was always there, and it's a pity the show has taken this long to get to that point- but finally they have, and hopefully Lizzie can run with it. The fear, though, is that The Blacklist will get consumed by its own mysteries, building upon things up to such a point where there can never be a resolution. I said back in Season 1 there needs to be an "organization", where the show defines which side each group falls upon- who's on Lizzie's side, who's on Red's side, who are the antagonists, etc. Season 1 seemed to have this to a large extent, but Season 2 has been a little out of whack- the Blacklisters never seem to get arrested, people seem to oscillate between "good" and "bad" (even Red at times), syndicates never get defined, answers get hidden more than they used to, etc. I get that this year they wanted to "experiment", and the early renewal meant they didn't need to have all the answers right away. However, the writers cannot get carried away- at some point answers are going to be needed. Otherwise, we'll just tune out. Overall, this actually kept my attention, all things considered, and I'm still hooked. However, I think it's safe to say my patience is starting to wear a little.

I have another wager- that Quon Zhang will turn out to be a "good" guy that needs to stick around because he can help Red, just like The Longevity Initiative, Ruslan Denisov or just this past week, Leonard Caul.

Mileage will have to vary on whether or not the violence is actually justified and if the show is too brooding, since it's all subjective. A few things: 1) I'm not asking for things to “get better” right away. I just want a small sliver of hope, or some kind of counterbalance to the darkness. Like maybe one character who believes in pacifism, and actually succeeds at doing so (don't know enough about Lee if she qualifies). 2) Not to reignite the debate on whether he was justified in doing so, but Bruce Wayne did go to a kid's house and punch him a few times. So even he is violent. 3) Barbara was shown The Ogre's “playpen” and didn't even wince. So she's at least depraved if not violent herself. 4) Oswald might have his reasons for killing the delivery man, but I do think, overall, he gets away with his murders a bit too easily. He wasn't even careful in disposing of the delivery man's body, smearing his blood all over the floor, doing the killing out in the open (with a lot of witnesses) and getting the guy's blood all over his hands. Even basic investigative work would out him, and the delivery guy is far from the first to be recklessly killed by Oswald. Granted, Gotham's cops are not that bright and Gertrude has her “mother blinders” on, but it doesn't change that Ozzie relies on a lot of luck to live a “double life” of “good son/crazy murderer”. He can't just continue killing people so recklessly and no one notices. 5) Nygma too might have his reasons for killing the cop, but I do think that could have waited until the finale, or the first episode of Season 2. Putting it in this episode unnecessarily “crowded” the episode with darkness.

Empire I perhaps could understand, since it likely only aired the episodes it had finished this season and won't make new ones until the fall. This show? We all knew it was getting a second season back in January, enough time to re-write the end of this season if need be. There shouldn't be a need to “rush” storylines because the writers know they'll get another 22 episodes. I certainly think next year could have been the Year of the Riddler, where he makes his first killing in the season premiere. Edward Nygma's story could have easily been expanded, perhaps to make the cop more of a “challenge”, with this year only showing us hints of the dark side we'll eventually see. I think the other part is that I feel like lately the show has gotten too dark- the “good guys” don't seem to be very effective without causing trouble for themselves while the “bad guys” run rampant, doing whatever they want. I get that it's early in Gotham's run, and I wouldn't want too much hope early on, but I think there should at least be a sliver of it. Evil can still rule the day, but there should be a sign that one day it'll all end.