Batwoman (CW series) -- discussion/speculation (please tag spoilers)

[Falcon Horus]

It does leave the door open for a return of Ruby Rose as Kate Kane.

But on the flipside, I thought Kate Kane was established as Batwoman in the 'verse, so this seems like a cheat in a way.

Plus, the description of this character just doesn't sit well with me.
There's something too Oliver Queen about it. Or that could just be me.

[Annoyed]

It does leave the door open for a return of Ruby Rose as Kate Kane.

But on the flipside, I thought Kate Kane was established as Batwoman in the 'verse, so this seems like a cheat in a way.

Plus, the description of this character just doesn't sit well with me.
There's something too Oliver Queen about it. Or that could just be me.

Depending upon who they chose, I could accept a change of actor. After all, it doesn't matter who the actor is, they're just performing what the writers create for them. Absolutely, the talents of the actor bring a lot to the on screen presence, that's why casting the proper person is important. But the actor is not irreplaceable. How many other roles have been recast? Although Jar Jar's "Star Trek" isn't really Star Trek in my book, I had no problem with the replacements for Shatner, Nimoy and the rest of the cast.

But the title character in the show? Without Batwoman, it's not "Batwoman" anymore.

[Falcon Horus]

But the title character in the show? Without Batwoman, it's not "Batwoman" anymore.

I agree.

[VampyreWraith]

Marie Avgeropoulos would be a great choice! She does the dark knight thing very well.

Yeah, and she's also used to playing a physical role.

They should, at best, always be ignored -- too many variables and nowhere near able to please them all.

Showrunners/directors/artists who spend too much time thinking about what fans want to see and trying to please various segments of fandom instead of trying to tell a good coherent story, usually end up with a mess of a story on their hands and end up actually pleasing only a fraction of they people they were trying to please.

Batwoman sans Batwoman???

https://ew.com/tv/batwoman-new-chara...lder-season-2/



Well, that show didn't last long. If this is true, might as well just cancel the show.

I can see why they'd choose to pass the mantle instead of recast the existing character, it really does open up the casting possibilities without asking the audience to completely suspend their disbelief and pretend two completely different looking people are the same character. People might be willing to overlook minor differences in appearance and personality in a major recast if the actress is really good, but most probably wouldn't be able to overlook major differences, especially in race/ethnicity or the overall physical appearance of an established lead character. And with the way a lot of social media fans are, if they had recast Kate with an actress of a different race or something, she and the producers would probably be getting death threats (on top of racist rants) from angry fans (because, you know, just not watching a show you no longer enjoy is not an option for some people). Though, I think no matter what they do, whoever becomes Batwoman, whether the role is recast or whether the mantle is passed to a new character, they're going to have an uphill battle "proving" themselves to fans (and I use that term loosely).

It does leave the door open for a return of Ruby Rose as Kate Kane.

But on the flipside, I thought Kate Kane was established as Batwoman in the 'verse, so this seems like a cheat in a way.

Plus, the description of this character just doesn't sit well with me.
There's something too Oliver Queen about it. Or that could just be me.

The character discription to me brings to mind a hybrid of Catwoman and Wild Dog and maybe a bit of Dinah Drake from Arrow for some reason. I'm not really a fan of the way that character sounds.

[Annoyed]

I can see why they'd choose to pass the mantle instead of recast the existing character, it really does open up the casting possibilities without asking the audience to completely suspend their disbelief and pretend two completely different looking people are the same character. People might be willing to overlook minor differences in appearance and personality in a major recast if the actress is really good, but most probably wouldn't be able to overlook major differences, especially in race/ethnicity or the overall physical appearance of an established lead character. And with the way a lot of social media fans are, if they had recast Kate with an actress of a different race or something, she and the producers would probably be getting death threats (on top of racist rants) from angry fans (because, you know, just not watching a show you no longer enjoy is not an option for some people). Though, I think no matter what they do, whoever becomes Batwoman, whether the role is recast or whether the mantle is passed to a new character, they're going to have an uphill battle "proving" themselves to fans (and I use that term loosely).


The character discription to me brings to mind a hybrid of Catwoman and Wild Dog and maybe a bit of Dinah Drake from Arrow for some reason. I'm not really a fan of the way that character sounds.

Ok, then create a new show called "Ryan Wilder" or some such. "Wild Woman"? I dunno. but how the hell can you have a show called "Batwoman" without Batwoman?

[VampyreWraith]

Ok, then create a new show called "Ryan Wilder" or some such. "Wild Woman"? I dunno. but how the hell can you have a show called "Batwoman" without Batwoman?

The same way there are Batman comics without Bruce Wayne being Batman.

[Annoyed]

The same way there are Batman comics without Bruce Wayne being Batman.

Never heard of that, and to me, it would be unacceptable. I would read that as simply whoever is trying to do that wanting to put the imprint of an established franchise on their new story.

If you want to work in an established franchise, you have to do that; work within that franchise. You can't just cook up new crap and hang the franchise tag on it for name recognition.

Depending upon their choice, recasting Batwoman/Kate Kane is fine with me. But removing that character from the universe is not. Just for example; a lot of the story in this is between Beth/Alice and Kate/Batwoman and their origin stories. Take that away, and it's no longer the same show.

[VampyreWraith]

Never heard of that, and to me, it would be unacceptable. I would read that as simply whoever is trying to do that wanting to put the imprint of an established franchise on their new story.

If you want to work in an established franchise, you have to do that; work within that franchise. You can't just cook up new crap and hang the franchise tag on it for name recognition.

There are Batman comics (and other comics in both DC and Marvel) where other people are the person behind the mask/alter ego, picking up where a previous character left off. It's fairly common. Besides the comic books, Batman Beyond is an animated series that takes place in the future with somone other than Bruce being Batman (Terry is like a teen Batman).

[VampyreWraith]

Depending upon their choice, recasting Batwoman/Kate Kane is fine with me. But removing that character from the universe is not. Just for example; a lot of the story in this is between Beth/Alice and Kate/Batwoman and their origin stories. Take that away, and it's no longer the same show.

This was added after I replied. I agree with this for the most part and it could present a real challenge that could turn a lot of people off, since a lot of the first season was focused on Kate and her relationships and I dont know if/how they're planning on working a new character into those existing dynamics and whether they plan on even keeping some of those characters around. I mean Kate's death or dissappearance could be a way to bring certain characters together in order to find out what happened so it could be interesting.

[Annoyed]

This was added after I replied. I agree with this for the most part and it could present a real challenge that could turn a lot of people off, since a lot of the first season was focused on Kate and her relationships and I dont know if/how they're planning on working a new character into those existing dynamics and whether they plan on even keeping some of those characters around. I mean Kate's death or dissappearance could be a way to bring certain characters together in order to find out what happened so it could be interesting.

This is almost as much fun as politics!

Yes, I added that as an example after the initial post.

They can dress it up however they want, but no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig. These folks who want to rework any property like this, (and I include Jar Jar's excuse for Star Trek in this too) just want to attach their name and imprint onto an existing successful franchise, rather than accept the world they've chosen to work in.

Recasting, fine. But if they remove the character of Batwoman/Kate as they say they are going to do, I'm done. I won't even watch whatever it is they put on the screen in its name.

[Mrja84]

Folks do be mindful, the casting description may be used to help actresses not worry about mimicking Ruby Rose.

They still may recast Kate Kane, but putting out a description for a different personality so as to make the casting process easier.

[VampyreWraith]

This is almost as much fun as politics!

Yes, I added that as an example after the initial post.

They can dress it up however they want, but no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig. These folks who want to rework any property like this, (and I include Jar Jar's excuse for Star Trek in this too) just want to attach their name and imprint onto an existing successful franchise, rather than accept the world they've chosen to work in.

Recasting, fine. But if they remove the character of Batwoman/Kate as they say they are going to do, I'm done. I won't even watch whatever it is they put on the screen in its name.

LOL true.

I don't actually mind when they create another character and have them take up the mantle of an established/existing character's alter ego just to change up dynamics or in order to represent people of different backgrounds, genders, sexual identities and races/ethnicities, ect. I prefer it to flat out changing/erasing existing characters. Like if they want a black, or female, or gay Batman or whatever popular comic character, I prefer to have a new character created and have them take up the mantle, rather than just erase/ rewrite the old character's history (especially one with an extensive history) so that it could be told from the perspective of a gay or black or different gendered character (because a character's perspective would be different coming from a minority group). Ideally I prefer a completely new character and alter ego to be created, but I understand how it could be easier and more appealing to give minority group (by minority, I don't just mean race, I mean any group of people not in the majority) representation through an existing big name.

In this case, if they can find a good actress who bears a passable resemblance to Ruby, who's also part of the lgbtq community then they should just do a recast. But if the best actress happens to be a black woman or someone who looks completely different to Ruby, then they should just have her be a newly introduced character. They could have the existing characters like Beth, Mary, and Luke take the forefront for a little bit until the new character is fully established. One of those characters could possibly be the one to bring the new character into the fold to help figure out what happened to Kate or whatever. I think it could work with a new character, it depends on how they do it though. If they try to force a new character in as Batwoman too quickly, have everyone love her immediately, and have her be better than Kate or whatever, it will just drive people who liked Ruby as an actress and Kate as a character away.

[Annoyed]

LOL true.

I don't actually mind when they create another character and have them take up the mantle of an established/existing character's alter ego just to change up dynamics or in order to represent people of different backgrounds, genders, sexual identities and races/ethnicities, ect. I prefer it to flat out changing/erasing existing characters. Like if they want a black, or female, or gay Batman or whatever popular comic character, I prefer to have a new character created and have them take up the mantle, rather than just erase/ rewrite the old character's history (especially one with an extensive history) so that it could be told from the perspective of a gay or black or different gendered character (because a character's perspective would be different coming from a minority group). Ideally I prefer a completely new character and alter ego to be created, but I understand how it could be easier and more appealing to give minority group (by minority, I don't just mean race, I mean any group of people not in the majority) representation through an existing big name.

In this case, if they can find a good actress who bears a passable resemblance to Ruby, who's also part of the lgbtq community then they should just do a recast. But if the best actress happens to be a black woman or someone who looks completely different to Ruby, then they should just have her be a newly introduced character. They could have the existing characters like Beth, Mary, and Luke take the forefront for a little bit until the new character is fully established. One of those characters could possibly be the one to bring the new character into the fold to help figure out what happened to Kate or whatever. I think it could work with a new character, it depends on how they do it though. If they try to force a new character in as Batwoman too quickly, have everyone love her immediately, and have her be better than Kate or whatever, it will just drive people who liked Ruby as an actress and Kate as a character away.

Didn't they do just that with "Black Lightning"? Or was he an existing property?

As far as recasting the part, I don't care so much about physical appearance, gender identity, racial makeup/ethnicity or whatever. Christopher Pine doesn't look much like William Shatner, but that did not cause a problem for me. I've suggested Eliza Taylor as a replacement for Ruby Rose, 'cause she does a good job on The 100, including a stint at dual identities last year. The fact that she is a different physical type than Ruby Rose doesn't matter to me.

Seeing a statuesque blonde as Batwoman would be a far smaller jolt than having the primary character of the show removed/replaced.

As long as the actress can carry the role, that's the only important thing.

[VampyreWraith]

Didn't they do just that with "Black Lightning"? Or was he an existing property?

As far as recasting the part, I don't care so much about physical appearance, gender identity, racial makeup/ethnicity or whatever. Christopher Pine doesn't look much like William Shatner, but that did not cause a problem for me. I've suggested Eliza Taylor as a replacement for Ruby Rose, 'cause she does a good job on The 100, including a stint at dual identities last year. The fact that she is a different physical type than Ruby Rose doesn't matter to me.

Seeing a statuesque blonde as Batwoman would be a far smaller jolt than having the primary character of the show removed/replaced.

As long as the actress can carry the role, that's the only important thing.

To me Christopher Pine doesn't look too different than William Shatner and even Eliza Taylor wouldn't look too different than Ruby with a haircut and dye job and different clothing.

I personally don't care what an actor's sexual orientation or gender identity is because I don't think an actor's real personal life is my business. Pretending to be someone else is their job, I think whoever they cast should openly support lgbtq people and rights, but other than that, I don't think anything else is my business. I understand how others might not feel that way though, and want an actress who is open and out about their sexuality or identity.

I personally would find it too jarring to accept a person who is a lot darker (or super pale) and/or has completely different facial features or height/body type as Kate (1 or 2 inches taller or shorter, 5 lbs heavier or lighter, a skintone a shade or 2 lighter or darker aren't big differences to me, and haircolor or type isn't an issue to me because people dye and straighten their hair all the time). I don't think I could pretend that they are the same person, even from a storytelling perspective, it would just be weird. Even if they go with amsesia and reconstructive surgery to explain a change of appearance and personality in universe (and if they recast I really don't think the actress looking different should be addressed at all), certain things about a person's physical appearance wouldn't change. They could pull a different Kate from a different universe or whatever and use that to explain why she looks completely different, but that would still change character dynamics and they'd have to reestablish the character in the prime universe, so that would solve little since, theyd still be a different character in pretty much all but name.

Added: Black Lightening - https://comicvine.gamespot.com/black...ng/4005-10994/

[jelgate]

I'm a wait and see kind of person. I've been in fandom long enough these press releases are rarely accurate.

I see Annoyed is ignoring information that contradicts his argument. Some things never change