The Laurel Lance Discussion Thread

[BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow]

Laurel's story is one of the most unappreciated story in the show! She has gone through trials just as Oliver and Sara.

Relatively speaking Laurel has had it easy. Her troubles and trials are from another world, from another show.

[BkWurm1]

^Great post, Stardelphia

I think you made a pretty sensible point about the showrunners wanting their characters to feel more accessible to their audience.

Unfortunately for me, Laurel's spiral made her less accessible and more unlikable as she lashed out at her father, refused to accept her own blame and generally behaved like a spoiled child.

Laurel's spiralling down into addiction, with all that would entail (denial, alienating loved ones, negative impact on professional life, etc.), was their attempt to look underneath the surface of Laurel Lance. And I never got the sense that Laurel was being made a victim -- in S2, with self-inflicted wounds mostly -- without some purpose behind it.


Fans can quibble about how successful or not Laurel's addiction story arc was, but it doesn't invalidate the journey her character did have.

Actually this is exactly what do think happened. Her addiction arc was IMO so poorly handled that it does invalidate the supposed journey they wanted her character to have. Here on the other side of her "journey" and I don't buy any of it. Any way I used to relate to Laurel has been stripped away. I did feel pity for her when she accepted that she had a hand in Tommy's death. No, not responsible for it, but yes, part of why he was there. He'd loved her and she threw that away. But she didn't learn her lesson. She kept throwing love and kindness back in the faces of the people around her.

Her arc seemed to go on a few episodes too long, but on the whole it was meant to be her own redemption story. She needed to go through some crucible to make her question/challenge her previous notions of right and wrong, which had been shaken after Tommy's death. And by no means should we think that her trials are now over, any more so than Ollie or Sara's would be.

The thing that sticks with me is that her arc consisted of Laurel lashing out and blaming everyone, then a couple bad things happened as consequence for her actions but she spent no more than a couple weeks sorry for her actions before she got everything back and more. Sara and Oliver still have long lasting impacts on their current lives from what happened to them on their islands. Laurel is closer than ever to her family, not only got her job back, but feels strong enough in her position to throw blackmail threats around, and was in a sense rewarded by the show by being let into the big secret.

It doesn't feel earned. It's like the show let her have a rampaging pity party and she was rewarded for her bad behavior. I wish I could have believed what she said to Sara in her "you're so beautiful" speech. Laurel was so mad and I believed in her anger but I couldn't believe in it just vanishing cause Oliver yelled at her and held up a mirror to her face.

In that aspect (and the no lasting consequences) Laurel's addiction arc didn't go on long enough. The addiction part was a joke. Nothing I saw on screen screamed oooh, she's addicted. No, it screamed, Laurel is a self indulgent jerk. A tiny bit too much to drink at dinner one night, casually sipping wine in her apartment, NOT taking pills when her sister shows up for dinner. The only time she acted drunk was when she was merely poisoned and if they hadn't told us flat out that she stole her father's pain pills, I would never have believed it. Her addiction didn't seem to be controlling her. She was mean not because of the pills or alcohol but because she chose to be mean and boy, did that alienate her character to me.

Ollie is still earning the right to bear the name Green Arrow ie. the hero who gets to stand side-by-side with Superman, Batman, Green Lantern. etc. He's not there yet.

Sara may have been trained by the LoA and taken up the vigilante cause, and while this may seem like she's ahead of some fan-driven race to "be" BC (at least on the street-fighting front), earning the right be the Black Canary of legend by series end -- one who Superman and Batman will one day trust as a colleague -- is more of a marathon than a sprint.

Laurel falling into addiction and eventual recovery is but one leg of this very long race. And it's her own doubts/failings that she is racing to stay ahead of, not necessarily Sara.

This thread is more about why people don't love Laurel than whether she will become BC or not but I think people don't like what doesn't make sense. Laurel Lance doesn't seem to have any motivation to want to become a super hero not only taking the law into her own hands but actively running around and beating up bad guys.

She's a lawyer. Her sister and one of her oldest friends are more than qualified to cross that line if she can't get justice through regular means. I can absolutely believe she would blur the lines and use their help, but why would she waste time trying to become them when who she is as a lawyer in the DA's office should be keeping her very busy already. It's not like Oliver or Sara can handle the legal end.

I can't make sense of any motivation for her to want to or need to become a masked hero and that makes Laurel's character less relatable to me.

[Stardelphia]

^Great post, Stardelphia

I think you made a pretty sensible point about the showrunners wanting their characters to feel more accessible to their audience.

Again, compared to how SV often misused melodrama in place of good character development, Arrow has more often than not steered clear of some of the sappier elements we'd expect on a CW show. Or at least made the attempt to handle it better aka not making it come off like a couple's spat at the high school cafeteria (an exception to this could be Thea and Roy ). I consider it a blessing/relief that Amell hasn't seen a single episode of SV.

It's interesting that similar themes in SV have begun to develop in Arrow because I get the impression that Arrow's original target audience was older than the first few seasons of Smallville. SV was very much geared towards a high school audience while most of Arrow's central characters are roughly late-20s to late-30s. With the exception of Thea and Roy, everyone is very much an adult.

I guess that's why I wince a bit when I hear "Olicity" and "Lauliver." The youthful melodrama of Team Felicity vs. Team Laurel butts heads with the much darker premise that attracted me to the show in the first place. I guess that's why I appreciate Laurel's story arc because it was an attempt to introduce adult problems into what was becoming a high school cafeteria, even if her story arc fell flat on its face.

I don't think they addressed Laurel's addiction in a consistent way. It wasn't always clear if she had a problem. In one episode she'd seem fine, then in the next she'd be drinking and popping pills. It wasn't until she went to AA that it was solidified that she was an addict, and by then we were either asking "Why?," or we were too fed up with the poorly written side-story to care.

CW tends to cater to its audience and give the audience what it asks for. I wouldn't be surprised if they neglected developing Laurel's alcoholism in lieu of more airtime for the Sara-Ollie-Laurel love triangle because of the audience's reaction, probably even what's written in forums like this. Shows like Arrow, especially on the CW, have teams that scour the internet for feedback and then tweak scenes or cut them all together based on viewers' reactions.

In my opinion, Seasons 1 and 2 had vastly different themes. I think the writers are probably working on how to best integrate the dark, lonely premise of the first season into the relationships that began to develop in the second.

But back to Laurel (since this is her thread), I'm expecting her character to be more fleshed out in Season 3, especially if Sara doesn't get as much airtime. Given CW's MO of following its audiences' reactions, the writers have to know that they need to make her character more truly dynamic if they want her to last.

[Stardelphia]

Unfortunately for me, Laurel's spiral made her less accessible and more unlikable as she lashed out at her father, refused to accept her own blame and generally behaved like a spoiled child.

Actually this is exactly what do think happened. Her addiction arc was IMO so poorly handled that it does invalidate the supposed journey they wanted her character to have. Here on the other side of her "journey" and I don't buy any of it. Any way I used to relate to Laurel has been stripped away. I did feel pity for her when she accepted that she had a hand in Tommy's death. No, not responsible for it, but yes, part of why he was there. He'd loved her and she threw that away. But she didn't learn her lesson. She kept throwing love and kindness back in the faces of the people around her.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

I think the addiction story arc could have been very well done and integrated into the plot, particularly following Tommy's death. But the writers never really connected the dots and that just made her look like a maniacal child. They never really showed why she became an addict, we were just left to assume it was because of Tommy. But we never saw her struggle, we just saw her cope with wine and pills. Lashing out at her father when he tried to help was expected, but we weren't given enough of a reason to understand why and feel sorry for her, even root for her.

Then again, if you take most of the characters as face value, very few of them are truly likable people. But at least the writers took the time to explain why Oliver, Sara, Roy, and Moira are the way they are and we sympathize enough to overlook their flaws. They didn't give Laurel the same attention, so at face value she just looks like a jealous brat. It's a shame because I don't think that's what the show intended for her.

[President_Luthor]

I think perception does play a part in how Laurel's journey is seen (so far) as hers, as well as Ollie's and every other character on Arrow isn't done yet.

Was Laurel's addiction story perfectly executed in S2? No, I wouldn't say so, and there were times that it did seem like a woe-is-me pity party for a few eps. too long.

But I would also say that Laurel alienating herself from those she loved was part of the point, dramatically speaking.

Yes, she was being ungrateful towards those who might have helped her. She had become an addict (alcoholism, pain killers, etc.) and was lashing out at all who tried to help her. While it might have been more beneficial PR-wise to make her a "functioning drunk" who's completely likable in public but a boor behind closed doors, Laurel was written to be an obnoxious and rude drunk in public ... and probably for a few eps. too long.

If this caused some viewers to dislike her or her addiction story arc, I can understand it, but I think it's too easy to single out Laurel for having a pity party most of S2 when every other Arrow character has sipped from the well of CW melodrama (and more than once for many of them in S2).

If Laurel is being cited for wallowing in self-pity too long this season, then every other Arrow character can be cited for indulging in their melodrama too. (This is a systemic CW series sin, not unique to Laurel.)

Did Slade spend way too long wallowing in mourning/obsessing over Shado's death? Did Ollie spend way too long keeping secrets and telling lies with Thea? I would say yes to both, and one could argue that the consequences for their over-indulging were more severe.

If anything, I would place the blame on the need to cater to a melodramatic angle for entangling Laurel's journey. We've seen it before in SV -- they will opt for melodrama instead of the much harder work of good character development. (I would say Clark himself paid the highest price of all re: development.) Laurel paid for this in her development in S2, and to a lesser extent Ollie and Sara too.

I don't think we can separate Laurel's eventual destiny from this, if she is being faulted for behaviour that allegedly will count towards her worthiness to claim this mantle.

If no one buys that Laurel has experienced a redemption journey in S2 (I wouldn't presume this is the case for all fans), then Laurel would have to achieve this aka re-discover her humanity/principles some other way. If being on the island ie. the "island experience" is being somehow cited as the only credible means for Arrow's characters to be heroes, then Laurel is already at a disadvantage -- one set by this or that fan base and not necessarily by the design of the writers.

It's unfortunate that the addiction story arc, flawed as it was, was being equated with Ollie and Sara's arduous island experiences. I don't think that was the writers' intention, but something fans or reviewers directed towards Laurel's S2 story arc. It didn't help that the writing didn't deliver on the redemption angle as effectively. The end result being that Laurel was made to look like she was meandering in comparison. Ollie was also side-tracked by melodrama to some degree, but somehow he gets wider berth on his equally soapy secrets-lies snafu fest with Thea.

Has her S2 journey been flawed and not written as well as it could have, considering her role in the Green Arrow mythos is rather big? Yes, and this will need work going forward. If her addict behaviour alienated some viewers, I can see how that happened. I think they tried to repair or right the ship in the last few eps. Laurel's journey is far from over, so her less-than-ideal addiction arc isn't going to be a destiny-killer in my book.

I can't say I actually "hate" any character on Arrow -- though I wasn't a big fan of Vertigo 1.0 (and I gave Ollie a pass on breaking the no-kill rule with him ). I don't associate having issues with her writing as "hating" her character. Nor do, I suspect, more than a few viewers.

I will be more worried if Laurel is entangled in a S3 love triangle that Ollie is a part of. (Take the shipper-abstinence pledge for S3, Ollie and Co.)

Shipper-catering hurts destinies -- this is one (of many) lessons learned from SV on how 'not' to handle characters.

[BkWurm1]

Above all, I think "Destiny" hurts a character because too often the writers rely on it rather than telling the story that will lead to such "Destiny"

Smallville is the perfect example. Clark's destiny is to become Superman, the worlds most beloved Superhero (yeah, yeah, everybody loves Batman more but within the Superman comic universe he's most beloved) but instead of consistently showing me this great guy who I could see becoming Superman, we got a self absorbed whiner who was outclassed on a consistent basis by pretty much everyone in his hero's circle.

Laurel is just Laurel Lance on Arrow. Yes, I heard her middle name but until the show shows me she fits her supposed destiny, I'm not going to accept it on faith. I won't ever do that again after Smallville.

This is a show that doesn't have to follow the comics if it so chooses. Green Arrow in the current comics has nothing to do with Black Canary. In the current comics Laurel Dinah Lance doesn't even exist.

Laurel has to earn her place as a hero if that is the shows intended purpose for her, frankly BC isn't big enough of a name for IMO average viewers to even know what her "destiny might be. So the thing about giving that part of her journey a pass is hard to do since this is the only journey - what I've seen on the show- that she has so far for me to examine.

[Dagenspear]

BkWurm1;8075883[/FONT]]Unfortunately for me, Laurel's spiral made her less accessible and more unlikable as she lashed out at her father, refused to accept her own blame and generally behaved like a spoiled child.

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?

Actually this is exactly what do think happened. Her addiction arc was IMO so poorly handled that it does invalidate the supposed journey they wanted her character to have. Here on the other side of her "journey" and I don't buy any of it. Any way I used to relate to Laurel has been stripped away. I did feel pity for her when she accepted that she had a hand in Tommy's death. No, not responsible for it, but yes, part of why he was there. He'd loved her and she threw that away. But she didn't learn her lesson. She kept throwing love and kindness back in the faces of the people around her.

He broke up with her. He threw her away. She owed him nothing. But this season has been bad in every possible way character-wise for everyone. On that, I agree.

The thing that sticks with me is that her arc consisted of Laurel lashing out and blaming everyone, then a couple bad things happened as consequence for her actions but she spent no more than a couple weeks sorry for her actions before she got everything back and more. Sara and Oliver still have long lasting impacts on their current lives from what happened to them on their islands. Laurel is closer than ever to her family, not only got her job back, but feels strong enough in her position to throw blackmail threats around, and was in a sense rewarded by the show by being let into the big secret.

So? All she did was get drunk and say a few not nice things to people. Who cares? Oliver and Sara are hypocritical murderers. They deserve their long lasting "impacts". Being mean to people for a little while isn't the evil sin you're making it out to be.

It doesn't feel earned. It's like the show let her have a rampaging pity party and she was rewarded for her bad behavior. I wish I could have believed what she said to Sara in her "you're so beautiful" speech. Laurel was so mad and I believed in her anger but I couldn't believe in it just vanishing cause Oliver yelled at her and held up a mirror to her face.

Of course it didn't feel earned. Because it wasn't. Just like Oliver's hypocrite big lie speech to her in that episode. And just like her being an alcoholic wasn't earned. It's bad writing.

In that aspect (and the no lasting consequences) Laurel's addiction arc didn't go on long enough. The addiction part was a joke. Nothing I saw on screen screamed oooh, she's addicted. No, it screamed, Laurel is a self indulgent jerk. A tiny bit too much to drink at dinner one night, casually sipping wine in her apartment, NOT taking pills when her sister shows up for dinner. The only time she acted drunk was when she was merely poisoned and if they hadn't told us flat out that she stole her father's pain pills, I would never have believed it. Her addiction didn't seem to be controlling her. She was mean not because of the pills or alcohol but because she chose to be mean and boy, did that alienate her character to me.

It's bad writing. Just accept it and move on. She was an addict. End of story.

This thread is more about why people don't love Laurel than whether she will become BC or not but I think people don't like what doesn't make sense. Laurel Lance doesn't seem to have any motivation to want to become a super hero not only taking the law into her own hands but actively running around and beating up bad guys.

She's a lawyer. Her sister and one of her oldest friends are more than qualified to cross that line if she can't get justice through regular means. I can absolutely believe she would blur the lines and use their help, but why would she waste time trying to become them when who she is as a lawyer in the DA's office should be keeping her very busy already. It's not like Oliver or Sara can handle the legal end.

I can't make sense of any motivation for her to want to or need to become a masked hero and that makes Laurel's character less relatable to me.

I don't know what to say to this. I think you expect too much.

[Stardelphia]

I can't say I actually "hate" any character on Arrow -- though I wasn't a big fan of Vertigo 1.0 (and I gave Ollie a pass on breaking the no-kill rule with him ). I don't associate having issues with her writing as "hating" her character. Nor do, I suspect, more than a few viewers.

Was his no-kill rule part of the original comic? I get the impression that was something that was retooled for Season 2. I don't mind less violence but after a while I got tired of him talking about it. Like, "we get it, we get it, but stop reminding us why you're being less HBO and more CW this season."

I wouldn't say I "hate" any character, either. One thing the writers have done well is explain why the characters are the way they are, even the villains. Moira was by far my favorite character and I'm still shocked they got rid of here. There were so many directions they could have taken her story line. Even Malcolm, sure he's a "bad guy," but it's hard not to understand how he came to be, even if he's going about his vengeance the wrong way. There really aren't any "pure evil" characters, except maybe Vertigo, but they never gave him much of a backstory. I hope it stays that way because a vigilante, even a villain, with no justification for their actions, no matter how fractured, can get mundane. I'm almost getting tired of Slade because his response isn't at all in line with what he's been through. "Blame it on the Mirikuru" is getting tired.

[Stardelphia]

Above all, I think "Destiny" hurts a character because too often the writers rely on it rather than telling the story that will lead to such "Destiny"

Smallville is the perfect example. Clark's destiny is to become Superman, the worlds most beloved Superhero (yeah, yeah, everybody loves Batman more but within the Superman comic universe he's most beloved) but instead of consistently showing me this great guy who I could see becoming Superman, we got a self absorbed whiner who was outclassed on a consistent basis by pretty much everyone in his hero's circle.

Laurel is just Laurel Lance on Arrow. Yes, I heard her middle name but until the show shows me she fits her supposed destiny, I'm not going to accept it on faith. I won't ever do that again after Smallville.

Ugh, i had a similar experience with Smallville. It started off with such a great premise. Smallville's premise may have even been more unique than Arrow's in that it was a new take on Superman. But it quickly spiraled into becoming another CW teen drama. It's really hard to suffocate a show about butt kicking superheroes; but intermittent relationships, high school drama, and seemingly irrelevant story arcs can be an action show's kryptonite.

Try as they might though, I'm not sure that Arrow will follow the same path. Smallville was successful because it catered more exclusively to that age range. Plenty of people well into their 30s watch Arrow because it strays from the younger CW story lines.

Like I said, as undeveloped as Laurel's arc may have been, I appreciate that it was there. It may simply be that younger viewers see Laurel's addiction arc the way older viewers see the "Olicity" shippers. It's simply out of the realm of what each individual demographic can relate to. From our own side, we view the other as whiney. It's really hard for one TV show to cater to an audience ranging from 13 to 40+. The network is probably trying to determine where their most solid audience is to better establish more consistent themes and character personalities. After all, it's only been on for two seasons.

[BkWurm1]

Smallville's premise may have even been more unique than Arrow's in that it was a new take on Superman. But it quickly spiraled into becoming another CW teen drama. It's really hard to suffocate a show about butt kicking superheroes; but intermittent relationships, high school drama, and seemingly irrelevant story arcs can be an action show's kryptonite.

Try as they might though, I'm not sure that Arrow will follow the same path. Smallville was successful because it catered more exclusively to that age range. Plenty of people well into their 30s watch Arrow because it strays from the younger CW story lines.

I question if there is a huge demographic difference between Smallvile and Arrow. Smallville started in high school but it was one of those shows in High by name only. Except for Clark nobody had parents. Chloe had a full time job basically coming and going at the Torch before any of the kids technically should have been able to drive. Lana basically got herself emancipated from adult supervision by season 2. The actor's playing the kids were all in their twenties. Just saying that the viewership the show brought in included the teen crowds, but it had a more broad demographic tuning in at least in the first 7 years. Once the WB turned into the CW I kind of lost track of statistics.

Anyway, my point is that I don't think the kind of story lines done on Smallvile can be blamed on a school age audience. The same kind of tricks showed up on all the shows on the CW no matter the age or crowd watching which is why I feel like Arrow despite being about adults to start with, really isn't going to stray automatically from the soapy stuff.

Really the only thing Smallville's highschool aged characters did was keep the show runners from putting Lex and Lana together before she hit eighteen. I count that as a blessing.

that younger viewers see Laurel's addiction arc the way older viewers see the "Olicity" shippers. It's simply out of the realm of what each individual demographic can relate to. From our own side, we view the other as whiney. It's really hard for one TV show to cater to an audience ranging from 13 to 40+.

I can 't speak of anyone else's experience but mine, but again, I haven't found age a clear line of demarcation for acceptance of storylines. At this point in my life ( age 40) I think I fall in the category of older viewers but I'm both an Olicity supporter and someone who found the Laurel arc highly dissatisfying and my experience with other like minded individuals has been the age range runs the gamut from still in high school to retirement. I probably sound like I'm being picky but I have a thing about generalizations used as fact, I can't help but point out the exception that tests the rule

It's bad writing. Just accept it and move on. She was an addict. End of story.

I don't know what to say to this. I think you expect too much.

I feel like I'm hearing that I should ignore what the show tells me and just accept what the show runners say they were telling us. I can't do that. I accept that there was bad writing but it's out there now, preserved on screen as part of the narrative. For me and others the writing made Laurel look very bad because her behavior did not seem to stem from her addiction but from her own decision to act unkindly and the addiction didn't seem to amplify or nullify her personality. She was the same either way so that is why I complained about her not accepting responsibility for her own actions.

The show runners have taken it upon themselves to tell us this story and it seems like they've intended to include as part of their story the tale of how Laurel Dinah Lance becomes BC. I do not find it too much to expect for them to plausibly explain WHY she would chose such a radical path.

[Stardelphia]

I question if there is a huge demographic difference between Smallvile and Arrow. Smallville started in high school but it was one of those shows in High by name only. Except for Clark nobody had parents. Chloe had a full time job basically coming and going at the Torch before any of the kids technically should have been able to drive. Lana basically got herself emancipated from adult supervision by season 2. The actor's playing the kids were all in their twenties. Just saying that the viewership the show brought in included the teen crowds, but it had a more broad demographic tuning in at least in the first 7 years. Once the WB turned into the CW I kind of lost track of statistics.

Anyway, my point is that I don't think the kind of story lines done on Smallvile can be blamed on a school age audience. The same kind of tricks showed up on all the shows on the CW no matter the age or crowd watching which is why I feel like Arrow despite being about adults to start with, really isn't going to stray automatically from the soapy stuff.

Really the only thing Smallville's highschool aged characters did was keep the show runners from putting Lex and Lana together before she hit eighteen. I count that as a blessing.

I can 't speak of anyone else's experience but mine, but again, I haven't found age a clear line of demarcation for acceptance of storylines. At this point in my life ( age 40) I think I fall in the category of older viewers but I'm both an Olicity supporter and someone who found the Laurel arc highly dissatisfying and my experience with other like minded individuals has been the age range runs the gamut from still in high school to retirement. I probably sound like I'm being picky but I have a thing about generalizations used as fact, I can't help but point out the exception that tests the rule




I feel like I'm hearing that I should ignore what the show tells me and just accept what the show runners say they were telling us. I can't do that. I accept that there was bad writing but it's out there now, preserved on screen as part of the narrative. For me and others the writing made Laurel look very bad because her behavior did not seem to stem from her addiction but from her own decision to act unkindly and the addiction didn't seem to amplify or nullify her personality. She was the same either way so that is why I complained about her not accepting responsibility for her own actions.

The show runners have taken it upon themselves to tell us this story and it seems like they've intended to include as part of their story the tale of how Laurel Dinah Lance becomes BC. I do not find it too much to expect for them to plausibly explain WHY she would chose such a radical path.

I can definitely see your points. I think story creators shop these stories around to a lot of networks, and how the story evolves depends on the network that picks it up. The first few episodes could have gone in any direction, and I think because the story landed on the CW instead of HBO, we're seeing the CW's take on the Green Arrow, which is a slightly darker version of Smallville.

In my opinion the age groups on the show tend to run the gamut. But I still think their target audience is much broader than Smallville, even though, as I think you mentioned, Smallville straddled the gap between high school and young-adult with Chloe and Lana. That's the only reason I watched it. But on Arrow, unlike Smallville which was relatively parentless, Malcolm, Walter, and Moira are/were very dynamic charters.

I get what you're saying about pressuring us to accept what the show runners are telling us, and despite what I inferred from Laurel's story arc, I think it's poor writing and character development. Nonetheless, like you said, it's out there now and the writers need to address it. I don't want to hate on one of my favorite shows, but if Season 3 turns into Smallville 2.0 I'll probably get kind of bored. I want more action and less drama. But - sigh - that's the CW.

[BkWurm1]

Yeah, needless drama or drama that is based on weak grounds messes heavily with a show. Like Slade's downward spiral into madness. I think the actor did fantastic with what he was given but I always hated that his vengeance toward Oliver springs from holding him accountable for Shado's death when prior to Shado's death we barely had time to process that he even had any interest in Shado let alone the problem of Oliver decidedly not being to blame. The poor motivation weakens the entire arc of the story.

Or Thea running off to Malcolm because her brother has been lying to her all these years - nope, just (in this instance) that last couple months and for a pretty good reason. I was fine with Thea getting fed up and quitting her life in Starling but I wish her main motivator isn't something that should be able to be resolved with a good chat and a hug.

Like anything built to last or hold up, the foundation laid in these fantastical stories needs to be rock solid. More so in the genre's that expect us to suspend so much disbelief just going into it in the first place.

I look at the character Laurel and maybe it's hindsight (though a lot IS just common sense) but I feel like it would have been so easy to ground her character in a realistic trajection that would have allowed the show runners to move her character in any of the possible directions they'd have wanted to move.

IMO Laurel IS now too far behind Oliver or Sara to catch up and has far less of a believable motivation for getting in the hero biz than Roy or Thea. I can more easily imagine Sin following Sara's footsteps than Sara's OLDER sister.

It pains me. It really does.

[Dagenspear]

Double post. Sorry.

[Dagenspear]

I feel like I'm hearing that I should ignore what the show tells me and just accept what the show runners say they were telling us. I can't do that. I accept that there was bad writing but it's out there now, preserved on screen as part of the narrative. For me and others the writing made Laurel look very bad because her behavior did not seem to stem from her addiction but from her own decision to act unkindly and the addiction didn't seem to amplify or nullify her personality. She was the same either way so that is why I complained about her not accepting responsibility for her own actions.

The show runners have taken it upon themselves to tell us this story and it seems like they've intended to include as part of their story the tale of how Laurel Dinah Lance becomes BC. I do not find it too much to expect for them to plausibly explain WHY she would chose such a radical path.

No. What you're hearing is that it was badly written, just like so many other things this season. Laurel not being nice to people with bad writing behind her doesn't warrant this kind of anger. She isn't real. If a character is badly written, you blame the writers, not the character. Personally I never thought she was an addict, and it just seemed to me that she was justifiably tearing into a bunch of people who deserve it. Why should she accept responsibility? She didn't do anything wrong.

[BkWurm1]

It's not anger but a resolute requirement of accountability. If the writers broke her, then they should fix her, if they can't or won't then I have to believe this is really the character they want in which case I can just go back to trying to ignore her.

I am not confused by fiction versus real life but the argument that I should not include the behavior of a character in my deciding opinion of that character because oh, it's just bad writing, well, I find that negates the whole point in watching the show.

I'm not referencing a single weird line or even an isolated episode, I am pointing at a season long arc that was specifically created to reboot the character that the show runner last year admitted to not really working out so great in season one. So I'm 46 episodes in. The character still doesn't make sense IMO but eh, I should get over it and like the character because....why??