S01.E09: Harvey Dent

[immortalfrieza]

What is going to be interesting to me is to see how Selina goes from what seems to be a good situation at Wayne Manor and turning into the villain Catwoman.  I want to see how that goes down, right now she seems happy, precocious but with a good heart.  How does she get booted from Wayne Manor?  How does she lose touch with Bruce since she seems like his only friend and someone he would want to have around?  Do they drift apart as Bruce becomes a little older and girls in his own social circle become interested in him?  Do they lose contact after Bruce goes away to college?  And what happens to Selina to make her into Catwoman.  In the movies it was one specific event, and that makes sense, but how was she ever in that situation?

The comics and most other interpretations have Selina be already extremely wealthy, and running around stealing stuff as Catwoman is just for the fun of it. This version though... it has her as a homeless kid stealing things all the time as a matter of course, so pretty much already Catwoman without the cat motif, so I don't know.

Edited November 20, 2014 by immortalfrieza

[RealityGal]

The comics and most other interpretations have Selina be already extremely wealthy, and running around stealing stuff as Catwoman is just for the fun of it. This version though... it has her as a homeless kid stealing things all the time as a matter of course, so pretty much already Catwoman without the cat motif, so I don't know.

Oh, I've only seen the movies, which had Catwoman as a lowly secretary living in a small apartment.  So who knows what adult version of Catwoman they are going to shoot for and how they are planning to get there?  I've already forgotten the Anne Hathaway version :(

[Dobian]

Well Selina is just a temporary guest at Wayne Manor, it's not like she lives there and eventually gets "booted".  Her time there is short to begin with.  Her visit to Wayne Manor I would hardly say is a life-changing experience, once she leaves she will be back on her existing path to become Catwoman.

[ratgirlagogo]

I think Selina as Catwoman could do any of the above things.  The problem I have is that canonically she does all of them about fifteen years after the age she  and Bruce Wayne are in this show.  How do we get through multiple seasons of this show?

 

ETA: proofreading.

Edited November 20, 2014 by ratgirlagogo

[Perfect Xero]

On a platonic level (because otherwise, ew), I really like the pairing of Jim and Selina. They're fun, and they have the perfect semi-antagonistic chemistry that makes for entertaining television. Give me more of those two interacting, and less of Jim having to deal with unfaithful, boring girlfriends and random dirty cops who aren't Bullock.

 

 

I think that's sadly close to what will have happened. 'Hold on, two hot chicks who we've written a pre-existing romantic relationship for? Get 'em into bed! Now! Comic book geeks love that stuff!' Blech.

 

Hopefully, Barbara is already pregnant, and decides to raise her daughter in some other city. Perhaps even without telling Jim he's going to be a father, because that seems about right for the way her mind works. Canon satisfied, bye bye, Barbara.

 

I did like when Selina asked Gordon if he'd chain her to a drainpipe again, and he was like, "Nah, you'd just break out of anywhere I put you."

 

I've sort of come around to thinking that Barbara is shady after this episode.

 

It's almost too convenient that she kept pushing Gordon for information, got it, then used fear of Zsasz as an excuse to leave. Also that she'd jump back to Montoya just as she and Gordon were starting to work together to go after the Wayne killers, almost like she's trying to create discord between the two.

[MisterGlass]

 

Her visit to Wayne Manor I would hardly say is a life-changing experience, once she leaves she will be back on her existing path to become Catwoman.

 

I think it does have the potential to be life changing.  Catwoman has a refined taste in her thieving, whereas Cattween is stealing milk and money.  Being surrounded by this easy opulence may inspire her to raise her sights.  For Bruce, she's probably the first poor child with whom he's interacted, and her critiques of his naivete are well founded.

 

I'm opposed to the idea that she would stay at Wayne Manor long term becuase it could allow the moments of cute from this episode to become overbearing.  In small snippets they are refreshing, but there is enough drama going on without the tween aspects.  I am not sure what an authority figure could do to help her.  She likes her independence and doesn't trust easily.

 

Edited for missing words.

Edited November 21, 2014 by MisterGlass

[Delphi]

The comics and most other interpretations have Selina be already extremely wealthy, and running around stealing stuff as Catwoman is just for the fun of it. This version though... it has her as a homeless kid stealing things all the time as a matter of course, so pretty much already Catwoman without the cat motif, so I don't know.

What comics have you been reading where they show Selina as already being wealthy before she became Catwoman abd began a life of crime?

In any of the two standard stories for her she was in a really messed up poor household where she leaves due to her parents death to become either a thief or a prostitute turned to a thief only later gain a stolen fortune.

[RealityGal]

I think it does have the potential to be life changing.  Catwoman has a refined taste in her thieving, whereas Cattween is stealing milk and money.  Being surrounded by this easy opulence may inspire her to raise her sights.  For Bruce, she's probably the first poor child with whom he's interacted, and her critiques of his naivete are well founded.

 

I'm opposed to the idea that she would stay at Wayne Manor long term becuase it could allow the moments of cute from this episode to become overbearing.  In small snippets they are refreshing, but there is enough drama going on without the tween aspects.  I am not sure what an authority figure could do to help her.  She likes her independence and doesn't trust easily.

 

Edited for missing words.

 

But, is the way she leaves Wayne Manor going to be what turns her from being good to being bad?  Right now, they are on their way to developing a little unit, and Alfred could start to be a good influence on her, if he lets down her guard a little.   She seemed to steal to survive, but in Wayne Manor she doesn't really have to, so she doesn't seem to steal for sport right now.  If she gets to a point where she trusts Gordon, trusts Alfred and begins to feel secure and then has the rug pulled out from under her, will that turn her from being from being a person, who at her core is good to something different?  I feel like there has to be an event that turns her from good hearted thief, who does the right thing (when push comes to show) and does what she has to to survive to villain.

 

 

I think Selina as Catwoman could do any of the above things.  The problem I have is that canonically she does all of them about fifteen years after the age she  and Bruce Wayne are in this show.  How do we get through multiple seasons of this show?

 

ETA: proofreading.

 

I would think we explore how she gets to that point.  The possibilities seem endless to me, but maybe I'm over/under thinking it.

[Dobian]

Who's to say Selina's good now?  Seems to me that Catwoman was never good nor evil, she is neutral.  She's already a thief.  It might be out of necessity, but it's still a part of her nature.  She operates outside the law.  That's what makes her a great foil for Batman, as he is lawful while she is chaotic.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Dobian

[RealityGal]

Who's to say Selina's good now?  Seems to me that Catwoman was never good nor evil, she is neutral.  She's already a thief.  It might be out of necessity, but it's still a part of her nature.  She operates outside the law.  That's what makes her a great foil for Batman, as he is lawful while she is chaotic.

 

I feel like she is good now, or at least has a good core.  And I think there is a difference, there are good people who do bad things, and there are bad people who do bad things.  I think coming forward to help the investigation (if she did see the face of whoever killed the Wayne's) is something that she didn't have to do, but that shows a desire to help right a wrong.  But at least in the movies I remember (and again, I've totally forgotten Anne Hathaway, and never watched Halle Berry) Catwoman goes pretty south and becomes a villain.  And I think to get her where she is a villain and willing to murder I think there has to be something that happens to her to turn her.  As for Batman, I always felt as though he was at odds with the police because he was a vigilante, so I don't know that he can be described as really lawful.  

Edited November 21, 2014 by RealityGal

[Oscirus]

Cat's a survivor, she's not good, she's not bad. The only reason why she's coming forward with knowledge of the Wayne murders is because it helps keep her out of  jail.  As for Bruce, I can't imagine that he's that far outside of the law when the commissioner has his calling card.

 

I have a feeling that whatever she stole from Bruce in that previous episode is going to come back to bite her in the rear end.

 

Also that she'd jump back to Montoya just as she and Gordon were starting to work together to go after the Wayne killers, almost like she's trying to create discord between the two.

 


If she was trying to do that she could've just said in the letter that she was going back to Montoya.  I seriously just think that seeing Jim in action makes Barbara think less of herself which is why she goes back to the person who lies to her, and practices unsavory techniques on her job.

[RealityGal]

Cat's a survivor, she's not good, she's not bad. The only reason why she's coming forward with knowledge of the Wayne murders is because it helps keep her out of  jail.  As for Bruce, I can't imagine that he's that far outside of the law when the commissioner has his calling card.

 

I thought she had come to Gordon before asking if Bruce was okay and showing some concern.  I think if she was fully neutral she wouldn't get involved enough to even ask.  And even at this point, Selina has been able to escape most attempts to hold her, so at some point in the process she very likely could have escaped and been back on the streets, so I don't know that she was only helping to get out of trouble.  Given everything that GCPD has going on between Falcone, Maroni, Fish and Cobblepot I'm not sure they would have sent out the entire force if she had gotten away.  In fact, in light of everything she is helping a lot (if she actually saw the face of the killer).  Given the fact that she could probably escape if she wanted to, she is choosing to stay and help Gordon not knowing what will happen after they are done with her.  It would have been safer for her to escape and stay on the streets that she knows so well instead of giving up information about a killer that could potentially hurt her.

 

 The Batman I've seen is from the movies, and at least one of them had tension between the police department and Batman because Batman is a vigilante, and legally speaking, the only people that should be enforcing the law are the police department.  Commissioner Gordon had the instincts to trust him, but Gordon is starting to also see and appreciate sometimes operating outside of the law for the greater good (unsigned warrants, no real probable cause to arrest).  So I don't think that Batman is all that lawful, since he operates outside of the law, and I can't see the Commissioner working with him as proof that he is lawful.

[Ubiquitous]

Harvey Dent was interesting.  I like the idea that there was something "off" about him from the start, but they overplayed his crazy just a bit too much.  I thought the actor was actually way more effective in the "nice Harvey" scenes at suggesting there was something forced and aggressive about his charm.

I liked the idea that Harvey Dent was already a bit unbalanced and a hack but no one knew it, although given Montoya and Allen's record thus far, yeah, I can see them totally misjudging him. This might be off-topic here, but when did Harvey Dent become Two-Face? Was he already Two-Face when he met Batman for the first time? I remember he was OK until the third movie but then realized he was played by Billie Dee Wiliams before Tommy Lee Jones.

 

Ugh, this only means that a) Barbara is coming back to Gotham instead of staying away, b) she is going to be the damsel in distress in the middle of a love triange and c) when she does something stupid there are going to be two characters devoting to saving her from herself

 I think I yelled at my TV when they revealed that Barbara never left town and was in fact shacking up with Montoya -- are you kidding me?

[Kromm]

Who's to say Selina's good now?  Seems to me that Catwoman was never good nor evil, she is neutral.  She's already a thief.  It might be out of necessity, but it's still a part of her nature.  She operates outside the law.  That's what makes her a great foil for Batman, as he is lawful while she is chaotic.

Catwoman in some versions is outright evil.  Every bit the casual murderer that our current Penguin is.  Of ALL of the Bat villains she's the one DC has vacillated the most with, bouncing between villain, villain lite, mischievous Robin-Hood like hero, and antihero (a bit darker than the Robin Hood version). Movies, animation and live action have bounced around on her too, although not quite to the extreme the comics have.

 

The point of all of that is that I don't think we can safely guess any fate for this one, other than that she will continue to have a rep as an adult that includes being stealthy and being able to break into places.

[Danny Franks]

I liked the idea that Harvey Dent was already a bit unbalanced and a hack but no one knew it, although given Montoya and Allen's record thus far, yeah, I can see them totally misjudging him. This might be off-topic here, but when did Harvey Dent become Two-Face? Was he already Two-Face when he met Batman for the first time? I remember he was OK until the third movie but then realized he was played by Billie Dee Wiliams before Tommy Lee Jones.

 

 

I think Two-Face was introduced as the villain, but quickly established to be the once noble DA, Harvey Dent, through his origin story. He was always painted as a former ally of Batman/Bruce Wayne, who lost his mind when his face was scarred. A gangster he was prosecuting threw acid in his face in the courtroom, disfiguring him. As origins go, it's actually a more complete one than most Batman villains had, back then.

 

Of course, Frank Miller had to weigh in and make Harvey's origins as dark as possible, with an abusive, alcoholic father and mental illness. But then Frank Miller made Selina a prostitute before she was a thief. He doesn't like people very much, especially those of the female persuasion. It does fit that he should show signs of mental imbalance though, because otherwise his turn to evil is just wacky comic book stuff.

 

Catwoman in some versions is outright evil.  Every bit the casual murderer that our current Penguin is.  Of ALL of the Bat villains she's the one DC has vacillated the most with, bouncing between villain, villain lite, mischievous Robin-Hood like hero, and antihero (a bit darker than the Robin Hood version). Movies, animation and live action have bounced around on her too, although not quite to the extreme the comics have.

 

 

And DC continuity is rather confused on the issue as well. At least, pre-New 52 it is. All I know about post-New 52 Catwoman is that she shoves her arse and tits out of every front cover and has anonymous sex with Batman. But that could probably describe a lot of DC's female characters, since their last reboot.

 

I liked her most when she had that Chaotic Good alignment, where she was a clear ally of Batman, and friendly with the rest of the Bat Family, but she still went out stealing things (mostly from other criminals). The Hush/Heart of Hush/Gotham City Sirens Selina was pretty great. I particularly liked the boisterous sisterhood she briefly shared with Harley and Ivy, as three 'bad girls' trying to reform.

[Ubiquitous]

She never identified Lovecraft. The description she gave to the sketch artist looks nothing like Lovecraft. Dent just theorized that Lovecraft hired whoever the guy in the sketch is, to murder the Wayans because he never got along with them and it was good for his business to have them killed. That's why his plan to Gordon was that he would show the sketch to Lovecraft to make it known that someone at least saw who he hired and that would be enough to make him or whoever the actual gunman was, nervous enough that they'd slip or make a mistake or start talking to the wrong people.

Except he never anticipated Lovecraft laughing in his face and not believing him. Harvey's a hack.

 

I do however agree about not entirely buying that Selina saw the guy's face because from what was shown in the pilot, the guy never takes off his mask, he had his back mostly to her as he shot both of Bruce's parents and then he walked away. Not to mention that it was very dark when all this happened. So I can't imagine how she would have gotten a clear picture of the guy's face unless she followed him and it wasn't shown, until he got to a place where he took off the mask. As for her reason for possibly lying about what she saw, I think it's pretty simple in that she figures as long as Gordon believes she can help him with the case, he'll help her and help keep her out of Juvie and foster care, neither of which she wants to go to.

Didn't Selina say she saw him putting on his mask before he shot the Waynes?

[Dobian]

As for Batman, I always felt as though he was at odds with the police because he was a vigilante, so I don't know that he can be described as really lawful.  

Actually, the definition of "lawful" is that you follow a specific moral and behavioral code, not necessarily that you follow the law of some official authority.  Batman is a vigilante, but he has a strict set of rules he follows, such as his "no kill" policy.  Lawful even applies to evil characters.  For example, a villain like Joker could be described as chaotic, while Don Corleone from The Godfather is a classicly lawful evil character.

 

I thought she had come to Gordon before asking if Bruce was okay and showing some concern.  I think if she was fully neutral she wouldn't get involved enough to even ask.

Well saying someone is morally neutral doesn't mean that they don't care about people.  Even an evil person has people they care about and even love.  Tony Soprano truly loved his kids, for example.

[RealityGal]

Actually, the definition of "lawful" is that you follow a specific moral and behavioral code, not necessarily that you follow the law of some official authority.  Batman is a vigilante, but he has a strict set of rules he follows, such as his "no kill" policy.  Lawful even applies to evil characters.  For example, a villain like Joker could be described as chaotic, while Don Corleone from The Godfather is a classicly lawful evil character.

 

Well saying someone is morally neutral doesn't mean that they don't care about people.  Even an evil person has people they care about and even love.  Tony Soprano truly loved his kids, for example.

Lawful means "conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules."  Batman is not lawful because his actions are not permitted by law.  What law, besides the one Batman has come up with permits vigilantism? Saying that your actions have to be recognized by law or rules in order to be lawful implies that they need to be recognized by laws or rules of others or society at large.  Or else we are all lawful, because we all conform to a certain set of rules, if we didn't, we wouldn't do the action, because even the worst villain will undertake behaviors that are in their best interest, which, by your definition would be considered "lawful".  Joker's "law" or "rule" would be to simply do what is in his best interest, or what will hurt someone specific unless you realize that lawful really means a construct set by society.

 

I think saying that someone is morally neutral says very much that they don't care about others.  Concern for others, especially innocent children is evidence of a moral character to me, especially when it is backed by behavior to help an innocent child.  morality is defined as "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."  Society overall values its children, she showed value for an innocent child by showing concern for him.  Her conduct of helping the police, even when it would put her at risk, on behalf of the innocent child is putting the justice above her own safety, and sacrificing oneself for an innocent child, or justice is a principle of conduct that is highly regarded by society.  Even showing genuine concern for an innocent child shows that she puts the some value in him and his situation.

[Snookums]

Why am I not surprised that Ed Nygma played video games?  My only question is what kind of video games:  RPG,  Shootem up?  Super Mario Brothers, Pong?  And seriously he should go on Jeapardy and screw becoming a super villain.

 

 

I kept waiting for him to start a friendly convo about ethics in gaming journalism.

 

I don't know if the actress playing Barbara ran over all the writers' cats or what, but they totally fucking hate her. This crap was unbelievable, not the least of which is her leaving her own home and leaving a note for Jim. THAT IS HER PLACE, and apparently they don't officially live together; when Selina commented that they were fancy digs for a cop, Jim made a point of saying "it's my girlfriend's place." ARRRRRRGH. 

 

Barbara doesn't get any beats as a character--she just pops in and out, makes terrible decisions with not a shred of reasoning behind them, and has set up two people she ostensibly cares for to be badly hurt. Jim Gordon by leaving him for Montoya, and Montoya for thinking she's got the woman she loves back when Barbara is clearly just using her. Not to mention the whole "I'm leaving you for --someone exactly like you in the ways I just outlined I was leaving you because of" crap. 

-scratching head- I can understand Bruce trying to learn to hold his breath, but did he have to do it fully dressed? (Did i miss something?

 

That didn't make sense to us either. If he was practicing swimming fully clothed, that's one thing, albeit a really stupid and dangerous thing to do alone, but Bruce "NO SHRINKS" Wayne is the kind of messed up kid who'd do something like that--but holding your breath? There's no reason to wear your entire day outfit including shoes. I loved how Selina didn't have one second to spare for it.

[Dobian]

Lawful means "conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules."  Batman is not lawful because his actions are not permitted by law.  What law, besides the one Batman has come up with permits vigilantism? Saying that your actions have to be recognized by law or rules in order to be lawful implies that they need to be recognized by laws or rules of others or society at large.  Or else we are all lawful, because we all conform to a certain set of rules,

That isn't true.  A person who behaves unpredictably is not lawful, like someone who commits random acts of violence.  A person who follows a very specific code is by definition, lawful.  For example, buddhist monks in China follow a very strict code and by that definition are lawful, but according to Chinese authority they are often considered to be in violation of Chinese law and are therefore criminals.  It has to do with your definition of law.  You are applying the definition of lawful as complying to the official laws of a society.  I am defining it in Dungeons and Dragons terms, where a person's alignment is determined by their moral and ethical bent, each defined by whether they are lawful, neutral, or chaotic.

[Old House Nut]

Two questions about the early scene between Gordon and Dent in Dent's office. First, why exactly did Dent just happen to have a slide projector set up to show a slide of the person who, through wild coincidence, was the person he was getting ready to make an unexpected exposition on? And second, what is Gordon's role in Dent's scheme to lure out the Wayne killers? Yes, Gordon has someone who claims (falsely apparently) to have seen the killer. But, if her identity, location, etc. is not going to be released as part of the plan, then what was it about Gordon's reveal that prompted Dent to hatch that plan on the spot? If he was, for all intents and purposes, going to rely on a fictitious witness, then why didn't he just start with that plan weeks ago using a fictitious witness?

[Luckylyn]

I think the episode made me certain that Barbara isn't a character but a plot point.  Her actions aren't happening with the writers considering who she is or what her story should be.  She's there to push the plot and get Jim and Montoya to take certain actions and that's it.  She's horribly written because I don't think the writers care about her but only how her actions affect the characters they do care about.  Nothing's she's done has made any sense to me.

[RealityGal]

That isn't true.  A person who behaves unpredictably is not lawful, like someone who commits random acts of violence.  A person who follows a very specific code is by definition, lawful.  For example, buddhist monks in China follow a very strict code and by that definition are lawful, but according to Chinese authority they are often considered to be in violation of Chinese law and are therefore criminals.  It has to do with your definition of law.  You are applying the definition of lawful as complying to the official laws of a society.  I am defining it in Dungeons and Dragons terms, where a person's alignment is determined by their moral and ethical bent, each defined by whether they are lawful, neutral, or chaotic.

Its only unpredictable to you because you don't know the code of "laws" or "rules" they have set up for themselves.  It could be one which is very complex.    The code can be very specific but very complex, a "law" doesn't have to be as simple as "no kill" to qualify as a law or a rule.  I'm defining lawful the way it is defined by the dictionary.  By your very definition everyone can be lawful, because everyone can have a set of "laws" or "rules" that they follow.  You are saying that someones morality and ethics are determined by whether or not they are lawful.  But, a person you may see a chaotic may simply have a very complex set of laws that you simply don't understand, because if you're not using society as  factor in determining lawfulness then you are allowing that each person can determine their own laws.  The same way Batman has determined his own set of laws or rules.   Just because something is unpredictable to you doesn't mean that it doesn't follow a set of "laws" that a person has determined for themselves.  Even anarchists have a set of laws that they follow.

Edited November 23, 2014 by RealityGal

[MisterGlass]

Gordon for Lawful Good, Penguin for Neutral Evil.

 

I think 'lawful' must encompass some of the tenants of societal law and Batman operates in too deep a gray area from society's perspective to be lawful.  While he does have a policy against killing, and this keeps him from falling into chaos, he has few restrictions on his actions.

 

ETA:  I do wish something would be done with Barabara.  Kill her, make her a villain, turn her around and make her worthwhile, but please, something other than this.

Edited November 23, 2014 by MisterGlass

[DigitalCount]

I hate to be that guy, but was there any particular reason why so many of the people at Blackgate Prison (prisoners and guards alike) seemed to be...what's the term I'm looking for...well-suited to their surroundings? I'm all for people who look like me on TV, but I was taken a bit short by it to say the least. Like, is that a feature of the area? I'm mildly versed in Batman lore (so I'd recognize people like, say, Clayface, not so much this Lovecraft fellow) and I was unaware of anything that might cause Blackgate to have such a hilariously apt name. This was more a "that's really funny" than a "that's racist" response for me, since like I said, the guards fit right in as well.

[Dobian]

By your very definition everyone can be lawful, because everyone can have a set of "laws" or "rules" that they follow.  You are saying that someones morality and ethics are determined by whether or not they are lawful.  But, a person you may see a chaotic may simply have a very complex set of laws that you simply don't understand,

That is not my definition at all, you are misinterpreting it.  And morality and ethics are not simply determined by whether or not someone is lawful, it is a combination of factors, including if a person is predisposed to be being good, evil, or somewhere in the middle.  Look up a D&D alignment table sometime for a better understanding of what I am saying.  There are people who are chaotic in nature, it's not that they have a complex code we don't understand.  It's incorrect to state that everyone follows a personal code of law.  There are people who do not even understand why they do the things they do.  A man who flies into a rage and beats his wife is not acting based on a complex code, he is acting on animal aggression and a passion for violence.

[RealityGal]

That is not my definition at all, you are misinterpreting it.  And morality and ethics are not simply determined by whether or not someone is lawful, it is a combination of factors, including if a person is predisposed to be being good, evil, or somewhere in the middle.  Look up a D&D alignment table sometime for a better understanding of what I am saying.  There are people who are chaotic in nature, it's not that they have a complex code we don't understand.  It's incorrect to state that everyone follows a personal code of law.  There are people who do not even understand why they do the things they do.  A man who flies into a rage and beats his wife is not acting based on a complex code, he is acting on animal aggression and a passion for violence.

I don't believe D&D offers an objective definition of what lawful is, and unless Batman and Gotham are in Dungeons and Dragons I don't think it has any bearing on what lawful is.  However, by your own definition they are only chaotic in nature to you or to someone else looking at or trying to analyze them.  Its not incorrect at all, according to your own definition of what lawful is, because for you, it is not dependent on society.  A person you call chaotic may simply have a more complex code of conduct that involves more than one response per situation, but that doesn't make it any less of a "law" as you have defined it, since a law isn't required to be simple, and according to your own definition each person can determine their own set of rules or laws.

 

A man who flies into a rage and beats his wife may indeed have a code of laws that he follows, but that I don't agree with.  He may have determined that whenever x happens he will do y.  Whenever the house is not clean, he will beat his wife.  Its nothing that I agree with, but its the hypothetical you've given me.  Just because I don't agree with a law, according to you, doesn't make it any less of a law.  You truly have no idea if that is his code of law or rules, and according to you, because society doesn't determine what is lawful, but the individual can determine what is lawful, that hypothetical can represent a person who is lawful, by your definition.

Edited November 23, 2014 by RealityGal

[Dobian]

Don't want to keep dragging this out, since we're going way off topic on the episode.  D&D is an old pen and paper game, sure, but it's template for morality and ethics is a good starting point for analyzing and discussing human behavior in general, not just about the game.  Claiming that people whose actions are governed by their emotions are behaving based on some personal code of law is just flat out wrong.  The man who beats his wife because "she didn't clean the house" is performing action B based on stimulus A.  There is no code being applied, no reasoning.  It's a raw response.  Not cleaning the house is just a trigger for the behavior.  That doesn't meet any definition of lawful, whether it is the one you are using (laws of society) or the one I am using (laws of personal conduct and belief).  I'll say that most of our disagreement is over you and I applying a different definition of lawful, but I can't agree that all personal actions and behavior are governed by a personal code of conduct that we just don't understand.  That is denial that chaos even exists, which is a fallacy.  I'll drop it now, you can have the final word if you want.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Dobian

[Kromm]

I think the episode made me certain that Barbara isn't a character but a plot point.  Her actions aren't happening with the writers considering who she is or what her story should be.  She's there to push the plot and get Jim and Montoya to take certain actions and that's it.  She's horribly written because I don't think the writers care about her but only how her actions affect the characters they do care about.  Nothing's she's done has made any sense to me.

The only issue I have with this analysis is that Montoya is also simply a pot point.  The justification for her single-minded pursuit, and that weird arrest of Gordon based simply on the testimony of one homeless person, didn't make any more sense that anything Barbara has done.  Her sleeping with Barbara now perhaps makes an odd sort of sense, but it's also just kind of cookie-cutter Drama! until we get to hear Montoya's side of it (which we probably won't).

 

It's sad that a runaway girl and a mobster played so over the top we get nosebleeds listening to her are the best developed female characters on the show... and they aren't that well developed either.

 

To be fair, Batman is a fairly male-oriented legend, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.  Batman doesn't really have any female influences on his development, and that's "canon" to the old comic book, since "Aunt Harriet" is just baggage carried along with Robin (she's his Aunt, not Bruce's--added in the 1960s), and Leslie Thompkins wasn't added to the Batman legend till the 1970s (and this show sounds from the casting info that they're going to mess her up too and make her aligned with Gordon's story and not Bruce Wayne's).  Montoya doesn't even exist in the early Batman mythos except as an awkward transplant from the Animated show, then later the comics, both happening in grown-up Batman's world.  And Barbara Kean, as an "in" to Gordon's part of the story has always been a bit of a cipher (and one rewritten any number of times)--frankly she's more in that world for Batgirl's sake than Batman's.

 

But the pieces on the board they DO have of the female persuasion didn't need to be this stupid, even if we accept the premise that Jim Gordon and Bruce Wayne are the protagonists and everything has to focus on furthering their stories.  So you can't have big independent pieces of character development for most characters?  Well you, show, manage at least a decent amount for Penguin, don't you?  Barbara and Montoya at least should make sense.  And they don't.  It's frustrating.

[Delphi]

Montoya has the potential to be a very faceted and interesting character and they aren't utilizing her in the least. She's a lesbian beat cop suffering from alcoholism and drug addiction. That would fit in perfectly with the noir grittiness of Gotham however the writers don't seem interested in that. Or else this show just moves too fast to give her the attention. Either way it's a wasted opportunity.

[Kromm]

Montoya has the potential to be a very faceted and interesting character and they aren't utilizing her in the least. She's a lesbian beat cop suffering from alcoholism and drug addiction. That would fit in perfectly with the noir grittiness of Gotham however the writers don't seem interested in that. Or else this show just moves too fast to give her the attention. Either way it's a wasted opportunity.

The show hasn't even admitted to any of those other than her being lesbian, has it?  If we'd gotten some of those other aspects she might indeed have been more interesting.

[jagfan05]

Can someone explain something? I notice tonight's episode is referenced as the "fall finale"? I thought the season was going to be 22 episodes? When will it come back on TV again?

[Delphi]

Can someone explain something? I notice tonight's episode is referenced as the "fall finale"? I thought the season was going to be 22 episodes? When will it come back on TV again?

Probably late February or early March.

[truthaboutluv]

The show hasn't even admitted to any of those other than her being lesbian, has it?  If we'd gotten some of those other aspects she might indeed have been more interesting.

 

 

Her addiction issues were definitely alluded to in her first scene with Barbara. She says to Barbara at one point that she's been clean for over a year and there was some kind of suggestion that addiction and toxic behavior was part of the reason for their relationship ending.

[Danny Franks]

Montoya has the potential to be a very faceted and interesting character and they aren't utilizing her in the least. She's a lesbian beat cop suffering from alcoholism and drug addiction. That would fit in perfectly with the noir grittiness of Gotham however the writers don't seem interested in that. Or else this show just moves too fast to give her the attention. Either way it's a wasted opportunity.

 

In this show, she's a psycho ex who would stop at nothing to ruin the life of her old girlfriend's new guy, and who even when she realises the guy is not crooked and agrees to work with him, still apparently thinks nothing of fucking his girlfriend behind his back.

 

Sadly, that's about as faceted as she's likely to become, from what I can tell. I don't see any legs at all for her or for this limp triangle between two awful women and a guy who clearly deserves better. Maybe they'd be better off rehashing the 'Ross has a kid with his lesbian ex' storyline, and trying to keep Barbara at least tangentially involved in the show that way. I don't know what the endgame is, otherwise, because who on earth wants to see Jim and Barbara together now?

 

It's even more annoying when I watch earlier episodes of the show, because Barbara was so set on believing in and trusting Jim, and did seem to genuinely love him. But now she cheats on him because drama.

 

And this is saddening, because the trend in recent years for women on television has definitely been an upward curve, at least as far as my viewing preferences have gone. There have been plenty of really great women characters in shows over the past three or four years (not saying there weren't any before, but it seems particularly strong at the moment), and lots of really good women writing TV shows. And this is the best Gotham can do?

[Agent Dark]

wrt DnD alignment charts, I've always liked this one for Batman lol:

 

[Danny Franks]

Why do I feel like Frank Miller wrote all three of the 'evil' ones? Though I think the Lawful Evil is definitely from All Star Baman and Robin.

[MarquisDeCarabas]

What comics have you been reading where they show Selina as already being wealthy before she became Catwoman abd began a life of crime?

 

I'm not 100% sure if it ever happened in Comics continuity but B:tAS definitely had Selina as someone who was independently wealthy.

 

As for the current comics incarnation it looks like they've tried to correct some of the earlier flaws and she's now running of of the crime families

 

Look at the first issue of the new arc

 

As for why Selina moves out?  it's possible she's forced to move into witness protection which she eventually leaves.  Also Bruce has to go off on his world training tour at some point.

 

I actually like this development, it really does help explain why Bruce has a soft/blind spot when it comes to Selina that's rarely comes up outside the family.

[Actionmage]

Can someone explain something? I notice tonight's episode is referenced as the "fall finale"? I thought the season was going to be 22 episodes? When will it come back on TV again?

 

The preview mentioned January.

 

Double-checked: according to The Futon Critic, January 5, 2015.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Actionmage

[2KllMckngBrd]

I am in seat 1 on car A of the hate hate hate Barbara train. Said it after the pilot, and the only thing that has changed is I hate her more. The lady who plays her may be beautiful, but she is a terrible, flat, wooden actress. She is arm candy, no more. And the writing for the character makes it so much worse. Sometimes a crappy actor, can at least be passable if the writing is amazing. In this case I actually dread the thought of her appearing on my screen. Again, we all know that a "Barbara" in the end, will have last name of "Gordon". You can play w/the timeline's and characterizations. But essentially you can't change that she will be Mrs. Gordon. So far, Gotham is a hit. And assuming it's around for awhile, and depending on where it "ends", she never has to become that Barbara Gordon. So for now let that chick kick bricks. Period. No problem w/gay or straight. I just want her gone.

I loved the babies' bat and cat. I think it's fun to have them interwoven, so young, into each others' lives. And it never has to turn into a teenage soap opera for it to contribute to both characters. It can be friendly, and flirtatious w/out being obnoxious for the audience. So I agree w/Selina living at Wayne Manor, and say bring it on. And I also noticed that when he was hanging w/Selina was the 1st time I had ever seen Bruce smile. Hell, it was the 1st time I ever saw Alfred smile too.

Alfred is the man. I love this characterization of him as a badass. It seems like the way they are writing Bruce's journey to being the bat requires a stronger Alfred. And it doesn't hurt that the actor playing him is charming, and very handsome.

I can take or leave the character and actor playing Harvey Dent. But what I did love was the choice the producers' and writers made to fashion him as a sociopath. It never made sense to me that in the movies he would go from the white knight to crazy in .02 seconds. This Dent reminds me of the way Sherlock is now presented (BBC, not American movies). The crazy and/or evil is right under the surface, and could go either way. Gotham is writing as though some of that was already in him. And the switch just needed to be flipped.

 

I think at this point they need to just cut the character, and actors who play Montoya and her partner, loose. They are unnecessary.

And as much as I was looking forward to the “Fish Mooney” character she is being written into a corner, and I'm ok w/that. Not sure why I don't care, just don't. Although I did appreciate that Jada Pinkett Smith is toning down the Eartha Kitt impersonation. And I do like her interaction w/Falcone and Liza.

[RealityGal]

Don't want to keep dragging this out, since we're going way off topic on the episode.  D&D is an old pen and paper game, sure, but it's template for morality and ethics is a good starting point for analyzing and discussing human behavior in general, not just about the game.  Claiming that people whose actions are governed by their emotions are behaving based on some personal code of law is just flat out wrong.  The man who beats his wife because "she didn't clean the house" is performing action B based on stimulus A.  There is no code being applied, no reasoning.  It's a raw response.  Not cleaning the house is just a trigger for the behavior.  That doesn't meet any definition of lawful, whether it is the one you are using (laws of society) or the one I am using (laws of personal conduct and belief).  I'll say that most of our disagreement is over you and I applying a different definition of lawful, but I can't agree that all personal actions and behavior are governed by a personal code of conduct that we just don't understand.  That is denial that chaos even exists, which is a fallacy.  I'll drop it now, you can have the final word if you want.

I actually think the dictionary is a better starting point since its more objective than a game.  A man who did that is applying his own code to the situation, its simply one you don't agree with.  The same argument could be made that certain things trigger Batman's response.  If lawful is simply a personal code of conduct and belief, one could simply say that the man believes it is right for him to engage in that conduct based on his wife not cleaning the house.  Even if its what I don't agree with.  I don't agree that all personal actions and behavior are lawful, but thats the definition that you've set up, not me.  I think any definition of lawful has to include a societal perspective which gives it a level of objectivity.  A subjective code that you live by is not per se lawful.

[John Potts]

Have to agree that Barbara is an awful character. If she'd simply run off after getting kidnapped by Falcone/Zzazz that would be fine (not heroic, but understandable). But no, she tells Gordon one thing then does another - "I can't cope with the dangers of being involved with a cop in Gotham, I'm leaving town" translates to "I'm moving out (of my apartment!) and moving back in with my ex, who's also a cop in Gotham." It'd almost be better if she was just a damsel in distress, at least they weren't usually two faced about it!

 

As for Harvey, he seems a bit too... nuts already. Compared to (say) Harvey from The Dark Knight, who was a bit reckless, but you could believe he might have the political and legal chops to make it to DA. Since Harvey is only a Junior Attorney in the DA's office and so far his actions have only served to (slightly) annoy one of Gotham's Crime Lords and secured a total of... No successful prosecutions, it seems doubtful he could ever get there. Particularly when he's distracted by having to be lit from only one side.

 

As for Selina - I liked her. I particularly liked Alfred's interactions with her, disdainful but ultimately a sort of grudging acceptance. And the Bat & the Cat romance was actually quite well foreshadowed, it was actually nice to see Bruce smile for once (OK, he recently lost his parents, he's unlikely to be skipping through the daisies). And while Alfred was pained by the breakages and the mess, he did want to see Bruce actually be a kid for once - I'm sure they'll be plenty of time for her to stomp on his little heart later.

 

Milz I'm waiting for Alfred to chaperone Bruce and Selina on their first teen "date"  to the circus where they see/meet the Flying Graysons.

 

Featuring the Embryo Wonder!?

 

truthaboutluv With everything Penguin has managed to do and gotten involved with, I can't buy Fish thinking he's no threat at all.

 

Quite. I love seeing The Penguin's rise, but he has to actually face & overcome some obstacles, beyond what a five year old could overcome.

[Dobian]

The thing that makes Batman so great is the complex relationships he has with ALL the villains.  I don't think Joker and Riddler would know what to do without him.  His early relationship with Selina is a good prelude to this.  You also see it with Gordon and his relationships with Dent, Nygma, and Cobblepot.

[Kathemy]

Doux Reviews: Harvey Dent