CW network working on Batwoman series

[Reverend]

No and I was never trying to argue that, you seem confused though.

More facetious really.
But if you're going to seriously argue copyright as a reason one fictional character can steal another equally fictional character's tights, then I don't think I'm the one that's confused.

(In the comics, Julia had a foot in both camps. She was assisting Batwoman, while secretly reporting on her to Batman. Mixed loyalties and angst ensues.)

That actually sounds perfect for the kind of drawn out interpersonal drama serialised TV shows like this go for. Of course it also necessitates Bruce being around and the aforementioned problems that brings up. Maybe if they went in a post Knightfall direction with Bruce being "around", but effectively benched. That, or the 'Batman Beyond' old Bruce route. Or just have her reporting to Oracle instead? More Oracle is never a bad thing.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

More facetious really.
But if you're going to seriously argue copyright as a reason one fictional character can steal another equally fictional character's tights, then I don't think I'm the one that's confused.

For crying out loud, you were questioning whether or not Batwoman could be a bat-themed vigilante without Batman's permission, to which @Awesome Possum responded by saying that Batman does not have a copyright. How is that beyond you?!

 

[Awesome Possum]

More facetious really.
But if you're going to seriously argue copyright as a reason one fictional character can steal another equally fictional character's tights, then I don't think I'm the one that's confused.

You’re the one who thinks Batwoman needs Batman’s permission to fight crime using bats as a symbol.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I was reading that the CW is wanting to cast an out lesbian as Batwoman. I’m glad they’re going for actual representation. The days of only cishet people playing LGBTQ people needs to come to an end.

 

[Christopher]

I was reading that the CW is wanting to cast an out lesbian as Batwoman. I’m glad they’re going for actual representation. The days of only cishet people playing LGBTQ people needs to come to an end.

Except there have been a ton of LGB actors over the decades who've played heterosexual characters. So it's not the same kind of representation issue as, say, casting white actors as Asian characters, because it goes both ways so it's not actually shutting anyone out of the industry. Even when LGBTQ characters were nonexistent or reduced to caricatures and villains, there were always plenty of gay actors playing hetero characters, sometimes even romantic idols like Rock Hudson.

Indeed, the Arrowverse has multiple LGB actors playing hetero characters -- John Barrowman, Colton Haynes, Keiynan Lonsdale, Victor Garber, Wentworth Miller (as Captain Cold), etc. And there are LGB actors playing LGB characters, like Andy Mientus, Russell Tovey, and Wentworth Miller (as Citizen Cold). So it's not too imbalanced to have some LGB characters played by hetero actors as well. Although it certainly wouldn't hurt to have the actress playing the lead role, the one who gets the most in-depth exploration, be someone who has similar life experience and can portray it authentically.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Except there have been a ton of LGB actors over the decades who've played heterosexual characters. So it's not the same kind of representation issue as, say, casting white actors as Asian characters, because it goes both ways so it's not actually shutting anyone out of the industry. Even when LGBTQ characters were nonexistent or reduced to caricatures and villains, there were always plenty of gay actors playing hetero characters, sometimes even romantic idols like Rock Hudson.

Indeed, the Arrowverse has multiple LGB actors playing hetero characters -- John Barrowman, Colton Haynes, Keiynan Lonsdale, Victor Garber, Wentworth Miller (as Captain Cold), etc. And there are LGB actors playing LGB characters, like Andy Mientus, Russell Tovey, and Wentworth Miller (as Citizen Cold). So it's not too imbalanced to have some LGB characters played by hetero actors as well. Although it certainly wouldn't hurt to have the actress playing the lead role, the one who gets the most in-depth exploration, be someone who has similar life experience and can portray it authentically.

There’s a huge difference between a minority getting to play someone who is part of the majority and someone in the majority taking a role written for a minority. Mostly because there are so few roles written for LGBTQ people. It’s not imbalanced to say that only LGBTQ people should play those roles and cishet roles, if anything it’s creating an equal balance since it’s been imbalanced for the majority of the time that acting has existed. It’s becoming increasingly common to see LGBTQ characters, but it’s still a very small minority of roles and really only on TV. Film is lagging far behind it, especially films from major studios.

 

[Nerys Myk]

while you're pretty far off about Spider-Woman sharing a costume aesthetic with Spider-Man (although I think Spidey's black costume in the '80s was based on one of the Spider-Women's earlier costumes, but not the main one).

You might be thinking of a different Spider-Woman. Jessica Drew's first costume was this

With this variation being the one she used for most of her career.

The second Spider-Woman, Julia Carpenter has a costume based on Spider-Man's black costume

 

[Greg Cox]

.but Bruce tends to be rather fanatical on the whole "we don't kill people" point. Emphatically so. And I guess I can't really see him letting that slide without a *very* compelling reason.

You can look at it the other way. Kate avoids killing people too; she's just not as fanatical about it as Bruce. Most of the time they're on the same page. And she doesn't necessarily feel that she HAS to play by Bruce's rules.

(There's also an age issue here. Bruce and Kate are the same age; they've known each other since they were kids. She's not his surrogate son or daughter. She's not his former sidekick or ward. Generationally, they're peers . .. or at least that's how Kate sees it.)

There was actually an interesting issue of DETECTIVE COMICS recently where Batman convened a special meeting of the Bat-Family to debate the "what's to be done about Batwoman" issue, with Nightwing, Batgirl, Robin, and even Jason Todd weighing in. Opinions were divided, but it did seem to convince Batman that the issue wasn't black and white, so he shouldn't rush to judgment . . . especially since Batwoman has saved all of Gotham on occasion.

 

[Christopher]

There’s a huge difference between a minority getting to play someone who is part of the majority and someone in the majority taking a role written for a minority. Mostly because there are so few roles written for LGBTQ people. It’s not imbalanced to say that only LGBTQ people should play those roles and cishet roles, if anything it’s creating an equal balance since it’s been imbalanced for the majority of the time that acting has existed. It’s becoming increasingly common to see LGBTQ characters, but it’s still a very small minority of roles and really only on TV. Film is lagging far behind it, especially films from major studios.

Sure, but it's still a different kind of representational issue, because at least LGB-etc. actors have always gotten work, up to and including lead roles, which is more than can be said for female or ethnic-minority actors as a rule.

And please don't misrepresent what I wrote. I didn't say it would be imbalanced to say what you said; I said the situation that already exists is not too imbalanced, because you already have LGB-etc. actors playing both gay and hetero characters as well as hetero actors playing both kinds of characters. The Arrowverse has always been a welcoming place for both gay actors and gay characters, so if the two don't overlap 100 percent, that doesn't seem to make that huge a difference to me.

Certainly I don't object to Batwoman being played by a lesbian actress; as I said, it could lend more authenticity, and for a prominent lead role like this, it would be good for representation. I'm just saying that the Arrowverse is already pretty good at LGB representation.

The second Spider-Woman, Julia Carpenter has a costume based on Spider-Man's black costume

As I said, it was the other way around -- Julia's costume came first and was the inspiration for Spidey's black costume, at least in-story (I'm not sure about reality). She debuted in Secret Wars, and it was after seeing her in her black-and-white costume that Spidey obtained his own black costume, and he surmised that its design was subconsciously modeled on Julia's.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Sure, but it's still a different kind of representational issue, because at least LGB-etc. actors have always gotten work, up to and including lead roles, which is more than can be said for female or ethnic-minority actors as a rule.

And please don't misrepresent what I wrote. I didn't say it would be imbalanced to say what you said; I said the situation that already exists is not too imbalanced, because you already have LGB-etc. actors playing both gay and hetero characters as well as hetero actors playing both kinds of characters. The Arrowverse has always been a welcoming place for both gay actors and gay characters, so if the two don't overlap 100 percent, that doesn't seem to make that huge a difference to me.

Certainly I don't object to Batwoman being played by a lesbian actress; as I said, it could lend more authenticity, and for a prominent lead role like this, it would be good for representation. I'm just saying that the Arrowverse is already pretty good at LGB representation.

This has really only become a thing in the last few years and the Arrowverse’s degree of diversity is extremely rare by today’s standards. It’s far from representative of how other studios or franchises work.

And while it doesn’t make much of a difference to you, it does to LGBTQ people who are underrepresented constantly and still face constant oppression and bigotry, even from our government.

 

[Icemizer]

I want the best actor for the job and dont care about the orientation of any part of their life. Left, right, gay, straight, blue, inverted, does not matter. I dont care what your life is outside of the show. Convince me you are the character and I will watch.

 

[Christopher]

And while it doesn’t make much of a difference to you, it does to LGBTQ people who are underrepresented constantly and still face constant oppression and bigotry, even from our government.

You misunderstand me. My whole point is that there is a difference between the representation issue for LGB actors -- who at least get work -- and the issue for other groups like trans actors or Asian-American actors who get largely shut out altogether. It doesn't mean that either group's concerns don't matter, but there is a difference between not getting to play your own culture, which is bad, and not getting to play anyone, which is really bad.

In that respect, it's good that their casting call for Batwoman is open to any ethnicity. It would be nice if they cast an Asian-American actress, say. The Arrowverse is pretty diverse, but still short on Asian representation.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I want the best actor for the job and dont care about the orientation of any part of their life. Left, right, gay, straight, blue, inverted, does not matter. I dont care what your life is outside of the show. Convince me you are the character and I will watch.

Generally that reasoning is used as an excuse to not hire minorities.

You misunderstand me. My whole point is that there is a difference between the representation issue for LGB actors -- who at least get work -- and the issue for other groups like trans actors or Asian-American actors who get largely shut out altogether. It doesn't mean that either group's concerns don't matter, but there is a difference between not getting to play your own culture, which is bad, and not getting to play anyone, which is really bad.

In that respect, it's good that their casting call for Batwoman is open to any ethnicity. It would be nice if they cast an Asian-American actress, say. The Arrowverse is pretty diverse, but still short on Asian representation.

It would be nice.

 

[Reverend]

You’re the one who thinks Batwoman needs Batman’s permission to fight crime using bats as a symbol.

You're entirely misreading the point...again.
It's not about "permission" to do anything. It's about cause and effect. You show up in Batman's territory, wearing his symbol and start misbehaving, he *will* have something to say about it. Hell, any vigilante starts operating in Gotham and he'll have something to say. The symbol just makes it personal.

You can look at it the other way. Kate avoids killing people too; she's just not as fanatical about it as Bruce. Most of the time they're on the same page. And she doesn't necessarily feel that she HAS to play by Bruce's rules.

(There's also an age issue here. Bruce and Kate are the same age; they've known each other since they were kids. She's not his surrogate son or daughter. She's not his former sidekick or ward. Generationally, they're peers . .. or at least that's how Kate sees it.)

There was actually an interesting issue of DETECTIVE COMICS recently where Batman convened a special meeting of the Bat-Family to debate the "what's to be done about Batwoman" issue, with Nightwing, Batgirl, Robin, and even Jason Todd weighing in. Opinions were divided, but it did seem to convince Batman that the issue wasn't black and white, so he shouldn't rush to judgment . . . especially since Batwoman has saved all of Gotham on occasion.

Wait, you're saying Bruce asked someone else's opinion? Well now that's crazy talk!

Seriously though: all this still just smells of editorial edicts more than natural plot development. The character was conceived as a Batman substitute, not a supplement and that's how she works best. The only reason why they have to jump through hoops to contrive a reason why this doesn't come to a head is because her books sell well. Had the narrative been constructed and a contained whole, irrespective of other books I suspect either Bruce would have stayed gone, or come back and forced her out, or at least forced her to change her behaviour.

It's not a big deal though. Comic books are full of examples like this--hell, the only reason Mar-Vell and by extension, Carol Danvers even exists is because of of an editorial edict that (very) basically went "let's make a character called Captain Marvel so DC can't use it anymore!" And there was that whole "One More Day" thing...
It's just in this case, some of that illogic may bleed into a screen adaptation and possibly compromise the intended spirit of the character.

 

[dahj]

The character was conceived as a Batman substitute, not a supplement and that's how she works best. The only reason why they have to jump through hoops to contrive a reason why this doesn't come to a head is because her books sell well.

You've apparently set your mind on what works best for the character without ever reading a single story featuring her. It's hard to argue a version of the character that exist only in your head, I can only argue the one in the book, and she works just fine...

Also, her book unfortunately doesn't sell all that well.
You should all try it so that when her character becomes more popular on account of the show you can brag in a hipsterly manner how you've read about her before she was famous.

 

[Christopher]

The character was conceived as a Batman substitute

That's hardly the case. As others have pointed out, while she may have come into being during a time when Batman was absent, she was never just an imitation of Batman. Rather, she used the idea of Batman as a starting point and built her own heroic identity beyond it. From what I've seen, that's one of the things that makes her distinctive and interesting as a character, the very tension between her adoption of the symbol and her independence from the others who wield it.

And that sort of similarity-yet-difference is hardly unique in the comics world. The Kamala Khan Ms. Marvel adopted Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel's old codename and was a longtime fangirl of Carol's, but she went on to define her own distinct identity as a superhero, and when she finally met Captain Marvel, Carol initially wasn't thrilled about Kamala co-opting her old name without permission (though she was one to talk). They came to terms at the time, but they soon ended up on opposite sides in Civil War II. And there are older characters along similar lines, sharing a hero's iconography but disagreeing with their approach or values -- the Guy Gardner Green Lantern, a couple of the replacement Captain Americas, X-Force with their more aggressive methods than the X-Men, and so on. It's a natural thing to do in a "family" of characters -- you extend the brand by adding more characters who use it, but you create conflicts and differences between them to generate stories. Heck, most of Batman's sidekicks and proteges have clashed with him or gone independent from him at various times, starting with Dick Grayson when he became Nightwing. The current Robin, Bruce and Talia's son Damian, was raised as an assassin and is constantly clashing with Batman over methods and morality. Even Batman's own partners don't blindly obey his will, so why should it be a problem that Batwoman doesn't?

 

[DigificWriter]

Everyone sees Batgirl - especially the Barbara Gordon version - as Batman's Distaff Counterpart just as Supergirl - the Kara Zor-El version primarily - is the Distaff Counterpart to Superman, but a better comparative character would be Barwoman, especially the modern version.

In terms of theme and general character parameters, she's practically a female Bruce Wayne:
- Wealthy
- Experienced death as a child
- Has a primary adversary who serves as a "psychological mirror"
- Operates as a vigilante using bat-themed motifs

But, like any good Distaff Counterpart - and to a greater degree than Kara, actually - she can very much exist on her own independently of him because she's not just a straight-up 1 to 1 copy of him.

Also, for those familiar with the character from the comics, should I start her run of books pre-Flashpoint or post-Flashpoint?

 

[Reverend]

Also, her book unfortunately doesn't sell all that well.

Well, presumably well enough that she's been around for going on a decade now, no? That's a fairly respectable run for any second or third tier character.

My point was that because she sold well enough in her initial run in '52' that they chose to keep her around, and didn't just shelve the character like they did with seemingly most of the new/revived characters that came out of that event.
Had they not done so, her character would ideally have had a logical conclusion to her arc, but instead (as is the mixed blessing/curse of all long running comic book characters) she got stuck in a state of "everlasting act 2".
That's not always necessarily a problem, but in this case it just seems to mean there's also a perpetual elephant in the room.

 

[dahj]

Also, for those familiar with the character from the comics, should I start her run of books pre-Flashpoint or post-Flashpoint?

She didn't have a solo title pre-Flashpoint, though you should definitely check out Elegy (Detective Comics 854-860, also available as TPB) which is the best starting point really, and then Vol 1-4 of the New52 run which are all really good.

Well, presumably well enough

It's been canceled. Next month's issue will be the last (hopefully, just until the TV show).

 

[Reverend]

She didn't have a solo title pre-Flashpoint, though you should definitely check out Elegy (Detective Comics 854-860, also available as TPB) which is the best starting point really, and then Vol 1-4 of the New52 run which are all really good.

Really? That's weird, I could have sworn she was among those new solo titles that came out during the 52/One Year Later era. Which is pretty much when I started to stop paying all that much attention to comics from the Big Two. Mind you I read almost everything that came out during that event so it's not surprising some things have become muddled in my memory.

I don't mean to give the impression that I dislike the character in any way, just that she seems to me to be one of those that works best in her own title, in her own little world and doesn't gel so well in other books. I'd also put the like of Jessica Jones in just such a category and she's by far one of my all time favourites. Hell, I'd put almost the entire X-men sub-franchise in that category if I'm honest.