The robbery was the crime he planned to commit and thus hid his identity.
The murder was “Ah, what the hell, I feel like shooting them anyway! So POW! Eat hot lead, rich dude and wife!”
Spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment decision.
Makes sense to me.
Even if it’s the audience of NCIS?
If it had been a show I like, such as Arrow, I’d have said they were laughing at themselves. But since it’s a show I dislike (even not having seen it) and whose audience I presumptively dislike as well, I felt comfortable saying they were laughing at their audience. I have no idea which is actually the case. Maybe they expected their audience to get the joke and laugh along with it, or maybe they thought their audience was too dumb to notice. Either way, I think the scene is brilliant and courageous self-satire.
Even then. If you have such contempt for the people who like your work, the problem is you, not your audience.
He needs to gain a lot of weight (and possibly lose some height), he looks exactly like E. Nygma, and both of them look more like the Scarecrow than their supposed characters. That’s just me, though.
Of course, Cobblepot’s problem now is that having a gun fired immediately behind his head has left him permanently deaf.
So very wrong. And “But since it’s a show I dislike (even not having seen it) and whose audience I presumptively dislike as well” is amazing.
Should I have used a smiley?
I like the scene. I don’t really know if the writers of NCIS love their audience or feel contempt for them. I don’t actually know if the show is good, but it has a reputation for silly plot holes, bad science, and an audience that isn’t smart enough to notice. I was originally making fun of the audience by suggesting that they were so stupid they wouldn’t know that two people can’t type on one keyboard. I suspect that isn’t actually true. In the post you quoted, I was making fun of myself for having made such an uncharitable assumption about the show and its audience.
How dare you make fun of Alan Smithee?! What did Alan Smithee ever do to YOU?!
Question: I thought they learned about Pepper because he pawned the pearl necklace. Why then was it found at his apartment?
Question 2: Gordon was handed a “clean” gun to kill Penguin. He then “ruins” it by putting his fingerprints all over it when he [del]sadistically shatters the guy’s eardrum with a close range gunshot[/del] nobly fakes a murder.
Wild assed theory on the Wayne murders–the shooter was Bullocks (think that is his name–the corrupt partner of Gordon). Size appears to be about right, the eyes seen through the mask might fit, he’s known to be corrupt, he demonstrated an ability to produce “clean” guns and I think his whereabouts at the time of the murder are unknown. Do we actually seem him before the “Here’s Jim, he’s a badass” scene with Pill Popper guy?
Truly. It’s almost as if there were lesbians on the planet who might enjoy seeing representations of their experience in popular entertainment.:dubious:
Sorry you were bored, Amateur Barbarian, but my wife and I perked right up.
The show had great acting and mediocre writing.
The guy playing Harvey was greating, playing a similar role that he played in Terriers where he was also great. The guy playing Falcone was great playing a similar role as he played in The Wire where he was also great. The guy playing Gordon was good, the penguin was good, Jada Plinkett Smith was good. The woman playing Barbara was bland and boring.
The main problem with the writing is that it’s “stupid” writing, as in they think they have to spell everything out, and they ignore that the plot requires characters to be uncharacteristically stupid.
Spelling everything out:
“You’re a cynic”
“If I wanted a riddle, Id […]”
“Im [full name].”
The main plot problem in this episode is that it requires Harvey to be a major fool, and I am rather sure he is not meant to be.
-
First he thinks that he will be expelled from the force for shooting a guy who was about to kill his partner.
-
Then he calls Fish and says he will come after her if she kills his partner, then turns his back to her henchmen. Somehow not realizing that if she can kill his partner, she could as well kill him too
-
Then he sets the execution of The Penguin up in a way that he must be able to see that Gordon could as well fake it by the end of the pier. (If it was a more clever show, you could maybe think he did this on purpose. Not in this show though, you know it’s just stupid writing.)
There are clowns, mimes, garbage men and proctologists in the real world, too, and I’m sure each of them is thrilled to see a fictional analogue on a show, but there isn’t one of any of those shoehorned into every program… and most of us aren’t tittilated and eagerly tuning in the next ep to see the hot mime.
I watched the last half of the episode last night and enjoyed it. If I have some time later this weekend, I’ll OnDemand the first episode and see if it hold together. I was surprised, since I haven’t seen anything quite as good on network TV in a long, long time.
Falcone covered that by saying, “There are rules.” Bullock was operating under the assumption that Fish would play along with the rules, as he was. But she wasn’t, so he got hung up as well.
But wasn’t the rule “don’t kill cops”? (Especially not war hero cops I would suppose.) And Bullock already knew she didn’t play by that rule.
How did Falcone know this was happening by the way?
Those are professions, not states of being.
You’re for that old time All White T.V. too?
Well, I certainly poked your button.
I’m all for all the reasonable, realistic diversity that can be fit into a television series without distorting or blocking the overall picture.
But I’m a little tired of the worn-out and usually gratuitous trope of a lesbian relationship that serves little more purpose than putting some really hot, sucky-face chick-on-chick action into the mix. Have you, in your perky state, noticed that the same shows rarely show hetero sex to the same degree of smarmy titillation? That we might see the same amount of intense sucky-face between a man and a woman, but very likely it’s cut far shorter and is far less FuckMeNowFuckMeNow? That we’re more likely to have long, lingering shots of the women rolling around in bed than the het couple?
And that gay male equivalents are maybe 10:1 rarer, always handled with the greatest delicacy, cut away before any serious nudity and often involve a “sick” or humiliating or degrading component? The women can get deep into tongue action on TV-14 stuff and usually do; at most the boys get a chaste, 70s-sitcom kiss. I don’t remember any but the briefest moment of open-mouthed male kissing.
When it reaches the point where the “lesbian relationship” is a throwaway line, likely included because it was on the demographics/ratings checklist, and the return line is “Oh, I got engaged to a BOY, so I’m not gay any more” …frankly, I’d think most lesbian and bi women would be even more disgusted at the crass, meaningless use of the “state of being” than I am.
I’m just bored with the trope as much as the “stupid dad,” “hot-pants neighbor,” “Serious Black Professional,” and others that have been used, abused and rendered pointless by overuse.
What network TV do you watch? Seriously, I have never seen any same-sex relationship (male or female) portrayed like that outside of an HBO show. And in those cases, it often is two male characters (I’m thinking of Six Feet Under and True Blood, specifically).
I haven’t watched either show, and yes, the most egregious examples seem to be HBO productions. It’s the non-premium networks that are playing the worst form of “me-too” on this - throwing around the implication, often in the most deflected ways such as the case at hand, and using it to no wider purpose than a demographics tick.
FWIW, I’d place *House *right at the centerpoint - Thirteen Hadley had some pretty steamy scenes with essentially random female lovers (all as extraordinary looking as she was) and it got close to being gratuitous audience-bait, but her actions were integrally - intimately, if that’s not misunderstood - tied to her character’s life and mindset.
Most shows don’t bother to give any weight, purpose or background to such scenes, down to the almost nauseating case at hand… but it is one of Gotham’s lesser sins so far.
One it technically hasn’t committed yet. While “former lesbian lovers” does seem to be the most obvious implication by that conversation, it hasn’t been confirmed on the show yet.