The Laurel Lance Discussion Thread

[BkWurm1]

Why would she accept blame? She didn't do anything. How is she more unlikable than the murderers and the cop who looks the other way for the murderers?

The blame I was referring to,that she should accept is that she was the one that made bad choices (drinking, stealing her fathers pills) that brought about her getting fired. I also wanted her to instead of lashing out and acting like she was the hurt party when she was pulled over for a DUI to be grateful for her fathers help and accepting of his concern. Instead she sniped at him, refused to accept her responsibility for her actions by turning it around and yelling at him for his past problems. Even the way she got pulled over showed an ungrateful and entitled attitude. She gets pulled over and what does she say? Yep the favorite lines of the entitled and self absorbed, "Do you know who I am?"

I like Oliver and Sara because they struggle with their very dark past. They are trying to rise above it. Oliver has moved to his no kill rule (finally). Sara traded her freedom to save Starling city. They are broken and damaged people who really can't make up for the bad things they have done, but the show isn't trying to convince me they are pure hearted good doers.

Laurel gets lambasted because the show says she's wonderful and generous and loving but seems to over and over show us an entirely different character. It says she know Oliver better than anyone. It shows not only was she completely in GA dark but she was deluded about Oliver, purposely sticking her head in the sand about his multiple affairs. She and Sara knew of ten girls. The audience knows about the one he got pregnant. She seemed to not see the real Oliver, just this good looking rich guy she had plans for.

We saw Laurel still furious with Oliver (not saying she shouldn't be) but she with the wave of a wand got over it (and any addiction issue) but what really got to me was how afterward Oliver was just the old friend who was now dating Sara until she found out he was Arrow. Oh, now she thinks he's someone special. Now she sees her sisters scars and she goes out of her way to offer hugs and silent support to Not her sister, but the guy that betrayed her with her sister. It's stuff like this that makes. IMO Laurel look very insincere at the very least.

It's the discord between what the show says and what the show shows that IMO makes Laurel a disliked character.

[President_Luthor]

While I would agree, in general, that CW's indulging in melodrama has had a negative impact on character development on many of their shows (SV in the past, and currently on Arrow) and could affect how much viewers like or dislike a character, I get the impression that when it happens to some characters those instances are (fairly or not) weighted more against them or imbued with motives than with other characters ... especially the alleged fan favourites or those judged (by whom? by what standards?) to be more "worthy" of having their melodramatic quibbles explained away as reasonable or justified.

[Clark often got a pass on really unfathomable melodramatic behaviour many times on SV, just because he was Clark. ]

Take Oliver Queen. The time Slade showed up at the Queen household was the time Ollie should have come clean with Thea -- if not about his Arrow identity then at least about the clear and present danger Slade presented to the Queen family and to Starling City. What did Ollie choose? He chose to dance the secret-and-lies "I'm doing this to protect Thea" nonsense that SV perfected over the course of its run. Yet, it seems he would get a wider berth or even a pass when the writers err on the melodrama front in his own story arc.

Why not put his feet to the fire for failing to warn his own family of the imminent danger that arrived on his doorstep? I could despise Ollie for the whole series for his failings on this front, or even make the claim that this grave error in judgment disqualifies him from claiming the Green Arrow mantle and, by consequence, his seat at the table of the Justice League (why should Batman or Superman trust a man who can't even be truthful with his own family when it counts, etc.).

But I don't.

The failure lies with Oliver Queen's character being saddled with a secrets-and-lies subplot to generate friction with Thea. All the rationalizations don't erase that, in this moment, he messed up royally. When he should have spoken up, he didn't. And there were consequences.

I would argue that Laurel's own addiction story arc, while flawed and as a result slipping into melodrama for too long, was not included for the sake of melodrama alone. The point may have been obscured by weaker writing, but the arc was only 'a' component (not 'the' component, as it seems it's being made out to be) of Laurel's own journey. Her journey, like Ollie's, has many steps and stages. And, like Ollie, she will have setbacks.

While I wasn't entirely sold on the addiction story, I also don't perceive the degree of pettiness or heartlessness Laurel supposedly had during a time when she was admittedly under the influence. It's not giving her a "pass" on bad behaviour -- it's acknowledging that I'm not expecting her to be a saint and live up to standards unique to her when everyone else gets to invoke some past trauma (fairly or not) as a get-out-of-responsibility card when they fall off the mark. I think trying to parallel Laurel's S2 addiction with the Ollie's island journey or Sara's was more a symptom of poor writing than something "wrong" with Laurel's character.

Meanwhile, Laurel -- who, granted, didn't have a great S2 story arc (which was hurriedly repaired in last eps.) -- as a character is hauled to account with no right of appeal when the writing fails her. I will say it all reminds me too much of the brouhaha during Lois' first arrival on SV. I've said my piece on the Lois front, years ago. In hindsight, many fans would say that SV Lois did honour her character's legend in the context of the show by series' end (despite the criticisms, some warranted and others not so much )

But this is Laurel we're talking about. I won't go into what I've said in the Laurel/BC thread, only to reiterate that it (like Lois' situation years ago) boils down to credibility and standards. We all want the eventual Black Canary to be credible in the Arrow universe. That's a given. Where this becomes almost an untenable debate is ... by what/whose standards are we judging Laurel Lance as a character? Once personal taste or opinion enters the fray, "evidence" can sometimes not live up to a more thorough test.

As a comics reader, why shouldn't I expect Ollie on Arrow to, if not live up to, at least honour what Oliver Queen represents in the comics? (FYI: Mike Grell's work apparently has a huge influence on the series. I could argue that I wish it had more of an influence, lol).

Why shouldn't I expect Laurel, or Sara, to live up to/honour what many readers would say is Gail Simone's definitive modern portrayal of Dinah/BC? As of the S2 finale, Laurel doesn't. But neither does Sara. If were to judge them now (which would be unfair), Simone's Dinah would dance circles around them and twice on Sunday ... while doing her taxes, I'm sorry to say.

Where do we draw the line on what criteria we're using? Who gets to set the bar? How high (or low)? If we're claiming that Ollie is the hero by which all other future Arrow heroes will be measured, no one could (or should) match it, as he is the lead. A case could be made that Ollie is still far from the mark himself. And it would be unrealistic to expect Laurel or Sara to live up to Ollie's (still incomplete) path to heroism.

Arrow doesn't exist in a vacuum. The showrunners will do their own thing with the characters to a degree (and hopefully not flout conventions to the extent SV's producers often did), and while this may leave the impression that only what happens on the show matters, I find it incredulous that viewers would somehow not want the show to honour or at minimum give a nod to the source material: the comics. I consider this showing due respect to the material that, without it, there would be no show.

It's a CW show; they are not going to re-invent the wheel to the degree that some viewers think or expect. One could say the network has SV to cite as evidence of what happens when they try to stray too far from respecting the basics of the source material. While SV's reliance on melodrama irked me, it was the (intentional or not) resulting disrespect to the Superman legend that was my on-going grievance with the show.

I've read BOP comics for many years, and while I don't presume to be a Green Arrow expert, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the Dinah Lance character has a prominent place in any retelling of the Green Arrow story. She's not a bit character to be disposed of, casually forgotten, narratively sidelined or treated poorly.

I am concerned that the writing needs to make Laurel Lance more credible in the sense of taking on such a legacy. But is she so far behind that nothing can be done in S3 whatever they do ... and we should just hand over her legacy to Sara (who, IMO, still needs work as a "character" let alone as a Canary)? I don't know how we can say that, when everyone's journey on the show is incomplete -- including the lead himself.

Viewers can fault Laurel's character on how she was written or even out of personal taste, but not IMO on her worthiness/right to be a major character on a show about Green Arrow. Writing of characters on the show, including Laurel, is open for discussion as it should be. In the context of the GA legend, wishes to sideline or omit Laurel Lance from significant Arrow story arcs or plotlines going forward cannot be reasonably justified. As a viewer, I will expect her to be more involved in S3 than in previous seasons.

The showrunners can do what they like, to a point. Would viewers actually want to watch a series that would dare to veer so far from what we expect from a GA show that it would fail to honour elements that are integral to the GA legend? I wouldn't, if this were to happen.

Were they to jettison her or manipulate her story arc in such a way as to make her invisible in all but name just to placate the wishes of this or that fan base or shipper camp -- more than a few viewers would see this as disrespecting not only the Dinah Lance character but that of the Green Arrow legend ... and would result in alienating (not winning) viewers.

Something tells me that, despite its growing pains and writing issues, the show won't do that.

[Stardelphia]

I like Oliver and Sara because they struggle with their very dark past. They are trying to rise above it. Oliver has moved to his no kill rule (finally). Sara traded her freedom to save Starling city. They are broken and damaged people who really can't make up for the bad things they have done, but the show isn't trying to convince me they are pure hearted good doers.

Laurel gets lambasted because the show says she's wonderful and generous and loving but seems to over and over show us an entirely different character. It says she know Oliver better than anyone. It shows not only was she completely in GA dark but she was deluded about Oliver, purposely sticking her head in the sand about his multiple affairs. She and Sara knew of ten girls. The audience knows about the one he got pregnant. She seemed to not see the real Oliver, just this good looking rich guy she had plans for.

We saw Laurel still furious with Oliver (not saying she shouldn't be) but she with the wave of a wand got over it (and any addiction issue) but what really got to me was how afterward Oliver was just the old friend who was now dating Sara until she found out he was Arrow. Oh, now she thinks he's someone special. Now she sees her sisters scars and she goes out of her way to offer hugs and silent support to Not her sister, but the guy that betrayed her with her sister. It's stuff like this that makes. IMO Laurel look very insincere at the very least.

It's the discord between what the show says and what the show shows that IMO makes Laurel a disliked character.

Wow, I'm really digging you and Pres_Luthor's comments. Sadly I think my least favorite character is myself, for getting so wrapped up in a show on the freakin' CW. Aside from Smallville and ten minutes I'll never get back trying to watch Vampire Diaries, I usually steer clear of that network. Netflix tricked me.

What you said above is just spot on.

I feel like they would have been better off leaving Laurel out of the superhero realm all together. She could have rebuilt her a friendship with both Oliver and created one with the Arrow over time without ever knowing they were the same. In that Laurel's character could have grounded the show's "reality" by simply being that old friend from high school who has eyes inside the DA's office. Comedy calls it the "straight man."

But they tried to make her more than the show needed from her, and they tried so many different angles that we never knew where she stood or what was wrong with her. What's worse, sending her down these ridiculous paths, and now maybe into becoming a superhero of her own, the only main protagonist left outside Ollie's Bat Cave is Quinten.

So many people know Ollie's the Arrow and seem to be vetted to be their own superhero or villain, it's turning into a wild universe where almost everyone is larger than life. It sounds exciting but it's imbalanced. We need the Mary Janes and the Lois Lanes, but Starling is turning into a city full of second tier action heroes all fighting and sleeping with each other. I think the next season is either going to reboot some of the sanity or be a complete train wreck.

I want to like Laurel because I saw her potential in Season 1. But the audience really shouldn't have to infer anything about a character. That's the writers' jobs. They have an uphill battle trying to reinvent her.

[Stardelphia]

While I would agree, in general, that CW's indulging in melodrama has had a negative impact on character development on many of their shows (SV in the past, and currently on Arrow) and could affect how much viewers like or dislike a character, I get the impression that when it happens to some characters those instances are (fairly or not) weighted more against them or imbued with motives than with other characters ... especially the alleged fan favourites or those judged (by whom? by what standards?) to be more "worthy" of having their melodramatic quibbles explained away as reasonable or justified.

Unfortunately the CW isn't HBO. They really cater to what their audience wants - or thinks they want. They develop characters in a Twilight kind of way, using melodrama rather than dynamic character development. Shows on premium channels will show us why characters are who they are, but CW requires the audience to make a lot of inferences. That prompts the "shippers" who aren't necessarily looking at these characters as they are crafted by the writers, but how they're crafted in the viewer's head. It's less story-telling and more audience-interaction.

Take Oliver Queen. The time Slade showed up at the Queen household was the time Ollie should have come clean with Thea -- if not about his Arrow identity then at least about the clear and present danger Slade presented to the Queen family and to Starling City. What did Ollie choose? He chose to dance the secret-and-lies "I'm doing this to protect Thea" nonsense that SV perfected over the course of its run. Yet, it seems he would get a wider berth or even a pass when the writers err on the melodrama front in his own story arc.

Why not put his feet to the fire for failing to warn his own family of the imminent danger that arrived on his doorstep? I could despise Ollie for the whole series for his failings on this front, or even make the claim that this grave error in judgment disqualifies him from claiming the Green Arrow mantle and, by consequence, his seat at the table of the Justice League (why should Batman or Superman trust a man who can't even be truthful with his own family when it counts, etc.).

The scene with Slade bugged the heck out of me. I understand in the beginning that Oliver was keeping secrets to legitimately protect his family. When no one knew who he was, no one knew who his family was. But the moment his secret got out - especially to Slade - secrecy turned into a liability for anyone who knew him. If you're in the witness protection program and the bad guys find out where you live, the cops don't keep that information from you. Keeping Thea in the dark just made her more vulnerable. I almost got the impression that he didn't tell her more out of embarrassment than anything. It ended badly, but that should have been Ollie's moment to come clean and apologize, to be accountable for what happened to Thea. Instead he went back to his tired, "I need to bear this burden of secrecy" rhetoric. No, dude. Thea was kidnapped because you weren't honest. Own it.

Moira knew so he can't blame himself for her death anymore than Shadow's, but Thea had the right to know to watch her back.

It's a CW show; they are not going to re-invent the wheel to the degree that some viewers think or expect. One could say the network has SV to cite as evidence of what happens when they try to stray too far from respecting the basics of the source material. While SV's reliance on melodrama irked me, it was the (intentional or not) resulting disrespect to the Superman legend that was my on-going grievance with the show.

I guess I'm coming from the other side. I haven't read that many comics, I just enjoy most of the movies. Obviously I know Superman, who doesn't, so some of the deviation from the source material didn't jive with me, especially when it deviated in a way that seemed more an intention to create something new rather than a logical reason that made the source material better. Kind of like remaking a classic movie like Stepford Wives and ending it with a horrible twist. If it works, don't change it. If it doesn't fit, don't use it. A lot of the arcs in Season 2 seemed shoehorned into the plot.

But at the same time - not knowing one thing about the Green Arrow comics - the first few episodes grabbed me because it looked like an action drama only vaguely attached to the source material. It was dark, not campy. It could have been something new and could have been good at it. I don't mind if it occasionally slips into the CW MO, as long as it doesn't get too hero-heavy or drama-heavy at the hinderance of the action and premise. I really miss him saying, "You have failed this city."

[BkWurm1]

While I would agree, in general, that CW's indulging in melodrama has had a negative impact on character development on many of their shows (SV in the past, and currently on Arrow) and could affect how much viewers like or dislike a character, I get the impression that when it happens to some characters those instances are (fairly or not) weighted more against them or imbued with motives than with other characters ... especially the alleged fan favourites or those judged (by whom? by what standards?) to be more "worthy" of having their melodramatic quibbles explained away as reasonable or justified.

[Clark often got a pass on really unfathomable melodramatic behaviour many times on SV, just because he was Clark. ]

Take Oliver Queen. The time Slade showed up at the Queen household was the time Ollie should have come clean with Thea -- if not about his Arrow identity then at least about the clear and present danger Slade presented to the Queen family and to Starling City. What did Ollie choose? He chose to dance the secret-and-lies "I'm doing this to protect Thea" nonsense that SV perfected over the course of its run. Yet, it seems he would get a wider berth or even a pass when the writers err on the melodrama front in his own story arc.

Why not put his feet to the fire for failing to warn his own family of the imminent danger that arrived on his doorstep? I could despise Ollie for the whole series for his failings on this front, or even make the claim that this grave error in judgment disqualifies him from claiming the Green Arrow mantle and, by consequence, his seat at the table of the Justice League (why should Batman or Superman trust a man who can't even be truthful with his own family when it counts, etc.).

But I don't.

The failure lies with Oliver Queen's character being saddled with a secrets-and-lies subplot to generate friction with Thea. All the rationalizations don't erase that, in this moment, he messed up royally. When he should have spoken up, he didn't. And there were consequences.

I completely agree about Oliver. Huge hypocritical douchebag that let he's overdeveloped need for secrecy outweigh the safety of those he supposedly holds most dear. This was need to know info. Plus because of his misplaced ideas about keeping Thea safe, he forced the one person looking after her to break her heart and abandon her leading directly to Thea being kidnapped the first time.

So why am I no longer ranting and raving about how horribly wrong he was? Because his stupid controlling ways had lasting consequences. His mother was murdered. Thea was forced to see something he would have given his life to keep her from being exposed to. He lost Thea's trust. He lost his fortune. Thea has turned to Malcolm.

Oliver screwed the hell up, big time and he came close to paying for it with EVERYTHING.

I can't say that what happened to Laurel came with any consequences. She's back to status quo within two episodes of her epiphany.

Actually one of the reasons I get so frustrated with that storyline is because had they actually had Laurel get disbarred even temporarily it would have forced her to seek her need for justice outside the normal ways. It would have caused Laurel to grow and change but instead she's static and it gets frustrating watching a show that holds the other characters feet to the fire when they screw up but gives Laurel a pass. It makes it feel IMO that Laurel is less a full blown character than just a placeholder in her own life.


Again, this thread is about explaining why it's thought Laurel is often not loved as much as the other characters more than any kind of critique on whether or not she should be BC.

I would argue that Laurel's own addiction story arc, while flawed and as a result slipping into melodrama for too long, was not included for the sake of melodrama alone. The point may have been obscured by weaker writing, but the arc was only 'a' component (not 'the' component, as it seems it's being made out to be) of Laurel's own journey. Her journey, like Ollie's, has many steps and stages. And, like Ollie, she will have setbacks.

While I wasn't entirely sold on the addiction story, I also don't perceive the degree of pettiness or heartlessness Laurel supposedly had during a time when she was admittedly under the influence. It's not giving her a "pass" on bad behaviour -- it's acknowledging that I'm not expecting her to be a saint and live up to standards unique to her when everyone else gets to invoke some past trauma (fairly or not) as a get-out-of-responsibility card when they fall off the mark. I think trying to parallel Laurel's S2 addiction with the Ollie's island journey or Sara's was more a symptom of poor writing than something "wrong" with Laurel's character.

I think what added fuel to the fire was the show runners saying how great the story and acting was and how this really was Laurel's island and crucible. They invited comparison and criticism that I don't think people would have ever made otherwise.

Meanwhile, Laurel -- who, granted, didn't have a great S2 story arc (which was hurriedly repaired in last eps.) -- as a character is hauled to account with no right of appeal when the writing fails her. I will say it all reminds me too much of the brouhaha during Lois' first arrival on SV. I've said my piece on the Lois front, years ago. In hindsight, many fans would say that SV Lois did honour her character's legend in the context of the show by series' end (despite the criticisms, some warranted and others not so much )

But this is Laurel we're talking about. I won't go into what I've said in the Laurel/BC thread, only to reiterate that it (like Lois' situation years ago) boils down to credibility and standards. We all want the eventual Black Canary to be credible in the Arrow universe. That's a given. Where this becomes almost an untenable debate is ... by what/whose standards are we judging Laurel Lance as a character? Once personal taste or opinion enters the fray, "evidence" can sometimes not live up to a more thorough test.

As a comics reader, why shouldn't I expect Ollie on Arrow to, if not live up to, at least honour what Oliver Queen represents in the comics? (FYI: Mike Grell's work apparently has a huge influence on the series. I could argue that I wish it had more of an influence, lol).

Why shouldn't I expect Laurel, or Sara, to live up to/honour what many readers would say is Gail Simone's definitive modern portrayal of Dinah/BC? As of the S2 finale, Laurel doesn't. But neither does Sara. If were to judge them now (which would be unfair), Simone's Dinah would dance circles around them and twice on Sunday ... while doing her taxes, I'm sorry to say.

Where do we draw the line on what criteria we're using? Who gets to set the bar? How high (or low)? If we're claiming that Ollie is the hero by which all other future Arrow heroes will be measured, no one could (or should) match it, as he is the lead. A case could be made that Ollie is still far from the mark himself. And it would be unrealistic to expect Laurel or Sara to live up to Ollie's (still incomplete) path to heroism.

Arrow doesn't exist in a vacuum. The showrunners will do their own thing with the characters to a degree (and hopefully not flout conventions to the extent SV's producers often did), and while this may leave the impression that only what happens on the show matters, I find it incredulous that viewers would somehow not want the show to honour or at minimum give a nod to the source material: the comics. I consider this showing due respect to the material that, without it, there would be no show.

I think the standard characters have to be held to is the ones set within the show. That's why for me, I found Lois such a shameful and pitiful characterization of one of my beloved comic characters. Just addressing one aspect, the show set a bar for excellence in regards to journalism over the three years prior to the arrival of Lois. It was taught maybe in a trial and error manner (mess up but learn your lesson) and started with the low bar of a 14 year old. Dedication, proof, adherence to the truth, standards and reputation. Viewers knew what the show viewed as good and bad. And then proceeded to dump Lois with the bad (fine with working for an institution every other character spit on, ok with taking leads after she was specifically turned down on sharing info, manufacturing entire stories and dressing up to pictures so she could be on page one, indulging in unethical behavior like sleeping with the boss! letting the reason why she wants to work at the Planet be because she wants the fame not because of a passion for what she does - the speech Grant uses to lure her in- and then one day the show without any lead up, explanation or apology waves it's hand and rewrites history.

Lois was fine as a journalist in the last season but her journey did not get her there, a massive retcon did, so yeah, it invalidates IMO everything and I will never accept that mess of a character not because of other movies or comic or even other tv shows but because of the show that I was watching and the standards it taught me to judge her character by.

In Arrow, I've been taught that the standard of a true hero takes intense ongoing trauma and massive amounts of training. Roy and Thea will never exceed the standards of those that came before. They are the junior members, the sidekicks.

I could believe that Laurel could possibly archive sidekick status but that's were my knowledge of the comics kicks in and how disrespectful to the outside source this would be. Canary is not GA trainee or sidekick. She is his equal and by many measurements his superior.

But according to the standards set on this show, Laurel can't achieve that goal. It's a tough place TPTB have placed themselves. Laurel came with high expectations but she keeps live down to them. I would rather the show do something original with the character rather than create a weak substitute. I think that Arrow freed itself from having to adhere to the source material in the very Pilot. It has taken element of the comic but uses them as it wants. New characters like Moira and Thea, twists on characters like Tommy NOT becoming the bad guy.

It honors the source material by not turning Oliver into a gun toting mob boss selling children into slavery and turning into a werewolf once a month. There is a large realm of possibility and since we look to source material as a jumping off point, the current comic is doing its own jumping off. It now has Diggle. It doesn't have any Canary and it's at least two years into its run. Maybe that means Laurel on Arrow will become IMO a watered down version of BC (or she gets maikuru type shortcut) or maybe they have an original story just waiting for her. I don't know. I just know whatever her path, the character can be strengthened by letting her organically grow and react to her life rather than force an ill fitting mold on her because comics.

It's a CW show; they are not going to re-invent the wheel to the degree that some viewers think or expect. One could say the network has SV to cite as evidence of what happens when they try to stray too far from respecting the basics of the source material. While SV's reliance on melodrama irked me, it was the (intentional or not) resulting disrespect to the Superman legend that was my on-going grievance with the show.

In all honesty my biggest quibbles with Smallville arose not from them straying from the source material (Lex and Clark were best friends, Doomsday was a good guy trapped in an impossible situation, Jimmy was Clark's age) but came when the show tried to force the show back into the endgame of source material that had no bearing on the Universe from which Smallville sprang.

They negated everything rich and meaningful about the future Lex and Clark dynamic by literally wiping the slate clean. It made all that Clex melodrama meaningless. They turned what could have been a heart rendering end to Davis Bloome into a one note monster and the worst fight in the history of the series. Plus oops, not Jimmy.

A bit more daring could have made the series unforgettable and unique rather than a cautionary tale about spending ten years getting to exactly where everybody else has been. What's the point?

I've read BOP comics for many years, and while I don't presume to be a Green Arrow expert, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the Dinah Lance character has a prominent place in any retelling of the Green Arrow story. She's not a bit character to be disposed of, casually forgotten, narratively sidelined or treated poorly.

Black Canary is not a bit character. Nope. She's not Superman's Lois Lane. She's not Peter Parker's Mary Jane or Gwen Stacy. She's not Wonder Woman's Steve Trevor. She's not. Batman's Alfred or Chief Gordon or Riddler or Two Face. She is by herself a superhero. She has her supporting cast. She is not someone else's supporting cast.

Perhaps that too is the failure of Arrow. The show is Oliver's but to respect the Black Canary she can't be second in her own story. That was one of my complaints about Sara last season, she is too large of a character to fit in with the story comfortable for long periods. Black Canary would probably serve the show best only in scattered appearances.

I am concerned that the writing needs to make Laurel Lance more credible in the sense of taking on such a legacy. But is she so far behind that nothing can be done in S3 whatever they do ... and we should just hand over her legacy to Sara (who, IMO, still needs work as a "character" let alone as a Canary)? I don't know how we can say that, when everyone's journey on the show is incomplete -- including the lead himself.

I think the difference between the work needed on Sara vs Laurel is that Laurel is still starting from scratch but Sara would only have the mental and emotional journey to address.

Viewers can fault Laurel's character on how she was written or even out of personal taste, but not IMO on her worthiness/right to be a major character on a show about Green Arrow. Writing of characters on the show, including Laurel, is open for discussion as it should be. In the context of the GA legend, wishes to sideline or omit Laurel Lance from significant Arrow story arcs or plotlines going forward cannot be reasonably justified. As a viewer, I will expect her to be more involved in S3 than in previous seasons

.

Even in the comic with GA and BC, they were an ill fitted couple that divorced and went their separate ways. In many ways, the show has already honored that dynamic with what we've seen.

I think given the current Green Arrow comic has nothing of Black Canary an argument could easily be made that BC is not needed in telling the tale of GA. Actually in the new comic universe Laurel Dinah Lance does not exist. There is just Dinah.

But that's a moot point. Arrow has Laurel Dinah Lance on its show and I expect the show to use her. I even expect that we will see more of her in season 3, BUT if the show runners are not able to find a way to usefully and believably incorporate the character by the end of the season, then I think the questions of contract length might come up.



.

[Dagenspear]

The blame I was referring to,that she should accept is that she was the one that made bad choices (drinking, stealing her fathers pills) that brought about her getting fired. I also wanted her to instead of lashing out and acting like she was the hurt party when she was pulled over for a DUI to be grateful for her fathers help and accepting of his concern. Instead she sniped at him, refused to accept her responsibility for her actions by turning it around and yelling at him for his past problems. Even the way she got pulled over showed an ungrateful and entitled attitude. She gets pulled over and what does she say? Yep the favorite lines of the entitled and self absorbed, "Do you know who I am?"

I like Oliver and Sara because they struggle with their very dark past. They are trying to rise above it. Oliver has moved to his no kill rule (finally). Sara traded her freedom to save Starling city. They are broken and damaged people who really can't make up for the bad things they have done, but the show isn't trying to convince me they are pure hearted good doers.

Laurel gets lambasted because the show says she's wonderful and generous and loving but seems to over and over show us an entirely different character. It says she know Oliver better than anyone. It shows not only was she completely in GA dark but she was deluded about Oliver, purposely sticking her head in the sand about his multiple affairs. She and Sara knew of ten girls. The audience knows about the one he got pregnant. She seemed to not see the real Oliver, just this good looking rich guy she had plans for.

We saw Laurel still furious with Oliver (not saying she shouldn't be) but she with the wave of a wand got over it (and any addiction issue) but what really got to me was how afterward Oliver was just the old friend who was now dating Sara until she found out he was Arrow. Oh, now she thinks he's someone special. Now she sees her sisters scars and she goes out of her way to offer hugs and silent support to Not her sister, but the guy that betrayed her with her sister. It's stuff like this that makes. IMO Laurel look very insincere at the very least.

It's the discord between what the show says and what the show shows that IMO makes Laurel a disliked character.

It doesn't matter if they are troubled, which they only are when the plot calls for it by the way, they have still done far worse. Laurel's actions just don't matter enough for this reaction. It's picking and choosing what you dislike.

About the other stuff, who cares? Maybe I haven't paid attention enough to the show, because really this show just isn't for deep thought, but I don't remember any of the stuff about being repeatedly told how great she is. But, the show has taken its time to show that she is mostly a good person, someone who will put their lives in danger for what they think is right, someone who isn't a serial murderer, and who will stand up to a criminal. Because she gets a DUI, gets an entitled attitude, is so very not nice to people and starts drinking and popping pills that, what, negates the good things about her? And I don't know why you're blaming her for what Oliver and her sister do (if you are). It's not someone's fault if they don't see the bad qualities in someone.

I kinda hope she's being insincere. I don't like her being so supportive of these people.

I just don't know why you don't just blame the writers. You know what they want you to see. If they are not portraying it correctly, then it is their fault. If this was an actually really good show, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, then I'd say sure, whatever (unless you're complaining about Cordelia), go for it, because it's the kind of show that I'd expect to construct a character well enough that what the writers intend must be getting across. But this isn't that. It's a show that ranges from mediocre to okay to good to, at rare times, bad.

[BkWurm1]

I just don't know why you don't just blame the writers. You know what they want you to see. If they are not portraying it correctly, then it is their fault. If this was an actually really good show, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, then I'd say sure, whatever (unless you're complaining about Cordelia), go for it, because it's the kind of show that I'd expect to construct a character well enough that what the writers intend must be getting across. But this isn't that. It's a show that ranges from mediocre to okay to good to, at rare times, bad.

I frequently complain about the writers but I actually think that they do a good job with a majority of the cast. Arrow's not as special as say a Veronica Mars but it's still far more interesting and layered than most of the other shows I'm watching now.

I think that the writers lost the balance about half way through the season and focused too much on everything Sara, (I like Sara but there came a point when she was in every storyline past and present) and the Laurel. drama. And the mirakuru problem they had with Roy just getting edited out of a lot of episodes (less a writing problem than a time management issue) There were around six IMO really rocky episodes but then the show seemed to straighten out so it was enjoyable again.

And I don't know why you're blaming her for what Oliver and her sister do (if you are). It's not someone's fault if they don't see the bad qualities in someone.

Where do you see me blaming Laurel for the stupid crap Oliver and Sara do? I hold them accountable and I appreciate that the show seems to as well.

I think Arrow has at time been excellent, so when I see one particular blind spot, it makes sense to me to focus on it.

It doesn't matter if they are troubled, which they only are when the plot calls for it by the way, they have still done far worse. Laurel's actions just don't matter enough for this reaction. It's picking and choosing what you dislike.

If I knew these people in real life and knew what they'd done I probably wouldn't dare go near any of them. Oliver and Felicity would probably come off very charming but still I'd be afraid to get mixed up in their stuff. Diggle would intimidate me. Sara would make me crap my pants. Laurel - I just would find her prickly and kind of bi-polar.

But these are not real people. I get to like morally questionable people.

Also, I'm not judging my like or dislike of Laurel on a scale of goodness next to the other characters in this show. I'm judging her on her actions and her personal IMO likeability.

Laurel's actions just don't matter enough for this reaction

I guess it's a matter of opinion. I find that Laurel affects my enjoyment of the show and that's reason enough I guess to talk about it. I also enjoy debating things so maybe there is an emotional component that is being misread in my posts.

About the other stuff, who cares? Maybe I haven't paid attention enough to the show, because really this show just isn't for deep thought, but I don't remember any of the stuff about being repeatedly told how great she is. But, the show has taken its time to show that she is mostly a good person, someone who will put their lives in danger for what they think is right, someone who isn't a serial murderer, and who will stand up to a criminal. Because she gets a DUI, gets an entitled attitude, is so very not nice to people and starts drinking and popping pills that, what, negates the good things about her?

I applaud Laurel for only killing people to save other's lives and hey, it's nice that she tries to help people but the bolded parts are part of who she is too and not being a murderer does not make me like her because my like or dislike doesn't depend on how many more people the people around her have killed.

That said, Laurel knows what the Hood guy used too do and even knowing he was a killer, she still chose to work with him in her quest to help others. Not saying I'm judging the her in the fictional world, but in the real world she would be just as responsible for quite a number of deaths that happened while she had the Hood working for her. Accessory to commit murder anyone? So in reality, she's not such an innocent.

[Stardelphia]

It honors the source material by not turning Oliver into a gun toting mob boss selling children into slavery and turning into a werewolf once a month.

It looks like we're writing our own books in these comments so I'm gonna dumb mine down to just one (and then maybe fly off on some tangents). This line is epic. I literally laughed out loud.

Okay, so I have more to say because I only recently finished Season 2.

I found what you said about Lois's character on SV interesting. My only familiarity with Lois Lane is from the movies, not the comics. The character did get carried away on SV, but I always got the impression she was an amped up version of Margot Kidder's Lois Lane. Kidder's Lane was never a villain but she always had her own agenda and was never the grounding voice that Lana was. Of course I think they strayed from Lana's character in SV way too far, but in the Superman movies, she wasn't a main character, just a reminder of Clark's youth that he occasionally turned to. If Arrow were a movie, I think that's where Laurel would sit.

As a potential Canary, I'd rather see Dinah than Laurel. Her character has been established but they haven't exhausted her. And with Moira gone, I'd love to see another vengeful, don't-mess-with-my cubs, mamma-bear back in the mix. For some reason, and I know I'm in the minority, but I have no patience for Sara. I don't know if it's the acting or the directing, but when she's on screen I want to hit FF. I'd rather see her role subdued to a simple reason for Dinah to become the BC.

Oh, but back to the Lois Lane/Margot Kidder thing, I did love when SV brought her on board. The last I had heard of the actress before seeing her on SV was that she was found hiding under someone's porch and unrecognizable. I think Kidder is bipolar. But when she showed up on SV I was like, whoa, this is gonna be good.

Being the CW, I'm kind of wondering if and how Arrow will go that route. Obviously they can't bring back an actor/actress from a movie that never existed, but there's a bevy of supporting characters from superhero movies not doing much. Linda Carter? Or maybe the actress in this scene from Superman III that scarred me for life?

[Stardelphia]

I kinda hope she's being insincere. I don't like her being so supportive of these people.

I agree with you on this 100%. The times I like Laurel best is when she hates Ollie and Sara. Up until now they haven't given her a reason to forgive them, at least in my opinion. There are ways for her to be sympathetic about their time on the island without giving them a pass on how they got there.

I just don't know why you don't just blame the writers. You know what they want you to see. If they are not portraying it correctly, then it is their fault. If this was an actually really good show, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, then I'd say sure, whatever (unless you're complaining about Cordelia), go for it, because it's the kind of show that I'd expect to construct a character well enough that what the writers intend must be getting across. But this isn't that. It's a show that ranges from mediocre to okay to good to, at rare times, bad.

I think they are blaming the writers, but at the same time holding bad writing accountable for what it is. We know what the writers want us to see, but the writers are forcing us to make a lot of assumptions. But like you said, it's not a really good show. I might disagree with you on Buffy. Christie Swanson is my one and only Vampire Slayer. Still Arrow was, at least in my opinion, a very good show in the first few episodes. It quickly fell down the CW Rabbit Hole, but only two seasons in it can get back to its roots without becoming Smallville.

[BkWurm1]

As a potential Canary, I'd rather see Dinah than Laurel. Her character has been established but they haven't exhausted her. And with Moira gone, I'd love to see another vengeful, don't-mess-with-my cubs, mamma-bear back in the mix. For some reason, and I know I'm in the minority, but I have no patience for Sara. I don't know if it's the acting or the directing, but when she's on screen I want to hit FF. I'd rather see her role subdued to a simple reason for Dinah to become the BC.

For me the only way this could work if Dinah had this secret life as the Canary that she'd retired from and is taking it back up because otherwise she falls into the same trap that Laurel has which is a ticking clock on training.

I personally like Sara, I pick up this interesting mix of strength and fragility about her her but sometimes some characters/actors just rub you the wrong way.
Oh, but back to the Lois Lane/Margot Kidder thing, I did love when SV brought her on board. The last I had heard of the actress before seeing her on SV was that she was found hiding under someone's porch and unrecognizable. I think Kidder is bipolar. But when she showed up on SV I was like, whoa, this is gonna be good.

Being the CW, I'm kind of wondering if and how Arrow will go that route. Obviously they can't bring back an actor/actress from a movie that never existed, but there's a bevy of supporting characters from superhero movies not doing much. Linda Carter? Or maybe the actress in this scene from Superman III that scarred me for life?

Yeah, I enjoyed the attempt to bridge the Dr. Swann stuff after Christopher Reeves dies with Margot Kidder. I think she did a great job but I understand there was some kind of misunderstanding or fallout between her and TPTB. Hence getting hastily buried out in the Luthor back yard.

SupermanIII was mostly just crap on top of crap. I've only been able to get through it twice. I watched mostly with my hands over my eyes cringing from the embarrassment.

I might disagree with you on Buffy. Christie Swanson is my one and only Vampire Slayer.

Still trying to figure out if you were being ironic or not, lol..

Still Arrow was, at least in my opinion, a very good show in the first few episodes. It quickly fell down the CW Rabbit Hole, but only two seasons in it can get back to its roots without becoming Smallville.

Here's hoping! I think all of us can agree we don't want another Smallville.

I will quibble with the quality of the first few episodes. It was well done, but I almost never made it to the third episode because those first couple gave me no reason to like anyone or feel anything but bleak and hopeless. Just tooo grim. Diggle is the only thing that kept me going.

[PHOENIXZERO]

Arrow hasn't come anywhere close to Smallville's (especially at the end) level of awfulness yet. Season 2 was better than the first season even if less focused. Laurel got better though coincidentally as she started getting better Thea started to go back to her season one awfulness even if some of it was justified it was getting lame especially with some of the lines she had. A good deal of the Laurel hate also I think was amplified with the introduction of Sara as the Canary and people who like her in that role and don't want to see Laurel take it over.

It's Kristy BTW.

[President_Luthor]

In one sense, it would be unfair to hold Ollie, Laurel, etc. to live up to their various incarnations in the comics esp. when DC's new 52 have essentially rebooted most of them and every reader has their favourites or what they consider the "best" -- which itself can be pretty subjective. Whose writers get to be cited as the "standard", while others are ruled out? I didn't like Chuck Dixon's version of BC (though I loved his Oracle), but others may hold up his BC as the one they want the show to emulate. Many readers love Mike Grell's GA, but there are readers that don't and maybe prefer Meltzer's or Smith's etc.

It is the CW and even I'd acknowledge that the show probably won't "live up" to my ideal versions just because it is on a youth-oriented network that will indulge in melodrama. At the same time, I don't expect them to have carte blanche to re-invent the GA legend to such a degree that it becomes a show that resembles little of what I as a viewer want from a show about Oliver Queen and his universe. That's why as a comics fan, I bristle at the notion that the TV shows can freely disregard the comics because when they do as cavalierly as some shows did (SV), it ended up hurting the essence of what I liked about the legend on the show. It is also an assumption that throwing any or all the comics parameters out results in giving the show more creative freedom or room for risk-taking. This could only manifest itself if the writers have the ability to pull it off. This is a big if.

SV had this problem too -- some viewers expected SV to stretch creative boundaries, "redefine" the Superman legend, etc. They sometimes forgot that it was on the CW, the writing was inconsistent at best and was unlikely to be able to deliver on some of the envelope-pushing notions they either expected from the show or even imposed upon the show. I was burned on the "stuff of legends" arc that the writers themselves injected in S1, so it wasn't a fan-created idea. I wanted them to deliver on this epic Clark v. Lex rivalry they were going to initiate. The end result was meh, due to many reasons. In a way, my expectation may have been too high considering the lacklustre writing overall.

While Arrow's writing is better, it's not perfect either ... and they are on the CW. Many of Arrow's characters aren't perfect on the writing front, even if you remove Laurel from the equation. Can anyone give a detailed and thorough backstory on Felicity, beyond her arrowcave and QC life? How about her life outside of Ollie's orbit? Or that of Bronze Tiger, China White, Shrapnel, etc. who were the show's more one-dimensional villains? More than a handful of Arrow's characters would not measure up to intense scrutiny over their own characters' development (which so far, is better than SV, but still "in need of work" IMO). This is a series-wide brewing issue they have to redress in S3, not just with Laurel.

SV liked to claim that it tried to honour the Superman legend and with the show completed, the impression it left me is that they pushed frontiers at times when perhaps they shouldn't have. Overall, they managed to recover some of the Man of Steel's dignity after S7 with the final seasons ... but it shouldn't have reached that point. They wanted Clark to be contemporary and accessible -- he ended up being (too) flawed to the point where his credibility as a hero (and by consequence, credibility as a future leader of the JLA) was in question. This is where I felt, as a Superman fan, the show didn't show the legend the due respect it deserved. It's one thing to push the envelope of interpretation, it's another to dilute and even break it at times.

Lois was challenged on her credibility on many fronts, including her reporting. While some of it was valid re: writing for her character, some came out of issues that had little/nothing to do with Lois herself. Clark also seemed to get more of a pass on his non-linear path towards journalism (it was a light-switch journey in my books and I never completely bought it from him). If Lois' path to the DP was wonky, then Clark's was positively fast-forwarded to the point of essentially forcing viewers to accept that he was there, deal with it, despite not really earning it. Some may say Lois didn't, but I would argue she earned her desk there more than he did.

The bar always seemed to be set that much higher for Lois than Clark and many of the other characters on several fronts, whatever she did -- and this, on a CW show where the writing was often lacking. Who sets the bar? (And who set the bar to unfathomable HBO / AMC dramatic quality expectations?) Which criteria are we using to "define" the ideal Lois, Clark, etc. As a viewer, I didn't depend solely on what happens on the show to make any judgments, since I've read the comics and watched the movies -- so these experiences would also influence my conclusions about SV.

I found Lois by series' end to be, if not the "perfect" Lois Lane to outclass all other Lois' in history , then a likable and credible one in the SV universe ... which really is the only criteria that should matter. Her path may not have been ideal, but on credibility and standards in the context of SV as a CW show I felt she achieved that by series end. I've never sensed the degree of animosity viewers allegedly felt towards Lois for whatever reason (valid or not).

If I did notice it, it was on the web where some of those opinions were perhaps not challenged and taken as fact. It is presumptuous for these viewers to assert that they speak for many/most SV viewers on the matter. I've already said more than I wanted about SV and Lois, as it's a topic I've delved into years ago. And I've yet to be convinced to change my opinion on it (which as a SV fan I have a right to hold as any other).

It doesn't mean that viewers like us didn't "get" it and somehow didn't appreciate SV's alleged potential, only that we didn't allow SV's writing issues to affect our overall enjoyment of what was ultimately a somewhat satisfactory CW show about Superman's origins that likely went on a few seasons longer that perhaps it merited.

[I could go on about Clark's 10-year journey on dodging/escaping/denying/evading the show's endgame until late in the race -- if anything, Lois' character issues pale in comparison to this: the biggest reason why more than a few viewers may have tuned out -- but I won't.]

That's why it is a difficult argument to make that Laurel/Dinah wouldn't or even shouldn't have a place in the Arrow universe, because every viewers' standards are going to be different. It's not a homogeneous audience that will check their varied influences at the door when Arrow airs. There is bound to be bias, where we will each weigh some trait or value more (or less) than others. Some viewers would be fine if BC never showed up on a show about GA, others will expect nothing less than BC by the Arrow's side by series' end. Is there a "more" right or wrong answer here?

The danger here is when some fan bases claim or assert more legitimacy than others. Who is more right or whose opinions have the right to be given more weight than others? I've seen it on SV and I see signs of it among the Arrow fandom, at least online where it gets to be vocal.

While there may be viewers who would be completely fine that Laurel is sidelined into obscurity on the show for various reasons, I don't accept the premise that this should be the case -- because it's assuming that the standards/expectations for Dinah/BC on the show are somehow so inviolate and if she hasn't lived up to them now (when there are many seasons to go ), then well, she never will and why bother even having her on the show. Why are the standards for her so beyond reproach while others (Ollie, Roy, Thea, etc.) have more leeway to snafu their life choices? And who gets to make the call that they should be.

Like SV Lois, it presupposes that the character of Laurel is a lost cause or so beyond repair that there's no point. Like SV Lois' situation, I don't believe this to be the case. Or should be. It's too black or white for any character on the show ... especially one on the CW.

For good or bad, these CW shows are more like organisms than rigid math equations. When the writers latched on to Sara to be more than a minor character in S2 for example, they automatically opened up a melodrama angle to exploit (and allowed the shipper base to pit Sara v. Laurel for Oliver's loyalty or affection, to the detriment of all). I almost wish they had carefully mapped out plotlines instead of vague arcs or trendy fan couplings that can be changed on a whim.

I actually have an issue with "hate" being part of the thread title since it also assumes that there is such animosity towards Laurel (which I doubt is the case, in reality). I think the writers seizing upon Sara to be 'their' Canary 1.0 just to have her by Arrow's side and reap the hype had the side-effect of contributing to belittling anything Laurel did because Sara was 'in the loop' and Laurel wasn't. While Laurel's story arc wasn't spectacular in S2, it's like they didn't want to wait or bother putting the time into fleshing out Laurel and latched onto what they felt was a way to have a Canary on S2 without investing in the degree of character development that, frankly, only Ollie, Malcolm or Slade had the opportunity to enjoy somewhat consistently over two seasons.

We should be wary (I'm including myself here too) of setting the bar of expectations to levels so high or unrealistic that a show on CW could possibly not live up to. SV ran into this problem too. It becomes of self-fulfilling prophecy of setting oneself up for disappointment. This clearly happened with SV on several levels.

Arrow's BC will probably not live up to Gail Simone's BC. And while I'm not expecting a panel-by-panel copy of her, I would like Arrow's BC to give a nod to Simone's legacy with the character by series' end. Other viewer may want a nod to some other version of BC. What the writers have to do is somehow honour all this while make BC on Arrow uniquely theirs too.

We all want BC to be credible on the Arrow show. How they do it will be ultimately the writers' choice, whatever we may say here. What they could do is a matter of debate and opinion. I'm not prepared to write off Laurel yet. No doubt, S3 will likely be the season to propel her forward on the credibility front.

To do this, this may require not having Sara in every episode -- not because Sara is somehow "better as Canary" (this is another assumption that not all viewers share, again due to the fluid criteria-per-viewer), but to give Laurel and even other secondary characters the development space they deserve/need in S3.

We all want BC to be credible on Arrow. By what standards (a fluid, hard-to-measure thing on the CW) is she to be measured to satisfy this expectation is still anyone's untested guess/opinion, with S3 still little more than rumours and occasional details from the showrunners.

(Great Caesar's Ghost, I should cut down on Gatorade. Too much sugar.)

I will say that Diggle will likely have the one of the best season 3 arcs, if the preview was any indication. And having just rewatched Suicide Squad (thank you, CTV Two!), the seeds have been planted.

His may turn out to be the best one -- and he began as a bit player.

[dreamsofnever]

Bkwurm1, I completely agree that Dinah Laurel Lance/Black Canary is big enough that she warrants her own story. I'm a little sad that we still live in a world where the only hope of seeing superheroines in live action is as part of a group or as a male hero's love interest. I'm also sad that if WB/DC finally does start to give live action heroines their own properties, they might decide that Black Canary has already been done too often (what with parts on both SV and Arrow) and not want to take a risk on her again.

I will say that I don't 'hate' Laurel, as per the original question. But I do question a lot of the writing and directing choices and I really wish that Laurel was a less melodramatic character. And I wish that she had the training and martial arts background so it wasn't such a light switch when/if she decides to don the fishnets.

President Luthor, you make a VERY good point about how comic book characters have been through so many incarnations that it might not be fair to hold them up to the 'standards' of the comics. Taking Black Canary as an example, her characterization has been vastly different through the years. And heck, even Superman was actually a lot darker and grimmer in the very first issues of his comics than what we see today (he killed people!) So it is hard to please comics fans because all of us are bringing our own baggage to the table in terms of what we hold up as the gold standard for any given character. Though I do feel pretty strongly that the writers have made the mistake of tailoring Laurel and Sara to whatever they felt the story needed, with very little regard to anything show in the comics. Laurel especially has felt like a generic love interest, considering that they changed the name by which she's called, changed her career, changed her family and family history.

I also dislike how much the writers are pandering to the more vocal shipper aspects of the fanbase. Do I think it's good that they listen to fans? To some extent, yes. But to some extent, I think that they need to plan out their story and tell a story and not a 'choose your own adventure' based on what's trending on twitter on any given week.

I sincerely hope that Laurel gets better storylines in season 3. I hope the same for Felicity and Thea. While it's Oliver's show, I feel like many of the female characters are given very little to do outside of how they relate to Oliver and I would like to see that change to some extent.

Though personally, I'm still going to be over here holding out hope that in ten or twenty years, we get a properly done live action Birds of Prey that skews a little closer to the comics. Particularly the Gail Simone era. I'm not going to hold my breath, but hope springs eternal, right?

[President_Luthor]

Though I do feel pretty strongly that the writers have made the mistake of tailoring Laurel and Sara to whatever they felt the story needed, with very little regard to anything show in the comics.

With Laurel and Sara, they often had to wait for the plot to veer towards them to register in S2. And Slade's S2 arc left little for them to do until the conspiracy was approaching the endgame in S2's second half.

Do I think it's good that they listen to fans? To some extent, yes. But to some extent, I think that they need to plan out their story and tell a story and not a 'choose your own adventure' based on what's trending on twitter on any given week.

I think this was also a systemic issue with SV. It embraced some fan-driven elements that I would have preferred they watered down or even ignored. The emphasis on melodrama really hurt most, if not all, the main characters. It often became a substitute for good character development.

I feel like many of the female characters are given very little to do outside of how they relate to Oliver and I would like to see that change to some extent.

This is one of probably two main issues that still linger on the series and need to be addressed in S3 and forward. They should stand on their own feet without necessarily needing Ollie or a significant other connection to register in an Arrow plotline. Most of Ollie's supporting roster is sorely in need of 'me' time, development-wise in S3.

[My other issue is the generally weaker stable of secondary villains Ollie has to face. I am expecting his foes to be increasingly dangerous and intelligent. He can't face Slade, Malcolm or Ra's every ep. in S3 and they do need a credible crew of second-tier bad guys that could complicate the Arrow's efforts in SC when the top villains are away. The new Vertigo has potential just on the basis that the actor is amazing, Clock King should make a return, but they're only a few ... while many of the others just don't impress me. S3 Ollie would wipe the floor with them.]

In an ideal world, we'd get a Simone-influenced BOP on a network like HBO, FX or even Showtime or Netflix where we'd get a dream BC, Huntress, Oracle etc. with top-notch writing and casting. In my dreams, right -- since the WB's own version a decade ago was mediocre. I did like their Oracle and the last eps. were marginally better. The series also made the mistake of veering too far from the source material when they shouldn't have. (Absentee deadbeat-dad Bruce also was a turn-off for me).

SV has probably taught me that I'll need to be less absolutist in what I expect from superheroes on a melodrama-fueled network. I'm cautiously optimistic they've turned a corner on Laurel by end of S2 into S3.

[dreamsofnever]

A Netflix-based Simone inspired Birds of Prey would be AMAZING. And I agree that Dina Meyer was a pretty awesome Oracle. I have a soft spot for the WB version of BoP because that was my first exposure to the team, but on the other hand... as you said, they veered so far from the source material (their Dinah was a JOKE) that it was really its own sort of story and I kind of hate that it might have blown any chances of us getting a properly done BoP live action (whether movie or TV)

I, too, am cautiously optimistic for season 3. It sounds like they have plans for Laurel and I hope that they do well with it.

I think that the villains are tricky, you're right. I was really happy with how they handled Slade, but it would be nice to see them handle the one-episode villains better. I am glad that their hands don't seem to be quite as tied by the big screen version of the DCU as Smallville was back when Superman Returns was in development. Here's hoping that DC continues to avoid restrictions because I do think that both versions can flourish even if there's some overlap in the characters.