• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Batwoman - Season 1

thribs said:
Just replace her with Batman. :)
Click to expand...

You think we'd get a Batman TV show on the CW? If they'd do it, it'd be on HBO Max.

I find it funny they’re just looking for gay ladies to replace her. Surely that part of her can be acted by a straight lady.
Click to expand...

Let's try this again.

Yes, the ultimate goal is for straight actors being cast as gay characters, and gay actors being cast as straight characters, and cis actors playing trans characters, and trans actors playing cis characters, because it all really shouldn't matter.

BUT! there is a great imbalance here, and it's actually not in favor of the minority groups, despite what some people like to tell you. There's already a lot less gay characters in media than actually reflects reality (and I say that as somebody working in adult retail, I know how many people of varying sexual preferences there are, because I sell them the stuff to fulfill their sexual preferences), and there is still a bias against openly homosexual actors.

Don't believe me? Name an openly gay actor who plays an Avenger in the MCU. You know the MCU, the big evil SJW media machine that pushes black and female heroes down our throats, name one of their big heroes that's played by an openly gay actor. Fuck, even Tessa Thompson, who is on the record as being attracted to both genders rejects the term "bisexual", that's how damaging these labels can be to an actor's career.

So, yes, there is a big fucking bias in the industry against openly gay actors. So, some producers choose to look for gay actors for their gay characters. Yeah, I know, real funny.
 
Christopher said:
Any other cases where the lead actor of a series left after just one season, but the show continued with the lead character replaced or recast? There are certainly a number of cases where it was done with supporting or ensemble cast members -- Dr. Watson in the Granada Sherlock Holmes, Jimmy Olsen in Lois & Clark, Capheus in Sense8, etc. -- and of course numerous cases of lead actor changes in later seasons (Doctor Who made it a trademark of the series). But losing the actual lead actor after just one season is a more striking event.
Click to expand...

Not one season - An interesting variation is where a show is named after a character who is no longer in the show - In the UK, we had Taggart which ran from 1985 until 2010 and was about a dour Scottish policeman called Jim Taggart. The actor Mark McManus who played Taggart died in 1994 and the show carried on with a few different lead detectives - none of who were called Taggart.

Any similar US shows?
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
In my experience, "Unnamed sources" are not always reliable and often fueled by agenda. I would like to see other, more reliable sources come forward before buying the idea that Rose was difficult to work / get along with and the production was happy to show her the door.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's not how proper journalism works. Usually an "unnamed" source is one that the reporting journalist knows full well who they--having done their due diligence--are but have requested they name be withheld for any number of reasons (typically of the "not wanting to get fired for speaking out" persuasion.)
What it actually comes down to is whether you trust the reporter's credibility and judgement to know that their source is credible and they're not just parroting anonymous rumours.
 
JoeZhang said:
Not one season - An interesting variation is where a show is named after a character who is no longer in the show - In the UK, we had Taggart which ran from 1985 until 2010 and was about a dour Scottish policeman called Jim Taggart. The actor Mark McManus who played Taggart died in 1994 and the show carried on with a few different lead detectives - none of who were called Taggart.
Click to expand...

And of course Blake's 7, where Blake left the show halfway through its 4-year run.


Any similar US shows?
Click to expand...

There was Valerie Harper's Valerie, which lost Harper to a salary dispute after the second season. They killed off her character offscreen and retitled the show Valerie's Family: The Hogans for a year, then just The Hogan Family for the remaining seasons. There was Welcome Back, Kotter, which lost Mr. Kotter (Gabe Kaplan) for most of its final season, although they kept his wife around, so I guess the name still worked. And Laverne & Shirley lost Shirley in its last year.

The Perry Mason revival movies in the '90s did four movies with guest attorney characters replacing Perry after Raymond Burr died, under the title A Perry Mason Mystery. Paul Sorvino starred in the first, Hal Holbrook in the other three.
 
valkyrie013 said:
Well maybe this will lead to a shorter seasons if the work load is to much..
actually rather prefer the Story dictate the season length.. to much filler on some seasons that could have been 13 but streached to 22..
Click to expand...

It won’t nor should it unless networks want to change business models. Actors leaving because of work load is pretty rare. Being the lead is demanding work, and most are able to do it. Rose found out it wasn’t for her, and walked away—that must’ve been tough as she walked away from a lot of money and her rep will have to be rebuilt. But it sounds like it was a good decision for her.
 
I'm in a glass half-full mode today so while I'm sad about Ruby leaving, I'm just gonna look forward to seeing who they cast and what she will bring to the role. There's thankfully plenty of time to find the right person, and while it will be slightly weird to have the finish of this season be concluded by another actress, hopefully she'll make the next one her own and then this time next year we can argue our asses off on who's everyone's favourite Kate. :techman:
 
I find Ruby Rose so striking -- not just stunningly lovely, but with powerful screen presence and charisma -- that it's hard to imagine anyone filling her cape.

It occurred to me this morning to wonder: What about her tattoos? Will the new actress get makeup to replicate Rose's tattoos? Or will she have different/no tattoos with the show just glossing over the change?
 
Reverend said:
Yeah, that's not how proper journalism works. Usually an "unnamed" source is one that the reporting journalist knows full well who they--having done their due diligence--are but have requested they name be withheld for any number of reasons (typically of the "not wanting to get fired for speaking out" persuasion.)
What it actually comes down to is whether you trust the reporter's credibility and judgement to know that their source is credible and they're not just parroting anonymous rumours.
Click to expand...

"Unnamed sources"--whether the identity is known to the reporter or not--still rings with illegitimacy; they often have a track record (especially in political reporting) of being false (this era has been a perfect example of that). Depending on the news source, they would not be used at all, but others--desperate to get the jump on a "hot" story--run with it in any case. At this point, shadowy whispers and gossip is not news. Until responsible parties from the production end are willing to say whatever they choose to, the only valid source anyone should even try to trust is Rose herself.
 
Mr. Adventure said:
I think the idea is the actress would play the part, maybe doing double duty with Alice as needed, same as if they recast the role with another actress now except it'd be a familiar face.
Click to expand...

Whoever get the role, it will be a rough go; Rose did put her stamp on the role--it was her interpretation. She was not like some actors who step into roles influenced by older productions (Batman) or a predecessor of the same series (think Bond)--it was all hers, and that will be felt, particularly in how the new actresses' version may not have the same chemistry with the other characters (e.g. the semi-soft, semi-tense relationship with Jacob, or her teasing back and forth with Luke).

In short, this is not good, but I'm hoping for the best.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
"Unnamed sources"--whether the identity is known to the reporter or not--still rings with illegitimacy; they often have a track record (especially in political reporting) of being false (this era has been a perfect example of that). Depending on the news source, they would not be used at all, but others--desperate to get the jump on a "hot" story--run with it in any case. At this point, shadowy whispers and gossip is not news. Until responsible parties from the production end are willing to say whatever they choose to, the only valid source anyone should even try to trust is Rose herself.
Click to expand...
Investigative journalism is built on "protecting the source", which is just as true for entertainment insider stories as it is for political scandals, industrial whistle-blowing or organised crime reporting. If we didn't have that then the Watergate story and thousands of other landmark whistle-blower stories simply don't happen and the bad guys get to have their way through sheer intimidation. Like it or not, the consequences for that person can range from censure from their employer to very real life and death consequences depending on the kind of information they're providing. So yeah, being named in the press is going to make such people think twice before sticking their necks out.
If people think they're going to be publicly outed when they talk to the press then most simply won't talk to the press, which leaves us in a world of curated press releases and marketing by-proxy, not true journalism.

Again, it comes down to the integrity of the journalist and the credibility of their editor and publication as to whether or not you take the information at face value, knowing that while the source hasn't been *publicly* named, they have been vetted as a credible source, and if at all possible it's backed up by a second source, which may also be unnamed.

So no, an unnamed source is no less legitimate than a named one. This is just how a free press works.
 
TVLine is one of the biggest sources for TV news, so I'm pretty sure they're not going to post a story like that unless they know the source is trustworthy. Them, their sister site Deadline, Entertainment Weekly, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter are pretty much the only sites I trust 100% when it comes to this kind of stuff. I trust Io9 a bit to, but not at the level of those sources.
Christopher said:
It occurred to me this morning to wonder: What about her tattoos? Will the new actress get makeup to replicate Rose's tattoos? Or will she have different/no tattoos with the show just glossing over the change?
Click to expand...
The tattoos have never really been a big part of the show, so I can't really see them going through the trouble of duplicating them on the new actress every week.
 
Ovation said:
Shocking news. I hope she finds peace and contentment (and respite from the idiotic harassment).

As for the show, perhaps the long break will work in the show's favour--a recasting will be less dramatic nearly a year later than a couple of months. Regarding the "how"--don't care, as long as it is done well. A superhero show does give more leeway than a more traditional drama (can't really imagine recasting "Red" Reddington, even after one season, if James Spader had left, for example). I remember the recast of Spartacus some years ago (illness took the original lead away, and he died not too long after leaving the show). While we don't have comparable information here, I'm inclined to go with the producer cited above (the one who doesn't work on the show) who described circumstances for which actors abandon a seemingly great gig.

A bummer for sure (I was a fan from day 1) but, in the end, I hope she's well and the show is not prematurely cancelled, for the sake of all the other people who work on it.
Click to expand...
IIRC they postponed making season two of Spartacus while he was ill, making a prequel instead, then recast after he died (at his request).
 
valkyrie013 said:
Well maybe this will lead to a shorter seasons if the work load is to much..
actually rather prefer the Story dictate the season length.. to much filler on some seasons that could have been 13 but streached to 22..
Click to expand...
I doubt that a shorter run would mean more time per episode. Just more time between seasons, and possibly no work because everyone assumes you're full time on the series role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top