• 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

Actually, it was a plot point in her first Arrowverse appearance with Supergirl.

I also noticed recently that some of RR's neck tats were covered up, though not sure if it's been that way since the premiere.

If it was mentioned in the crossover, but not since that episode, then it was not too important to the Kate character. That, and RR's personal tats copied for her replacement would likely not go over well with her. Its not like a Fett costume in random Star Wars productions that anyone can wear.
 
It seems to me the issue is more LGBTQ characters and more openly LGBTQ actors more than who plays what roles. I am not sure how a LGBTQ actor playing a LGBTQ character opens the door more towards playing more non-LGBTQ characters. It seems it would do the opposite in that your pigeonholing them to only playing just LGBTQ characters.

Jason
 
Here's a list of actors who fit all of the producers' criteria and have indicated an interest in the role either overtly or subtly:
* Stephanie Beatriz
* Daria Berenato (AKA Sonya Deville of the WWE)
* Bex Taylor-Klaus
* Ashley Platz (originally auditioned)
* Nicole Pacent-Lindquist (originally auditioned)
 
It seems to me the issue is more LGBTQ characters and more openly LGBTQ actors more than who plays what roles. I am not sure how a LGBTQ actor playing a LGBTQ character opens the door more towards playing more non-LGBTQ characters. It seems it would do the opposite in that your pigeonholing them to only playing just LGBTQ characters.

Jason

Interesting point. Any actor should be able to step into a role whether their sexuality is not matching that of the character, since the entertainment business had no trouble casting gay performers as straight characters. Jim Parsons' defining role--a very recent example--would not have happened with such pigeonholing casting demands.
 
Last edited:
I would like to toss a name in the ring but I doubt they could land her. Aubrey Plaza. Can anyone think of anyone more perfect?

Jason
 
Plaza is gay. At least I think she is. Might be to big though for the role I admit. Of course if they really want Batwoman to be a success it might mean paying more to get someone in who will truly help the ratings and create some interest in the show.


Jason
 
I hear people's arguments on this, I get what they're saying but I find it hard to totally get on board. I spent years trying to raise myself out of poverty working liquor stores, working underneath trailers in the middle of Michigan winters and I would've been pissed to find out that I missed an opportunity because I didn't fill a quota. Sorry, you're privileged, keep working those 10.5 hours shifts at the liquor store with a 15 minute break. This is how we get the idiots elected that we do. I know this won't be a popular thing to say and I'm sure people will think less of me for saying it. I don't know what the answer is for more inclusion but if it involves excluding others it will never quite sit right with me.

But that's exactly why people have "quotas," to force people that are hiring to look places they wouldn't normally. People miss way more opportunities because the people making hiring decisions don't investigate beyond the obvious candidates, meaning some combination of straight, white, male, conventionally attractive, and middle-class, because those are the markers our society associates with success and competence, and so the next generation of competent and successful people will be straight, white, male, attractive, and middle-class, and it'll be easy to look at that and say, "Well, I guess people who look like that are just naturally better at everything!" so they get the monied parents, the educational opportunities, the college admissions, the internships, the entry-level jobs, and the cycle just continues, with a perpetual underclass of people who are kept down unintentionally by the very fact that, in prior generations, they were kept down deliberately.

And there's also the fact that there are, in fact, people who are good at what they do who wouldn't have been considered without a quota. The lie people tell about affirmative action is that no disadvantaged person could ever outperform an advantaged person on a fair playing field, that, in this case, the best queer actor must be worse than the worst straight actor. The way you lose out on a job for not filling a quota is because someone who would've been hired before you would've been ruled out out-of-hand without a quota.
 
But that's exactly why people have "quotas," to force people that are hiring to look places they wouldn't normally. People miss way more opportunities because the people making hiring decisions don't investigate beyond the obvious candidates...

Yes, exactly. Those of us raised in this society all have unconscious biases we've absorbed from it, and we have to make an effort to recognize them and look beyond them. That's all quotas are. I do this myself in my own mind, my own writing. Growing up, I've had to unlearn a lot of unrecognized, unintended biases, and making an effort to be consciously more inclusive is how I negate the unconscious influence of those biases. If my first thought in writing a story is to make a character male or white, or to make a relationship heterosexual, or whatever, then it's simply a matter of stopping to question that first thought, to make sure I consider other possibilities and make my cast balanced and inclusive. An ingrained, unconscious bias won't just go away if you pretend it isn't there. You have to make a deliberate effort to face it and counteract it.
 

Yeah. All internet news outlets are saying the same thing. She was unhappy and caused others on set to be unhappy too. There was an undertone when she left that they were glad she left too.

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/batwoman-ruby-rose-exit-1234612077/

According to multiple sources, Rose was unhappy with the long hours required of her as the series lead, which led to friction on the set. It was thus decided by her and the network and studio, Warner Bros. Television, that they would part ways.
 
Does anyone seriously think that David Rappaport Casting and Greg Berlanti and Caroline Dries aren't going to be cognizant of whether or not potential Ruby Rose replacements are actually living as out members of the LGBTQ community?

That depends on which members - is there a community where all within act identically?

But, yeah, I would be more surprised if they weren't cognizant of their target audience (which can have overlap with other demographics, whether or not one is a direct member of) and after a certain point. Show makers do make what they want but, often enough, they will have a target audience in mind and to a varying extent.
 
Jim Parsons' defining role--a very recent example--would not have happened with such pigeonholing casting demands.

No, it absolutely would have happened because a) he didn't come out until years after he landed the gig, and b) no one's asking for that kind of pigeonholing. Nobody's demanding gay actors *only* play gay characters.
 
I read about Ruby Rose leaving yesterday on Io9 and I'm pretty surprised, I hadn't heard any rumors or anything about her wanting to quit.
The theory they had on there is that it might be related to the back injury she sustained while they were filming.

Aye. :( Doing one's own stunts can be commendable, but it can be risky as all hell. And stunt doubles to exist to mitigate this issue.

Assuming that's the only reason. (Maybe she questioned some of the scripts - there are several possibilities.)

People can like or dislike the show, but Ruby going through that sort of injury and surgery is considerable and hard. :( I hope she had a robust recovery, and I hope she's able to take on another role.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top