Pennyworth

[Palanan]

I’m surprised there hasn’t been any discussion of this show yet. A DC prequel series focused on Alfred, set in London in the 60s? I’d never heard of it, but came across the pilot this evening and found myself watching it eagerly.

I should mention that I’m not much of a Batman fan; I didn’t much care for anything after Batman Begins, and I find the recent DC movies to be…not my cuppa, to say the least. As for TV series, I made it about three episodes into the first season of Gotham before bailing for good.

But Pennyworth is cut from entirely different cloth, set in a 1960s London that seems just slightly alternative. Everything about this show is much higher quality than your typical TV-comics spinoff. I find that most shows in this genre, such as Gifted, Gotham, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., etc., all have a slightly goofy or cartoonish aspect to them, as if they can never quite transcend their deep origins.

But this show has a much different feel, subtly British rather than shallow American; the writing and acting are more sophisticated, the visuals often artful rather than bluntly illustrative. Unlike the rather snarky humor of shows like S.H.I.E.L.D., this show has some hilarious lines that are a little more subtle, and the dialogue overall is several cuts above.

It also helps to have Jason Flemyng as the main villain, since he seems to be playing morally ambiguous masterminds all over the place these days (e.g. SS-GB, Jamestown, etc.). Thankfully he’s no raving Bond villain; the show has a muted sensibility that makes it feel more like Endeavour in some places, although always with a background tinge of surreal.

And speaking of background…

Spoiler: Alfred's Background

Show

I don’t know beans about Alfred’s “official” background in the various comics or whatnot, but in this show he’s a young ex-SAS veteran who’s trying to create a new life for himself, while dealing with what we today would call PTSD. Thankfully the show doesn’t revolve around that, and it’s presented as a price he’s paid rather than a struggle that consumes him. Since I’ve only seen the pilot, I don’t know if later episodes deal with this in more detail.

Spoiler: Alfred's Class

Show

As an American, one thing I don’t have an instinct for is the fine divisions of British class, which are so central to so much of British literature and cinema. I can get the upstairs/downstairs dichtomy of, say, Downton Abbey, but there were moments in the Pennyworth pilot where I knew I was understanding much less of the subtext than the characters themselves. I’m really not sure what social position a vicar’s daughter would have, or how that would place her relative to a butler’s son—only that it caused Issues, and it was all addressed with a certain nuance that you wouldn’t find in Gifted or Agent Carter.

Spoiler: Alfred's Story

Show

Although the acting was excellent and the story was involving, the plot was a little on the lightweight side, and the pacing was a little stop-and-go for the first twenty minutes or so. And yet, I was drawn in from the first moments, and quickly found myself liking young Alfred. I was surprised that the pilot had as much of a happy ending as it did, but it was certainly enjoyable. The only real downside is I probably won’t be seeing any more episodes for a while, since I’m not signing up for Epix just for one series.

That said—this was really, really well-done, quite a few cuts above typical TV-comics fare, and very much recommended.

[Peelee]

It is on any mainstream streaming service? Never heard of it, but color me intrigued.

[Palanan]

It's billed as an Epix original series, so I was able to watch the pilot through my cable service. I don't know much about streaming services, not sure if it's available anywhere else.

And yeah, this one seems to have been flying pretty low under the radar. I'd never heard of it either, just happened across it tonight.

.

[Reddish Mage]

Where did you get to watch this? Details please. I've seen some reviews and it seems interesting despite the, well this aspect to the very idea of centering something this big around Alfred.

Spoiler: The very concept: The Movie

Show

It begs the question, which comes next, the car or the utility belt.

Ok, I get it, Pennyworth is a straightforward take on the younger Alfred as a British super-spy, the type who could later go and train young Wayne as Batman. It fits the trend to retcon Bruce's origins as Alfred-inspired.

I don't know why you would say "The Gifted" has an element of goofiness to it. That entire series played it both dark and deadly serious, and doesn't even have Gotham's aspect of playing up the Batman villains peculiarities to give it that hint of comic book absurdity.

I want to ask which of the major parts of "The Gifted" do you find goofy: where the children lived in a gutted abandoned building with inadequate food, clothing, or supplies, or the part where the medical clinic had to patch up mutants on the sly while Purifier extremists and cops kept hounding the place?

[random11]

My first question is a simple "why?"
Was there any need to know the background of a side character that can be summed with a few lines of the actual movie?
Did anyone DEMAND to know what background the butler had?

The short answer is "no".
The long answer is that it is the same reason like every remake, or reboot we have.
Make a show about an ex-military in London fighting a conspiracy, it will not draw much attention.
Slap the word Batman and suddenly it does
Even if there is backlash from the fan community for misrepresenting a character (and there won't be much, because seriously, who cares?), it will usually be less damaging than the profit of using a familiar name.

So while on the technical level it is a Batman background story, I will just ignore it and try to judge it as its own thing.

I don't think it was bad, but it has severe tonal issues.
There were times I was not sure if I was supposed to take a scene seriously, or as a joke/parody on similar moments in other shows.

Best example is the woman kidnapper villain.
She is acting completely insane, but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take it.
Is it part of the joke/comedic tone of the show, or is it like the Joker's insanity that can be both funny, serious and scary at the same time?

It wasn't the only case.
Some scenes jumped from serious confrontation to funny and absurd reaction.
Gotham had the excuse for it since the majority of the characters belonged in Arkham, but here it was done with regular people.
(To be clear, despite my comparison to Gotham and criticism toward this show,it's still light years ahead of Gotham in quality)

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by random11
My first question is a simple "why?"
Was there any need to know the background of a side character that can be summed with a few lines of the actual movie?

It’s a fair question, with the answer being, “moar franchise.”

I don’t know beans about Alfred as a comics character, so for all I know they’re drawing on his secret backstory as revealed by Giffen and DeMatteis in Batman’s Allies #435, or whatever.

I’d always assumed he was a right proper butler, impeccably trained to put up with any and all eccentricities of his employers, including dressing like a bat and punching people at night. But Alfred’s youth as a butler-in-training would essentially be Downton Abbey, and while that could be fun, it probably wouldn’t attract the same demographic as Gotham or Batwoman.

Originally Posted by random11
Even if there is backlash from the fan community for misrepresenting a character….

If the reactions here in the Playground are any indication, it sounds like most people don’t even know this exists. Epix is not a cable channel I usually think about, and it was pure happenstance (and a little targeted advertising) that I came across this.

That said, as only the most casual Batman watcher, they still managed to draw me in during the first few minutes, which is worth a tip of the hat.

Originally Posted by random11
…or is it like the Joker's insanity that can be both funny, serious and scary at the same time?

Given that the Joker is the tentpole villain in this franchise, I’d say the woman is very deliberately a nod in that direction.

I found her under-the-skin creepy myself.

Originally Posted by random11
Gotham had the excuse for it since the majority of the characters belonged in Arkham, but here it was done with regular people.

From what I can tell, most regular people belong in Arkham.

[Hopeless]

I'm just putting this here as it's completely insane, but what if Pennyworth is Bruce's biological father due to events out of their control and that's why he remains to raise Bruce?

I'm thinking something happens maybe Martha needs a surrogate and that's kept secret.

It's just that when you do something like this, what if they take that very unlikely step to give this series a meaning to want to go back and watch it again?!

Then there's that rumour about Joker being Bruce's brother(not this series and probably only gossip anyway!) albeit maybe Thomas is his father and J's mother over reacts to Thomas marrying Martha?

Yes completely insane!

[Peelee]

My first question is a simple "why?"
Was there any need to know the background of a side character that can be summed with a few lines of the actual movie?
Did anyone DEMAND to know what background the butler had?

It’s a fair question

You know what, I don't think it is, and I never had any love for that question. Was there any need to have a show about office workers with an incompetent boss? Did anyone DEMAND to know what would happen if an old guy with a teenaged friend built a time machine in a DeLorean? Sure, some shows and movies can come out of popular demand, but the vast majority of them are creators thinking what would make a good story and then writing that.

You say why, I say why not?

[random11]

You know what, I don't think it is, and I never had any love for that question. Was there any need to have a show about office workers with an incompetent boss? Did anyone DEMAND to know what would happen if an old guy with a teenaged friend built a time machine in a DeLorean? Sure, some shows and movies can come out of popular demand, but the vast majority of them are creators thinking what would make a good story and then writing that.

You say why, I say why not?

But my problem was not with the idea of the show itself, just with the obsessive need to connect it to a known character/universe.

For comparison, imagine if "The Office" would have been published as "Wayne Enterprises office" or if the time machine only worked because it was an upgrade of the Bat-mobile.

[Peelee]

But my problem was not with the idea of the show itself, just with the obsessive need to connect it to a known character/universe.

For comparison, imagine if "The Office" would have been published as "Wayne Enterprises office" or if the time machine only worked because it was an upgrade of the Bat-mobile.

Imean, even The Office tried to make a spin-off with Dwight. Laverne and Shirley & Mork and Mindy were spin-offs of Happy Days. IO don't think anybody was clamoring for a show based on the psychiatrist from Cheers set in an entirely different city, but Frasier was great and lasted a lengthy time.

I get that just making stuff because it's related to other stuff can be tiresome (like the aforementioned potential sitcom with Dwight and the farm), but Alfred can actually have a really interesting background and I'm pretty excited to see if it's well executed.

[Palanan]

Just watched the second episode. A bit of a slump from the pilot, long on style but short on substance, to say nothing of a coherent plot.

Spoiler: What Was That?

Show

Unfortunately this was a bit of a muddle, with an extremely small-potatoes “villain” who was harassing a girl in a bar. That was it.

However, Alfred’s business card does say “no job too small,” and this certainly proved it. There was some additional muddle involving a crime lord whom Alfred apparently tried to cut a deal with…or something, it wasn’t clear. There was also a trap worthy of one of the goofier Bond movies, which seemed to serve no real purpose.

Also, Alfred’s security business seems to rely heavily on his two ex-SAS buddies for muscle and psychological torture. Maybe I’m too used to the solitary hero pounding the streets alone, but it seems awfully handy to have your own Brute Squad.

Spoiler: Chemistry

Show

On the home front, Alfred’s relationship with his girlfriend is moving very fast, and suspiciously well. This is one of the problems with knowing the main character’s future, in which the girlfriend does not figure, since Batman’s Alfred is pretty definitely a bachelor.

The class division between Alfred and his girlfriend is touched on briefly, and I wish they’d flesh that out a little further, since it’s clearly a major issue between them. But fortunately she's a normal person, which is to say she's badly rattled by the experience of being kidnapped and nearly tortured to death. If there's one major conflict developing between them, it's Alfred's hard drift towards the criminal underworld, while his girlfriend has her sights on high society.

Spoiler: Always On, Slightly Off

Show

This seems to take place in a weirdly alternate London, in which medieval-style executions are televised and the bobbies are carrying machine guns and wearing mildly disturbing masks.

I’m not sure why this should be, much less whether this will be explained at some point or if it’s meant to be a slightly surreal backdrop and nothing more. I don't know why they felt the need to add these elements, since they don’t do much of anything for the story, apart from providing a couple moments of dark humor.

[Psyren]

But my problem was not with the idea of the show itself, just with the obsessive need to connect it to a known character/universe.

For comparison, imagine if "The Office" would have been published as "Wayne Enterprises office" or if the time machine only worked because it was an upgrade of the Bat-mobile.

Good analogy.

Imean, even The Office tried to make a spin-off with Dwight. Laverne and Shirley & Mork and Mindy were spin-offs of Happy Days. IO don't think anybody was clamoring for a show based on the psychiatrist from Cheers set in an entirely different city, but Frasier was great and lasted a lengthy time.

Eh, for every Frasier there are countless spinoffs that just wither on the vine, or that don't evolve the brand in any meaningful way beyond an attention-grabbing headline that amounts to free marketing. But then, I'm hardly the target audience for a Batman spinoff anyway.

If there's some major revelation about Alfred or Thomas Wayne here (or MARTHAAAAAA) I'll certainly take a look at that.

[Palanan]

Does anyone have any insight into the weird alternate-history setting this seems to be in?

It’s been decades since I’ve read a Batman comic, so I don’t know if this is somehow part of the comics lore, or if the producers decided to veer off into some very strange territory for their own reasons.

After seeing the second episode and thinking on it a bit, I’m really not sure what this gains from the connection to Batman. The producers seem to have their own story to tell, and their own style to tell it with, and I would probably enjoy it more if there weren’t those latent connections to a future caped crusader. The actors are more than skilled enough to carry the show on their own, and you couldn’t ask for a better villain than Jason Flemyng.

I may watch the third one tonight if I’m able. Hopefully the second episode was the equivalent of Firefly’s “Train Job,” a by-the-numbers item just making sure all the parts work together before moving on to greener terrain.

[dancrilis]

Does anyone have any insight into the weird alternate-history setting this seems to be in?

It is set in a DC universe - wierd science, conspiracies, cults, aliens and supervillains did not spring into existance with Batman, Superman and friends.

But it is what it is ... a setting in a world of comic books, which other than Gotham most comic book shows tend to downplay - personal preference as to if it works on the screen or is jarring (I personally like it).

[Palanan]

Okay, fair enough.

Cults and conspiracies I can work with, but the alternate-history elements are just confusing. They don't seem to really fit the Batman vibe, and definitely not the 60s Britain I'm used to seeing on shows like Endeavour.

They're also oddly specific, so maybe there's an explanation that will unfold during the rest of the season.

[Palanan]

Third episode is a definite improvement, although still a few issues. This time the “simple job” lands Alfred in the middle of secret societies and international intrigue, which is well done and fits with the 60s vibe.

Also, did someone mention Martha?

Spoiler: Martha

Show

So, not content to give Batman’s future butler a dashing backstory, the show also gives us Martha Kane, who is an agent of the “No-Name League,” whatever exactly that is. She impersonates various professions, has access to high-level documents and impressive sums of money, and orchestrates exfiltrations of key individuals.

I’d always thought that Bruce Wayne’s mother was a high-society woman, but evidently this show has other plans. She doesn’t quite pull off the “international woman of mystery” routine, and she seems far too willing to trust Alfred, who’s just the driver. Evidently she’ll be a recurring character, but there’s zero hint of any romantic involvement.

Spoiler: Turing Point

Show

Much of the episode involves the exfiltration of an engineer working on a device called a “computer,” which we’re told “is the future.” Taken in a raid by the police, he’s scheduled to be castrated unless Martha Kane can rescue him first.

The parallels with Turing are unmistakable, and it feels as if someone was trying to give him a happy ending in an alternate world. That ends up seeming rather contrived and out of place.

Spoiler: Say You Will, Say You Won't

Show

Also, Alfred has more romantic drama with Esme, his girlfriend, starting with The Dad Talk (hint: doesn’t go well) and progressing to a high-volume meltdown and departure.

Much is made of the class distinctions, which are presented as an insurmountable barrier—and yet the relationship comes apart due to personalities rather than society roles. Esme is much less likable in this episode, if not completely unsympathetic, and I'm much less interested in where things go from here.

Spoiler: Tone

Show

As before, there are some scenes whose only purpose is gratuitous dark humor, which I don’t much enjoy. The show also makes a heavy-handed point about governments and criminal organizations using the same techniques for the same ends, and then makes some further points which can’t be discussed here.

Beyond that commentary, the show insists on small weird moments that make no sense, such as a pig-headed creature in pajamas walking through the drawing room of an otherwise impeccably proper gentleman’s club. The producers seem to enjoy sprinkling these little moments through the narrative, and it’s not clear if they have any actual point.

[Clertar]

Just reading about it here it's so ugh. I echo the thought expressed before, "just why?". It's like the DC equivalent of making Marvel show about the adventures of Peter Parker's secret agent parents from the Andrew Garfield films.

[Palanan]

I hear you. The connection with The Bat is extremely tenuous, or rather the need for it is to support the storyline they're developing.

So far it's generally fun, apart from a few absurdly implausible moments, and as I mentioned before the production quality is far superior to its various relations. But the producers clearly have their own set of statements they want to make, which seem to have nothing to do with Bats whatsoever.

For now I'll roll with it, because the lead character is genuinely engaging in his own right, and the shadow-war of secret societies is interesting to unravel. And I'm still trying to figure out exactly what's going on with the alternate-universe Britain they seem to inhabit.

That said, I can certainly live without it, so this is a case of "enjoy it while you've got it."

[random11]

Despite the annoying pointless connection, it's not a bad show by itself.

There are a couple of things that I wonder about:

- The atmosphere/setting

Similar to the first episode, I'm still confused about the setting.
I understand the existence of cults and secret societies, and I'll take the excuse that it's an alternate universe.
It's just that some of the things are so absurd, I'm still not sure if it's just a joke, an important detail I need to take seriously, or just part of the atmosphere meant to make the setting look different and weird.

- Morality issues and the team

I like that Alfred is not alone and has two team members.
They are good side characters with actual traits other than their role in the group, so I'm more that fine with that.
However, maybe I'm just overly cynical, but I have a suspicious feeling that part of their role in the show will be to do the dirty stuff so Alfred can stay morally clean.
For now, it hasn't crossed the line yet, especially considering that Alfred not sure about the moral borders himself is part of the theme of the show, but I will keep an eye on this in future episodes.

Speaking of morality, "both sides are equally bad" can be a bit annoying.

- Names

Seriously? You had to make the connection to Batman't butler, but you didn't want to say the name "Turing" for some reason?
Oh well...

[jdizzlean]

It is on any mainstream streaming service? Never heard of it, but color me intrigued.

I have seen ads for it all over HULU, but i have yet to see if Hulu is actually carrying it or not.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by random11
Speaking of morality, "both sides are equally bad" can be a bit annoying.

Yeah, they kind of hit you over the head with this, as well as with some other “commentary” which is rather shallow and broad-brush.

Originally Posted by random11
It's just that some of the things are so absurd, I'm still not sure if it's just a joke, an important detail I need to take seriously, or just part of the atmosphere meant to make the setting look different and weird.

Which things in particular do you mean?

I’m completely with you on this, just wondered which details looked off to you.

Spoiler: Little Details

Show

I mean, the televised drawing and quartering is hard to miss, but there are a lot of subtle items as well, and I’m sure I missed some of those.

There’s a lot of pro-monarchy propaganda in the background, with giant banners commanding citizens to “SERVE YOUR QUEEN” and so forth. I’d rather not say which political system this reminds me of, but it’s clearly extreme. Like you say, not sure if this is plot-critical backstory that they’re alluding to, or if it’s just general absurdist atmosphere.

I seem to recall some of the old Bat-villains wearing animal masks or the like, so a few of these items might be in that vein. And this is what’s so frustrating: my knowledge of Bat-lore is close to zero, so I don’t know if these are subtle in-jokes or just random weirdness.

[random11]

Which things in particular do you mean?

I’m completely with you on this, just wondered which details looked off to you.

Mostly the "adult content" stuff.
The servant with the BDSM suit, or the references to sexual orgies that are just taken for granted.

But I'm not sure what the point is.
It doesn't seem like it's unique to the specific weird family, it's also not something that only one side does.
Is it supposed to be an upper class thing? A statement that all the secret societies are just as weird?

I can't help feeling that the adult content is just shoved inside to make it seem mature.
Unfortunately, if there is a lesson that should have been learned back in Torchwood days, making mature content just to say that it's for adults without context or reason only makes it more childish.


Anyway, about the recent two episodes.
I don't think the show is bad, but I wouldn't call it good either.
With all the sides currently containing the ravens, the no names, the British government and the CIA, and some local organized crime families, but without any real distinguishing characteristics to any of them (they are all just as bad, remember?), I can't seem to care about which side will win or about a small victory for one of them.

I get the feeling that we are supposed to like the doctor-leader character, but it's not like they expect me to just ignore the actions of the ravens just because she seems to care about life, right?

[Xyril]

But my problem was not with the idea of the show itself, just with the obsessive need to connect it to a known character/universe.

Not a comic fan?

The greatest strength and biggest potential pitfall of the big comic franchises is the sheer amount of material out there and the sheer number of editors and authors who have touched the work. In a two hour movie, it's hard to make time to really flesh out every character, so you generally end up with many minor characters with nothing to them except what's strictly necessary to enable the plot, and that's perfectly fine. Conservation of detail and all that.

The comic format, if you're lucky, gives you the chance to go deeper into the setting over decades of real time and multiple spinoff works. This gives you options. In the movies, Alfred is "just the butler" not because someone decided that there isn't an interesting story there, but rather because they were prioritizing other interesting stories. The comics are less constrained. If an artist thinks that a C-list Spider-man villain has story potential, he doesn't necessarily have to fight it out to squeeze his ideal into one of the main Spidey comics. Sometimes these one-shots or limited run spinoffs flop horribly; other times, they prove that there really are people (both writers and fans) who care about who the butler is.

In the comics, fans were probably asking about Alfred even before Adam West first put on the tights. Remember, he's not just the guy who does laundry and makes sandwiches--he singlehandedly raised Bruce as a surrogate father, whatever your opinion of whether raising a kid to be Batman counts as a parenting success, he managed to keep a broken, borderline self-destructive kid alive as he engaged in increasingly dangerous behavior.

I think for almost any character in fiction, "what kind of parent raised their kid to become this guy?" is always a potentially interesting story. For Batman, this is especially true because everything about what made him a hero began with a childhood trauma, and Alfred was one of the few people who was with him pretty much every step between that day and putting on the cowl.

[random11]

Not every question that can be asked should be answered seriously.
And not every question that should be answered deserves an entire show/movie/comic series just for this.

I'm curious about the construction workers who were needed to build the bat cave, but I don't think a mock-documentary show that is taken seriously is a good idea.

As an opposite example, I think exploring the relationship between Alfred and Bruce IS a good idea.
At least on paper "Gotham" tried to do it, and if I understand correctly the new planned Batman movies want to explore the young Batman which will include these relationships.
No problem with this whatsoever.

But an entire show about the background of Alfred that can be summed in a single sentence or a one minute flashback in the movie?
No, I don't think it's interesting.

As a rule of thumb, if you can just change names and as a result not know that it has any connection to Batman, it isn't a good idea to present it as a connection.
"The Boys" changed names and outfits, but we all know who they are supposed to represent.
Change the name "Pennyworth" to "John", and remove the names of Martha and Wayne, and you will have no clue it's related until maybe the last 10 minutes of the season.

I don't think it's too cynical to claim that marketing is the only reasons for this show to exist with this connection.

[Zmeoaice]

They had this idea in Teen Titans Go to the Movies as a joke.

Now it's real.

[random11]

Episode 6 - WTF did I just watch?

Before watching the episode, I had a plan: I prepared a mental note with a list of the known societies and organizations, and was ready to find just a single trait of a group that will make it unique compared to the others.
During the episode however, I just tore the mental note in my brain, and threw it to the garbage.

WTF did I just watch?

Not only do I have to take all the secret societies stuff seriously, I should now also consider witchcraft and satanism?!
(Yes, I'm aware that magic is nothing new in the DC universe, but it doesn't mean you have to shove it here, when you already have so much unexplained stuff)

Also, please explain how "secret" a society is, when the peace treaty between two of them is mentioned in the freaking *newspapers*.

Well, at least I got my answer if I should take the sexual content seriously.
The answer is "YES".
Very seriously.
In a very uncomfortable levels of seriousness.
I do not want to talk about it.

[Tvtyrant]

Imean, even The Office tried to make a spin-off with Dwight. Laverne and Shirley & Mork and Mindy were spin-offs of Happy Days. IO don't think anybody was clamoring for a show based on the psychiatrist from Cheers set in an entirely different city, but Frasier was great and lasted a lengthy time.

I get that just making stuff because it's related to other stuff can be tiresome (like the aforementioned potential sitcom with Dwight and the farm), but Alfred can actually have a really interesting background and I'm pretty excited to see if it's well executed.

The issue here is that Batman requires some time massaging to function now, so the show has to use the imprecise timeframe and vague setting DC uses. Batman originally was born in 1900, making him old enough to have been this Alfred's father. Alfred was shifted to being a WWI vet in the 1970s, and then a WWII vet in the 1990s, pretty soon he will be a Vietnam vet.

So either it is going to separate itself from DCs universe, in which case it isn't actually about Alfred but some alternate universe man named Alfred, or it keeps to it and the world is a mess.

[dancrilis]

So either it is going to separate itself from DCs universe ...

There is a prime universe - but there are lots of other DC universes aswell (not to mention former universes, dark universes, and of course seperate multiverses -with presumedly there own universes - etc).
This story can result in Alfred being Bruce's butler without needing to have a clear timeframe.

Personally in answer to this question:

Episode 6 - WTF did I just watch?

You just watched awesome.

[random11]

You just watched awesome.

If it wasn't for the last few minutes in the previous episode, I would just state it as "agree to disagree".
You think it's awesome I think it's confusing, not a real problem, just two different views.

But then came the last few minutes...
A woman was surrounded by a room of weird men, probably drugged (or same effect with magic), and the BEST CASE SCENARIO is that she was "only" stripped naked and tossed to a field some time later.

No, awesome is just not a word I can use in this context.


In fact, I decided that how they handle this will probably impact my ability to continue watching the show.

So how was it handled? Okay I guess.

The event is not swept under the rug, and taken surprisingly serious considering what I saw in the last episode.

Thomas Wayne acts like an A-hole most of the time, but his reaction is never treated as a positive thing by the story, so that's fine.
I'd say that this is one of the times a disconnection to the Batman myth could have made it better, but it's a minor problem here, so no point making a fuss about it.

[weckar]

So is this technically a Gotham spin-off or not? I can't place it.