Batwoman: Lesbian comic hero to get TV series

fats wrote: A TV adaptation of Batwoman is to become the first live-action superhero series with an openly gay lead character.

The show is being developed for the US channel, the CW, adding to the network's collection of shows based on DC comics characters.

more here
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44868069

Fats

I'm an old guy who is amazed that we've gotten to here in my lifetime, cis male that I am. Lead in a comic-book inspired TV show. Hard to imagine given how I remember the 50's/60's.

But I'm mighty happy it has.

Here's hoping CW doesn't pander it to death and just deal with it straight up like it's no big deal. 

Shadar

How much you wanna bet?
Halfway thru the second season does Batwoman come out and explore her heterosexual feelings.

Halfway thru the second season does Batwoman come out and explore her heterosexual feelings.

Peace.

/K

Markiehoe wrote: How much you wanna bet?
Halfway thru the second season does Batwoman come out and explore her heterosexual feelings.

I'm not taking that bet. This is the CW. 

On the other hand, stories about lesbians exploring being straight could be fun. 

Shadar

One of the more interesting rumors I've come across with regards to casting, is that Madelaine Petsch is strongly tipped to play the part.

This makes some sense to me.  She has worked with Berlanti before, 2 seasons of Riverdale and currently filming the third as Cheryl Blossom.

She definatley has her supporters for this casting, but also a lot of detractors.

Personally, having seen her in two seasons as Cheryl, I can say, imo ofc, she is amazingly good looking, and not a bad actress.  And she MOST definatley looks like the character imo, having that pale complexion and flowing red hair.

 







Any thoughts?

Peace.

/K

She looks great!
I'd love to see her in costume.

Ruby Rose has been cast as Batwoman.

LOL

The fx budget for the episodes must have gone through the roof, having to digitally remove her lame tattoos  

Unless they keep her in the suit for the entire crossover.

Peace.

/K

kikass2014 wrote: LOL

The fx budget for the episodes must have gone through the roof, having to digitally remove her lame tattoos  

Unless they keep her in the suit for the entire crossover.

Peace.

/K

What's to say that Batwoman doesn't have tats and Ruby was chosen partially because she has them?  I'm presuming this is 21st century interpretation of the character. 

Shadar

What's to say that Batwoman doesn't have tats and Ruby was chosen partially because she has them?  I'm presuming this is 21st century interpretation of the character.

LOL  sure whatever.

Why not give Supergirl a nose-ring and mohawk hair cut since, hey lets update this to the 21st Century?

Theres having a tattoo, and then theres Ruby Rose.

They chose her because she is a well-known, out-spoken, LESBIAN actress, thats all.  Nothing to do with her look, or acting ability.  If it was those qualities they were looking for, my suggestion of Madeline Petch blows her out the water.

Peace.

/K

kikass2014 wrote:

What's to say that Batwoman doesn't have tats and Ruby was chosen partially because she has them?  I'm presuming this is 21st century interpretation of the character.

LOL  sure whatever.

Why not give Supergirl a nose-ring and mohawk hair cut since, hey lets update this to the 21st Century?

Theres having a tattoo, and then theres Ruby Rose.

They chose her because she is a well-known, out-spoken, LESBIAN actress, thats all.  Nothing to do with her look, or acting ability.  If it was those qualities they were looking for, my suggestion of Madeline Petch blows her out the water.

Peace.

/K

A young Kara Zor El with a nose ring and a bad attitude and an outrageous haircut could definitely work. <grin>. Assuming there is a good enough script for that to make sense. 

I see the comics as providing inspiration, but not canon. Given the comics have reinvented her so many times that canon makes little sense. 

Which is why a movie would be fun. The writers would have to pick one interpretation from the past or invent a new one, and that is what would make it interesting. I accept that it is essentially guaranteed that they would NOT pick the same characterization that I would. But I'm prepared to look for the best whatever way they go. 

Just make the movie. 

Shadar

kikass2014 wrote:

What's to say that Batwoman doesn't have tats and Ruby was chosen partially because she has them?  I'm presuming this is 21st century interpretation of the character.

LOL  sure whatever.

Why not give Supergirl a nose-ring and mohawk hair cut since, hey lets update this to the 21st Century?

Theres having a tattoo, and then theres Ruby Rose.

They chose her because she is a well-known, out-spoken, LESBIAN actress, thats all.  Nothing to do with her look, or acting ability.  If it was those qualities they were looking for, my suggestion of Madeline Petch blows her out the water.

Peace.

/K

Don't forget - virtually no acting credits so they likely got her on the bottom of the pay scale.  That being said - if they can make a good story it could be interesting regardless of who plays the part.

What am I saying - it's the CW.  Next......

Starforge wrote:

kikass2014 wrote:

What's to say that Batwoman doesn't have tats and Ruby was chosen partially because she has them?  I'm presuming this is 21st century interpretation of the character.

LOL  sure whatever.

Why not give Supergirl a nose-ring and mohawk hair cut since, hey lets update this to the 21st Century?

Theres having a tattoo, and then theres Ruby Rose.

They chose her because she is a well-known, out-spoken, LESBIAN actress, thats all.  Nothing to do with her look, or acting ability.  If it was those qualities they were looking for, my suggestion of Madeline Petch blows her out the water.

Peace.

/K

Don't forget - virtually no acting credits so they likely got her on the bottom of the pay scale.  That being said - if they can make a good story it could be interesting regardless of who plays the part.

What am I saying - it's the CW.  Next......

Yeah... CW is code for "pandering soap operas that use superheroes for window dressing". Makes CBS look good, and that's hard. 

HBO, Netflix, SciFi (Expanse, anyway) are very watchable. The wildcard is Amazon. They've got some great properties, and if they can equal or beat HBO, then we'll really have something. But it's going to be a while before we see what they can do with their billion-dollar investments. 



Shadar

It's not just their superhero shows at the CW.  Check out Valor and I hope you spent no time at all in the military

Yeah... CW is code for "pandering soap operas that use superheroes for window dressing". Makes CBS look good, and that's hard.

Very true. 

The Expanse is on Amazon now (after the morons on SciFi cancelled it lol), and they also have their big profile LOTR series in the works. 

One of the best scifi series I've seen in a while

Peace.

/K

kikass2014 wrote:

Yeah... CW is code for "pandering soap operas that use superheroes for window dressing". Makes CBS look good, and that's hard.

Very true. 

The Expanse is on Amazon now (after the morons on SciFi cancelled it lol), and they also have their big profile LOTR series in the works. 

One of the best scifi series I've seen in a while

Peace.

/K

Absolutely agree, K. 

But SciFi had the right idea in producing it, but their very inept business side didn’t set it up so they could make money on it.  Here’s hoping Amazon will make it better yet. Apparently Jeff Bezos is personally a huge fan, so the bottom line profit is likely to be less important than making Jeff happy. Here’s hoping his idea of excellence for the show matches ours. He’s got deeper pockets than anyone else.

Same situation with LOTR series. He’s a fan.

Imagine if we had a few billion to develop our own visions of what good TV should be? 

Shadar

Starforge wrote: It's not just their superhero shows at the CW.  Check out Valor and I hope you spent no time at all in the military

As a veteran, I will take your advice and avoid Valor.

You know, back in the day when we had the draft, a fair chunk of America knew what serving in the military was all about. They’d been there and done that. Currently, only 1.3% of Americans have served, and that’s heavily biased upward by Boomers. That number will likely fall as we die off, barring another world war and a draft.

I have no idea what it would be in the UK or the rest of Europe, Canada, Oz, etc. But it must be way, way, way higher for Israel and a few other places. I’m a real believer in citizen soldiers, where everyone is expected to serve for at least little while, and led by professionals.

Now about all most younger people know about the military is what they see on TV (mostly wildly bizarrely inaccurate) or what they think they’ve learned from video games (equally ridiculous).

Until you’ve been through training and deployed, you really don’t know. Being appreciative is not the same as experienced.

But I digress...

Shadar

Oh totally agree   Geeks rejoice Bezos is a fan of this kind of stuff, and is also the richest man on the planet lol

Really looking forward to The Expanse Season 4.  I read the producer saying that they are pretty much upgrading all their shooting gear to better tech.  I think they may even be shooting in 4k (especially since it will be on their streaming service).

As for LOTR, I'm still not sure.  Will look amazing for sure ($1 billion buys a lot of talent ). But as far as the story goes, last I heard it wouldn't be LOTR or The Hobbit per se, but set before or in-between?  If its before, it could be The Silmarillion (though that book, imo, is un-filmable, even more so then Dune, if you wish to stick strictly to the text).  If its after, meh, would they really risk trying to create NEW stuff up, especially if they can't match Tolkien in tone and style?

But for sure, good time indeed to be a geek

Peace.

/K

I'm not sure what it is in the UK tbh, but I would imagine it would most certainly be higher in countries with national service (which UK does not have).

Peace.

/K

Ruby Rose

Too SKINNY

Way to many tattoos

I will avoid looking at her.
These shows are supposed to entertain me.
She looks hideous.

kikass2014 wrote:

What's to say that Batwoman doesn't have tats and Ruby was chosen partially because she has them?  I'm presuming this is 21st century interpretation of the character.

LOL  sure whatever.

Why not give Supergirl a nose-ring and mohawk hair cut since, hey lets update this to the 21st Century?

Theres having a tattoo, and then theres Ruby Rose.

They chose her because she is a well-known, out-spoken, LESBIAN actress, thats all.  Nothing to do with her look, or acting ability.  If it was those qualities they were looking for, my suggestion of Madeline Petch blows her out the water.

Peace.

/K

Supergirl w/ a Mohawk you say?  (It was the 90's, and it's Matrix, not Kara.)

kikass2014 wrote: Oh totally agree   Geeks rejoice Bezos is a fan of this kind of stuff, and is also the richest man on the planet lol

Really looking forward to The Expanse Season 4.  I read the producer saying that they are pretty much upgrading all their shooting gear to better tech.  I think they may even be shooting in 4k (especially since it will be on their streaming service).

As for LOTR, I'm still not sure.  Will look amazing for sure ($1 billion buys a lot of talent ). But as far as the story goes, last I heard it wouldn't be LOTR or The Hobbit per se, but set before or in-between?  If its before, it could be The Silmarillion (though that book, imo, is un-filmable, even more so then Dune, if you wish to stick strictly to the text).  If its after, meh, would they really risk trying to create NEW stuff up, especially if they can't match Tolkien in tone and style?

But for sure, good time indeed to be a geek

Peace.

/K

On LOTR, there certainly seems to be a story-writting dilemma. Some people have suggested they take various stories or even events alluded to by Tolkien and greatly expand on those. The story of Beren and Luthien as an obvious example. 

But you can't have a good multi-season show without some kind of underlying narrative. Some exciting or dire plot line that takes you from start to finish, no matter how many seasons are released.. 

An example would be to start with the story of Sauron and his creation of the rings and his granting them to Elves, Dwarves and Men, and then follow the free people of Middle Earth who came to oppose him in the Second Age as they begin to discover the evil he is creating. 

Or another example would be to start off after the books end, and tell the story of Middle Earth from the perspective of the offspring of the LOTR characters. Maybe Sauron's evil prevailed in some way and has taken new form. Or a new villain arises.

Either one could be done in a way that is creatively similar to Tolkien, and consistent with his various writings and respectful of the core concepts of his work. 

It would be fun to be a fly on the wall where the creative staff are trying to sort this out. 

Shadar

But you can't have a good multi-season show without some kind of underlying narrative. Some exciting or dire plot line that takes you from start to finish, no matter how many seasons are released.. 

I disagree.
We have talked about this before.
You can watch any episode of Gunsmoke (20 seasons) in any order at anytime and get a full, complete, entertaining story without an over arc save the basic premise of the show.
The log arc format ruins a show in reruns as you have to see several episodes before and you are committed to episodes after.

Markiehoe wrote: [qoute]

But you can't have a good multi-season show without some kind of underlying narrative. Some exciting or dire plot line that takes you from start to finish, no matter how many seasons are released.. 

I disagree.
We have talked about this before.
You can watch any episode of Gunsmoke (20 seasons) in any order at anytime and get a full, complete, entertaining story without an over arc save the basic premise of the show.
The log arc format ruins a show in reruns as you have to see several episodes before and you are committed to episodes after.[/quote]

You're right that it's been done, even Star Trek was largely that way, but its far more common today for the very best shows to have an ongoing central narrative. Tolkien in particular, as the master of High Fantasy, but fantasy in general, tends to have themes and a form of continuity from start to end.  That was one of the things that made the LOTR movies work. 

For TV, GOT has also fundamentally changed the landscape in that direction. There can be all kinds of diversions along the way, but viewed over the span of multiple episodes, you see progress toward some goal (or shared doom or whatever). 

Shadar