Arrow Arrow Season 4 Episode 4- "Beyond Redemption"

[Boy Scout]

No, I didn't. I shouldn't have to put "IMO" after every post to clarify that what I'm saying has no factual basis. You aren't lecturing Loki for it. How is what I said any different?

 

[Hunter Rider]

The "I don't need to use IMO" excuse is weak, always has been. There are ways to phrase things that make it clear and distinguish the difference between fact and opinion.

Stating "Because she is" does not remotely come off as an opinion, it comes off like stating water is wet.

As for why I didn't say anything to Loki, he phrased his more as puzzlement at how it's possible to redeem a cop killer, like somehow doing a few good deeds excuses killing innocent fathers/mothers/sons/daughters and allows the killer to just get on with living their lives while the others are in tatters due to their actions.

 

[Boy Scout]

The "I don't need to use IMO" excuse is weak, always has been.

I don't agree. Everyone here is an adult. I assume we can all tell opinion from fact. I shouldn't have to remind everyone that what I'm saying is only my opinion every single time I choose to make my opinion known.

There are ways to phrase things that make it clear and distinguish the difference between fact and opinion.

Sure. But in a conversation about something inherently subjective (like the one I attempted to engage Loki in), I think it's obvious that any and all statements are going to fall under the opinion umbrella.

Stating "Because she is" does not remotely come off as an opinion, it comes off like stating water is wet.

Maybe, when you take it out of context. What I did was make a frank statement of opinion within the context of a conversation that Loki and I have had before. I'm sure he knows that I don't believe I'm factually correct.

As for why I didn't say anything to Loki, he phrased his more as puzzlement at how it's possible to redeem a cop killer, like somehow doing a few good deeds excuses killing innocent fathers/mothers/sons/daughters and allows the killer to just get on with living their lives while the others are in tatters due to their actions.

You could easily look at what he said and assume that he meant that people who have that opinion are factually incorrect, because it's obvious that Helena is incapable of redemption because of her actions.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I don't agree. Everyone here is an adult. I assume we can all tell opinion from fact. I shouldn't have to remind everyone that what I'm saying is only my opinion every single time I choose to make my opinion known.

Sure. But in a conversation about something inherently subjective (like the one I attempted to engage Loki in), I think it's obvious that any and all statements are going to fall under the opinion umbrella.

Maybe, when you take it out of context. What I did was make a frank statement of opinion within the context of a conversation that Loki and I have had before. I'm sure he knows that I don't believe I'm factually correct.

It isn't that subjective when you are talking about murdering several innocent people and getting a pass, and the way you stated it didn't come off as a debate, it was like you were stating a fact regardless of you history with Loki, as I didn't make my comment because I care about how Loki took it, I made it based off the conversation in this thread.

You could easily look at what he said and assume that he meant that people who have that opinion are factually incorrect, because it's obvious that Helena is incapable of redemption because of her actions.

Well I didn't read it that way but if he isn't stating that I am happy to state that is exactly what I think, so we can leave Loki out of this altogether as in truth my initial comment was taken in a way I didn't intend, I was just flat out saying I think you are a 100% wrong.

for the record this is not a mod thing, simply a poster conversation.

 

[Boy Scout]

It isn't that subjective...

And, obviously, that's where we disagree. I understand what you're saying, and why you feel the way you do, but I don't think she's too much worse than Oliver used to be.

Well I didn't read it that way...

Which is fine, but I'd appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt next time before you just assume I think I know better than the other guy.

...I was just flat out saying I think you are a 100% wrong.

Well, next time, feel free to thrown in a "JMO" so I don't think you're stating your opinion as fact.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Majority of the cast is murderers. Oliver/Diggle/Laurel/Thea. But there is a big a difference between killing someone who would kill you or innocents then killing an innocent.

That's moving the goalposts. They're not cops. No one was saying they aren't murderers too (although, I don't recall any from Laurel, could you refresh my memory?). But, even assuming it makes a difference, Team Arrow doesn't steal cocaine to resell it for personal profit.

 

[Hunter Rider]

And, obviously, that's where we disagree. I understand what you're saying, and why you feel the way you do, but I don't think she's too much worse than Oliver used to be.

Ollie never killed cops or innocent people, he killed thugs, drug dealers and murderers. huge difference as they are all scum.

Which is fine, but I'd appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt next time before you just assume I think I know better than the other guy.

Likewise I'd appreciate more clrity on the phrasing, and in truth as I say my initial repsonse was not based off that aspect at all, it was me simply saying very clearly that you could say it as many times as you like in any fashion and I would still say it didn't make it right.

Well, next time, feel free to thrown in a "JMO" so I don't think you're stating your opinion as fact.

But I was.

 

[dude stannis]

The best use of Huntress is as a misguided anti-hero, the show has done just fine with her.

 

[Loki882]

She doesn't even come across as that to me. She's just a flat-out murderer. She's not even doing it to "clean up the city," or "fight crime," like her comic book counterpart or The Punisher. She did it for personal revenge against a specific person, and the only time that criminals were killed was when it tied into that. Those are two different things.

 

[Loki882]

That's moving the goalposts. They're not cops. No one was saying they aren't murderers too (although, I don't recall any from Laurel, could you refresh my memory?). But, even assuming it makes a difference, Team Arrow doesn't steal cocaine to resell it for personal profit.

She did shoot that one guy back in S2, and it was debatable whether she had to go as far as she did (flat-out killing him). She also flat-out tried to murder both Komodo and Malcolm last season, and just got lucky that they didn't actually die. So even if she didn't succeed, the intent was still there.

 

[Mike Murdock]

I'm trying to remember the one guy you're referring to. I'll agree with the attempts (although, by Arrow standards, an attempt is pretty good ).

 

[zenith16]

lol well the point is larual was what huntress should have been but in comic's huntress was stopped and shown right path to take via the bat family and the league or her boy after both nightwing and Arsenal called the question. here with laraul she was stopped by random interruption but huntress inthe books never tried to kill around the area on purpose. sadly this one on arrow did often . if your near by just shopping or cause you live there your just as much a target to her as her dad and his henchmen or U.S. Marshals /fed's FBIb who have him in their custody.

this show has a habit of throwing bit's of other characters personality into other characters. most recently Damien darhk is what brother blood should have been like fromthe jump. larual's sister is what larul should have been and laurel to some bit's from huntress true self. and so on ....

 

[Paradox1]

She doesn't even come across as that to me. She's just a flat-out murderer. She's not even doing it to "clean up the city," or "fight crime," like her comic book counterpart or The Punisher. She did it for personal revenge against a specific person, and the only time that criminals were killed was when it tied into that. Those are two different things.

Punisher is a serial killer in the vein of Dexter or even Hannibal. There is no difference between them and Huntress on Arrow. I find her more redeemable because she was at least blinded by revenge and seems remorseful.

She did shoot that one guy back in S2, and it was debatable whether she had to go as far as she did (flat-out killing him). She also flat-out tried to murder both Komodo and Malcolm last season, and just got lucky that they didn't actually die. So even if she didn't succeed, the intent was still there.

As i recall she shot that guy because he got the upper hand on Oliver. Probably didn't need to shoot him all the extra times she did but after watching all those horror movies she probably felt the need to make sure.

 

[zenith16]

Punisher is a serial killer in the vein of Dexter or even Hannibal. There is no difference between them and Huntress on Arrow. I find her more redeemable because she was at least blinded by revenge and seems remorseful.

I don't know she added people that had nothing to do with her vegence's that's what sets this version of huntress apart from punisher dexter too.

Hannibal no he went after every one on the street eventually.

this is the problem people have with her that seem to be falling apart with the other side's debate about it.

she showed remorse finally. but in reality even after she get's out on parol she's should be watched like the serial killer Carla Homoka that is a real serial killer that killed teen women in canada here. for the rest of her life. and seeing that it was both marshals and fed's . she killed . Added with that attemped threat on the club occupants which terrorism . BTW they (the U.S marshals and fed's) have the mean's to do so. keep her under survalence and half of would be itching to waste her, if she come across a weapon again.

As i recall she shot that guy because he got the upper hand on Oliver. Probably didn't need to shoot him all the extra times she did but after watching all those horror movies she probably felt the need to make sure.

see that's part of the problem it's that this show's version of huntress was too lethal with people that had nothing do with her problems at all and went over board too often which alwaysed end one way. her and lady cop are in the same boat.

 

[dude stannis]

She doesn't even come across as that to me. She's just a flat-out murderer. She's not even doing it to "clean up the city," or "fight crime," like her comic book counterpart or The Punisher. She did it for personal revenge against a specific person, and the only time that criminals were killed was when it tied into that. Those are two different things.

She serves as a stern reminder for Oliver not to slide into the darkness. I'd love to see her pop up again as part of Thea's arc.

 

[Paradox1]

I don't know she added people that had nothing to do with her vegence's that's what sets this version of huntress apart from punisher dexter too.

It was still about vengeance for this Huntress. She didn't go around stalking the streets for new victims. Whoever came between her and her father became a causality of the war she started with him. She did cross many lines and laws but she's still not as bad as the Punisher. if somehow he can be seen as some kind of antihero I don't understand why she couldn't be either.

 

[zenith16]

It was still about vengeance for this Huntress. She didn't go around stalking the streets for new victims. Whoever came between her and her father became a causality of the war she started with him. She did cross many lines and laws but she's still not as bad as the Punisher. if somehow he can be seen as some kind of antihero I don't understand why she couldn't be either.

No she just made sure to make sure they were victime's when they in the area and also wanted to add people in the club of oliver's all of which had nothing to do with that dad of her's and were in place where her father wasn't that's the issue. sadly.


She should've used tranquilizer's and moved on from them (the marshals and fed's) but it never occurred to her cause all she wanted to do was kill . anyone that walking front of her on purpose or accent who just happened to be there dies that was her mind set in arrow.

Punisher is not the same as this version of the huntress . and will never be.she wasn't even an anti hero here . war shouldn't used be at all with her here ether. She hasn't ever seen a war zone and I don't like people/characters that use that word for every thing that has nothing with a war. just to be nut. certain solides get bad enough wrap as it is with this mentality of every single event is a war to them excuse. most of which when seen it's them foaming at the mouth when they literally say that that like that mad merc general in sanctuary which Amanda tapping of star gate fame was in and the main star of I want that type of charafcter or person shot in the mouth as he says it. the needs less of those types .

 

[zenith16]

oh there were other ways to take care of the people that betrayed Oliver's dad ex poser to the public via spywork, sending the evidence to lance when he was a detective or have their live ruined financially or have them face what they were doing to others by it being done to them. but he was with argus and didn't receive proper training with how the spy world works beside's "killing" which is all waller had him do for the majority of those missions .

and the writers also are more obsessed with controversy just having be there with out consequences the more it happens .

But there's an over dose of that on north American tv of late which is why both the shows the Fallowing and Graceland sadly ended faster then they should have. there's bit of an over saturation of it alot character with in the same show are all in the same type personalty or mind set or doing the very same thing .

Their fanbase's get tired of them. this show will likely survive but oy some writers on tv need to try for uniqueness again.

 

[metaphysician]

To the contrary, I would argue Frank Castle has a *huge* moral step up over Arrow's version of Huntress. The Punisher is scrupulous about collateral damage, making sure he kills the criminals he intends to kill and no one else. Helena was not only completely indifferent to accidentally harming innocents, she was perfectly willing to actively threaten or, in fact, murder, innocents in the name of her own cause.

 

[the dmg]

Good episode.

Just like the previous one, I felt this one had vibes of season one, which was a good thing. Blackthorne was amazing in his breakdown and his interactions with Laurel and Ollie were well done. Amell held his own in the apartment scenes too about looking for Lance's approval and showing him that he can be somebody.

When everyone no sold Ollie telling him that he was running for mayor, I was laughing my ass off. "Wait, you're serious?" Good stuff.

The thing about the Vigilante Task Force was interesting in their mindset of why they're doing what they need to.

The new lair looks awesome.

 

[Paradox1]

To the contrary, I would argue Frank Castle has a *huge* moral step up over Arrow's version of Huntress. The Punisher is scrupulous about collateral damage, making sure he kills the criminals he intends to kill and no one else. Helena was not only completely indifferent to accidentally harming innocents, she was perfectly willing to actively threaten or, in fact, murder, innocents in the name of her own cause.

Frank Castle is a serial killer, I don't see how that is a step up. There was a season of the Showtime show Dexter. In that season Dexter comes across a woman who has been wronged. They go on a killing spree to get revenge against those who've wronged her. After they've finally gottten the person responsible she stops killing because she doesn't feel the need to anymore, but he keeps on. That is a good representation of Arrow's Huntress and Marvel's Punisher. He can't stop and never will stop being that killer.

 

[yonny616]

It was an okay episode. Don't get all the praise. Oliver telling Lance to "stop hiding behind his daughters" is total ******** as Lance does have a point. Along with the fact that Laurel was one of the persons who went to get him because they could barely deal with the Ghosts. The acting, for the most part, was fine and it had some lovely moments (Canary Cry scene). I don't get all the praise, but I guess anything is better than the crap we got with season 3.

They should introduce Lady Shiva soon, so that she can train Laurel, and get good character development. I hope it happens this season.

Keep hoping. The writers giving Laurel good character development is about as realistic as a unicorn. Especially with Guggenheim at the helm.

 

[Loki882]

Frank Castle is a serial killer, I don't see how that is a step up. There was a season of the Showtime show Dexter. In that season Dexter comes across a woman who has been wronged. They go on a killing spree to get revenge against those who've wronged her. After they've finally gottten the person responsible she stops killing because she doesn't feel the need to anymore, but he keeps on. That is a good representation of Arrow's Huntress and Marvel's Punisher. He can't stop and never will stop being that killer.

I'll make this VERY clear for you, because there IS a distinction. Punishe (and Dexter) don't kill INNOCENT PEOPLE!! They don't kill honest cops who are just doing their jobs, and they're very aware of collateral damage and go out of their way to avoid they. They kill the "worst of the worst."

Arrow’s Huntress, on the other hand, cares nothing for collateral damage. Not only does she not give a crap if innocent people die/are hurt in her pursuit of petty vengeance, she’ll openly threaten and even kill them herself if she thinks that it’ll help her get said vengeance. Up to AND including murdering a bunch of honest cops in cold blood, something that Frank and Dexter would never do.

Sorry, but there IS a distinction. It’s actually really easy to spot. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not doesn’t make that any less true. And lots of other people here seem to get it. And I still blame the Arrow writers for ruining her character.

 

[Paradox1]

I'll make this VERY clear for you, because there IS a distinction. Punishe (and Dexter) don't kill INNOCENT PEOPLE!! They don't kill honest cops who are just doing their jobs, and they're very aware of collateral damage and go out of their way to avoid they. They kill the "worst of the worst."

Arrow’s Huntress, on the other hand, cares nothing for collateral damage. Not only does she not give a crap if innocent people die/are hurt in her pursuit of petty vengeance, she’ll openly threaten and even kill them herself if she thinks that it’ll help her get said vengeance. Up to AND including murdering a bunch of honest cops in cold blood, something that Frank and Dexter would never do.

Sorry, but there IS a distinction. It’s actually really easy to spot. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not doesn’t make that any less true. And lots of other people here seem to get it. And I still blame the Arrow writers for ruining her character.

What you are not understanding is death is death. Which is one of the things Christopher Nolan was saying in that boat scene in TDK. Killing the guilty doesn't put you on a higher moral ground. Sparing the innocent while killing hundreds of people doesn't buy you any tickets to heaven.

 

[Seb]

What you are not understanding is death is death. Which is one of the things Christopher Nolan was saying in that boat scene in TDK. Killing the guilty doesn't put you on a higher moral ground. Sparing the innocent while killing hundreds of people doesn't buy you any tickets to heaven.

I think that the distinction between your point of view and Loki's is that You view all killing as the same and to Loki killing the innocent is truly awful while killing the guilty is often necessary. To you the Punisher is worse because he will keep killing until he thinks that every bad person is dead (at which point, at least in one of the comics I read, he has one bullet left for himself). On the other hand, Helena (on Arrow) only wants (wanted) to kill one person and is willing to wreak havoc to get to him.

The difference is whether you think that the mere number of murders is what matters, or if you place different values on the lives of the guilty and innocent.

To me, some people deserve to die and some don't. Killing the former is far worse than the latter.

There is also the matter of righteousness. Frank Castle readily accepts that he's not a good person, and he is essentially sacrificing his own immortal soul (is he religious? I assume most fictional characters created in America are) For the sake of making a better world for everyone else. Helena is just fixated on her hatred of her father, and to her everyone else is just an obstacle to be removed, not even people, really.

I'm rambling, but my core point is that good vs bad is always a hard comparison to discuss because your personal values will determine which actions push a character in which direction. A core example here is whether or not you believe in the idea of a righteous kill, because if you do, Frank Castle is a hero, if you don't, he is pure evil.


P.S. In TDK, the issue is partially different because the discussion is not about killing a bad person to stop them from doing bad things, but killing a bad person to save your own life. In TDK, the implication is not that the people on the boat will kill again, but that if they die then then the other boat will live. In the same scenario, the Joker will definitely kill again, so I'd be perfectly OK with shoving him off the building to prevent him from doing so. (I've always hated that Batman cares more about keeping his own hands clean than saving the Joker's future victims. Jason Todd was right about that one.)