Wow, completely wrong and a dick to be people who point out that they're wrong. You must be fun at parties.

Ok, guys, I understand that this site hates DC Comics as an entity. There movie work outside Nolan hasn't been good, and I've barely read any of there comics other than the stuff Vertigo made in the 90's. But can we please stop pretending they don't have a great freaking track record when it comes to TV series? Just…

Are those supposed to be referring to Gotham Central? Because that has been collected into an omnibus. You can find it on Amazon.

Um, they DID just review the pilot. It's not that hard to understand.

Couldn't they just have Barbara Gordon as Oracle show up in CSI Cyber?

To be fair, I've read the first 4/5 of this series in the past month, and that isn't all that inaccurate a description for the first couple of arcs.

Also not really a spoiler, but if you're talking about the event I think you are, it really doesn't make Jamie look that bad. He had a lot of justification for what he did, and Claire just kept making it worse for herself.

**BOOK SPOILERS**

There was that episode of firefly, but that was used to make the guy look like an asshole. I can't think of any examples like the reviewer seems to be thinking of.

That was the episode with Jane's hat. Unless there is a second Jane's hat in the last two episodes I'm not yet aware of.

Eh, I'm most of the way through the series on Hulu, and I can kind of see what you mean. The acting and dialogue are consistently great, but every episode I find myself asking 'this is the year 2517, and the Alliance has freaking laser guns. How the hell are they getting away with any of this?!'

Um, did you not read the part of my comment where I acknowledged the fact that actual bisexual people might have different opinions.

Well said. Although that's really how I feel about Hellblazer more than the show. It ran for 300 issues, and they never got around to giving John an actual boyfriend, or even sexual tension with a guy.

And like I said above, I think 'mentioning' your bisexual in a way that can be interpretted as a joke is more insulting than just having the character be straight in the first place. It reminds me of the worst queerbaiting in shows like Sherlock, where they tease you with the idea of two guys together but always hold…

See, this is where I think we fundamentally disagree.

Really? I think the insulting thing is to have a comic run 20 years, never have John have or express any interest in sex with men, and then pretend the character is bi.

"A fictional character's traits only exist if they are shown or mentioned."

In real life, yes. In a television show governed by the rules 'show don't tell', a man who never shows any romantic interest in men is not bisexual.

No, actually, you've pretty much demonstrated you don't get it.

It kind of is.