Well I’m going with it but still, to me, it seems silly to plan a hit disguised as a mugging and then using some never before seen bullets for the murder.
The bullets weren’t exotic, they were just improbably pricey for a common street thug, though personally I don’t think it’s that big a deal. In the U.S., a lot of the guns in the hands of criminals have been stolen from legal owners. So somebody legally owned a high-end .45 with high-end ammunition and both were stolen by a burglar and eventually sold to Joe Chill. This does not strike me as an implausible chain of events, though no doubt within the show it’ll drive the larger conspiracy plotline. Personally, I think it would kind of brave for them to either:
- Not solve the Wayne murders at all, letting them remain a mystery; or
- Discover that despite tantalizing clues, it really was just a capricious opportunistic act of street crime by a greedy mean-spirited thug.
Just like in real life. 
No, I haven’t read a super-hero comic book in ages, and am not really interested in doing so now.
Yeah, but they did go through the trouble of a disguise (grubby clothes) which they didn’t have to. And they did ask for money and jewels to complete the ruse. Plus they had to find out the Wayne’s schedule, etc. again, I’ll go with it but it seems a bit sloppy.
.
Of course the cops don’t solve the Wayne murders. If they did there’d be no ultimate confrontation between Batman and the killer.
Well, a detective show would be kinda boring if the criminals left no clues.
But I think the sloppiness served a plot purpose. The episode stresses the PD is a mixture of corrupt and lazy. The assassin doesn’t need to do a convincing job, he just needs to give the powers that be something vaguely plausible to point at to say they solved the case. Stuff like the shoes and above-standard bullets are going to get swept under the rug.
After all, a city with an effective and above-board PD doesn’t really need masked vigilantes.
I was not aware Jim Gordon’s wife was also named Barbara…thanks.
He reminded me more of a young Michael Stuhlbarg.
I kept thinking I’d seen that actor before, but I finally realized he reminds me of a young David Morse.
ETA: Maybe with a little Jeremy Renner mixed in. He’s definitely one of those guys you can’t help but think you know from somewhere, but I’m sure I’ve never seen Ben McKenzie in anything else!
Question: Why was the killer masked?
This would make sense if the murders were indeed spontaneous; i.e., Tom and Martha would have been left alive to identify him if he weren’t masked. In this case, it’s a pure psychopathic impulse killing.
Or, it was a sanctioned hit, and the boy was not included in the contract. So the killer knew in advance that one witness would be left alive.
How likely is either scenario? :dubious:
Obscuring your face when committing crimes seems like a pretty good general policy, even if your planning on killing all the witnesses. You never know when there might be a teenage cat burgler observing from the fire-escape, for example.
This argument is internally contradictory - he planned ahead, therefor it was impulsive?
Also, leaving a potential victim alive is hardly a hallmark of a psychopath - it is, however, the sort of thing a paid killer would do when he wasn’t being paid for a threefer.
I liked it enough to give it another chance. Gotham is really depicted well. The only small problem I had was that so many future nemeses were shown in the first episode, that bit felt somewhat strained.
The only plot hole that really stands up IMO is the whole Oh no! We killed a criminal and convicted rapist who was threatening the life of a police officer, but he might not have been guilty of the crime we were trying to take him in for when he illegally decided to fell and start shooting at us. We’ll lose our jobs! thing. And that’s pretty easily wankable. Maybe Harvey was exaggerating or lying about them getting fired over the killing, but it would certainly draw a lot of attention that Harvey wouldn’t want drawn to them. Harv’s clearly corrupt and was involved in the set-up of Pepper, and any big mistake in a high-profile case like that is going to lead to someone getting scapegoated. In fact, what bugs me the most is that they could have explained it that way in the same amount of time they spent moping about they killed an innocent man, which was clearly not the case at all.
The whole lesbian relationship thing being hammered in with a truncheon bugged me a bit, too, but mostly it was how badly it played. I just don’t like that actress playing Barbara, nor the way she’s written. Every scene she’s in seems phony. She had zero chemistry with Montoya or Gordon. Barbara is definitely going to be the Laurel Lance of this show.
As plot points, though, I chalk both of these up, like the idea of a newbie cop telling everyone else in the precinct house to back off so that he can single-handedly take down a seven foot guy with a gun pointed at the head of another cop and everyone else going along with it, and like all the legal and business shenanigans taking place on Arrow that don’t make any sense when you look at them, to the fact that these shows take place in an alternate world with rules that are different from ours.
I’m OK with it as long as I don’t dwell on it too much. And TBH, I’ve never watched NCIS and don’t want to, but I sometimes feel a twinge of jealousy that they and not a show like Arrow had the balls to hang a lampshade on the utter ridiculousness of everything by featuring two people typing on one keyboard. People thought the writers were being stupid with that scene, but they knew exactly what they were doing. They were laughing at their audience. It was brilliant.
No. The point is, it wasn’t a planned killing. It was spur-of-the-moment for whatever warped reason he found compelling.
You’re assuming a psychopath is rational? He may have wanted a witness left alive to spread his notoriety.
Maybe he figured $12 was enough to spend on bullets in one night.
Laughing at your audience is never brilliant.
Point taken.
No, the point is that your argument for ‘spontaneity’ is evidence of planning.
He concealed his identity, so he planned to commit a crime.
The Waynes cooperated and he still killed them, therefor it wasn’t a robbery gone bad.
Therefor, it was a planned killing. That leaves thrill-killing and a targeted murder as options.
Evidence for a targeted murder: Two specific targets killed, although three presented themselves. The notoriety of the victims - the Waynes are one of the (if not the) richest families in Gotham.
Evidence for a thrill-killing: A bunch of ‘but, what if?’ speculation.
Apply Occam’s razor, and slice away all the ‘what ifs’.
You are left with a hit.
I don’t understand why so many critics have a problem with The Penguin. He was introduced as Fish Mooney’s personal assistant/valet so he was always in a tux (AKA a penguin suit). And of course the “real” mobsters are going to give shit to the kid who rubs the boss’s feet. So they gave him a nickname he hates, The Penguin.
It seemed perfectly natural and normal to me.