Gotham Hits a Low Point in "Arkham"

Gotham Hits a Low Point in "Arkham"

"Arkham" is everything wrong with Gotham. Which is a shame, because there are some great moments in this show.

Read Full Article

Actually ironically, and this is the one thing that bothers me through out this whole show, is the character of Barbara Kean. She's the worst. I think they want her to be a bit of everything somehow, and I will stop watching the show if she's suddenly some kind of ex-assassin. She's pretty and she doesn't seem like a bad actress, but this role feels awful for her, and she's one of the only members in the show who can't overcome the terrible dialogue. The bi-sexual thing with her and Montoya feels way to coincidental and irrelevant and only seems to kind of serve some kind of need for some kind of progressive cred.

It makes me really feel bad for ripping on her this hard, but in a way, I feel like she's everything wrong with the show, while simultaneously having none of the qualities that are saving it.

Watched it today; was indeed a weak episode. Fish Mooney is one of the stronger characters in general, but the try-outs in this episode felt rather awkward and contrived. Also, four episodes in, and Edward Nygma's role in each one seems to be exactly the same; he offers one piece of information, seems a little socially awkward, and leaves after less than ten seconds of screen-time. Give him something to do!

Still love Penguin. Still love Bullock. Still enjoy the show.

Kameburger:
The bi-sexual thing with her and Montoya feels way to coincidental and irrelevant and only seems to kind of serve some kind of need for some kind of progressive cred.

This is suggested almost every time a non-straight character is included in any piece of media.

Silvanus:

Kameburger:
The bi-sexual thing with her and Montoya feels way to coincidental and irrelevant and only seems to kind of serve some kind of need for some kind of progressive cred.

This is suggested almost every time a non-straight character is included in any piece of media.

That may be, but that's how it felt. You know which show I liked that I felt did gay relationships well, Queer as folk. Because being gay was part of their identity but it felt like they were characterized outside of it. I pointed this out because every line she has feels forced.

I'm just gonna throw the spoiler tags cause I feel a bit bad for spitting out scenes.

Again I'm not pointing it out because I care whether or not they make characters gay. I care because its just sloppy, and because they keep trying so hard to make it look like Barbara has depth, they might as well just have written depth in sharpie on her forehead.

But thank you for taking the time to send over that profoundly patronizing comment my way. It truly forwards the progressive dialogue in a way that's not at all didactic and self-serving. Ironically, I get what your saying when you bring that up and I'm sure it sounds remarkably similar to when racists talk about using characters of other races to play previously white characters. In that sense I really agree with what you said.

I could see a scenario where you had engaged me by saying, "hey I think you're wrong about that statement, because of reasons," and I would have responded probably by saying "Hey, you know what? You have a point. What I said was unclear and frankly worded that way was a bit offensive. Here's what I meant by that." Following this we could have a back and forth, and agree or disagree and ultimately walk away smarter for it.

But I look at your comment and I ask myself what are you trying to achieve with that statement?
The only purpose I could see in a statement is to diminish my point so much so to the point where you feel no need to mind yourself with it.

You know I'm fine with the idea that you don't need to give anyone the benefit of hearing them out before dismissing them completely, as that is your right. What I do truly resent is that you have in one simple dismissive aside, spelled out why we as a society have difficulties discussing serious issues like adults.

Man I really dislike and can't make sense of Barbara Kean's character and especially her relationship to Gordon, and feel really sorry for the actress, because the script has her doing absolutely nothing.

Her relationship to Gordon doesn't make much sense to me, she is presumably some wealthy heiress with a drug habit, who happened to falls in love with a rookie flatfoot. I am sure there will be some depiction of how they met later, but as it stands the circumstances of the relationship actually harms Gordon's character. Not just because of the lack of chemistry between them, but also because how different they are to the rest of Gotham and it's people.

The narrative juxtaposition of Gordon whining to his rich fiancé about how corrupt the city is, while loafing around in a luxury flat is just jarring, especially because it is never addressed.
I know that while I may be projecting too much of my own preconceived ideas of the character, I would have preferred if Gordon and Barbara were normal people trying to live off the same wage as the rest of the police force.
It would add a degree of humanity and sympathy due to him struggling against the temptation of being corrupt. We would see his willpower to stay true to his ideals despite of having the choice of taking the easy road.

To me a character without any kind of struggle is not only unreal, but also boring and serves to make Gordon be bland and unmotivated.

Who the hell is this show for? What tone does it want?

A friend strongly suggested I watch "The Shield". I did and in the first episode I saw, someone gets necklaced! I'm thinking if this kind of brutality is your hook, count me out. Give me the fantastic. That's why I love super heroes, Batman included.

So, Gotham? Closest to the fantastic they've gotten is the Balloon Man. Arkham? A guy is so badly hurt he can't climb out of a barrel. He is doused with gasoline and torture murdered as he begs for his life and is set on fire.

Violence has its place (Breaking Bad, The Sopranos) in otherwise strong stories. Those shows are for adults.

This show should be for cross generational fans. Who the hell was that exploding eyeball for? The torture murders? The blood letting fight between girls?

Also, what the hell is up with that stupid spike weapon?
You know, with a regular knife you can just stab a guy. You don't need to awkwardly fiddle around with screwing together some contraption just to get into murder-mode.
Equally jarring, anyone else find it weird that a pro assassin in one of the most dangerous and corrupt cities on earth doesn't have a gun?

I kind of liked the Balloonman thing, because he clearly an old, physically weak guy who wants to surprise his victims with something completely unexpected. Also, as a method of killing, it's pretty fantastic. I just wish they would've leaned more heavily into something intentionally symbolic (You think you're above the rest of us in this city. Well, let's see how far up you can go before you come crashing down, etc). Also, even Balloonman had a gun. :/

chikusho:
Also, what the hell is up with that stupid spike weapon?
You know, with a regular knife you can just stab a guy. You don't need to awkwardly fiddle around with screwing together some contraption just to get into murder-mode.
Equally jarring, anyone else find it weird that a pro assassin in one of the most dangerous and corrupt cities on earth doesn't have a gun?

And he actually does use it to stab someone, but it is just a big needle. The guy screams and runs away from the a pro-assassin. Sure, the killer catches up, but that it happens at all?

I think that was their big attempt this episode at the fantastical, and it failed miserably. This guy was no super villain in the making.

I kind of liked the Balloonman thing, because he clearly an old, physically weak guy who wants to surprise his victims with something completely unexpected. Also, as a method of killing, it's pretty fantastic. I just wish they would've leaned more heavily into something intentionally symbolic (You think you're above the rest of us in this city. Well, let's see how far up you can go before you come crashing down, etc). Also, even Balloonman had a gun. :/

I did not catch the "you think you're above the rest of us". Even if that were not the writer's attempt, nice analysis!

But failing at the fantastic this show appears to be TV rated torture porn thus far. A waste of a great comic book universe.

Gorfias:

I kind of liked the Balloonman thing, because he clearly an old, physically weak guy who wants to surprise his victims with something completely unexpected. Also, as a method of killing, it's pretty fantastic. I just wish they would've leaned more heavily into something intentionally symbolic (You think you're above the rest of us in this city. Well, let's see how far up you can go before you come crashing down, etc). Also, even Balloonman had a gun. :/

I did not catch the "you think you're above the rest of us". Even if that were not the writer's attempt, nice analysis!

I know, I didn't catch any of it either. Like, the writers didn't think of it themselves, or a big chunk got lost in editing. It's missed potential brewing under the surface, is what I'm saying.

But failing at the fantastic this show appears to be TV rated torture porn thus far. A waste of a great comic book universe.

Yeah, you need a worthwhile context to make chock-value actually have effect, other than "eww, gross".

chikusho:

I did not catch the "you think you're above the rest of us". Even if that were not the writer's attempt, nice analysis!

I know, I didn't catch any of it either. Like, the writers didn't think of it themselves, or a big chunk got lost in editing. It's missed potential brewing under the surface, is what I'm saying.

I'll be kind and write, maybe that was the writer's intent. But maybe it wasn't. The writer's intent is irrelevant. Your analysis fits. Agreed, if this was their intent, they could have exploited the theme much more.

And so far, even if this show should not be for cross generational appeal (though it should: it's about a comic book universe, dang it!), this is the sort of thing that separates a great if violent show like "The Wire" and mere torture porn.

I'm not sure how long I'll keep subjecting myself to it.

I didn't think it was that bad after I watched it, but when I think about it, the script was awful. I think I like it too much for the things that it does well that I can overlook the things it does poorly.

Barbara's character is probably the weakest, mostly because she's only defined in relation to Gordon. What does she do? What are her motivations? What is her personality? Her relationship to other characters seem to be only related to him, and so far her only purpose is to answer the question 'what does the main character do when he's not at work?'

Apart from that I don't have many complaints. The violence seems almost cartoony which is why I don't really have a problem with it. I really like the atmosphere and the cast, and that's what has kept me watching thus far.

Kameburger:
Again I'm not pointing it out because I care whether or not they make characters gay. I care because its just sloppy, and because they keep trying so hard to make it look like Barbara has depth, they might as well just have written depth in sharpie on her forehead.

But thank you for taking the time to send over that profoundly patronizing comment my way. It truly forwards the progressive dialogue in a way that's not at all didactic and self-serving. Ironically, I get what your saying when you bring that up and I'm sure it sounds remarkably similar to when racists talk about using characters of other races to play previously white characters. In that sense I really agree with what you said.

I could see a scenario where you had engaged me by saying, "hey I think you're wrong about that statement, because of reasons," and I would have responded probably by saying "Hey, you know what? You have a point. What I said was unclear and frankly worded that way was a bit offensive. Here's what I meant by that." Following this we could have a back and forth, and agree or disagree and ultimately walk away smarter for it.

But I look at your comment and I ask myself what are you trying to achieve with that statement?
The only purpose I could see in a statement is to diminish my point so much so to the point where you feel no need to mind yourself with it.

You know I'm fine with the idea that you don't need to give anyone the benefit of hearing them out before dismissing them completely, as that is your right. What I do truly resent is that you have in one simple dismissive aside, spelled out why we as a society have difficulties discussing serious issues like adults.

In the first comment, it wasn't the poor writing, or the lack of depth, or Gordon's reaction you brought attention to. It was specifically the sexuality.

Silvanus:

Kameburger:
Again I'm not pointing it out because I care whether or not they make characters gay. I care because its just sloppy, and because they keep trying so hard to make it look like Barbara has depth, they might as well just have written depth in sharpie on her forehead.

But thank you for taking the time to send over that profoundly patronizing comment my way. It truly forwards the progressive dialogue in a way that's not at all didactic and self-serving. Ironically, I get what your saying when you bring that up and I'm sure it sounds remarkably similar to when racists talk about using characters of other races to play previously white characters. In that sense I really agree with what you said.

I could see a scenario where you had engaged me by saying, "hey I think you're wrong about that statement, because of reasons," and I would have responded probably by saying "Hey, you know what? You have a point. What I said was unclear and frankly worded that way was a bit offensive. Here's what I meant by that." Following this we could have a back and forth, and agree or disagree and ultimately walk away smarter for it.

But I look at your comment and I ask myself what are you trying to achieve with that statement?
The only purpose I could see in a statement is to diminish my point so much so to the point where you feel no need to mind yourself with it.

You know I'm fine with the idea that you don't need to give anyone the benefit of hearing them out before dismissing them completely, as that is your right. What I do truly resent is that you have in one simple dismissive aside, spelled out why we as a society have difficulties discussing serious issues like adults.

In the first comment, it wasn't the poor writing, or the lack of depth, or Gordon's reaction you brought attention to. It was specifically the sexuality.

Cause that what the writing brought attention to.

You know, half the time, a lot of these crimes would be easily resolved with someone with a firearm and good aim. They shoot down the balloon, they can shoot the guy with the melee weapon.

The problems would be solved earlier.

Kameburger:

Cause that what the writing brought attention to.

Only insofar as the character's relationship happened to have relevance to the plot. There were no bells or whistles. The writing didn't "bring attention" to the sexuality; it merely mentioned a past relationship, of relevance to the story at hand, which happened to have been with a woman.

How would you prefer it be handled?

I'm just trying to figure out how the hell that assassin's spike thing is supposed to work. It screws together with two pieces, does one house the spike and the other the spring mechanism? Wouldn't that mean he'd have to take it apart again to reset it? Or is each half it's own spring-loaded spike so he can stab again on the fly by flipping it around, and it just comes in two parts to more easily fit in his pocket?

At any rate, yeah, it's goofy that a "consummate professional" would use such an inconvenient weapon. But it's proto-Batman, and Batman villains all have some kind of shtick. Maybe the writers watched some Arrow and lazily ripped off Bronze Tiger, who also uses a ridiculously specialized stabbing implement to carry out his professional murdering.

Silvanus:

In the first comment, it wasn't the poor writing, or the lack of depth, or Gordon's reaction you brought attention to. It was specifically the sexuality.

So if he made it a third comment, then you wouldn't have reached the same conclusion? If that's the case then it sounds to me like the problem is on your end.

The point where they specifically brought attention to it ('Do you have a problem with it because she's a woman?'), is when I reached the conclusion she's a token LGBT character. Because it is really silly when you think about it. Her ex is coming around to their house and telling his significant other that he framed one dude and killed another. Swap the genders and sexualities any way you want, 'IS IT BECAUSE HE/SHE IS A MAN/WOMAN' does not make any sense, unless the only reason the writers put it in is to fill in a check box.

If they didn't want to make a statement or have a conversation about it, why bring it up at all? Why not treat it the same way as if she was heterosexual? If that was the case, she wouldn't say 'is it because he's a man?' The writers are making special exceptions because of her sexuality but then don't go on to address it in any way.

It's indicative of bad writing that the whole character is plagued with.

While filled with horrible writing and scenes, this episode did actually address my biggest problem with the series so far. Having to many plot lines going at once. So far they've been juggling the Wayne murders, Jim dealing with whatever criminal of the week is, Barbra, the MCU people breathing down his neck, Harvey and the corrupt police force. Then there's the upcoming gang way, Cobblepot's storline, They keep shoe horning Selina in. All these go by in rapid succession like they're checking off a list and never dwelling long enough to invest the watchers in each scene. Here though most everything ties in with the big gang war plot, so it feels a lot more cohesive.

Unfortunately they marred it with bad acting (the assassin and the singers were very bad performances in my opinion) and questionable plot lines. Is Jim going to be turning to 10 year old Bruce to help solve his crimes every week? He's not Batman yet folks. The reason I think that they keep going on about Barbra and Montoya's past relationship is to establish Montoya's bonafides as a gay character. The handling of it in this episode was bad though.. It seemed they wanted to touch on homophobia as being a thing, but they wouldn't have Jim being a bigot, so the whole scene just came off poorly. Besides that, Montoya shouldn't even be in this show at this time period. Cobblepot being in his 20s makes sense. But Montoya is a lot younger than Jim Gordon. She shouldn't even be a teenager at this time, let alone having the same job she had in the comics, before becoming the Question.

It's sad because there are some brilliant performances in this show that make me want to like it, but the writing is so weak it's painful to watch.

Silvanus:

Kameburger:

Cause that what the writing brought attention to.

Only insofar as the character's relationship happened to have relevance to the plot. There were no bells or whistles. The writing didn't "bring attention" to the sexuality; it merely mentioned a past relationship, of relevance to the story at hand, which happened to have been with a woman.

How would you prefer it be handled?

That's not at all how it was brought up. I get the impression you didn't watch the same thing I did. The characters relationship has no relevance to the plot, it has not relevance to anything. If Montoya were a man it wouldn't magically make her a better character for me.

I would prefer they have more respect for the LGBT community than to just say hey we've fill our quota so now we can do as we please. The plot line in that show is pointless and the acting and terrible script make me not believe her in any case. Incidentally Montoya is the most throw away character on that show. So they made the two non straight characters on that show a cop that no one likes and a nagging house wife. This is not only lazy tokenism for the LGBT community but also a little sexist the more I think about if.

And if the acting """""""didn't""""" bring attention to the sexuality of the character than the horrible acting resulted in some really awkward lines that they just left in for no reason.

mmiki:

Silvanus:

In the first comment, it wasn't the poor writing, or the lack of depth, or Gordon's reaction you brought attention to. It was specifically the sexuality.

So if he made it a third comment, then you wouldn't have reached the same conclusion? If that's the case then it sounds to me like the problem is on your end.

The point where they specifically brought attention to it ('Do you have a problem with it because she's a woman?'), is when I reached the conclusion she's a token LGBT character. Because it is really silly when you think about it. Her ex is coming around to their house and telling his significant other that he framed one dude and killed another. Swap the genders and sexualities any way you want, 'IS IT BECAUSE HE/SHE IS A MAN/WOMAN' does not make any sense, unless the only reason the writers put it in is to fill in a check box.

If they didn't want to make a statement or have a conversation about it, why bring it up at all? Why not treat it the same way as if she was heterosexual? If that was the case, she wouldn't say 'is it because he's a man?' The writers are making special exceptions because of her sexuality but then don't go on to address it in any way.

It's indicative of bad writing that the whole character is plagued with.

Couldn't agree more.

mmiki:

So if he made it a third comment, then you wouldn't have reached the same conclusion? If that's the case then it sounds to me like the problem is on your end.

What? No. The issue wasn't which comment it was. That's... an odd suggestion.

mmiki:
The point where they specifically brought attention to it ('Do you have a problem with it because she's a woman?'), is when I reached the conclusion she's a token LGBT character. Because it is really silly when you think about it. Her ex is coming around to their house and telling his significant other that he framed one dude and killed another. Swap the genders and sexualities any way you want, 'IS IT BECAUSE HE/SHE IS A MAN/WOMAN' does not make any sense, unless the only reason the writers put it in is to fill in a check box.

If they didn't want to make a statement or have a conversation about it, why bring it up at all? Why not treat it the same way as if she was heterosexual? If that was the case, she wouldn't say 'is it because he's a man?' The writers are making special exceptions because of her sexuality but then don't go on to address it in any way.

It's indicative of bad writing that the whole character is plagued with.

Again, Kameburger did not refer to bad writing at first. His first complaint was "the bisexual thing". That led me to believe his problem was with the bisexual thing.

Kameburger:

That's not at all how it was brought up. I get the impression you didn't watch the same thing I did. The characters relationship has no relevance to the plot, it has not relevance to anything. If Montoya were a man it wouldn't magically make her a better character for me.

The relevance is that Barbara's failure to disclose the past relationship led Gordon to believe she was being dishonest. That ran into their break-up at the end of the episode, which was about mutual distrust.

Kameburger:
I would prefer they have more respect for the LGBT community than to just say hey we've fill our quota so now we can do as we please. The plot line in that show is pointless and the acting and terrible script make me not believe her in any case. Incidentally Montoya is the most throw away character on that show. So they made the two non straight characters on that show a cop that no one likes and a nagging house wife. This is not only lazy tokenism for the LGBT community but also a little sexist the more I think about if.

What makes her particularly more "throw away" than her partner, Crispus?

For that matter, isn't it a bit early to say the plot-line (the Gordons' distrust, and their breakup) is pointless, since it was only in the last episode it cropped up?

Kameburger:
Actually ironically, and this is the one thing that bothers me through out this whole show, is the character of Barbara Kean. She's the worst. I think they want her to be a bit of everything somehow, and I will stop watching the show if she's suddenly some kind of ex-assassin. She's pretty and she doesn't seem like a bad actress, but this role feels awful for her, and she's one of the only members in the show who can't overcome the terrible dialogue. The bi-sexual thing with her and Montoya feels way to coincidental and irrelevant and only seems to kind of serve some kind of need for some kind of progressive cred.

It makes me really feel bad for ripping on her this hard, but in a way, I feel like she's everything wrong with the show, while simultaneously having none of the qualities that are saving it.

Ignoring your opinion on the need to serve some kind of quota that is pretty much my main problem with the show as well. I don't get how this makes your opinion ironic though. Because she's not a cop and thus not central to the plot but still manages to sum up what's wrong with the show?

To adress your concern, I think the bi-sexual angle is just there to try and fit as many things as possible to attract an audience rather than make a checklist. It's even more a sign of bad writing that they have to rely on that poorly thought out gimmick in addition to the other gimmicks. The most egregious gimmick is over-focusing on Bruce, to the point of connecting EVERYBODY to him EVEN Catwoman. Seriously, why did Catwoman need to see the murder of his parents? It really didn't make the story any better; it's just there to make everything connected and convenient, so the writers have an easier time pulling out a gimmicky plot thread of the week, I bet. Sigh, but c'est la vie.

Kameburger:

Silvanus:

Kameburger:
The bi-sexual thing with her and Montoya feels way to coincidental and irrelevant and only seems to kind of serve some kind of need for some kind of progressive cred.

This is suggested almost every time a non-straight character is included in any piece of media.

[snip]

But I look at your comment and I ask myself what are you trying to achieve with that statement?
The only purpose I could see in a statement is to diminish my point so much so to the point where you feel no need to mind yourself with it.

You know I'm fine with the idea that you don't need to give anyone the benefit of hearing them out before dismissing them completely, as that is your right. What I do truly resent is that you have in one simple dismissive aside, spelled out why we as a society have difficulties discussing serious issues like adults.

Woah, that is a bit of an overreaction. Like I said earlier, I don't agree with your opinion on them needing a diversity quota. I do agree it is one way to give the character fake depth. Regardless, I thought Silvanus just responded so curtly because a lot of people DO say that whenever a non-straight character is put in any piece of media. You, yourself, acknowledge that you got the underlying point, how people who discriminate default to this. I know you believe the simple statement rather than an in depth and more respectful response is a sign of pettiness on his part, but I interpreted it as someone who is tired of hearing similar criticism from intolerant people.

Obviously, you are not intolerant, which is why I personally think you should have responded more calmly and wait to see why Silvanus responded the way he did rather than coming to conclusions. Funny, you told him he should have done the same with you. Interesting that you couldn't do it yourself. Sorry if that comes off as a little arrogant or unnecessarily insulting towards you. Just throwing out constructive criticism. God knows I need some tossed my way as well.

OT: Please, please, please tell me Montoya and Allen are barely in this episode! I've only seen around the 1st 10 minutes. I can't stand them. They might be worse than Barbara! They're supposed to kind of represent the good side of the GCPD, but also be unlikable at the same time and it just comes off as stupid. It's just a way to give Gordon a righteous obstacle to overcome, something that says he is the "one good cop" while having more nuance than him facing the black (GCPD) and white (Gordon) situation that is Gotham, that of the corruptible (GCPD) vs the incorruptible (GORDON). It doesn't work and so far has actually made Montoya and Allen come off as unnecessarily vindictive. It just comes off as them not caring whether Gordon is a good man or not. They just want to ruin him.

Silvanus:

mmiki:

So if he made it a third comment, then you wouldn't have reached the same conclusion? If that's the case then it sounds to me like the problem is on your end.

What? No. The issue wasn't which comment it was. That's... an odd suggestion.

I misunderstood what you were trying to say, sorry.

Silvanus:

Again, Kameburger did not refer to bad writing at first. His first complaint was "the bisexual thing". That led me to believe his problem was with the bisexual thing.

My understanding of his words "bisexual thing that only serves purpose to establish progressive cred" was "token bisex". Your argument with Kameburger aside, I'm interested in whether you think it's the case here or not? It was certainly the impression that I got (and I tried to explain the reasons in my last post), but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

mmiki:

I misunderstood what you were trying to say, sorry.

No worries, I get rambly and unclear sometimes.

mmiki:

My understanding of his words "bisexual thing that only serves purpose to establish progressive cred" was "token bisex". Your argument with Kameburger aside, I'm interested in whether you think it's the case here or not? It was certainly the impression that I got (and I tried to explain the reasons in my last post), but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

I'd say we don't have enough to go on, personally. I'm mostly fine with incidental inclusions of minorities, and don't believe it has to be central to a story.

Tokenism is really hard to pin down. If the character had no other defining traits, I might be tempted to call that tokenism, but that's not really true of either Montoya or Barbara Kean.

Silvanus:

I'd say we don't have enough to go on, personally. I'm mostly fine with incidental inclusions of minorities, and don't believe it has to be central to a story.

Tokenism is really hard to pin down. If the character had no other defining traits, I might be tempted to call that tokenism, but that's not really true of either Montoya or Barbara Kean.

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with incidental inclusion of minorities either, but what poked me in the eye was the way they have drawn attention to it. If you want to show that it isn't a problem then either don't have the character react differently than he would to a heterosexual or have some kind of serious point or discussion on the issue. This just left an impression that they were using it as a cheap way to establish that Gordon is totally cool with it. Maybe 'tokenism' isn't the best word to describe it, but it's sort of the same thing.

I actually get the feeling that Barbara is supposed to be the one with having a problem with having dated Montoya. Her whole reaction to it is that she's ashamed of that. She acted that way when Montoya showed up at her apartment. And how she seemed to expect Jim to have a problem with it. Maybe I'm reading this wrong too. It's kind of hard to tell. I don't understand Jim getting upset and saying Barbara lied about her relationship.. Unless she told him she never dated anyone before him... it just seems out of left field to get upset when you found out that your 20s girlfriend has dated before...

Silvanus:

Kameburger:
The bi-sexual thing with her and Montoya feels way to coincidental and irrelevant and only seems to kind of serve some kind of need for some kind of progressive cred.

This is suggested almost every time a non-straight character is included in any piece of media.

i think that you're being far too dismissive of a valid point. there are times where homosexual relationships are just a normal part of the character or story, then there are times where it's obviously just sexploitation. (sexploitation didn't set off my spell check...) i think it's far more harmful to jam it down the throat of society than to just let it be what it is. there are different... categories(?) used in media today with varying levels of exploitation or respect.

one of the most organic gay relationships i've seen in any media lately is actually from a video game called State of Decay, where Jacob Ritter and Eli Wilkerson. at first you may even realize these two are in a relationship because we're are so used to being blasted with it "HEY, THESE TWO ARE GAY! YOU SEE THAT? HOMOSEXUALITY!" which is what Kameburger i think was making their point about. it wasn't trying to display these characters who happen to be gay or bi, they were trying to SELL you bi-sexuality which seems so cynical and crass, as well as serving to (at least in my opinion) harm the cause for equality.

another example of a non-exploitive "non-straight" character is Celia from Weeds. in the way that her story worked out, and in the presentation, it didn't seem cheap and forced, it was just an organic part of her story arc.

hell, even the two gay guys from Modern Family goes against your implied social backlash against non-straight characters, and they are extremely flamboyant. but it doesn't come across in a way that seems forced and cynical.

it's all about context i suppose. there's a whole different discussion in my response here, but i had to say something because you just seemed so dismissive of a valid criticism.

martyrdrebel27:

i think that you're being far too dismissive of a valid point. there are times where homosexual relationships are just a normal part of the character or story, then there are times where it's obviously just sexploitation. (sexploitation didn't set off my spell check...) i think it's far more harmful to jam it down the throat of society than to just let it be what it is. there are different... categories(?) used in media today with varying levels of exploitation or respect.

one of the most organic gay relationships i've seen in any media lately is actually from a video game called State of Decay, where Jacob Ritter and Eli Wilkerson. at first you may even realize these two are in a relationship because we're are so used to being blasted with it "HEY, THESE TWO ARE GAY! YOU SEE THAT? HOMOSEXUALITY!" which is what Kameburger i think was making their point about. it wasn't trying to display these characters who happen to be gay or bi, they were trying to SELL you bi-sexuality which seems so cynical and crass, as well as serving to (at least in my opinion) harm the cause for equality.

another example of a non-exploitive "non-straight" character is Celia from Weeds. in the way that her story worked out, and in the presentation, it didn't seem cheap and forced, it was just an organic part of her story arc.

hell, even the two gay guys from Modern Family goes against your implied social backlash against non-straight characters, and they are extremely flamboyant. but it doesn't come across in a way that seems forced and cynical.

it's all about context i suppose. there's a whole different discussion in my response here, but i had to say something because you just seemed so dismissive of a valid criticism.

Perhaps. I don't think the presentation in Gotham was anything egregious; there was only one short line (spoken by a stressed character) regarding the sexuality, and they didn't even run with that angle. The relationship was actually relevant to a sub-plot.

Remember, of course, that Modern Family has indeed been criticised (very strongly) by right-wing media outlets for portraying a gay couple. It's even more routine for it to happen to TV shows and films than it is for games.

It's that kind of thing that exasperates me. It just seems that it happens every time. Jamail77 was right about my response: I'm frustrated with seeing the same line of criticism, the same targets.

Silvanus:

martyrdrebel27:

i think that you're being far too dismissive of a valid point. there are times where homosexual relationships are just a normal part of the character or story, then there are times where it's obviously just sexploitation. (sexploitation didn't set off my spell check...) i think it's far more harmful to jam it down the throat of society than to just let it be what it is. there are different... categories(?) used in media today with varying levels of exploitation or respect.

one of the most organic gay relationships i've seen in any media lately is actually from a video game called State of Decay, where Jacob Ritter and Eli Wilkerson. at first you may even realize these two are in a relationship because we're are so used to being blasted with it "HEY, THESE TWO ARE GAY! YOU SEE THAT? HOMOSEXUALITY!" which is what Kameburger i think was making their point about. it wasn't trying to display these characters who happen to be gay or bi, they were trying to SELL you bi-sexuality which seems so cynical and crass, as well as serving to (at least in my opinion) harm the cause for equality.

another example of a non-exploitive "non-straight" character is Celia from Weeds. in the way that her story worked out, and in the presentation, it didn't seem cheap and forced, it was just an organic part of her story arc.

hell, even the two gay guys from Modern Family goes against your implied social backlash against non-straight characters, and they are extremely flamboyant. but it doesn't come across in a way that seems forced and cynical.

it's all about context i suppose. there's a whole different discussion in my response here, but i had to say something because you just seemed so dismissive of a valid criticism.

Perhaps. I don't think the presentation in Gotham was anything egregious; there was only one short line (spoken by a stressed character) regarding the sexuality, and they didn't even run with that angle. The relationship was actually relevant to a sub-plot.

Remember, of course, that Modern Family has indeed been criticised (very strongly) by right-wing media outlets for portraying a gay couple. It's even more routine for it to happen to TV shows and films than it is for games.

It's that kind of thing that exasperates me. It just seems that it happens every time. Jamail77 was right about my response: I'm frustrated with seeing the same line of criticism, the same targets.

nobody takes Right Wing Media seriously. they are out of touch sensationalists at best, and active agents of subterfuge and hate at worst. that's not the kind of backlash i mean, because they are all going to spew that hatred anyways. i mean the more centrist people who could be swayed either way.

martyrdrebel27:

nobody takes Right Wing Media seriously. they are out of touch sensationalists at best, and active agents of subterfuge and hate at worst. that's not the kind of backlash i mean, because they are all going to spew that hatred anyways. i mean the more centrist people who could be swayed either way.

Well, you must admit, it's fairly common for the inclusion of gay people to be seen as pandering, even by players. I've seen Gone Home dismissed as an "SJW game"; the inclusion of a same-sex couple in Guild Wars 2 as "blatant" and "making an example"; the inclusion of a gay romantic option in Dragon Age as "pandering" and "ruining the game" (admittedly, in the last example, the guy was shot down quick).

My point is, it crops up a lot, and it's not just the right-wing media. I've never seen the same language used about heterosexual relationships.

jamail77:

Kameburger:
Actually ironically, and this is the one thing that bothers me through out this whole show, is the character of Barbara Kean. She's the worst. I think they want her to be a bit of everything somehow, and I will stop watching the show if she's suddenly some kind of ex-assassin. She's pretty and she doesn't seem like a bad actress, but this role feels awful for her, and she's one of the only members in the show who can't overcome the terrible dialogue. The bi-sexual thing with her and Montoya feels way to coincidental and irrelevant and only seems to kind of serve some kind of need for some kind of progressive cred.

It makes me really feel bad for ripping on her this hard, but in a way, I feel like she's everything wrong with the show, while simultaneously having none of the qualities that are saving it.

Ignoring your opinion on the need to serve some kind of quota that is pretty much my main problem with the show as well. I don't get how this makes your opinion ironic though. Because she's not a cop and thus not central to the plot but still manages to sum up what's wrong with the show?

To adress your concern, I think the bi-sexual angle is just there to try and fit as many things as possible to attract an audience rather than make a checklist. It's even more a sign of bad writing that they have to rely on that poorly thought out gimmick in addition to the other gimmicks. The most egregious gimmick is over-focusing on Bruce, to the point of connecting EVERYBODY to him EVEN Catwoman. Seriously, why did Catwoman need to see the murder of his parents? It really didn't make the story any better; it's just there to make everything connected and convenient, so the writers have an easier time pulling out a gimmicky plot thread of the week, I bet. Sigh, but c'est la vie.

Kameburger:

Silvanus:

This is suggested almost every time a non-straight character is included in any piece of media.

[snip]

But I look at your comment and I ask myself what are you trying to achieve with that statement?
The only purpose I could see in a statement is to diminish my point so much so to the point where you feel no need to mind yourself with it.

You know I'm fine with the idea that you don't need to give anyone the benefit of hearing them out before dismissing them completely, as that is your right. What I do truly resent is that you have in one simple dismissive aside, spelled out why we as a society have difficulties discussing serious issues like adults.

Woah, that is a bit of an overreaction. Like I said earlier, I don't agree with your opinion on them needing a diversity quota. I do agree it is one way to give the character fake depth. Regardless, I thought Silvanus just responded so curtly because a lot of people DO say that whenever a non-straight character is put in any piece of media. You, yourself, acknowledge that you got the underlying point, how people who discriminate default to this. I know you believe the simple statement rather than an in depth and more respectful response is a sign of pettiness on his part, but I interpreted it as someone who is tired of hearing similar criticism from intolerant people.

Obviously, you are not intolerant, which is why I personally think you should have responded more calmly and wait to see why Silvanus responded the way he did rather than coming to conclusions. Funny, you told him he should have done the same with you. Interesting that you couldn't do it yourself. Sorry if that comes off as a little arrogant or unnecessarily insulting towards you. Just throwing out constructive criticism. God knows I need some tossed my way as well.

You know what that's completely fair. I did take exception to that one passing dismissive comment and reacted a little stronger than I should have. I can't deny your point there. And he may be tired of this kind of thing which I can completely understand. The thing I'm tired of is being curtly dismissed for small cherry picked comments in my posts. Man this happens a lot more than you think. And it is beyond frustrating. Silvanus recieved the brunt of my frustration, but I think what he did is common practice in interactions on these kinda of boards lately and it's disrespectful, intellectually lazy and worst of all counter productive.

But even so, I did over react, and that's my bad.

Silvanus:

mmiki:

So if he made it a third comment, then you wouldn't have reached the same conclusion? If that's the case then it sounds to me like the problem is on your end.

What? No. The issue wasn't which comment it was. That's... an odd suggestion.

mmiki:
The point where they specifically brought attention to it ('Do you have a problem with it because she's a woman?'), is when I reached the conclusion she's a token LGBT character. Because it is really silly when you think about it. Her ex is coming around to their house and telling his significant other that he framed one dude and killed another. Swap the genders and sexualities any way you want, 'IS IT BECAUSE HE/SHE IS A MAN/WOMAN' does not make any sense, unless the only reason the writers put it in is to fill in a check box.

If they didn't want to make a statement or have a conversation about it, why bring it up at all? Why not treat it the same way as if she was heterosexual? If that was the case, she wouldn't say 'is it because he's a man?' The writers are making special exceptions because of her sexuality but then don't go on to address it in any way.

It's indicative of bad writing that the whole character is plagued with.

Again, Kameburger did not refer to bad writing at first. His first complaint was "the bisexual thing". That led me to believe his problem was with the bisexual thing.

Kameburger:

That's not at all how it was brought up. I get the impression you didn't watch the same thing I did. The characters relationship has no relevance to the plot, it has not relevance to anything. If Montoya were a man it wouldn't magically make her a better character for me.

The relevance is that Barbara's failure to disclose the past relationship led Gordon to believe she was being dishonest. That ran into their break-up at the end of the episode, which was about mutual distrust.

Kameburger:
I would prefer they have more respect for the LGBT community than to just say hey we've fill our quota so now we can do as we please. The plot line in that show is pointless and the acting and terrible script make me not believe her in any case. Incidentally Montoya is the most throw away character on that show. So they made the two non straight characters on that show a cop that no one likes and a nagging house wife. This is not only lazy tokenism for the LGBT community but also a little sexist the more I think about if.

What makes her particularly more "throw away" than her partner, Crispus?

For that matter, isn't it a bit early to say the plot-line (the Gordons' distrust, and their breakup) is pointless, since it was only in the last episode it cropped up?

First of all my complaint about "the bi-sexual thing" was that it seemed cynically tacked on, which was meant to add on to the rest of my comment that she failed to rise above the terrible writing unlike most of the other cast.

Your right though her partner is pretty much just as equally a throw away character or walking plot device. But quibbles, because since you asked the Montoya thing is pointless because this is a prequel series. We know they end up together. That happens in the batman universe. We know the end point. There a dozen or so roles she can play and the Montoya tension is the least interesting of all of them.

Also she explicitly brings attention to her sexuality by asking Gordon in an accusing way of having a problem with her sexuality and assuming it was more important than her partner potentially committing murder.

Silvanus:
Jamail77 was right about my response: I'm frustrated with seeing the same line of criticism, the same targets.

I was right? I WAS RIGHT! *Achievement drummer solo that goes "duh huh duh uh duhhhh duh huh duh"uhhhhh hrrmmmmm...how would I textify that actually?*Wish I knew the name of it, so I could link a video. Annnnyyyyyway. Sorry, I consider myself to be too rambly and disconnected in my thoughts to be right on anything. OK, not really: I'm not that down on myself. I just wanted to make a joke at my own expense. Certainly helps lighten the mood among all the arguing on this, right? Right? *crickets* Moving on.

martyrdrebel27:

nobody takes Right Wing Media seriously.

Well, right wing consumers of said media take right wing media seriously. Not exactly nobody. That's the problem with right wing media, isn't it? The fact that anyone takes it seriously? I know, I know: You didn't mean that literally. I just enjoy being the literal troll. Couldn't help it, sorry.

To be more serious now, then again, I guess we are kind of dismissing the right wing media followers as not worth listening to since they're just as out of touch and just as much active agents of subterfuge and hate. Though, they are more innocent in that they aren't aware that's what they are whereas much of the media is probably aware they are that and don't care. Echo chamber, confirmation bias, believing what they're doing is moral, and all that in regards to right wing followers. To be fair, there is SOME decent right wing media. It's not much, but I have witnessed it. The mythical, more reasonable right wing media does exist...or maybe that's just my judgment being clouded by my need to give both "sides" a fair shot to defend themselves and prove what we dislike is minority extremists that seem like a majority but aren't...I know, that's unlikely in the case of media, but I'm overly generous in my fairness even when one "side" is more "right" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Kameburger:

You know what that's completely fair. I did take exception to that one passing dismissive comment and reacted a little stronger than I should have. I can't deny your point there. And he may be tired of this kind of thing which I can completely understand. The thing I'm tired of is being curtly dismissed for small cherry picked comments in my posts. Man this happens a lot more than you think. And it is beyond frustrating. Silvanus recieved the brunt of my frustration, but I think what he did is common practice in interactions on these kinda of boards lately and it's disrespectful, intellectually lazy and worst of all counter productive.

But even so, I did over react, and that's my bad.

And, you know what back? Your point is completely fair as well. Frustration builds up and you take it out on the wrong people unintentionally. I understand as I've done it myself. If you were curious, he did say he is tired of this kind of thing in a follow up post though I really shouldn't speak for him (I've noticed a lot of people on The Escapist forums get really angry if you rush to their defense or speak for them. I've gotten rude responses back that "They don't need me defending them" and "They can speak for themselves" as if I was acting like an overprotective parent rather than someone trying to act as the calm voice in a debate, a moderator if you will).

I also know what you mean in regards to immature discussion around these parts. If it is picking up as you feel, I think I know what is causing it, but I'd rather not say as it is a bit of a controversial debate and might get me a lot of hate I don't want to deal with.

Kameburger:

First of all my complaint about "the bi-sexual thing" was that it seemed cynically tacked on, which was meant to add on to the rest of my comment that she failed to rise above the terrible writing unlike most of the other cast.

Your right though her partner is pretty much just as equally a throw away character or walking plot device. But quibbles, because since you asked the Montoya thing is pointless because this is a prequel series. We know they end up together. That happens in the batman universe. We know the end point. There a dozen or so roles she can play and the Montoya tension is the least interesting of all of them.

We know the end point, yes. The majority of show-watchers do not. The majority of show-watchers have not read the comics, and do not know who Montoya is, or that Barbara Kean becomes Barbara Gordon. Similarly, HBO's Game of Thrones writes in cliff-hangers, or sub-plots that were not present in the source material, because most watchers have not read the books. They don't know the end point. For most watchers, that break up was a cliff-hanger, and they don't know how it'll turn out.

Kameburger:
Also she explicitly brings attention to her sexuality by asking Gordon in an accusing way of having a problem with her sexuality and assuming it was more important than her partner potentially committing murder.

In one line, spoken in a moment of passion. That kind of thing genuinely happens.

 

Reply to Thread

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